Plane Crashes In Manhattan

[SeniorDispatcher]

Originally Posted by Kalium Chloride

For those debating the route the aircraft took, this JFK tracking website 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]

Originally Posted by Kalium Chloride

For those debating the route the aircraft took, this JFK tracking website 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 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 ???

[MNBluestater]

Time Keyed Into Jfk Website Is Eastern Time

Originally Posted by MNBluestater

This is <<incorrect,>> the site is EASTERN time, if you key in JFK tracking website 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 ???

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

[MNBluestater]

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

Originally Posted by MNBluestater

This is <<incorrect,>> the site is EASTERN time, if you key in JFK tracking website 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 ???

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

[MNBluestater]

Convergence of aircraft 14:39:39 and Ligin dropping off radar at 14:41:59

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by bcfc

... 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]

Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ

... 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

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

[MNBluestater]

Website says ok for several hundred feet altitude

[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...0&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]

Not the choir

Originally Posted by FlyVMO

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 totally agree, criminy, this is NEW YORK CITY

Originally Posted by grimmrad

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.

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]

Originally Posted by dublinpilot

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.
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)...