Aircraft crashes into NYC building

[clevin]

NEW YORK - An aircraft crashed into a high-rise apartment building on Manhattan's Upper East Side in New York City on Thursday, NBC News reported. There were conflicting reports about whether it was an airplane or a chopper.

There were no immediate reports on injuries.

Video from the scene showed at least three buildings in the high-rise engulfed in flames. A column of gray smoke rose over the city, and raging flames could be seen in four windows on two upper floors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15223650/

[D0ct0rteeth]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15223650/

I was just about to post this. I'm a conf call with some guys in NYC and they mentioned it.

- Doc

[scem0]

Scary. Everyone is on edge up here.

I was up midtown when it happened at 37th street, I'm glad I wasn't 35 streets higher :(. I wondered why I heard so many sirens while I was at CompUSA.

Luckily the damage was minimal, but I'm sending the people involved my positive energy.

e

[Thomas Veil]

That's frightening. Crashing into the middle floors of a 50-story building which houses apartments that go for more than $1 million? In Manhattan? And the aircraft was on VFR and didn't have to be in contact with controllers? Hard to imagine that was an accident....

Man, I hope nobody was home in those apartments, and that the building was safely evacuated. Too soon to know anything for sure, though.

[WildCowboy]

It sure doesn't look like the 20th floor of a 50-story building...

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/12/mn_plane_crash_ny124.jpg

[freeny]

Good times here in NYC! Im at 40th & 3rd approximately 1.2 miles or 30 block from the crash. lots of sirens and fire trucks going by and an occasional fighter jet.

People dont seem too concerned on the streets.
typical nyc.

[shecky]

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/12/mn_plane_crash_ny124.jpg

well, thats a sight i was hoping i would never have to see again. :(

[freeny]

earlier...

[MacBoobsPro]

Seems a bit iffy to me. They were flying VFR but its not foggy/cloudy and they still crashed? :confused: Thats one **** pilot!

[yellow]

NEW YORK - An aircraft crashed into a high-rise apartment building on Manhattan's Upper East Side in New York City on Thursday, NBC News reported. There were conflicting reports about whether it was an airplane or a chopper.


Isn't today Wednesday?

[freeny]

Isn't today Wednesday?
obviously a conspiracy!

Its Wednessday here on 40th street but it appears to be Thursday on 72nd.
if i look uptown i am peering into the future?

[EGT]

"Eye witness on tv has just said she saw a small four seater fixed wing "doing acrobatics" just prior to the event which has confused reports for the moment. She didn't say she saw it hit. She wanted to make it plain it wasnt a helicopter. BBC are now reporting the FAA view that it was FW."

Apparently it's mutli-engine.

[Chundles]

Isn't today Wednesday?

It's definitely Thursday here.

[deputy_doofy]

Isn't today Wednesday?

Not sure what "Wednesday" would mean, because I think the attacks were on a Tuesday, if I am remembering correctly.

What IS odd is that today is October 11. Scary...

[freeny]

Not sure what "Wednesday" would mean, because I think the attacks were on a Tuesday, if I am remembering correctly.

What IS odd is that today is October 11. Scary...
10/11/6 backward and upsidedown is 9/11/01:confused:

[deputy_doofy]

10/11/6 backward and upsidedown is 9/11/01:confused:

Now, THAT's interesting... didn't even notice that.

[freeny]

They are saying this was Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle....

[MacNut]

They are saying this was Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle....reports are that he was on the plane

[swiftaw]

reports are that he was on the plane

Yes, several different sources have reported to CNN that it was Lidle's plane.

[WildCowboy]

Article (http://www.newsday.com/am-plane1012,0,225622.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines&track=mostemailedlink) mentioning that it was Lidle's plane.

[barneygumble]

Isn't that the building from spiderman?

Perhaps it was the green goblin:eek:

[Mr. Anderson]

10/11/6 backward and upsidedown is 9/11/01:confused:


now that's just not right....


:eek:

D

[jsw]

Article (http://www.newsday.com/am-plane1012,0,225622.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines&track=mostemailedlink) mentioning that it was Lidle's plane.
His passport was found on the street.
Seems pretty definitive.

[MacBoobsPro]

So was he looking for a lost ball or is he just a crap pilot?

[me_94501]

So was he looking for a lost ball or is he just a crap pilot?
A blurb in the CNN article mentions there might have been a fuel problem.

[Earendil]

So was he looking for a lost ball or is he just a crap pilot?

"crap" and "not wise" are two different things. If they really were goofing around and pullings stunts over NY, they could have stalled out, gone into a dive, and while you can recover, your options for direction are either very few, or not at the top of your mind when you are heading towards the ground nose first. They could have pulled up right into the building :(

[Angelus520]

Don't they have clauses in their contracts prohibiting dangerous behaviors like that during the season? Didn't anyone learn from this summer's Big Ben incident in Pittsburgh?

[Earendil]

Don't they have clauses in their contracts prohibiting dangerous behaviors like that during the season? Didn't anyone learn from this summer's Big Ben incident in Pittsburgh?

As you mrenitoned, season over. But I'd think the bigger issue would be pulling acrobatic stuns over a populated area. There are very strict FAA rules on that sort of stuff.

Fuel problems (aside from running out of gas) can be caused if you do acrobatics in a plane not designed for it.
i.e. most small planes are designed with gravity feed fuel lines.
They also funtion about as well as most car engines when inverted :\

[MacBoobsPro]

"crap" and "not wise" are two different things. If they really were goofing around and pullings stunts over NY, they could have stalled out, gone into a dive, and while you can recover, your options for direction are either very few, or not at the top of your mind when you are heading towards the ground nose first. They could have pulled up right into the building :(

I must admit i missed the post about stunt flying :o but still its freakin Manhattan. The most dangerous place to fly a plane.

[Jaffa Cake]

Mayor Bloomberg is on the telly at the moment giving a press conference – he says that they've identified the two who perished on the plane as an instructor and a student pilot, and that they're unsure who actually had control of the plane at the time of the accident.

He's not actually named anyone yet – he was asked specifically about Lidle – until relatives are notified.

[clevin]

FUI
flying under influence, and he died. ...

[mdntcallr]

I must admit i missed the post about stunt flying :o but still its freakin Manhattan. The most dangerous place to fly a plane.

the plane may have had problems, not actually been flying stunts.

we dont know

[rockthecasbah]

i saw this on CNN... that's so sad. Anderson Cooper seemed unfazed as he described Lidel's passport blowing around the scene and the scorch marks on buildings, he seemed like a robot....:o

[zap2]

i saw this on CNN... that's so sad. Anderson Cooper seemed unfazed as he described Lidel's passport blowing around the scene and the scorch marks on buildings, he seemed like a robot....:o

Cooper rocks...and this is really nothing to him...he has been on the ground during war, I'm pretty sure he has gone to Iraq and seen car bombs there. While is not good, its not much compared to the pain and suffering in other places in the world

[jamesW135]

Did anyone In N.Y.C get a picture of this?

[IJ Reilly]

Mayor Bloomberg is on the telly at the moment giving a press conference – he says that they've identified the two who perished on the plane as an instructor and a student pilot, and that they're unsure who actually had control of the plane at the time of the accident.

Doesn't much matter. If one person in the airplane is a flight instructor and the other is a student pilot, the flight instructor is by definition the pilot in command.

Slamming into a building -- this is so difficult to imagine. Those things are pretty easy to avoid.

[Earendil]

Doesn't much matter. If one person in the airplane is a flight instructor and the other is a student pilot, the flight instructor is by definition the pilot in command.

Slamming into a building -- this is so difficult to imagine. Those things are pretty easy to avoid.


Which means that unless they were playing marko-pollo and flying blind, something must have gone terribly wrong with the plane. Wether it was a mechanical failure or pilot error will have to be determined.

The flight instructor may be in charge, but he/she would have little power to stop a student from doing just about anything with the plane, aside from using pure strength and knocking the person unconscious.
A student pilot has access to all the same controls the pilot does (or pretty nearly).

~Tyler

[IJ Reilly]

Which means that unless they were playing marko-pollo and flying blind, something must have gone terribly wrong with the plane. Wether it was a mechanical failure or pilot error will have to be determined.

The flight instructor may be in charge, but he/she would have little power to stop a student from doing just about anything with the plane, aside from using pure strength and knocking the person unconscious.
A student pilot has access to all the same controls the pilot does (or pretty nearly).

~Tyler

Something going wrong with the airplane seems unlikely, but then no cause appears very likely in this accident.

Normally, a student pilot sits in the pilot's (left) seat and the instructor sits in the right seat. They both have access to the controls. A student pilot not turning over control of the airplane to the instructor in an emergency -- now that would be highly unusual.

EDIT

I just heard that the airplane was a Cirrus SR-20. FWIW, this is one of the very few airplanes that is equipped with a ballistic parachute system. If something had gone terribly wrong with the airplane, the chute would or at least could have been deployed. As for fuel problems, I've also heard in reports that the prop was spinning when the airplane hit the building.

[Earendil]

Something going wrong with the airplane seems unlikely, but then no cause appears very likely in this accident.

Normally, a student pilot sits in the pilot's (left) seat and the instructor sits in the right seat. They both have access to the controls. A student pilot not turning over control of the airplane to the instructor in an emergency -- now that would be highly unusual.

Agreed, now handing back control, or forcing control for the student's own purposes, all seems unlikely. However more unlikely that both of those is a plane flying into a building.

Unlikely results generally aren't created by ordinary causes.

[Kingsly]

Isn't that restricted airspace? What are the odds that the one plane that manages to penetrate that airspace is the one plane that manages to have mechanical problems? :confused:

[aquajet]

Something going wrong with the airplane seems unlikely, but then no cause appears very likely in this accident.

Which is what makes this accident (if it is indeed an accident) so strange. Normally we can think of at least one or two highly plausible explanations for any given accident. But this just seems so weird, especially considering that the aircraft crashed nearly dead center into a skyscraper.


I just heard that the airplane was a Cirrus SR-20. FWIW, this is one of the very few airplanes that is equipped with a ballistic parachute system. If something had gone terribly wrong with the airplane, the chute would or at least could have been deployed.

Of course parachute systems can only be deployed above a certain altitude. If they were tooling around at low altitude (likely), then it wouldn't have helped much if there was a serious problem with the aircraft.

[IJ Reilly]

Which is what makes this accident (if it is indeed an accident) so strange. Normally we can think of at least one or two highly plausible explanations for any given accident. But this just seems so weird, especially considering that the aircraft crashed nearly dead center into a skyscraper.

One private pilot eye-witness said he saw the airplane maneuvering hard before it hit the building. Also, an emergency was declared although the nature of the emergency if known hasn't been released yet AFAIK. The only plausible explanation that doesn't involve deliberate action is some kind of catastrophic control system failure. Another Cirrus SR-20 had one of these a few years ago -- a partially detached aileron if memory serves. The pilot deployed the chute.

Of course parachute systems can only be deployed above a certain altitude. If they were tooling around at low altitude (likely), then it wouldn't have helped much if there was a serious problem with the aircraft.

The chute is deployed ballistically, which means it's literally shot by a rocket, through the roof of the cabin. I'm pretty certain it can be deployed at nearly any altitude. I have to say though that most pilots would be very reluctant to deploy the chute unless they'd completely lost control of the airplane and were certain they could not regain it.

BTW, not restricted airspace, but controlled.

[2nyRiggz]

Very strange day today...along with this crash there was two other crashes. One on the florida keys, one on another island(I think)

Bless

[Rickay726]

weird that today is 10/11? in realiton to 9/11 very coincidental

[kainjow]

weird that today is 10/11? in realiton to 9/11 very coincidental
Not really. You have a 3.2% chance of it falling on the 11th day of the month :)

[tvguru]

As for fuel problems, I've also heard in reports that the prop was spinning when the airplane hit the building.

Doesn't take much for the airflow to keep the propeller rotating. During my multi-engine training I was amazed at the ability for the prop to continue to spin when we shut the one engine down. It wasn't until we feathered the prop that it stopped.

I have to say though that most pilots would be very reluctant to deploy the chute unless they'd completely lost control of the airplane and were certain they could not regain it.

Personally, if I had spent that much on a single engine aircraft I would pull the shoot at the first sign of problems at that low of an altitude.

Edit: But obviously I wasn't there so I cannot say what I would have done in the same situation. The pilot on board has split seconds to make the best decisions he can come up with. While the NTSB get years to decide what should have been done.

[Chappers]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6042306.stm - sad

[tvguru]

NYT has a nice interactive graphic showing the sequence of the flight.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/10/11/nyregion/20061011_CRASH_GRAPHIC.html

[Chaszmyr]

NYT has a nice interactive graphic showing the sequence of the flight.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/10/11/nyregion/20061011_CRASH_GRAPHIC.html

The fact that the plane was -at all times- over water, and hit a building that is right on the river bank suggests that it was either somehow intentional or a very bad pilot error. The fact that they say the plane never climbed over 800 feet could suggest either. It does, however, indicate that it is very unlikely that the crash into a building was due to a glitch with the planes controls. It could have been the case that there was a mechanical failure that prevented the plane from gaining altitude, but it still would have been the pilot's fault that it hit a building.

[tvguru]

The fact that the plane was -at all times- over water, and hit a building that is right on the river bank suggests that it was either somehow intentional or a very bad pilot error. The fact that they say the plane never climbed over 800 feet could suggest either. It does, however, indicate that it is very unlikely that the crash into a building was due to a glitch with the planes controls. It could have been the case that there was a mechanical failure that prevented the plane from gaining altitude, but it still would have been the pilot's fault that it hit a building.

While I don't know the altitude restrictions of the area, I would suspect it would be much the same as in Canada where you must remain 500' above any person, vessel or structure. Unless it is considered a built up area whereby you are then required to be 1000' above the highest structure in the build up area. If you don't consider the bridges a built up area and only a structure then, assuming the bridges are about 300' tall, 800' would be sufficient for the flight while over the water.

Even if the pilot let go of the controls for the entire trip up the river, I would find it hard to believe that the plane would make that sharp of a maneuver on it's own. Usually if you have the plane all trimmed up properly for straight an level flight the plane will continue unless acted on by wind sheer or turbulence. For the pilot to make that large of a turn to end up in the building, I would say he would nearly have to fall asleep on the controls or do it intentionally. I doubt it was intentional as why would you take your flight instructor with you?

My only conclusion is that there was a mechanical problem with the aileron controls of the aircraft, but even in that case the very slick parachute system could be deployed.

Needless to say this appears to be a very puzzling crash and I eagerly await more information as it comes forth.

Sorry I ended up rambling, hope it all makes sense. :o

[Chaszmyr]

I have little doubt that the turn was intentional (He could have been a bad pilot trying to turn around). It's just the hitting the building that may or may not have been intentional.

[tvguru]

I have little doubt that the turn was intentional (He could have been a bad pilot trying to turn around). It's just the hitting the building that may or may not have been intentional.

Even if he was the worst pilot in the world, his instructor would/should quickly say I have control and put it back on course. According to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/sports/baseball/12lidle.html?ex=1318305600&en=acb27725a2d7a858&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss He was a quick learner, good pilot, yada yada. You may be right, only time will tell, but I personally can't see it being the case.

[Chaszmyr]

Even if he was the worst pilot in the world, his instructor would/should quickly say I have control and put it back on course. According to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/sports/baseball/12lidle.html?ex=1318305600&en=acb27725a2d7a858&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss He was a quick learner, good pilot, yada yada. You may be right, only time will tell, but I personally can't see it being the case.

It just seems to me that it would be an extraordinarily bizarre mechanical failure to make this kind of a plane make such a sharp turn.

[MacNut]

Weren't there reports of another plane almost hitting. They showed what looked like a near miss. Also how feasible is it to release the parachute in such a populated area with all the buildings around where would they land safely.

[tvguru]

Weren't there reports of another plane almost hitting. They showed what looked like a near miss. Also how feasible is it to release the parachute in such a populated area with all the buildings around where would they land safely.

I don't know about the first part, but as for the parachute I'd rather bounce off things then go through them. ;)

[MacNut]

This is the reason why all airplanes should have black boxes, we may never know what really happened.

[Chundles]

This is the reason why all airplanes should have black boxes, we may never know what really happened.

Pretty sure he really flew it into the building. :p

[IJ Reilly]

Doesn't take much for the airflow to keep the propeller rotating. During my multi-engine training I was amazed at the ability for the prop to continue to spin when we shut the one engine down. It wasn't until we feathered the prop that it stopped.

Yes, I know it windmills, but according to the sound the witness reported, the prop was powered when it hit the building. This part of the accident will be easy to reconstruct -- apparently the engine was deposited inside the building.

Personally, if I had spent that much on a single engine aircraft I would pull the shoot at the first sign of problems at that low of an altitude.

Edit: But obviously I wasn't there so I cannot say what I would have done in the same situation. The pilot on board has split seconds to make the best decisions he can come up with. While the NTSB get years to decide what should have been done.

It depends, what kind of problem? Pilots everywhere are trained the "fly the airplane" before doing anything else. It's the lesson your CFI hammers into your head relentlessly. To pull the chute is to completely give up flying the airplane. This is the main reason why I question the value of the ballistic parachutes that Cirrus includes with all of their airplanes.

[IJ Reilly]

The fact that the plane was -at all times- over water, and hit a building that is right on the river bank suggests that it was either somehow intentional or a very bad pilot error. The fact that they say the plane never climbed over 800 feet could suggest either. It does, however, indicate that it is very unlikely that the crash into a building was due to a glitch with the planes controls. It could have been the case that there was a mechanical failure that prevented the plane from gaining altitude, but it still would have been the pilot's fault that it hit a building.

I'm going to try to have a look at the charts for the NYC area today but I understand from what I've read that there's a VFR corridor along the East River, which means an area and altitude where airplanes can fly without ATC clearance. Typically, such corridors run from the surface to 1,000 feet or so, out of the way of airliners. Otherwise most of the NYC area is going to be covered with Class B controlled airspace for the three big airports.

Impossible to say what went wrong here yet, but it does appear that they were trying to get back to Teterboro. Whatever the problem was, they thought it was serious enough to make a beeline back to home base, but not serious enough to ditch in the East River, pull the chute, or ask for emergency clearance to land at La Guardia or JFK.

FWIW, it's a lead-pipe cinch that the pilot will be found at least partially responsible for this accident by the NTSB. They always are, whenever an accident occurs that might have been preventable, no matter what events set it in motion.

[IJ Reilly]

This is the reason why all airplanes should have black boxes, we may never know what really happened.

Give the NTSB some credit -- they always manage to figure it out. Black boxes on all airplanes is an impossible idea. Some airplanes don't even have electrical systems!

[yippy]

Yes, there is a VFR corridor along the rivers in NYC. My uncle flew it a few years ago in his single engine Cessna. He said that he was required to stay below 1000' or 1200', something like that.

My guess is that the problem was minor enough that the instructor thought it good training to let the student call the shots. If the area was clear of airplanes then they probably started turning around and then buried their heads in the instrument panel to try and figure out better what was wrong with the plane. In that case it only takes an incorrect estimation of the turn radius for this to happen.

[Cube54]

Don't know if this was mentioned here-didn't see it but there was a very good, brief live discussion about what may have been the cause posted on the;

http://www.washingtonpost.com earlier today (Thursday. Oct.12)

The 1st question/statement was from a person who flys that area of New York.

I suggest a read; scroll down to 'Live Online' & Select 'Plane Crash'

Note: You may have to register (free & no spam) to read the posts

[MacNut]

WASHINGTON -- A light wind was cited by federal investigators Friday for blowing a small airplane carrying Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle off course and into a New York City high-rise on Oct. 11.

The National Transportation Safety Board said the wind, coupled with the pilot's inability to turn sharply, forced the aircraft away from its intended path over the East River and into the building.

The airplane, which also carried flight instructor Tyler Stanger, struck the building and fell 30 stories to the street below. Investigators do not say whether they determined who was at the controls of the Cirrus SR20.

The report issued Friday said the airplane was flying along the East River between Manhattan and Queens when it attempted a U-turn with only 1,300 feet of room for the turn. To make a successful turn, the aircraft would have had to bank so steeply that it might have stalled, the NTSB said in an update on the crash.

Lidle and Stanger were making an aerial tour of Manhattan before flying back to California.

Though Stanger was an experienced pilot, Lidle was not.

Investigators found no problem with the propeller and engine, nor did they find any evidence of a fire or other damage while the airplane was in flight.

[IJ Reilly]

Flying in NYC must be a lot like mountain flying. You always have to assume that the canyon you are flying into will end abruptly and you will have to execute a rapid u-turn. No room for error there either. It's an exercise you work constantly in your mind when you mountain fly. If I had to turn around right now, could I do it? I guess Lidle and his flight instructor either didn't make that calculation or made it erroneously.