Plane Crashes In Manhattan
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aircraft converging with Lidle "reappears" at 14:40 around Stat. of Liberty
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.
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.
Last edited by MNBluestater; 13th Oct 2006 at 10:31.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by slim_slag; 13th Oct 2006 at 12:10.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Jersey
Age: 46
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Charlotte and NYC
Age: 45
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by FlyVMO; 13th Oct 2006 at 14:16. Reason: spelling
Longtimelurker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: killington Vt
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.........
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.........
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever heard of crop dusting....
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
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
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.
Last edited by MNBluestater; 13th Oct 2006 at 17:03. Reason: extra space
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all the measures that you've stated
[quote=patrickal;2906916]
and would include g/a aircraft over the city as well with exceptions listed in last note.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
dp
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/11
[QUOTE=patrickal;2906916]
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...?
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.
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.
Last edited by grimmrad; 13th Oct 2006 at 18:18. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LAX
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Last edited by ship's power; 13th Oct 2006 at 18:58.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.