Apparantly the plane was owned by Cory Lidle, a pitcher for the Yankees. Not sure if he was piloting it or not. They are hinting that he was, but it is not confirmed.
Please link if you can. Holy Crap.
ESPN is reporting that Lidle was piloting.
I just heard on the radio that the Yankees are also confirming that Lidle was the pilot.
The New York Times has the report of his death as “breaking news”, but no details on it yet.
CNN reports there was a distress call, and a witness on the ground who is also a pilot said it looked like they may have been trying to get back to LaGuardia.
Just, wow.
Wow…this is what I assumed must have happened in the first few minutes of hearing about 9/11, that a small plane must have accidentally crashed into a building. Weird (and sad, too, of course).
The New York Times is now running a story about Cory Lidle being killed in the crash.
Holy Crap! This is a five-minute walk from my old apartment! If I was still in New York I could look out my window directly into the wreckage.
Great job, NYFD. I’m sure it wasn’t easy but you did a great job.
Too bad about Lidle. Sure brings back memories of Thurman Munson in 1979.
I’ve been a flight instructor in small planes for about 20 years. In normal flight small airplanes are remarkably stable. I frequently allowed my 10 year old to pilot our plane during long flights. Losing control usually takes some effort. Based on my limited experience it’s a lot easier during aerobatics, but recovery is no problem, assuming sufficient altitude.
I don’t know the particulars of this incident, but I think it would take a while just to list the FAA regulations being broken by low altitude aerobatics over NYC.
Apparently, Lidle was a licensed pilot, but a new one, having only had the license a few months. That means he’s most likely VFR-only. He has the money and time to have gotten an instrument rating, but most people don’t do it quite that quickly. Weather, as pointed out, and as visibile in various photos, was not very pretty. Personally, I suspect I’d choose to stay on the ground but then I’ve some years experience by now and I’ve learned the hard way about inclement weather and small airplanes. If I did go up, it would almost certainly be with someone with an instrument rating - which he did, so to that extent, he was doing the right thing.
The Cirrus S-20 is composite construction airplane and it comes standard with a ballistic recovery system, that is, a whole-plane parachute, as a safety feature. It also has a glass-panel flight management system, basically state-of-the-art avionics. They are very nice airplanes, very cutting edge. However, there has been some concern that certain new pilots with a great deal of money are getting into them without the proper training and experience to truly be safe in a fast, sophisticated airplane. However, again, he had an instructor with him. As a private pilot and owner of the airplane he was not required to have an instructor with him, but he had chosen to take training above and beyond the minimum required. Again, up to this point he is doing the right thing.
The two people in the airplane were flying one of the designated VFR corridors in New York City. These are, basically, “roadways” in the sky set up to maintain an orderly flow of traffic by sight-seeing airplanes as well as training flights, and are also separate from the parts of the sky used by commerical passenger and cargo jets, and airplanes on instrument flight plans. You do not have to be in contact with air traffic control to fly there, however, it is encouraged and most people do so. They are, inevitably, heavy traffic areas and even the most experienced pilots tend to appreciate any help they can get to safely traverse such an airspace, particularly on a nice weekend afternoons (Chicago has two such VFR flyways, one of which I’ve flown). In this case, they were in contact with air traffic control and, again, were doing the right thing.
What went wrong? Well, it was lousy weather for a visual-only flight. As I said, I wouldn’t be inclined to go up myself. Then again, what I fly doesn’t have a glass panel or GPS. One problem with advanced avionics has been an upswing in unqualified pilots launching into marginal weather, trusting the electronic gear to keep them on course and safe. But you need to be both qualified and experienced to rely on instruments, and if they should fail - and an electronic or mechanical device can - you are up the creek if you don’t have a fallback. However, he had a flight instructor with him, who would have to have an instrument rating. In theory, if things got really shitty they could file for an instrument flight plan and use it to navigate safely back to a safe landing.
However, flying VFR in such weather, they would have had to stay low in order to remain clear of clouds and in sight of navigational landmarks. This means if something goes wrong you don’t have much margin of error.
The only clue we have is that someone on board radioed that they were having a “fuel problem”. That could be… well, running out of gas. A fuel leak. A problem with fuel getting (or not getting) into the engine. The one known airborne witness reported seeing the accident airplane making “steep banks” and, as he put it, “trying desparately to get to a runway”. They were having a problem, that much is clear.
Venturing into speculation - since they didn’t say “engine failure” lets assume the engine was running. But it may not have been generating full power. They may not have been able to climb, or at least not climb well. Any altitude lost may have been altitude they couldn’t regain. That means if they bank steeply they’re going to descend and they can’t regain that height. This can very quickly bring you to building height or lower. It can be very deceptive, more so than a complete engine failure. If your engine fails completely you KNOW you’re in a glider. If the engine is running, but not well, you may easily overestimate how much power/climb you have, which can get you into terrible trouble. It was pretty clear that they were heading for the absolutely nearest runway they could get to. This was no doubt complicated by the fact that in NYC there are few, if any, alternatives to an airport. A Cirrus would need at least 2,000 feet of clear run to land (that’s a WAG, by the way, I haven’t looked up the Cirrus specs), and that’s disregarding major obstacles like highrises. This is one reason I am extremely reluctant to fly over a city like Chicago - if something goes wrong I am sooooo totally screwed in regards as to where to land. NYC can’t be any better, and is probably even worse.
The air currents around building can’t be seen - but they can be violent. Even low-rise, one and two storey buildings can generate air currents that must be considered on take-off and landing, highrises and skyscrapers can generate hurricane-force currents. The minimum clearances I gave earlier aren’t just to protect windows from breakage - they’re also to protect pilots from dangerous currents. I am a considerably more experienced pilot than Lidle, but I can’t imagine willingly flying between high-rise buildings. It’s damn near suicidal. Airplanes are not designed to make the sort of tight turn required. The Cirrus is not an aerobatic airplane. If you tried to turn too tightly you would break the airplane. You can unload the g-force by descending rather than remaining level – except you’re so low already you can’t afford to lose any altitude…
So, OK… they’re in trouble, they’re headed for a runway, they get too low, they turn to avoid one obstacle or to approach the runway - and right in front of them is a building. They can’t turn aside in time. BAM!
As usual in these instances (small planes have hit buildings before, it’s rare but not unheard of) windows break. Something started a fire. Witnesses say the airplane broke apart on impact and fell down outside the building (unlike a case a few years back where a Cessna 172 hit a building, the wings sheared off, and the fuselage wound up on the desk of the lawyer of who owned the office). This is actually typical of composite airplanes. Aluminum airplanes crumple, wood-and-cloth airplanes fold up (with the wings often shearing off in both of those cases), and composites shatter/break apart on impact. This probably lead to fuel spraying around the impact. Basically, spraying 100 octane gasoline all over the impact zone. All that’s required after that is a spark to get a fire going. Well, the Cirrus has a hefty electrical system for the avionics, both of which would be crumpling/shattering on impact as well. Doesn’t take much of a leap to see how a spark could happen. The other possible fire trigger here is, ironically enough, a safety system - the ballistic parachute has to launch throught the skin of the fuselage to deploy. That is achieved by the thrust generated by a small solid-fuel rocket. It would be unlikely to trigger from an impact, but it could be detonated by burning gasoline, at least in theory. If the rocket charge goes up you WILL have a pretty good fire going.
Of course, all of the above is subject to change pending more information. Compare to accidents where a car or truck drives into the side of building. Basically, this is an unfortunate accident with a flying car. I’m sorry the two men on board died, but I’m glad no one else was hurt. I also feel bad for the folks whose apartments burned as well, and I understand the anxiety and fear NYC residents feel at the notion of any airplane slamming into a building, but let’s try to keep this in perspective.
Wow Broomstick, just wow. That was extremely indepth. Thank you. You certainly know your stuff.
When I cough up the dough to start my flying lessons, maybe I’ll look you up! 
I have a question that I’m sure you can answer. Who will be responsible for investigating the cause of the crash? Does the NTSB do this with private plane accidents?
Hey Broomstick , is it true that a flight plan didn’t need to be filed as some news reports said if they were in the river corridor on either side of the island? Is this type of thing true for other major cities? I mean, what’s stopping a terrorist from packing a small plane with C4 at one of these small airports? Is this a homeland security hole or were the reports wrong? I know a flight plan isn’t a security type thing, but what kind of security should be in place?
The NTSB investigates crashes.
Here is an article on flight plans.
Thanks, Johnny . So what is the rationale for not filing a flight plan for visual rules but having to for instruments?
I feel badly for the people who lost their homes. Whenever I hear about a house/apartment fire, I think how awful it must be to lose everything: family photos, furniture, artwork, clothes, pets, books.
From Wiki:
I am not an explosives expert.
Based on the article, it seems the biggest factor would be detonation. While (it seems) that a crash might detonate the C4, that is not a certainty. So a suicide bomber would have to aim the aircraft, fly it into a building, and trigger it at just the right instant.
The article says that the military uses 8 to 10 pounds of C4 for an 8-inch steel beam. Depending on the type of aircraft, and assuming a full load of fuel for maximum effect (I think I heard the Cirrus can carry 80 gallons, but I haven’t looked it up – a Cessna 172 carries 42 gallons), I’m guessing a small GA aircraft might be able to carry 200 to 400 pounds of explosives.
How big an explosion is that? Worth the effort? I think the problem with using GA aircraft as terror weapons is, if you’ll excuse the expression, ‘bang for the buck’. The terrorist will have to be a trained pilot, not just some schmuck with a holy sword to grind. The aircraft has a fairly small payload. Suspicious activity around an airport is likely to gain more attention than activity around a garage or storage unit. A rental-type truck can carry a larger device made of easier-to-obtain materials (e.g., fuel-fertiliser bomb), can be driven by anyone with a driver’s license (much more common than pilot’s certificates) who may be ‘unsophisticated fanatics’ (not to paint with too large a brush), and can be virtually ‘invisible’ since there are so many trucks on the road.
Filing a flight plan isn’t really a deterrant. They’re basically a safety measure. (A pilot can start a search simply by not closing his flight plan 30 minutes after his stated arrivall time.) One could file a flight plan from SMO to LAS and simply deviate from his route to crash into a building in Downtown L.A. or into a large casino/hotel in Vegas. You’d basically have to close the airspace over metropolitan areas and intercept aircraft before they enter it. This would not only affect sightseers and pleasure fliers, but also corporate fliers and others who rely on light aircraft to go places. Not to mention the economic impacts on GA airports including loss of jobs, loss of taxes, loss of revenue, etc.
I’m not instrument rated. I also haven’t been flying in a few years (dammit!). Many or most flights under VFR are done locally. If a flight plan is a useful tool for search-and-rescue, then it’s not of much utility on a local flight. On a cross-country, say from Lancaster to Las Vegas or to Medford or someplace, I’ll file a flight plan. Why? Because there’s a lot of empty space including some mountains along the way. Were I to be forced down or crash, I’d want someone looking for me. Over a city, someone is likely to see the aircraft go down and a flight plan isn’t necessary to initiate a search.