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.

agree
 

Completely agree. I am not paranoid but ever since moving to NYC from Boston you kind of have this nagging feeling that you are sitting in the bulls eye for about anything...

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

An article in the NY Times from early September this year...eerie.

Ozzy

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:uhoh:

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were also gusts of 19kts reported.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Well that's why you have insurance.

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

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

Set it at 14:38 and watch it...
 

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

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.