C172 crash at Coney Island

Four people died aboard a 172 that crashed at Coney Island today
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/ny...2crash.html?hp).

According to witness descriptions, the plane approached the shore at low
altitude, turned sharply, and then plummeted vertically. The witnesses had
the usual confusion about "stalling" and interpreted the crash as a loss of
power, but it sounds like it may have been a classic stall resulting from
inadequate airspeed during a steep turn. Coney Island is close to a section
of airspace where the Class B has a floor just above 500', so it may be that
the plane hadn't climbed much above that altitude, and tried to turn
abruptly away from the shore in order to avoid overflying a built-up area
too low.

--Gary

The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
terrain/water.

Most unfortunate, my best wishes to the families affected.

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message
oups.com...
The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
terrain/water.

It's a twelve-mile-stretch of the Long Island shore, just a few miles south
of JFK. It's actually quite fun to fly there at that altitude--I've done it
several times. An engine failure wouldn't be especially bad because there's
a beach to land on (or you can ditch just offshore if the beach is too
crowded). You do, of course, need to avoid stalling (or especially
spinning).

--Gary

Ben Hallert wrote:
The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
terrain/water.

Actually over Coney Island the floor of Class B space is at 1500 ft
(I'm looking at my NY chart). It's hard to tell from the ground how
high the airplane is. Unfortunately it sounds like a classic
stall/spin.

You can see the tail number in the NYT photo..


Most unfortunate, my best wishes to the families affected.

Yes. Very sad

....richie

wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually over Coney Island the floor of Class B space is at 1500 ft
(I'm looking at my NY chart).

Right, but just nearby the Class B is 500'(+). If the plane came from there,
it might still have been quite low (or it might've been low anyway just to
get a better view).

--Gary

I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose first"
??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???

i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an engine
quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you just
happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! (


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...
Actually over Coney Island the floor of Class B space is at 1500 ft
(I'm looking at my NY chart).

Right, but just nearby the Class B is 500'(+). If the plane came from
there, it might still have been quite low (or it might've been low anyway
just to get a better view).

--Gary

"Ernest C. Evans" wrote in message
...
I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose first"
??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???

i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an engine
quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you just
happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! (

Actually, having an engine quit would *not* cause a plane to fall. As you
say, it would just glide instead.

What does cause a plane to fall--whether the engine is running or not--is
pulling back too far on the control wheel, which causes the plane to slow
down too much (at least, that's the simplified explanation). When that
happens, witnesses who are not familiar with aerodynamic principles often
perceive the incident as an engine failure, which is then how the press
reports it initially.

You're right too that when a plane stops flying (the technical term is
"stalling", but that's confusing because it has nothing to do with the
*engine* stalling), you can recover if you have enough altitude, but being
lower makes recovery harder. Stall recovery shouldn't take much more than
100 feet, but there's a particularly bad type of stall--called a spin--that
can take more than 1000 feet to recover from.

--Gary

Ernest C. Evans wrote:
I'm not a pilot but I was wondering why this plane went down "nose first"
??? I'm thinkin', don't these things have some gliding ability ???

i guess the pilot must've been too low to recover ..... Having an engine
quit on you is bad enough luck ..... but having it happened when you just
happen to be at a low altitude is even worse luck ! (

Are you sure the engine quit?


Matt

Ben Hallert wrote:
The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
terrain/water.

The airspace below is over open water. It's perfectly reasonable.

In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:

Ben Hallert wrote:
The class B floor is 500? Sounds like a recipe for some sort of
airspace version of scud running, which in turns sounds like a great
way to have unrecoverable stalls/engine outs, controlled flight into
terrain/water.

The airspace below is over open water. It's perfectly reasonable.

Actually, significant parts of the 500' floor are over densely populated
areas of New Jersey. (Wow, what a hairy-assed chunk of airspace.
There's a teeny weeny triangle of 500' floor wedged in between a section
with an 800' floor and the EWR central core. That's gotta be the
smallest separately charted chunk of controlled airspace in the world.)

rg