Plane crashes in to NYC building..... dejavu anyone?

[Asher]

If you turn left, you turn inland.
If you turn right, you turn inland.

This is a river we're talking about. If the idea was to go to Laguardia, you to turn around...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The thing that gets me is I can;t figure out a possible explanation for the accident.

It wasn't turburlence or windshear, because these create vertical incidents.

Depending on attitude and whether or not the a/c was in control, buffet and low level wind conditions due to the nearby buildings could certainly have affected maneuverability.

The plane apparently made a hard 90 degree turn.

If the plane stalled, it would simply go straight down.

There are stalls, and there are stalls. It's possible to stall one wing only, a portion of a wing (on this particular plane), and you don't go straight down unless you stall purely from exceeding max climb angle and then do nothing about it for a while (i.e. a hammerhead, when that's your goal) Otherwise, you still have forward air speed, and in theory have controls and an engine to play with to recover from a stall - the problem is that when you recover, if you recover, you may have a whole lot of new problems - such as finding yourself with almost but not quite control just about to smack into something.

It might spiral or spin, but that would create a circular turn.

Assuming you did nothing to get out of it. Presumably the IP would have taken over and tried to kick and roll out of the spin.

The aircraft was in uncontrolled airspace, which means below 1,100 feet. Cloud cover was 1,800 feet so clouds were not a factor and the pilot would have been flying using visual flight rules.

I heard on the radio today there was a report of a second aircraft in the area (reported from a helicopter) and a possible near miss. Other reported info (eyewitness) is that there was smoke coming from the rear of the aircraft prior to impact, and that (reporting from an NTSB official) it appeared at some point the pilot did try to deploy the BRS, but it may have been partially burned.

If there was engine failure, why didn't the pilot ditch in the river.

Unless you have perfect control and can glide in, you really don't want to do that. It's a messy, certain way to die in a plane like that, not like John Wayne movies.

Even if the aircraft turns inland, it should still have momentum, lift and control to avoid buildings. I can see clipping the side of a building, but not flying directly into it.

Streets are real narrow things to fly through under perfect conditions, let alone with the plane having problems. Lidle certainly couldn't have done it - he doesn't have near the flying time logged. It's not at all like any PC flight sim.

The only possible reason I can see is that the plane makes the turn, and then an aelieron cable snaps and the plane can make significant turns, accept through the rudder which might not have been enough in such a tight space. But why the turn inland?

Possibly trying to thread the needle, maybe make a street landing, possibly disorientation or regain of partial control out of a spin/stall with an exit in the wrong direction.

And you yaw with a rudder, not turn with it. Once pointed towards land, loss of aileron control in that confined space would almost certainly doom the plane, (maybe a million to one chance if you had room to pull off some sort of miracle maneuver and deploy BRS over land) even without anything else going wrong.

Very perplexing.

Yep.

[Tingkai]

I see the crash as a puzzle that can be solved using flight theory, but what is the answer? In most crashes, there are many possible answers. In this case, there are few which makes it more interesting to consider.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Depending on attitude and whether or not the a/c was in control, buffet and low level wind conditions due to the nearby buildings could certainly have affected maneuverability.

Low level wind conditions will not affect control of an aircraft.

Buffeting will have little impact in most cases. At most it might cause a stall and a spin.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
There are stalls, and there are stalls. It's possible to stall one wing only, a portion of a wing (on this particular plane), and you don't go straight down unless you stall purely from exceeding max climb angle and then do nothing about it for a while (i.e. a hammerhead, when that's your goal) Otherwise, you still have forward air speed, and in theory have controls and an engine to play with to recover from a stall - the problem is that when you recover, if you recover, you may have a whole lot of new problems - such as finding yourself with almost but not quite control just about to smack into something.

Assuming you did nothing to get out of it. Presumably the IP would have taken over and tried to kick and roll out of the spin.

A stall that results in a straight down dive is not just about exceeding a "climb angle". It's about the wing's angle of attack. If that angle is too great, then a stall can occur, even when the plane is not climbing (e.g. pulling back the stick and reducing engine power)

Engine power will not get you out of a spin or a spiral.

In a spin, the wing creates no lift. The plane will not be going forward relative to the ground, but instead rotating in a flat circle.

From the pilot's point of view, it is like sitting on a spinning disk.

For recovery, pilot will reduce engine power, neutralize the stick, apply opposite rudder and then pull out of the dive after the spin has ended.

Planes do not "roll out" of a spin.

It is possible that the pilot pulls out of the spin and ends up facing inland rather than up or down river, but no reports so far about the plane going into a spin (something that would be noticable).

Another problem with this explanation is the plane was last reported at about 400 feet. Spin recoveries typically require more than 1,000 feet.

So a possible, but unlikely explanation.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Other reported info (eyewitness) is that there was smoke coming from the rear of the aircraft prior to impact, and that (reporting from an NTSB official) it appeared at some point the pilot did try to deploy the BRS, but it may have been partially burned.

In an air icrash, someone somewhere usually reports fire and smoke before crash. Usually nothing is found to back up the claim.

If the pilot did deploy the chute while in controlled flight, stall, spin or spiral, that would have been monumentally stupid, but would not cause the plane to suddenly turn and then go straight into a building.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Unless you have perfect control and can glide in, you really don't want to do that. It's a messy, certain way to die in a plane like that, not like John Wayne movies.

If your plane loses power at low altitutude, ditching in the river may well be the best option. Landing on a street looks great in the movies, but in the movies streets don't have telephone and electrical lines laced across them, overhanging street lights and traffic.

Better to land in the river. At least you won't kill any drivers or pedestrians.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Possibly trying to thread the needle, maybe make a street landing, possibly disorientation or regain of partial control out of a spin/stall with an exit in the wrong direction.

I'd rule out pilot disorientation. There's no likely cause that would affect both pilots.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And you yaw with a rudder, not turn with it.

Yes, you yaw with the rudder, but it still turns the plane to a different direction. What it does not do is a banking turn.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Once pointed towards land, loss of aileron control in that confined space would almost certainly doom the plane, (maybe a million to one chance if you had room to pull off some sort of miracle maneuver and deploy BRS over land) even without anything else going wrong.

Yes, loss of aileron control would doom the plane, if it is pointed inland when control is lost. But why the turn inland in the first place? And if aileron control is lost and the plane is heading inland, the natural response would be to climb, not dive, yet the plane lost height.

[SlowwHand]

It was out of fuel. No fuel found anywhere.

[Wiglaf]

MtG stop being a condescending ass to winston.

Thanks

[Barnabas]

was the player very famous?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
MtG stop being a condescending ass to winston.

Thanks

Sshh. He already did, some while after I declared I was through arguing with him.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It was out of fuel. No fuel found anywhere.

The fuel would have burned up in the fire.

And even if it was out of fuel, the plane would have been controllable, particularly with a flight instructor on board (by definition an experienced pilot).

NYT is reporting that an official said the rocket for the parachute deployment system was set off by the fire.

The near miss mentioned by MTG seems odd. Visibility was clear and the aircraft in this area would have been flying at probably less than 150 mph. So they should have been able to see oncoming traffic and be able to avoid it.

Still, could be a possible reason

[Winston]

What's also puzzling here is that he was flying along the East River, going north. And he hit the building, which is adjacent to the river, on the north side - which means he would've had to turn around 180 degrees to hit it where he did - and as I've said so many times - dead center and about 3/4 of the way up. Not skirting the side of it, not brushing the top of other buildings or even hitting the thing in a less conspicuous place. Oh no, it had to be straight into the thing in a manner strikingly similar to the WTC attacks and the Pirelli Tower hit.

It has to be a rather impressive string of coincidences resulting from "mechanical failure" to produce such a hit..

[MRT144]

i want to know why winston believes that this was on purpose. who gains from cory lidle dying?

[Winston]

I've just been saying it looks much too deliberate to me for it to be just an accidental crash. I think it was a spectacular way of committing suicide, that's all. I see no deeper conspiracy behind it, if that's what you mean.

Also, take a moment to ponder the situation he was in, supposedly under a lot of stress due to a particularly nasty verbal controversy with his former teammates, conducted in public - and as I gather it, not on the rosiest of terms with some of his current teammates either, following their exit from the Series or whatever it was just a couple of days ago.

[Tingkai]

Suicides are typically the result of mental illness. Lidle displayed none. The series was over so the stress of competition was over. There's nothing here that would indicate a desire to commit suicide.

And what reason would he have to kill his flight instructor? If he was planning to commit suicide, he would have flown the plane by himself.

[Flip McWho]

But why take the other guy in the plane with him?

[Winston]

Well, supposing it was suicide - by crashing into an apartment building with blatant disregard for the lives of scores of other people in that building and beneath it - I don't think he would've squirmed too much at the thought of having his instructor go out as well.

[Tingkai]

If you want to commit suicide by flying a plane into a building, you would not want another pilot sitting beside you in a dual control aircraft.