Narrative:

My student and I departed for a flight down the hudson river; planning to fly inside the new york class B airspace at 1;800 ft MSL. I had flown this route several times in the past; but had not since the new airspace layout had been implemented; and thus I made sure to review the terminal area chart; and in particular the published 'skyline route'; with the student before departure. The chart listed a procedure for flying the skyline route from north to south that required contacting lga tower prior to passing the alpine tower for clearance into the class B; in contrast to the procedure I remembered from the past; which involved calling new york approach for class B clearance. I considered calling new york approach; but decided to use the published procedure for the route. After takeoff; we called lga tower when over the tappan zee bridge; requesting flight into the class B down the river at 1;800 MSL; and were told to proceed southbound along the river at 1;800; but were not cleared into the class B. We followed the river; and as we approached the alpine tower; south of which the floor of the class B drops to 1;300 MSL; we still had not received clearance to enter the airspace. We queried lga tower as to whether we were cleared into the class B; and were told that we were well outside of that controller's airspace; and to continue southbound along the river until we could be picked up. I informed the controller that we could not accept that clearance without also being cleared into the class B (the description of the skyline route on the terminal area chart says 'until authorization is received; remain outside the new york class B'); and told the student to start a right turn to remain clear of the airspace. Lga tower replied that we were cleared into the class B; southbound along the river at 1;000 ft. This clearance made no sense to me; since the floor of the class B along the river is 1;300 ft. I asked for an altitude of 1;500 ft; and this request was granted. At about this time; we were completing our turn to proceed south along the river; when the tis (traffic information system) alerted us to traffic. I saw another aircraft heading toward us at the same altitude; and told the student to begin a descent to avoid the traffic. The aircraft passed above and slightly ahead of us; and continued south along the river as we fell into line behind. The traffic had not been pointed out to us by lga tower; nor had I heard any other aircraft calling the tower to request entry into the class B; thus I can only assume that the aircraft was talking to new york approach; and had received its clearance into the class B from them. Soon after; the other aircraft checked in with lga tower; and it was apparent that it had been handed off. We continued to maintain visual separation with the traffic; and the rest of the flight continued without incident. It appeared that the published procedure for obtaining a clearance into the class B along the skyline route is not what lga tower was expecting. The statement that we were well out of their airspace made perfect sense to me; and next time I fly down the river; I will obtain my class B clearance from new york approach; just as I did before the new procedures were published. This would have put me on the same frequency as the other aircraft; which would have increased situational awareness for both of us; allowed ATC to give us traffic advisories; and made the turn near the alpine tower unnecessary. It is confusing; however; to see a procedure published on a chart that did not seem to match the procedures used by ATC; and the mental capacity spent on trying to sort out what we were supposed to do would have been better spent on traffic avoidance. As the accident in august 2009 proved; the hudson river is a very busy area; and distractions can have disastrous consequences. In this case; the established procedures created a distraction rather than avoiding it. I believe I acted correctly accordingto the chart; but that the chart does not reflect the expected procedures; and thus my actions were not what they should have been. I reviewed the FAA's training guide for the hudson river sfra prior to the flight; but this dealt mostly with flight in the hudson river exclusion; and only briefly mentioned the skyline route. It is my opinion that the wording on the terminal area chart should be checked to ensure that it matches with the procedures that ATC is expecting pilots to use. The FAA's training course may require updating to include information about specific procedures for operating along the hudson river in the class B; not just in the exclusion area.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An instructor and his student flying VFR in the Hudson River SFRA had a near miss as they proceeded down the river. The reporter commented that the 'Skyline Route' communications procedures are not clear and do not match what is expected in real life.

Narrative: My student and I departed for a flight down the Hudson River; planning to fly inside the New York Class B airspace at 1;800 FT MSL. I had flown this route several times in the past; but had not since the new airspace layout had been implemented; and thus I made sure to review the Terminal Area Chart; and in particular the published 'Skyline Route'; with the student before departure. The chart listed a procedure for flying the Skyline Route from north to south that required contacting LGA Tower prior to passing the Alpine Tower for clearance into the Class B; in contrast to the procedure I remembered from the past; which involved calling New York Approach for Class B clearance. I considered calling New York Approach; but decided to use the published procedure for the route. After takeoff; we called LGA Tower when over the Tappan Zee Bridge; requesting flight into the Class B down the river at 1;800 MSL; and were told to proceed southbound along the river at 1;800; but were not cleared into the Class B. We followed the river; and as we approached the Alpine Tower; south of which the floor of the Class B drops to 1;300 MSL; we still had not received clearance to enter the airspace. We queried LGA Tower as to whether we were cleared into the Class B; and were told that we were well outside of that Controller's airspace; and to continue southbound along the river until we could be picked up. I informed the Controller that we could not accept that clearance without also being cleared into the Class B (the description of the Skyline Route on the Terminal Area Chart says 'Until authorization is received; remain outside the New York Class B'); and told the student to start a right turn to remain clear of the airspace. LGA Tower replied that we were cleared into the Class B; southbound along the river at 1;000 FT. This clearance made no sense to me; since the floor of the Class B along the river is 1;300 FT. I asked for an altitude of 1;500 FT; and this request was granted. At about this time; we were completing our turn to proceed south along the river; when the TIS (traffic information system) alerted us to traffic. I saw another aircraft heading toward us at the same altitude; and told the student to begin a descent to avoid the traffic. The aircraft passed above and slightly ahead of us; and continued south along the river as we fell into line behind. The traffic had not been pointed out to us by LGA Tower; nor had I heard any other aircraft calling the Tower to request entry into the Class B; thus I can only assume that the aircraft was talking to New York Approach; and had received its clearance into the Class B from them. Soon after; the other aircraft checked in with LGA Tower; and it was apparent that it had been handed off. We continued to maintain visual separation with the traffic; and the rest of the flight continued without incident. It appeared that the published procedure for obtaining a clearance into the Class B along the Skyline Route is not what LGA Tower was expecting. The statement that we were well out of their airspace made perfect sense to me; and next time I fly down the river; I will obtain my Class B clearance from New York Approach; just as I did before the new procedures were published. This would have put me on the same frequency as the other aircraft; which would have increased situational awareness for both of us; allowed ATC to give us traffic advisories; and made the turn near the Alpine Tower unnecessary. It is confusing; however; to see a procedure published on a chart that did not seem to match the procedures used by ATC; and the mental capacity spent on trying to sort out what we were supposed to do would have been better spent on traffic avoidance. As the accident in August 2009 proved; the Hudson River is a very busy area; and distractions can have disastrous consequences. In this case; the established procedures created a distraction rather than avoiding it. I believe I acted correctly accordingto the chart; but that the chart does not reflect the expected procedures; and thus my actions were not what they should have been. I reviewed the FAA's training guide for the Hudson River SFRA prior to the flight; but this dealt mostly with flight in the Hudson River Exclusion; and only briefly mentioned the Skyline Route. It is my opinion that the wording on the Terminal Area Chart should be checked to ensure that it matches with the procedures that ATC is expecting pilots to use. The FAA's training course may require updating to include information about specific procedures for operating along the Hudson River in the Class B; not just in the Exclusion area.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.