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

[Winston]

But I don't!

Look at the way it impacted the building smack in the center. A top ranked pitcher would never hit anything like that by accident. Not at Yankee Stadium wearing pin stripes, and not flying an airplane on the Upper East Side. It would have to be deliberate. Or are you saying by extension that his years and years of success on the pitching mound was all just a matter of sheer luck!?

[Winston]

Hey, no fair. You DanS'ed me. You said I didn't know anything about baseball, I demand you put that back.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Guess it depends on what you consider a mental illness. I would describe the feeling of being overwhelmed by stress and unable to cope with it as a mental illness.

Yep,
I think our definitions differ.

I think there´s a difference betwen normal daily stress and extraordinary situations,
where normal stress is the level you get due to job and family and extraordinary stress is caued by the things mentioned above, just as having lots of debst with no way out, or being constantly harrassed by classmates without having someone to talk about.

Extraordinary situations can only be coped well by people mentally strong enough (and/or having a stable social network) with people getting overwhelmed by such situations not being mental ill, but just mentally weaker (or having less social support).
I would only think people are mentally ill, if they cannot cope with the normal levels of stress that almost everyone encounters in his daily life.


Or, to compare it to body health/fitness:
I wouldn´t think that someone is ill just because he cannot stand the survival training of the french foreign legion or the training camps for the US marines,
but I would think a person is ill, if he is too weak to accomplish normal daily tasks such as walking 500 meters without getting exhausted.

[Tingkai]

Good points.

The thing with the "debts with no way out" is that there is always a way out, declaring bankruptcy. And there is always someone to talk to.

The problem is our minds often prevent us from seeing solution, and I say this as someone who has been down that path before. I think of that period as a time when I was mentally unhealthy.

[Ming]

Another argument against suicide... the $1.5 million insurance policy for his family won't pay off if it is proven he was at the controls of the aircraft at the time of his death...

[Winston]

Maybe it was a spur of the moment thing, and he forgot about the insurance.

Or maybe he was too stupid to realise that there was such a clause in the policy. Most people would be no wiser, by the way..

Or, it occurred to him just before he hit, but it was too late, kind of like the renowned -It's a trap!! scene in a certain popular movie.

...

Seriously, my biggest beef with accepting this as being just an accident, is the seemingly targeted way in which that apartment building was hit, following an inexplicable 180 degree turn off his previous course along the river. He was going north, and all of a sudden he hits the north site of that thing.

There are several vital pieces of information still waiting to be put into place before this makes any sense, and I honestly don't see why everyone seems so convinced that it was an accident, especially upon seeing the images of the building and comparing them to the WTC attacks and the Milan skyscraper crash.

[Ming]

The difference seems to come from how much "value" you are placing on your perception that the the building was "targeted"... There is no other indication at all that suicide was the intent... It is far more plausable that it was an accident. In addition, we still don't even know for sure he was piloting the aircraft.

While you seem to think that you don't see why people think it's an accident, most of us feel exactly the opposite. There was really nothing that would lead people to that conclusion. In the majority of incidents like this, suicide is such a small percentage of them, and in those cases, it's usually very obvious.

[Cort Haus]

Full marks to Winston for battling on bravely here. However the words Horse, Flog, and Dead do spring to mind.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by 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.

might i remind you of ATHIEST NIGHTMARE!? it looks too deliberate that a banana fits our hand perfectly...obviously there was some kind of intent behind the banana.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
However the words Horse, Flog, and Dead do spring to mind.

He had his horse with him on that plane!?

Now, if that doesn't open your eyes to the fishiness of this whole affair, I must say I've lost all hope of convincing anybody.

[Winston]

Originally posted by MRT144
might i remind you of ATHIEST NIGHTMARE!? it looks too deliberate that a banana fits our hand perfectly...obviously there was some kind of intent behind the banana.

A banana flying over Manhattan would've stayed along the river where it belonged, until eaten, thus rendered totally harmless to the people in that apartment building.

[MRT144]

youd make texas sharp shooters proud

[Winston]

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Low level wind conditions will not affect control of an aircraft.

Which is why it doesn't matter if you take off or land into the wind, against the wind, or at any angle to the wind, regardless of wind velocity, right? Anything that affects airflow over the wings or any control surface may affect the performance of an aircraft near stall conditions. Once you're close enough to those buildings and low enough to be shielded by them, you get sudden increases and decreases in crosswind depending on whether you're in the lee of a building or whether you're crossing an area where the wind has been channeled between groups of buildings. Maybe a minimal bumpy ride if you've got full control of a functioning a/c, but a bit more of an issue if you're struggling to gain control of a damaged a/c.

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

"At most" When you've got an a/c with problems below 1000 feet, that "at most" can be a little extra problem you don't need. "At most" it can help make sure you dig a hole.

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)

I was oversimplifying, for the benefit of the average poster who probably doesn't know squat about angle of attack. Given that the plane started at around 1100 feet and went lower, one would assume they weren't trying to execute a final appoach onto the East River, or do a Blue Angel move and demonstrate the max AoA in straight and level flight. There's that old saying about the three things you can't use when flying, one of them being the altitude above you.

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

Whatever the problem was, they obviously didn't recover. There's no evidence of spin happening, but the pilot's reaction to anticipated events or overreaction to the first signs of a an actual or perceived event may have contributed to the loss of control. Lidle had very little flight time, and the IP wasn't checked out in the specific aircraft model, at least not by Cirrus. No info as yet as to how much time he had in that aircraft.

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

All sorts of things get reported, but unless you have good video or still photos before the crash, it's tough to determine what actually happened to the airplane leading up to the crash.

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.

The report said "attempt to deploy" - what the basis of that was, I don't know, there was nothing more specific.

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.

Out here we have four lane interstates for that. It happens every few years, but in general, your options are pretty ugly and limited.

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

If you're thinking that you can't recover, and that you're going to dig a hole anyway, yes. We don't know what either pilot thought they could do or was attempting to do.

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

I'm talking disorientation in the final few seconds, maybe a little task saturation in that final second or two when you might be able to avoid the building. I'd expect there'd be an "Ohhhhhhhh shi" moment of clarity at the end.

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.

Far too slowly to play pylon races in Manhattan.

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.

The turn inland is interesting. Unfortunately, since there are no black boxes, there's no accurate way to reconstruct the actual positions, maneuvers and flight path, unless some closer range video turns up, or the USCG video can be significantly enhanced. We don't know who was in command, or what their thought process or intentions were - maybe they thought they could maintain altitude long enough to get across the island, or limp it to Central Park and deploy the BRS over relatively open land. It seems to make a lot more sense to declare an emergeny and turn east towards La Guardia, but who knows? Lack of voice and flight data makes it tough to figure out what happened.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Thanks

Eat me, asswipe. Now go crawl back down your DL hole where you came from, or go campaign for your local Republican tool.

Thanks