No sense getting all wound up over that sorta disgusting "Hey! Look at me!" crap - just consider the source and act appropriately - take a mental shower, conceptually disinfect your monitor, and get on with things. Responding to, even just discussing, such despicable posturing merely encourages the perpetrator to persist in reprehensible behavior. Its what trolls live for.
OK - showered up and towelled off, now back to yesterday's tragic accident. Few things are less reliable than eyewitness reports, particularly when the witnesses are unfamiliar with the technicalities of what they've seen - or think they've seen. As examples in this instance, there were conflicting reports as to whether a plane or helicopter had hit the building, what the aircraft had been doing immediately prior to the crash, where on the building the impact occured, the number of dead and injured, even the gender of the plane's occupants. However, in this case, one item keeps coming up - one way or another, witnesses one after another have said something about the plane's engine sound being somehow "not right".
The plane involved, N929CD, was of recent design and build, the product of a respected, competent manufacturer, of a type known for safety, reliability, and ease of handling, and which particular aircraft's maintenance log apparently was up to date and fully in order. There has been speculation the aircraft ran out of fuel; as a pilot myself, I would be surprised (though not flabbergasted) should that prove to be the case, as the plane, which had been in the air only a short time, not more than half an hour, has a range of over 750 miles, some 5+ hours of flight time at its rated cruise speed and altitude, about two-thirds to perhaps half that at low altitude and maximum speed depending on atmospheric conditions.
It of course is possible the plane ran out of fuel, but given that the plane's other occupant, beside student pilot Lidle, was fully licensed, multiply certified, well experienced flight instructor and licensed, multiply certified Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic, Tyler Stanger, owner of Stang-Air Services (website has been taken down -
Google Cache should be available for a while), the notion that a standard prefilight fuel check might not have been made beggars the imagination. Additionally, the nature and volume of fire at the crash scene was, to my estimation, inconsistent with the notion the plane's fuel tank was anywhere near empty. Mebbe - but it seems to me doubtful in the extreme.
On the other hand, even though the plane was relatively new, with long-proven-reliable engine, standard, off-the shelf electrical and mechanical systems, in good repair, with all maintenance checked off, electrical or mechanical failure cannot be discounted - particularly in light of witness reports pertaining to engine sound. I'm no crash investigator, and I have no info not available to anyone else in the general public, but my thinking now leans toward fuel delivery failure or engine ignition failure, either of which could be the result of either or both mechanical and/or electrical subsystem failure.
I do question the wisdom of flying in such close proximity to walls of the concrete canyons of a city as obviously that plane did ... not my idea of a good idea, whatever the weather. The weather in this instance, as far as I can tell, was perfectly acceptable for visual rules flight; visibility, temperature, windspeed, temperature, and ceiling all were well within the requirements. Untill the plane was lost to radar, it was apparently performing nominally and, though flying at low altitude along the river it was not outside of authorized airspace, not dangerously close to buildings - sightseeing flights travel that route all the time, and have done so just about since the advent of aviation ... nothing remarkable there, and nothing I haven't done myself.
Never the less, for some reason, the plane hit a building. Judging from witness reports, allowing for excitement, unfamiliarity and imprecision, it appears the plane was flying in a manner other than would be expected - lower and slower than customary for the circumstances, evidently maneuvering in a manner I would take to be as indicating control difficulties. It is unclear whether a distress call was issued - reports conflict, and I've not come across anything I'd consider conclusive in that regard. A loss of power easily could explain both the plane's witness-reported engine sound and evidently unstable flight characteristics, though I find quite puzzling the plane's proximity to buildings. Still, in the air, when things go wrong, they go wrong in a hurry, and the less airspeed and altitude you have when things start going wrong the less you can do about whatever went wrong and the less time you have to do anything, period.
I'm at a loss to explain why if the plane lost airworthiness the pilot(s) might have elected to not ditch in the river. Not a fun thing to do, of course, but wiser, IMO, than heading over, or as in this case into, a thicket of tall buildings. That part is really wierd to me, but I wasn't there.
I believe, at present, a combination of system failure and pilot error are to blame. Crash investigations are incredibly sophisticated and thorough; it is highly likely we will learn what actually happened, almost in second-by-second detail. Until then, we have informed conjecture, and we have the blatherings of idiots. Take what you find, and draw your own conclusion as to which is which.
