But this was during the day. High intensity strobes are very hard to miss even during the day -- that's why they're used, yes? So my question stands -- do helos have strobes? And if not, why not?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSimilar questions arise regarding the collision of a PSA 727 and a C-172 -- how could this crash have happened?

Strobes are worthless during the day. I don't recall ever spotting an aircraft during the day because of its strobes or even being able to see its strobes while in flight.The plane that is hardest to spot of all planes, is the one that is on a collision course with you. Again, the plane that you have the least chance of visually spotting is one which is actually on a collision course with you. That is because an aircraft on a collision course with you will have no relative movement in your field of view. Human eyes will notice movement much easier. But an aircraft which is moving across your field of view will not hit you. A plane that is on a collision course will look like nothing more than a black piece of dirt stuck on your window until it suddenly sprouts wings and hits you.

Strobes are worthless during the day. I don't recall ever spotting an aircraft during the day because of its strobes or even being able to see its strobes while in flight.The plane that is hardest to spot of all planes, is the one that is on a collision course with you. Again, the plane that you have the least chance of visually spotting is one which is actually on a collision course with you. That is because an aircraft on a collision course with you will have no relative movement in your field of view. Human eyes will notice movement much easier. But an aircraft which is moving across your field of view will not hit you. A plane that is on a collision course will look like nothing more than a black piece of dirt stuck on your window until it suddenly sprouts wings and hits you.

Nail on the head!The lack of lateral/vertical movement in relation to the observers view, and the fact that strobes are only really ever visible at night make day time visual traffic avoidance (especially in haze) very difficult. One must be very diligent in keeping eyes peeled for traffic. But then who is flying the plane? It is ironic --but sensible-- that the hardest aircraft to spot is the one that's on a collision course with you.

Strobes are worthless during the day. I don't recall ever spotting an aircraft during the day because of its strobes or even being able to see its strobes while in flight.The plane that is hardest to spot of all planes, is the one that is on a collision course with you. Again, the plane that you have the least chance of visually spotting is one which is actually on a collision course with you. That is because an aircraft on a collision course with you will have no relative movement in your field of view. Human eyes will notice movement much easier. But an aircraft which is moving across your field of view will not hit you. A plane that is on a collision course will look like nothing more than a black piece of dirt stuck on your window until it suddenly sprouts wings and hits you.

I think the question is not whether you see strobes from twenty miles away but whether you would see them from five miles away. But let's say that you're right -- today's strobes are useless during daylight. Does it follow that it's impossible to develop aircraft strobes that would be very visible in daylight? Like those on police cars, for example? Or highway construction zone signs? As long as they're of recent design, both of these can be seen from miles away even in daylight.As for not being able to avoid oncoming aircraft, this isn't true at the kinds of airspeeds prevailing in class B airspace, especially if one of the aircraft involved is single engine GA. I'm speaking from experience, having had to evade both a DC-9 and an F-4 Phantom. (Two more reasons why I stopped flying.)Your thoughts?

I think the question is not whether you see strobes from twenty miles away but whether you would see them from five miles away. But let's say that you're right -- today's strobes are useless during daylight. Does it follow that it's impossible to develop aircraft strobes that would be very visible in daylight? Like those on police cars, for example? Or highway construction zone signs? As long as they're of recent design, both of these can be seen from miles away even in daylight.As for not being able to avoid oncoming aircraft, this isn't true at the kinds of airspeeds prevailing in class B airspace, especially if one of the aircraft involved is single engine GA. I'm speaking from experience, having had to evade both a DC-9 and an F-4 Phantom. (Two more reasons why I stopped flying.)Your thoughts?

I have to respectfully disagree with ya', Mike. Strobes are next to useless during the day, especially from a head on/rear profile. Landing lights on the other hand... Of course this heli' was struck from the rear anyway. Factor into that New York's smog/haze and the shear volume of traffic...As for the last statement and examples, you luckily saw the traffic as you were scanning that particular spot in the windscreen/window.

Both those Zaon products look amazing. Very cool! Now, can a good developer make one for our small non-TCAS equipped planes? :(

Both those Zaon products look amazing. Very cool! Now, can a good developer make one for our small non-TCAS equipped planes? :(

Actually there is an old version based on the monroy detector that reality xp made for my freeware Debonair a few years ago. I am not sure it works with later versions of fsx.http://library.avsim.net/index.php?CatID=fs2002gauThere is a later one that I do use in my fs aircraft that is also free and this is probably the safe bet:http://library.avsim.net/index.php?CatID=fs2004gau

I have to respectfully disagree with ya', Mike. Strobes are next to useless during the day, especially from a head on/rear profile. Landing lights on the other hand... Of course this heli' was struck from the rear anyway. Factor into that New York's smog/haze and the shear volume of traffic...As for the last statement and examples, you luckily saw the traffic as you were scanning that particular spot in the windscreen/window.

I'll take issue with you on stobes. There has to be a way to make them work, and this accident is going to force it to happen.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAs for my being lucky, how right you are. Most GA airports have a pattern altitude of 900 feet AGL but my home base of Princeton used 1200 feet -- marked on sectionals but not known to most pilots ... Including not known to the pilot of the DC-9 who penetrated the pattern, approaching me from behind. I was making a clearing turn prior to pattern entry. I saw him coming and dove away, just like a fighter peeling off for a strafing run.The F-4, well, I was riding with a friend in a rented aircraft just south of Miramar NAS near San Diego. I happened to be at the controls when an F-4 came at us out of the sun. This wasn't quite the near miss that the DC-9 was but it was enough to scare the hell out of me.But I didn't decide to quit riding in GA aircraft till a few minutes later. As we approached Torrey Pines, today a famous golf course, at the time a famous gliderport, with my friend at the controls we almost hit a tow rope that was trailing behind a GA glider tug. (What did we know? We were Easterners and, as they would say in NYC, did not know from sailplanes.)That flight was the last time I was up in a GA aircraft. You can read about the last time I was up in a lighter-than-737 aircraft here ... http://www.pcgamecontrols.com/airbossblog/...b3f67b3b488a0b9

Both those Zaon products look amazing. Very cool! Now, can a good developer make one for our small non-TCAS equipped planes? :(

Check out the TAWS gauge from Reality XP. It's a traffic avoidance system as well as terrain avoidance. I've got the TAWS and the weather radar, both for FS2004. Both are terrific products.

I'll take issue with you on stobes. There has to be a way to make them work, and this accident is going to force it to happen.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAs for my being lucky, how right you are. Most GA airports have a pattern altitude of 900 feet AGL but my home base of Princeton used 1200 feet -- marked on sectionals but not known to most pilots ... Including not known to the pilot of the DC-9 who penetrated the pattern, approaching me from behind. I was making a clearing turn prior to pattern entry. I saw him coming and dove away, just like a fighter peeling off for a strafing run.The F-4, well, I was riding with a friend in a rented aircraft just south of Miramar NAS near San Diego. I happened to be at the controls when an F-4 came at us out of the sun. This wasn't quite the near miss that the DC-9 was but it was enough to scare the hell out of me.But I didn't decide to quit riding in GA aircraft till a few minutes later. As we approached Torrey Pines, today a famous golf course, at the time a famous gliderport, with my friend at the controls we almost hit a tow rope that was trailing behind a GA glider tug. (What did we know? We were Easterners and, as they would say in NYC, did not know from sailplanes.)That flight was the last time I was up in a GA aircraft. You can read about the last time I was up in a lighter-than-737 aircraft here ... http://www.pcgamecontrols.com/airbossblog/...b3f67b3b488a0b9

I did cfi training out of Montgomery (I assume where you are speaking of) and used the practice area just over the ocean nearTorrey Pines. Very congested airspace out there for sure, and very foreign to the way of flying in the Midwest Us.However, despite your near misses you are still here. How many have you had in your car in your lifetime? I have come more close in two serious car crashes (of which I didn't cause) to cashing out than I ever have in an airplane.I am not gonna stop driving either vehicle ... ..and like much of life-we get good things when we are in the right place at the right time, and we get bad things when we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately with this Hudson crash-it was the second. Thankfully air collisions happen a statistically very small part of the time in aviaton....cars are a completely different story. Personally I'd be more afraid of cars-especially with the new phenomena of drivers and their cell phones. There is a great editorial in Flying magazine this month called "how pilots think about risk". Very thought provoking and addresses this whole issue very well.

I did cfi training out of Montgomery (I assume where you are speaking of) and used the practice area just over the ocean nearTorrey Pines. Very congested airspace out there for sure, and very foreign to the way of flying in the Midwest Us.However, despite your near misses you are still here. How many have you had in your car in your lifetime? I have come more close in two serious car crashes (of which I didn't cause) to cashing out than I ever have in an airplane.I am not gonna stop driving either vehicle ... ..and like much of life-we get good things when we are in the right place at the right time, and we get bad things when we are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately with this Hudson crash-it was the second. Thankfully air collisions happen a statistically very small part of the time in aviaton....cars are a completely different story. Personally I'd be more afraid of cars-especially with the new phenomena of drivers and their cell phones. There is a great editorial in Flying magazine this month called "how pilots think about risk". Very thought provoking and addresses this whole issue very well.

Geofa,I finally realized that I was a very bad pilot, and that if I didn't stop I was going to kill myself and possibly some others. My aircraft handling skills were superb (as are my driving skills) but as you know, what counts in the air is headwork and the ability to stay calm. I'm not good at either of those things so I grounded myself.I'm not saying that GA aviation is inherently dangerous (though I believe it to be a hundred times as dangerous as flying commercial), I'm saying that my dangerous piloting skills made the risk level unacceptable -- for me and for anybody riding with me. Had my headwork been good I would not have quit flying.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI'm not embarrassed to say these things about myself. I just would like every budding real world pilot out there to know that the three most important things in flying are headwork, headwork and headwork. Being an intrepid Junior Birdman has nothing to do with it.In line with that, as my first instructor liked to say, the three most useless things in aviation are ...1 - The runway behind you.2 - The altitude above you.3 - Two seconds ago.

I think the question is not whether you see strobes from twenty miles away but whether you would see them from five miles away. But let's say that you're right -- today's strobes are useless during daylight. Does it follow that it's impossible to develop aircraft strobes that would be very visible in daylight? Like those on police cars, for example? Or highway construction zone signs? As long as they're of recent design, both of these can be seen from miles away even in daylight.As for not being able to avoid oncoming aircraft, this isn't true at the kinds of airspeeds prevailing in class B airspace, especially if one of the aircraft involved is single engine GA. I'm speaking from experience, having had to evade both a DC-9 and an F-4 Phantom. (Two more reasons why I stopped flying.)Your thoughts?

If you spend enough money you can develop anything. And if you're going to spend money, why not just mandate TCAS type equipment for everybody? Why bother with lights? TCAS is already available and works. Why waste money on super strobes?I didn't say you are not able to avoid oncoming aircraft. All I'm saying is anything on a collision course is going to be the hardest to spot due to lack of relative motion, no matter what speed it is moving at, or whether it is a Cherokee, a F-4, a Canadian Goose, or a full rack of bbq ribs. If it's coming at you, it will be hard to see.One thing nobody has mentioned here is what the helicopter might have been doing. Some of the discussion on other aviation boards have some interesting things to say about Liberty and what their pilots tend to do.BTW, did you know that bright lights were used for awhile to hide aircraft during WWII?

Like my DPE and friend of mine so eloquently says, "Airplanes aren't that likely to hurt you. But they'll sure as f*** kill you." Pardon the expression. Consequences of structural failure and mistakes are much graver than would be in an automobile. Though I take the same stance on flying as Geofa does (obviously).

If you spend enough money you can develop anything. And if you're going to spend money, why not just mandate TCAS type equipment for everybody? Why bother with lights? TCAS is already available and works. Why waste money on super strobes?I didn't say you are not able to avoid oncoming aircraft. All I'm saying is anything on a collision course is going to be the hardest to spot due to lack of relative motion, no matter what speed it is moving at, or whether it is a Cherokee, a F-4, a Canadian Goose, or a full rack of bbq ribs. If it's coming at you, it will be hard to see.One thing nobody has mentioned here is what the helicopter might have been doing. Some of the discussion on other aviation boards have some interesting things to say about Liberty and what their pilots tend to do.BTW, did you know that bright lights were used for awhile to hide aircraft during WWII?

I agree -- TCAS for everybody. But AOPA is going to scream bloody murder about the expense, just as they did ages ago about transponders -- and strobes are relatively cheap. And even with TCAS a belt-and-suspenders approach is desirable so I predict that we're going to find bright strobes on commercial helicopters if not all commercial aircraft.

I agree -- TCAS for everybody. But AOPA is going to scream bloody murder about the expense, just as they did ages ago about transponders -- and strobes are relatively cheap. And even with TCAS a belt-and-suspenders approach is desirable so I predict that we're going to find bright strobes on commercial helicopters if not all commercial aircraft.

Then they can invest in a zaon like I have for a fraction of the cost-and get almost the same at a fraction of the cost-I won't fly without it.However one must play the numbers game-these collisions are really statistically insigificant in the number of flights-except for the media who's interest is in selling advertising and not putting things in perspective.A few fliers sent me links on trucks that had crashed off highways slamming into houses-much more-except you don't hear the media reporting that.After all-flying much more headline catching and advertising producing...

Then they can invest in a zaon like I have for a fraction of the cost-and get almost the same at a fraction of the cost-I won't fly without it.However one must play the numbers game-these collisions are really statistically insigificant in the number of flights-except for the media who's interest is in selling advertising and not putting things in perspective.A few fliers sent me links on trucks that had crashed off highways slamming into houses-much more-except you don't hear the media reporting that.After all-flying much more headline catching and advertising producing...

If you truly believed that the chances of a mid-air are insignificant then you would not have bought the Zaon because it would have been an unnecessary expense. The fact is that in the absence of precautionary measures -- human and electronic -- the chances of mid-airs are very significant indeed -- or so it seems to me.That said, when you board an airliner in the USA, regardless of the nationality of the aircraft your chances of dying on that flight -- during that aircraft movement -- are about one in ten million. This truly is insignificant.