Airplane in NYC is a Cirrus SR20

[A. Sinan Unur]

CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
knowing one's limitations.

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
> knowing one's limitations.


I talked with my aunt who also lives on the east side of Manhattan and she said
it's been a crappy day up there... in fact, while I was talking to her it
started raining.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Gary Drescher]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> I talked with my aunt who also lives on the east side of Manhattan and she
> said it's been a crappy day up there... in fact, while I was talking to
> her it started raining.

CNN reports 8-mile visibility but low ceiling (1800') at the time of the
crash. (Most of CNN's coverage has been quite good; they're getting
commentary from their journalist Miles O'Brien, who's a pilot. They also
found a pilot eyewitness on the ground who provided a cogent account.)

--Gary

[City Dweller[_1_]]

He busted Class B too.

-cd

"A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
...
> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
> knowing one's limitations.
>
> Sinan
> --
> A. Sinan Unur >
> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

[Ron Natalie]

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
> knowing one's limitations.
>
The hourly METARS for 1800 and 1900Z for the area airports put things
at 017OVC and 7 Miles. It had been poorer (008OVC and 2 1/2 RA).

[M[_1_]]

An old NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/sports/baseball/08yankees.html?ex=1315368000&en=f488e3344c30a4f4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

NYC weather looks pretty crappy today.

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
> knowing one's limitations.
>
> Sinan
> --
> A. Sinan Unur >
> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

[Gary Drescher]

"City Dweller" > wrote in message
...
> He busted Class B too.

What makes you say so? The crash site is abeam FDR Island, adjacent to part
of the East River VFR corridor. (Or do you just mean that he was slightly
inland at the moment of the crash?) And is it known yet if he might have had
a Class B clearance?

--Gary

> -cd
>
> "A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
> ...
>> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
>> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
>> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
>> knowing one's limitations.
>>
>> Sinan
>> --
>> A. Sinan Unur >
>> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
>
>

[EridanMan]

Isn't the restricted floor in the area ~1500 feet?

1500 foot floor, 1800 foot cieling... VFR into IMC anyone?

[City Dweller[_1_]]

A pilot correspondent at CNN said that (can't remember his name).

-- cd


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "City Dweller" > wrote in message
> ...
>> He busted Class B too.
>
> What makes you say so? The crash site is abeam FDR Island, adjacent to
> part of the East River VFR corridor. (Or do you just mean that he was
> slightly inland at the moment of the crash?) And is it known yet if he
> might have had a Class B clearance?
>
> --Gary
>
>> -cd
>>
>> "A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
>>> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
>>> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
>>> knowing one's limitations.
>>>
>>> Sinan
>>> --
>>> A. Sinan Unur >
>>> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
>>
>>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Isn't the restricted floor in the area ~1500 feet?
>
> 1500 foot floor, 1800 foot cieling... VFR into IMC anyone?

No. Class E in the corridor has a *ceiling* of 1100-1500 feet, not a floor.

--Gary

[EridanMan]

My mistake, I don't have an NYC sectional in front of me.... I figured
the 500 feet above tallest building in viscinity rule would apply.

an a.net user found this-

http://www4.passur.com/lga.html

Set time to 14:41...

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "EridanMan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Isn't the restricted floor in the area ~1500 feet?
> >
> > 1500 foot floor, 1800 foot cieling... VFR into IMC anyone?
>
> No. Class E in the corridor has a *ceiling* of 1100-1500 feet, not a floor.
>
> --Gary

[EridanMan]

It was then pointed out that the accident happened 45 minutes prior...
I will now refrain from posting anything until I actually take a moment
to fact-check it, sorry;)


EridanMan wrote:
> My mistake, I don't have an NYC sectional in front of me.... I figured
> the 500 feet above tallest building in viscinity rule would apply.
>
> an a.net user found this-
>
> http://www4.passur.com/lga.html
>
> Set time to 14:41...
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > "EridanMan" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Isn't the restricted floor in the area ~1500 feet?
> > >
> > > 1500 foot floor, 1800 foot cieling... VFR into IMC anyone?
> >
> > No. Class E in the corridor has a *ceiling* of 1100-1500 feet, not a floor.
> >
> > --Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> My mistake, I don't have an NYC sectional in front of me....

No problem. By the way, here's a handy online display of US sectionals and
TACs:
http://skyvector.com/

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I figured the 500 feet above tallest building in viscinity rule would
> apply.

Hm but that's not really the rule. Depending on the nature of the terrain
(sparsely, normally, or densely populated), it's either 500' from any
structure etc. (not necessarily 500' above, though), 500' AGL, or 1000'
above any obstacle that's within 2000' laterally.

--Gary

[EridanMan]

*looks around guiltily*

I should really have known that.

For any who are interested-
http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html
Set time to 13:04 today.

The altitude returns go haywire right around the time that he turned
down the east river... I was just reading last night of Electric system
problems on the Cirrus...

*sigh*


Gary Drescher wrote:
> "EridanMan" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > I figured the 500 feet above tallest building in viscinity rule would
> > apply.
>
> Hm but that's not really the rule. Depending on the nature of the terrain
> (sparsely, normally, or densely populated), it's either 500' from any
> structure etc. (not necessarily 500' above, though), 500' AGL, or 1000'
> above any obstacle that's within 2000' laterally.
>
> --Gary

[Peter R.]

EridanMan > wrote:

> Set time to 13:04 today.

The aircraft took off from Teterboro at 2:30pm, or 14:30, and crashed at
14:41 or so.


--
Peter

[EridanMan]

Ok... enough with that site.

I suck at speculating... I need to stop.

[Peter R.]

EridanMan > wrote:

> Ok... enough with that site.

Sadly, it's all there.

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Hm but that's not really the rule. Depending on the nature of the terrain
> (sparsely, normally, or densely populated), it's either 500' from any
> structure etc. (not necessarily 500' above, though), 500' AGL, or 1000'
> above any obstacle that's within 2000' laterally.
>

Or an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without
undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Hm but that's not really the rule. Depending on the nature of the terrain
>> (sparsely, normally, or densely populated), it's either 500' from any
>> structure etc. (not necessarily 500' above, though), 500' AGL, or 1000'
>> above any obstacle that's within 2000' laterally.
>>
>
> Or an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing
> without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Yup. (Luckily, that's usually easy when flying along a large river.)

--Gary

[Bob Gardner]

I heard two "experts" commenting on the crash. One went on and on about how
airflow over the wing creates a vacuum which lifts the airplane, and if it
banked suddenly the vacuum would disappear. He did talk about Class B,
almost as though he knew what he was talking about. The second guy raged on
about how the plane was over the river but he knew that this was just an
accident waiting to happen and that all GA airplanes should file flight
plans.

Bob Gardner

"City Dweller" > wrote in message
...
>A pilot correspondent at CNN said that (can't remember his name).
>
> -- cd
>
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "City Dweller" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> He busted Class B too.
>>
>> What makes you say so? The crash site is abeam FDR Island, adjacent to
>> part of the East River VFR corridor. (Or do you just mean that he was
>> slightly inland at the moment of the crash?) And is it known yet if he
>> might have had a Class B clearance?
>>
>> --Gary
>>
>>> -cd
>>>
>>> "A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
>>>> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe
>>>> his
>>>> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
>>>> knowing one's limitations.
>>>>
>>>> Sinan
>>>> --
>>>> A. Sinan Unur >
>>>> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Peter R.]

Michael Ware > wrote:

> Populated area - 1000 foot min.

Not applicable to the NY VFR corridor, which permits VFR activity at 1,100
and below down the Hudson River, over NY Harbor including around the Statue
of Liberty, and up the East River to the end of Roosevelt Island.

It is very common for aircraft to fly the VFR corridor anywhere from 900
feet down to 500 feet MSL.

--
Peter

[Michael Ware]

Populated area - 1000 foot min.

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> My mistake, I don't have an NYC sectional in front of me.... I figured
> the 500 feet above tallest building in viscinity rule would apply.
>
> an a.net user found this-
>
> http://www4.passur.com/lga.html
>
> Set time to 14:41...
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > "EridanMan" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Isn't the restricted floor in the area ~1500 feet?
> > >
> > > 1500 foot floor, 1800 foot cieling... VFR into IMC anyone?
> >
> > No. Class E in the corridor has a *ceiling* of 1100-1500 feet, not a
floor.
> >
> > --Gary
>

[Matt Whiting]

City Dweller wrote:
> A pilot correspondent at CNN said that (can't remember his name).

Well, if it came from CNN that it must be true!

{intense sarcasm was in the previous sentence for those so impaired}

Matt

[.Blueskies.]

"A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message ...
: CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
: apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
: plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
: knowing one's limitations.
:
: Sinan
: --
: A. Sinan Unur >
: (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

He was apparently flying with his instructor. Sad day...

[Jon Kraus]

I was wondering when the flight-plan issue would come up... :-)



Bob Gardner wrote:

> I heard two "experts" commenting on the crash. One went on and on about how
> airflow over the wing creates a vacuum which lifts the airplane, and if it
> banked suddenly the vacuum would disappear. He did talk about Class B,
> almost as though he knew what he was talking about. The second guy raged on
> about how the plane was over the river but he knew that this was just an
> accident waiting to happen and that all GA airplanes should file flight
> plans.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "City Dweller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>A pilot correspondent at CNN said that (can't remember his name).
>>
>>-- cd
>>
>>
>>"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"City Dweller" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>He busted Class B too.
>>>
>>>What makes you say so? The crash site is abeam FDR Island, adjacent to
>>>part of the East River VFR corridor. (Or do you just mean that he was
>>>slightly inland at the moment of the crash?) And is it known yet if he
>>>might have had a Class B clearance?
>>>
>>>--Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>>-cd
>>>>
>>>>"A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
>>>>>apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe
>>>>>his
>>>>>plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
>>>>>knowing one's limitations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sinan
>>>>>--
>>>>>A. Sinan Unur >
>>>>>(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Isn't the restricted floor in the area ~1500 feet?
>
> 1500 foot floor, 1800 foot cieling... VFR into IMC anyonMultiple eyewitnesses
> could see the plane approach. No visability problems.

There was also an instructor aboard, supposeably. This may have been the first
leg of a flight back to California, to his home.
--
Jim in NC

[John Godwin]

"Michael Ware" > wrote in
:

> Populated area - 1000 foot min.
>

Close, flying up the East River you might not be within 2,000 feet
(horizontally) of the structures:

Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the
highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
aircraft.

--

[City Dweller[_1_]]

The guy on CNN I was listening to was under the assumption that the plane
had been crossing Manhattan from the West Side before crashing. That would
imply a Class Bravo bust. Then it turned out the plane had actually been
flying up East River and making a U-turn. That, of course, makes the Class B
bust assertion completely irrelevant.

--cd


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>I heard two "experts" commenting on the crash. One went on and on about how
>airflow over the wing creates a vacuum which lifts the airplane, and if it
>banked suddenly the vacuum would disappear. He did talk about Class B,
>almost as though he knew what he was talking about. The second guy raged on
>about how the plane was over the river but he knew that this was just an
>accident waiting to happen and that all GA airplanes should file flight
>plans.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "City Dweller" > wrote in message
> ...
>>A pilot correspondent at CNN said that (can't remember his name).
>>
>> -- cd
>>
>>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "City Dweller" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> He busted Class B too.
>>>
>>> What makes you say so? The crash site is abeam FDR Island, adjacent to
>>> part of the East River VFR corridor. (Or do you just mean that he was
>>> slightly inland at the moment of the crash?) And is it known yet if he
>>> might have had a Class B clearance?
>>>
>>> --Gary
>>>
>>>> -cd
>>>>
>>>> "A. Sinan Unur" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
>>>>> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe
>>>>> his
>>>>> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of
>>>>> not
>>>>> knowing one's limitations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sinan
>>>>> --
>>>>> A. Sinan Unur >
>>>>> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

A. Sinan Unur writes:

> I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
> knowing one's limitations.

Or perhaps knowing that one has limitations but assuming that the
magic safety features of the plane will compensate for them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

City Dweller writes:

> He busted Class B too.

The FAA can send a letter to his next of kin.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Gardner writes:

> The second guy raged on
> about how the plane was over the river but he knew that this was just an
> accident waiting to happen and that all GA airplanes should file flight
> plans.

Filing a flight plan would not have prevented this accident. I doubt
that impact on a building would have been mentioned in the flight
plan.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ed Warner]

A. Sinan Unur wrote:

> CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
> apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
> plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
> knowing one's limitations.

This 2005 article has some ominous comments about the plane:

>From http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

"The combination of novice pilots and a fast airplane has resulted in a
mournful accident record that is reflected in high insurance rates and
recurrent training requirements similar to what you'd find on a
twin-engine plane or pressurized single....If the engine were to quit
over water or the mountains at night, the parachute would be a nice
feature indeed. However, mechanical failures are not a very common
cause of small airplane crashes, and the Cirrus has some features, to
be discussed in this review, that make it more prone to pilot-induced
crashes than a Diamond or Cessna....Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22
are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots..."

Ed

[Tom Conner]

"Ed Warner" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>"....Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible
> to recover, according to the test pilots..."
>

Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> >"....Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible
> > to recover, according to the test pilots..."
> >
>
> Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?
>

No. But the statement quoted is pure anecdotal evidence. Don't take it
too seriously.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> I was wondering when the flight-plan issue would come up... :-)

In case of emergency, you can wrap yourself in it and it'll act like a
giant airbag! <G>

[Tom[_1_]]

NY Times had this inteactive graphic today.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/10/11/nyregion/20061011_CRASH_GRAPHIC.html

Tom



Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> > CNN is reporting that the pilot was a Yankee's pitcher: Lidle. He
> > apparently got his license only 7 months ago. Bragged about how safe his
> > plane was. I have a feeling this is similar to JFK junior's case of not
> > knowing one's limitations.
>
>
> I talked with my aunt who also lives on the east side of Manhattan and she said
> it's been a crappy day up there... in fact, while I was talking to her it
> started raining.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
m...
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>> I was wondering when the flight-plan issue would come up... :-)
>
> In case of emergency, you can wrap yourself in it and it'll act like a
> giant airbag! <G>

http://www.ainonline.com/Features/safety.pdf

Check the chart. Who does a more methodical job?

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> http://www.ainonline.com/Features/safety.pdf
>
> Check the chart. Who does a more methodical job?
>
>

None of the charts on that link mention flight plans.

I used Adobe's search feature for "flight plan" within the document, and
still don't see what you're pointing out.

[Matt Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
om...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> http://www.ainonline.com/Features/safety.pdf
>>
>> Check the chart. Who does a more methodical job?
>
> None of the charts on that link mention flight plans.

Which group, do you think, does a more methodical job?

>
> I used Adobe's search feature for "flight plan" within the document, and
> still don't see what you're pointing out.

Do you need to have someone hold your hand?

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> http://www.ainonline.com/Features/safety.pdf
>>>
>>> Check the chart. Who does a more methodical job?
>> None of the charts on that link mention flight plans.
>
> Which group, do you think, does a more methodical job?

I was curious to read a chart, along with the methodology used to
collect the data. _I_ think that people who file a flight plan may have
a better safety record. There are many other variables that can skew
the data either way, so I'm interested in the specifics, which I
couldn't find (in a reasonable amount of time related to my interest) in
the link you posted.

>
>> I used Adobe's search feature for "flight plan" within the document, and
>> still don't see what you're pointing out.
>
> Do you need to have someone hold your hand?
>

I guess so. Have a sparkling day, once you've crapped out whatever it
is that's stuck up your ass.

[Ben Hallert]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> No. But the statement quoted is pure anecdotal evidence. Don't take it
> too seriously.

Yep, because the quote just comes from Cirrus's test pilots, not a real
authority.

On a slightly less glib note, the POH states that CAPS chute deployment
is the only allowed method for spin recovery. That's a salient fact in
a discussion about SR-20/22 spins that shouldn't be overlooked.

....not that there's any evidence that this was a spin.

[[email protected]]

Tom Conner wrote:

> Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?

Yes, you can tack on a parachute and charge more for the plane. :(

I wonder if the pilots were turning left, got blown too far and too
close to the buildings by the strong wind yesterday, tried to bank even
more, stalled and spun. (An observer said he saw the plane bank
strongly and another saw the plane zig-zagging before it struck the
building, which sounds like a spin to me.) With an instructor aboard,
I doubt it was a visibility issue especially hearing that the vis was
8mi.

Tien

CPL-MEI

[Jim Macklin]

Two pilots, not a crew, heads up and locked. Go back to the
Munson accident and it was similar. Ever go to a school
reunion and meet an old teacher? You tend to become
deferential. That is what Munson did.
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR80-02.pdf#search=%22NTSB-AAR-80-2%22
works


> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Tom Conner wrote:
|
| > Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin
recoverable?
|
| Yes, you can tack on a parachute and charge more for the
plane. :(
|
| I wonder if the pilots were turning left, got blown too
far and too
| close to the buildings by the strong wind yesterday, tried
to bank even
| more, stalled and spun. (An observer said he saw the
plane bank
| strongly and another saw the plane zig-zagging before it
struck the
| building, which sounds like a spin to me.) With an
instructor aboard,
| I doubt it was a visibility issue especially hearing that
the vis was
| 8mi.
|
| Tien
|
| CPL-MEI
|

[Ron Lee]

My first thought after hearing about this crash was here is another
case of an inept Cirrus pilot tempting Darwinism and losing. Then I
wondered what could have caused this since I have ZERO knowledge of
the airspace and relevant factors affecting flight in that area.

Then I hear about the VFR corridor being only 2000' wide and a left
turn (to the west) with an easterly wind.

So at this point my initial perception may prove to be accurate.

Ron Lee

[John Theune]

wrote:
> Tom Conner wrote:
>
>> Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?
>
> Yes, you can tack on a parachute and charge more for the plane. :(
>
> I wonder if the pilots were turning left, got blown too far and too
> close to the buildings by the strong wind yesterday, tried to bank even
> more, stalled and spun. (An observer said he saw the plane bank
> strongly and another saw the plane zig-zagging before it struck the
> building, which sounds like a spin to me.) With an instructor aboard,
> I doubt it was a visibility issue especially hearing that the vis was
> 8mi.
>
> Tien
>
> CPL-MEI
>
Actually it is somewhat related to money. The designer had decided to
add the chute as a safety measure. Once that decision was made they
looked at what it would cost to certify the plane for spin recovery vs
using the chute for spin recovery. It was significantly cheaper to use
the chute then to certify it so they went that route. No one at the
company said you could not recover from a spin. They said you should
use the chute. They cannot say if you can recover from a spin any other
way due to legal restrictions.

[[email protected]]

John Theune wrote:

>It was significantly cheaper to use
> the chute then to certify it so they went that route.

Interesting. I had always believed it was the other way around.

TD

[Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)]

Tom Conner wrote:
> "Ed Warner" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> "....Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible
>> to recover, according to the test pilots..."
>>
>
> Is there a design benefit for an aircraft to not be spin recoverable?
>
>
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I think I read something that
mentioned that the design features that make an aircraft difficult to
enter a spin can also make that plane difficult to recover from a spin
if it does get put in that situation.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ben,

> Yep, because the quote just comes from Cirrus's test pilots, not a real
> authority.
>

Just because someone on the net writes that quote exists, doesn't mean it
does. "The test pilots say"? Give me a name. A source.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[JohnH]

> > Do you need to have someone hold your hand?
> >
>
> I guess so. Have a sparkling day, once you've crapped out whatever it
> is that's stuck up your ass.

Lol. So true.

[Ben Hallert]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Just because someone on the net writes that quote exists, doesn't mean it
> does. "The test pilots say"? Give me a name. A source.

Good point, you may be right, I don't know what the source of that
quote is from that website. A note, however, the Cirrus needed
standard spin certification in Europe, and I do recall reading that
their test pilot indicated that the spin recovery require full (as in
'to the stops') forward elevator to break the stall, something that
would be difficult with the elevator trimmed up.

So whether or not it is 'almost impossible to recover from', keeping
the speed up when using the autopilot (and its elevator trimming) might
not be a bad idea.

[Bob Chilcoat]

I've flown the Hudson corridor many times. Piece of cake if you keep your
eyes open, listen (and talk) on the radio, and the fan keeps running (you'll
get wet real fast if it stops). The East river's a different animal. Dead
end and narrow. I've never gone up it because I'm not convinced that I
could turn (or would be willing to bank to the necessary angle) sharply
enough at low altitude to get out again. My first thought after hearing
that they were cruising on the river in a considerably faster airplane than
mine was "They went up the East river?!" Could they simply have run out of
room?

Has anyone heard anyone mention the name of the flight instructor? I guess
he/she's a real guy/gal, but from the media, you would never know that there
was a real human in the right seat. Sad.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> My first thought after hearing about this crash was here is another
> case of an inept Cirrus pilot tempting Darwinism and losing. Then I
> wondered what could have caused this since I have ZERO knowledge of
> the airspace and relevant factors affecting flight in that area.
>
> Then I hear about the VFR corridor being only 2000' wide and a left
> turn (to the west) with an easterly wind.
>
> So at this point my initial perception may prove to be accurate.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Jon Kraus wrote:
>>
>>>I was wondering when the flight-plan issue would come up... :-)
>>
>>In case of emergency, you can wrap yourself in it and it'll act like a
>>giant airbag! <G>
>
>
> http://www.ainonline.com/Features/safety.pdf
>
> Check the chart. Who does a more methodical job?
>
>

Which has what to do with a flight plan being filed?

Matt

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
> Has anyone heard anyone mention the name of the flight instructor? I guess
> he/she's a real guy/gal, but from the media, you would never know that there
> was a real human in the right seat. Sad.


They announced his name on CNN this morning. If I found the right Tyler Stanger
(there was only one listed in the entire US pilot database), he's from Walnut,
CA (LA County) and is a CFII with a mechanic's rating. He sounds like the
perfect guy to help a newby fly back across the US. I assume more will come out
in the next day or so about what kind of guy he was.

If he is from LA, then I suppose that might suggest an unfamiliarity with NY
airspace, particularly around the East River. But it's all conjecture at this
point.... I'm just talking out of my ass. At this point I am nowhere near
willing to offer an opinion as to what caused the accident. Besides, it usually
isn't any one thing.

As an aside, I saw a women being interviewed who said she saw smoke *above* the
plane right before the collision. Do you suppose they tried to deploy the chute
and the smoke she saw was the rocket firing?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim Macklin]

The BRS/CAPS chute is not 100% and it does take time to
work. Cirrus says they recommend 2,000 and a maximum AS of
133.
Those ground reference maneuvers, turns about a point may
have 50-60 degree banks at 500 AGL. Narrow river, high
speed, medium bank, and two pilots. Maybe the Yankee
management will realize that the Munson accident happened
BECAUSE the other non-rated CFI was in the Citation. The
only pilot was deferring to his first CFI and the CFI was
being polite to the PIC. Read the NTSB report. This may
be the same, expect there will be cockpit testimony.
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR80-02.pdf#search=%22NTSB-AAR-80-2%22




"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
message
...
| Bob Chilcoat wrote:
| > Has anyone heard anyone mention the name of the flight
instructor? I guess
| > he/she's a real guy/gal, but from the media, you would
never know that there
| > was a real human in the right seat. Sad.
|
|
| They announced his name on CNN this morning. If I found
the right Tyler Stanger
| (there was only one listed in the entire US pilot
database), he's from Walnut,
| CA (LA County) and is a CFII with a mechanic's rating. He
sounds like the
| perfect guy to help a newby fly back across the US. I
assume more will come out
| in the next day or so about what kind of guy he was.
|
| If he is from LA, then I suppose that might suggest an
unfamiliarity with NY
| airspace, particularly around the East River. But it's
all conjecture at this
| point.... I'm just talking out of my ass. At this point I
am nowhere near
| willing to offer an opinion as to what caused the
accident. Besides, it usually
| isn't any one thing.
|
| As an aside, I saw a women being interviewed who said she
saw smoke *above* the
| plane right before the collision. Do you suppose they
tried to deploy the chute
| and the smoke she saw was the rocket firing?
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
|
|

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:37:53 +0000, John Godwin wrote:

> Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
> open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the
> highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
> aircraft.

I've long wondered about whether "congested area" applies when one is over
a river. That's not congested. It is next to a congested area, but it
itself is rather sparsely populated.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:43:12 -0700, Tom wrote:

> NY Times had this inteactive graphic today.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/10/11/nyregion/20061011_CRASH_GRAPHIC.html
>
> Tom
>

This fits with what I saw on the passur site. It was as if he'd gone too
far, and turned to stay under the class B (and go back down the river).

BTW, someone mentioned to me that the wind at the time was brisk and out
of the east. That could have widened the turn beyond expectation.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:28:05 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

> Ever go to a school reunion and meet an old
> teacher? You tend to become deferential. That is what Munson did.
> http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR80-02.pdf#search=%22NTSB-AAR-80-2%22
> works

This is a topic of interest to me (a pilot "giving up" PIC w/o
realizing it because an instructor (or perhaps just a more experienced
pilot) is in the plane).

I read the above URL, but I didn't see where that deference was a stated
factor. Could you please be more explicit about this?

Thanks...

Andrew

[Gary Drescher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:37:53 +0000, John Godwin wrote:
>
>> Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
>> open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the
>> highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
>> aircraft.
>
> I've long wondered about whether "congested area" applies when one is over
> a river. That's not congested. It is next to a congested area, but it
> itself is rather sparsely populated.

I've wondered about that too. But If it were construed to apply when you're
over a river, then flight up the Hudson VFR corridor would be illegal--you
can't get over the Verrazano or George Washington bridge under the Class E
ceiling without coming within 2000' horizontally of the bridge towers,
flying less than 1000' above the tower tops. (In fact, it takes a little
maneuvering just to avoid coming within 500' of the GWB towers.)

--Gary

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:43:12 -0700, Tom wrote:
>
>> NY Times had this inteactive graphic today.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/10/11/nyregion/20061011_CRASH_GRAPHIC.html
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
> This fits with what I saw on the passur site. It was as if he'd gone too
> far, and turned to stay under the class B (and go back down the river).

There is now a clip of this happening (at least of things
happening at this time) at LiveATC. The clip is from LGA tower, and
them explaining to pilots what is going on, or that they are finding
out. Rather powerful..

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFLt22yBkZmuMZ8L8RAnWnAKDEhOlu4MredOj/OZYhJPZ9yeDWZgCgpRgo
EEIrV/DwrrHRmCgfLUpxK3o=
=fBOJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Rick[_1_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote in message ...
[snip]

>As an aside, I saw a women being interviewed who said she saw smoke *above*
the
>plane right before the collision. Do you suppose they tried to deploy the
chute
>and the smoke she saw was the rocket firing?

Could be:

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmV
sN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MDA0MzgxJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFR Xl5Mg==
(excuse the hideous URL)
....
Hersman said at the late night news conference that the charge that deploys
the parachute had fired, but that the parachute remained in a "packed
position."
**********************

Of course, eyewitnesses aren't always reliable, and the charges could have
gone off on impact (just guessing).

- Rick

[RK Henry]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:28:47 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat"
> wrote:

>I've flown the Hudson corridor many times. Piece of cake if you keep your
>eyes open, listen (and talk) on the radio, and the fan keeps running (you'll
>get wet real fast if it stops). The East river's a different animal. Dead
>end and narrow. I've never gone up it because I'm not convinced that I
>could turn (or would be willing to bank to the necessary angle) sharply
>enough at low altitude to get out again. My first thought after hearing
>that they were cruising on the river in a considerably faster airplane than
>mine was "They went up the East river?!" Could they simply have run out of
>room?

Can you slow down to make the turn? You could use some of the same
techniques they teach for handling granite box canyons to deal with
paper box canyons, couldn't you?

[Thomas Borchert]

Ben,

> the Cirrus needed
> standard spin certification in Europe,
>

Yes, and as far as I know, the standard recovery tests were made for
that. But I'm not quite sure.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> Yes, you can tack on a parachute and charge more for the plane.
>

Oh, BS. The plane is extremely cost-efficient. The parachute was
installed and accepted by the FAA as a substitute for spin recovery
testing. That doesn't mean anything about conventional spin recovery.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> Can you slow down to make the turn? You could use some of the same
> techniques they teach for handling granite box canyons to deal with
> paper box canyons, couldn't you?

Yup, they could've flown more slowly. But their radar track say they were
doing 97 knots:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/nyregion/13crash.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 .

--Gary

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
> My first thought after hearing
> that they were cruising on the river in a considerably faster airplane than
> mine was "They went up the East river?!" Could they simply have run out of
> room?

Now that I've learned that the instructor was not an NYC metro area
instructor, things start to make sense. A rough theory:

- Yankee flies instructor out to fly back to CA with him.
- Instructor has never seen NYC from the air
- 88 hour pilot takes foreign instructor for sightseeing flight before
heading west
- The pair go up the wrong river, possibly following one of the amphibs
that live up there.
- Rather than fessing up and asking for clearance through the LGA space,
they attempt impossible turn

When I first started to get true facts about the crash, I couldn't
believe a local instructor would allow them to be there in the first
place, so I suspected a mechanical problem. A new pilot and an
unfamiliar instructor changes a bunch of things.

[Gary Drescher]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
om...
> Now that I've learned that the instructor was not an NYC metro area
> instructor, things start to make sense. A rough theory:
>
> - Yankee flies instructor out to fly back to CA with him.
> - Instructor has never seen NYC from the air
> - 88 hour pilot takes foreign instructor for sightseeing flight before
> heading west
> - The pair go up the wrong river, possibly following one of the amphibs
> that live up there.

I don't think so. Lidle had reportedly flown the East River corridor
previously. I've flown past the southern tip of Manhattan many times, and I
can attest that no one could fly up the East river by accident, even if
they'd never been to NYC before. Unlike with some terrain, everything there
is immediately identifiable by a cursory glance; looking out the window
there is like looking at a map.

> - Rather than fessing up and asking for clearance through the LGA space,
> they attempt impossible turn

The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
to be planned and executed properly.

Their radar track suggests that they made the standard trek to the end of
the corridor and then attempted the standard U-turn.

--Gary

[Peter R.]

B A R R Y > wrote:

> - The pair go up the wrong river, possibly following one of the amphibs
> that live up there.

Your first two points make sense, but IMO this is where your theory falls
apart. I highly doubt they accidentally went up the East River, given that
it is a legal VFR corridor and given that it is very apparent when flying
over NY harbor where Manhattan is and how the rivers surround the island.
Instead, I speculate that they purposely went up the East River to enjoy
the view from that side.

> - Rather than fessing up and asking for clearance through the LGA space,
> they attempt impossible turn

Most sight-seeing VFR traffic flying up the East River turn around and exit
back to the south. The turn is not an impossible turn, if given some
planning.

--
Peter

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Gary Drescher wrote:

>
> I don't think so. Lidle had reportedly flown the East River corridor
> previously. I've flown past the southern tip of Manhattan many times, and I
> can attest that no one could fly up the East river by accident, even if
> they'd never been to NYC before.
-----
>
> The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
> to be planned and executed properly.

I'll take both of responding poster's words for it.

I was basing those two comments on a seminar on the VFR corridor I took
at an FAA SafetyFest. The presenter paints the turn as very difficult,
and stated airplanes do accidentally end up in a difficult situation.
Maybe he's referring to somewhere else, further up the East River?

I've only flown the Hudson parts, and agree that the Hudson / East
intersection is unique looking. I haven't been up the East at less than
5,500. <G>

[Gary Drescher]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
m...
> I was basing those two comments on a seminar on the VFR corridor I took at
> an FAA SafetyFest. The presenter paints the turn as very difficult, and
> stated airplanes do accidentally end up in a difficult situation.

I agree that the East River is unusually challenging (due to its narrowness,
the dead end, the high density of traffic, the required low altitude, and
the nearby skyscrapers). That's why I've never bothered with it myself. And
I agree that an unprepared pilot could accidentally wind up in difficulty
there. It's just hard to imagine that flying up the East River in the first
place could occur accidentally; you really can't mistake it for the Hudson.

--Gary

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> It's just hard to imagine that flying up the East River in the first
> place could occur accidentally; you really can't mistake it for the Hudson.

I agree, but the seminar presenter stated that it happens all the time.
He cited "distracted by the view, following the float planes" as
the usual reason. I have no idea where he gets his information, but he
seemed to be well respected by the FAA SafetyFest organizers, and he's
been doing the seminar for something like 20 years.

The "view from the other side" point certainly has merit.

[Gary Drescher]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> It's just hard to imagine that flying up the East River in the first
>> place could occur accidentally; you really can't mistake it for the
>> Hudson.
>
> I agree, but the seminar presenter stated that it happens all the time. He
> cited "distracted by the view, following the float planes" as the usual
> reason. I have no idea where he gets his information, but he seemed to
> be well respected by the FAA SafetyFest organizers, and he's been doing
> the seminar for something like 20 years.

Dunno. Respected FAA presenters sometimes pass along misinformation. Or
perhaps I'm underestimating the ease of making a wrong turn there.
(Reportedly, though, they'd mentioned that they were about to fly up the
East River, so there seems to have been no navigation error in this case.)

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:20:00 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>> - Rather than fessing up and asking for clearance through the LGA space,
>> they attempt impossible turn
>
>Most sight-seeing VFR traffic flying up the East River turn around and exit
>back to the south. The turn is not an impossible turn, if given some
>planning.

Have you any idea how this fact:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
There was a distress call from the pilot involving a problem with
fuel, government sources close to the investigation told CNN.

may have influenced the outcome of Lidle's flight?

Is any more known about the exact nature of the emergency reported to
ATC?

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Have you any idea how this fact:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
> There was a distress call from the pilot involving a problem with
> fuel, government sources close to the investigation told CNN.
>
> may have influenced the outcome of Lidle's flight?
>
> Is any more known about the exact nature of the emergency reported to
> ATC?

Look at more recent news reports. That's long since been retracted.

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:16:16 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>:

>The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
>to be planned and executed properly.

It would seem that proper planning would at least include the 500'
restriction of FAR 91.119(c). That restriction would reduce the area
in which to complete the turn in compliance with regulations by
1,000'.

If 91.119(b) were more appropriate for the location of the flight, the
Lidle flight would not have been possible under VFR given the 2,000'
ceiling at the time.





http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1de74710b574072d8d35f1c6c7a7f4e8&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.10
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
top
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,
or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude
of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above
the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In
those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to
any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

[Peter R.]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Have you any idea how this fact:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
> There was a distress call from the pilot involving a problem with
> fuel, government sources close to the investigation told CNN.
>
> may have influenced the outcome of Lidle's flight?

Considering that article was last updated about 10 hours after the crash,
I would prefer to wait for some follow-up information about this to be
released before I believe this to be a fact.

Heck, in the first hours after the crash some news agencies were reporting
the aircraft was a twin engine.

--
Peter

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:16:16 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
>>to be planned and executed properly.
>
> It would seem that proper planning would at least include the 500'
> restriction of FAR 91.119(c). That restriction would reduce the area
> in which to complete the turn in compliance with regulations by
> 1,000'.

No, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the legally available width at all. Quite
possibly (though I haven't checked in detail), you can be right next to the
shore and still be more than 500' from any part of any structure on the
ground.

> If 91.119(b) were more appropriate for the location of the flight, the
> Lidle flight would not have been possible under VFR given the 2,000'
> ceiling at the time.

If 91.119b were applicable there, then no flight in the East River VFR
corridor would be possible, because the Class E ceiling there is 1100'. (The
Hudson River VFR corridor would be illegal too.)

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:10:35 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Have you any idea how this fact:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
>> There was a distress call from the pilot involving a problem with
>> fuel, government sources close to the investigation told CNN.
>>
>> may have influenced the outcome of Lidle's flight?
>>
>> Is any more known about the exact nature of the emergency reported to
>> ATC?
>
>Look at more recent news reports. That's long since been retracted.

I'd like to read that retraction if you have a link to it. I did
hear, that the engine was reported to have been operating at the time
of impact, but that does not necessarily preclude fuel issues.

I wasn't able to view the CNN video on the page at the link I posted,
so I don't know what sort of corroborating evidence it may contain
regarding the emergency call reported to CNN. But the radar track
apparently shows the aircraft descending rapidly immediately before
impact. That might be consistent with a fuel emergency.

I find it difficult to believe, that a pilot intent on compliance with
regulations would intentionally descend into the 'canyon' of buildings
prior to attempting a 180 degree turn there.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:54:32 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Have you any idea how this fact:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
>> There was a distress call from the pilot involving a problem with
>> fuel, government sources close to the investigation told CNN.
>>
>> may have influenced the outcome of Lidle's flight?
>
>Considering that article was last updated about 10 hours after the crash,
>I would prefer to wait for some follow-up information about this to be
>released before I believe this to be a fact.
>
The video here:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=510316119&pt=Y
or if that link doesn't work for you, the video at the link labeled
'New York crash location' located on the lower left corner of this
page: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html ,
indicates the flight descended from 1,500' to 400' during a 180 degree
turn.

I find it difficult to believe, that a pilot intent on compliance with
regulations would intentionally descend into the 'canyon' of buildings
prior to attempting a 180 degree turn there.

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:10:35 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> Have you any idea how this fact:
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html
>>> There was a distress call from the pilot involving a problem with
>>> fuel, government sources close to the investigation told CNN.
>>>
>>> may have influenced the outcome of Lidle's flight?
>>>
>>> Is any more known about the exact nature of the emergency reported to
>>> ATC?
>>
>>Look at more recent news reports. That's long since been retracted.
>
> I'd like to read that retraction if you have a link to it.

Just search Google News for 'Lidle mayday' and you'll see dozens of
articles.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The video here:
> http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=510316119&pt=Y
> or if that link doesn't work for you, the video at the link labeled
> 'New York crash location' located on the lower left corner of this
> page: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/11/plane.crash/index.html ,
> indicates the flight descended from 1,500' to 400' during a 180 degree
> turn.

He couldn't have been at 1500' there without busting Class B. He flew up the
river at 700':
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/nyregion/13crash.html

> I find it difficult to believe, that a pilot intent on compliance with
> regulations would intentionally descend into the 'canyon' of buildings
> prior to attempting a 180 degree turn there.

What's the regulatory difficulty?

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:06:57 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote:

>> I've long wondered about whether "congested area" applies when one is
>> over a river. That's not congested. It is next to a congested area,
>> but it itself is rather sparsely populated.
>
> I've wondered about that too. But If it were construed to apply when
> you're over a river, then flight up the Hudson VFR corridor would be
> illegal--you can't get over the Verrazano or George Washington bridge
> under the Class E ceiling without coming within 2000' horizontally of the
> bridge towers, flying less than 1000' above the tower tops.

So you're suggesting that, even if the river weren't congested, the
bridges are? That's not a point I'd considered.

What an overused term to not have a strict definition.

- Andrew

[Gary Drescher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:06:57 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>>> I've long wondered about whether "congested area" applies when one is
>>> over a river. That's not congested. It is next to a congested area,
>>> but it itself is rather sparsely populated.
>>
>> I've wondered about that too. But If it were construed to apply when
>> you're over a river, then flight up the Hudson VFR corridor would be
>> illegal--you can't get over the Verrazano or George Washington bridge
>> under the Class E ceiling without coming within 2000' horizontally of the
>> bridge towers, flying less than 1000' above the tower tops.
>
> So you're suggesting that, even if the river weren't congested, the
> bridges are? That's not a point I'd considered.

No, just the opposite--my point is that the river (including the bridge) is
not regarded as a congested area, or overflying the bridges in the VFR
corridor would be illegal (which obviously is not how it's construed).
Having to stay 500' from structures, though, applies everywhere.

> What an overused term to not have a strict definition.

Yup.

--Gary