Helicopters or powered lift aircraft crossing active runways must now be under active control by ATC and can no longer use visual separation. The FAA issued a general notice (GENOT) on Wednesday that bars what has been a common practice at airports where helicopters are in use. “Following the mid-air collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), we looked at similar operations across the national airspace,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said in a statement. “We identified an overreliance on pilot ‘see and avoid’ operations that contribute to safety events involving helicopters and airplanes.”
It has been a normal procedure at all airports to advise pilots of potentially conflicting traffic and for pilots to use see and avoid to maintain separation. But the agency said it found two examples in the last month where visual separation “was not enough of a safety mitigation tool.” On Feb. 27, a police helicopter had to take evasive action to avoid an airliner at San Antonio International Airport, and a Beechcraft 99 had a close encounter with a helicopter while landing at Hollywood Burbank Airport. Again, the helicopter turned to avoid the plane.
When “see and avoid” is off the table and helicopters get pushed into positive control, that is not just a rule tweak. It is more work on the same controllers and the same frequencies.
Around LAX that load is not just LAPD. It is Sheriff, EMS, news birds, tours, and now eVTOLs trying to fit in. If the FAA ran the staffing numbers and says it is manageable, fine, but I have not seen that in public.
Until I do, I expect more delays, more “unable,” and less slack for everybody in places like LAX and the SoCal TRACON. And with LA28 coming up, this is not the time to pretend workload does not matter.
And if a separate controller and frequency is set up for copters, then that controller has to provide positive ordination for crossing a runway, no more look and go. So that will involve yet another coordination between the copter person and the local controller, assuming procedures still require positive coordination.
Having been a fixed wing medevac pilot in recent years, I have become much more aware of helicopters.🚁 There was a time 20 or 30 years ago when there weren’t many helicopters and it was kind of a novelty to see one. But now with every tiny town USA having a medevac copter, that is no longer the case. I recognize the importance of helicopters and they are definitely a medical necessity, but something has to be done about them or we are going to end up with more helicopter crashes than lives saved by them. The skies are already way overcrowded and helicopters arriving at airports from every direction and altitude is making it much more dangerous for fixed wing pilots who can only arrive with a standard traffic pattern, or as directed by ATC. Keep in mind also that an airplane cannot taxi out without a clearance from ground control and it should be no different for any other vehicle, including service vehicles, trucks, cars and helicopters. The whole purpose of the tower is to provide safe separation of all vehicles on the airport. Asking aircraft in a fixed traffic pattern to yield to helicopters that can approach from any direction, speed, altitude, or even a hover should never be. A helicopter needs a designated spot on the airport that is approached from a different angle that is clear of the traffic pattern used by airplanes. If we don’t fix this soon, there are going to be a lot more midair collisions.
There are a few misunderstandings here.
1) As the more maneuverable craft, it is the job of the helicopter to avoid the airplane. Believe me, as a helicopter pilot, a very high priority while I’m flying is looking out for airplanes and making sure they know where I am.
2) This is written right into the FARs–airplanes are expected to fly a standard pattern, helicopters are charged with *avoiding* this pattern.
3) We helicopters DO need a clearance to taxi, takeoff, or anything else. The badly chosen terminology “take off is at your own risk” *is* a takeoff clearance no different from “cleared for takeoff”.
This particular accident happened because an FAA designated helicopter corridor went within 100 feet of the approach path of an airplane, and both were cleared into the same spot at the same time.
Please don’t give the impression that helicopter pilots are renegade scofflaws who do whatever they want. I spend a lot of my time making sure I’m visible and predictable to airplane pilots.
I appreciate your professionalism Steve, and I know that there are many other professionals just like you flying helicopters. Thanks for spelling it out from the FARs. In my experience, many copters are not flying a normal pattern and blending with fixed wing traffic. In fact ATC is allowing them to cut in from all different directions, speeds and altitudes as they approach the field and at uncontrolled airports, well, it has become a free for all. Sometimes it is some congested that the tower can’t even sequence fixed wing traffic.
My apologies. Edit feature was not working on my previous post.
Steve, “cleared for takeoff” differs from “takeoff is at your own risk” in that the first is from a designated area for takeoff and landing, such as a runway or designated helicopter pad. The second is from a nondesignated area such as a ramp or taxiway. By the same token, the first couple days after 9/11, with a closed airport, our control instructions to our Air National Guard F-16s were also “takeoff is at your own risk.”
You’re, of course, correct. My point was more about how helicopters don’t just “do things”, but require clearance to do them just as airplanes. I thought perhaps the terminology was confusing Jay into thinking that we did not require clearances. (Particularly because the phrase “cleared for” is not a part of the clearance! Something I don’t particularly like about the phraseology in any case)
I wonder if this will include the corridor over the Hudson? It is all see and avoid under 1300′ along with announcing your position at certain points. Hopefully the announcements will be enough to not make any changes.
The language here surprises me. When I hear “see and avoid” I think of the mutual responsibility of every aircraft in visual conditions to see and avoid others. It seems like what we are talking about here is ending the assumption of visual separation responsibility by the helicopter. Am I just being too pedantic here? I was thinking the end of “see and avoid” only has to do with the controversial proposal underway to grant UAS right of way over manned aircraft and ultralights. Every helicopter in VMC still has to see and avoid, just like every airliner, right?
You’ve hit the nail on the head. I have always questioned the sacrosanct nature of the “see and avoid” mantra in the age of IPads showing most of the traffic. If see and avoid is dropped as an effective means of avoiding collisions with helicopters where does that leave us with drones? I may be a minority (?) but see no reason why ADS-B in and out shouldn’t be mandated for everybody, everywhere except maybe a farmer flying out of his home strip in rural Nebraska and going nowhere near a real airport. I just hope that FAA doesn’t mandate certified ADS-B in displays for GA aircraft or that would crucify us. I’ve only ever had my iPad mini fail once in 15 years and that was on a 102 degree day coming out of Chino.
The assertion that there is an “overreliance” on these operations seems contradictory to fundamental aviation safety. In recent incidents at KSAN and KBUR, it was the helicopter pilots’ diligent adherence to “see and avoid” practices that prevented potential accidents.
As defined by current standards, the Pilot in Command (PIC) holds the ultimate responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft, even when operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The FAA’s new stance appears to fundamentally change these established rules and responsibilities.