Plane Crashes In Manhattan

[aardvark2zz]

Plane Crashes In Manhattan

72 st and York st

top of skyscraper

possibly small plane or helicopter

fire and smoke at top of building.

[eastern wiseguy]

AP saying "small plane " has hit building in Manhattan ....nothing further

[jondc9]

anyone with info, please post

[Rampi]

Oct 11, 2:56 PM EDT

Plane crashes into Manhattan building

NEW YORK (AP) -- A plane crash has been reported on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Video from the scene shows at least three apartments in the high rise fully engulfed in flames.

Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PLANE_NYC?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[G-CPTN]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1236978,00.html?f=dta

[aardvark2zz]

top of skyscraper, now middle floor
possibly small plane or helicopter
fire and smoke at top of building.

72 st and York st.

----

FAA says small GA plane multi engine


near top floors

2 - 4 window fire on 2 stories

------

The damage is certainly not a large plane.

It did not damage any external concrete !!

4 windows fully on fire.

----------

NORAD was not aware (CNN) of aircraft problem

[pchappo]

according to cnn - its a multiengine small plane - fire is over 2 floors - its contained in what looks like 2 x 2 windows

[aardvark2zz]

possibly 50 story Bel-Aire.

[late developer]

Eye witness on tv has just said she saw a small four seater fixed wing "doing acrobatics" just prior to the event which has confused reports for the moment. She didn't say she saw it hit. She wanted to make it plain it wasnt a helicopter. BBC are now reporting the FAA view that it was FW. Is it still permissible to fly a small FW at low level VFR in this area of NY? It used to be a constitutional right to fly up and down within the (tight) confines of the Hudson River, but has that now been repealed?

[aardvark2zz]

NORAD scrambling jets !!! precautionary

at least 2 dead

flames under control

people trapped

KJFK 111851Z 07011G19KT 8SM OVC015 18/13 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP118 T01780133

near east river near LGA

flights below 1000 ft VFR and no control.

near limit of hozintal and vertical control zone

was not in comm with CZ

added:

pilot witness reports plane banking heavily to the left at 3pm and could have been out of control possibly trying to do 180 to
LGA

[AcroChik]

Oh my.

I grew up in the neighborhood.

Even before 9/11, the entire city would occasionally be subject to flight restrictions due to Presidential or some other dignitary travel. This historically would result not only in significant airspace restrictions, but sometimes temporary closing of entire airports such TEB, HPN, etc. Most often, the northern part of the Hudson River VFR Corridor, extending further north than the Indian Point nuclear reactor, becomes part of the blanket TFR provisions.

There are several large sports stadiums in and around NYC. In example, Yankee Stadium is located in the Bronx, southeast of the George Washington Bridge. Because of the number of people attending these events, TFRs are generally in place an hour before and after events ~ but it's always necessary to check NOTAMS as this can vary.

There is no safe place to land in New York City.

There are some old piers projecting out into the Hudson River and New York Harbor, on both the city and New Jersey side, that seem empty. It's impossible to know how stable they are. There are some large parking lots, full of cars. Basically, if you have to put it down you're going into the water or... The Hudson is a tidal river and the currents can be stong. Swimming is a doubtful option. Central Park is surrounded by tall buildings, any approach would be steep.

[aardvark2zz]

pilot witness reports plane banking heavily to the left at 3pm and could have been out of control possibly trying to do 180 to LGA.

half of plane fell to the ground.

We can see long burn marks along wall of building below impact.

some windows of corner of building fully open with curtains flapping in the wind

Concierge can't get to some people on 41st floor

1 fatality confirmed

[20driver]

There are still VFR corridors down the Hudson and the East River. A lot of it is below 1000 feet. I don't have the chart in front of me but I'm pretty sure there is no SVF
Looking at todays WX
KEWR 111851Z 08008KT 7SM OVC017 18/13 A2987 RMK AO2 SLP114 T01830133
KLGA 111851Z 10013KT 9SM OVC018 18/13 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP118 T01830128
KJFK 111851Z 07011G19KT 8SM OVC015 18/13 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP118 T01780133
Sorry - don't know how to get past dated METARS
So far what I've heard on TV has being fairly reasonable. Fox has a Weather man who is a pilot provide some reasonable commentary.
20driver

[finfly1]

Eye witness on tv has just said she saw a small four seater fixed wing "doing acrobatics" just prior to the event which has confused reports for the moment. She didn't say she saw it hit. She wanted to make it plain it wasnt a helicopter. BBC are now reporting the FAA view that it was FW. Is it still permissible to fly a small FW at low level VFR in this area of NY? It used to be a constitutional right to fly up and down within the (tight) confines of the Hudson River, but has that now been repealed?

It was permissable as of this morning. Sigh.

[aardvark2zz]

2 confirmed dead

belaire condominiums built in 1988

[I'mbatman]

I live just a few blocks from the scene and was able to get video from the rooftop of my building.....its pretty crazy....tons of ambulances, fire trucks, and helo's all over .....massive gridlock in the streets.....godbless those that died if it was indeed an accident.:ugh:

[20driver]

Latest is the plane involved was an SR-22 out of Lakeland FL.
Plane had departed TEB. Both dead believed to be from the aircraft. No confrimation of any casualties on the ground which is pretty amazing.
This is not good for GA.
20driver

[PaperTiger]

Please, oh, please. For some of us, this is echos of trauma. Try to keep politics out of it. Please.I agree, although it is inevitable that the Hudson River Corridor (qv.) will once again be under political "review". There are TFRs whenever an event (football game etc.) is on and for various other reasons at other times.
While this hopefully is not terrorism, I expect a lengthy TFR immediately probably followed by outright closure. The class B starts at 1100AGL which doesn't give much room for error, sadly demonstrated today :( .

[TopBunk]

I am in Manhattan, and was just coming out of a bar on 52nd and 2nd having watched Croatia demolish England to see a stream of emergency response vehicles heading north. My immediate thoughts were that something major had happened.

TV now reporting that the Cirrus? single engined aircraft is recorded as being owned by a NY Yankee? baseball pitcher - Corey Lidle? I think they said. No suggestion of occupants however.

[vapilot2004]

An aircraft crashed into a residential high-rise building on New York City’s Upper East Side this afternoon, igniting several apartments before pieces of the aircraft crashed to the ground, the police and witnesses said.

Keith Bedford/Reuters
The aircraft struck 524 E. 72nd Street, a 50-story condominium tower.

The New York Times
A small aircraft hit an upper floor of the Belaire Condo building at 524 E. 72nd. St.

Police officials said two bodies were found on the ground, possibly passengers or crewmembers from the aircraft, but the authorities are just beginning their investigations. There are no reports of any injuries yet.

A Fire Department spokeswoman, Emily Rahimi, told The Associated Press that the aircraft struck the 20th floor of the building, 524 E. 72nd St., near York Avenue. However, television reports and witnesses said the aircraft hit closer to the 40th floor. That building and one next door were evacuated, police said.

The authorities have not said whether the aircraft was a small airplane or a helicopter.

Television views of the fire showed flames shooting out of four windows and smoke that streamed up into the sky, visible for miles. The building is a 50-story condominium that was built in 1986, The A.P. said, and has 183 apartments. Many of the lower floors held offices for doctors and other professionals.

The crash interrupted the routine of an urban afternoon that consisted of construction work inside the building, doctor’s appointments and came at the end of the school day for nearby students.

Kim Quarterman, 50, a doorman at 411 E. 70th St., said he head a noise about 2:45 p.m. "It sounded like a truck gearing down," he said. "You know how a truck sounds when it’s trying not to hit something? Then I saw a cloud of smoke."

After that, he picked his daughter, Chablis Quarterman, 13, at a nearby school.

"My dad and I tried to get as close as we could, but by then, all you could see was smoke," she said.

Samuel Klotman, 17, was on the roof of his school nearby with classmates when they saw the plane coming down.

“I could see through the buildings what I thought was a plane headed to this building,” he said. “Then there was a booming noise and a great fire gust shooting out.”

He said he and his classmates started text messaging and calling everyone they knew, “wondering what was happening,” and the school let everybody go home.



http://h1.ripway.com/eisler99/slide5.jpg

http://h1.ripway.com/eisler99/CRASHGRAPHIC.jpg

[aardvark2zz]

plane took off from teterboro airport about 7 miles west of manhattan.

mayday called.

eyewitness 2 floors up, saw pilot in plane

plane of 34yr old pitcher Cory Litelle of ny yankees and was taking off today

he got license last year

187K$ cirrus sr20 built in 2002 with 400 hrs airtime.

probably had plane-parachute. standard on this plane.

Ceiling here was 1800ft. Don't you need 1000 ft above you !!?

Reporting collision avoidance manouver.

1 sole on board

I've flown into Terterboro and flew VFR along Hudson river at 1000 ft without communicating with ATC (legal prior to 9-11) from north of manhattan to atlantic ocean.

[jondc9]

SR20 type of aircraft:





s
N929CD is Assigned

Aircraft Description

Serial Number 1230 Type Registration Individual
Manufacturer Name CIRRUS DESIGN CORP Certificate Issue Date None
Model SR20 Status In Question
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 53157717
MFR Year 2002 Fractional Owner NO



Registered Owner

Name REGISTRATION PENDING
Street 7824 SUGAR PINE BLUE
City LAKELAND State FLORIDA Zip Code 33810
County POLK
Country UNITED STATES



Airworthiness

Engine Manufacturer LYCOMING Classification Standard
Engine Model I0-360-ES Category Normal

A/W Date 07/25/2002

Other Owner Names


APPLICANT LIDLE CORY APPLICATION DATED 7/21/06 120 DAY EXT 8/29/06



Temporary Certificate
None


Fuel Modifications
None

New Search Back to Top
Last Updated: Monday 1st May, 2006
firstgov.gov | Privacy Policy | Web Policies & Notices | Site Map | Contact Us | Frequently Asked Questions | Forms
Department of Transportation Seal U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Readers & Viewers: PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer | MS PowerPoint Viewer | MS Excel Viewer | WinZip

[tiggerific_69]

Reports that Corey Lidle has apprently died in this crash

[hobie]

Almost everything east of the building seems 'low rise' ? ..... :confused:

Google Earth ........ search using ......

524e 72nd street newyork

[Helipolarbear]

Cory Lidle NY yankees pitcher reported as pilot killed in crash. RIP

[bearcuban12]

From the look of the damage to the building, it looks as though the wings were level when it hit

[haughtney1]

CNN saying 4 POB including 1 who was the NY Yankee pitcher...poor buggers

[aardvark2zz]

His passport was found at crash site.

Probably with instructor on board.

40th floor

registration N929CD registration pending for Cory

at least 2 confirmed dead

[Flying Microphone]

Yankees website has more...
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061011&content_id=1708962&vkey=news_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy

RIP

[SeniorDispatcher]

Sorry - don't know how to get past dated METARS

Here they are for the last 6 hours...

Don't know what ratings the guy had, but I hope it doesn't end up being another Thurman Munson/JFK Jr. kind of deal...


KTEB 112111Z 09009KT 2SM RA BKN017 OVC024 16/13 A2983 RMK AO2 P0002
KTEB 112058Z 08005KT 3SM -RA BR BKN019 OVC024 16/14 A2984 RMK AO2 P0000
KTEB 112051Z VRB05KT 2SM -RA OVC019 16/13 A2984 RMK AO2 DZE02RAB02 SLP106 P0010 60010 T01610133 56020
KTEB 112031Z 07004KT 2SM RA OVC017 17/13 A2985 RMK AO2 DZE02RAB02 P0005
KTEB 111951Z COR 09008KT 3SM DZ OVC019 17/13 A2986 RMK AO2 DZB48 SLP109 P0000 T01720128
KTEB 111851Z 08007KT 7SM OVC019 17/13 A2987 RMK AO2 SLP115 T01720128
KTEB 111751Z 09007KT 7SM OVC017 17/12 A2990 RMK AO2 SLP125 T01670122 10172 20150 58017
KTEB 111651Z 11007KT 7SM OVC015 17/12 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP133 T01670122
KTEB 111551Z 10007KT 060V120 7SM OVC015 17/12 A2994 RMK AO2 SLP139 T01670117

KEWR 112118Z 06007KT 2SM +RA BR BKN008 BKN012 OVC016 16/14 A2983 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 2 1/2 P0008
KEWR 112111Z 07008KT 3SM R04R/6000VP6000FT +RA BR BKN008 BKN012 OVC016 16/14 A2983 RMK AO2 P0005
KEWR 112051Z 08006KT 2 1/2SM RA BR BKN008 BKN012 OVC016 17/14 A2984 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3 SLP102 P0018 60018 T01670144 56021
KEWR 111958Z 09006KT 2 1/2SM RA BKN008 BKN012 OVC016 17/14 A2986 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 3 P0001
KEWR 111951Z 09009KT 3SM RA BKN012 OVC016 17/14 A2986 RMK AO2 RAB43 SLP110 P0000 T01720139
KEWR 111851Z 08008KT 7SM OVC017 18/13 A2987 RMK AO2 SLP114 T01830133
KEWR 111751Z 09009KT 7SM BKN020 OVC027 18/13 A2990 RMK AO2 SLP124 T01780133 10178 20161 58021
KEWR 111651Z 09009KT 7SM OVC016 17/13 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP135 T01720128
KEWR 111551Z 09009KT 7SM OVC016 17/12 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP140 T01670122

KLGA 112114Z 06010KT 2SM RA FEW007 OVC017 17/14 A2984
KLGA 112110Z 06010KT 2 1/2SM RA FEW009 OVC019 17/14 A2985 RMK AO2 P0006
KLGA 112059Z 06011KT 2SM RA FEW009 OVC019 17/14 A2984 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 1/2 P0003
KLGA 112051Z 07010KT 1 3/4SM RA BKN019 OVC025 17/14 A2985 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 1/2 SLP106 P0011 60011 T01670139 56021
KLGA 112038Z 08011KT 1 3/4SM RA BKN016 OVC022 17/14 A2985 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 1/2 P0006
KLGA 111951Z 10011KT 8SM -RA OVC018 18/13 A2987 RMK AO2 RAB46 SLP114 P0000 T01830133
KLGA 111851Z 10013KT 9SM OVC018 18/13 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP118 T01830128
KLGA 111751Z 10011KT 9SM OVC018 18/13 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP128 T01830133 10183 20161 58019
KLGA 111651Z 08009KT 10SM OVC016 18/13 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP136 T01780128
KLGA 111551Z 09010KT 10SM OVC016 17/12 A2995 RMK AO2 SLP143 T01720122

KJFK NIL
KJFK NIL
KJFK 111851Z 07011G19KT 8SM OVC015 18/13 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP118 T01780133
KJFK 111751Z 08012KT 8SM BKN016 OVC022 18/14 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP129 T01780139 10178 20156 58020
KJFK 111736Z 08012KT 8SM BKN014 OVC020 17/13 A2992 RMK AO2
KJFK 111651Z 08013KT 9SM BKN016 OVC020 17/13 A2994 RMK AO2 SLP139 T01720133
KJFK 111551Z 07013KT 9SM OVC016 17/13 A2996 RMK AO2 SLP144 T01720128

[ChristiaanJ]

SeniorDispatcher,
Trying to read between the lines (and between the airports....), looks like a low ceiling, yes.
But wasn't there a mention of a "mayday", and a witness mentioning "aerobatics"?
Loss of control under IFR? Mechanical failure? I'm not going to start the guessing game.
But I don't envy the NTSB investigators that will have to come up with a "probable cause".

[SeniorDispatcher]

SeniorDispatcher,
Trying to read between the lines (and between the airports....), looks like a low ceiling, yes.
But wasn't there a mention of a "mayday", and a witness mentioning "aerobatics"?
Loss of control under IFR? Mechanical failure? I'm not going to start the guessing game.
But I don't envy the NTSB investigators that will have to come up with a "probable cause".

I don't envy them either...

As far as the "aerobatics" mentioned by witnesses, just like one man's ceiling is another man's floor, one witnesses non-routine non-straight-and-level flights is another witnesses "acrobatics".

I wonder how long it will be before the media mentions Munson/JFK Jr., or even the B-25 into the Empire State Building back in the 1940s?

[iskandra]

I wonder how long it will be before the media mentions Munson/JFK Jr., or even the B-25 into the Empire State Building back in the 1940s?

Oh, the Yankees website cited earlier has already done that and mentioned Munson... :bored:

[AcroChik]

Photographs of the airplane involved:

http://www.steelaviation.com/catalog_product.aspx?prod_id=154

[wannabepilot1531]

The pilot of the aircraft was an ex- Toronto Blue Jay baseball player.

[SeniorDispatcher]

For those debating the route the aircraft took, this JFK tracking website (http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html) appears to show that between 13:01 and 13:07, a GA aircraft comes in from the right of the picture, at a height of 1,400ft, then turns left and rapidly descends, gets to about 300ft and vanishes.
(To view, set clock to about 13:00, range 20 miles, then press 'Start' - then click on the aircraft to generate an ID and altitude). It comes passes the red "NEW" of "NEW YORK"

It's been suggested (on another board) that this may been a float-equipped Caravan than runs from the Hamptons into NYC and lands on the East River. Never heard of such a service myself, but in any event, media here is showing the accident aircraft off TEB and heading for the Statue of Liberty, and after a 360 around it, it supposedly heads NNE from there...

Who knows...

[Nov71]

The radar link shows 1200' to 500' then 2500' back to 1000' all in ~30 secs suggestive of bad turbulence. One witness said a/c "sounded like a Harley Davidson" - Rough engine?

All speculation of course and very sad outcome.

[AcroChik]

Seaplane base in Manhattan, New York.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/6N7

A few years ago there was a seasonal service from here to the Hamptons. I don't know it it's still in operation.

[FlyVMO]

The Hudson and East River class B exclusions are from the surface to 1100 (NY TAC). I do traffic watch flights in the area, although I generally stay SW of the City. I canceled todays morning flight because although it would have been legal, the ceiling did not leave much room to manuever, particularly over the hills in western NJ. With visibility 9 at the time of the accident though, I would look to the possible Mayday along with some witness accounts of a loud noise PRIOR to impact as possibly being more relevant. Then again we all know how unreliable witness accounts can be.
Other than the tragic loss of life, my next concern is the possible exploitation of this incident for political purposes. I already heard Congressman King was purportedly mouthing off about restricting GA in the area. Do we ban taxis every time one runs up on the sidewalk killing someone? Twits. Sorry I know this is the choir, so I wont preach.
Flyvmo

VFR mins btw, are that you operate no less than 500 below cloud, 1000 above and 3 miles vis in class echo, not 1000 below as mentioned earlier. Also note the exclusions are class G below 700', which would mean 1 mile vis and clear of clouds.

[G-CPTN]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/us/2006/10/11/foreman.ny.plane.crash.explainer.cnn','2006/10/18');
Suggests pilot reported 'fuel problem' shortly followed by spiral descent from 1500 feet to 400 feet . . . .

[SeniorDispatcher]

For those debating the route the aircraft took, this JFK tracking website (http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html) appears to show that between 13:01 and 13:07, a GA aircraft comes in from the right of the picture, at a height of 1,400ft, then turns left and rapidly descends, gets to about 300ft and vanishes.
(To view, set clock to about 13:00, range 20 miles, then press 'Start' - then click on the aircraft to generate an ID and altitude). It comes passes the red "NEW" of "NEW YORK"

Actually, I think it maybe here:

http://www4.passur.com/teb.html

Select the 10-mile scale, and put the start date/time in as the 11th at 1929. Make sure you use the "start" button on the RH (history) side...

At about 14:30:20, you'll see N929CD pop-up at TEB, and it makes a right turn towards the river, and later makes another right turn down the river. After abou 2-3 minutes, the airplane icon disappears momentarily, but reappears in a second or two, and has jumped ahead from the point that it disappeared. There's no "N929CD" listed on this one, so there's no way to be absolutely certain it was the accident aircraft. This target appears to make a 360 down by the Statue of Liberty and then heads NE up the East River. The target disappears again, and reappears (after jumping ahead) again, and continues before the target drops out for the last time indicating 800 feet.

[MNBluestater]

For those debating the route the aircraft took, this JFK tracking website (http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html) appears to show that between 13:01 and 13:07, a GA aircraft comes in from the right of the picture, at a height of 1,400ft, then turns left and rapidly descends, gets to about 300ft and vanishes.

(To view, set clock to about 13:00, range 20 miles, then press 'Start' - then click on the aircraft to generate an ID and altitude). It comes passes the red "NEW" of "NEW YORK"

This is <<incorrect,>> the site is EASTERN time, if you key in JFK tracking website (http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html) 14:30, range 20 miles, and press "Start" you can see Linger's aircraft come down the Hudson, turn at the Statue of Liberty, then turn northeast and up the East River (sharp left turn and disappears from screen ). However, there is also a general aviation aircraft coming DOWN the East River, apparently on approach to EWR??. Radar shows the altitudes converging. The aircraft coming down the East River makes a turn left and heads north for several seconds, then drops off radar. Lidle's plane continues on and eventually makes a sharp turn left and drops off radar.

This looks like a possible mid-air to me. Wonder what happened to the other aircraft ??? Did they turn off transponder ??? :confused::confused:

[MNBluestater]

This is <<incorrect,>> the site is EASTERN time, if you key in JFK tracking website (http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html) 14:30, range 20 miles, and press "Start" you can see Linger's aircraft come down the Hudson, turn at the Statue of Liberty, then turn northeast and up the East River (sharp left turn and disappears from screen ). However, there is also a general aviation aircraft coming DOWN the East River, apparently on approach to EWR??. Radar shows the altitudes converging. The aircraft coming down the East River makes a turn left and heads north for several seconds, then drops off radar. Lidle's plane continues on and eventually makes a sharp turn left and drops off radar.

This looks like a possible mid-air to me. Wonder what happened to the other aircraft ??? Did they turn off transponder ??? :confused::confused:

Am I inputting the wrong info ? The site calls for Eastern time

[MNBluestater]

This is <<incorrect,>> the site is EASTERN time, if you key in JFK tracking website (http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html) 14:30, range 20 miles, and press "Start" you can see Linger's aircraft come down the Hudson, turn at the Statue of Liberty, then turn northeast and up the East River (sharp left turn and disappears from screen ). However, there is also a general aviation aircraft coming DOWN the East River, apparently on approach to EWR??. Radar shows the altitudes converging. The aircraft coming down the East River makes a turn left and heads north for several seconds, then drops off radar. Lidle's plane continues on and eventually makes a sharp turn left and drops off radar.

This looks like a possible mid-air to me. Wonder what happened to the other aircraft ??? Did they turn off transponder ??? :confused::confused:

BTW aircraft took off at 1422 EST, hence 1430 on JFK site

[MNBluestater]

BTW aircraft took off at 1422 EST, hence 1430 on JFK site

This is what I see, am I off base here....Convergence of aircraft 14:39:39 and Ligin dropping off radar at 14:41:59

http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html

[Permafrost_ATPL]

Anyboydy knows what min alt you must be at for the SR22 parachute to deploy and slow you down enough? I imagine the moment it pops out of its stowage, the drag will cause a stall. So there'll be a time between releasing it and actually getting help from it.

In any case, it's interesting that they did NOT use it.

Also, have mid-airs occured before on the Hudson corridor? Can be a fairly hairy place. Had a chopper suddenly go into hover just ahead of my Archer - quite scary.

P

[aardvark2zz]

Here are some bank and stall numbers for a 180 degree turn over the east river.

The East River is 628 meters wide there. I also showed the numbers for half that width (note: there is an island in the middle of the East River).

There was also a 13 kt wind pushing him towards manhattan.

As you can see the bank angle goes from 29 to 56 degrees (the latter assumes 314 meter diameter turn and 13 kt wind). Also, stall speed goes up from 53 to 67 kts (50 on a straight line).

As you can see a lot of banking is required

kts m kts deg kts
vel dia wind bank Vstall
______________________________________
80 628 0 29 53
80 628 13 37 56
80 314 0 48 61
80 314 13 56 67

assumed Vstall was 50 kts


Here is part of the NYC VTA showing the VFR corridors. Boy, it badly points to the east river area labelled "70/11". That's why I chose to not fly the east river !!!? You can fly from ground up to 1000 ft.

The hudson river is better labelled as "70/+11". You can fly from ground up to 1100 ft.



http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000nycvta.jpg

[bcfc]

I've flown the Hudson corridor a couple of years ago. Down from Westchester, orbited the Statue and back up the East River. I was then instructed to turn left, over Central Park at 1500' and back up the Hudson.

ATC from Newark throughout and expertly handled. It seemed so long as everyone followed the rules it was fine, but its certainly a honeypot.

Throughout this most exhilarating flight ever, there were zero options should the donkey up front go quiet.

[the_hawk]

51 sec video of the crash captured by a U.S. coast guard camera on cnn online

[dartagnan]

was he an IR pilot?
ceiling was lower than 1500ft, with low visibility( you can see on CNN this day it was hazy).
he climbed to 2000 feet.he banked with 56 degree. For me he has been disoriented and subject to vertigo (same thing with kennedy accident)

[ChristiaanJ]

... zero options should the donkey up front go quiet.French TV just now quoted "fuel starvation" (which can be tech or lack of fuel, of course), don't know where they got that.
But if you still had control, I would have thought the "zero option" then would be to try and ditch, not fly into a building.

[cwatters]

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/11/175010.php

Selected quotes:

"The FAA confirmed that the pilot of the plane made a mayday, stating that he was having fuel problems."

"He was accompanied by his flight instructor."

[bcfc]

... if you still had control, I would have thought the "zero option" then would be to try and ditch, not fly into a building.

If you've ever seen the Hudson or East River in full flow, you'd understand that while maybe marginally better than the side of a building, its still a frightening prospect

[RatherBeFlying]

I find it a little hard that any pilot without suicidal intent would choose to fly into the side of a building;so, loss of control in the turn is a possibility.

An NMAC or turnaround to head back to the airport in the tight confines of the East River would require steep bank angles as has been pointed out. Possibly a bit of scud added to the difficulties:uhoh:

I'm used to 60 degrees of bank at 40 kt. in a glider -- even at that bank and speed the turn radius is considerable.

According to the NY Times, they hit the North side of the building; so, had turned about 180 degrees, but failed to keep the turn tight enough or began it too close to the shore. Could they have eased the bank and passed to the West of the tower? -- don't know what they would have had to dodge had they done that:confused:

[MNBluestater]

[quote=Permafrost_ATPL;2903935]Anyboydy knows what min alt you must be at for the SR22 parachute to deploy and slow you down enough? I imagine the moment it pops out of its stowage, the drag will cause a stall. So there'll be a time between releasing it and actually getting help from it.
In any case, it's interesting that they did NOT use it.]

A very good article here describing the track record of the use of the parachute on Cirrus aircraft. Says it can be used at altitudes of "several hundred feet."

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=510&print_page=y

BTW, not to be glib, but if you're flying north/northeast over the East River with Manhattan on the left and Queens on the right, or if you're over Manhattan, where exactly do you safely land with a chute???? If you do get back over the river, you're going to sink, chute included...

And, it seems they had already had instructions from ATC to turn and head westbound over Manhattan, which they did, and he probably didn't have time to turn left and make it back out over the river (as discussed above) .

[grimmrad]

Other than the tragic loss of life, my next concern is the possible exploitation of this incident for political purposes. I already heard Congressman King was purportedly mouthing off about restricting GA in the area. Do we ban taxis every time one runs up on the sidewalk killing someone? Twits. Sorry I know this is the choir, so I wont preach.
Flyvmo
VFR mins btw, are that you operate no less than 500 below cloud, 1000 above and 3 miles vis in class echo, not 1000 below as mentioned earlier. Also note the exclusions are class G below 700', which would mean 1 mile vis and clear of clouds.

I am not member of the choir and don't see it politically but here are my thoughts as someone living on Roosevelt Isld and working on York Ave / 68th street. As someone already mentioned here: how can it be that we (and thats all of us - you guys up front and us SLF at the back) are not allowed to take water into a plane with us, no tothpaste, sometimes even no books - and you can still go, get a private plane and just fly happily (or hopefuly never: grimly) right next to Manhattan over the East River...? I thought one of the lessons coming from 9/11 was to make airspace more restricted and supervised in critical areas (and I count Manhattan as one of those). What prevents some malevolent person from loading a plane with XYZ unpleasant stuff and go for it? Obviously nothing, 5 years after 9/11 -that is what worries me!!

[MNBluestater]

I am not member of the choir and don't see it politically but here are my thoughts as someone living on Roosevelt Isld and working on York Ave / 68th street. As someone already mentioned here: how can it be that we (and thats all of us - you guys up front and us SLF at the back) are not allowed to take water into a plane with us, no tothpaste, sometimes even no books - and you can still go, get a private plane and just fly happily (or hopefuly never: grimly) right next to Manhattan over the East River...? I thought one of the lessons coming from 9/11 was to make airspace more restricted and supervised in critical areas (and I count Manhattan as one of those). What prevents some malevolent person from loading a plane with XYZ unpleasant stuff and go for it? Obviously nothing, 5 years after 9/11 -that is what worries me!!

Be interesting to know what kind of screening of cargo goes on at GA airports in the area...probably none...

[dublinpilot]

What prevents some malevolent person from loading a plane with XYZ unpleasant stuff and go for it? Obviously nothing, 5 years after 9/11 -that is what worries me!!

Well this airplane was loaded with highly explosive material....avgas.....and you saw how little damage it did (other than to its unfortunate occupents).

Hardly a useful tool for terrorists. I don't think even sucide terrorists would be interested in causing an incident where they were the only ones to die. :rolleyes:

Stopping them getting their hands on a fully fueled airliner is obviously more important.

dp

[Dop]

Then again, you can put a heck of a lot more 'XYZ unpleasant stuff' in a rented truck than you could ever put in a light aircraft, and do a load more damage that way. And that's a lot easier to get hold of.

Give it a while, and the only way you'll ever be able to tell anything happened to that building is look for the spot that looks less weathered than the bits around it.

[grimmrad]

Well this airplane was loaded with highly explosive material....avgas.....and you saw how little damage it did (other than to its unfortunate occupents).
Hardly a useful tool for terrorists. I don't think even sucide terrorists would be interested in causing an incident where they were the only ones to die. :rolleyes:
Stopping them getting their hands on a fully fueled airliner is obviously more important.
dp

What about more explosiv stuff? Or even worse: some radioactive material or biological agents to be spread (or sprayed) from the plane?? No enough to kill probably - but can you imagine the panick of the people once it gets known (if it gets known but I am not going that way now)...

[MichaelJP59]

Yes, wasn't there that Cessna that crashed into the White House a few years back? Damage? After shovelling away the bent aluminium, a few chipped stone blocks and a bit of repainting required.

A fully fuelled 757 at speed has 1000s of times the kinetic energy without even accounting for the energy stored in the jet fuel.

I hope this doesn't lead to more GA flying restrictions.

[grimmrad]

Then again, you can put a heck of a lot more 'XYZ unpleasant stuff' in a rented truck than you could ever put in a light aircraft, and do a load more damage that way. And that's a lot easier to get hold of.
Give it a while, and the only way you'll ever be able to tell anything happened to that building is look for the spot that looks less weathered than the bits around it.
Completely agree. I am not paranoid but ever since moving to NYC from Boston you kind of have this nagging feeling that you are sitting in the bulls eye for about anything...

[ChristiaanJ]

MNBluestater,
Many thanks for flyingmag link to the article about the parachute.

[Ozzy]

An article in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/sports/baseball/08yankees.html?ex=1315368000&en=f488e3344c30a4f4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)from early September this year...eerie.

Ozzy

[RatherBeFlying]

Interestingly aardvark2zz's 314 m diameter from Roosevelt Island seems to intersect with the building:uhoh:

Google map for 72nd Street and York Avenue, new york, ny and proceeding towards the east River shows the red-brick tower that got hit. It's flanked by a white building to the East and a yellow building to the West that match up with the pictures in the NY Times.

There are two towers just to the North so that if you fly through the gap between them you are lined up with the accident site:uhoh:

Just to the North the buildings seem considerably lower, though I do not know how close that is to the LaGuardia CZ.

[aardvark2zz]

Here I've expanded the bank, V stall, and crab angle numbers vs turn diameter and wind speed.

The crab angle (of 9 to 13 deg pointing away from manhattan) and low wing design might have blocked the view of the pilot prior to initiating a left turn.

I've also included the right turn 180 degrees i.e. turning from manhattan towards the east which would have improved his bank angle and stall margin (see -13 kt wind).

There were also gusts of 19kts reported.

In the extreme situation the bank angle goes to 60 degrees and a stall of 71 knots.

Note: I assumed 80 kts. Numbers could have been much worse at other speeds. e.g. 70 kts would have worsen the stall margin, and 90 kts would have made the bank angle even worse.

http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000Image4.gif


Here are some bank and stall numbers for a 180 degree turn over the east river.
The East River is 628 meters wide there. I also showed the numbers for half that width (note: there is an island in the middle of the East River).
There was also a 13 kt wind pushing him towards manhattan.
As you can see the bank angle goes from 29 to 56 degrees (the latter assumes 314 meter diameter turn and 13 kt wind). Also, stall speed goes up from 53 to 67 kts (50 on a straight line).
As you can see a lot of banking is required
kts m kts deg kts
vel dia wind bank Vstall
______________________________________
80 628 0 29 53
80 628 13 37 56
80 314 0 48 61
80 314 13 56 67
assumed Vstall was 50 kts
Here is part of the NYC VTA showing the VFR corridors. Boy, it badly points to the east river area labelled "70/11". That's why I chose to not fly the east river !!!? You can fly from ground up to 1000 ft.
The hudson river is better labelled as "70/+11". You can fly from ground up to 1100 ft.

[Marsh Hawk]

I looked at the radar history for JFK mentioned earlier several times this afternoon. The plane coming down the East River seems to end up 200-300 feet below the Cirrus at the time the two planes actually converge on screen. It's very strange the plane seems to have turned off his transponder after making a sudden left turn and dropping altitude (possibly to avoid a midair with the Cirrus?)

Granted, I'm an armchair investigator here, but this incident hasn't been mentioned in the media, and I'm wondering why. Usually the papers eat this stuff up.

[hankmc]

Try this site http://www4.passur.com/lga.html it is keyed to LGA and you can get down to the 5 mile range which gives a clear picture of the flight path. 10/11/2006 start time of 14:40 shows the aircraft in the lower left corner over the East River on the 5 mile range setting.

[172driver]

Be interesting to know what kind of screening of cargo goes on at GA airports in the area...probably none...

And what kind of screening of stuff YOU put in your trunk is done ?? Believe me - you can get a lot more nasties in a normal sedan than in a light aircraft. And to drive said sedan, you don't even need a TSA background check, horror of horrors :E

[vaneyck]

Network news is weighing in. The anchor on the NBC evening news show just asked sternly, "Why are small planes allowed to fly so close to tall buildings?" Later he wondered darkly, "what if there had been explosives on board?" He then reassured the Great American Public that "authorities" are looking into changing the flight rules to bar such flights, if only the powerful special interest lobbies don't hamper the drive to keep us all safe. What a bunch of overreactive twits the G.A.P. have become, largely thanks to the news media, with a big assist from the politicians.

[ChristiaanJ]

vaneyck,
I couldn't agree more.
Why on earth would they repeat the same scenario, when there are so many different and better ones?
Why endlessly fight the last war, rather than REALLY think ahead?
Think about it, the next time they ask you to take off your shoes at a "security" check :ugh: .

[FlyVMO]

Grimmrad-
What, practically speaking, is gained by restricting the airspace? News helicopters would not be able to operate, tour helicopters would not be able to operate (representing a sizable loss of economic activity), traffic watch aircraft could not operate, and law abiding pilots would not be able to fly around the city. You can not do News and Traffic on a flight plan. Only a false sense of security would be gained.
Creating a restricted zone, say 30 NM in diameter would be fairly typical of the TFRs sporadically used here for Presidential visits. So say 15 NM to penetrate perimeter to center. A typical late model four seat aircraft, say a C172S, cruising at an IAS of 120 knots, would take roughly 7.5 minutes to cover this distance. Yesterday they had fighters in the air "within 20 minutes" according to the NORAD spokesperson I saw on TV. So a hypothetical terrorist, approaching from outside and behaving himself until the last moment, would have buried his aircraft in the chosen target (doing little more than the damage seen yesterday, due to the small payload), and FDNY would probably be there before the fighters. Or would you prefer putting Patriot missile batteries on all buildings over 20 stories? Or should we give up private flying altogether, in response to the destruction wrought using commercial aircraft?
As stated elsewhere, the potential threat from everyday ground vehicles is far greater, as is the threat from marine shipping. Aircraft depart from a very limited number of points compared to cars and trucks, and people at airports are familiar with normal operations and likely to spot out-of-place individuals/actions before they get very far. You should have seen the questions people darted at me the first week I was on this job, based out of Linden.
The terrorists of 9-11 really do seem to have done the job here in the US. The fear card plays all to well. The sad thing is that no one seems willing to consider the idea that terrorism is best fought not with weapons, but by subtler means. People hate the US for a reason, perhaps it is amplified by fundamentalist hate mongers, but our foriegn policies have given them a groundwork to build from. It is this, their motivation, which we must remove. Remove that, and terrorists organizations will cease to find new recruits.
Rant ended. for now.
FlyVMO

[ship's power]

A little off subject, but I am told that a Cirrus aircraft that is parachute equiped, is considered trashed once it lands via it's emergency parachute.

Pull the emergency chute handle and $189,000 is automatically flushed. - Obviously irrelevant if saving your life however.

[FlyVMO]

Ship's power-
Yes I too have read this, prior to this incident. Detailed info on the company website requires a login though. (www.cirrusdesign.com)
Flyvmo

[ship's power]

Is a Cirrus SR -20 considered a high performance / complex airplane for novice flying purposes? The Cirrus Company website list's their SR20 as an "intro" aircraft, but the FAA considers any aircraft with a constant speed prop and 200hp or more, as a "high performance" aircraft.

Not quite as complex as Munson's Citation jet, however (Cory was only 7 yrs old when Thurman had crashed it). Both he and Cory were with flight instructors, and both were at about the same age when they had crashed (Cory had logged just under 100 hrs PIC / Munson about 350hrs PIC/10hrs PIC Turbine).

Very irreverent, but I remember an old sarcastic phrase which adequately described rich men and their neophyte flying ability - "If it were not for the Beechcraft Bonanza, we would all be up to our ass's in doctors".

In those day's, wealthy professional doctors preferred the high performance, but expensive Bonanza. I recall a low time doctor that had moved up from an Ercoupe directly to a Bonanza. A smoking hole in our neighborhood's Laundromat was the result.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

Pull the emergency chute handle and $189,000 is automatically flushed

Well that's why you have insurance.

[nobodyinnyc]

I see on the LGA passur tracks beginning around 14:40 an A319 arriving from MSP, NWA506, descending as low as 1400 ft for runway 4 at LGA just to the east of the Cirrus who was northbound over the East River at around 34th street -- then NWA506 began a climb back up to 4000 ft for a go around, overflying LGA, then turning left 180 for the downwind south over Manhattan, landing at LGA at 14:57.

Any way to find out why NWA506 did not land on the first approach? Were they ordered to climb and go around in order to accomodate an possible emergency landing by the Cirrus at LGA after a mayday call?

The pax sitting on the left side of the A319 would have had a clear view of the Cirrus crash at an altitude of 3000 ft, unless already in the clouds.


http://www4.passur.com/lga.html

start at 14:40

[ship's power]

Well that's why you have insurance.

I know, but for some, it's hard to knowingly trash your beloved airplane - Ego and the human condition.

[MNBluestater]

Try this site http://www4.passur.com/lga.html it is keyed to LGA and you can get down to the 5 mile range which gives a clear picture of the flight path. 10/11/2006 start time of 14:40 shows the aircraft in the lower left corner over the East River on the 5 mile range setting.

This gives a really clear picture of the convergence of the two aircraft, but TIME MUST BE SET AT 14:39 !!!!!!!!

[snowfalcon2]

Pull the emergency chute handle and $189,000 is automatically flushed.

Not automatically. As an example, the airplane where the chute was first deployed in earnest (2002, aileron attachment failed due to servicing error) was returned to service after only minor repairs. It depends mostly on where the airplane comes down; in this case it was in some bushes if I remember correctly.

[ORAC]

Failed U-turn eyed in crash (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/461162p-388014c.html)

[MNBluestater]

This is weird. http://www4.passur.com/lga.html set at 13:39 watch through to 14: southbound a/c reappears over queens, near Statue of Liberty at 14:40:24; then switch to http://www4.passur.com/ewr.html, set at 13:39 goes up Hudson, turns around again, then comes back down, circles Statue of Lib, and drops off radar again (landed somewhere?) Sightseeing or looking to see what happened to Lidle ??

IMHO, and this will irritate GA enthusiasts, "sightseeing" around Manhattan should be banned. Get on with the business of filing flight plans to and from Teterboro and other g/a airports in the area. If you want a sightseeing trip around New York, take a visitor tour bus. NYC is too much of a target and airspace is much too busy for this nonsense.

[slim_slag]

Pertinent part of chart.

For those not familiar with FAA charts, there are three H on the island in the middle of the picture. That is Manhattan Island and those mean helicopter pads. There is a small amount of airspace deliniated by a blue line just to the right of the two H on the right of the island. That airspace is defined on the surface by the East River which is your visual feature. That airspace is class E from 700ft to 1099ft so you can be in there without a clearance. You can see the class E shuts off at the north end by Class B at La Guardia, and is surrounded on both east and west by Class B to the surface. Essentially its a box canyon of class E airspace surrounded by walls of class B and it's not very wide at all.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m258/slim_slag/proon/manhattn-1.jpg

Most light GA traffic traverses via the Hudson River corridor to the west of Manhattan. The Hudson corridor is fine as long as you have good VMC, I would have never considered flying up the East River in a fixed wing as it just looks plain daft unless you are already talking to La Guardia tower and they have already cleared you into the Class B either across Manhattan Island or overhead LGA. In hindsight they should have just bust the class B over Manhattan over Central Park and stayed alive to try get their ticket back after the FAA pulled it. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

[rick22]

I've made the trip many times - East River north, cross Central Park, Hudson River north/south. LGA is very accomodating and clears you to 1500' upon request - they'll hand you off to EWR if you want. This keeps you above the non-controlled traffic and above the buildings. Both towers are very good if you can keep up with the pace of the R/T.

They were down to a only a few options by the time they got to the East River. They probably coudn't request Class B b/c of the low ceilings - 1800'. Scud running isn't a good idea if you can avoid it. Then they had to make the turn at low altitude to stay clear of LGA. A VFR pilot shouldn't have flown that day anyways - heavy rain and even lower clouds moved in about 2 hours after the accident. Your margin of error has to higher if you are VFR.

If they allow the traffic again, I'd recommend taking the flight - it's worth it. From the south, I usually requested Class B from EWR tower around the VZ bridge. They'd hand me off to LGA - or you can just stay clear of Class B until Governor's Island and request directly to LGA. I just didn't want to mess with all the helicopters and other GA aircraft at low altitudes.

As far as requiring flight plans - 1) the system isn't set up for it, not enough controllers. They tried it before with the ADIZ after 9/11 and it was arguably less safe because there are the same number of controllers dealing with way more aircraft; 2) anyone can file a flight plan; 3) there is more danger with the hundreds of thousands of cars/trucks that enter Manhattan each day. Nobody is checking the contents of those cars, and it's FAR easier to get a driver's license than a pilot's license.

[FlyVMO]

MNBluestater-
Suggest you re-read my earlier post then explain to me exactly how filing flight plans will increase security. Do think terrorists are stupid? Do you think they can't learn how to file a flight plan? Furthermore, WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER WITH GA WHEN THEY CAN LOAD 50,000# OF EXPLOSIVES ON A TRUCK AND DRIVE RIGHT INTO THE HEART OF MANHATTAN?????
Increasingly aggravated
FlyVMO

[filejw]

The CNN morning guy (US) flew the same route yesterday in his Cirrus. They were at abut 2000' and with ATC. Looking at the East River it sure didn't look like there was much room for error to make a 180 and stay legal.The weather didn't help either.Considering Mr Lidle's low time and Mr Stanger's unfamiliarity with the NY area it could have been a recipe for disaster.

[aardvark2zz]

Good summary !

Don't you mean up to 1000 ft (100ft below controlled space). I wouldn't want to fly only 1 foot below controlled airspace.

Note: I've done the Hudson river but not the East River cause I wasn't comfortable with the way it was presented on the chart; barely readable on VTA.

Pertinent part of chart.
For those not familiar with FAA charts, there are three H on the island in the middle of the picture. That is Manhattan Island and those mean helicopter pads. There is a small amount of airspace deliniated by a blue line just to the right of the two H on the right of the island. That airspace is defined on the surface by the East River which is your visual feature. That airspace is class E from 700ft to 1099ft so you can be in there without a clearance. You can see the class E shuts off at the north end by Class B at La Guardia, and is surrounded on both east and west by Class B to the surface. Essentially its a box canyon of class E airspace surrounded by walls of class B and it's not very wide at all.........

[MNBluestater]

MNBluestater-
Suggest you re-read my earlier post then explain to me exactly how filing flight plans will increase security. Do think terrorists are stupid? Do you think they can't learn how to file a flight plan? Furthermore, WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER WITH GA WHEN THEY CAN LOAD 50,000# OF EXPLOSIVES ON A TRUCK AND DRIVE RIGHT INTO THE HEART OF MANHATTAN?????
Increasingly aggravated
FlyVMO

Rationale: Filing a flight plan actually gets data down on whoever is flying what aircraft whenever and where they planned to go, crew and pax aboard. One extra layer of prevention.

In Lidle's and his flight instructor's case, maybe with filling out a flight plan they would have gotten a little bit more serious about what they were trying to do...

Why the drumbeat of can't-can't-can't ---it just opens up the NYC to the same security risks as WTC in the 1990's and 9/11/01...Terror is going to happen again.

That said, with the realities of the new age:

1. First, why aren't more controllers available to handle g/a traffic with flight plans around NYC...hire more controllers. This is the nation's largest city. If we do it to handle ground traffic at an airport like O'Hare it isn't rocket science to staff up.

2. FLYVMO, by the way, try flying GA aircraft over the Capitol and White House you'll have a surface-to-air on your tail and license pulled immediately. Or should have. Why aren't we protecting the largest city in the United States this way too? Exceptions can be made for television helicopters, first responders, tour operators, air ambulance, and business copters (just like we have cleared "frequent business travelers" through TSA).

3. FLYVMO, ever consider that some nutjob/terrorist might drop a nuclear dirty bomb out an aircraft, or a bag/bomb of ricin or anthrax that explodes at altitude of 400 ft as a way of creating terror...not entirely out of the realm...and would be an easier way to cause terror (than trying to buy massive amounts of ammonia and fertilizer like McVey did....)

4. Why HASN'T there been a system set up to screen truck cargo going in and out of Manhattan -- a mandatory licensing and tracking system set up for trucks and cargo into Manhattan, the major shippers could interface their computer data with this. No license to ship into Manhattan or tracking system--you no enter. Same could go for DC, surrounded by water as well...Not rocket science here. Our government should be ashamed for the way they haven't funded homeland security.

We never seem to anticipate disasters until the "accident" happens. Witness 9/11 (and FAA NOT given the information they needed to increase the security level threat), the New Orleans crappy dikes, the advancement of protection for our nation's leaders after they've already passed on...

End of soapbox.

[patrickal]

[QUOTE=MNBluestater;2906898]FLYVMO, dropping a nuclear dirty bomb out a window, a bomb of ricin , or anthrax that explodes at altitude 300 ft ever occur to you...not entirely out of the realm...and it is one of the easier ways to cause terror (than trying to buy massive amounts of ammonia and fertilizer like McVey did....)QUOTE]

I think the bigger point is that for a terrorist to use a GA aircraft to create any kind of serious havoc is possible, but not at all probable. Having worked in NYC for many years, there are many easier ways of doing this without dealing with the complexity of getting an airplane. Could it happen? Sure. But there are many other possibilites that can deliver more damage with less effort, and that is where the powers that be need to focus their attention. Just watch the traffic into and out of the city's tunnels each day. Back packs on the subway system, luggage in airports before it gets checked in, unmarked repair trucks on city streets, etc. Given all of the air traffic that occurs in and over the city, I think the track record for aircraft hitting buildings is pretty low. The press is whipping this into a frenzy. Calmer minds need to prevail.

[slim_slag]

Good summary !Thanks!
Don't you mean up to 1000 ft (100ft below controlled space). I wouldn't want to fly only 1 foot below controlled airspace.
Note: I've done the Hudson river but not the East River cause I wasn't comfortable with the way it was presented on the chart; barely readable on VTA.Thought somebody might pick me up on the lower level of Class E, not the higher :) The base of the Class B starts at 1100 and there has to be something 1 foot lower at 1099, that is Class E. You may not want to fly 1ft below the Class B, but it's available if you do. As you are < 3000ft VFR cruising altitudes don't apply. I've always thought that all the legal distances from 'vessel, vehicle, structure' , altitude AGL above what is certainly a congested area, and altitudes above surrounding buildings are not really observed to the letter of the law in those corridors.

[MNBluestater]

[quote=MNBluestater;2906898]FLYVMO, dropping a nuclear dirty bomb out a window, a bomb of ricin , or anthrax that explodes at altitude 300 ft ever occur to you...not entirely out of the realm...and it is one of the easier ways to cause terror (than trying to buy massive amounts of ammonia and fertilizer like McVey did....)QUOTE]

I think the bigger point is that for a terrorist to use a GA aircraft to create any kind of serious havoc is possible, but not at all probable. Having worked in NYC for many years, there are many easier ways of doing this without dealing with the complexity of getting an airplane. Could it happen? Sure. But there are many other possibilites that can deliver more damage with less effort, and that is where the powers that be need to focus their attention. Just watch the traffic into and out of the city's tunnels each day. Back packs on the subway system, luggage in airports before it gets checked in, unmarked repair trucks on city streets, etc. Given all of the air traffic that occurs in and over the city, I think the track record for aircraft hitting buildings is pretty low. The press is whipping this into a frenzy. Calmer minds need to prevail.


and would include g/a aircraft over the city as well with exceptions listed in last note.

[jondc9]

sadly , I think 2 parts of FAR 91.119 were not observed...
paraphrased:

a, which says if a powerplant fails you must have enough altitude to land without endangering others

b. congested area: 1000 feet above the highest obstruction within 2000feet horizontally of the aircraft.

helicopters and takeoffs and landings exempt.

also, is there a PLUS sign in front of the 11 on the terminal chart for area in question...correct me as I don't have a real copy of the chart and wouldn't that mean 1100 feet was ok, but 1101 is not? I don't wish to start a battle over 1 foot, but I just can't see the chart well enough...any thoughts?

jon

[dublinpilot]

Rationale: Filing a flight plan actually gets data down on whoever is flying what aircraft whenever and where they planned to go, crew and pax aboard. One extra layer of prevention.


What ever the justification for increased restriction on GA over NYC, this part does not make sense to me.

Due to the restrictions that apply to the airport that I operate from, I wind up filing flight plans for almost every flight that I make. Only the pilots surname is entered on the flight plan. There is no reference to a licence number, and no way to verify that the commander is actually a pilot, never mind any way of making sure that they are not a terrorist.

There is no details about passengers included on a flight plan.

There is no check that the pilot is the person listed on the flight plan (and no practical way of carrying this out), and no way of checking that the actual number of passengers agrees with that on the flight plan.

In Lidle's and his flight instructor's case, maybe with filling out a flight plan they would have gotten a little bit more serious about what they were trying to do...


This has nothing to do with terrorism, but to do with flight planning. Perhaps you are right here, but there is an alternative view. A pilot may make a quick decision to go flying....for what ever reason. Time is short, and if they must lodge a flight plan before going, then the time taken to file the flight plan will reduce the time available for other flight planning.

dp

[grimmrad]

Grimmrad-
What, practically speaking, is gained by restricting the airspace? News helicopters would not be able to operate, tour helicopters would not be able to operate (representing a sizable loss of economic activity), traffic watch aircraft could not operate, and law abiding pilots would not be able to fly around the city. You can not do News and Traffic on a flight plan. Only a false sense of security would be gained.
Creating a restricted zone, say 30 NM in diameter would be fairly typical of the TFRs sporadically used here for Presidential visits. So say 15 NM to penetrate perimeter to center. A typical late model four seat aircraft, say a C172S, cruising at an IAS of 120 knots, would take roughly 7.5 minutes to cover this distance. Yesterday they had fighters in the air "within 20 minutes" according to the NORAD spokesperson I saw on TV. So a hypothetical terrorist, approaching from outside and behaving himself until the last moment, would have buried his aircraft in the chosen target (doing little more than the damage seen yesterday, due to the small payload), and FDNY would probably be there before the fighters. Or would you prefer putting Patriot missile batteries on all buildings over 20 stories? Or should we give up private flying altogether, in response to the destruction wrought using commercial aircraft?
As stated elsewhere, the potential threat from everyday ground vehicles is far greater, as is the threat from marine shipping. Aircraft depart from a very limited number of points compared to cars and trucks, and people at airports are familiar with normal operations and likely to spot out-of-place individuals/actions before they get very far. You should have seen the questions people darted at me the first week I was on this job, based out of Linden.
The terrorists of 9-11 really do seem to have done the job here in the US. The fear card plays all to well. The sad thing is that no one seems willing to consider the idea that terrorism is best fought not with weapons, but by subtler means. People hate the US for a reason, perhaps it is amplified by fundamentalist hate mongers, but our foriegn policies have given them a groundwork to build from. It is this, their motivation, which we must remove. Remove that, and terrorists organizations will cease to find new recruits.
Rant ended. for now.
FlyVMO

Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph, especially as a non-US citizen (German actually)! As said I also agree that there are probably easier means. I lived in Boston for 4.5 years and the liquified gas terminal and the tankers going in and out would have been so much "better"... On the other hand, why not at least restrict the airspace around Manhattan to people with experience or to professional pilots (e.g. the helicopter guys) as it seems to be a pretty hectic place. Does really everybody with limited experience of flying in the area (or flying at all) have to go around here? According to the NYT it seems to be a pretty busy space (East river corridor) that even experienced pilots avoid if possible. Just as an example to my point: if your kid just had the drivers licence, would you let him drive smack into downtown or rather practice a bit in the backyard and off streets? If you just started skiing, do you go down the black slopes...?

[grimmrad]

[QUOTE=MNBluestater;2906898]FLYVMO, dropping a nuclear dirty bomb out a window, a bomb of ricin , or anthrax that explodes at altitude 300 ft ever occur to you...not entirely out of the realm...and it is one of the easier ways to cause terror (than trying to buy massive amounts of ammonia and fertilizer like McVey did....)QUOTE]
I think the bigger point is that for a terrorist to use a GA aircraft to create any kind of serious havoc is possible, but not at all probable. Having worked in NYC for many years, there are many easier ways of doing this without dealing with the complexity of getting an airplane. Could it happen? Sure. But there are many other possibilites that can deliver more damage with less effort, and that is where the powers that be need to focus their attention. Just watch the traffic into and out of the city's tunnels each day. Back packs on the subway system, luggage in airports before it gets checked in, unmarked repair trucks on city streets, etc. Given all of the air traffic that occurs in and over the city, I think the track record for aircraft hitting buildings is pretty low. The press is whipping this into a frenzy. Calmer minds need to prevail.

You could make the same argument for 9/11 - far too much effort, they had to train for flying airline jets etc. etc. So, sure, it could happened and since we know about it now shouldn't we also act now (and not once again after it had happened)? Sure, other things can happen too (more likely too, I agree, and therefore need to be taken care of) but only because this one sscenario is more unlikely - don't worry about it? Who of us thought on 9/10/2001 that what happened the next day could really happen - far too unlikely, right? Easier ways, right like cars, trucks...?

[slim_slag]

Just as an example to my point: if your kid just had the drivers licence, would you let him drive smack into downtown or rather practice a bit in the backyard and off streets? If you just started skiing, do you go down the black slopes...?If he felt confident then yes I would let him, if he didn't then I'd advise him to practice some more before he went. It's a good analogy. Anyway, there was an instructor on board. Would you stop everybody driving downtown just because your kid crashed down there? What if it was a driving instructor who crashed, would you stop people driving downtown?

[jondc9]

we have log book endorsements for flying "high performance" or "complex" planes


why not the same thing for special sightseeing corridors like this one...you must get a sign off from a CFI with special training/knowledge of local areas to fly in certain areas.

the case really can be made for more ATC control of certain airspace and we must higher more controllers and allocate radar resources etc.

j

[ship's power]

"If they allow the traffic again, I'd recommend taking the flight - it's worth it. From the south, I usually requested Class B from EWR tower around the VZ bridge. They'd hand me off to LGA - or you can just stay clear of Class B"

Aside from the terrorist phobic "Chicken Little's" (Children's fable of needless fear- "the sky is falling"), the main intended purpose of a VFR flight plan is to insure search and rescue when remote areas are transversed VFR (Manhattan a remote area?). For traffic / tracking control purposes, file IFR.

Perhaps the safest solution to our gift of fabulous Manhattan views, would be to establish a "one way street", that is, fly a clockwise only VFR corridor of specific airspace around the entire island, with specific entry and exit points.

[aardvark2zz]

Updated calculations using the data from NTSB of 112 mph. I've also used the SR-20 stall speed.

Note the right-most column about Stall Margins. I assumed that they did not change their speed. Pretty low margins.

What sticks out are the very large bank angles. Less so the stall speeds.

Note: the apartment hit is owned by the lady who was responsible for a NYC parade; more specifically the one where a blimp knocked off some street lights which injured some watchers. She should move away from NYC.

anybody near NYC ?

It would be very nice to have a pic taken of the impact site as seen from approx 700 ft agl and a quarter mile north showing the obstructing buildings . Google earth is not useful here.

any takers :-) and post it here


http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/000zxcImage7.gif


Here I've expanded the bank, V stall, and crab angle numbers vs turn diameter and wind speed.
The crab angle (of 9 to 13 deg pointing away from manhattan) and low wing design might have blocked the view of the pilot prior to initiating a left turn.
I've also included the right turn 180 degrees i.e. turning from manhattan towards the east which would have improved his bank angle and stall margin (see -13 kt wind).
There were also gusts of 19kts reported.
In the extreme situation the bank angle goes to 60 degrees and a stall of 71 knots.
Note: I assumed 80 kts. Numbers could have been much worse at other speeds. e.g. 70 kts would have worsen the stall margin, and 90 kts would have made the bank angle even worse.

[jondc9]

ship's power

wouldn't counter clockwise be better? keep the pilot on the left looking at manhattan, like a left hand traffic pattern.

[jondc9]

aardvark2zz

I applaud your calculations...an accelerated stall, low familiarity with the plane by both pilots (possibly, not yet confirmed) and all starting at below 1000'agl.


flight instructors would prefer to practice stalls above 3000' and accelerated stalls even a bit higher.

and add a possible cross control at the moment of stall!


"stick and rudder" should be required reading for all pilots.

a chandelle, thought likely to break the class B airspace and possibly go into cloud might have been one way out...better to hit a cloud than a building, the on board collision avoidance device would have helped out for possible IFR traffic.

[grimmrad]

If he felt confident then yes I would let him, if he didn't then I'd advise him to practice some more before he went. It's a good analogy. Anyway, there was an instructor on board. Would you stop everybody driving downtown just because your kid crashed down there? What if it was a driving instructor who crashed, would you stop people driving downtown?

Of course the analogy is not complete, I would let him drive downtown if I feeel comfortable with his driving skills (he is 19 months now so not quite there yet - though he can say "auto" now...). However, the NYT reports that although the instructor was skilled he only flew once before in the discussed airspace (you may need to register for free at NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/nyregion/13instructor.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1160769135-a5o41bzpmIRuG7O1Q7tTEQ).I like the above mentioned idea of the "one way airspace" though the pilots among us have to decide if that is practical.

Best

[dublinpilot]

Don't ever trust the press for facts. In my experience the never get the facts 100% correct. They're usually doing well if they get it more than 50% right in my expierence.

[grimmrad]

Don't ever trust the press for facts. In my experience the never get the facts 100% correct. They're usually doing well if they get it more than 50% right in my expierence.

I don't - but even though the NYT has done its shares of journalistic mistakes (i.e. Irak war) - they tend to be one of the more reliable ones.

[Marsh Hawk]

If he felt confident then yes I would let him, if he didn't then I'd advise him to practice some more before he went. It's a good analogy. Anyway, there was an instructor on board. Would you stop everybody driving downtown just because your kid crashed down there? What if it was a driving instructor who crashed, would you stop people driving downtown?

With all the "uncontrolled" civil aviation happening every day around Manhattan Island (I heard one Congressman equate it to the Wild West!) isn't it amazing that there haven't been more accidents before this one? I haven't even heard any statistics mentioned in the papers about how many successful "uncontrolled" flights there are every year through this airspace.

[Marsh Hawk]

Don't ever trust the press for facts. In my experience the never get the facts 100% correct. They're usually doing well if they get it more than 50% right in my expierence.

No kidding. I haven't read in any press report yet the fact that the chute must be deployed in order to function. A cover has to be removed, then a handle pulled...they just report the chute didn't deploy, as if it were some self deploying mechanism.

[RobertS975]

Failed U-turn eyed in crash (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/461162p-388014c.html)

Contributing to the failed U turn in the East River "box canyon" corridor is the fact that the winds were from the east... JFK was reporting winds from 100 10G19... so as the northbound plane turned left to start its 180, the plane's downwind course drove it steadily towards Manhattan Island. The VFR corridor extends only to the river's edge... crossing over the river bank is a Class B airspace violation. This no doubt led to an increasing bank angle, probable loss of altitude, and at the end of the day, the downwind turn in this narrow corridor with probable loss of altitude due to steepening bank of the turn led to the accident.

Obviously, things would have been far better had they simply busted the Class B airspace. It is clear that plenty of accidents happen because pilots are desperately trying to avoid breaking some rule. The GADO hearing officer may have even been a Yankee fan and let him off with a warning.

[aardvark2zz]

Makes me laugh to read the 2 following opposing conclusions ! :ugh: :yuk: :E :mad: :confused:
--------------------------------------------------------
Failed U-turn eyed in crash
Tough maneuver, say other pilots BY PETE DONOHUE, AUSTIN FENNER and GREG B. SMITH DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Pilot Henry Duran at Essex County Airport says route up East River poses problems because aircraft have to make U-turn in a narrow corridor below 96th St.
Evidence is emerging that Cory Lidle's plane tried to make a quick turn in a tight spot - and couldn't make it.
The plane was flying north up the East River at 112 mph, staying as far east as it could go between Roosevelt Island and Queens, as if preparing to make a left turn.
Somewhere above the 70s, the plane "made a left turn back toward the south," said Debbie Hersman, lead investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.
The plane then quickly dropped 200 feet and was last recorded on radar five blocks north of the E. 72nd St. building at an altitude of 500 feet.
Seconds later it slammed into the high-rise.
Another indicator of possible pilot error is that at no time did the unique built-in parachute deploy. Investigators say the ejector apparently detonated on impact and that the parachute was found at the scene, still "tightly packed."
Then there is preliminary evidence that the propellers were still powered by the engine when the plane struck the building, investigators said, an early sign that the fueling system was functioning properly.Federal investigators won't make a formal conclusion about the cause of the crash for months, but so far have no evidence to support initial reports that the crew made a Mayday call.
"I would say that the limited evidence we have to this point tends to point to possible pilot error - but it would be prudent to confirm that there were no issues with aircraft before concluding that's the cause,.....
.... (pilot) "I never went back in there again because I thought it was too tight."
-------------------------------------------
Expert: Lidle Crash Probably Due to Mechanical Failure or Other 'Distractions' ABC's Nance Says Small Aircraft Are Not a Serious Terrorist Threat By ASHLEY PHILLIPS
Oct. 12, 2006 — The small plane crash that killed New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle, Wednesday, was probably caused by a mechanical failure, ABC News aviation expert John Nance said Thursday.
"What we probably have here is something catastrophic going on in that airplane," said Nance. "Fire, engine progressively coming apart and … something going wrong because we've got two qualified guys on a clear day who suddenly are unable to figure out that their airplane is headed [into a building]."
Lidle reportedly boarded a single-engine Cirrus SR20 plane Wednesday afternoon with flight instructor Tyler Stanger for what was presumably a flight around New York City. The pair took off from a New Jersey airport, circled around the Statue of Liberty, flew past lower Manhattan and then north above the East River.
After passing over the 59th Street Bridge on the reportedly 20-minute flight, the plane smashed into a condo building on the Upper East Side, killing both Lidle and Stanger.
Nance based his assessment on the reported flight path and eyewitness accounts. AA>> Eyewitnesses. Hahahahahaa <<
A Stalled Plane or Flight Distractions?
Because of the flight path and the fact that the plane did not end up in the East River, Nance said he did not believe the plane had stalled.
......then the only thing left is distraction," he said. "How do you get distracted in a small airplane with a clear canopy? You get distracted if you're fighting for your life somehow, and that means either flight control problems or something else." ........

[RatherBeFlying]

No problem with a C-172 at 70 kt. and the newspapers are turning up a number of pilots who have done it just fine -- along with quite a few who have taken a pass.

They could have flown up East of Roosevelt Island and made the turn at the North end -- the river's 850 m. wide at that point and there's several blocks before the 50 story towers on the West bank start getting in the way of errant a/c.

Looks like an NPRM mandating a counter-clockwise circuit around Roosevelt Island and a maximum airspeed will be in the works.

Who would have dreamed of a box canyon accident in Manhattan?

[rick22]

I just don't see how mandating a pattern makes much sense or solves any problem. A counter-clockwise pattern around Roosevelt Island puts you even closer to the buildings...that's sure to inspire public confidence in any "new rules".

I do think that the unfamiliarity of Class B (particularly NYC's) and the intimidation factor of dealing with ATC in Class B plays a big role here. If they had requested Class B/higher altitude, they would be clear of all obstacles - buildings, bridges, majority of other GA traffic, etc. I guess it's just reality that some people are intimidated by ATC and the R/T in a busy airspace like NYC. Because of this, they don't ask for Class B entry and prefer to avoid it altogether - I've always erred on the side of calling up ATC and getting service whenever I'm near busy airspace. It's ok to avoid controlled airspace when you're in less congested areas.

Maybe the FAA should recommend additional R/T training for the PPL - I think it's just 5-10 hours now and mostly at Class D airports. I'm still just PPL (non-instrument) but learned my flying out of RDU Class C and then NYC Class B - I think the experience was invaluable in learning to keep up with the pace of ATC in busy areas like this. I live on the on NJ side of the Hudson and constantly see fixed wing flying very low amongst all the helicopter traffic - I just always shake my head and wonder why people want to hassle with the numerous helicopters. There isn't a lot of sightseeing difference between 800' and 1500' (my opinion).

In every flight, you are required to be familiar with the airspace through which you are about to fly. I don't know why they would have thought a u-turn in a relatively unfamiliar aircraft at 100+ knots at 500-700' AGL in a narrow corridor of unfamiliar airspace was a good idea.

People make mistakes - I just hope that others learn from it and learn to prepare, think ahead, and ask for help if you have any doubt whatsoever.

If you plan to fly near Manhattan, please, call LGA on 126.05 and request 1500'.

[rick22]

Breaking news... FAA bans low altitude flights along the East River...

www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com) - no further details.

Booooooo...

[rick22]

I guess it's a compromise...must be under ATC control above 1100' for fixed wing on the East River. Helicopters are still able to fly below 1100' without permission...which makes perfect sense of course.

Why knee jerk and only go half-way? Must be elections in a few weeks...

[aclark79]

Breaking news... FAA bans low altitude flights along the East River...

www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com) - no further details.

Booooooo...

I was there this afternoon doing photo missions throught Manhattan and there were no special restrictions.

I don't belive there are any reasons to impose any new restrictions, I think that the pilot mad ea serious judgement error and paid the price, no worse than people who drive to fast on the freeway for conditions and end up getting killed. Airspace restrictions or the lack thereof played little or no role.

I flew right over the building, its scorched up pretty good on the outside, it is hard to undertand how they hit it from the river when the crash site is on the north side, just south of a taller building. I'll try to get a picture up soon.

-Aaron Clark
Helicopter Flight Training
Long Island NY

[aclark79]

What about more explosiv stuff? Or even worse: some radioactive material or biological agents to be spread (or sprayed) from the plane?? No enough to kill probably - but can you imagine the panick of the people once it gets known (if it gets known but I am not going that way now)...


You could load anything you want, and do alot of damage potentially, but the fact is, unless they place SAM's atop every rooftop, and have itchy trigger fingers (leading to lots of accidently shot down aircraft) then nothing will stop a terrorist in the air.

The only place to stop them is on the ground, before they take off.

Fighters would take to long. Airspace restrictions (Total ban over the city) can't actually stop anything (its not a force field). Shoulder missles from troopies on the ground would end up shooting down to many friendlies and even if we did shoot them down, if they had biological or radiological agents, shooting them down would just spread it around the area outside of Manhattan, but still in a populated area.

[grimmrad]

You could load anything you want, and do alot of damage potentially, but the fact is, unless they place SAM's atop every rooftop, and have itchy trigger fingers (leading to lots of accidently shot down aircraft) then nothing will stop a terrorist in the air.
The only place to stop them is on the ground, before they take off.
Fighters would take to long. Airspace restrictions (Total ban over the city) can't actually stop anything (its not a force field). Shoulder missles from troopies on the ground would end up shooting down to many friendlies and even if we did shoot them down, if they had biological or radiological agents, shooting them down would just spread it around the area outside of Manhattan, but still in a populated area.

I think we can settle down the terrorist discussion as it leads to nothing. I guess we all agree that safety could be improved by various practical and unpractical ways. However, if the East River area is an airspace that is problematic I as a person living and working right there on the ground appreciate that if something good comes out of this tragic accident than it is more attention towards this fact and maybe some better regulations. Those who want to see NYC from air can still hire a professional pilot - so why not requiring special training/knowledge/licensing if you want to fly around in a tight airspace, surrounded by densly populated areas, high rising buildings, bridges and 3 major airports (sounds like a no-brainer to me...)?

[MNBluestater]

Breaking news... FAA bans low altitude flights along the East River...


Small aircraft ban on East River unless in contact with ATC...

FAA Restricts Flights Over East River
By LESLIE MILLER (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
October 14, 2006 2:29 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - Reacting to the crash that killed a New York Yankees pitcher, the Federal Aviation Administration has added new flight restrictions to the air space over New York's East River.
The regulations will affect small aircraft, but not helicopters, that were previously permitted to fly over the river, which runs along the east side of Manhattan Island.
Also exempted are planes that fly in and out of a seaplane base in the river. Pilots of those aircraft are more familiar with the airspace than most private pilots.
Under Friday's announcement by the FAA, most small, fixed-wing planes are banned from the area unless the pilot is in contact with air traffic controllers.
The new flight restrictions went into immediate effect.
The FAA, though, said it changed the rule because of safety rather than security considerations.
"You get some real strange winds going through those canyons of buildings," said Bill Waldock, aviation safety professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University at Prescott, Ariz.
"It's a weird area to try to maneuver airplanes in anyway," Waldock said.

[slim_slag]

!FDC 6/3495 ZNY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, VFR FLIGHT OPERATIONS INVOLVING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT (EXCLUDING AMPHIBIOUS FIXED WING AIRCRAFT LANDING OR DEPARTING NEW YORK SKYPORTS INC SEAPLANE BASE) IN THE EAST RIVER CLASS B EXCLUSION AREA EXTENDING FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN TIP OF GOVERNORS ISLAND TO THE NORTH TIP OF ROOSEVELT ISLAND, ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED BY ATC. TO OBTAIN AUTHORIZATION CONTACT LGA ATCT SOUTH OF GOVERNORS ISLAND ON 126.05.
Probably sensible and should be all it needs.

[mstram]

yesterday in his Cirrus. They were at abut 2000' and with ATC.
If I ever flew in that area, that's the only way I would do it.
I've flown a couple of times around CYYZ airspace at 1600 msl (1000 agl) / No ATC and it made me very nervous to be that low.

... Never mind ~500 above a river and in a densely built up area !

Mike

[MNBluestater]

Note: the apartment hit is owned by the lady who was responsible for a NYC parade; more specifically the one where a blimp knocked off some street lights which injured some watchers. She should move away from NYC.



The resident of the apartment was the person injured by the street lights.

[aardvark2zz]

How would contacting ATC have helped in this accident ??? Or prevent a future one ??

I say force small planes to fly 100 ft below the CZ. e.g. at 1100 ft over Hudson and 1000 ft over East River.

I flew at 1000-1100 ft over the Hudson and those bridges and skyscrapers are mighty close !!

Breaking news... FAA bans low altitude flights along the East River...

www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com) - no further details.

Booooooo...

[mm_flynn]

It helps in two ways

1 - it looks like the government is 'doing something':ugh: and the doing is not that over the top.

2 - Most people, if in contact with ATC would probably go left over Central Park and go a bit higher, reducing the need to make the tight U-turn.

[jondc9]

"U Turn"


there are so many other course reversal techniques...I wonder if a right 90 left 270 would have been better here? it would have kept the plane over the river.


as many people know, "ground reference maneuvers" are part of pilot training, sadly they become less important in modern flying...perhaps a new emphasis is needed?

j

[grimmrad]

How would contacting ATC have helped in this accident ??? Or prevent a future one ??
I say force small planes to fly 100 ft below the CZ. e.g. at 1100 ft over Hudson and 1000 ft over East River.
I flew at 1000-1100 ft over the Hudson and those bridges and skyscrapers are mighty close !!

I would imagine that it also hightens situation awareness instead of just stolling along and look out of the window to your left and sometimes into peoples livingroom...

[jondc9]

having to contact ATC will scare many less experienced pilots away from this area.

perhaps this is a good thing.

a pilot with some experience will not worry terribly about talking and sqwaking


I hope anyone who flys around that area will also be experienced enough to keep their landing lights on

[jondc9]

i just spoke with someone who flew a similiar route, using higher levels of precaution. his 180degree turn requried 60 degrees of bank...same plane, same speed(though not letting it deteriorate to a stall), higher altitude with atc blessing.

also the turn was started closer to the eastern shore of the east river, not the western shore.

that stall table vs angle of bank seems to be the right course for the investigation.

j

[barit1]

Item: CRJ attempts night TO on KLEX rwy 26 - unlit, too short, fatal accident

Corrective action: KY governor requests closing rwy 26 (& 08, presumably)

Item: Low-time pilot attempts VFR 180 in a figurative box canyon, fatal accident

Corrective action: Politicians seek to close the VFR airspace over East River

General election is only 3 weeks off. Vote early and often! :rolleyes:

[MNBluestater]

Item: CRJ attempts night TO on KLEX rwy 26 - unlit, too short, fatal accident

Corrective action: KY governor requests closing rwy 26 (& 08, presumably)

Item: Low-time pilot attempts VFR 180 in a figurative box canyon, fatal accident

Corrective action: Politicians seek to close the VFR airspace over East River

General election is only 3 weeks off. Vote early and often! :rolleyes:

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is a private pilot. He has had two incidents in his lifetime, once landing a helicopter after the cockpit filled with smoke and once when his fixed wing aircraft lost power; he glided the aircraft to the nearest airport.

Mr. Bloomberg immediately went to the Lidle crash site and identified a tire and piece of the fuselage for crash, fire and rescue teams.

He called for restrictions on the East River for the same reasons that the FAA did....

Sometimes the "politicians" do the right thing, based on their own knowledge and experience. Imagine that ?

[barit1]

... Mr. Bloomberg ... called for restrictions on the East River for the same reasons that the FAA did....

Sometimes the "politicians" do the right thing, based on their own knowledge and experience. Imagine that ?

And sometimes not. The East River corridor has been available VFR for the better part of a century, with fairly few accidents over that longish time. Closing the airspace now was the political expedient for both the FAA and for Mr. Mayor. :*

Politicians know their careers depend on deciding for you & me what is "safe" vs "unsafe". Numbers be damned, it's the headlines that count. :mad:

[jondc9]

east river corridor, better part of a century...well sure...but fixed wing planes have only been around since 1903. so are you saying that there was no VFR corridor in 1904? (kidding)


barit

please tell me how someone can do a 180 degree turn at a part of the river that is some 2000' wide, remaining below 1100 feet msl, while adhering to FAR part 91.119?

helicopters are excepted, and so are seaplanes taking off and landing from the above.

[ceedee]

Intelligent, informed commentary on the Popular Mechanics site: Pilot's Perspective: The Crash of a Yankee (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4199536.html)
Apparently, Lidle and his flight instructor Tyler Stanger never called LaGuardia tower to get clearance to pass through Class B airspace. Air traffic control at Teterboro says one of the men radioed in that they’d just go a short distance up the river and turn around. But, as noted, the river is narrow, and at low altitudes it’s hemmed in by buildings; it’s a lot like being stuck in a slot canyon. The day’s low overcast made flying conditions even trickier. If Lidle and Stanger had climbed to a safer 1,500 feet, they would have been nearly in the clouds—a very dangerous situation for non-instrument rated pilots.
What if they’d gone straight ahead—that is, continued north? Well, they would have busted right into Class B airspace. Doing that without prior clearance from LaGuardia tower might have resulted in a reprimand, or even the temporary suspension of their licenses. To avoid that fate, they risked a worse one, and lost.
The appropriate response to the death of Lidle and Stanger is not to ban similar flights. It’s for fellow pilots to study what happened, learn from it, and go on to be safer flyers.

[jondc9]

< If Lidle and Stanger had climbed to a safer 1,500 feet, they would have been nearly in the clouds—a very dangerous situation for non-instrument rated pilots.>


how is this intelligent commentary and informed? Stanger was not only instrument rated but a CFII (instrument instructor).

jon

[visibility3miles]

Wind had role in plane crash into NY building: NTSB
Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:58 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Strong winds may have played a role in the small plane crash into a Manhattan skyscraper on October 11 that killed New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor, officials said on Friday.

The spectacular crash revived images of the September 11 attacks until it was quickly determined to have been an accident.

The plane slammed into the 30th floor of an apartment building on the Upper East Side and crashed onto the street below, injuring three people on the ground, one of them severely.

The prevailing winds would have forced the plane to drift 400 feet toward the building as it made a 180-degree turn over the East River, and a correction made at mid-turn could have forced the engine to stall, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a news release.

An NTSB spokesman stressed that the findings were not considered the definitive cause, and that the investigation would continue.

Well, it wasn't the engine that stalled, but they got "stall" and "wind" right.

[DelaneyT]

Well, it wasn't the engine that stalled, but they got "stall" and "wind" right.


...most of the mainstream U.S. news reports today are mistakenly reporting that an adverse "wind" caused the crash, based on amateur reading of the NTSB press release. :hmm:

That wind was apparently less than 13 Knots.

What will the final NTSB mishap report eventually state as the mishap 'cause' ?


{ ...easy answer for the folks here...}

[visibility3miles]

The Washington Post is reporting:

...The National Transportation Safety Board said the plane carrying Lidle and flight instructor Tyler Stanger was trying to turn around from the middle of the river when the wind forced the aircraft into the 50-story luxury Belaire apartment building on Manhattan's Upper East Side....

...The NTSB report said the plane had only 1,300 feet to make the 180-degree turn because the wind blew it over toward the building. To make a successful turn, the aircraft would have had to bank so steeply that it could have stalled, the report said.

If the pilot had used the full width of the river to turn, he would have had 2,100 feet to turn around. The pilot was flying closer to the middle of the river, the report said, leaving a much smaller margin of error...


Feel free to contact these newspapers. They are usually quite happy to correct their reports in response to polite, reasoned comments.

Because it was Lidle, a Yankees baseball player, hitting a building in Manhattan, it is getting far more coverage than most small plane crashes would. Consequently, it is getting coverage by reporters who know nothing about aviation.

Plus, if you send them a correction now, they have time to get it into the print edition tomorrow.

[aardvark2zz]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/061103.htm

radar track from 3 radars
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf

(quote) .....Radar data indicate that the airplane was flying over the east side of Roosevelt Island prior to initiating a 180 degree turn. At this location, there would have been a maximum of 2100 feet clearance from buildings, if the full width of the river had been used. However, from the airplane's mid-river position over Roosevelt Island, the available turning width was only 1700 feet. The prevailing wind from the east would have caused the airplane to drift 400 feet toward the building during the turn, reducing the available turning width to about 1300 feet. At an airspeed of 97 knots, this turn would have required a constant bank angle of 53 degrees and a loading of 1.7 Gs on the airplane. If the initial portion of the turn was not this aggressive, a sufficiently greater bank angle would have been needed as the turn progressed, which would have placed the airplane dangerously close to an aerodynamic stall.... (end quote)


AA>> Early on I had calculated 46 to 64 degrees depending on where they started their turn. That averages to 55 degrees only 2 degrees off. :E

I believe that the NTSB stole my numbers :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2907101&postcount=102

[MichaelJP59]

...at an airspeed of 97 knots, this turn would have required a constant bank angle of 53 degrees and a loading of 1.7 Gs on the airplane.

Yes, quite striking just how aggressive that turn would have had to be. Certainly most PPLs would have been uncomfortable pulling such a steep and loaded turn looking down at the river only 600ft below.

I've not been in a Cirrus but presumably in this turn and the low wing configuration the pilots would also not have had good visibility of the approaching buildings?

[BHenderson]

Surely you would do everything possible to avoid hitting a building? Even if you had to land on a road taking some trees with you would have better chances than a building. So why did it hit with wings almost level?

Bobby

[RatherBeFlying]

NTSB points out:
Started turn inside East River instead of from the East bank
Turning downwind increased radius of turn
Descended during turn from 600'
Would not have hit if altitude maintained.

Me:
Lower airspeed would have decreased radius
Starting turn from a couple hundred feet higher would have cleared buildings if too wide.

So now the airspace has been closed because of one low time pilot who took a slick plane into a tight airspace after 50-some years of C-172 drivers who never had a problem:ouch:

Presentation at http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2007/Manhattan-NY/DCA07MA003_board_presentation.pdf

Press release text follows:
NTSB ISSUES FINAL REPORT ON MANHATTAN PLANE CRASH THAT KILLED YANKEE PITCHER

Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board today determined that the probable cause of a small airplane crash in Manhattan last October was the pilots' inadequate planning, judgment, and airmanship in the performance of a 180-degree turn maneuver inside of a limited turning space.

On October 11, 2006, a Cirrus Design SR-20, N929CD, operated as a personal flight, crashed into an apartment building in Manhattan, New York City, while attempting a 180-degree turn maneuver above the East River. The two pilots on board the airplane were killed, including the owner of the aircraft, Cory Lidle of the New York Yankees. The second occupant was a commercial pilot with a flight instructor certificate. Three people on the ground were injured, and the airplane was destroyed.

"This accident is a great tragedy in which a pleasure flight went horribly wrong and ultimately cost the lives to two young men," said NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker. "The pilots placed themselves in a precarious situation that could have been prevented by better judgment and planning."

In its final report, the Board stated that there were no system, structural or engine malfunctions found. The pilot/owner was properly certificated to fly the accident airplane. The pilot-rated passenger was also a certified flight instructor and qualified to have flown the accident flight.

Due to the complex accident forces involved in the crash sequence, the Board's report states that it is not possible to determine who was manipulating the controls at the time of the accident. Also, due to the lack of a cockpit voice recorder or a flight data recorder, it was not possible to determine who was the pilot in control during the accident flight or if flight instruction was being given.

The Board stated that the pilots did not aggressively bank the airplane throughout the turn nor did they use the full available width of the river. Radar data indicate that the airplane was in the middle of the East Channel at the start of the 180-degree turn as opposed to beginning the turn from the eastern shoreline. In addition, wind out of the east would have effectively shortened the available distance to successfully make the turn.

In the report, it states that investigators could not determine whether the pilots were aware of the wind's effect on the execution of the 180-degree turn. It is believed that they should have been able to observe the difference in the ground track and heading during the flight to determine that there was a prevailing wind from the east and compensate for westward drift.

Finally, the Board found that the pilots should have recognized, during preflight planning or while they were considering flying up the East River after they were already in flight, that there was limited turning space in the East River exclusion area and they would need to maximize the lateral distance available for turning.

As a result of it's investigation, the Safety Board made the following recommendation to the Federal Aviation Administration:

* Permanently prohibit visual flight rules flight operations involving fixed-wing, nonamphibious aircraft in the New York East River class B exclusion area unless those operations are authorized and being controlled by air traffic control.

A synopsis of the Board's report including the probable cause and recommendation, is available on the Board's website, www.ntsb.gov, under "Board Meetings." The Board's full report will be available on the website in several weeks.



NTSB Media Contact: Keith Holloway, (202) 314-6100
[email protected]

[MichaelJP59]

Though I guess the thing about this one was the fact he had an instructor on board. I suppose the FAA take the view that if a PPL and an instructor could both get it so wrong it is time to make a change:(

[RatherBeFlying]

The problem with the instructor was that he had no local experience as he had just flown in (I believe for the trip back home).

I suspect the locally trained PPLs and instructors are pretty much clued in as the record of the last 50-some years shows.

Me, I'd put a big fat note on the chart about maximum airspeeds and minimum altitudes so that itinerant pilots would have the information they need.

[barit1]

See my post #131 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2910660&postcount=131).