Cory Lidle crash

[kallend 1,623]

Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board
today determined that the probable cause of a small airplane
crash in Manhattan last October was the pilots' inadequate
planning, judgment, and airmanship in the performance of a
180-degree turn maneuver inside of a limited turning space.

On October 11, 2006, a Cirrus Design SR-20, N929CD,
operated as a personal flight, crashed into an apartment
building in Manhattan, New York City, while attempting a
180-degree turn maneuver above the East River. The two
pilots on board the airplane were killed, including the
owner of the aircraft, Cory Lidle of the New York Yankees.
The second occupant was a commercial pilot with a flight
instructor certificate. Three people on the ground were
injured, and the airplane was destroyed.

"This accident is a great tragedy in which a pleasure
flight went horribly wrong and ultimately cost the lives to
two young men," said NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker. "The
pilots placed themselves in a precarious situation that
could have been prevented by better judgment and planning."

In its final report, the Board stated that there were
no system, structural or engine malfunctions found. The
pilot/owner was properly certificated to fly the accident
airplane. The pilot-rated passenger was also a certified
flight instructor and qualified to have flown the accident
flight.

Due to the complex accident forces involved in the
crash sequence, the Board's report states that it is not
possible to determine who was manipulating the controls at
the time of the accident. Also, due to the lack of a
cockpit voice recorder or a flight data recorder, it was not
possible to determine who was the pilot in control during
the accident flight or if flight instruction was being
given.

The Board stated that the pilots did not aggressively
bank the airplane throughout the turn nor did they use the
full available width of the river. Radar data indicate that
the airplane was in the middle of the East Channel at the
start of the 180-degree turn as opposed to beginning the
turn from the eastern shoreline. In addition, wind out of
the east would have effectively shortened the available
distance to successfully make the turn.

In the report, it states that investigators could not
determine whether the pilots were aware of the wind's effect
on the execution of the 180-degree turn. It is believed that
they should have been able to observe the difference in the
ground track and heading during the flight to determine that
there was a prevailing wind from the east and compensate for
westward drift.

Finally, the Board found that the pilots should have
recognized, during preflight planning or while they were
considering flying up the East River after they were already
in flight, that there was limited turning space in the East
River exclusion area and they would need to maximize the
lateral distance available for turning.

As a result of it's investigation, the Safety Board
made the following recommendation to the Federal Aviation
Administration:

* Permanently prohibit visual flight rules flight
operations involving fixed-wing, nonamphibious
aircraft in the New York East River class B
exclusion area unless those operations are
authorized and being controlled by air traffic
control.


RIGHT!

ATC has a great track record of preventing aircraft from hitting buildings, especially in Manhattan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

I know a B-25 hit the ESB, WTC towers were hit, and Lidle found the side of a bulding there but I'm not familiar with any others. When were they?
My point is this: of the crashes I know about, only one was in communication with ATC and that was the B-25. The others were not so I have a hard time imagining what ATC had to do with it.

[JohnRich 4]

Why did you put this in Speakers Corner?

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Why did you put this in Speakers Corner?

Um...because of the last line?

ATC has a great track record of preventing aircraft from hitting buildings, especially in Manhattan.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I know a B-25 hit the ESB, WTC towers were hit, and Lidle found the side of a bulding there but I'm not familiar with any others. When were they?
My point is this: of the crashes I know about, only one was in communication with ATC and that was the B-25. The others were not so I have a hard time imagining what ATC had to do with it.

Four airliners took off on 9/11/2001, each of them in contact with ATC. Did that contact with ATC prevent 3 of them from hitting buildings? NO.

Contact with ATC is irrelevant.

Sometimes everything has to be spelled out for people around here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

I know a B-25 hit the ESB, WTC towers were hit, and Lidle found the side of a bulding there but I'm not familiar with any others. When were they?
My point is this: of the crashes I know about, only one was in communication with ATC and that was the B-25. The others were not so I have a hard time imagining what ATC had to do with it.

Four airliners took off on 9/11/2001, each of them in contact with ATC. Did that contact with ATC prevent 3 of them from hitting buildings? NO.

Contact with ATC is irrelevant.

Sometimes everything has to be spelled out for people around here.

Your implication, through sarcasm, is that it was the fault of ATC. You imply that even if Lidle had been in touch with controllers he still would have crashed. What I'm asking for is some kind of logic that backs that up, not the typical sarcastic BS you play with.

Millions of aircraft fly under the watch of ATC every year. How many of them fly into buildings? How many would if we didn't have ATC?

Quote

Sometimes everything has to be spelled out for people around here

Sometimes people post junk statements and then run when asked to show evidence.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know a B-25 hit the ESB, WTC towers were hit, and Lidle found the side of a bulding there but I'm not familiar with any others. When were they?
My point is this: of the crashes I know about, only one was in communication with ATC and that was the B-25. The others were not so I have a hard time imagining what ATC had to do with it.

Four airliners took off on 9/11/2001, each of them in contact with ATC. Did that contact with ATC prevent 3 of them from hitting buildings? NO.

Contact with ATC is irrelevant.

Sometimes everything has to be spelled out for people around here.

Your implication, through sarcasm, is that it was the fault of ATC. You imply that even if Lidle had been in touch with controllers he still would have crashed. What I'm asking for is some kind of logic that backs that up, not the typical sarcastic BS you play with.

Millions of aircraft fly under the watch of ATC every year. How many of them fly into buildings? How many would if we didn't have ATC?

Quote

Sometimes everything has to be spelled out for people around here

Sometimes people post junk statements and then run when asked to show evidence.

Where did I suggest it was the FAULT of ATC? That is an unwarranted inference on your part.

Being in contact with ATC did not prevent the airliners from being hijacked and crashed into buildings. Not remotely the same as saying ATC was at fault (just like NRA data is not FBI data).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

[dorbie 0]

This is the thin end of the wedge.

It is inconceivable that they just spontaneously and objectively arrived at this conclusion. This is an organization that no longer cares about even the appearance of propriety, or they think everyone in general aviation is an idiot, perhaps both.

[willard 0]

Quote

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

As I stated, the sarcasm in the original post implies that somehow ATC had a hand in those accidents and that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been in contact and under ATC supervision.
If Lidle had been flying under ATC then he would have needed a clearance to initiate his turn. One can argue that the controllers would have seen his position over the center of the river and denied his request, instead giving a new heading to move him closer to shore so he could complete the turn in a safe manner.
As a matter of fact, they may warn about the buildings. It is common for ATC to advise of obstacles such as buildings, towers, terrain, etc. just to be sure the pilot is aware.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

As I stated, the sarcasm in the original post implies that somehow ATC had a hand in those accidents and that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been in contact and under ATC supervision.
If Lidle had been flying under ATC then he would have needed a clearance to initiate his turn. One can argue that the controllers would have seen his position over the center of the river and denied his request, instead giving a new heading to move him closer to shore so he could complete the turn in a safe manner.
As a matter of fact, they may warn about the buildings. It is common for ATC to advise of obstacles such as buildings, towers, terrain, etc. just to be sure the pilot is aware.

Negative, I've been ask to turn into a mountain by ATC. I (politely) declined.

The pilot is the first to arrive at the crash site, not the controller.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

As I stated, the sarcasm in the original post implies that somehow ATC had a hand in those accidents and that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been in contact and under ATC supervision.
If Lidle had been flying under ATC then he would have needed a clearance to initiate his turn. One can argue that the controllers would have seen his position over the center of the river and denied his request, instead giving a new heading to move him closer to shore so he could complete the turn in a safe manner.
As a matter of fact, they may warn about the buildings. It is common for ATC to advise of obstacles such as buildings, towers, terrain, etc. just to be sure the pilot is aware.

Negative, I've been ask to turn into a mountain by ATC. I (politely) declined.

The pilot is the first to arrive at the crash site, not the controller.

What part are you claiming is wrong?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

This is the thin end of the wedge.

It is inconceivable that they just spontaneously and objectively arrived at this conclusion. This is an organization that no longer cares about even the appearance of propriety, or they think everyone in general aviation is an idiot, perhaps both.

Much like gun control issues after the VT incident, the final conclusion was most likely encouraged by public outcry and political influence.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

As I stated, the sarcasm in the original post implies that somehow ATC had a hand in those accidents and that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been in contact and under ATC supervision.
If Lidle had been flying under ATC then he would have needed a clearance to initiate his turn. One can argue that the controllers would have seen his position over the center of the river and denied his request, instead giving a new heading to move him closer to shore so he could complete the turn in a safe manner.
As a matter of fact, they may warn about the buildings. It is common for ATC to advise of obstacles such as buildings, towers, terrain, etc. just to be sure the pilot is aware.

Negative, I've been ask to turn into a mountain by ATC. I (politely) declined.

The pilot is the first to arrive at the crash site, not the controller.

What part are you claiming is wrong?

Obstacle avoidance is not given by ATC to VFR flights except when workload and controller interest allow. Requiring ATC clearance for a VFR flight does not ensure obstacle avoidance. ATC contact does not eliminate pilot error. ATC contact does not eliminate hijackings or suicides.

The NTSB recommendation is pointless.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

As I stated, the sarcasm in the original post implies that somehow ATC had a hand in those accidents and that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been in contact and under ATC supervision.
If Lidle had been flying under ATC then he would have needed a clearance to initiate his turn. One can argue that the controllers would have seen his position over the center of the river and denied his request, instead giving a new heading to move him closer to shore so he could complete the turn in a safe manner.
As a matter of fact, they may warn about the buildings. It is common for ATC to advise of obstacles such as buildings, towers, terrain, etc. just to be sure the pilot is aware.

Negative, I've been ask to turn into a mountain by ATC. I (politely) declined.

The pilot is the first to arrive at the crash site, not the controller.

What part are you claiming is wrong?

Obstacle avoidance is not given by ATC to VFR flights except when workload and controller interest allow. Requiring ATC clearance for a VFR flight does not ensure obstacle avoidance. ATC contact does not eliminate pilot error. ATC contact does not eliminate hijackings or suicides.

The NTSB recommendation is pointless.

Pointless only if you think that no assistance at all would ever be given to any VFR pilot. My experience is that ATC was always helpful even when busy.
No, ATC doesn't ensure obstacle avoidance. But some help is better than none. To say ATC would not have prevented Lidle's accident is as irresponsible as to say it would have.
Suicides and hijackings? It's a pretty safe bet Lidle's death was neither.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

As I stated, the sarcasm in the original post implies that somehow ATC had a hand in those accidents and that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been in contact and under ATC supervision.
If Lidle had been flying under ATC then he would have needed a clearance to initiate his turn. One can argue that the controllers would have seen his position over the center of the river and denied his request, instead giving a new heading to move him closer to shore so he could complete the turn in a safe manner.
As a matter of fact, they may warn about the buildings. It is common for ATC to advise of obstacles such as buildings, towers, terrain, etc. just to be sure the pilot is aware.

Negative, I've been ask to turn into a mountain by ATC. I (politely) declined.

The pilot is the first to arrive at the crash site, not the controller.

What part are you claiming is wrong?

Obstacle avoidance is not given by ATC to VFR flights except when workload and controller interest allow. Requiring ATC clearance for a VFR flight does not ensure obstacle avoidance. ATC contact does not eliminate pilot error. ATC contact does not eliminate hijackings or suicides.

The NTSB recommendation is pointless.

Pointless only if you think that no assistance at all would ever be given to any VFR pilot. My experience is that ATC was always helpful even when busy.
No, ATC doesn't ensure obstacle avoidance. But some help is better than none. To say ATC would not have prevented Lidle's accident is as irresponsible as to say it would have.
Suicides and hijackings? It's a pretty safe bet Lidle's death was neither.

How would ATC 's telling Lidle that there were buildings on Manhattan have prevented his accident. It was good VFR, he could already SEE the buildings. The crash wasn't caused by failure to see the building, it was caused by plain old fashioned bad flying, something that no controller can help you with.

The 9/11 building crashes were caused by hijackings, something no controller can help you with.

The 2002 building crash in Tampa was a suicide, something that no controller can help you with.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have to agree with John on this one. When a VFR flight is out of sight of the tower they serve to advise of things like traffic, wind shear, weather etc. What would they do, warn him about the building?

As I stated, the sarcasm in the original post implies that somehow ATC had a hand in those accidents and that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been in contact and under ATC supervision.
If Lidle had been flying under ATC then he would have needed a clearance to initiate his turn. One can argue that the controllers would have seen his position over the center of the river and denied his request, instead giving a new heading to move him closer to shore so he could complete the turn in a safe manner.
As a matter of fact, they may warn about the buildings. It is common for ATC to advise of obstacles such as buildings, towers, terrain, etc. just to be sure the pilot is aware.

Negative, I've been ask to turn into a mountain by ATC. I (politely) declined.

The pilot is the first to arrive at the crash site, not the controller.

What part are you claiming is wrong?

Obstacle avoidance is not given by ATC to VFR flights except when workload and controller interest allow. Requiring ATC clearance for a VFR flight does not ensure obstacle avoidance. ATC contact does not eliminate pilot error. ATC contact does not eliminate hijackings or suicides.

The NTSB recommendation is pointless.

Pointless only if you think that no assistance at all would ever be given to any VFR pilot. My experience is that ATC was always helpful even when busy.
No, ATC doesn't ensure obstacle avoidance. But some help is better than none. To say ATC would not have prevented Lidle's accident is as irresponsible as to say it would have.
Suicides and hijackings? It's a pretty safe bet Lidle's death was neither.

How would ATC 's telling Lidle that there were buildings on Manhattan have prevented his accident. It was good VFR, he could already SEE the buildings. The crash wasn't caused by failure to see the building, it was caused by plain old fashioned bad flying, something that no controller can help you with.

The 9/11 building crashes were caused by hijackings, something no controller can help you with.

The 2002 building crash in Tampa was a suicide, something that no controller can help you with.

I never claimed ATC would have prevented it. YOU made the implication that ATC would have been useless in preventing it.
Of course it was a result of poor flying. But I contend that if he had been flying under ATC they would have had his position on radar, seen he was too close to the buildings to atempt a turn in that direction with the winds that day, and could have directed him through a safer sequence. That is, of course, a hypothetical situation that may or may not have played out. But one thing is for sure: Lidle wasn't afforded that option that may have prevented his accident.

[willard 0]

Quote

ATC has a great track record of preventing aircraft from hitting buildings, especially in Manhattan.

How many millions of aircraft have flown in and out of NY under ATC? And they had ,what, one hit a building that wasn't a a deliberate act?

Yeah...you're right. ATC in NY sucks. They should just fire 'em all.

[ExAFO 0]

Huh...and I thought the Yankees couldn't hit anything after September...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

ATC has a great track record of preventing aircraft from hitting buildings, especially in Manhattan.

How many millions of aircraft have flown in and out of NY under ATC? And they had ,what, one hit a building that wasn't a a deliberate act?

Yeah...you're right. ATC in NY sucks. They should just fire 'em all.

I don't know why you insist on MISSING the point.

ATC contact will NOT prevent planes from hitting buildings.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

ATC has a great track record of preventing aircraft from hitting buildings, especially in Manhattan.

How many millions of aircraft have flown in and out of NY under ATC? And they had ,what, one hit a building that wasn't a a deliberate act?

Yeah...you're right. ATC in NY sucks. They should just fire 'em all.

I don't know why you insist on MISSING the point.

ATC contact will NOT prevent planes from hitting buildings.

By quoting the NTSB story and it's recommendations in your post, followed by a sarcastic comment, you make the assertion that ATC would not have been able to do anything to prevent Lidle's crash. Is that not the point you were trying to make? How do you rationalize that assumption? Do you have any kind of evidence to show that Lidle would have crashed even if he had been under the watchfull eye of ATC?

Of course ATC won't prevent a plane from hitting a building if the pilot is so inclined. ATC is there to help prevent accidents. So why the smart-ass remark? Do you feel ATC is worthless on not needed?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Of course ATC won't prevent a plane from hitting a building if the pilot is so inclined. ATC is there to help prevent accidents. So why the smart-ass remark? Do you feel ATC is worthless on not needed?

Are you suggesting that Cory Lidle wanted to hit the building? Or that it was an invisible building that only ATC could see but Lidle and his instructor couldn't (in good VFR conditions)?

ATC's job does not include obstacle avoidance for VFR flights. Maybe you should read up on exactly what ATC's role is, and the role of the VFR PIC even when in contact with ATC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course ATC won't prevent a plane from hitting a building if the pilot is so inclined. ATC is there to help prevent accidents. So why the smart-ass remark? Do you feel ATC is worthless on not needed?

Are you suggesting that Cory Lidle wanted to hit the building? Or that it was an invisible building that only ATC could see but Lidle and his instructor couldn't (in good VFR conditions)?


ATC's job does not include obstacle avoidance for VFR flights. Maybe you should read up on exactly what ATC's role is, and the role of the VFR PIC even when in contact with ATC.

There you go again, avoiding the question. You made assertions that ATC would not have prevented Lidles crash. Stop trying to change to subject being discussed and give some evidence of your claim.
I never made any suggestion it was a suicide so I would be grateful if you would refrain from making that claim.
I am a certifacted pilot and am fully aware of ATCs role concerning VFR flights. I am also aware of ATCs responsibilities concerning VFR and IFR aircraft in their airspace. You make it sound as if VFR aircraft in controlled airspace can just fly around wherever and however they wish but we both know that's not the case, don't we?

Now, back to a simple question. If your point wasn't that ATC would not have prevented Lidle's crash, then just what was your point?

[crozby 0]

This is the most boring thread I've read in Speakers Corner for a long time. For crying out loud spice it up a bit or someone move it to Bonfire.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

If your point wasn't that ATC would not have prevented Lidle's crash, then just what was your point?

My point is that ATC cannot prevent aircraft from crashing into buildings. The NTSB proposal is silly.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.