Narrative:

We were in contact with kennedy tower, landing at the gat helipad adjacent to taxiway Q. The wind was out of 320 degrees near 20 KTS with gusts. Departures were off runway 31L. We approached between the runways (31's) from the west. I was in right seat with the gat out my side. The other pilot began the right base and tower advised a departing aircraft of our landing to his right. Because of the strong winds, the active runway in close proximity, and the placement of the tall light poles at the gat preventing a comfortable approach, we overflew taxiway quebec for landing. At the bottom of the landing phase the other pilot turned right approximately 45 degrees to view the landing pad. At that time he noticed a taxing beechcraft baron on taxiway Q turning into the gat. It came as a surprise to both of us as neither had the traffic prior or was advised of another aircraft going into the same location. Nothing was said between our 2 ships when we were on the ramp. Upon returning to our base at teterboro, nj, we were advised by our dispatcher that the pilot in question was indeed upset and wanted to speak to us. I explained that we did not have him visually until the last moments. I feel that at no time was there a danger of a mishap as we were not landing on the taxiway. Unless he chose to taxi over the helipad there was no danger of a collision. I understand his concern, however, as we were upset also not to have been visual. In our opinion, the fault lies with the poor design of the gat helipad. Through our insistence we had one of the light poles removed that was ridiculously close to the pad, but the remaining ones still hamper the approach. Supplemental information from acn 298452: while on approach to the new helipad at the jfk GA terminal, we passed overhead a taxing twin who was also inbound to the gat. Due to obstructions surrounding the facility, approachs are limited to over the building, (descending over parked aircraft) and over the active taxiway. The tower disclaimer is 'landing is at your own risk' - area not in sight from the tower. Due to the inherent nose high landing attitude poor chin visibility of S76 and an approach, restricted further by departures and wind, we did not see the twin until we passed overhead on the approach. Recommended corrective actions: relocate helipad or remove light towers or have ground (working aircraft) coordinate with tower (working helicopter) to advise each of aircraft inbound to gat.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: tower supervisor stated SOP is for the ground controller and local controller to coordinate inbound and outbound traffic from the helicopter pad area and advise of traffic. Helicopter pad is not a controled movement area and see and avoid concept is in effect. Supervisor stated they have had complaints about the light towers but that is the port authority problem.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HELI APCH TO HELIPAD HAD NMAC WITH TAXIING BE55. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT. LIGHT TWRS AROUND HELIPAD AREA A HAZARD TO FLT.

Narrative: WE WERE IN CONTACT WITH KENNEDY TWR, LNDG AT THE GAT HELIPAD ADJACENT TO TXWY Q. THE WIND WAS OUT OF 320 DEGS NEAR 20 KTS WITH GUSTS. DEPS WERE OFF RWY 31L. WE APCHED BTWN THE RWYS (31'S) FROM THE W. I WAS IN R SEAT WITH THE GAT OUT MY SIDE. THE OTHER PLT BEGAN THE R BASE AND TWR ADVISED A DEPARTING ACFT OF OUR LNDG TO HIS R. BECAUSE OF THE STRONG WINDS, THE ACTIVE RWY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE TALL LIGHT POLES AT THE GAT PREVENTING A COMFORTABLE APCH, WE OVERFLEW TXWY QUEBEC FOR LNDG. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LNDG PHASE THE OTHER PLT TURNED R APPROX 45 DEGS TO VIEW THE LNDG PAD. AT THAT TIME HE NOTICED A TAXING BEECHCRAFT BARON ON TXWY Q TURNING INTO THE GAT. IT CAME AS A SURPRISE TO BOTH OF US AS NEITHER HAD THE TFC PRIOR OR WAS ADVISED OF ANOTHER ACFT GOING INTO THE SAME LOCATION. NOTHING WAS SAID BTWN OUR 2 SHIPS WHEN WE WERE ON THE RAMP. UPON RETURNING TO OUR BASE AT TETERBORO, NJ, WE WERE ADVISED BY OUR DISPATCHER THAT THE PLT IN QUESTION WAS INDEED UPSET AND WANTED TO SPEAK TO US. I EXPLAINED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE HIM VISUALLY UNTIL THE LAST MOMENTS. I FEEL THAT AT NO TIME WAS THERE A DANGER OF A MISHAP AS WE WERE NOT LNDG ON THE TXWY. UNLESS HE CHOSE TO TAXI OVER THE HELIPAD THERE WAS NO DANGER OF A COLLISION. I UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERN, HOWEVER, AS WE WERE UPSET ALSO NOT TO HAVE BEEN VISUAL. IN OUR OPINION, THE FAULT LIES WITH THE POOR DESIGN OF THE GAT HELIPAD. THROUGH OUR INSISTENCE WE HAD ONE OF THE LIGHT POLES REMOVED THAT WAS RIDICULOUSLY CLOSE TO THE PAD, BUT THE REMAINING ONES STILL HAMPER THE APCH. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 298452: WHILE ON APCH TO THE NEW HELIPAD AT THE JFK GA TERMINAL, WE PASSED OVERHEAD A TAXING TWIN WHO WAS ALSO INBOUND TO THE GAT. DUE TO OBSTRUCTIONS SURROUNDING THE FACILITY, APCHS ARE LIMITED TO OVER THE BUILDING, (DSNDING OVER PARKED ACFT) AND OVER THE ACTIVE TXWY. THE TWR DISCLAIMER IS 'LNDG IS AT YOUR OWN RISK' - AREA NOT IN SIGHT FROM THE TWR. DUE TO THE INHERENT NOSE HIGH LNDG ATTITUDE POOR CHIN VISIBILITY OF S76 AND AN APCH, RESTRICTED FURTHER BY DEPS AND WIND, WE DID NOT SEE THE TWIN UNTIL WE PASSED OVERHEAD ON THE APCH. RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: RELOCATE HELIPAD OR REMOVE LIGHT TWRS OR HAVE GND (WORKING ACFT) COORDINATE WITH TWR (WORKING HELI) TO ADVISE EACH OF ACFT INBOUND TO GAT.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: TWR SUPVR STATED SOP IS FOR THE GND CTLR AND LCL CTLR TO COORDINATE INBOUND AND OUTBOUND TFC FROM THE HELI PAD AREA AND ADVISE OF TFC. HELI PAD IS NOT A CTLED MOVEMENT AREA AND SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT IS IN EFFECT. SUPVR STATED THEY HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE LIGHT TWRS BUT THAT IS THE PORT AUTHORITY PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.