http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/us/24plane.html?scp=1&sq=150%20miles&st=cse

If I am not mistaken your Cirrus is equipped with a Ballistic Recovery System. Had an aircraft like yours been involved in this incident would there have been enough time and altitude to safely deploy it?

Take a look at the New York Terminal Area Chart. This is what most pilots will use. It has a large-scale view of the entire NY area on the front. The heliport in question is shown (tiny amidst a lot of clutter). You can’t see much detail on the Hudson. Clearly this chart is not suitable for navigating the corridor. (Front of chart: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3805486160_c518b5c45b_o.jpg )

On the back is a small helicopter inset. The remaining ¾ of the chart is blank. (Back of chart: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3804638279_25b5714270_o.jpg ) This is what pilots will use when flying the Hudson corridor, because the scale & detail are appropriate. However The actual corridor isn’t shown (only a small part of the southern end). The heliport in question isn’t shown. Despite the fact that 30,000 tour flights a year depart from it. Routes & altitudes flown by the tour operators aren’t shown. Few general aviation reporting points are shown. The proper frequency is given, and some mention of helicopter activity down around the Statue of Liberty at 500 feet is made. The accident occurred farther north, around 1,100. (Detailed image, large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/3804777444_f5f11159d0_o.jpg )

There are many “corridors” in the US, including one over Los Angeles International, and one along the coast adjacent. They allow safe movement of VFR traffic, and separate it from controlled / commercial traffic.

Contrast this with the Niagara Falls procedures. General Aviation flies a defined route, remaining above 3,500 ft. Helicopter tours remain below 3,500 ft. Everyone talks on the same frequency. It’s pretty simple. (Chart: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3586096482_a9be0234ee_o.jpg )

VFR flight under ATC in the NY area is possible. One can either (a) enter the Class B airspace under ATC control, or (b) request VFR advisories from ATC when outside it (e.g. when flying over, under, or adjacent). The NY controllers are competent and professional. But often very busy. When I overflew NY at 11,500 ft (3 weeks ago) I was on VFR advisories. However as I approached NY, the controllers had to drop me. They were too busy. The frequency was non-stop. Controllers must prioritize. Overload them, and they can make mistakes too. Additional VFR traffic will add to their load.

The NY Terminal Area chart should be improved, to show the entire Hudson corridor. Procedures for that airspace should be made simple and obvious. High-density helicopter routes (e.g. tours) should be shown, and clear radio reporting points identified. That way everyone knows what to do, and expect.

Take a look at the New York Terminal Area Chart. This is what most pilots will use. It has a large-scale view of the entire NY area on the front. The heliport in question is shown (tiny amidst a lot of clutter). You can’t see much detail on the Hudson. Clearly this chart is not suitable for navigating the corridor. (Front of chart: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3805486160_c518b5c45b_o.jpg)

On the back is a small helicopter inset. The remaining ¾ of the chart is blank. (Back of chart: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3804638279_25b5714270_o.jpg) This is what pilots will use when flying the Hudson corridor, because the scale & detail are appropriate. However The actual corridor isn’t shown (only a small part of the southern end). The heliport in question isn’t shown. Despite the fact that 30,000 tour flights a year depart from it (average about 80/day, probably double that on nice days). Routes & altitudes typically flown by the tour operators aren’t shown. Despite the fact that they tend to be repetitive and predictable. Few general aviation reporting points are shown. The proper frequency is given, and some mention of helicopter activity down around the Statue of Liberty at 500 feet is made. The accident occurred much farther north, around 1,100, based on the radar track. (Detailed image, large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/3804777444_f5f11159d0_o.jpg)

There are many “corridors” in the US, including one over Los Angeles International, and one along the coast adjacent. They serve a similar function: Allow safe movement of VFR traffic, separating it from controlled / commercial traffic.

Contrast this with the Niagara Falls procedures. General Aviation traffic flies a defined route, remaining above 3,500 ft. Helicopter tours remain below 3,500 ft. Everyone talks on the same frequency. It’s pretty simple. (Chart: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3586096482_a9be0234ee_o.jpg)

VFR flight under ATC in the NY area is possible. One can either (a) enter the Class B airspace under ATC control, or (b) request VFR advisories from ATC when outside it (e.g. when flying over, under, or adjacent). The NY controllers are competent and professional. But often very busy. When I overflew NY at 11,500 ft (3 weeks ago) I was on VFR advisories. However as I approached NY, the controllers had to drop me. They were too busy. The frequency was non-stop. Controllers must prioritize. Overload them, and they can make mistakes too. Additional VFR traffic will add to their load.

The NY Terminal Area chart should be improved, to show the entire Hudson corridor. Procedures for that airspace should be made simple and obvious. High-density helicopter routes (e.g. tours) should be shown, and clear radio reporting points identified. That way everyone knows what to do, and expect.

Even if one of these two aircraft had had a good TAS system, it seems likely that they could have taken evasive action.

My airplane is over 50 years old, and I’m installing TAS as part of a panel refit before I move it to the busy SF Bay Area.