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.