Lidle crash: who is wrong?

Gary Drescher wrote:
It's not impossibly tight if it's planned and executed properly. In fact,
there's no (legal) choice but to make the turn. The VFR corridor over the
East River ends at the northern tip of Roosevelt Island. At that point, you
either make a U-turn or bust LGA's Class B (unless you have a clearance).

thanks for the very insightful post.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:YLhXg.2547$XX2.2048@dukeread04...
Google for "524 e 72nd st.,new york city" and look at the
sat photo. There is a soccer field just northeast across
the river. IF they were having some engine problem, that
could have looked like the best place to land. Passing the
tops of the buildings and with probable winds aloft being
twice as strong as surface winds [maybe 25 kts. ] and the
venturi effect, the plane could have easily been turned
directly into the building. Just a guess.

I don't understand your scenario. They'd have been flying north along the
east shore of the narrow river, then making a U-turn to fly south along the
west shore. Aside from the river itself, plausible nearby landing sites are
along the east shore and on the island in the middle of the river; I don't
see how heading for those sites would have led them to crash on the west
side of the river. (Plus, there was no distress call or other indication of
engine problems.)

If they flew too fast, making the turn too wide (which is my guess), they'd
have hit the north side of a building on the west shore--which they did.

--Gary




"Blasto" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Confusing reports on the Lidle crash-- Mayor Bloomberg,
sounding
| utterly confident in his sources, says the plane took off
from
| Teterboro, circled the Statue of Liberty, flew up
(south-to-north) the
| East River, then into the building. A few minutes earlier,
a CNN
| reporter using PASSUR asserted that after taking off the
plane tracked
| straight west-to-east over Central Park, turned right and
followed the
| East River (north-to-south) and suddenly banked right into
the
| building. Given that the impact was on the building's
north face, the
| latter account seems more likely.
|
| Anyone have newer info?
|
| --
| B
|

I'm just trying to understand what happened. Looked at the
Google sat photo, the soccer field looked like the best and
closest landing area. Not really sure if the locations is
totally correct. All I know for sure is that the news media
hires idiots who can fill hours with nothing.

I do know from experience that winds around the buildings
can cause lots of turbulence which could cause control
problems.

Just where the airplane was when the problem began is
unknown, all we know for sure is where it ended up.

All my flying in the NYC area has been in King Air and
Beechjet aircraft, have not run the VFR corridors. Don't
have a current chart and not sure what they did and what the
rules are. Anybody know of a free download for a terminal
NYC chart that shows the area in question?



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:YLhXg.2547$XX2.2048@dukeread04...
| Google for "524 e 72nd st.,new york city" and look at
the
| sat photo. There is a soccer field just northeast
across
| the river. IF they were having some engine problem,
that
| could have looked like the best place to land. Passing
the
| tops of the buildings and with probable winds aloft
being
| twice as strong as surface winds [maybe 25 kts. ] and
the
| venturi effect, the plane could have easily been turned
| directly into the building. Just a guess.
|
| I don't understand your scenario. They'd have been flying
north along the
| east shore of the narrow river, then making a U-turn to
fly south along the
| west shore. Aside from the river itself, plausible nearby
landing sites are
| along the east shore and on the island in the middle of
the river; I don't
| see how heading for those sites would have led them to
crash on the west
| side of the river. (Plus, there was no distress call or
other indication of
| engine problems.)
|
| If they flew too fast, making the turn too wide (which is
my guess), they'd
| have hit the north side of a building on the west
shore--which they did.
|
| --Gary
|
|
|
|
| "Blasto" wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| | Confusing reports on the Lidle crash-- Mayor
Bloomberg,
| sounding
| | utterly confident in his sources, says the plane took
off
| from
| | Teterboro, circled the Statue of Liberty, flew up
| (south-to-north) the
| | East River, then into the building. A few minutes
earlier,
| a CNN
| | reporter using PASSUR asserted that after taking off
the
| plane tracked
| | straight west-to-east over Central Park, turned right
and
| followed the
| | East River (north-to-south) and suddenly banked right
into
| the
| | building. Given that the impact was on the building's
| north face, the
| | latter account seems more likely.
| |
| | Anyone have newer info?
| |
| | --
| | B
| |
|
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:4ApXg.2566$XX2.1045@dukeread04...
All my flying in the NYC area has been in King Air and
Beechjet aircraft, have not run the VFR corridors. Don't
have a current chart and not sure what they did and what the
rules are. Anybody know of a free download for a terminal
NYC chart that shows the area in question?

http://skyvector.com/

Peter R. wrote:


How does an aircraft hit the north face of a building along the river
there? One possibility is that the pilot lost control of the aircraft
during the turn, say due to a stall. Another possibility is that the pilot
misjudged the point at which to begin the turn.


Accellerated stall is a possibility. Overbank an already tight turn.
Remember that once the stall occurs it's not only altitude that is lost,
lift is what is turning the aircraft.

"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Anybody know of a free download for a terminal
NYC chart that shows the area in question?

http://skyvector.com/

"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Anybody know of a free download for a terminal
NYC chart that shows the area in question?

http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/...20TAC%2069.tif
(31MB)

Tom Fleischman wrote:

The corridor [...]
includes helicopter and sometimes seaplane traffic.

Sometimes? I used to have an office overlooking the East River a few
blocks from the 23rd street SPB. Seaplanes come in and out on a regular
basis all day long. Scheduled service out to the Hamptons. Mostly Cessna
Caravan amphibians. I chatted with one of the pilots one day. He said the
float system cost as much as the rest of the airplane.

Roy Smith wrote:

Sometimes? I used to have an office overlooking the East River a few
blocks from the 23rd street SPB. Seaplanes come in and out on a regular
basis all day long. Scheduled service out to the Hamptons. Mostly Cessna
Caravan amphibians. I chatted with one of the pilots one day. He said the
float system cost as much as the rest of the airplane.

I did some flying with an operator out of Bridgeport CT (BDR) that flew
Caravan amphibs into the 23rd St dock. We flew commuters back & forth
to Easthampton (HTO). And yes, the Wipline amphib floats aren't cheap,
they cost about 250k for the pair (A tad less than a $1.5M C208 though)

Gary Drescher wrote:

I don't understand your scenario. They'd have been flying north along the
east shore of the narrow river, then making a U-turn to fly south along the
west shore. Aside from the river itself, plausible nearby landing sites are
along the east shore and on the island in the middle of the river; I don't
see how heading for those sites would have led them to crash on the west
side of the river. (Plus, there was no distress call or other indication of
engine problems.)

If they flew too fast, making the turn too wide (which is my guess), they'd
have hit the north side of a building on the west shore--which they did.

--Gary

Also, the winds were coming from ENE gusting to 22. Going northbound on
the west fork of the East River and making a lefthand turn, the turning
radius would be significantly wider. This would have contributed to the
"surprise" factor as well (not unlike the typical overshooting the
final in a crosswind situation).

Marco