Plane hits building in New York!

[Woodlouse2002]

So he had a chute... so why didnt he use it?

Anyone has info about what damage the chute deployment causes on a SR20?

I should think either because he was too low or didn't have enough time. Or maybe he simply didn't think of it.

[Hagar]

So he had a chute... so why didnt he use it?

The chute is a novel safety feature but is obviously not a magic cure-all in every circumstance. For any parachute to deploy & work effectively the aircraft would need to be above a certain altitude. The chute could also give the occupants a false sense of security. The SR22 is a nice-looking aircraft but I've seen mixed reviews on it. According to this one it can be tricky to fly & almost impossible to recover from a spin. http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

A pilot with 800 hours in the SR22 noted that in his experience it is not nearly as docile as the Cessna 172 and Piper Arrow that he had trained on. A CFI ("certificated flight instructor") who now flies the $3 million Pilatus PC-12 says "The Cirrus is a plane designed to go fast. You shouldn't be flying it slow. It is trickier to handle in a stall than a 172 or the Pilatus."

Once in a spin the SR20 and SR22 are virtually impossible to recover, according to the test pilots. Remember that spin testing in certification is done with a special tail parachute for breaking the spin that can then be cut away inflight.

You're not going to be flying with a certification-testing parachute, however. A Cirrus pilot's only option is to pull the big main CAPS parachute and hope that he or she has not built up too much speed for the cords. A couple of new owners in Parish, NY managed to stall and spin their plane all the way down from 5000' AGL on April 24, 2002. Multi-engine planes don't have to be spin certified, and a lot of them are probably even nastier in a stall than the Cirrus, but very seldom are they sold to beginner pilots.

I'm not saying that happened on this occasion but if this happened at low altitude no chute is going to save you.

[beaky]

@rotty: is limiting to amphibians / floatplanes an option for you?

Sure; and of course helicopters. I'm not suggesting a prohibition on flight in that area, but of course NY Tracon and the local towers won't want to handle more VFR traffic there, so essentially closing the corridor would put an end to VFR flights there, for the most part. Pilots could still get a clearance to pass over at a safer altitude, which they sometimes do today, but ATC rarely grants this as it is. The governor of NY and others are already pushing the FAA to do something about this, so something is going to change there, that's for sure.

Anyway, they might have had a better chance if they declared an emergency, asked for permission to climb above the corridor and then popped the chute (if they had one fitted in that Cirrus)

Sounds like they didn't have time for that, from what I've heard (they turned around to head south on the west bank, then abruptly banked and descended to the right while apparently adding power to try to check their sink). Also heard last night that they did not, in fact, declare an emergency or describe trouble to ATC: last I heard, after they cleared KTEB's class D, they didn't talk to ATC at all.

But rumors and "facts" are still swarming; hard to say.
I doubt coming down at over 1500fpm under that canopy amongst the extremely dense obstacle field that is NYC would have had a better outcome, but I'll grant that technically, their odds of survival would have improved slightly.

[beaky]

I also thought there was a law requring aircraft to be above FL180 over city of New York or higher anybody heard of this .

False. The combined KEWR/KLGA/KJFK Class B airspace extends only to 7000 MSL. One should be very careful overflying that airspace that low, but it's perfectly legal.
And the outer tiers hang above parts of the city (not Manhattan), allowing uncontrolled flight, below the Class B, above densely populated and built-up areas (provided pilots observe the rule to remain 1000 feet above the tallest obstacle within 2000 horizontal feet).


Here's a look at part of the NY Terminal Area chart: the built-up areas are in yellow. There are some emergency--landing options in Brooklyn  and Governor's Island, as well as the beaches of Brooklyn and staten Island, and few very tall buildings there, but it's still not very inviting.




The red X shows roughly where the accident occured. According to what I last heard, they left Teterboro (not seen here, but it's at the center of that VOR rose north of Newark Airport), entered the Hudson corridor and flew around the southern tip of Manhattan Island to enter the East River corridor, then turned around at the north end of that box just before the crash.

[Hagar]

Cirrus Airplane Parachute System (CAPS).

According to the SR-22 Pilot's Operating Handbook:

"CAPS [is] designed to bring the aircraft and its occupants to the ground in the event of a life-threatening emergency. The system is intended to save the lives of the occupants but will most likely destroy the aircraft and may, in adverse circumstances, cause serious injury or death to the occupants.

The CAPS consists of a parachute, a solid-propellant rocket to deploy the parachute, a [manually-activated] rocket activation handle, and a harness imbedded within the fuselage structure. A composite box containing the parachute and solid-propellant rocket is mounted to the airplane structure immediately aft of the baggage compartment bulkhead. The box is covered and protected from the elements by a thin composite cover.

The parachute is enclosed within a deployment bag that stages the deployment and inflation sequence. The deployment bag creates an orderly deployment process by allowing the canopy to inflate only after the rocket motor has pulled the parachute lines taut. The parachute itself is a 2400-square-foot round canopy equipped with a slider, an annular-shaped fabric panel with a diameter significantly less than the open diameter of the canopy. A three-point harness connects the airplane fuselage structure to the parachute.

CAPS is initiated by pulling the activation T-handle installed in the cabin ceiling on the airplane centerline just above the pilot's right shoulder. A placarded cover, held in place with hook and loop fasteners, covers the T-handle and prevents tampering with the control. The cover is removed by pulling the black tab at the forward edge of the cover. Pulling the activation T-handle removes it from the o-ring seal that holds it in place and takes out the approximately six inches of slack in the cable connecting it to the rocket. Once this slack is removed, further motion of the handle arms and releases a firing pin, igniting the solid-propellant rocket in the parachute canister."

The CAPS parachute was found outside the airframe, in its deployment bag, in front of the right wing. The composite CAPS cover was found about 20 feet in front of the airplane, with no damage to its interior (kick plate) face. The solid propellant rocket was located on the ground, aft of the right wing, with cables leading to the wreckage. The propellant was expended. The "maintenance safety pin," which, when installed, ensured that the CAPS activation T-handle could not be pulled, was not located.

I copied the above from the official NTSB accident report on a previous SR22 fatal accident on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 in Parish, NY. It appears the new owners were practising stall recovery & accidentally got into a spin at about 5,000 ft above ground level. The aircraft spun into the ground killing both occupants. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&ntsbno=NYC02FA089&akey=1

[Jakemaster]

The media is absurd.  Last night I heard a story on my local news channel about the accident claiming that the SR-20 is a popular "beginners" plane and is often used for training.  Then on the Today show they said that the pilot didnt file a flight plan as if it was a crime.

Seriously, sometimes I just wish the media would do SOME research

[beaky]

Another charming headline: "Parachute Failed to Open".
::)
That may be, perhaps, because they didn't try to deploy it, not being complete idiots. Very "clever" of them to equate the 'chute not being used with a failure to open.

::)

>:(

Also had to restrain myself from backhanding (verbally or otherwise) some loudmouthed, ignorant woman on the train  this morning...I won't get into it, but I could tell that it wouldn't have done much good to try to enlighten her (the phrase "stubborn yenta" would describe her quite accurately), and I might have lost my temper. So I said nothing, and tried to tune her out.
Let me just say that I wanted to, among other things, bet her that she wasn't woman enough to look Lidle's widow and son in the eye and say what she did... especially in light of the fact that she had no idea what the hell she was talking about.


I can just see the headline: "More Sky Terror: Amateur Pilot Attacks Woman On Train; No Flight Plan Filed..."

Sometimes it's just not funny.  >:(

[flyboy 28]

... especially in light of the fact that she had no idea what the hell she was talking about.



Sometimes it's just not funny.  >:(

You got it, Sean. Most of the kids in my biology class were making jokes about it and totally disrespecting anything decent about Lidle. I get ridiculed whenever I start speaking about aviation in school anymore because people will think I'm a terrorist knowing so much about planes and how they function, but today I had to keep it in again, grit my teeth and bear it. It's not easy, I know and I almost lost it a few times. Some people just don't get it. :-/

Thus the popular phrase my Homer Simpson; "Ingor-what?"

[beaky]

You got it, Sean. Most of the kids in my biology class were making jokes about it and totally disrespecting anything decent about Lidle. I get ridiculed whenever I start speaking about aviation in school anymore because people will think I'm a terrorist knowing so much about planes and how they function, but today I had to keep it in again, grit my teeth and bear it. It's not easy, I know and I almost lost it a few times. Some people just don't get it. :-/

Thus the popular phrase my Homer Simpson; "Ingor-what?"

It's bizarre, but I saw it coming.
If one of your classmates died doing something idiotic like driving drunk or whatever, there would be tears, heartfelt eulogies about what a nice kid so-and-so was, candlelight vigils and prayers, but there's always been this weird, almost spiritual fear of flight amongst the masses that has just gotten worse since 9/11/01... they trust airliners when it's time to go on vacation, but those "crazy" people who fly "those little planes" "all over the place" are "just asking for it".

Generally, there's no reasoning with the mob when they get ahold of an idea like that.

Welcome to the Second Dark Ages, m'boy... keep that little fire hidden when you must, but don't let it go out.

[flyboy 28]

Welcome to the Second Dark Ages, m'boy... keep that little fire hidden when you must, but don't let it go out.

'Aye. I have a pair of mittens in case also.

[Chris_F]

I can just see the headline: "More Sky Terror: Amateur Pilot Attacks Woman On Train; No Flight Plan Filed..."

So are you saying your parachute failed to open?

[Chris_F]

Generally, there's no reasoning with the mob when they get ahold of an idea like that.

Welcome to the Second Dark Ages, m'boy... keep that little fire hidden when you must, but don't let it go out.

I'm not suprised that people have absolutely no idea about the intricacies of aviation, and I understand their fear.  After all, they drive to work every day and driving is actually quite dangerous.  Aviation could be 1000x more dangerous than driving if people were as stupid about it as they are about driving.  So correlate their experiences driving with their lack of knowledge about aviation and you get a very real fear of aviation.

How do you overcome it?  I don't know.  I've heard people say they're scared to death of flying in a plane even though they know their chances of dying from a lightning strike is higher.  How do you reason with that?  You can't.  It's an irrational fear brought about by inexperience (not enough time on planes to get used to it and relax) and a lack of confidence (convincing one-self that things will always turn out badly).  In this particular case it isn't a lack of knowledge either (they do know that flying is safe statistically speaking).

Sadly I do think general aviation is a dying hobby.  Just like recreational firearms.  People uninvolved with the hobby believe the risks associated with each justify legislating them out of existance.  It's so easy to make that judgement when it costs you nothing: no lost freedom, no lost joy, just taking something away from someone else.

In fact there are many similarities between the two.  When people die as a result of mistakes or murder then the people clamp down.  When nothing happens for a while people forget, but they never release that clamp.  Then that rare incident occurs again and the clamp gets tighter.  It never loosens.  Each turn is minor, so small that it's hard to justify being outraged by it.  But tighter it gets, and tighter, until there is none left.  My Dad target shoots and, because of the state he lives in, he's not allowed to own the target pistol of his choice.  The clamp has gotten too tight.  Now you can't fly over the Hudson and East rivers without filing a flight plan.  A tighter clamp again.

[cheesegrater]

People know nothing about aviation, who cares.

The worst part about this is the terrorism debate that's coming out of this crash.

[Anark]

The terrorists might not have even had an idea like this so the media could just be giving them some new and ways to cause destruction.

[flyboy 28]

The terrorists might not have even had an idea like this so the media could just be giving them some new and ways to cause destruction.

Ever hear of a thing called 9/11?