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.

You only have to look at the statistics to know how insignificant mid airs are-especially compared to auto collisions.There are about 7 aircraft collisions a year, with thousands of GA flights each day-I am sure you know GA aircraft fly more hours on a daily basis than commercial...How many auto collisions are there per year with fatalities (40,000 deaths a year-I am sure a good number are collisions)? When was the last collision between aircraft in this admittedly busy New York air corridor? Contrast that to how many car collisions with fatalities there were in the New York area that week let alone the whole US? I fly nearly 100% on an ifr flight plan, and I fly a two engine aircraft, and yes I have a Zaon installed. Not because I feel particularly dangerous when I fly a single, vfr without one-and I still do as safety pilot with friends. But I am always interested in increasing safety in any way I can-Flying on an ifr plan gives me another area of security (especially with tfr's popping up), the second engine gives me security for flying over the Great Lakes and double redundant systems, and for the low cost of the Zaon at $400 (that is what they are selling the cheaper model for) why would one not? I'm always for increasing safety in anyway-but it doesn't mean I think the risk is significant. I do know though a collision is one thing I would not want to have though-either in my plane or a car (and I have already had two bad ones in a car).I'd buy such a device for my auto if I could get one that would detect when the driver who is driving 70 mph 2 ft. from me in the opposite lane is using their cell phone, or when the golfer who had had a couple beers plowed into my still car at 55 mph and left only me and my seat. Would warn me to get in the right lane so when they weave over into my lane while texting we wouldn't hit. Such a device is not out yet. I'll still be driving my car-but if there is the option to increase safety there I'll do it too.I think 8 people get beaned by meteorites every year too. About the same number as plane collisions. If you have some spare change go out and get flying mag this month. There is a very good explanation of risk (which starts upon birth-life is risk), how we manage it, and importantly how voluntary risk is often chosen on irrational basis.

You only have to look at the statistics to know how insignificant mid airs are-especially compared to auto collisions.There are about 7 aircraft collisions a year, with thousands of GA flights each day-I am sure you know GA aircraft fly more hours on a daily basis than commercial...How many auto collisions are there per year with fatalities (40,000 deaths a year-I am sure a good number are collisions)? When was the last collision between aircraft in this admittedly busy New York air corridor? Contrast that to how many car collisions with fatalities there were in the New York area that week let alone the whole US? I fly nearly 100% on an ifr flight plan, and I fly a two engine aircraft, and yes I have a Zaon installed. Not because I feel particularly dangerous when I fly a single, vfr without one-and I still do as safety pilot with friends. But I am always interested in increasing safety in any way I can-Flying on an ifr plan gives me another area of security (especially with tfr's popping up), the second engine gives me security for flying over the Great Lakes and double redundant systems, and for the low cost of the Zaon at $400 (that is what they are selling the cheaper model for) why would one not? I'm always for increasing safety in anyway-but it doesn't mean I think the risk is significant. I do know though a collision is one thing I would not want to have though-either in my plane or a car (and I have already had two bad ones in a car).I'd buy such a device for my auto if I could get one that would detect when the driver who is driving 70 mph 2 ft. from me in the opposite lane is using their cell phone, or when the golfer who had had a couple beers plowed into my still car at 55 mph and left only me and my seat. Would warn me to get in the right lane so when they weave over into my lane while texting we wouldn't hit. Such a device is not out yet. I'll still be driving my car-but if there is the option to increase safety there I'll do it too.I think 8 people get beaned by meteorites every year too. About the same number as plane collisions. If you have some spare change go out and get flying mag this month. There is a very good explanation of risk (which start upon birth-life is risk), how we manage it, and importantly how voluntary risk is often chosen on irrational basis.

I've read similar articles in the past and they leave me cold. There's nothing wrong with our doing things -- even irrational things -- that make us comfortable.I'm a dangerous pilot but perhaps we should discuss dangerous drivers -- because in 45 years and millions of miles of driving, I've never had anything more serious than a fender-bender. Yet nobody could persuade me that driving is safe in the abstract, and certainly nobody could persuade me that GA is safe in the abstract.I hope you won't take offense but you're not going to tell us that you feel the most dangerous part of your light plane pleasure flying is the drive to the FBO, are you?

"I hope you won't take offense but you're not going to tell us that you feel the most dangerous part of your light plane pleasure flying is the drive to the FBO, are you? "I will. From my early days in the 150/152, through my training in the Navy and on to the P-3, all the way through my time in the A319, on to the 206, and now in the Baron, I've never felt safer on the way to the plane than I did in it. I'm not really participating in this forum, but I couldn't resist this one.

"I hope you won't take offense but you're not going to tell us that you feel the most dangerous part of your light plane pleasure flying is the drive to the FBO, are you? "I will. From my early days in the 150/152, through my training in the Navy and on to the P-3, all the way through my time in the A319, on to the 206, and now in the Baron, I've never felt safer on the way to the plane than I did in it. I'm not really participating in this forum, but I couldn't resist this one.

I've been making a clear distinction between GA and the Big Time ...Yes, driving to a trip on American One is more dangerous than the trip itself. But driving to a ride with me, moi, mikey behind the wheel is infinitely safer than flying with me would be. And I extend this philosophy these days to all aircraft that weigh less than a 737 or are piloted by anything but line pilots with major US, Canadian or UK carriers. My reservations are not based on anecdotes but rather on first hand personal experience. Other people have had different life experiences, which is fine with me. I'm not telling anybody else what to do.But no, I'm not being a fraidy-cat. Here in Colorado my chances of being killed by lightning in any given year are about one in 300,000. I think nothing of it, even though I have to be out in thunderstorms quite often as this year's caretaker of our condo swimming pool with its metal-framed patio umbrellas, probably magnifying my personal risk by a factor of 10-100.

I've read similar articles in the past and they leave me cold. There's nothing wrong with our doing things -- even irrational things -- that make us comfortable.I'm a dangerous pilot but perhaps we should discuss dangerous drivers -- because in 45 years and millions of miles of driving, I've never had anything more serious than a fender-bender. Yet nobody could persuade me that driving is safe in the abstract, and certainly nobody could persuade me that GA is safe in the abstract.I hope you won't take offense but you're not going to tell us that you feel the most dangerous part of your light plane pleasure flying is the drive to the FBO, are you?

You are right-nothing is safe. I don't really have a need to convince anyone, but it is sad when persons delegate their life risks of which life is a risk, on hype from media that doesn't necessarily follow the appropriate level of risk. I have a close family member who will not fly commercial airliners either-thinks they are too dangerous. I can't convince her either. She is also afraid of swine flu, mad cows disease, ytk, everything the press hypes on a daily basis. When the swine flu came out I tried to point out in a normal year 40,000 people die of the normal flu vs. what the swine flu did. Couldn't convince her-and that is fine-she just is missing out on lots of living to protect.....living?!Re: your flying. I bet you were a much better pilot than you give yourself credit. I would rather fly with a pilot who is cautious, doesn't think they know everything, and has a healthy respect of the elements. I've flown with some who are the opposite-and they are the ones that scared me.

You are right-nothing is safe. I don't really have a need to convince anyone, but it is sad when persons delegate their life risks of which life is a risk, on hype from media that doesn't necessarily follow the appropriate level of risk. I have a close family member who will not fly commercial airliners either-thinks they are too dangerous. I can't convince her either. She is also afraid of swine flu, mad cows disease, ytk, everything the press hypes on a daily basis. When the swine flu came out I tried to point out in a normal year 40,000 people die of the normal flu vs. what the swine flu did. Couldn't convince her-and that is fine-she just is missing out on lots of living to protect.....living?!Re: your flying. I bet you were a much better pilot than you give yourself credit. I would rather fly with a pilot who is cautious, doesn't think they know everything, and has a healthy respect of the elements. I've flown with some who are the opposite-and they are the ones that scared me.

Based on an unplanned demonstration of flying skill on my part I was offered a job as an air taxi pilot shortly after I got my PPL. They would have paid for my instrument and commercial tickets, believe it or not, and would have then put me to work right away as an F/O in Twin Otters. It would have been a no-brainer start to a career with the airlines.My wife then gave me the choice between flying for a living and her -- and I chose her. I don't regret it, especially given the things that happened later that convinced me I should give up flying even as a hobby. The fact is that in the air I'm easily distracted and fold under pressure, which why I frequently got into trouble of various sorts. (There are more stories against self interest that I could tell.) Did I mention this already? A CFI told me that I was one of only two people he ever knew that had the sense/guts to ground themselves.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxHey, I don't mind. I'm a lousy pilot (though a superb aircraft wrangler). But I'm a terrific driver. In fact, I did some casual closed course racing in the 60s and did very well even though my equipment was nothing more than a factory stock 64 Mustang ... And my son is going to pay for me to go go-cart racing with my middle grandson, who is probably also a natural race car driver and is giving the whole matter some serious thought. (He wants Formula One or sport car road racing. NASCAR bores him to tears as it does me.)Oops, no offense meant to anyone there either. But some wag of a driver once summed up NASCAR as follows: "Go fast. Then turn left."

I doubt any aircraft's electrical system would support a strobe bright enough to do any good if the whole aircraft is obscured behind another aircraft's wing, cockpit floor or engine cowl.

I doubt any aircraft's electrical system would support a strobe bright enough to do any good if the whole aircraft is obscured behind another aircraft's wing, cockpit floor or engine cowl.

You're right -- but what if in a different situation the aircraft was not being obscured? And anyway we don't know for sure what happened even in this case.Let me ask you this: If strobes are not really useful, why do aircraft have them? Bureaucratic inertia? Or the recognition that they in fact have some anti-collision value as originally intended? (And if they do, why not brighter ones?)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxRemember, I'm with Geofa on this -- the Zona device is a terrific way to go. However ...Not all aircraft transiting high traffic airspace are going to have transponders even though it would be nice if they did. In such situations strobes would be the only way for one aircraft to see another without controller intervention, yes?Just two weeks ago I heard JFK tower warn a police helicopter of traffic in front of him that was not transponder equipped. True, that aircraft probably was in uncontrolled airspace but the controller couldn't tell from the tower radar because there was no altitude reporting from the target. Incidents like this increase the case for strobes, yes? If you don't agree, what's your proposal for an alternative?

Not all aircraft transiting high traffic airspace are going to have transponders even though it would be nice if they did.

Isn't JFK a Class B airport?If so, it is my understanding that a Mode C equipped Xpndr is required equipment within 30NM regardless of altitude, or am I mistaken?Joe

why not just mandate TCAS type equipment for everybody? Why bother with lights? TCAS is already available and works.

I doubt practicality of TCAS in such typical congested VFR flying with so many targets around you, where is time to process all the information?. Perhaps they should make lab experiments and see how it would contribute to safety. These days NASA makes similar lab experiments about many other aspects of flying so they could add it to their studies. But no doubt AOPA will strongly resist such mandatory equipage. See-and-avoid is such a fundamental principle behind all the flying and I simply see no way to replace that with TCAS. By the way as a private pilot I stay away from such "corridors", I don't go to Oshkosh either - I like flying in non congested airspace, I like to lower my odds of bumping into someone else. The most congested flying for me was once during an approach to Avalon, Santa Catalina airport, it gets very busy down there on weekends, I know next time I go there it is going to be Wednesday :(

Isn't JFK a Class B airport?If so, it is my understanding that a Mode C equipped Xpndr is required equipment within 30NM regardless of altitude, or am I mistaken?Joe

You are mistaken. Well, you're not mistaken, but in the case I was listening to either the guy didn't have a transponder, or it was turned off. I have no idea what happened when he left the terminal area. I've heard this happen more than once. The controllers don't seem to get very excited about it.The southern edge of JFK (beginning at the beaches) is uncontrolled up to 1500 feet. Ditto the East River corridor (LGA, La Guardia). Ditto the Hudson corridor (EWR, Newark).EDIT: I just looked it up. For each of these three airports the threshold distance is 20nm, not 30.

NBC has video footage of the collision coming on right now. Looks like the plane was in a climbing right turn at impact.

NBC has video footage of the collision coming on right now. Looks like the plane was in a climbing right turn at impact.

Chock speculated to that effect in his post #3 at the beginning of this thread, his analysis persuading me as well. I'll be interested to see the video when I can get to it.

Looks like the plane was in a climbing right turn at impact.

Helicopter was in a climbing turn southbound ...That placed the Piper inside the Hudson River VFR corridor, a narrow strip of VFR airspace that extends from the surface to 1,100 feet, and from the New York side of the river to the east and the New Jersey side to the west. Altitude readouts for the Lance show it flying at just that height or about 100 feet lower until the collision moments later. The helicopter, a Eurocopter AS350 operated by Liberty Helicopter Tours, had departed from the 30th Street Heliport and was in a climbing turn southbound as part of its planned 12-minute tour. Along with the pilot, New Zealander Jeremy Clarke, 33, were five tourists from Bologna, Italy. The right wing of the Piper separated after it contacted the rotor disc of the helicopter and both aircraft spun into the water with nonsurvivable impact.

Mike, By quoting your post my intent was not to question your story, only to clarify in my mind the rules pertaining to Class B airspace. I have no problem believing pilots violate regulations regarding minimum equipment every day. And if any controllers are going to shrug it off as non-critical I have to believe these guys around NYC are as capable as any.

EDIT: I just looked it up. For each of these three airports the threshold distance is 20nm, not 30.

I am looking at the TAC on skyvector.com and I see the Mode C line at 30, which is different than the Class B limit.And while you are correct that the floor of the Class B is 1500ft (I see spots where it drops to 1100) if I read the chart correctly this area is all Class E above 700ft AGL, so technically controlled airspace above 700ft.Here again I am simply looking for a clarification of my understanding from a current RW pilot, as I only play one on PC.Joe