Airplane in NYC is a Cirrus SR20

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
om...
Now that I've learned that the instructor was not an NYC metro area
instructor, things start to make sense. A rough theory:

- Yankee flies instructor out to fly back to CA with him.
- Instructor has never seen NYC from the air
- 88 hour pilot takes foreign instructor for sightseeing flight before
heading west
- The pair go up the wrong river, possibly following one of the amphibs
that live up there.

I don't think so. Lidle had reportedly flown the East River corridor
previously. I've flown past the southern tip of Manhattan many times, and I
can attest that no one could fly up the East river by accident, even if
they'd never been to NYC before. Unlike with some terrain, everything there
is immediately identifiable by a cursory glance; looking out the window
there is like looking at a map.

- Rather than fessing up and asking for clearance through the LGA space,
they attempt impossible turn

The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
to be planned and executed properly.

Their radar track suggests that they made the standard trek to the end of
the corridor and then attempted the standard U-turn.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:


I don't think so. Lidle had reportedly flown the East River corridor
previously. I've flown past the southern tip of Manhattan many times, and I
can attest that no one could fly up the East river by accident, even if
they'd never been to NYC before.
-----

The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
to be planned and executed properly.

I'll take both of responding poster's words for it.

I was basing those two comments on a seminar on the VFR corridor I took
at an FAA SafetyFest. The presenter paints the turn as very difficult,
and stated airplanes do accidentally end up in a difficult situation.
Maybe he's referring to somewhere else, further up the East River?

I've only flown the Hudson parts, and agree that the Hudson / East
intersection is unique looking. I haven't been up the East at less than
5,500. G

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
m...
I was basing those two comments on a seminar on the VFR corridor I took at
an FAA SafetyFest. The presenter paints the turn as very difficult, and
stated airplanes do accidentally end up in a difficult situation.

I agree that the East River is unusually challenging (due to its narrowness,
the dead end, the high density of traffic, the required low altitude, and
the nearby skyscrapers). That's why I've never bothered with it myself. And
I agree that an unprepared pilot could accidentally wind up in difficulty
there. It's just hard to imagine that flying up the East River in the first
place could occur accidentally; you really can't mistake it for the Hudson.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
It's just hard to imagine that flying up the East River in the first
place could occur accidentally; you really can't mistake it for the Hudson.

I agree, but the seminar presenter stated that it happens all the time.
He cited "distracted by the view, following the float planes" as
the usual reason. I have no idea where he gets his information, but he
seemed to be well respected by the FAA SafetyFest organizers, and he's
been doing the seminar for something like 20 years.

The "view from the other side" point certainly has merit.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
m...
Gary Drescher wrote:
It's just hard to imagine that flying up the East River in the first
place could occur accidentally; you really can't mistake it for the
Hudson.

I agree, but the seminar presenter stated that it happens all the time. He
cited "distracted by the view, following the float planes" as the usual
reason. I have no idea where he gets his information, but he seemed to
be well respected by the FAA SafetyFest organizers, and he's been doing
the seminar for something like 20 years.

Dunno. Respected FAA presenters sometimes pass along misinformation. Or
perhaps I'm underestimating the ease of making a wrong turn there.
(Reportedly, though, they'd mentioned that they were about to fly up the
East River, so there seems to have been no navigation error in this case.)

--Gary

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:16:16 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
to be planned and executed properly.

It would seem that proper planning would at least include the 500'
restriction of FAR 91.119(c). That restriction would reduce the area
in which to complete the turn in compliance with regulations by
1,000'.

If 91.119(b) were more appropriate for the location of the flight, the
Lidle flight would not have been possible under VFR given the 2,000'
ceiling at the time.





http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....1.3.10.2.4.10
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
top
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,
or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude
of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above
the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In
those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to
any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:16:16 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote in
:

The turn isn't remotely impossible. It's a routine maneuver. It just needs
to be planned and executed properly.

It would seem that proper planning would at least include the 500'
restriction of FAR 91.119(c). That restriction would reduce the area
in which to complete the turn in compliance with regulations by
1,000'.

No, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the legally available width at all. Quite
possibly (though I haven't checked in detail), you can be right next to the
shore and still be more than 500' from any part of any structure on the
ground.

If 91.119(b) were more appropriate for the location of the flight, the
Lidle flight would not have been possible under VFR given the 2,000'
ceiling at the time.

If 91.119b were applicable there, then no flight in the East River VFR
corridor would be possible, because the Class E ceiling there is 1100'. (The
Hudson River VFR corridor would be illegal too.)

--Gary