Cory Lidle crash

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

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.

You don't have to read it.

...

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

[willard 0]

Quote

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.

Sorry.


@$#^(*^$@%@%*


That better?

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

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.

I find it highly unlikely that radar could pinpoint Lidle's position relative to any building or river. Plus, there are many inaccuracies with radar in that type of environment and elevation.

Granted I've never been in a NY radar facility, but typically only certain geographic points/locations are labeled on a controllers scope. Maybe JR can pipe in?

This was poor piloting and nothing else. And I for one wish for "less" fed involvement with my flying, not more.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

I find it highly unlikely that radar could pinpoint Lidle's position relative to any building or river. Plus, there are many inaccuracies with radar in that type of environment and elevation.

Granted I've never been in a NY radar facility, but typically only certain geographic points/locations are labeled on a controllers scope. Maybe JR can pipe in?

This was poor piloting and nothing else. And I for one wish for "less" fed involvement with my flying, not more.

My experiences with radar equipped facilities has been different. The controllers seemed to know quite accurrately where I was in relation to obstacles such as towers, buildings, etc.
Yes, it was poor piloting. Since the area has little room for screw ups the prudent thing to do would have been to get closer to the riverbank before starting his turn.
I am not in favor of more regs anymore than you are but, in all honesty, I was surprised to learn Lidle was not required to be in touch with a controller in that area. Feedom from ATC in rural areas....great! In a highly populated area...bad idea.

[crozby 0]

You don't have to read it. ***

I can't help it, it's addictive. It's like watching Fox News or CNN for several hours at a time, but less interesting.

[willard 0]

Quote

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.

Only if you consider ATC to be totally inept and that Lidle's crash wasn't an accident.
If you believe it was and accident, even caused by pilot error, then the safety record of ATC in NY is solidly against you by a factor of several million to one.
By your reasoning no pilot has ever had his flight path corrected by ATC to avoid hitting buildings in NY. Now, I'd like to think all the pilots certificated by the FAA are that talented, by I seriously doubt it.

Sorry, John, but your whole argument is silly. If you don't want more regs in place than just say so. But don't try to say ATC is incapable of making things safer to justify your stance.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

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.

Only if you consider ATC to be totally inept and that Lidle's crash wasn't an accident.
If you believe it was and accident, even caused by pilot error, then the safety record of ATC in NY is solidly against you by a factor of several million to one.
By your reasoning no pilot has ever had his flight path corrected by ATC to avoid hitting buildings in NY. Now, I'd like to think all the pilots certificated by the FAA are that talented, by I seriously doubt it.

Sorry, John, but your whole argument is silly. If you don't want more regs in place than just say so. But don't try to say ATC is incapable of making things safer to justify your stance.

Lidle and his instructor could see the building. How would ATC telling them a building is there make the slightest difference.

...

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

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Tillman and his instructor could see the building.

Tillman?

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Tillman and his instructor could see the building.

Tillman?

Wrong thread - thanks.

...

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

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

Only if you consider ATC to be totally inept and that Lidle's crash wasn't an accident.
If you believe it was and accident, even caused by pilot error, then the safety record of ATC in NY is solidly against you by a factor of several million to one.
By your reasoning no pilot has ever had his flight path corrected by ATC to avoid hitting buildings in NY. Now, I'd like to think all the pilots certificated by the FAA are that talented, by I seriously doubt it.

Sorry, John, but your whole argument is silly. If you don't want more regs in place than just say so. But don't try to say ATC is incapable of making things safer to justify your stance.

Lidle and his instructor could see the building. How would ATC telling them a building is there make the slightest difference.

People walk into, drive into, run into, and, yes, fly into things that are in plain sight quite often. ATC could have reminded them about the danger had they been under ATC control.

Sorry again, John, but humans aren't perfect. Your argument is still silly. Your assertion is based on the assumption that no pilot under NY ATC care ever strayed off course and had to be corrected. I seriously doubt that human pilots have that good of a track record.

[billvon 2,426]

>By your reasoning no pilot has ever had his flight path corrected by ATC
>to avoid hitting buildings in NY.

I've flown within 500 feet of those buildings when I flew the east river corridor in NY. (Talking to ATC the whole time.) Would have taken me less than 3 seconds to hit one if I turned towards one; I would have hit several had I maintained the course I initially took when I turned north. Never got a single "look out for those buildings!" warning from ATC.

That corridor is (was) a popular one for sightseeing flights, and ATC does not watch you closely enough to make sure you don't hit anything when you are flying VFR.

[willard 0]

Quote

>By your reasoning no pilot has ever had his flight path corrected by ATC
>to avoid hitting buildings in NY.

I've flown within 500 feet of those buildings when I flew the east river corridor in NY. (Talking to ATC the whole time.) Would have taken me less than 3 seconds to hit one if I turned towards one; I would have hit several had I maintained the course I initially took when I turned north. Never got a single "look out for those buildings!" warning from ATC.

That corridor is (was) a popular one for sightseeing flights, and ATC does not watch you closely enough to make sure you don't hit anything when you are flying VFR.

I take your input to heart and am happy to hear you are a safe pilot. But one or one thousand pilots having succesfull flights such as yours doesn't mean ATC has never saved a life by correcting a flight path. Odds are they have and more than once.

[Beerlight 0]

I wonder why they didn't unload during the turn and "last ditch effort" just fly between the buildings?

How much distance between those buildings in that area?

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

People walk into, drive into, run into, and, yes, fly into things that are in plain sight quite often. ATC could have reminded them about the danger had they been under ATC control.

Sorry again, John, but humans aren't perfect. Your argument is still silly. Your assertion is based on the assumption that no pilot under NY ATC care ever strayed off course and had to be corrected. I seriously doubt that human pilots have that good of a track record.

You are right, of course. That eye test every pilot has to pass to get a medical certificate does not guarantee that the pilot will see a skyscraper 1/2 mile away in broad daylight with 3 mile (VFR legal) visibility unless someone whispers in his ear "Hey, there's a huge building over there".

I'm surprised the NTSB report didn't mention that Lidle never saw the building because no-one told him it was there.

However, you win.

...

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

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

People walk into, drive into, run into, and, yes, fly into things that are in plain sight quite often. ATC could have reminded them about the danger had they been under ATC control.

Sorry again, John, but humans aren't perfect. Your argument is still silly. Your assertion is based on the assumption that no pilot under NY ATC care ever strayed off course and had to be corrected. I seriously doubt that human pilots have that good of a track record.

You are right, of course. That eye test every pilot has to pass to get a medical certificate does not guarantee that the pilot will see a skyscraper 1/2 mile away in broad daylight with 3 mile (VFR legal) visibility unless someone whispers in his ear "Hey, there's a huge building over there".

I'm surprised the NTSB report didn't mention that Lidle never saw the building because no-one told him it was there.

However, you win.

Nobody won, John. Lidle lost his life, that's the only thing that was won or lost. He probably did see the buildings, maybe he didn't. But in either case your sarcastic remarks concerning his death are very disrespectful and uncalled for.

[algboy 0]

Don't sweat it--I 'd say you batted 1000 in this thread. Next . . . .

BTW: I think he probably "rich boy"/hotdogged it into that building myself. ATC is/was irrelevant. [Lucky no one else died]

Not familiar with controlled airspace in Manhattan, but his instructor should've been on top of that (unless he had stars in his Ray Bans).

[itllclear 1]

Quote

contact with ATC is irrelevant

The point is that they were trying to stay in airspace that did not require ATC contact. In order to remain clear of the Class B, they had to remain below 1100 feet.

If they had been in ATC contact and received a clearance into Class B, they would not have had to stay in that narrow space at that low an altitude.

There are a lot of other factors in that particular accident that involve knowledge of how to make a small radius turn. These have been discussed many times in various aviation publications. In this case, the pilots did just about everything wrong. I'm surprised that the widow didn't name the building as an additional defendant in her lawsuit against Cirrus.

This sounds like a simple case of more dollars than sense.

BSBD

Harry

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[billvon 2,426]

>doesn't mean ATC has never saved a life by correcting a flight path.
>Odds are they have and more than once.

Definitely! I myself have been "reminded" of things I've forgotten several times when flying in that airspace. (Normally it was along the lines of "four six quebec, are you going to start climbing soon to get to 3000?") But it's never been to avoid a collision with a building. Looking at the various aircraft (both fixed and rotary wing) buzzing above and around the buildings of Manhattan, such a task would be nearly impossible - especially since ATC radar does not cover those altitudes.

That being said, when an aircraft is flying IFR, they definitely _do_ get advice to avoid obstacles, because it is often assumed that they can't see where they're going. But that's a bit different than a low level VFR flight.

[willard 0]

Quote

>doesn't mean ATC has never saved a life by correcting a flight path.
>Odds are they have and more than once.

Definitely! I myself have been "reminded" of things I've forgotten several times when flying in that airspace. (Normally it was along the lines of "four six quebec, are you going to start climbing soon to get to 3000?") But it's never been to avoid a collision with a building. Looking at the various aircraft (both fixed and rotary wing) buzzing above and around the buildings of Manhattan, such a task would be nearly impossible - especially since ATC radar does not cover those altitudes.

That being said, when an aircraft is flying IFR, they definitely _do_ get advice to avoid obstacles, because it is often assumed that they can't see where they're going. But that's a bit different than a low level VFR flight.

I agree with you 100% :) VFR is far less in touch with ATC than IFR and therefore crries the overwhelming majority of responsibility for a safe flight. The reminder most common for me is to stop climbing when I've reached assigned altitude. It's easy to get comfortable and just keep going up.
However, saying ATC cannot prevent aircraft-building collisions is pretty far fetched. All it takes is one instance of a controller warning a VFR pilot of imminent danger to prove that they can prevent such accidents. After decades of millions of VFR flights in contact with ATC it's a pretty safe bet that situation has played out many times. Easy scenario to imagine: Student VFR pilot flying through a major city and in touch with ATC. Pilot fumbles for something he dropped, plane goes off heading and altitude assigned, ATC notices and reminds pilot to stay on heading etc., pilot looks up in time to avoid striking that big building/tower that came out of nowhere.

[billvon 2,426]

>Pilot fumbles for something he dropped, plane goes off heading
>and altitude assigned, ATC notices and reminds pilot to stay on heading
>etc., pilot looks up in time to avoid striking that big building/tower that
>came out of nowhere.

I could see them doing that on occasion, but in most cases they simply can't. A few reasons:

1) Radar just doesn't work below the level of buildings. Either you get an incredible amount of clutter, or the declutter gets rid of returns near buildings - or they just aim the array so it doesn't get many returns from the ground. And of course no radar in the world will detect an aircraft in the radar shadow of a building.

2) Knowledge. ATC scopes don't generally show building elevations/positions, so they don't know what you're near.

3) The time factor. I've often been three seconds from impact with those same buildings. Three seconds isn't long enough for a controller to notice a return has changed direction (heck, their scopes are only updated around once a second) work the warning into the other people they are talking to and have the pilot respond in time. Even ten seconds would be pushing it.

4) The workload factor. Assuming an automated system could be implemented that would keep track of all the returns, keep track of where the tall buildings were, and identify potential collisions - you'd get hundreds of alerts an hour as aircraft courses momentarily intersected buildings. That's a lot of workload to add to a controller, even with the automation keeping an eye on things for him.

So while I agree that it is certainly good for ATC to give out such warnings when possible, I think that it's not something you can rely on even a little bit. Put another way, ATC cannot usually do anything about such accidents.

Well, I'll rephrase that. ATC could certainly deny permission for any aircraft to approach Manhattan; that would prevent such accidents. Extend the Class B to the water and problem solved. But they can't effectively ensure aircraft/ground separation with aircraft flying as close to Manhattan as they do now; they just don't have the tools.

[willard 0]

Quote

>Pilot fumbles for something he dropped, plane goes off heading
>and altitude assigned, ATC notices and reminds pilot to stay on heading
>etc., pilot looks up in time to avoid striking that big building/tower that
>came out of nowhere.

I could see them doing that on occasion, but in most cases they simply can't. A few reasons:

1) Radar just doesn't work below the level of buildings. Either you get an incredible amount of clutter, or the declutter gets rid of returns near buildings - or they just aim the array so it doesn't get many returns from the ground. And of course no radar in the world will detect an aircraft in the radar shadow of a building.

2) Knowledge. ATC scopes don't generally show building elevations/positions, so they don't know what you're near.

3) The time factor. I've often been three seconds from impact with those same buildings. Three seconds isn't long enough for a controller to notice a return has changed direction (heck, their scopes are only updated around once a second) work the warning into the other people they are talking to and have the pilot respond in time. Even ten seconds would be pushing it.

4) The workload factor. Assuming an automated system could be implemented that would keep track of all the returns, keep track of where the tall buildings were, and identify potential collisions - you'd get hundreds of alerts an hour as aircraft courses momentarily intersected buildings. That's a lot of workload to add to a controller, even with the automation keeping an eye on things for him.

So while I agree that it is certainly good for ATC to give out such warnings when possible, I think that it's not something you can rely on even a little bit. Put another way, ATC cannot usually do anything about such accidents.

Well, I'll rephrase that. ATC could certainly deny permission for any aircraft to approach Manhattan; that would prevent such accidents. Extend the Class B to the water and problem solved. But they can't effectively ensure aircraft/ground separation with aircraft flying as close to Manhattan as they do now; they just don't have the tools.

Again, agree with you 100%. ATC can't prevent all accidents and has even been known to cause a few. I like to think of ATC for VFR as a seatbelt. Probably won't ever need it to save your butt, but if it's not used then it can't. As a VFR pilot I use ATC whenever possible. I suspect the controllers like to know who that little 1200 blip is and what their intentions are even if they don't need to be activly talking with them.