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

Jamie

Jamie

Well Known Member
CNN is reporting that a plane just crashed into a residential building in NY. Let's hope this was an accident. If it's not we can probably kiss our flying freedoms goodbye.

http://www.cnn.com/
 
It is still unclear

if it was a plane or a helicopter. It was reported that there is a heliport nearby.
 
It was a helicopter

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A small aircraft crashed into a building on Manhattan's Upper East Side on Wednesday, but a U.S. official said there was no evidence it was terrorism-related.

The Federal Aviation Administration said it was not clear whether the craft was a helicopter or a small plane, but the New York Fire Department identified it as a helicopter.
The crash occurred at East 72nd St. and York Avenue, near the East River.

"I have no reason to believe at this point that the crash in New York City is terrorism-related," said a U.S. official who declined to be identified.



The images of fire and smoke pouring out of the windows of a high rise building evoked images of the hijack plane attacks of September 11, 2001.

CNN, citing a police source, said the craft hit a 20-story residential building.

Several helicopters have crashed over the years into or near the rivers flanking Manhattan.
 
Just heard on the radio some FAA person saying it's a twin engine airplane. :confused:
 
Last edited:
I'm watching live video from WABC in New York. Media coverage is starting to get brutal...total lack of knowledge. i.e. what is a fixed wing aircraft, why would a plane be flying between the buildings etc.

Just praying there are few casualties from this event.
 
Who knows. Maybe it was a twin-engine helicopter? :(

However, being NYC, a whirly-bird makes sense - lots of them in use and flying around The City.

A bad day. RIP.
 
This just in from CNN:

First responders to the New York plane crash say an emergency call was made from the plane indicating a possible fuel problem.

New York Yankees Manager Joe Torre told CNN that the plane that was a Cirrus SR-20 registered to team pitcher Cory Lidle.

A search of registry.faa.gov for owners named "Lidle" returned nothing. However, a quick Goodle turned up that Lidle does own a SR20 and is a PP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/s...44c30a4f4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

A search of the FAA airmen database indicates that a Corey Lidle was issued a PP on 2/9/06. Searching the aircraft registration databse for the address given on the PP cert pulled up Cirrus SR20 N929CD, with the registration pending.

A sad day.
 
This is definately a sad event, but I think some good might come out of it as well. I shows that small planes are no real danger to cities like NY. The damage was no worse than many car crashes. There was minimal damage to the building, and the building was reoccupied within 3 hours of the accident. Also, no one in the building or on the ground was seriously hurt. Much worse has happened when a car loses control and slams into the front of a building.

Since the owner of the plane, and presumably the pilot, was a well known person around NY (NY Yankees pitcher), it will be difficult for the press to condemn the flight without blaming that person, which could invoke a reaction from Yankees fans. Hopefully this will cause the press to be a little less reactive.

I was impressed by NYC Mayor Bloomberg's press conference. He did not over-react at all and did not make any crazy statements about limiting flying around NY. When asked if he felt that NYC's security was compromised, he basically said that he did not believe so.

Any loss of life through flying is a sad thing, but let us hope that this incident will show that flying is no more dangerous than driving.
 
Took off 15 earlier in SR20 cirrus from Teterboro NJ at 2:30 pm local. Was seen circling the Statute of Liberty, up the East River. It was added in a report it "had not violated any traffic control rules."

The plane then lost touch with air traffic controllers, radar showed that the plane flew near the 59th Street Bridge. Then, at 2:42 p.m., the mayor said, 911 received a call reporting a crash at a building on 72nd Street

Here is the change in METAR and TAF for LGA. It is interesting the weather has been two tone with a desired change between 3:30 and 4:30 pm local, which I believe was after the accident. However the weather before 3:30 pm was consistently low ceilings but with fair to good 8-10 sm vis:


KLGA 112114Z 06010KT 2SM RA FEW007 OVC017 17/14 A2984 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 1/2
KLGA 112110Z 06010KT 2 1/2SM RA FEW009 OVC019 17/14 A2985
KLGA 112059Z 06011KT 2SM RA FEW009 OVC019 17/14 A2984 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 1/2
KLGA 112051Z 07010KT 1 3/4SM RA BKN019 OVC025 17/14 A2985 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 1/2
KLGA 112038Z 08011KT 1 3/4SM RA BKN016 OVC022 17/14 A2985 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 2 1/2
(Change in 48 min period)
KLGA 111951Z 10011KT 8SM -RA OVC018 18/13 A2987 RMK AO2 RAB46 SLP114
KLGA 111851Z 10013KT 9SM OVC018 18/13 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP118
KLGA 111751Z 10011KT 9SM OVC018 18/13 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP128
KLGA 111651Z 08009KT 10SM OVC016 18/13 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP136

Before 1951z (15:38 local), the vis was good but ceiling low. After about 4:50 local the visability went down due to rain and has been the same till now, 2322z.

The accident occurred at or around 2:45 local, just before the last LGA 19:51Z report with good vis. Is it possible they got lost? Does the cirrus have terrain/ground prox warning? I have a hard time seeing how this happened. However reality bits, it did. :(

KLGA 112221Z 112218 08011KT 2SM RA BR SCT015 OVC035
TEMPO 2223 1SM +RA BR BKN015
FM2300 08010KT 5SM -SHRA BR OVC015
TEMPO 2303 2SM SHRA BR BKN008
FM0700 21009KT 4SM -SHRA BR BKN015 OVC035CB
FM1300 28015G22KT P6SM SCT050


He was reported to have been a pilot for the last 7 months. The Yankee pitcher was married with kids. Pretty sad. Not sure what he was doing flying over Manhattan, may be sight seeing? There where two people on the plane, and apparently two others killed, one being a 23 year old college student walking back from the store, when wreckage fell on her.

Sad.
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
He was reported to have been a pilot for the last 7 months. The Yankee pitcher was married with kids. Pretty sad. Not sure what he was doing flying over Manhattan. Was he IFR, rated? De is not in the data base. There where two people on the plane, and apparently two others killed, one being a 23 year old college student walking back from the store, when wreckage fell on her.

Sad.
Click to expand...
Chicken Noodle News (CNN) is reporting that the other occupant was a CFI, and that both were lost. Makes sense, getting training before taking a big trip. I can't imagine that being a MLB starter gives that much time for flying during the season.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
He was reported to have been a pilot for the last 7 months. The Yankee pitcher was married with kids. Pretty sad. Not sure what he was doing flying over Manhattan. Was he IFR, rated? De is not in the data base. There where two people on the plane, and apparently two others killed, one being a 23 year old college student walking back from the store, when wreckage fell on her.

Sad.
Click to expand...
There will be a lot of miss information before the truth is known. CNN just reported that he and an instructor where on board, radioed a mayday, and tried to turn around. They also reported that no one on the ground was hurt. I sure hope that last part is correct.

George said it all in one word, "Sad".
 
I work about 25 miles north of the accident location and while the METARs may have shown reasonable visablility, it was not a good flying day. It was overcast and it started to rain shortly after that time. The local radio station said that while the visability below the overcast may have been acceptable at 2:45, by the time I left the office at 5pm they had brought their traffic helicopters back down due to weather. I would not have been out flying today.

The NYC mayor stated at about 5:45pm that no others were killed in the accident. I expect that he had the most up to date information possible. I hope it stays thet way.
 
Miss information, indeed.

I just heard an ESPN reporter say they are looking for the "black box" at the accident site. :confused:
 
Cirrus parachute deployment height.

Very sad tragedy and my thoughts and prayers to all involved.

I understand that all Cirrus aircraft come standard-equipped with an airframe parachute (CAPS). Assuming they were around pattern altitude and dealing with fuel issues (current speculation) would the parachute even be an option at this low of an altitude?

Again, my condolences to those involved.

b,
dr


related: http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/safety/
 
It's my understanding that the parachute is a *possible* option, but it's much safer to just put it down in the river. Having done that flight myself, I know that you don't have much choices when the engine goes out. However I fail to understand why you'd head toward a building.

Watching the media is really upsetting me with the stupidity that I hear. I wish someone with a big name would call them and set a few facts straight. Hopefully we won't see a ban of flight over NYC or other cities.
 
ptrotter said:
I was impressed by NYC Mayor Bloomberg's press conference. He did not over-react at all and did not make any crazy statements about limiting flying around NY.
Click to expand...

The Mayor didnt, but that $#%&@ Nancy Grace wasted no time in saying on CNN that private pilots have no business flying over "The capitol of the world" as she put it or any other populated place.

5:30 news here on the West Coast shows pouring rain at the crash site, so weather must have been closing in fast.
 
Paul Thomas said:
It's my understanding that the parachute is a *possible* option, but it's much safer to just put it down in the river. Having done that flight myself, I know that you don't have much choices when the engine goes out. However I fail to understand why you'd head toward a building.

Watching the media is really upsetting me with the stupidity that I hear. I wish someone with a big name would call them and set a few facts straight. Hopefully we won't see a ban of flight over NYC or other cities.
Click to expand...


Actually, heading north over the 59th street bridge takes you a little west of the river (true north, anyhow...I'm assuming that's what they mean). From the photos, you can see the East River in the background. It looks like they did turn towards the river and just didn't make it, hitting the west side of the building. I'd have to think they ran into trouble somewhere over Manhattan and just never made it out. Another 1/4 mile east and they would have made it to FDR Island.

Sad.

edit: google maps w/ sattelite image is an amazing thing. I looked it up and it clearly hit the NORTH side of the building. My bad. Still sad, anyhow.
 
Last edited:
on Hannity and Colmes their "expert" said

that the Cirrus was a homebuilt.

What a joke.

It is sad, though, no matter the commentary.
 
I heard Hannity's expert say that too. Also, Nancy Grace was saying something like "aircraft shouldn't be allowed over populated places". Idiots...

Yes, it is tragic that two people were killed in a plane crash. But on the big scale of human suffering, GA just doesn't rank. Let's see, we have disease, starvation, wars, natural disasters, smoking, auto crashes, dietary problems that cause a host of physical manefestations (diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, etc.) to name only a few. Why is it a BIG STORY when a little airplane crashes?

On another tangent, almost EVERY aviation story I see is full of errors and omissions. Fortunately, I'm knowledgable enough on the subject to recognize the problems. The scary thing is that the same media sources probably screw up all the other stories just as much, but I'm just not knowledgable enough on every subject to recognize the problems in the story.
 
"I heard Hannity's expert say that too."

"The scary thing is that the same media sources probably screw up all the other stories just as much, but I'm just not knowledgable enough on every subject to recognize the problems in the story."

I would remove the 'probably'.
 
I knew that was coming

srv & kyle:

yea I saw that as well. I knew it was coming. At least they had someone to counter it, but of course the authoritarian, "restrict airspace from all little planes" Guy had a bigger mouth and bugged out chicken little eyes. I have to say it, loss of freedom from fear is what the terrorist want. That is why the word terrorist has the word terror in it.

If you want to sight see over or near a major city may be you should plan that soon. :eek:

Please write your congressman and senator today and tell them how important the freedom to fly is. If you don't know who your reps are:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

You can find their web site and email them.
 
Last edited:
NY Times article

Here's NY Times article on the airspace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/nyregion/12how.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Seems to present facts in neutral tone. I would be curious if our NY pilots can confirm what this writer's pilot sources say about that airspace. Author also brings up the clouds and wind. I still don't understand, short of flying into IMC, how you smack it into the side of a building? Did they essentially enter a box canyon made of buildings?

My respects to both gentleman's families.
 
Kyle Boatright said:
I heard Hannity's expert say that too. Also, Nancy Grace was saying something like "aircraft shouldn't be allowed over populated places". Idiots...
Click to expand...
I'm chanel surfing here at the hotel tonight (bad habit while traveling for work) and I have to agree - there has been a lot of kneejerk "we have to do something about these little airplanes" comments. Amazing - how many people die each year because cars hit pedestrians or people in buildings, and nobody is talking about restricting the movement of 6000 lb SUVs... I actuall collect news stories of such incidents (SUV runs into daycare, woman drives boyfriend's truck into the place he works, killing several people) to prove that it happens more frequently with cars.

Unfortunately, logic rarely works when communicating risk, and even more so when trying to communicate through the TV media. To their credit, there was some really good analysis out there. Sadly, though, logic doesn't sell well on TV - fear and blood do. :(

Ok, I'm done ranting, sorry.

IMHO, we can only do what we should already be doing - being positive, open and responsable about our flying with the public. We are outnumbered by the non-flying public, and if they fear us, they will restrict us.
 
jcoloccia said:
I looked it up and it clearly hit the NORTH side of the building. My bad. Still sad, anyhow.[/I]
Click to expand...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. The view in the pics going around is clearly facing south, but they said that he was flying north up the East River.

Very sad.
 
Kyle Boatright said:
I heard Hannity's expert say that too. Also, Nancy Grace was saying something like "aircraft shouldn't be allowed over populated places". Idiots...
Click to expand...
Isn't Nancy Grace the same mainstream media bimbo who badgered the missing child's mother to the point that she killed herself??
 
Yes, Nancy grace is one of the most annoying people on TV, IMHO. Her sensationalism and lack of reason rival that of Hannity, O'Reilley and Randi Rhodes combined. Grace fancies herself a saviour of sorts. When I watch her I always feel like I need to down a bottle of Tums.

At one point, as she was going to commerical, she said "fire reigns from the skies of New York tonight"... :rolleyes:

Her accent is very, VERY annoying to listen to...and I'm a good 'ol boy from rural Georgia. :)

I wonder why she wasn't advocating restrictions on cars in mall parking lots? An elderly woman drove her car through a Sears store this week.

http://www.wesh.com/news/10046945/detail.html
 
Stupid Athlete Tricks

What's a guy with a 7 month old ticket doing flying a high-performance aircraft VFR without enough fuel on-board to complete a 30 minute flight -- in the rain, under a low ceiling, with MVFR visibility, at an altitude low enough to run into a building? And he manages to do all this with a so-called instructor sitting next to him!

Instead of new restrictions on flight over cities, we need special pilot certification rules for dumb athletes -- to make sure they can spell the word "no".
 
My first reaction upon hearing this story is that he was committing suicide. I still think it might be a possibility but I have my doubts if a second person was on board and was a CFI.

Karl
 
jonbakerok said:
What's a guy with a 7 month old ticket doing flying a high-performance aircraft VFR without enough fuel on-board to complete a 30 minute flight -- in the rain, under a low ceiling, with MVFR visibility, at an altitude low enough to run into a building? And he manages to do all this with a so-called instructor sitting next to him!

Instead of new restrictions on flight over cities, we need special pilot certification rules for dumb athletes -- to make sure they can spell the word "no".
Click to expand...

I wonder about the fuel. That was a pretty big fire to have been caused by empty tanks.
 
My guess VFR into IMC. When they came out there was a big building in their way. I don't think they had engine problems and I don't think they were low on fuel. The fire was way too big to burn without fuel. Just my 2 cents.
 
hummmm

RV8N said:
My first reaction upon hearing this story is that he was committing suicide. I still think it might be a possibility but I have my doubts if a second person was on board and was a CFI.

Karl
Click to expand...
I thought that at first and agree its doubtful, however it would not be unprecedented. When I was an active CFI, another flight school nearby had a student go crazy and tried to kill them self and take the CFI with them. Long story short, it ended OK but the CFI was slightly hurt.

How or why did the plane going north up the east river do basically a 180 degree left turn into the buildings north side? Makes me think they where trying an emergency turn (weather?, engine?, fuel?). We may never know. LGA was to the right about about 6 miles.

The other comments about 24 hour cable news pundits, ditto, there should be a law against a few of them.
 
Last edited:
Agree with Paul T.

I have to agree with Paul T. With the pilot being a celebrity and a New Yorker the reaction to this event will be a lot smaller than if this was you or me or the young pilot or the old pilot or the ex-military pilot etc... Today's headline on Yahoo! was "Remembering Cory Lidle." If this was a nobody the headline would most certainly be "We must ban GA!" Some of the articles that I read quoted the number of deaths in GA, but we all know that this number is created by so many factors and different type of events that the number by itself is totally meaningless. There have been many small aircraft crashes into building where people on the ground have not been hurt, injured or killed. This event again proves that GA is not a threat to our cities and our non-flying citizens.
 
JonathanCook said:
I have to agree with Paul T. With the pilot being a celebrity and a New Yorker the reaction to this event will be a lot smaller than if this was you or me or the young pilot or the old pilot or the ex-military pilot etc... Today's headline on Yahoo! was "Remembering Cory Lidle." If this was a nobody the headline would most certainly be "We must ban GA!" Some of the articles that I read quoted the number of deaths in GA, but we all know that this number is created by so many factors and different type of events that the number by itself is totally meaningless. There have been many small aircraft crashes into building where people on the ground have not been hurt, injured or killed. This event again proves that GA is not a threat to our cities and our non-flying citizens.
Click to expand...

I still anticipate the inevitable Cirrus bashing.
 
Low Pass said:
Maybe they need a Cyprus (sp?) mechanism on their chutes?!
Click to expand...

If your referring to the "automatic activation device," they work on barometric pressure. If you pass thru a certain altitude, at or above a certain velocity, it opens the parachute. It won't work if a building (or a mountain) is in front of you. :eek:

Karl
 
Sure

Low Pass said:
Maybe they need a Cyprus (sp?) mechanism on their chutes?!
Click to expand...

If the wings fall off it will work great....:)

Sometimes I used to do relative work (hanging onto others in freefall) with the airplane...The only airplane that the pilots would do 120mph+ straight down was a turbine Pilatus Porter...With the wings attatched.

Come to think of it, if a PP had a cypus it would be landing under canopy all the time...:)
 
I just read an article that said the plane hit the 40th floor but since the building only has 40 floors, they are numbered different than normal. They actually hit the 30th floor from the ground. Since each floor is generally 10 ft tall, they were flying at about 300 agl.

I'm now thinking weather must be the cause (actually poor judgement and pilot error).
 
jonbakerok said:
What's a guy with a 7 month old ticket doing flying a high-performance aircraft VFR without enough fuel on-board to complete a 30 minute flight -- in the rain, under a low ceiling, with MVFR visibility, at an altitude low enough to run into a building? And he manages to do all this with a so-called instructor sitting next to him!

Instead of new restrictions on flight over cities, we need special pilot certification rules for dumb athletes -- to make sure they can spell the word "no".
Click to expand...

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.

Second, the fireball clearly indicates there was fuel on board, maybe lots of it.

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.

Fourth, the ceiling was higher than the top of the corridor so that was not a 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.

Sixth, high performance aricraft or not, he was in cruise and the speed limit in the corrider is 140kts.

Seventh, seems to me that he operated as a "smart athelete" 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 athelete".

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. Thier mayday call indicates they were in facing an emergency.

We all need to look at this logically in order to explain it to the ingorant public at large in order to deflect inappropriate fear and knee-jerk legislation.

Jekyll
 
frankh said:
If the wings fall off it will work great....:)

Sometimes I used to do relative work (hanging onto others in freefall) with the airplane...The only airplane that the pilots would do 120mph+ straight down was a turbine Pilatus Porter...With the wings attatched.

Come to think of it, if a PP had a cypus it would be landing under canopy all the time...:)
Click to expand...
Yep - was kind of the point being a goofy suggestion! :)
 
Last edited:
That corridor is very narrow

I used to fly in the East River corridor when I lived in NYC. It's less than half a mile wide (2400' or so) up near the accident site. In a C-152, at 90 kts, it took roughly a 30 deg bank to make the turn while staying over the river (i.e. to avoid busting the TCA, as the Class B was then known.)

You have no choice but to turn around, unless you get a clearance through the Class B, because the corridor ends just north of the accident site. So it's not implausible that they were flying north and turned southbound shortly before hitting the building.

In a 150 kt airplane, it would take a 60 deg bank to make a 180 deg turn in the available distance...I did the math. And you'd have to start the turn at one shore and hold 2 gs consistently to make it around before reaching the other shore. The wind was out of the East at 14 mph, per the NY Times. That would make the required turn steeper.

The radar data will help clear this up.
 
mgomez said:
You have no choice but to turn around, unless you get a clearance through the Class B, because the corridor ends just north of the accident site. So it's not implausible that they were flying north and turned southbound shortly before hitting the building.
Click to expand...
I've never been there, but this statement intrigues me. If the corridor ends, what was their plan in heading up the corridor in the first place? Is it primarily a sightseeing thing?
 
For me it was

Dgamble said:
I've never been there, but this statement intrigues me. If the corridor ends, what was their plan in heading up the corridor in the first place? Is it primarily a sightseeing thing?
Click to expand...

I don't know why they were doing it, of course, but I did it for sightseeing. The United Nations, my apartment, and my high school were all along the East River. It's a great view.

The exclusion zone probably exists for other reasons: there's a commercial heliport at 34th Street used for sightseeing tours, and there's a seaplane base at 23rd Street used to take passengers to the Long Island beach resorts. The heliport at one time offered service to LaGuardia and Kennedy, but those guys got clearance through the Class B. There also used to be a heliport at 60th St, or so, very, very close to the 59th St Bridge.

There's a unicom-style frequency (or there was back in the 80's) that you use to self-announce because there's a remarkable amount of traffic there.
 
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 ventured into the East River corridor specifically because it ends and is very narrow. I never guite felt like trying a 60% bank at 1000 ft.

I agree in that you should consider getting cleared into the Bravo if you want to do the East River.

Flying the Hudson is exciting. Dodging helicopters, bridges and populated areas. It is imposible 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).

It was really exciting to go up the Hudson when the Lady had a 1 NM restricted area. This required a flight up the east shore and over the center of Governor's Island. When over the Island and at 1000 feet, you were less than 3/4 miles from the tip of Manhattan aimed DIRECTLY at the skyscrapers. I bet that caused a lot of anxiety with occupants in those buildings - seeing an airplane headed directly at them and less than 1 mile away! I did that once and then realized that doing it because I could wasn't in the best interest of GA.

Jekyll
 
Last edited:
It used to be even better...

Back when I flew in the NYC area, the World Trade Center was still standing. I wondered what it was like for the occupants to look out at a Cessna flying by. They were probably more used to it than I was...Manhattan and the rivers around it are positively buzzing with helicopters, floatplanes, and light airplanes.

It still sticks in my mind to look at those magnificent buildings and not be quite level with the top!

It only takes a 60 deg bank if you do it at high speed. In a 90-kt C-152, it was a lot less steep, 30 deg or so.
 
Now the fall out

This is a sad story indeed. But we are now going to have to work twice as hard to keep the nasayers in check.
The anti airport/airplane mayor of Chicago is now running around yelling " I told you so" Now he want's to have a no fly zone over all "large citys". Want to "little airplanes" to be kepted 25 miles from the Chicago loop. That would ground
as many as 200 airplanes that are based with in that 25 mile radius.
I can only hope the we can all work together to stop this knee jerk reaction by the jerk of chicago.
Rich
RV-6
N721ET
 
Jekyll,
I agree with your points about him being smart but there may have been a contract requirement for an instructor. I heard one report that the Yankees' management required a contract clause stating that any player flying as PIC shall have an instructor in the other flying seat. I don't know if that's true, and it's probably called the Thurman Munson clause. However Munson was with an instructor practicing landings in his Cessna Citation back in 1979. IIRC, he was a relatively low time pilot to be flying a jet and probably got behind the plane during a low approach. IOW, the engines didn't spool up fast enough to recover.
It will be interesting to see how the investigators solve this one. And it will definitely get a lot of attention. The lawyers are probably already licking their chops...( and my daughter is one, but she doesn't do litigation law.) :eek:

Don


Jekyll said:
...


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.

...

Seventh, seems to me that he operated as a "smart athelete" 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 athelete".

...
Click to expand...
 
Each aviation crash follows a chain of events. Leraning to understand those events is what will keep a pilot alive.

I for one do not fly at night or over congested areas and always try to fly in a manner which leaves me a way out if the windmill quits. Sure some say I miss a lot by not flying at night or staying out of airports within busy cities. The good thing about it is I do not have to wonder wether to turn the landing lights on or leave them off during a night crash landing or pray the engine does not quit on take off or final over a densely populated area. When I fly x-country I prefer to extend my flight and navigate over congested cities than to sweat it out hoping the engine will keep on working.

Flying is an exercise in risk management. On that day some of that risk was not managed properly and two people died and some were injured for no good reason. This kind of events are used by folks that do not like aviation to try and shut it down. I try to do my part by avoding the possibility of property damage in the event I have to make an unscheduled landing or flying over raeas that leave me little wiggle room. This case appears to have a good engine but has the trademark of having expereinced a loss of wiggle room. I know a pilot who lost a dear friend to the boxed canyon scenario and that may be the reason for this one too.

J Borja
Elk Mound, WI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top