Update from NTSB on Lidle crash

Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

1300 feet?
How wide is the corridor there?
 
Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

The article said 2,100 feet, but they were closer to the middle when they started the turn.
Two days after the accident, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered small, fixed-wing planes not to fly over the East River unless the pilot is in contact with air traffic controllers.
Small planes could previously fly below 1,100 feet along the river without filing flight plans or checking in with air traffic control. The FAA said the rule change -- a temporary one -- was made for safety reasons.
Click to expand...
Because we all know that talking to controllers makes you more safe. Why they can just reach right thru that radio and FLY for you if you get into trouble...
 
Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

Dave Krall CFII said:
1300 feet?
How wide is the corridor there?
Click to expand...
~2000 feet
 
Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

well, I think the point about being in contact with controllers just means they are cleared through Class B. maybe. in which case no need for Uturns.
 
Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

The other thing too, is that is makes non-pilots feel better because hey, this could have been a deliberate attack. It did, afterall, cause massive loss of life and damage to property, right?

Sometimes I wish everyone was a pilot.
 
Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

SkyHog said:
The other thing too, is that is makes non-pilots feel better because hey, this could have been a deliberate attack. It did, afterall, cause massive loss of life and damage to property, right?

Sometimes I wish everyone was a pilot.
Click to expand...
The public will feel better that it wasn't pilot error, it was the wind?

So if they just ban flying when there's a wind ....
 
Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

mikea said:
The public will feel better that it wasn't pilot error, it was the wind?

So if they just ban flying when there's a wind ....
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry, confusion on my sentence. I meant that is why is "made sense" to close the corridor without permission. Means people can't slip in without permission. Sigh.
 
Re: NTSB blames the wind for JFKory Lidle crash

SkyHog said:
No, I'm sorry, confusion on my sentence. I meant that is why is "made sense" to close the corridor without permission. Means people can't slip in without permission. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Ron asked the NYC controllers if the new requirement was hard on them.
Nope! Nobody gets permission.
 
No, what's to blame is that they were over the middle of the river, and didn't bank appropriately (53 degrees). Of course, that's a really hefty bank for "normal" flight.

Since the update shows the NTSB hasn't found any mechanical problems with the airplane, this appears to be purely pilot error.

It's a shame they didn't have better judgement, as my experiments in a sim showed that a climbing turn would have missed the buildings, even though it might have busted the airspace. But when I'm scared the last thing I'm thinking of is a bust - skin, tin, ticket is the proper priority.
 
Note that, previously, planes could fly below 1,100ft without talking to controllers OR FILING A FLIGHT PLAN. Scandalous!! You mean there are planes flying around out there without flight plans?!!!!!!!
 
Engine stall due to wind?

Wind had role in plane crash into NY building: NTSB

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Strong winds may have played a role in the small plane crash into a Manhattan skyscraper on October 11 that killed New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle and his flight instructor, officials said on Friday.

The spectacular crash revived images of the September 11 attacks until it was quickly determined to have been an accident.

The plane slammed into the 30th floor of an apartment building on the Upper East Side and crashed onto the street below, injuring three people on the ground, one of them severely.

The prevailing winds would have forced the plane to drift 400 feet toward the building as it made a 180-degree turn over the East River, and a correction made at mid-turn could have forced the engine to stall, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a news release.

An NTSB spokesman stressed that the findings were not considered the definitive cause, and that the investigation would continue.

http://snipurl.com/1161n



I'm trying to understand how it can make the engine stall?
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

um....who wants to tell him.
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

Don't waste the effort....
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

I think the correction caused it, not the wind.
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

AirBaker said:
I think the correction caused it, not the wind.
Click to expand...
Caused what? the engine to stall? I guess it did stall when it hit....
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

greglansing said:
I'm trying to understand how it can make the engine stall?
Click to expand...

Only the wind from undereducated media hacks can make an airplane engine "stall", naturally occuring wind by itself has no such effect.
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

I guess I should have put some smiley faces after my question.
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

The wind was so strong that it actually stopped the propeller. Propellers can only chop though so much wind.
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

greglansing said:
The prevailing winds would have forced the plane to drift 400 feet toward the building as it made a 180-degree turn...
Click to expand...

'forced'? :dunno:
 
Re: Engine stall due to wind?

SkyHog said:
The wind was so strong that it actually stopped the propeller. Propellers can only chop though so much wind.
Click to expand...


Absolutley, there was just to dang much wind!
 
What the...

This is the first time I have EVER seen the pilot listed by name in the NTSB report. Hmmm... :dunno:

NTSB Report said:
On October 11, 2006, about 2:42 PM eastern daylight time, a Cirrus SR-20, N929CD, crashed into an apartment building in New York City. Both people on board the airplane were killed and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. No fatalities occurred on the ground. Substantial damage occurred to several of the residences in the building. The pilot and owner was New York Yankee player Cory Lidle, and a California based flight instructor was with him. The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight had taken off from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey and appeared to be sightseeing around Manhattan.
Click to expand...
 
TMetzinger said:
It's a shame they didn't have better judgement, as my experiments in a sim showed that a climbing turn would have missed the buildings, even though it might have busted the airspace. But when I'm scared the last thing I'm thinking of is a bust - skin, tin, ticket is the proper priority.
Click to expand...

Weren't they under very low ceilings as well, though? Making a climbing turn into IMC might well have resulted in the same, or worse, outcome.
 
I'll have to check, but I thought the ceilings were high enough that they should have been able to dodge the building (500 feet high), or just bust LaGuardia's B space - worst case some airliners go around.
 
New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's plane crashed in New York because the pilot misjudged a narrow U-turn before veering into a Manhattan high-rise, federal investigators said Tuesday. In presenting their findings, National Transportation Safety Board investigators said they still don't know whether Lidle or his flight instructor was piloting the plane at the time of the Oct. 11, 2006, crash.
Click to expand...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/05/01/lidle.crash.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

No big revelation there. I think we all knew that from reviewing what we knew from the reviewing the charts, WX, and video.

About who was at the controls the article had this to say.

The NTSB has released some preliminary documents, identifying Lidle as the pilot and Stanger the passenger, but the papers provide no proof of who was at the controls of Lidle's Cirrus SR-20 when it crashed.
Click to expand...
 
smigaldi said:
No big revelation there.
Click to expand...

Also no big revelation, but we wonder why airplanes and insurnace cost so much:

"The Lidle and Stanger families have filed suit against the manufacturers of the plane and certain components."
 
tonycondon said:
and to think, some people dont find the value in Ground Reference manuevers...sigh
Click to expand...

If you're referring to me, you are misunderstanding me. I see no reason to make ground reference mandatory for the PP, but I can see he benefit at times.

To say that we should teach primary students how to avoid EVERY situation that might come up? That's not good, would add hundreds of hours to the PP. Some things need to be taught at the pilot's request.
 
SkyHog said:
To say that we should teach primary students how to avoid EVERY situation that might come up? That's not good, would add hundreds of hours to the PP. Some things need to be taught at the pilot's request.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the famous-star-busy-guy pilot types would ever request additional training on that? Hah!

I did my private in 42.6 hours in 2003, for $3100. There is nothing stopping people from getting their private in a reasonable amount of time and money.

I know you believe that having more pilots will make flying cheaper due to economies of scale. However, if we create an entire generation of pilots who can't even fly to today's Private Pilot PTS standards, the huge increases in insurance premiums will more than make up for any lower prices we may have picked up. I'd also be willing to bet that if PP PTS standards were relaxed a bunch that the insurance increases would be here LONG before the lower prices of other things. :(
 
Bill Jennings said:
Also no big revelation, but we wonder why airplanes and insurnace cost so much:

"The Lidle and Stanger families have filed suit against the manufacturers of the plane and certain components."
Click to expand...

They didn't sue the builder the developers for putting that building in the way?
 
Sometimes, pilots wind up inverted. I propose that we include inverted flight recovery into the PTS.

Sometimes, pilots hit towers when flying 50agl. I think that belongs in the PTS.

Some pilots have been killed because they spun their airplanes. Lets put spin recovery back into the PTS.

Any time an NTSB report comes out with a probable cause, lets add it to the PTS.

That's my point: Some pilots are going to be dumb. Can't avoid that. That doesn't mean we need to waste money on learning maneuvers that doesn't apply to 99% of our flights.

Right now, if you want to learn inverted recovery, or wake turbulence recovery, you can get a CFI and learn it. That's good.

Lets add all the other, rarely used, but often difficult to grasp, maneuvers to the same system:

Steep turns, ground reference, etc.

PTS should say:
1) Taxi safely
2) takeoff safely
3) navigate safely
4) safely deal with emergency
5) land safely (short field a necessity, soft field an option)
6) Park and shut down safely

And that's about it. If you can do the above, you're good enough to be a pilot in my book. Certainly not commercial quality, but a pilot nonetheless. You would be able to get your license in about 20-25 hours minimum that way. People would probably still take longer, but no where near the FAA's average 59 hours.

And no, recreational and LSA doesn't work here, because I'm talking about flight with friends and night flight also.

This is my message as an attempt to save GA from being "The rich guys" and looked down on. You're free to disagree with me, but understand that by saying we need the stuff we need right now is nothing more than keeping exclusivity in our flying, and that is causing our demise.
 
Cross posted in the relevant "red board" site.

Here's the new 2007 press release. Might as well get the info from the horse's mouth, rather than the press. This is the "NTSB News" version. It's more industrial strength in it's indictment of the pilot(s) than the news version. It really zings the lack of thought that went into that turn on the part of both pilots. And it recommends the change to the airspace be permanent (no big surprise).

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2007/070501.htm

They washed their hands on the issue of who was actually manipulating the controls. Let the lawsuits continue...

Jim G
 
SkyHog said:
Steep turns, ground reference, etc.

PTS should say:
1) Taxi safely
2) takeoff safely
3) navigate safely
4) safely deal with emergency
5) land safely (short field a necessity, soft field an option)
6) Park and shut down safely

And that's about it. If you can do the above, you're good enough to be a pilot in my book. Certainly not commercial quality, but a pilot nonetheless. You would be able to get your license in about 20-25 hours minimum that way. People would probably still take longer, but no where near the FAA's average 59 hours.
Click to expand...

The ground reference maneuvers give you the background for flying a pattern properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top