Plane Crashes In Manhattan
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree
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.
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.
Prince of Darkness
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA and a Brit
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to have picked a bad spot for a 180
Interestingly aardvark2zz's 314 m diameter from Roosevelt Island seems to intersect with the building
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
Just to the North the buildings seem considerably lower, though I do not know how close that is to the LaGuardia CZ.
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
Just to the North the buildings seem considerably lower, though I do not know how close that is to the LaGuardia CZ.
Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 12th Oct 2006 at 18:52. Reason: Additional Info
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old Lyme, Connecticut
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
.
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
.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Charlotte and NYC
Age: 45
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senseless restrictions
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
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
Last edited by FlyVMO; 13th Oct 2006 at 01:45.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LAX
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Pull the emergency chute handle and $189,000 is automatically flushed. - Obviously irrelevant if saving your life however.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Charlotte and NYC
Age: 45
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Yes I too have read this, prior to this incident. Detailed info on the company website requires a login though. (www.cirrusdesign.com)
Flyvmo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LAX
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ship's power; 13th Oct 2006 at 07:04.
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull the emergency chute handle and $189,000 is automatically flushed
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NWA506 LGA go around at time of crash?
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LAX
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Set it at 14:38 and watch it...
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.