Aircraft Crash, NYC

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

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.

[Guest Kingair315]

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.

[Guest Water Mango]

"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...

[Guest B1900 Mech]

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?:(

[LAdamson 240]

>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

[Guest B1900 Mech]

http://www.studentpilot.net/lessons/max_ma...html#chandelles

[vgbaron 3,479]

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/

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

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.

[Sonar5 3]

>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

[RFields5421 1]

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.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

Joe,Kind of weird because they've all said they didn't bust airspace or break any FAR's.Also, I believe both of them from the sounds of it were fairly familiar with the airspace even though they were from CA.It sounded like also a good chunck of his time in type may have been in the aircraft he bought and crashed. Alot of people like that often times buy the plane, get their PPL in the plane they bought or transition right into it soon after.I'm sure we'll find out all those details later on also.

[LAdamson 240]

>>For my two cents worth - I agree a CFIT because both pilots>were focusing on the cockpit.>I doubt it. I would bet than neither pilot had their eyes in the cockpit, during those last few moments. Assuming the aircraft stalled in the turn enough to drop a wing, then it's going to take some altitude & airspace to recover.Except for looking at the GPS for Class B boundaries, there would be little reason to have eyes fixated on a panel, especially when sight seeing.L.Adamson

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>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?>..........>>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. A prop will continue to windmill with no power! Unless it can be feathered. That's why some variable pitch props can be feathered: so you can stop windmilling and lose a lot of drag. I managed to stop the prop flying a PA-28. It was difficult, I had to nearly stall the AC. RAF

[Jeff Nielsen 1,385]

'IF' they were both looking at engine instrumentation, 'IF' they were having a problem, then yes, they would have been "eyes down", until it was too late.Again, that's a very big "IF" scenerio.I wonder if it was a case of both; having a problem, then once they figured out where they were, they tried to turn around while still troubleshooting, thus compounding and adding to an already very busy cockpit, etc. - OR - were they trying to avoid something else in the sky or near the ground during the turn and then got into trouble.Those are the facts/scenerios we may never really know for sure which sort of makes it even more sad.

[michal 44]

I highly doubt any malfunction was involved here - if there is anything they "troubleshooted" - it was probably their position in relation to various airspace restrictions in the area. The only plausible theory at the moment is that they poorly executed the U-turn and perhaps got into accelerated stall - lost control and that was the end being so close to the ground (1100' or less).Michael J.