New York City. No indications that it was a terrorist attack.
Cell phone service in the area is not working.

News channels live now.

Yep, they say it was a small airplane. Not being tracked by Norad or FAA

Hopefully it was just a accident....

I've heard that it was a traffic helicopter. That's just rumor at this point though.

Let's hope it's indeed an unfortunate accident. Tragic none the less. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Wow, really freaky. I used to work literally across the street from that building on E 72nd near York Ave. It's a big apartment building, but hopefully most people were away at work during the crash.

Small consolation, but at least Cornell Medical Center is a designated burn center or used to be, and it is literally right there next to the crash site.

Only 2 burn centers in the city: Cornell and Staten Islan Univ Hosp... ANyway... We got assigned to it since orgignally nobody knew how big it was and potential was high. Now 3 hours later there is still high potential of injury to rescue crews and minor to civilians. 2 DOAs, 1 Serious injury and about 10 minor injuries (FIRE/EMS) txped to Cornell. We got cancelled half way in when they discovered it was small. It was a busy day since there was a 5 alarm fire in the Bronx and those units were tied up there so Central was sending units (like mine) from Brooklyn.

I checked the weather in the area at the time of the accident. It was marginal weather, especially for a newly licensed pilot, flying a fast sophisticated aircraft.

Chances are this will be another accident attributed to pilot error -- flying into adverse weather (flying beyond his current training and proficiency)

Just sad -- and for no good reason.

The other person killed was his flight instructor, who hadn't even filed a flight plan. Maybe NYC isn't the best place to learn to fly, but why were they wandering around skyscrapers?

The weather wasn't perfect, but he wasn't flying in a fog bank, either. "Tell me again where the big buildings are..."

This was a single-engine, 4-seater plane, not a jet. Who the h*** was flying it, a flight attendant???

We shall have to see if this becomes a Darwin Award nominee.

Sue

They say the pilot was a New York Yankees pitcher named Cory Lidle. <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

scuttlebut is that they realized they were IN restricted airspace, tried to make a quick turn around, stalled, and went in. That part of the city (north east river) is highly restricted, as you are basically IN the Laguardia airport airspace

Not sure how FAA Form 7233-1 would have provided much protection from flying into a building. Its only a single sheet of paper - not much padding. Although, ironically, the "Paperwork Reduction Act Statement" does cause it to carry over to a second page.

A flight plan is just an offical notice telling the FAA "Here's where I'm going and when I expect to get there, please look for me if I don't let you know I got there ok." A good idea, but it has nothing to do with the safety of the actual flight.

This does not stop the media from gleefully reporting "The Cessna 172 was hit by a meteor while tied down in its parking space at the airport. Under persistent questioning, the FAA official finally looked at his feet and admitted that, no, the small plane had not, in fact, filed a flight plan."

Anyway, too bad they weren't able to pop the chute.

I think the worst thing is that it came in as another 9/11. Limited information distorted by previous events from 5 years ago gave responders an idea that we are dealing with something huge. It also made public uneasy by media reporting facts (limited) that didn't match extend of reported damage.

Thank God it ended like this.

I think the worst thing is that it came in as another 9/11. Limited information distorted by previous events from 5 years ago gave responders an idea that we are dealing with something huge. It also made public uneasy by media reporting facts (limited) that didn't match extend of reported damage.

Thank God it ended like this.

BTW, while googling "had not filed a flight plan" I stumbled across a short "survival story":
http://www.icomamerica.com/avionics/testimonials.asp

Sounds a lot like the story on the ETS site - handheld transceiver saves the day.

I was wondering yesterday how the residents acted and how I would've responded. Like most of those people in the building, I was in NYC for 9/11 so my first instinct would probably be to flee as soon as possible if I were in a highrise fire. For 9/11, that would've been the best thing to do. However, in general, that's probably not the best thing to do (I'm not saying this with a lot of confidence, but just repeating the general advice for highrise dwellers).

This New York Times article talked about what the residents and visitors did. Well, only a few people were mentioned in the article, but sounds like these people tried to get out of Dodge right away. However, the real estate broker interviewed mentioned the peril of fleeing--heavy smoke in the stairwell. From my own visits to various highrise condos/coops in NYC, they seem pretty fire resistant, so people sheltering in their units would likely have been fine, while these people trying to immediately flee could've become overcome by smoke (and that has happened in real life, too). Sheltering and waiting for FDNY to get the fire under control and waiting for them to come to your floor to retrieve you would've been the "wise" course of action for the residents. And I suppose that in the vast majority of modern highrise fires, that's true. Unfortunately, a spectacular event like 9/11 always makes you think about the exception that goes against the general rule.

Anyway, not to criticize what the people there did or didn't do. But it does highlight how we are often influenced more by the unusual events in our lives than the advice that covers 99% of the probable events we're likely to encounter. Or, to borrow a military adage, we're always preparing to fight the last war. If getting out ASAP was best for the last disaster, e.g. 9/11, then by George, that's what I'm doing the next time.

I'm not saying the flight plan had any real affect on the accident.

My father was a pilot (small aircraft), and he said that from the pilots he knew and flew with and around, those who didn't file flight plans were usually pretty sloppy with both their other pre-flight and in-flight procedures.

I read that something like 90% of aircraft crashes are pilot error. And those errors usually don't just appear out of the blue, the people involved have just lucked out in other cases, and their luck finally ran out.

Sue

The "talking heads" at CNN were running off at the mouth last night about the "security risks" posed by "little airplanes" (much hyperventalitation and hyperbole ensued).

Since 9/11 there have been two instances where small planes have hit tall buildings, that I am aware of (in the US). The first was a Cessna 172 flown by a distrubed young student pilot. He flew it into a office tower in Tampa, Florida. There was little damage and no fire. Yesterday's accident resulted in a post-crash fire that damaged or destroyed 6-8 units (apartments). The building suffered no structural damage. The aircraft was reported to be a Cirrus SR-20.

People in the media need to realize that planes like these are called "light aircraft" for a reason. The gross weight for a Cessan 172 is 2,450 lbs, the SR-20 is 3,000 lbs. Each can carry a maximum of about 50 gallons (US) of avaiation gasoline. One can see that the risks posed by aircraft such as these are minimal.

JimJr

What I find hilarious is that aircraft now need to be "under the control of an air traffic controller". Exactly how does the controller control the aircraft remotely to ensure compliance? Now, if he has a armed helicopter that responds to his instructions, then you've got an air traffic controller, otherwise you have an air traffic advisor.