Aircraft crashes into NYC building

[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/s...b27725a2d7a858&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/s...b27725a2d7a858&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.

 

[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.