|

Flying the Hudson River Corridor

Ever since I moved out to the Philadelphia area, the Hudson River corridor in New York City has become one my favorite places to fly. It’s hard to overstate the beauty of the city from low over the river. Every time I have a family member or friend come to visit, I try and take them over to see the city from the air.

Each time I fly up the river I can’t believe that we are actually allowed to do so, flying below the tops of the buildings and close enough that you feel that you could reach and out touch them. The draw back to the Hudson River Corridor is that it can be busy, intimidating, and confusing. However, with some reading and preparation, the Skyline flight is easy to do and extremely rewarding.

Having the right weather is an important first step. The second step is try to arrive during ideal lighting conditions. If possible, select a smooth, calm day to make it easier to maintain a track down the correct side of the river. I always try and target arrival at the city around sunset. The view is spectacular any time of day, but having the lights from the city while the sun is just setting gives the best viewing. I’ve also flown over and done the whole flight after dark, which is always spectacular.

View of the World Trade Center

The first method of flying the river is to utilize VFR flight following. If the controllers aren’t too busy, they will provide advisories to aircraft that request the Skyline. The nice thing about doing it this way is that the controller will clear you into the NY bravo airspace and keep you above the traffic flying the Skyline in the VFR corridor below. This is the method that I have always preferred as I enjoy the added benefit of the traffic advisories and it’s nice not to worry about position reporting on the radio.

If you want to get flight following, head toward the corridor and request the Skyline route with NY Approach. (Remember to stay clear of the Bravo until you’re cleared in!) Once you’re cleared into the Bravo and approaching the corridor, they will hand you off to Newark/ LaGuardia Tower for traffic advisories over the river. I like to approach from the south and ask for a 180 over the George Washington Bridge. This allows me to fly past the city a second time before exiting the corridor over the VZ (Verrazano Bridge) and heading back toward home.

In red is the path I typically fly. I descend to 1400’ and fly toward the APPLE intersection picking up the shoreline around Staten Island and hugging it until crossing the middle of the VZ. Newark normally clears me into the Bravo at 1400’ or 1500’ to fly up the corridor.

Pros:

  • Better traffic Awareness
  • No position reports

Cons:

  • Flying slightly higher reduces the view
  • If the controllers are busy, they may deny your request for advisories  
  • Can be intimidating to talk to NY Approach/ Newark/ LaGuardia 

The other option is to fly in the VFR corridor. If you want to do it via this method there are just a few things you need to make sure you’re familiar with before you go. When in the VFR corridor you’ll need to make required position reports on a CTAF frequency. Make sure that you have the proper charts and have studied pictures of the landmarks so that you know what you’re looking for. I tend to plan on this as a backup in the event that the controllers won’t give me advisories.

Pros:

  • Doesn’t require talking to controllers/ class B clearance
  • More freedom to select altitude and routing as desired

Cons: 

  • Less traffic awareness
  • Required position reporting

All the requirements and guidelines for flying the corridor can be found on the back of the NYC TAC chart. Any pilot flying the river is required to have one of these or a NYC helicopter route chart on board. If you’re using Foreflight, look in the Documents section under FAA Fly Charts and select the NYC TAC chart in order to read the back of page.

Below you’ll find examples of the diagrams/ instructions printed on the back of the NYC TAC charts.

You can see the traffic flow requires northbound airplanes to hug the east side of the river, while the southbound traffic stays on the west side. The VFR reporting positions (listed from North to South) are: Alpine Tower, George Washington Bridge, Intrepid aircraft carrier, Goldman Sachs (clock), Statue of Liberty, VZ (Verrazano Bridge). Each position report should include aircraft type, position, direction, and altitude.

Other things to be aware of:
NYC is always a hotspot for TFR’s. There are often TFR’s for baseball games or presidential movements so make sure to check before you head that way. Additionally, there is a speed restriction in place of 140 kts, though I’m not sure why anyone sightseeing would want to go that fast anyhow.

I realize that all of the procedures and restrictions can be overwhelming, but with the proper preparation, the Hudson Skyline is one of the most incredible places in the world to operate an airplane. There are a lot of things that are easy to get excited about that don’t live up to expectation, but this isn’t one of them. I’ve never taken anyone to the river that wasn’t impressed by what they saw and that’s why I plan to keep going back.

About to cross the VZ looking north toward the city

Similar Posts

  • Cirrus Approach

    Earlier this year, Cirrus debuted it’s new Learning Management System (LMS), Cirrus Approach. For several years, Cirrus has led the way in online systems training while using several different platforms for it’s LMS. Cirrus Approach is the culmination of lots of sampling and tinkering, and boy, did Cirrus knock it out of the park.

    For those of you unfamiliar with the Cirrus training program, here is the quick rundown. When a pilot who has no Cirrus time buys a Cirrus aircraft, initial transition training is required to familiarize the pilot with the aircraft systems, speeds to fly, power settings, etc. The Cirrus Transition Course is a 3 day that gets a VFR pilot up to speed in the airplane. Under the Cirrus Embark program, those 3 days of training are covered by Cirrus and free to the new owner.

    If the pilot is an IFR pilot, then the 5 day Cirrus Advanced Transition Training Course is required. If the pilot has Cirrus experience, but with a different engine or avionics configuration, there are courses for that too. The Cirrus Embark program covers 3 days of training for most courses for a new Cirrus owner.

    As part of the aforementioned courses, there are systems to learn about and procedures to understand. This is where the Cirrus Approach LMS excels. Cirrus has done a great job of putting together lots of good videos (that are actually interesting but not annoying) on the airplane, systems, how to fly it, etc. for each course. It cuts down greatly on the time that the training instructor has to spend on the ground with the pilot since the pilot has already compiled knowledge through Cirrus Approach.

    Cirrus Approach is accessible online at learning.cirrusapproach.com. To get access to the courses, create an account, then select the Learning Catalog. The courses are categorized based on the type of training (Transition, Advanced Transition, Avionics Differences, Airframe & Powerplant Differences, Recurrent, and Specialty), then further broken down into the type of airplane, engine and avionics (eg. SR22T G6 Perspective+). Make sure the correct engine and avionics configuration is selected! Notice, there is a difference between the SR22T and SR22 (Turbo & Non-Turbo).

    Anyone can do the specialty courses. I would highly recommend for everyone to take the Engine Management course as well as the Icing Awareness Course for you TKS and FIKI operators. The Takeoff & Landing course is a good refresher course for a pilot who hasn’t done any training in a while.

    The Recurrent Training courses are encouraged for all Cirrus pilots. There is an IFR Refresher, a VFR Refresher, and a Skills Refresher. These are recommended to rotate through with a CSIP (Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot) on a yearly basis. With a little extra ground, a Flight Review and an IPC can be accomplished yearly using these courses.


    Interested in Initial or Recurrent training in your Cirrus using Cirrus Approach? Contact Texas Top Aviation today!

  • Epic E1000 Gets the GFC 700

    When the Epic E1000 was finally certified in the spring of 2020, there was much celebrating across the aviation world. Epic Aircraft expended a lot of time and energy getting the E1000 certified and into production (more information on that journey here and in Flying Magazine here).

    The airplane is amazing. In the single engine, 6 seat turboprop market, it easily blows away the competition. With it’s 1,200 SHP PT6-67A, it has double the horsepower of the M600 (600 SHP), and 350 more horsepower than the TBM 940 (850 SHP). It’s 60 KTAS faster than the M600 and, even though the TBM can keep up (both airplanes have equal top cruise speeds of 330 KTAS), the Epic E1000 can carry a payload of 1,024 pounds with full fuel, while the 940 can only carry 584 pounds with full fuel. The TBM carries about 15 minutes more of fuel, but to me, that’s pretty negligible.

    Did I mention climb rates? The E1000 climbs at an average of 1500 FPM at Vy (it’s capable of 4,000 FPM), making it to 25,000 feet in 10 minutes. The TBM climbs at 1000 FPM, taking 13 minutes to climb to the same altitude, while the M600 settles in at about 800 FPM, reaching FL250 in 21 minutes.

    If you expand the comparison to include the Pilatus PC-12, the two airplanes have 1,200 SHP, but the Epic is 50 KTAS faster and they both have about the same weight carrying ability.

    In the most important arena, price, the E1000 is around a million dollars cheaper than the TBM 940.

    The one drawback to the Epic E1000 that immediately was noticeable was the autopilot. Epic originally installed the STEC 2100 autopilot to pair with the G1000 (and later the G1000 NXi). Epic decided to stick with the STEC 2100 through certification for the plane since that autopilot was on all of the E1000s paperwork going through all the levels of FAA approval. To change to the GFC 700 during the certification process would have been a massive undertaking that probably would have delayed certification.

    The STEC 2100 is a good autopilot, but, as any G1000 pilot can tell you, the lack of integration between any STEC autopilot and Garmin panel leaves some to be desired. Not all the bugs talk, which often requires dual data entry, which can lead to forgetting to do both the bug and the autopilot when things get busy. Hello, altitude deviation.

    The goal for Epic was never to leave the STEC autopilot in the airplane. The first E1000s were rolled off the line with the STEC, but Epic didn’t take long to change the autopilot to the much more integrated Garmin GFC 700. That took place this winter (2020), and the E1000 received it’s first upgrade, with Epic dubbing the airplane the Epic E1000 GX.

    I expect the innovators in Bend, OR, where Epic is based and where tons of innovation in aviation happens (Lancair/Columbia started in Bend while RDD is based there as well), to quickly come out with more avionics upgrades for the airplane. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a G3000 version at some point, complete with auto throttles and the new Garmin Autoland. Epic would be smart to follow in the steps of Daher and offer two models, one with the G1000 and one with the G3000 (the TBM 910 has the G1000 NXi while the TBM 940 has the G3000).

    I have yet to fly in an Epic E1000, but I would certainly jump at the chance to do so. Someone asked me yesterday what airplane I would buy if I had a blank check. With the GFC 700 now in the Epic, it would absolutely be the E1000 GX.

  • Using the ICARUS Device to Simulate IFR Conditions

    Most of us who have been through instrument training are familiar with the traditional view limiting devices. There is the original hood, which does a decent job of blocking a pilot’s view of outside, but there are still gaps that allow “peeking”, though that peeking doesn’t really help a pilot fly an approach. It does help them figure out which way is up, so it’s not a true simulation.

    The other problem with a hood is the process of putting it on to begin simulating IFR conditions, then taking it off when it’s time to land. This process takes time and the instructor has to take the controls (or the autopilot flies), losing some of the realism of the simulation.

    Overall, an IFR hood is relatively comfortable. The elastic band sits under your headset, doesn’t squeeze your heard, and doesn’t press underneath your ear cups of the headset, giving you a headache. Hoods are large and somewhat unwieldy.

    Foggles are another way to simulate IFR conditions for training. Most of the time, these are safety glasses that have most of the lens blacked out or fogged out, leaving little slits at the bottom for the pilot’s eyes to see the instruments.

    Foggles aren’t quite as good as an IFR hood at blocking the outside. Due to their shape, there are often cracks that allow more “peeking” then a hood. The process of beginning to simulate IFR conditions and ending the simulated IFR conditions is easier though, since all the pilot has to do is put the foggles on or slip them off, which can often be done one handed (putting them on can be more difficult one handed since they have to fit underneath your headset). Wearing them for a long period of time can get painful as your headset is probably going to start crushing them against the side of your head.

    The best comfort and view limiting combination I have found, so far, is called the ViBAN. It’s very comfortable and does a really good job of simulating IFR by blocking a view of the outside.

    What’s the whole goal behind a view limiting device? When a pilot starts instrument training, ideally, all the training would take place in the clouds, since that is why someone get’s an instrument rating. As we all know, this isn’t possible, hence the need to simulate IFR conditions. The problem with simulating IFR is, it’s not true IFR. True IFR conditions are different then what a hood or a set of foggles can simulate. This can lead to spatial disorientation if a fresh instrument pilot enters the clouds for the first time, having done all his training in simulated conditions.

    I’ve even heard a story of a pilot who did all his IFR training with a hood, passed his check ride, went into the clouds the first time, and put the hood on because he was getting disoriented since he hadn’t ever experienced true IFR.

    What about full motion simulators? How I wish every airport had a full motion simulator for instrument training. Full motion sims are truly the best way to simulate IFR conditions. A pilot can easily get spatially disoriented in a sim if he or she isn’t careful. It’s a great way to simulate IFR conditions, but, alas, this just isn’t possible.

    Are we doomed to just do an okay job of training instrument pilots in simulated IFR conditions with a hood or foggles?

    Nope, at least not anymore.

    Enter the ICARUS Device. The ICARUS Device, which stands for Instrument Conditions Awareness Recognition and Understanding System, is an amazing piece of equipment which truly simulates IFR conditions in the training environment. The ICARUS is a plastic shield that uses a Polymer Dispersed Liquid Crystal film that allows the degradation of a pilot’s visibility. It clips on to a baseball cap and is attached to a battery. That battery is then bluetoothed to an iPad or iPhone App that allows the instructor to put the pilot into and take him out of simulated IFR conditions.

    Originally designed for helicopter training, it’s an excellent tool for fixed wing IFR training too. I’ve been using it for the last month and a half and I am hooked. The customer’s that I have used it with truly say that they cannot see a thing outside. Because the plastic shield turns white, it really does give the view that the pilot is in the clouds. The inner ear certainly believes it. The curve of it fits the glare shield in most planes nicely (there is some custom cutting that would have to take place for specifically rounded glare shields, but it fits Cirrus and Piper Saratogas nicely, the two planes I have used it in), and it sits away from the pilot’s face, blocking out all windows, which is what clouds do.

    The greatest thing from an instructor’s standpoint is the ICARUS Device app. The pilot puts the device on before taxi and I set the app to VMC. This completely clears the ICARUS Device so the pilot can see just fine for taxi and takeoff. Then, at about 400 AGL, I tap the <1/2 VIS button on the app, and boom, the pilot is in the clouds. I even have a time delay to slowly make the ICARUS Device opaque to simulate slowly entering the clouds. I do the same thing on an approach, except in the reverse order, simulating we are slowly exiting the clouds.

    The ICARUS Device is a game changer for IFR training. It’s comfortable, easy to use, the battery lasts for a long time (though bring a standard USB charging cord with you in the plane because the battery failure mode makes the ICARUS Device opaque instead of transparent. You don’t want that to happen at 200 AGL!), and, most important, it truly simulates IFR conditions.

    After using it, I believe all flight schools and CFII should get one of these, both in the fixed wing and helicopter world. It’s the best option for simulating IFR conditions.

    Checkout the ICARUS Device website for more information and to hear the story of the company.


    Texas Top Aviation, LLC was given an ICARUS Device by the ICARUS Device company to test. Texas Top Aviation, LLC was not paid for our above opinion on the ICARUS Device (trust me, if it was terrible, I would have told you!).

  • Landing Light Replacement

    One evening this summer, my wife and I were flying down the southern shore of Long Island in my father’s E33 Bonanza. We enjoyed the sunset as we flew westbound and our plan was to fly the New York Hudson corridor, where we would arrive just after dark. As we approached New York’s airspace, two voices in my head started having a debate.

    The first voice said: “You should turn on your landing light when you get to New York to make the airplane more visible.”

    The other voice said: “That’s true, but I bet you’ll burn the landing light out”

    Well, as it turned out, both voices were right. My landing light fired right up when I needed it to fly the Hudson, but when it came time to land back home I had no such luck. Unfortunately, this was not the first time that I had been given the chance to practice my blackout landings. This Bonanza model has only one landing/ taxi light which is mounted in the lower cowling behind the propeller. This location is less than ideal because the filament in the bulb is fragile and can be damaged by engine vibration.

    We landed uneventfully and after putting the airplane away, I decided it was time to look into upgrading the lighting to something a little more modern. I was unsure of my options, but seeing as the airplane needed a replacement bulb regardless, it seemed like a good opportunity to make a change.

    After doing a little reading, I learned that HID or LED landing lights would be the best solution to my problem. I was familiar with LED aircraft lights, but had never heard of HID before.

    Here is what I learned:

    HID Landing Lights

    HID, or High Intensity Discharge landing lights, create light by arcing electricity through a sealed gas capsule. They are brighter than LED and traditional incandescent, and the light created more closely resembles the look and feel of sunlight. HID installations require a ballast to carefully regulate the flow of electricity to the gas capsule and also require a “warm up” period after being turned on in order to reach their full brightness.

    Fitting an aircraft with HID landing lights tends to be more expensive and time consuming than installing an LED light and would likely require involvement by an A&P/ IA. However, if you want the brightest light available, HID is probably the best bet.

    Pros

    • Brighter, more natural looking light
    • Draws less power than standard bulbs
    • Long bulb life
    • Does not generate much heat

    Cons

    • More expensive than other lighting options
    • Lights must “warm up” after being turned on
    • Cannot be pulsed easily
    • Cost/complexity of installations

    LED Landing Lights

    LED, or Light Emitting Diode landing lights, have no filament and work by moving electricity through diodes which are connected into a circuit. These lights have become very popular for many uses due to their simplicity, low cost, and brightness.

    While not as bright as HID light, the LED lights require no “warm up period” and can be easily pulsed. LED lights draw much less power from the aircraft’s electrical system than traditional bulbs and boast incredible life length. LED bulb installation is very simple and can often serve as a direct replacement for the original lights.

    Pros

    • Instant light (no warm up)
    • Incredible life length (>5,000 hours)
    • Low Cost
    • Simplicity of installation
    • Can be pulsed easily
    • Low power draw

    Cons

    • Not as bright as HID lighting

     

    After weighing the options, I decided to replace the incandescent bulb in the Bonanza with an LED bulb. I read the reviews online and talked to some of my friends who work in aviation and eventually decided on the Lycoming Alphabeam. The Alphabeam is FAA/PMA approved and is available through Aircraft Spruce and other aviation parts vendors. The bulb cost around 250-300 dollars and I was able to install it as a direct replacement for our old light. All I had to do was take the old one out, put the new one in, and make a logbook entry.

    Below are some pictures of the installation:

    Last weekend I finally had an opportunity to take the airplane out after dark and see how the new light compared to the old one. I am pleased to say that it did a wonderful job and exceeded my expectations.

    If you are interested in seeing a side by side comparison of the different lighting options, a quick Google search should provide what you are looking for. In my own experience, I would say that the LED light was brighter than the old light and did a very good job illuminating the taxiway and runway. It was extremely nice not to be concerned that my light wouldn’t work as I was setting up for landing at an unfamiliar field after dark. I also enjoyed feeling that I had the option to leave it on during climb and cruise in order to increase my visibility to other aircraft.

    Many models of aircraft have multiple landing/ taxi lights installed which greatly reduces the likelihood of having to land without one. In our case, spending the extra money to upgrade to the LED bulb made sense because of the desire for increased reliability. If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive way to upgrade your airplane, LED or HID lighting may be something to consider.

    Andrew Robinson is a 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He flies Pilatus PC-12s and instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

  • Lightspeed Tango Headset

    I recently purchased the new, wireless, Lightspeed Tango headset.  I’m a little OCD, so when a headset wire is banging against my shoulder while I’m trying to tune a radio or point something out, it’s a little annoying. A headset without the wires caught my eye.

    As I’ve stated before in a previous article, I really like Lightspeed headsets.  They are more comfortable than Bose, and a little bit more affordable too.  The noise canceling quality is very high in the different Lightspeed models.  I personally believe it got even better with the Lightspeed Tango.

    Lightspeed Tango

    Let’s talk about the obvious first.  Not having a wire connecting you to the headset jacks is really nice.  You’re not tethered to anything, so your head is free to move anywhere without getting yanked back in place. Lightspeed developed a new technology, called Lightspeed Link, which bypasses Bluetooth or Wifi and connects the Panel Interface to the headset wirelessly.

    The Link technology works pretty well.  The only problem I have noticed is in certain airplanes, I occasionally lose one ear, but after I wiggle the input wires around, the deaf ear comes back up.  It may be a loose connector in the plane itself.

    The really nice thing about the Lightspeed Tango is the fact that it doesn’t need AA batteries anymore. Lightspeed put rechargeable lithium ion batteries in both the Panel Interface and the headset.  You get 12 hours of battery life out of both, far surpassing any length of time you would want to be in an airplane.  If the battery dies, there is a handy aux cable that can connect the Panel Interface directly to the headset (the ion batteries recharge with the included wall charger and USB cables in 2 hours).

    Though the Lightspeed Tango is slightly heavier than the Zulu 2 due to the Link hardware and the lithium ion battery, it is still extremely comfortable.  The ear cups actually fit better over my ears and give me a better seal with glasses on then the Zulu 2 did.  As with all Lightspeed products, there is no squeezing of my head and the cushions on top of the headset sit very comfortably on top of my head.

    The Bluetooth is much simpler to use than the Zulu 2 and definitely simpler than the Bose A20.  Sound quality is very good for phone calls and music.  The volume control on the headset itself is set to make smaller adjustments so you don’t have to deal with wide swings in volume.

    Overall, I’m a big fan of the Lightspeed Tango.  I am recommending them to all the pilots I talk to.  Rolling in at $400 cheaper than the Bose, you can’t go wrong.

    Lightspeed Tango 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *