What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Plane Crash into Building in NY

Any thing to learn?

My thought is what could you do to avoid this. Well not knowing what happened, I know of a things I would do flying the East River that may not have been done. A few comments on Jekylls excellent perspective, which I agree with mostly.

QUOTE=Jekyll: Second, the fireball clearly indicates there was fuel on board, maybe lots of it. (They have the engine they will know if it was making power.)

Third, there is nothing wrong with flying in rain, the FAA was calling it 9 miles of vis. Visibility is just that. It may have been raining but, the vis was still 9.
(With respect, 9 miles is not super and local rain can cut that down to nothing. Than you say the following:)

Jekyll: I've flown the Hudson corridor many times to include the night the lights were out in NYC 2 years ago. I've never had the urge to venture into the East River corridor specifically because it ends and is very narrow.
(Lets not avoid the obvious, flying low, over densely populated areas, over water near obstacles in restrictive airspace, gives you less options, if we can take anything from it. May be Lidle wanted to sight see before flying out West. Flying lower has its risk, especially around obstacles, man made or natural.)


Fourth, the ceiling was higher than the top of the corridor so that was not a factor.
(Fair enough, I guess the class B floor is about 500 to 1100 feet, but lower vis and grey sky makes it harder to see. It may have been no factor? )

Fifth, he was with a flight instructor. His low time and experience is not relevant. It appears he recognized his limitations and the risks which he addressed through his WISE choice to take an instructor with him.
(May be? It also could have been required by his really, really, really big insurance policy and riders from the Yankees? Did the CFI and Lidle know each other? Just wondering what the cockpit dynamics where. I gather he got his licence somewhere else, may be with a different CFI and just bought the plane. I know it takes time to learn the "glass". Also Lidle may not have been doing much recent flying due to the playoffs. All little factors, each by them not critical individually, but they add up.)

Sixth, high performance aircraft or not, he was in cruise and the speed limit in the corridor is 140kts.
(I call it the rate of event control, known as the throttle, and the time maker lever, known as the flaps, slow down. Two words, Slow Flight. Gives you more time and smaller turn radius.)

Seventh, seems to me that he operated as a "smart athlete" by recognizing he needed an instructor for the flight. All pilots face unexpected system failure and the fact that the aircraft may have suffered some sort of technical failure CAN'T be ascribed to him being a "dumb athlete".
(Who was the PIC? It's not a given that the CFI was making decisions, since Lidle was current and qualified. Who knows what the cockpit dynamics where. The point is when flying with two qualified pilots, one has to be PIC and agreed on. You can change that during the flight but that has to be discussed. There have been many accidents from "I thought you had it!" The CFI may have flown this route daily for years; It will all come out in time.)


Eight, as for why they turned into a building , well, none of us were in the cockpit and don't know all the issues that led them to turn the way they did when faced with an emergency. Their mayday call indicates they were in facing an emergency.
(THERE Where no MAYDAY calls as first REPORTED. This is an interesting comment: )

Flying the Hudson is exciting. Dodging helicopters, bridges and populated areas. It is impossible to abide by the general FAA rule of remaining 500 above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet over a populated area, I guess the river really isn't a populated area though.
(The option to exercise that excitement may change :( ; sounds like a hand-full, even for an experience pilot. Knowing what I know now, I would not fly the East River knowing what I now know, unless there was a real need. I certainly would pick better weather. )

"General aviation aircraft are allowed to go about as far north as Manhattan's
96th Street. There, they must either execute a U-turn to avoid the restricted
airspace around LaGuardia Airport, or get permission from air-traffic control to
climb higher and continue north, or turn west over Central Park.

Lidle's plane collided with an apartment tower (20th floor) just a short
distance from that turnaround point."
 
Last edited:
The instructor and Lidle knew each other

The articles I read (more than one) said that the instructor that died with Lidle was the onethat Lidle got his private license with on the West Coast. The instructor came to NYC to fly back to California with Lidle in the Cirrus. The quick tour of NYC was just a sightseeing side trip before the big X-C to California.

So whatever else went wrong, the two pilots knew each other...at least if these articles are correct, which you never know...

At the risk of speculating, this also suggests that they had plenty of fuel onboard, as does the post-crash fire.
 
Interesting

mgomez said:
The articles I read (more than one) said that the instructor that died with Lidle was the one that Lidle got his private license with on the West Coast. The instructor came to NYC to fly back to California with Lidle in the Cirrus. The quick tour of NYC was just a sightseeing side trip before the big X-C to California.

So whatever else went wrong, the two pilots knew each other...at least if these articles are correct, which you never know...

At the risk of speculating, this also suggests that they had plenty of fuel on board, as does the post-crash fire.
Thanks so can we consider that the CFI was not a East coast local and expert? Was the CFI up on the Cirrus. I think Lidle flew Cessnas in training.

When I said cockpit dynamics, knowing each other is not always a good thing. Some times pilots that are comfortable are not as observant, watchful when flying as they would be with a pilot they don't know well. Also was there a division in duties, one pilot as extra eyes, communicating and the other just flying and navigating, not doubt trying to look out as well. The radar return shows that in the left turn about 1/4 north of the building the plane lost 200 feet while turning.

The cockpit dynamics in airlines is watched. Two pilots new to a plane, low time in type, can't fly together, the green on green rule. More subtle issues arise when a new hire FO flys with a senior Captain. The FO may be less willing to say, excuse me sir you are messing up, sir. :eek: Add flying new routes into the mix, which some airlines may not allow, unless one has experience on that route. I suspect this flight would not have meet some airline crew pairing rules.

What to learn? May be nothing, but you can make a math equation and add up the risk factors, assigning a number to each little part of the puzzle. New plane and new area are two factors. The solution may not result in an accident regardless what number it adds up to. There is some other factor there, called ........... (apply appropriate ideology, belief system and philosophy).
 
Last edited:
As expected, this is making some more sense as details emerge. Some interesting things that I found today:

* "The NTSB's Debbie Hersman said the Cirrus Design SR20 aircraft was traveling 112 mph at 700 feet when it reached 70th Street and began the turn." - CNN

* "The last radar picture of Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle's plane showed the single-engine craft at 500 feet in a left turn a quarter-mile north of the building it eventually struck" - CNN

* The building appears to be 400 to 600 feet from the shore of the river. (Google maps aerial photo)

* The airplane was flying a narrow coridor of non-Class B airspace that ran along the rivers. The ceiling appears to be 1000 ft. It is not well depicted on the Skyvector version of the New York TCA, and I cannot find the Helicopter route chart that supposedly shows it better.

From what I understand, if you are flying this particular route NE-bound over the east river, headed NE along the east side of Manhattan, you must either get Class B clearance and proceed towards LGA or make a tight 180 turn to go back down the "finger" of non-Class B airspace. The "finger" appears to be the width of the river, which is about 2000 to 2500 feet wide (estimate from Google Maps aerial photo and NYC TAC).

The "finger" appears to end about the NE end of FDR Island (sorry, I don't know any local NYC term for it), which is about 3500 ft north of where the crash occurred.

* Rogers gives the following formula for estimating turn radius for a 45 deg bank:

R = 0.107 * V^2

Where R is the radius in feet and V is the velocity in knots. Pluging in 112 kt, I get a radius of 1342 ft, or a turn diameter of 2,684 ft.

Theoretically, if one were flying up this "finger", you would need to do a tight 180 turn to stay outside of the Class B. At 112 kt., you would need the entire width of the "finger" to make a turn at 45 bank. A 60 deg turn would require less room.

* The Jan 2005 POH for the SR20 indicates that the stall speed with flaps up and 3000 lb (MGTW) is 78-80 kt KCAS at 45 deg and 93-95 kt KCAS at 60 deg bank (range depends on CG - first figure is most aft GC, second is most fwd GC).

Doug
 
Last edited:
I personally knew the CFI involved. Both he and Cory were based here in Socal. He was Cory's CFI for this private (yes he trained in Cessnas). A very sad and unfortuate situation all around. Cory had just bought the airplane and they were ferrying it back to Socal were it was to be based.
 
NTSB stats?

There are so many crashes of the Cirrus design that I heard of, so I went to Query the NTSB database. I queried how many accidents there were since 2001 to present.

Here is what I have found that:
Cirrus had 59 accidents with 22 fatal crashes(40 persons)
in comparison to...
RV (all) had 154 accidents with 44 fatal crashes (54 persons)

The only conclusion I have is that maybe RV are safer airplanes?

Fly safe everybody don't be a statistic.
 
It is on the chart...

the_other_dougreeves said:
* The airplane was flying a narrow coridor of non-Class B airspace that ran along the rivers. The ceiling appears to be 1000 ft. It is not well depicted on the Skyvector version of the New York TCA, and I cannot find the Helicopter route chart that supposedly shows it better.
Doug

The other Doug....

It is marked on the Skyvector Terminal Area chart - it's in little text over the entrance to the East river , with a dotted line sort of pointing to the area.
It is marked 70 over 11, so it's a less than 1100 ft. max. height.

It's also one of the most confusing markings I've seen on an FAA chart.... :(

Took me 5 minutes to find it looking and blowing up the chart on the monitor... how the %^&$ anyone could see that flying, I don't know.

Also, the idea of a virtual VFR box end canyon seems strange... are there any particular tourist spots to see up this "canyon"?

gil in Tucson - and I though the Los Angeles Terminal Area was difficult... :)
 
az_gila said:
The other Doug....

It is marked on the Skyvector Terminal Area chart - it's in little text over the entrance to the East river , with a dotted line sort of pointing to the area.
It is marked 70 over 11, so it's a less than 1100 ft. max. height.

It's also one of the most confusing markings I've seen on an FAA chart.... :(
My bad. That explains the 700 altitude.

Still, why in the heck would they make such an odd shape? I guess it was designed for heli traffic to get in and out of Manhattan. It makes the LA area VFR coridors and routes seem simple. They certainly are bigger.
az_gila said:
gil in Tucson - and I though the Los Angeles Terminal Area was difficult... :)
I've always thought that the LA Class B/C/D vortex was busy but fairly logical. Maybe it's because I've flown it before.
Doug
 
Statistics, **** statistics...

RV9798 said:
There are so many crashes of the Cirrus design that I heard of, so I went to Query the NTSB database. I queried how many accidents there were since 2001 to present.

Here is what I have found that:
Cirrus had 59 accidents with 22 fatal crashes(40 persons)
in comparison to...
RV (all) had 154 accidents with 44 fatal crashes (54 persons)

The only conclusion I have is that maybe RV are safer airplanes?

I don't think so. Let me see now....you're saying that the RVs had MORE accidents, MORE fatal crashes, and killed MORE people....but you're concluding they're safer than the Cirrus. I think that falls into the realm of wishful thinking.

To make any meaningful comparison between aircraft you need to be looking at the number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours, and also the number of fatalities per 100,000 flight hours (they mean completely different things). Even then the data may be irrelevant. For instance you would expect more fatalities per accident in a plane with 4 seats than a plane with 2 seats due to the additional number of passengers being carried on average per flight hour. Then there's the mission of the plane to consider. Would a high fatality rate per 100,000 flight hours in a Pitts Special suggest that the plane is not crashworthy..or does it suggest perhaps that it is being used for a relatively dangerous and risky activity.

As pilots we should be careful about making hasty and rash comments on the safety (or lack thereof) of particular aircraft, and the safety of aviation in general, without proper data. After all...that's what we critisise the media for.
 
300' AGL

Jekyll said:
Careful there Jon.

First, what does the age of his ticket have to do with this. The FAA and his instructors attested through the certification process that he was trained and qualified to fly where he was.... <snip> Jekyll

The guy hit a NYC building at 300' AGL! How is that defensible? No normal pilot would fly that low over that city if their plane was on fire.

And this "box canyon" excuse is beyond dumb. We're saying a guy who's stupidly arrogant enough to fly around in NYC at window-peeking height might suddenly care about busting an invisible airspace barrier by the few feet it takes to turn around? Give me a break!

I bet that poor CFI spent most of his last flight screaming at the dumb jock to turn around -- and his last minutes on earth fighting for control of the stick.
 
With all due respect Jon, he probably wasn't a dumb jock to his wife or his 6 year old son. He was a journeyman pitcher who worked his way up through the minor leagues making less than CFIs make. Any mistake he made he has paid for with his life.
 
RV9798 said:
There are so many crashes of the Cirrus design that I heard of, so I went to Query the NTSB database. I queried how many accidents there were since 2001 to present.

Here is what I have found that:
Cirrus had 59 accidents with 22 fatal crashes(40 persons)
in comparison to...
RV (all) had 154 accidents with 44 fatal crashes (54 persons)

The only conclusion I have is that maybe RV are safer airplanes?

Fly safe everybody don't be a statistic.

Not good logic. " I drink rum and Coke, and get drunk. I drink Jack Daniels and Coke, and get drunk. I drink Jim Beam and Coke, and get drunk. It MUST be the Coke". Twisted logic.
 
jonbakerok said:
The guy hit a NYC building at 300' AGL! How is that defensible? No normal pilot would fly that low over that city if their plane was on fire.

And this "box canyon" excuse is beyond dumb. We're saying a guy who's stupidly arrogant enough to fly around in NYC at window-peeking height might suddenly care about busting an invisible airspace barrier by the few feet it takes to turn around? Give me a break!

I bet that poor CFI spent most of his last flight screaming at the dumb jock to turn around -- and his last minutes on earth fighting for control of the stick.
...or more likely, they were both preoccupied with something in the cockpit and their turn became a steep spiral for about 10 seconds resulting in hitting the building. Just plain old CFIT or CFIB (controlled flight into a building).

There are quite a few crashes where the pilot apparently just flew into the ground. Has happened in heavy airliners. In this case, there was a building in the way.

Not sure what the "dumb jock" comment has to do with, other than not getting picked for the recess football team ;) but seriously, I doubt either knew before impact. As a CFI and a normal human pilot, seeing an imminent collision, I'd have pulled to the point of breaking the stick *and* launched the parachute all within about 1/2 second - regardless of what the student was doing. We know the latter didn't happen.
 
A sight seeing trip gone bad, that's what it was. They probably did not penetrate Class B airspace, but a 90-270 on the east side of the river might have saved the day with minimum exposure to a violation....hind sight is so easy.

Lesson to be learned - flight planning, flight planning, flight planning. Obviously, the East River canyon corridor was set up for helcopters. The charts will say that in the future if the corridor does not go away completely.

AOPA is already on the offensive. Last night's CBS news with Katie had a segment with Phil Boyer at the controls in flight making the point that shutting down airspace for security reasons while permitting buses, trucks, trains, and autos to run freely makes no sense. I was pleased to see the net work give him the time on prime time.

Truth is, there are powerful people who do not like pilots. They use any excuse to lock up airspace and facilities. The mayor of Chicago has jumped on this band stand already again. This is a war of sorts. Our hired guns are AOPA and EAA and we must be counted with these organizations. If you are not a member, become one.

dd
 
Last edited:
The airspace in this area is easy to visualize using Google Earth and the 3D airspace polygons adapted for it.
 
Just wondering if an Immelman could have been executed to change direction in this situation where lateral distances are limited- how much height is needed to execute one in a 7/9?
 
RV9798 said:
There are so many crashes of the Cirrus design that I heard of, so I went to Query the NTSB database. I queried how many accidents there were since 2001 to present.

Here is what I have found that:
Cirrus had 59 accidents with 22 fatal crashes(40 persons)
in comparison to...
RV (all) had 154 accidents with 44 fatal crashes (54 persons)

The only conclusion I have is that maybe RV are safer airplanes?

Fly safe everybody don't be a statistic.
There are lies, damm lies and then there are statistics. Try not to use statistics as a drunk uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination!
 
I've been lurking on this board for almost two years. I haven't had anything to contribute since I'm still a PPIMD (Private Pilot In My Dreams), but I have gleaned a lot from all the intellectual and thoughtful discussions on this forum. I am therefore surprised and a little dismayed by the following...

jonbakerok said:
The guy hit a NYC building at 300' AGL! How is that defensible? No normal pilot would fly that low over that city if their plane was on fire.

And this "box canyon" excuse is beyond dumb. We're saying a guy who's stupidly arrogant enough to fly around in NYC at window-peeking height might suddenly care about busting an invisible airspace barrier by the few feet it takes to turn around? Give me a break!
In a city of glass and steel like New York combined with a disproportionately high amount of air traffic, I think making such statements is in poor taste and shows lack of serious thought.

jonbakerok said:
I bet that poor CFI spent most of his last flight screaming at the dumb jock to turn around -- and his last minutes on earth fighting for control of the stick.
None of us were there. There is no black box to recover. All we have is sporadic FAA transcripts, some radar blips, and a couple of burned out apartments. Everything that comes from this will be speculation at best because there simply isn't enough information to come to a 100% conclusion. Perhaps it was pilot error. Perhaps the CFI was flying and made the error. Who knows. But insulting a dead husband and father because he happened to pick sports as his profession is completely obtuse.
 
Last edited:
the_other_dougreeves said:
My bad. That explains the 700 altitude.

Still, why in the heck would they make such an odd shape? I guess it was designed for heli traffic to get in and out of Manhattan. It makes the LA area VFR coridors and routes seem simple. They certainly are bigger.

Doug

There are heliports and seaplane bases on the East side of Manhattan, and my guess is that the East River Exclusion Zone was intended to let them get in and out without a Class B clearance.
 
az_gila said:
The other Doug....

Also, the idea of a virtual VFR box end canyon seems strange... are there any particular tourist spots to see up this "canyon"?

Several! The whole city is a tourist spot!

It's an incredible view of NYC. The UN, Empire State Buildings, the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, Queensboro bridges, Central Park are all laid out before you from that corridor.

It's a wonderful flying experience that I am very glad I was able to do many times when I lived there.
 
Least ye be judged!

jonbakerok said:
The guy hit a NYC building at 300' AGL! How is that defensible? No normal pilot would fly that low over that city if their plane was on fire.

And this "box canyon" excuse is beyond dumb. We're saying a guy who's stupidly arrogant enough to fly around in NYC at window-peeking height might suddenly care about busting an invisible airspace barrier by the few feet it takes to turn around? Give me a break!

I bet that poor CFI spent most of his last flight screaming at the dumb jock to turn around -- and his last minutes on earth fighting for control of the stick.
And we blame the (so called liberal) media for knee-jerk assessments and statements.

The fact that he ended up at 300' AGL doesn't mean he was flying around willy-nilly at that altitude. Where did this "plane on fire" reference come from?

Lots of folks fly "around" NYC between 500 and 1100 feet all the time. The regulations permit it and it is a popular site seeing excursion. I don't think this makes them "stupidly arrogant." I myself have flow up the Hudson (though never the east River) many times. It is very orderly where northbound aircraft fly up the Hudson on the NYC side, while southbound aircraft fly on the New Jersey side. The dedicated frequency for position reports by fixed wing and helicopters make the it quite safe and usually uneventful. So before you start casting stones at "stupidly arrogant dumb jocks" and anyone else who may have made a mistake and paid for it with their lives, why don't we let the NTSB try to figure out what happened first.
 
mgomez said:
Several! The whole city is a tourist spot!

It's an incredible view of NYC. The UN, Empire State Buildings, the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, Queensboro bridges, Central Park are all laid out before you from that corridor.

It's a wonderful flying experience that I am very glad I was able to do many times when I lived there.

What is cooler yet is the night visual approach into LGA. Depending on the landing runway, the flight path went up the Hudson or East Rivers. New Yorkers loved it back in the good ol' days when crews could yack on the PA below 10 grand. Some pilots who lived in the area were great tour guides.

It is not difficult to understand the impulse to do a tour around the city before heading west....really a sad event considering how innocently it began.

dd
 
Stupid Remarks from People in High Places

This on MSN:

?A smart terrorist could load up a small, little plane with biological, chemical or even nuclear material and fly up the Hudson or East rivers, no questions asked,? said Schumer, D-N.Y. ?I hope this will be a wake-up call to the FAA to re-examine flight patterns, which, amazingly enough, they haven?t done since 9/11.?

So could a terrorist do the same in a boat or a truck or a van etc etc.
 
Last edited:
tragic accident

cobra said:
Just wondering if an Immelman could have been executed to change direction in this situation where lateral distances are limited- how much height is needed to execute one in a 7/9?
You could only do that if Rotary powered. :rolleyes: You know what an Immelman is right, a half loop to inverted and roll to level. It is a aerobatic maneuver. You are not serious are you? Now may be a chandelle may have done it?

The Chandelle is a MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE CLIMBING COURSE REVERSAL. Named for the French aviator who first perfected the maneuver as a combat tactic during the early days of World War 1, it's a required element for the commercial pilot practical test (check ride) in single engine planes. It requires precise control in bank and pitch to result at min speed and wings level at the 180 degree change in heading. Gain in height is not critical but min speed is. Immelman is not required for any rating. Just want to clear the air. Cobra you need to stop watching Iron Eagle II, III or 4 or what ever, the worse flying movies ever made.

As mentioned the "radar video" as the reporter stated (later stated by NTSB spokesperson) showed a descent of 200 feet in 10 seconds in the turn. Mode C which can be off +/- 100 feet I might add. I suspect they would have just maintained altitude or climbed slightly, even at the risk of busting airspace, they may not have impacted. 20/20 hind sight.

Year ago as a CFI, I let a student make a questionable soft field takeoff. It resulted in looking straight on at the tops of 150 foot evergreen trees, on climb out. Climbing straight at the tree top, I took the plane away from the student and made a immediate left turn. Fortunately the 45 degree turn, with stall horn beeping on and off, provide an escape route over lower obstacles. We climbed out with out hitting anything. I would like to say I had planned that save, but we where lucky. There where so many little factors that contributed to that near miss event. That was over 10,000 hours ago. I still remember that today as if it was yesterday. It's a feeling I never want to feel again and have avoided since, a feeling where your options are nil to none. I know I was lucky. Nuff said.

If you look at the building they hit, there are two other tall buildings to the north, offset to each side, set up in a bowling-ball pin formation. May be a last second turn to the west down the street would have saved the day? Who knows. It does not matter now.

This looks like a tragic accident. Hearts and prayers to the families.
 
Last edited:
Brantel said:
This on MSN:

?A smart terrorist could load up a small, little plane with biological, chemical or even nuclear material and fly up the Hudson or East rivers, no questions asked,? said Schumer, D-N.Y. ?I hope this will be a wake-up call to the FAA to re-examine flight patterns, which, amazingly enough, they haven?t done since 9/11.?

So could a terrorist do the same in a boat or a truck or a van etc etc.
These people are total morons.

The fact of the matter is that since so few people even understand what GA is, there is no respect for it. Anyone with a fake drivers license can rent a Ryder truck, load it up with explosives, and park it out front of a building. Oh wait, that happened in 1995. Why are rental trucks allowed near major cities today? What did the DOT do to restrict the travel of vehicles that can carry 100x what a single engine airplane can carry? Nothing. Nada. But notice how that point hasn't been hit home in the media.
 
osxuser said:
Cory had just bought the airplane and they were ferrying it back to Socal were it was to be based.

Me thinks the answer may be in the above statement.

IIRC, the Cirrus factory will not sell a plane without taking their training course. An indivudial re-selling one doesnt need to do that, I suspect.

When/where did he get the plane?? How much training did he get in model?? From whom??/ How many hours in type?? ETC..

Details not yet given may eventually clear this up. Or may not.

In the meantime, fly safe y'all.

Mike
 
Last edited:
A message from one of the Moderators...

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me be the first to say that this thread has been interesting and informative to me. I was quite busy yesterday at work and didn't get a chance to read all the posts in this thread. I feel I have been better informed and have a better understanding of the facts of this sad incident by reading this thread than by listening to or watching the "news." Actually, I have resisted the urge to listen to the major news outlets for some of the same reasons as expressed by many of you.
Now the difficult part...
Some of you may have noticed that I have editted and even deleted some of your posts. This is not meant to discourage you from posting here. Before deleting one of the messages, I went back and visited the "Rules" myself. (Doug has placed the link very conveniently in the center of the first page.) I encourage each of you to do so, especially those of you who may feel miffed because your post has been editted or even deleted. Doug has developed and maintains a wonderful way for us to discuss RV topics. After reading several of the posts, I just began to feel like we were drifting off track.
Thanks for your involvement and participation in the VAF Forums.
Sincerely,
Don Hull
P.S. I will share with you something a dear friend has on his office wall: "Life is full of situations crying out not to be commented upon." There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. I, like you, am challenged everyday as to when I should speak up or keep quiet.
 
Last edited:
GMC

Im a bit surprised you consider the Immelman an extreme maneuver- it is a common procedure in the military. IMHO, It is one of the safe aerobatic maneuvers that does not require high-G dives- basically a half roll + a half climbing loop, and it needs only vertical space to change direction. FWIW, I have no idea what (Iron Eagles?) has to do with the question posed, never saw it.

I gather that the Chantelle is a high-performance climbing turn, requires a pitch reversal during the half loop. If anything it might be more difficult, and IT requires vertical + horizontal clearance. My question was simply how much of a vertical box the 7/9 needs to change direction- the Immelman probably not an option it this case due to to FAA regs, but it could prove handy if caught in a box canyon someday.

I read somewhere that Van occasionally puts his 9 into a contunuous corkscrewing climbing turn, right after takeoff. He's able to gain altitude without leaving his private strip's area. Pretty neat.
 
Last edited:
An immelman is no big deal provided you have the required speed. Depending on the plane, you might need to dive to get up enough speed. Even under normal circumstances, things get pretty slow as you reach the top, making the roll rate very sluggish. The first time my instructor showed me one, he botched the roll and we fell into a brief spin. In an emergency situation I think things would be worse. Not having adequate speed will most likely have you falling out near the top. In a narrow canyon, this would not be good.
 
The river is narrower than I thought

The river at that point is only 2,100' wide. Here's the bank angle required for various ground speeds to turn inside that diameter:

GS (kts) Bank (deg)
---------------------------
60 17
90 34
97 39 (i.e. the 112 mph radar data reported in the media)
120 51
150 62
180 70

This assumes that one uses the full width of the river to turn. So it's not that steep. If you knew in advance how tight you had to turn, and you rolled into a 39 deg bank right away, you'd make it.

If you started the turn in a more leisurely fashion, and if you had a burning passion for complying with the airspace boundaries, you'd notice after --say -- 90 deg of turn that you were going to overfly the shoreline, and perhaps tighten the turn further.
 
Well, it was bound to happen. The FAA took away the corridor. I wonder if they're going to increase ATC staffing to compensate for all the additional traffic? Get used to a lot of "Cessna 12345, unable...."

sheesh...


edit: I don't even understand how it's going to work. Are they just going to extend the Class B to include it? The ban only applies to airplanes, not helicopters. If they just extend the Class B, ATC is now responsible for seperation. How will they seperate if they're not in contact with the helicopters. Is there a name for this new frankenairspace? I'm not so familiar with tooling around big cities so I don't know if this is common.
 
Last edited:
phelan said:
Anyone with a fake drivers license can rent a Ryder truck, load it up with explosives, and park it out front of a building. Oh wait, that happened in 1995. Why are rental trucks allowed near major cities today? What did the DOT do to restrict the travel of vehicles that can carry 100x what a single engine airplane can carry?

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Mike
 
OK, time to take it to the top!

I've had it. Just emailed this to President Bush:

Mr. President,

The FAA has recently imposed a restriction for aircraft flying in the New York City East River exclusion zone. In response to Cory Lidle's tragic accident, the FAA now requires that pilots get ATC clearance to enter this area.

This was an accident, Mr. President. As a pilot yourself, I'm sure you realize that adding the requirement for an ATC clearance will not keep pilots from inadvertently crashing into buildings. Needless to say, it will also not stop terrorists from intentionally crashing into buildings.

Since 9/11, your Administration has imposed countless restrictions upon the freedom -- not to mention the convenience and pocketbook -- of law-abiding citizens in the name of security. I respectfully request that you ask the FAA to revoke this useless ill-conceived restriction. I understand the political imperative to "do something about this now! Please show that you have the courage to choose the difficult right over the easy wrong.

Seeing from the air the magnificent panorama that New York City has to offer is a uniquely American freedom. This restriction places us on a par with lesser nations, like the one I immigrated from.

Sincerely,
Martin Gomez
 
New restrictions on flight in NYC

Before we get too worked up, we should note that the FAA indicated that it had made the change not for security reasons, but for safety of aircraft. At first I said, "yeah, right." I also think letting some time pass before making such a decision would have been good. But, if those who have noted the narrowness of this corridor (and that it dead-ends) are correct, I'm surprised it has been allowed to this point. As one Embry-Riddle expert noted, the winds coming through the buildings can make flying that route tricky for fixed wing aircraft who already have to maneuver in the tight space. This would also explain why helicopters are exempt from this restriction. If it were just a knee-jerk reaction for security that the FAA closed this corridor, then they would not have exempted helicopters since, I would presume, terrorists could learn how to fly those too. If we as pilots express the same knee-jerk reactions to new FAA regulations and public concern as non-pilots or the media do to the occasional mistakes pilots make, our voice will carry less weight when it comes to FAA regs that really should matter to us. Just my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a good debate. I have to respectfully disagree.

Forcing them to get a clearance (or communicate, or whatever) will neither improve the judgement of the pilots nor change the performance of the aircraft. Would it have made a difference if ATC had said, "Cleared for an "east river tour"....by the way, don't hit a building". Also, we already have rules for how close we're allowed to fly to buildings and structures. These rules didn't help either.

There's not really been any demonstrated public safety risk with this corridor and just on principle there should be no restriction. Why not simply put a TFR over every accident site where an airplane crashes into a building or house?

The only reason for ATC to exist is to provide seperation under IFR conditions. That's it. It's not to make judgement calls as to the piloting of aircraft or public safety. By which criteria shall controllers decide who to clear and who to turn away?

A reasonable action by the FAA would be to increase building/structure minimums in high density, metropolatin areas, or alternately increase minimums in select corridors where warranted. Now that would increase safety margins....if you're plane can't deal with the new minimums 'cause you can't turn that tight, stay out. OK. I could live with that. I always wanted to take a tour of NY by Cub :D

Anyhow, I hope you don't see this as trying to be argumentative or "stirring" the pot. That's not my intent. I just worry that we allow our mostly ignorant "governaut" to stomp places they shouldn't or in ways they shouldn't with no real gain for the general public and a net loss for ourselves.
 
I agree, John. The communication requirement is the particularly weak point of the argument and does make it look like it was for knee-jerk security not pilot safety reasons that the FAA made the change. I too am concerned about the "slippery slope" of any restrictions, but do think we should give it enough time to see what the FAA's reasons really were before getting too worked up. Wow, me defending the FAA--that's a new one!
 
AOPA just said:

?Considering all of the possible overreactions to the Lidle accident
being demanded by some, the FAA?s safety response is reasonable,?
said AOPA President Phil Boyer. ?This provides some breathing room
while the NTSB gathers the facts and arrives at an accident-cause
determination.?
 
East River Restriction

I have flown the Hudson River corridor many times and it is a favorite when taking someone new for a ride down to see the big city. I always wondered why the FAA even allowed the East River section and assumed it was used by helicopters only. I tried it once and turned around just north of the Brooklyn bridge because it is obviously a narrowing dead end that could lead to a really bad day. As long as they leave the Hudson River VFR corridor alone you'll still have a route for one of the most spectacular flights a pilot can make. As long as everyone keeps their heads on a swivel, calls out their position as required and shows a little courtesy to the other aircraft hopefully we wont hear of any more bent planes and the ground-bound public will leave us alone. People in the NYC are rightfully concerned about things flying over their heads and you have to be understanding of that although the media doesn't seem to help matters when something does go wrong. Its those knee jerk over-reactions to a problem that get to me.
NYTOM
Tom Norwood
RV-6A N822PM (res)
 
NYTOM said:
I tried it once and turned around just north of the Brooklyn bridge because it is obviously a narrowing dead end that could lead to a really bad day.
I only did it a few times, which of course could mean I got lucky and that's why I never had a bad day, but if you do it in a slow airplane, turning with a mild bank angle, it's not at all hairy. I stayed up at 1,000'. The real risk is an engine failure...the river is your only choice.
NYTOM said:
As long as they leave the Hudson River VFR corridor alone you'll still have a route for one of the most spectacular flights a pilot can make.
For now, yes.

That's one of the reason I went ballistic...I hate to see our privileges vanish one by one. Well, that, and all that hot Latin American blood rushed to my head all at once. That's why I wear a tie at work...it acts like a flow restrictor and delays the explosion long enough for the Gringo in me to regain control.

I live in the DC area now, under the ADIZ. I used to take visitors over DC to see the sights, as I used to take them up the East River when I lived in the NYC area. Of course, I can still take them up the East River if I get a clearance, but it's a slippery slope.
NYTOM said:
As long as everyone keeps their heads on a swivel, calls out their position as required and shows a little courtesy to the other aircraft hopefully we wont hear of any more bent planes and the ground-bound public will leave us alone.
Yup, well said.

NYTOM said:
People in the NYC are rightfully concerned about things flying over their heads and you have to be understanding of that although the media doesn't seem to help matters when something does go wrong. Its those knee jerk over-reactions to a problem that get to me.
Then let's hope they don't find out that you can overfly their Class B without talking to anybody...they might extend it to infinity!

That, by the way, is another awesome view I recommend to anyone flying in the NYC area. It's particularly good at night, and from 7,500' or above there's usually an airport within gliding distance.

Ballistically yours,
Martin
 
Boyer's Article

You guys should go over and read Boyer's article:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/061013enough.html

Boyer's usual professional, calm explanations are not to be seen here. He starts the article: "Mayor Daley's latest rants have sent me over the edge."

This is a great, short article easily understood by anyone using logic rather than emotional fear of aircraft.

It amazes me that we humans have spent the better part of 10,000 years trying to figure out how to fly. We just figured it out about 100 years ago and now the biggest threat to it is the unreasonable, unsubstantiated fear in the minds of our fellow countrymen.
 
Jamie said:
now the biggest threat to it is the unreasonable, unsubstantiated fear in the minds of our fellow countrymen.

I know I risk being flamed to death for this, but is the fear really unsubstantiated? From the public's point of view this looks like a case of an overgrown teenager smashing an expensive toy into an innocent taxpayer's home. I'm certainly not saying I see it that way, but what difference does it really make? The difference between light aircraft and automobiles is that the latter is a necessity for modern life, while the former is, for most of us, simply an expensive toy. The public might not know much about GA, but they've figured out that we are essentially "fooling around" over their heads and homes. We are portrayed in film and tv as thrillseekers, daredevils, etc., and while we constantly protest this depiction, every month or so somebody crashes into something that belongs to somebody else while doing something he shouldn't. We can talk about freedom all we want, but it's naive to expect the average American to put our freedom to have fun ahead his own freedom from falling debris.

Oh, and a couple of interesting notes from the news:

1. They reported that the plane was downshifting (huh?)

2. The woman who owns the condo is the same woman who had a street light clobber her when one of those Macy Parade balloon characters went out of control a couple of years ago. Apparently the sky has it in for her.
 
szicree said:
I know I risk being flamed to death for this, but is the fear really unsubstantiated?
No flaming here, but a bit of a rant, sorry.

Basically, yes. We (Americans) seem to be obsessed with fear these days, mostly because the media can make money selling it to us. Consider the following list: Osama, E. Coli / tainted spinach, posioned halloween candy, 3 oz toiletries in a quart bag, North Korean nukes, school shootings, nuclear power plants, etc. As "dangerous little airplanes", we're just another item on that list - a real and very very minor risk, but one that sells on the news.

Now consider this list: Drunk driving, sunscreen and skin cancer, diet-induced heart disease, cancer from grilled meat, driving a diesel vehicle, dioxin from backyard trash burning, and cell phones and driving. You're probably 1000x likely to die from one of these, all of which are basically avoidable, but people aren't afraid of them. Why?

Risk communication is all about perception of risk and not actual risk. The best way to battle the public's false perception about GA risk (and the media's fear) is to use facts. One of those facts is that GA accidents are very rarely fatal to anyone but the occupants.

Rant off, sorry. I have to communicate risk about "pollution" as part of my job. It's hard to tell someone that they and their children have 10,000x the cancer risk from inhaling soot from diesel busses and trucks than they do from, say, a coal fired power plant, because they "know" that coal is dirtier and diesel is "clean". Use facts and they will speak for themselves.
 
A valid point

szicree said:
The difference between light aircraft and automobiles is that the latter is a necessity for modern life, while the former is, for most of us, simply an expensive toy. .

While you're right about this, both in fact and in how it's perceived, let's remember that people are killed by, or in, cars that are bigger or sportier than they "need" to be to meet that necessity. Or taking trips that are joyrides and not, strictly speaking, necessary for modern life. If a guy has an accident in a Corvette, is that not another example of an "overgrown teenager playing with his toys?" (Mind you, I have nothing against sports cars or their drivers...I'm just making a point.)

Freedom is about rights and privileges, not necessity.
 
mgomez said:
Freedom is about rights and privileges, not necessity.

Either way, it is a bloody mess when it comes to autos. (and politics) Some 43,000 people in body bags each year, what carnage, worse than any of our wars.

Two people fly into a building in New York and the press goes ballistic for a week. The information process is nuts, we never get the news with any perspective, historical or otherwise. And worse yet, the "news" frequently does not present the facts of whatever is going on. (Rush can be irritating, but he is correct about the drive by media)

Take the middle east. We Americans wonder why the muslims hate us with such intensity? Truth is, our foreign policy has been inconsistent and not credible for years. How many Americans know that the U.S. has supported with money and weapons in the past the Taliban, Saddam, Iran, bin Laden's fighters in Afghanistan against the Russians, and of course Israel?

And then, when the political winds change direction and we switch sides one more time, we kill the muslim civilian population by the thousands under the guise of collateral damage in a UN blessed war, or under a failed policy of UN "sanctions" . (Santions kill women and kids, an estimated 500,000 in Iraq alone, but armies and rotten politicians not. North Korea's women and kids are next. Is this be best we, a most civilized nation, can do?)

Enough ranting and raving.

I am irritated at airspace grabs. I am very irritated at needless loss of life for whatever reason. I am very, very irritated at the lack of inspired leadership everywhere on the planet.

dd
 
dd for Prez!

David-aviator said:
I am irritated at airspace grabs. I am very irritated at needless loss of life for whatever reason. I am very, very irritated at the lack of inspired leadership everywhere on the planet.
Great post! You forgot one of the biggest killers in the US - medical errors. Latest estimates are about 100,000 accidental deaths a year due to mistakes.
 
What is the "news"

David-aviator said:
Either way, it is a bloody mess when it comes to autos. (and politics) Some 43,000 people in body bags each year, what carnage, worse than any of our wars.

Two people fly into a building in New York and the press goes ballistic for a week.

dd

I think everyone needs to understand what tends to define "news".....it is the unusual. Therefore, as they say, if a dog bites a man it is not "news", but if a man bites a dog it is "news".

Car accidents are not news for the simple reason that there are so many of them. Plane accidents are news because there are so few of them (in a way we're victims of our own success). That is unlikely to change. People want to be titillated by the media in the same way that they want to be titillated by their menu...a different meal every day. It works against aviation but it's a fact of life.

Our duty is to support organisations and groups of like minded aviators who can argue for common sense on our behalf based on the real facts.
 
I think this thread should End.......in agreement.

Crashing bad.

Freedom Good.

Debbie Hersman is the most attractive ntsb member so far.
 
To answer the question of transition training for the Cirrus. That would be the main reason Tyler (The CFI) would be on that particular flight, to give the transition training. Believe it or not, even though you don't get the factory training, the insurance company would require transistion training from an experienced CFI still.
 
Back
Top