Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: tundra_flier on October 11, 2006, 08:51:34 PM
Title: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: tundra_flier on October 11, 2006, 08:51:34 PM
Just saw the news, a small aircraft just crashed into a high rise aparment building in New York City today. No indication that it's related to any terrorist group yet. The Govenment is calling it an accident for now. But I think we can expect to see another rash of anti-GA legislation proposed again. :(
Phil
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on October 11, 2006, 09:14:22 PM
Unbelieveable.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: spacer on October 11, 2006, 09:17:10 PM
I can feel my hindside puckerin' already.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: tundra_flier on October 11, 2006, 09:31:01 PM
And with elections next month, do we want to take bets on which senator starts howling about little planes and national security first? :'(
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: spacer on October 11, 2006, 09:53:47 PM
And with elections next month, do we want to take bets on which senator starts howling about little planes and national security first? :'(
Hey! Keep it up and I'll need a shoehorn to... uh... heheheh.......
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: TheSoccerMom on October 11, 2006, 11:13:38 PM
ABC News just stated that the ballplayer they believe was piloting the small airplane said that flying was "no more dangerous than riding a motorcycle without a helmet". They also said he had his pilot's license for 7 months.
It's a shame how this will be no doubt be viewed by the country -- another example of one incident making an enormous mark in the minds of the public, about GA safety, and the qualifications of GA pilots.
It's a hard row to hoe sometimes... convincing people that GA is safe. :(
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: Baradium on October 12, 2006, 02:58:36 AM
Last I heard was that he had 400 hours. Cirrus SR20.... not a big fan of them...
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: chuckar101 on October 12, 2006, 03:09:43 PM
WAtching the news this morning it seems that the media is concentrating on the death of the ball player. Hate to say it but maybe that will take some of the heat off of the ga world. I guess we'll find out as time goes on.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: Turbomallard on October 12, 2006, 04:09:06 PM
I agree. The CNN web site has a video shot of him in a Cessna, talking about how much he loves flying and pointing things out on the ground. This should help. And, as a pilot, I'm sure that would have pleased him.
TM
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: kkrummy1 on October 12, 2006, 05:21:18 PM
Hi Group, Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Cirrus come standard with a Ballistic Recovery Chute? Why would somebody ride an airplane into a building when pulling the handle would at least give you a fighting chance? We may never know what happened on board the plane, but there are some serious questions about the training and the mental attitude it takes to sacrifice your aircraft to save your life. Hopefully the wiser heads in congress (if there are any) will prevail.
KK
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: tundra_flier on October 12, 2006, 05:41:00 PM
Hi Group, Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Cirrus come standard with a Ballistic Recovery Chute? Why would somebody ride an airplane into a building when pulling the handle would at least give you a fighting chance? We may never know what happened on board the plane, but there are some serious questions about the training and the mental attitude it takes to sacrifice your aircraft to save your life. Hopefully the wiser heads in congress (if there are any) will prevail.
KK
I wondered about that myself, and see this morning that the news networks have finally discovered that. The keep saying "the chute did not deploy after the crash"...?? Like it would do any good after the fact. I'm starting to wonder if this is a CO related accident. I can't imagine a pilot flying into a building, rather than a street or river if they had any kind of control left.
Phil
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: chuckar101 on October 12, 2006, 05:44:07 PM
I've heard it was a sight seeing flight, which makes me speculate that he was at minimum safe altitude when conducting the flight. When something went wrong the parachute not had enough tim to fully deploy, or in those circumstances he had waited to long and it was to late to deploy. Again these are speculations and the official NTSB report will have more.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: leiafee on October 12, 2006, 06:58:12 PM
I've heard it was a sight seeing flight, which makes me speculate that he was at minimum safe altitude when conducting the flight. When something went wrong the parachute not had enough tim to fully deploy, or in those circumstances he had waited to long and it was to late to deploy. Again these are speculations and the official NTSB report will have more.
It's a rocket deployed ballistic chute, it can be effectively deployed as low as 50' AGL. However, the chute manufacturer recommends not using it if you still have control. It brings the plane down, but not exactly gently. The Cirrus is designed so the landing gear will collapse and absorb some of the inpact of the chute decent.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: chuckar101 on October 12, 2006, 08:18:06 PM
Well I guess I was completely off then. I'm just learning this stuff but I think its 2,000 feet vertical and 1,000 feet horizontal away from the tallest structure in the area, but that is the regulation. So rocket propelled how long until the chute is fully deployed and the aircraft is descending and is there a maximum speed for which the chute is designed for. I'm just curious.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: fireflyr on October 12, 2006, 08:42:18 PM
Hi Group, Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Cirrus come standard with a Ballistic Recovery Chute? Why would somebody ride an airplane into a building when pulling the handle would at least give you a fighting chance? We may never know what happened on board the plane, but there are some serious questions about the training and the mental attitude it takes to sacrifice your aircraft to save your life. Hopefully the wiser heads in congress (if there are any) will prevail.
KK
I wondered about that myself, and see this morning that the news networks have finally discovered that. The keep saying "the chute did not deploy after the crash"...?? Like it would do any good after the fact. I'm starting to wonder if this is a CO related accident. I can't imagine a pilot flying into a building, rather than a street or river if they had any kind of control left.
Phil
I'm with Phil on the CO suspicion----can't imagine anything else could make a CFI and student get so screwed up.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: Zaffex on October 12, 2006, 09:31:32 PM
I would agree with Phil too. I heard that a witness reported the aircraft was banking sharply to and fro, possibly still conscious but overcorrecting?
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: Baradium on October 12, 2006, 10:47:39 PM
Heard one report that he might have been in a spin (unrecoverable in a cirrus).
Another report that the chute was deployed, but did not come out of it's bag (IE, the rocket fired but the chute didn't open). Time will tell whether it was fired pre or post impact.
They've also had a case or two of the airspeed being too high when the chute deployed, ripping the chute off the aircraft.
There was an interesting website review by a cirrus owner, I'll see if I can find it tonight when I'm back in town (in Nome right now).
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: Baradium on October 13, 2006, 06:57:09 AM
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
There's the website I was talking about.
Title: Re: Bad Day for G.A.
Post by: VH-ETT on October 16, 2006, 01:58:01 PM
In OZ when we do "Orbits of the City" we are under ATC radar control at no lower than 1500'. The rules here are no lower than 1500' over built up areas, or 500' over empty areas, like 2 nm off the beach over water.
