Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

News: Aircraft crashes into NYC bldg

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • E229Lt
    replied
    Here is an interesting quote:

    At the north end of Roosevelt Island, the East River dead-ends onto LGA’s air space. I always turn around well south of the Island, where the river is nice and wide. I warn the passengers of the G-forces and usually make a 60°-banked turn (it’s my sadistic streak – 45° is plenty to make the turn – but do brief your passengers on the turn or they’ll freak out). Watch the wind – it’s usually from the west, so a left turn is into the wind. Rarely, winds are from the east, however, and then a right turn makes more sense to keep the radius small. Remember, the turn takes 20 to 30 seconds and a 10 knot wind will displace you by 300 to 450 feet during that turn; that’s significant. Also, slow down before turning. The radius of the turn dramatically increases with speed. Make sure you announce well and look behind you before turning. Do I need to tell you to be proficient in steep turns before venturing into the East River? This is not a place to practice them.
    It is from the following website:

    http://netlib.bell-labs.com/who/sape...son/index.html

    Leave a comment:


  • nmfire
    replied
    But we are talking about a SR20, not a commercial airliner, jet, twin-prop, fighter jet, or C130 bomber. There is a big difference between aircrafts, systems that can fail, and what happens when they fail to what extent here. This is a little single engine SR20 and you don't just have every flight control fail at once.

    I think we'd know by now if he hit an entire flock of birds concidering the helicopter pilot saw this happen so I'm ruling that out. One bird alone is not going to cause this crash and

    I've never been in that cooridor so I'm hardly an expert on it. I do know that he was on a straight section of the cooridor level at 700ft and he made a significant turn way off course to the left and into the city. He was level at 600-700ft for the entire duration of this flight, there was no stall and loss of altitude during the U-Turn. In fact, he made the U-Turn quite wide by turning in the opposite direction first to allow a wider turn. The crash was significantly after the U-Turn and after being re-established in straight and level flight.

    So, I deduct the U-Turn was not a factor in this crash. It happened long after that was in his wake.

    Leave a comment:


  • VinnieB
    replied
    Originally posted by E229Lt
    Seeing as this corridor ends at the northern tip of Roosevelt Island (where the plane turned) to avoid LAG airspace, couldn't a poorly executed turn cause an a/c to approach stall speed and then attempt manuevers to regain speed, which could be construed as "acrobatics" to the layman?

    With the winds recorded at ENE, 10 knots and the turn being made as a jibe as opposed to a tack (sorry, I know nautical terms) cause the plane to lose some lift?



    [/I]
    Yes it sure can Lou. Once you enter a turn, you start to bleed airspeed...if you turn to tight without enough speed....you approach stall real quick....you can also loose lift and enter a flat spin. To the layman...this would look like acrobatics....but its a true emergency. In the military...pilots...would be thinking about ejection, and most do so. Spins are a tough thing to get out of, even for an experianced pilot. Add depending of the type of Aircraft...certain angles of bank and (g) absorbstion can cause enough stress to crack flight control surfaces and airfoils.

    Leave a comment:


  • VinnieB
    replied
    Yes nmfire....bird strikes and injenstions can make aircraft veer. Especially a flock of them. I can remember losing two engines on climb out from this, in Blackstone, VA. As did all the other emergencies I listed. The pilot and flight instructor could have lost SA, which is the cause of many accidents, fixed on some problem and not have noticed the buildings....yes it can happen. Florida Everglades come to mind....as does the F/A-18 that hit a rock filled cloud in Alaska, the KC-130 that smacked the earth in Pakistan, and the herc that smacked the earth out west in the late ninties...as for birds the AV-8B I watched injest a pelican, flamout....and become a lawn dart in Cherry Point NC. Flight control cables...if installed....could have failed, complete hydraulic system loss....fly by wire systems, if installed....can cause problems...(F-16s come to mind). I don't know much about the A/C he was flying....but I know enough about flying, A/C systems, and I have been through my share of real emergencies. And I know plenty about flying up and down that corridor....and I know its a REAL bumpy ride.

    I doubt he was fat, dumb, and happy and just decided to slamm into a building. I am guessing that they encountered a serious mechanical issue, or lost SA.

    Leave a comment:


  • E229Lt
    replied
    Originally posted by nmfire
    Probably not. This would be the more like driving equivilent of swerving off the road straight into a brick wall painted bright yellow with reflectors. The VFR cooridor at this location is a straight-away. He made a very pronounced and sharp turn off the VFR cooridor and into the city.
    Seeing as this corridor ends at the northern tip of Roosevelt Island (where the plane turned) to avoid LAG airspace, couldn't a poorly executed turn cause an a/c to approach stall speed and then attempt manuevers to regain speed, which could be construed as "acrobatics" to the layman?

    With the winds recorded at ENE, 10 knots and the turn being made as a jibe as opposed to a tack (sorry, I know nautical terms) cause the plane to lose some lift?

    By about 96th Street, general aviation aircraft headed north must either execute a U-turn to avoid the restricted airspace around LaGuardia Airport or get permission from air traffic control to go any further.

    Lidle's plane struck The Belaire condominium tower near that turnaround point.

    The plane was cruising at 112 mph at 700 feet as it began to make a U-turn. It was last seen on radar about a quarter-mile north of the building, in the middle of the turn, at 500 feet, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
    Even some experienced pilots who have made that turn along the narrow stretch of the East River said it was a tricky maneuver - and wouldn't do it again.


    A helicopter pilot who had been in the air over the East River at the time told authorities that he watched as Lidle's plane performed wild "acrobatic maneuvers" moments before the crash, indicating that its pilot was likely trying to avoid the building as it experienced control problems.
    Last edited by E229Lt; 10-13-2006, 11:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DennisTheMenace
    replied
    There are bold pilots and there are old pilots, there are very few old bold pilots.

    Leave a comment:


  • nmfire
    replied
    Probably not. This would be the more like driving equivilent of swerving off the road straight into a brick wall painted bright yellow with reflectors. The VFR cooridor at this location is a straight-away. He made a very pronounced and sharp turn off the VFR cooridor and into the city.
    Last edited by nmfire; 10-13-2006, 11:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • E229Lt
    replied
    I am not a pilot and I have no information from official sources but when I was teaching my kid to drive I remember he clipped a curb or two while doing U-turns.

    Couldn't it be that simple?

    Leave a comment:


  • nmfire
    replied
    I'm not being a jerk, I'm being realisic. Some basic knowlege of aircraft systems and how to handle in-flight emergencies can disprove half the crap the media is spewing without a second thought. I heard one of them say "Maybe the wind blew it off course". Was there a hurricane I didn't know about?

    Yes, it could have been a massive control failure. You seem to know quite a bit about aviation Chief, so you probably also know how unlikely it is compared to other possibilities.

    The radar data seems to indicate he was well below the cieling and the VFR cooridor top so it was VFR conditions at their altitude, in theory anyway. Keeping in mind how totally unlikely it is that all the controls just ran away and went brizerk, I'm just sitting here scratching my head now.

    Yes, there a million things that could go wrong. However, you have to concider which would cause the plane to just veer off course and into a building like that. Engine, fuel, and electrical failures don't cause that in VFR conditions. You can rule out anything related to fuel, engine, or electricity right now with no questions asked.

    So that leads to control surface failures. The ailerons could jam but you still have vertical control and a rudder. They weren't in any kind of turn at the time so even they did jam, it wouldn't have been at 30 degrees. The elevator could jam. Electric trim could run away but that is why there are circuit breakers and manual trim. In either case, you still have bank and rudder. A rudder could jam but you'd still have bank and vertical control. You'd need to have a massive and/or multi-system control surface failure for this to happen. Planes hit birds all the time. That results in either an engine failure or asymetric lift from surface damage. These are handled just as any engine problem or control problem. Birds don't make planes veer to the left and decend into a building and they don't make every control surface fail unless you hit a condore. Point being, none of this is likely enough to warrent much concideration. I mean, it could have been hit by a meteor that broke loose from jupitor after a solar flare, but we'd all agree that probably isn't the case. With two pilots (especially a CFII), any reasonably likely problem should have been manageable to a conclusion somewhere other than a building.

    So, what else is left? If it probably isn't electrical, mechanical, fuel, or total control surface failure, what is left? The humans behind the yoke. What I can't explain is what went wrong with the humans. It had to be something significant for two pilots, one being a CFII, to fly into a building. VFR conditions, obstructions are huge and obvious, it makes no sense. If they were in IFR conditions, I could easily say it was probably spacial distortion but 700ft was VFR conditions it doesn't appear they ever climbed above 1000ft.

    Originally posted by STFDQuint3
    wow, if landing a malfunctioning plane is that simple, how come we have airline crashes in the first place? We just must have a whole lot of uneducated pilots flying around our skies.
    Umm, no. That isn't what I said and you don't know what you're talking about. There are a LOT of in-flight malfunctions that very manageable and can end in a safe off-airport landing or ditching. You are thinking of accidents that are NOT of that nature because those are the only ones you plastered all over the news media. There is nothing exciting about a plane landing on all its wheels on a runway without massive injury or death.
    Last edited by nmfire; 10-13-2006, 11:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DennisTheMenace
    replied
    Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    There was water on that fire fast. Great job FDNY.
    Ditto, I had thought that it had been held to two alarms. Still a relatively small and fast job in the great history of the FDNY.

    Leave a comment:


  • VinnieB
    replied
    Could have been a number of things that caused the crash, FOD, Fuel pump failure, Hyd pump failure, bird strike, aileron trim tab failure...etc etc....let the NTSB figure it out before we continue this flamefest.


    Good job by the brothers....I wouldn't expect anything less from them.

    Leave a comment:


  • CaptainGonzo
    replied
    Originally posted by nmfire
    What is your point?

    First of all, I'm pretty sure the VFR cooridor does not include the 30th floor 574 East 72nd street.
    Why the smart *** attitude?

    Second of all, VFR is VFR. They are not on specific flight plan with specific altitudes and reporting points. Radar and a mode C transponder have nothing to do with this. They were not under the control of NY Approach and NY Approach is not responsible for what someone does in that cooridor. You can't fly ANYWHERE around NYC, LI, & CT without being on someone's radar. Your point is moot. That is the whole purpose of the VFR cooridor in the first place. The controllers are controlling IFR traffic, and traffic transitioning or landing in the bravo airspace Traffic in the VFR cooridor is on their own to fly the right way.

    And yes, I did concider that they might be doing hood work. Once again, your point is what? The student is under the hood, the instructor is eyes open and up. If the instructor isn't asleep, I fail to see why it matters that the student is under the hood? And on top of that, if they did go into the clouds, then they blew VFR minimums anyway which is just as bad. And the instructor being IFR rated should have been able to recover from whatever happened before careening into a building a few hundred feet from a busy sidewalk.

    It was one failed decision making process after another. I don't need an NTSB report to see that. I love all this "i heard it might have been a fuel problem" and other such things. Nobody has any possible way to even suspect anything like that right now. If you heard that, someone made it up. And even if his engine blew up and the fuel all leaked out while the landing gear was jammed up and the bagage was on fire, you can still glide the plane to safe "landing" on the ground or in the river or somewhere other than a populated city street. Planes fly because they have wings, not because they have engines. You just don't climb without and engine.
    And what is attached to those wings.. airlerons, flaps..

    What is attached to the empennage? Rudder, elevators...

    A flight control malfunction could have very well sent the aircraft into a stall or other situation that could not be any recovery from, and it would not matter if the pilot in command had 100 hours, 1000 or more hours of flight time.

    You need altitude in order glide. If the aircraft had a glide ratio of 10:1, and the aircaft was flying at an altitude of 800 feet (where it was was when NY TRACON lost it on radar), in theory, Lidle's Cirrus should have been able to cover 8,000 feet of horizontal distance... providing the aircraft was at the optimal angle of attack. Other considerations would be the aircraft's configuration, weight and wind.

    PS: for someone who is questioning people's opinions, such as "it might have been a fuel problem" you sure as hell have made your own mind prior to the NTSB's investigation and findings...
    Last edited by CaptainGonzo; 10-12-2006, 09:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • STFDQuint3
    replied
    Originally posted by nmfire

    It was one failed decision making process after another. I don't need an NTSB report to see that. I love all this "i heard it might have been a fuel problem" and other such things. Nobody has any possible way to even suspect anything like that right now. If you heard that, someone made it up. And even if his engine blew up and the fuel all leaked out while the landing gear was jammed up and the bagage was on fire, you can still glide the plane to safe "landing" on the ground or in the river or somewhere other than a populated city street. Planes fly because they have wings, not because they have engines. You just don't climb without and engine.

    wow, if landing a malfunctioning plane is that simple, how come we have airline crashes in the first place? We just must have a whole lot of uneducated pilots flying around our skies.

    Leave a comment:


  • nmfire
    replied
    Originally posted by CaptainGonzo
    They were flying in an authorized VFR flight corridor, and since they were in class B airspace, they would be required to have a transponder with Mode C veil and NY TRACON would have them under radar surveillance.

    Have you considered that they may have been doing some IFR flight training with Cory Lidle "under the hood"? The aircraft did issue a mayday, possibly for a flight control malfunction?
    What is your point?

    First of all, I'm pretty sure the VFR cooridor does not include the 30th floor 574 East 72nd street. Second of all, VFR is VFR. They are not on specific flight plan with specific altitudes and reporting points. Radar and a mode C transponder have nothing to do with this. They were not under the control of NY Approach and NY Approach is not responsible for what someone does in that cooridor. You can't fly ANYWHERE around NYC, LI, & CT without being on someone's radar. Your point is moot. That is the whole purpose of the VFR cooridor in the first place. The controllers are controlling IFR traffic, and traffic transitioning or landing in the bravo airspace Traffic in the VFR cooridor is on their own to fly the right way.

    And yes, I did concider that they might be doing hood work. Once again, your point is what? The student is under the hood, the instructor is eyes open and up. If the instructor isn't asleep, I fail to see why it matters that the student is under the hood? And on top of that, if they did go into the clouds, then they blew VFR minimums anyway which is just as bad. And the instructor being IFR rated should have been able to recover from whatever happened before careening into a building a few hundred feet from a busy sidewalk.

    It was one failed decision making process after another. I don't need an NTSB report to see that. I love all this "i heard it might have been a fuel problem" and other such things. Nobody has any possible way to even suspect anything like that right now. If you heard that, someone made it up. And even if his engine blew up and the fuel all leaked out while the landing gear was jammed up and the bagage was on fire, you can still glide the plane to safe "landing" on the ground or in the river or somewhere other than a populated city street. Planes fly because they have wings, not because they have engines. You just don't climb without and engine.
    Last edited by nmfire; 10-12-2006, 06:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MIKEYLIKESIT
    replied
    Looked pretty serious to me.

    There was water on that fire fast. Great job FDNY.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X