Plane Crashes In Manhattan
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It helps in two ways
1 - it looks like the government is 'doing something'
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.
1 - it looks like the government is 'doing something'
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how does it help
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 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 !!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mayor Bloomberg
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!
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!
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 ?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politicians know their careers depend on deciding for you & me what is "safe" vs "unsafe". Numbers be damned, it's the headlines that count.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intelligent, informed commentary on the Popular Mechanics site: Pilot's Perspective: The Crash of a Yankee
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
< 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
how is this intelligent commentary and informed? Stanger was not only instrument rated but a CFII (instrument instructor).
jon
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Wind" caused the crash ??
...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.
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...}
The Washington Post is reporting:
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.
...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...
...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...
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Beverly Hills 90210
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/061103.htm
radar track from 3 radars
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N9...rn_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.
I believe that the NTSB stole my numbers
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=102
radar track from 3 radars
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N9...rn_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.
I believe that the NTSB stole my numbers
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=102
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Bobby
NTSB Report Issued
NTSB points out:
Presentation at http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2007/Manh...esentation.pdf
Press release text follows:
- 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.
- Lower airspeed would have decreased radius
- Starting turn from a couple hundred feet higher would have cleared buildings if too wide.
Presentation at http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2007/Manh...esentation.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]
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]
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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.