Airplane in NYC is a Cirrus SR20

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.

"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

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?

"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

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....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.

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

"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

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.

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 he
http://www.emailthis.clickability.co...0316119&p t=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.

"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