Sign in to follow this  
neilbradley1

Aircraft Crash, NYC

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Looks like a Cirrus SR-20, NBC4 New York says it was registered to Yankees Pitcher Corey Lidle, and his passport was found in the street.Not a whole lot of room to maneuver around the East River there with the requirements.http://www.wnbc.com/news/10053779/detail.htmlSad day for Aviation and Yankees fans. ALso heard there was a medical center on the lower floors of the building.Joe

Share this post


Link to post

HiHave to wonder what the #### a lowtime (75hr)pilot is doing around Manhatten on a marginal vfr day.Very sad though.Pete

Share this post


Link to post

What's wrong with this plane? I did a search on the net a few weeks ago. It had so many accidents, a bad stall and spin characteristic. Comparing to the Columbia 400, it looks like a inferior design.

Share this post


Link to post

Ironically; his Cirrus was equipped with a parachute able to lower the entire aircraft to the ground; but it didn't do him any good...Best Regards, Donny :-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Guess we've got the first winner of the Thurman Munson trophy...at least they're keeping it in the Yankee franchise.Bob Scott

Share this post


Link to post

I'm having trouble understanding this one-the cirrus sr20 has one of the best displays (situational awareness) of any aircraft and the reports say an instructor was onboard. If the engine failed, or even a control issue-I would think the parachute would have been deployed.Very strange....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

What a plonker. Talks about how great the plane's chute system is and then flys low level in bad weather through Manhattan - with an instructor no less.In absense of all the facts, the situation still seems pretty idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post

There are many more situations where the BRS would not be deployed versus those situations where it would be used.This almost sounds like a CFIT issue or a case of both 'pilots' possibly fixating on a possible serious problem without anyone actually flying the plane.The SR is also a very slick a/c and hard to slow down. Maybe they ran out of room in the turn also while trying to dignose their problem.There's to many other variables that we may never know about this one folks.

Share this post


Link to post

We are going to have to wait a few months for the FAA report to come out. As there is no flight recorders, the real cause of the accident might not be unearthed.

Share this post


Link to post

A chute is no good if you forget to use it...

Share this post


Link to post

"This almost sounds like a CFIT issue or a case of both 'pilots' possibly fixating on a possible serious problem without anyone actually flying the plane."I think you hit the nail on the head here Jeff. After the mayday was called about the fuel problem the plane pitched nose up and rolled to the left (typical stall). It fully rolled over and then nosed down heading toward the building. That alone most likely scared the heck out of them... If they were on top of it the plane wouldn't have stalled in the first place, they could have deployed the chute. Another option depending on altitude is they could have stair stepped it down. Either way an accident like this is almost impossible if both those guys were paying attention to everything around them. You can't get any safer than an aircraft with a parachute on board but you have to remember that option if you get in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post

The chute also does no good if none of the occupants had the time nor realized they were going to need it. You have no clue as to what was happening in that aircraft. Things could have happened so fast that there wasn't time to make a decision as to whether or not to pull it, and given their altitude, even if they did have time to think about it, they may have thought they were too low and/or that by pulling it they would actually cause more harm and damage/injury to themselves or other property or people in an uncontrolled fall if they knew already they were in the midst of the buildings.Even in an engine out situation so long as a somewhat safe landing could be assured, even off field, I'd probably rather go that route, rather than risk even more damage to the A/C or possible injury using the BRS. I would like to think that if it were me, I'd rather use it if I had a loss of flight control more so then an engine out.The chute is not a magic solution when things go wrong. The situation has to be right and planning has to happen also, believe it or not. You may think you'd just pull that thing when the time came, but I bet you'd sure think about it long and hard before doing so. I suspect some pilots may actually not pull it at all out of some sort of fear that it may not set the aircraft down in the manner they want it.In any case, we may never know what was going on in the cockpit, nor what they were thinking about, nor who was flying at the time, etc., etc., etc.It's a sad tragedy, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post

The chute, like ejection seats, has a definite window in which it is safe to use.A study I saw recently (AOPA?) of Cirrus accidents came to the conclusion that most people fight to save the aircraft until the bird is outside the envelope for deploying the chute.Part of the reluctance to deploy the chute was attributed to the knowledge that the aircraft would be a writeoff.The chute is extremely valuable for one situation - when a controlled forced landing is unavoidable - and there is no possible safe landing area. Fuel starvation, engine failure, control failure, etc.But the decision to use the chute must be made early. You can't work the problem down to 400 ft AGL and then expect the chute to deploy in time to save you.Has anyone heard how high the aircraft was before it's final plunge?The collision with the building would have been 330-400 ft AGL.

Share this post


Link to post

Regg,I think the Cirrus reps said that it could be deployed in certain curcumstances down to 300' AGL, in technical terms, as far as the chute having time to fire and open.I just don't think in this case they even had the time to think about it, let alone try to figure out if it was a safe-out or within the performance envelope for them to use it.There's still to many unkowns here unfortun..Everything I've heard though is that the a/c is really slick, hard to slow down. You have to plan your descents in most cases, even at power idle, etc. I'm sure though that both pilots knew this and accounted for it, so not sure if this came into play while manuevering.They may very well have also been trying to avoid something while dealing with their situation all at the same time, thus possibly accounting for their strange ground track at the time of the accident.I mean, who knows, really. It's just really sad. I hate to say it, but I have a feeling we'll be learning a lesson here that's been taught over and over again, I just hope that the powers at be don't go flying of the handle and closing everything down on us. You know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post

One REP on CNN said minimum altitude for deployment was 900 feet. They hit a 20 story building, it looks like 3-4 below the top. That would make it below 200 feet....To me it looks like they may have missed seeing the building or were distracted when they passed it. Then attemped to make a 180 turn, and ran into it.

Share this post


Link to post

"It fully rolled over and then nosed down heading toward the building."It's ironic I'm not hearing anymore mention about this. I remember CNN interviewing an eyewitness yesterday who said she'd seen the plane roll over and then run into the building. She thought someone was doing tricks in the air. Now what's being reported is the plane was flying low and turned towards the buildings in a controlled move. Who would be dumb enough to do that at that altitude??? You really have to be careful not to take everything the news reports as gospel...The bad thing about GA accidents is you don't have a black box and audio to properly give you a picture of what went wrong in an accident. Like what was said above we most likely will never know the whole story. I'm inclined to believe the stall theory which caused the plane to roll and dive back down to the left. It's well known a mayday call was made about a fuel problem. I guess we'll have to hear what the FAA finds. The co-pilot (instructor) had a pregnant wife and infant who he left behind. This is truly sad...

Share this post


Link to post

I think They were headed up the east river,Didn't want to contact LGA tower for transition,and tryed to do a 180,or cross over manhatten to head south on the Hudson.And with the wind out of the east, Blew the turn?:(

Share this post


Link to post

>And with the>wind out of the east, Blew the turn?:( Stall in a tight turn, with two pilots unfamiliar with flying in this area --- most likely cause.As I've heard lately, I don't believe there was an actual mayday called in, as earlier reported. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post

A rep of the NTSB interviewed last night said - no mayday was received and the propellors were turning ( not sure what they mean by that) when the a/c impacted the building.We can guess forever but until the NTSB report, that's all it is.For my two cents worth - I agree a CFIT because both pilots were focusing on the cockpit.VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

Share this post


Link to post

Unless anything has changed, Chandelles aren't in the FAA PTS for PPL's. I thought it wasn't taught until the commercial (not ATP) level.Lidel was a PPL.

Share this post


Link to post

>I think They were headed up the east river,Didn't want to>contact LGA tower for transition,and tryed to do a 180,or>cross over manhatten to head south on the Hudson.And with the>wind out of the east, Blew the turn?:( Hi,While we don't know what their intent was, nor what they wanted to do, one thing has cleared up in at least my mind as a Pilot.I went to the maps.google.com for the area, and then compared the crash site with the TAC (Terminal Area Chart) for NYC. Match up the Island (FDR) in the East River with 70th street, and 72nd street, and then compare the location to the TAC.It appears they busted air space, as it looks to be 7000/SFC (Surface) for that area over the east River near LaGuardia. Unless they were in Contact with LGA Controllers, which is required within 6 miles of the airport below 2000'.That may or may not account for the turn as maybe they realized they busted, or like said above were trying to get over to the Hudson.Who Knows.....The TAC for NYC is in the Avsim file library here, and is a 2004 edition.The 7000/1100 appears to be for the Hudson river, and extends to about the shoreline for NYC, where SFC Then applies. The East River is clearly SFC at the point where they allegedly tried to make a Turn, and where the Crash occured.That area of the River acts in many ways like a Shrinking Canyon, not a very smart place to be, and two California Pilots, flight instructor or not, apparently didn't plan their flight very well, regardless of what their intent was, their decision to fly up the East River is a contributing factor in at least my review of what has happened and what we know thus far.Regards,Joe

Share this post


Link to post

the propellors were turning ( not sure what they mean by that)One of the first questions is always - was the aircraft under power at the time of the crash?They will have to do more tests on the props and crankshaft to determine approx how much power the aircraft had at the point of impact.But the props turning is a preliminary presumption the aircraft did not have a lack of power to maintain flight.If the prop was not turning - then the investigation would focus heavily on why the aircraft had no power.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this