Talk:2006 New York City Cirrus SR20 crash/Archive 1

Lidle: Confirmed or Not?

There's a sort of low-level edit war going on between people who think Cory Lidle's death is confirmed and people who don't. Can someone produce a quote from a reliable, official source stating unequivocally that Lidle was on the plane? —Brent Dax 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] It's the main headline at the moment on ESPN. PullToOpen ^talk 22:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you RTFA, it cites an anonymous Washington source. Is that strong enough for us to make that claim? —Brent Dax 22:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reuters is pointing out that only CNN is confirming him dead. AP claims an anonymous source has confirmed he is on board, but AP won;t go so far as to state that he is dead. ESPN is taking their cue from CNN. No other source that I've read (NPR, The Guardian, BBC) is confirming his death, although it seems likely he was on board. --Canonblack 22:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point virtually all sources are reporting that he is dead. The only source not confirming the identies is the mayor's office as they have not as of yet been able to contact the next of kin. That follows their policy, but they are not the only reputable source on this. The Yankees, MLB, and NYPD have all reported that his passport was found on the street. That seems pretty official to me, no? If there is to be only one authority on this I would say that it should be the coroner's office. As far as I know I have heard nothing from them J-Dog 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if the corpse does not belongs to said baseball player, hey, aren't baseball players celebrities in their own right for paparazzi to follow? How can no reports of the whereabout of a living Lidle be unknown? Why as a public figure he would avoid admiting he is still alife? (Like he would want to freeze his money and contracts, wait this gives another question) If Lidle is alvie why there are no sightings of him reported anywhere? Hey, Elvis is as dead as a meatless cold bone and sightings of him exist, how can the consequent presence or lack thereof not be a proof 'bout him being dead or not? If he is dead his relatives could avoid the media, but, would they avoid all the rituals people still have towards their dead? So, there is no smart newsman willing to search for evidence of his funeral ceremony or else, of his still continuinng life? The answer can be answered so easily, so, why can't anyone answer... Besides the accident what other proofs exist of his death or survival? (After all, IDs are not more than just mere papers) GTB-1:50 am 16/10/2006

Here is funeral information by Baumbach, Jim (2006-10-15). "Funeral service for Lidle". Newsday. Retrieved 2006-10-16. --TAG 13:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment

"The airplane — misreported as a helicopter in some early reports[3] — struck the 40th and 41st floor of The Belaire building at 524 East 72nd Street, a 50-story????!!!!

Name of the Air Plane

Ummm... reading this it says the name of the air plane was "penis"? I think that should be left out and that it is irrelevant, if its even any more than vandalism. 68.205.191.217

Actually, this looks like vandilism. I've removed it. (Someone beat me to it.) IndigoAK 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Belaire

It seems trivial to include details about the building (what it is used for, what amenities it has) in this article. This should be specifically about the attacks. If people want to know what the Belaire building has, they can visit that page. --5ptcalvinist 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What "attacks" are you speaking of?!? J-Dog 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that references the crash as being an "attack". On the building, I suggest keeping the 50-story residential information (Noting residential as it's not a likely target to terrorism, which seems to be the conclusion many have jumped to, and the height simpily because that's a factor in flight/during plane crashes). The other information on the building should be removed. --Mauron 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"What "attacks" are you speaking of?!?".

Mr Freud has the answer.

Excuse me... "Accident". My point was not whether or not these were attacks, but rather that much of the information in the details section is unimportant to THIS article. --5ptcalvinist 02:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this discussion already yielded the removal of information, but I think the information about the building, as it stands now, is important. I am looking at this version: [2]

I actually posted the above comment yesterday, but for some reason it has today's date... At the time I posted there was more information on the page about how much apartments cost and what amenities the building provided, which seems irrelevant. The information that is currently in the article should remain --5ptcalvinist 22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos request

Newyorkers, please take some photos and put them on commons :| --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Moves and naming

Lets calm down on the page movement, please. --myselfalso 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest 2006 New York City plane crash once my erroneous article there is speedied.Belection06 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, you're right. Belection06 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 October 11 New York City plane crash is more correct and specific.--Cerejota 19:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more in line with other articles to have the title be October 11, 2006 New Your City plane crash? - Seinfreak37 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash would be most in line with other articles and follow the USA date format. --taestell 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is good enough for now. Anyone with a better idea, please suggest it below.

Thanks. --Uncle Ed 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• It should be moved back to October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash, but please, let's leave it where it is for today. — Reinyday, 20:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO, we should just merge this into Cory Lidle. Timrem 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • IMO, it shouldn't have been here in ther first place. Heard of Wikinews? That's where it belongs. Yonidebest 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This should be on wikipedia but we should not edit it unti we have all the facts. Maybe we should call it Cory Lidle plane crash or something like that. Felixboy 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable article

Plane crashes involving famous people happen all the time, think of how many famous people have died in a plane crash and there is no Wikipedia article about it. In addition small plane crashes also happen all the time, we don't have Wikipedia articles about them either. This is exactly what Wikinews was made for. I would gently suggest to the editors of this article to invest your time and energies in a quality Wikinews article. -- Stbalbach 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be no limit to the amount of specific detail Wikipedia has concerning any subject. A perfect Wikipedia would have an article about everything, in my opinion. It's not necessary to ever remove anything unless it's not true or POV. --RavenStorm 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering that it hit New York City, an already nervous city, it is probably going to make headlines. Its worth having an article for now, even if it does get merged into the "Death" section of Cory Lidle sometime in the future. PullToOpen ^talk 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, being national news and being on every news network all day sure isn't notable. I mean, sure, plenty of famous people die in plane crashes, but not all get national attention.--andrewI20^Talk 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not just the fact that a famous person died in an aviation accident. Its the fact that it happened in New York City, in a high-rise building. Its a big deal. 4 people are dead. --Shuyin05 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing notable is that it crashed into a building, that freaked me out.Cameron Nedland 21:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What freaks me out is that any old shmo can jump in a plane and fly around in it. Lidle wasnt even a qualified pilot, and he was allowed to fly un-attended in new york city. sheesh... --Shuyin05 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He was qualified. Please educate yourself before commenting. 65.127.231.4 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He had been flying for just a few months --Shuyin05 21:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So? He was still qualified. 65.127.231.4 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If so, why was his instructor in the plane with him?--Shuyin05 08:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Having an instructor in the plane with you does not make you unqualified. There are many reasons to have an intructor along for a flight. Stop talking nonsense. 65.127.231.4 22:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about pilots etc but AFAIK, just because you're a qualified pilot doesn't mean your qualified to fly solo. In any case, I don't get what this is about since you now admit he wasn't un-attended but had his instructor with him Nil Einne 09:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, you don't know much about pilots. 65.127.231.4 22:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that makes Wikipedia "work" is a common understanding of what an encyclopedia is. "Unlimited specific detail about any subject" is not an encyclopedia. Just because it's in the news doesn't make it notable enough for an encyclopedia (have you seen the AP/UPI wire? Every day there are literally 10's of thousands of "news stories"). We make judgments based on rationals - not hard-line interpretations using arbitrary black and white rules - which is why we have the AfD process.

But clearly, this is exactly the type of article that belongs on Wikinews - this is exactly what Wikinews was made for. Why is there resistance to focusing energies at Wikinews? Any Wikinews article can be linked to from any Wikipedia article so it's not like it doesn't get "Wikipedia-like eyeballs" if that's the concern. I honestly think people don't use Wikinews because they've never heard of it, or never tried. Wikinews has a different set of rules that allows for articles like this that can be of better quality and interest -- it's like fitting a square peg into a round hole trying to work it into Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the method of death increase notability? 4 people die all the time. There's no other story here. Terrorism is not involved. It's just how he died. NN. --Macarion 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stbalbach. If Cory Lidle wasn't involved, it problably wouldn't make the news, or maybe just a small mention in the local news. It was a small aircraft this has nothing to do with terrorism. And how can this be made into a article? Say someone famous got into a car accident, would a article be made? October 2006 auto accident?? This article is making it sound like a major event like the 9/11 attacks--Coasttocoast 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this story was on the news for quite a long time before it was even revealed that Lidle was involved. It made the news because it was a plane crash in New York City. --taestell 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It was big news here (nyc) before anyone knew about Lidle or anything other than the fact that a plane hit a building on the upper east side; pretty much every other person on the street could be overheard talking about it. At that point, yeah, probably doesn't deserve an article. But I don't see how, now that there are 4 confirmed deaths, including one well-known athlete, that we can say that this was a non-notable incident. Preposterous. --Tothebarricades 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Coasttocoast, this article is worthy of keeping, whether or not someone famous was involved. It made local news here in Hampton Roads before it was made known Lidle was involved. If you think an event like this is non-notable, then there are thousands of other pages that should be deleted then. This article is important, and notable, because unlike a car accident which happens frequently, this was a plane crashing into a building, which happens very infrequently. --5ptcalvinist 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

More appropriate in Wikinews?

Wouldn't an article about an accident that killed four people be more appropriate in Wikinews? Davodd 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I dont see anything bad with this having an article on Wikipedia, I do question how front page worthy it is. The way it is currently posted on the front page, the accident seems to be more remarkable because it killed some Baseball player, then because of its similarities with 9/11 or because of the nature of the accident itself.Ghilz 00:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I don't know, you don't see a plane crash into a skyscraper very often--especially one containing a baseball player AdamBiswanger1 01:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Rarity increases notability? --Macarion 01:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Of course. Why wouldn't it? "Man bites dog" is not a new concept. --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it only killed two people and once it dies down, it should be merged into the Lidle article. --Tbeatty 01:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Really doesn't warrant its own article. --Bookgrrl 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect a merge is probably appropriate. But it did lead to a NORAD alert and all -- it wasn't just us "overreacting". --Dhartung | Talk 02:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, this article is ineligble for wikinews because wikinews do not accept well detailed articles (ie articles that have sections and sub sections and so on) or articles that are written in past tense. Luna191 12:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not true: N:Wikinews:Styleguide (for a case in point, check out the wikinews story: N:Small aircraft crashes into NYC building - alert to remain unchanged which is in past tense and has sections). This type of story is EXACTLY why Wikinews was started -- there are MANY editors who put in hard work and made a quality product. But, alas, that work is temporary due to its big picture triviality. This article is bound to be whittled down to a footnote and merged in to the obit section of the baseball player's article. Writing about news events on Wikipedia most often is like building sand castles - they stand a very likely chance of disappearing over time. It appears that if the contributors to this story had been working on the Wikinews article instead, it would have better benefited Wikipedia (no need to worry about merge/delete issues), Wikinews (it would be a better article than what they have now) and the editors who worked so hard on this article (which because of its big picture triviality, will most likely disappear within a few days). - Davodd 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So what about having a mirror entry on Wikinews snd/or gradually move deleted information from this entry to WN, as this is gradually trimmed down in the coming days and weeks?--Gkklein 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cant because someone might add info about the crash that cannot be moved to wikinews. Luna191 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Explain, please.--Gkklein 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why "October 11"?

Most articles that deal with a topic such as this one simply have the year of the event occurrence in the name. This one has the entire date. Why? There is no article at 2006 New York City plane crash. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article might not even be here in a week. It will probably be merged into that pitcher's article.--172.129.158.119 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article will not be merged. And to support your argument, January 5, 2002 Tampa plane crash is actually a redirect to 2002 Tampa plane crash. — Reinyday, 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, could we merge this with the Corey Lidle page?

wonder: --Havermayer 08:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Given the circumstances, this crash itself is notable enough to justify its own article like so many other plane crashes on Wikipedia. And I doubt that there's anyone who'd suggest that Lidle be merged into this article. Akradecki 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it with the 11th day of the month and New York buildings in autumn?Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Gravity. Liu Bei 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically (in the U.S.) September 11th is considered the summer. The seasons change after the equinox nearly two weeks later. No "Autumn New York Building 11th day Conspiracy" I'm afraid. 192.249.47.8 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fun with dates:

Write the date (in US format) of this crash on a piece of paper as follows: 10-11-6

Now turn the paper upside down and read another date!

Some people would say this is proof of some sort of conspiracy... of course those same people would be complete loons. Still, it is kinda eerie. Blueboar 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Never let the facts stand in the way of a good conspiricy theory ;-) Thryduulf 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people would say that is written (in huge numbers) halfway up this page. BabuBhatt 19:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And some people would say that I am a blind idiot that only noticed that this was all written (in huge numbers) halfway up this page after I had added my comment. Those people would be correct. Those people would also be nit-picking kill-joys ;>) ... But never mind. After all, constant repitition of a good conspiracy theory only goes to prove that it must be true. Let's see... if you add the digits of the date you get 9 (Roger Maris's retired number), and the numerical value of the letters in Corey Lidle's name is you get 118, Multiply by 130 (Mickey Mantle's RBI for the year 1956), divide by the number of Babe Ruth's ... well sooner or later its going to work out to 911. See! It's all being manipulated by George Steinbrenner! It's true I tell you, true! Blueboar 20:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No needs to turn anything. First was 9/11 - next one is 10/11 - last and final one will be 11/11 --TAG 04:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

• I know this subject has been discussed in various places above, but since someone has formally place a merge tag, I'm starting this section as a place to develop consensus on the proposal. For my part, I oppose merging...this article is notable enough to remain it's own article. The Aviation Wikiproject has numerous articles on notable aircraft incidents and accidents. Akradecki 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose the merge as well. Personally, I believe that there should be no limit to the amount of information that Wikipedia should have. Even if it is "just news", it made American headlines for quite a long time yesterday. PullToOpen ^talk 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely oppose. Smaller things have been made into articles on Wikipedia. Allie 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• I also oppose. This article has notability written all over it. Stoneice02 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Damn those vandals! uFu 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose BabuBhatt 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This accident is now part of New York City history, U.S. counter-terrorism history and aviation history.--Gkklein 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support merge to various topics mentioned within. Nothing here that's particularly notable. Wikipedia is not a diary of current events. Marskell 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many if not all notable aircraft accidents each have their own article on WP and there is even a category for them. This accident is notable because of the 9/11 resonance and because it has already led to airspace rule changes which look likely to become permanent. Paul Beardsell 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  Then merge it to the section (if and when created) regarding airspace rule changes on the appropriate page. The 9/11 "resonance" is, basically, irrelevant. Marskell 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'm sure that all the detail of this accident won't be welcome in the airspace rules article. The natural thing to do there will be to detail the rule change and to link to the cause, the accident, to this article. Irrelevant to you but most of NY I'm sure disagrees. And CNN did nothing else for hours. Paul Beardsell 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  CNN does a lot things for hours ;). Marskell 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, but this one was notable. Paul Beardsell 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  LOL. I think any reply to that will create circularity... This'll just be another news-spike artifact on Wiki. No real harm. Marskell 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. sinalet 23:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a notable air accident for several reasons, including (in no particular order) the similarities with the 11th September 2001 attacks, an aircraft hitting a building, a notable person involved, lasting effects, international headlines (it was top billing on BBC News 24 and Sky News (and probably others) in Britain). Thryduulf 00:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - A baseball player crashing a car in a cornfield would not merit its own article. Joe Schmoe crashing a plane into an NYC building would. In fact, it was a big news item before there was any hint of who was in the plane (and a bit of terrorism-related panic, too). Despite how some media are reporting it, this is notable not because of Lidle but because of the plane crash. -- Avocado 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many aircraft crashes have Wikipedia entries and this one was significant because of the location (New York), the famous pilot, and the fact that an aircraft hit a large building. That is always notable. Dave 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - More than just a baseball player died in this crash. There was another human being that lost his life. Is he so unimportant that he has to be lumped in with Lidle? He had a family too. Just because he wasn't famous doesn't mean that he doesn't matter. The crash was an incident, not a conclussion to ONE person's life. J-Dog 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Scope of damage

Based on the current photo (and one other I've seen), there doesn't appear to be significant structual damage to the building. No doubt, the residents will evacuate, but the side of the building has no crater - all the window frames appear intact. --Uncle Ed 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The video feed on Finnish television agrees. Damage appears negligible, save for the direct impact area. Shit happens. --Kizor 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Death Toll

Sky News has just reported 4 deaths. Archibald99 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CNN has reported that Lidle was the only person on the plane. SFrank85 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's too early to have exact details. Various sources (including AP, Reuters, NPR, The Guardian, and BBC) are reporting all kinds of things, including only two on board, three on board, at least two on board, at least three on board, four on board, etc. In addition, Reuters is quick to point out that only CNN is claiming definitively that Lidle is dead, making Wikipedia's front page blurb somewhat irresponsible. AP is being more diplomatic, stating only that it is likely he was on board, and if so he is probably dead (they claim an anonymous source confirms, but they still won't say who or how many are dead). The synthesis I'm getting from all this confusion is that Lidle's plane took off from New Jersey, got lost in the fog, and turned into the building with possibly two trained pilots on board, one of whom might have been Lidle. --Canonblack 22:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Military response

• NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) said it had put fighter aircraft into the air over numerous U.S. cities, though they said they had no reason to believe the event in New York was anything more than an accident, sources told CNN's Barbara Starr. [3]

Cause of crash

It's too early (less than 3 hours after the crash) to speculate on causes. Let's just pass on reports as we get them.

But I can tell you this: running out of fuel doesn't usually make you hit a building.

And I have a question: under what circumstances is a plane ever allowed to fly over Manhattan? Especially since 9/11. Does anyone know where Lidle's plane was heading to? Did the pilot file a flight plan? --Uncle Ed 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly, according to Gov. Pataki, on WNBC, private planes are allowed to fly over the East River, where this plane was before crashing. Bmitchelf 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course planes are allowed to fly over NYC -- the U.S. is not a police state. Trucks and busses are also allowed to drive through the tunnels, barges are allowed to sail under the bridges, etc., even though any of them could potential carry much more explosive payload than an airplane.

As far as cause goes, the pilot reported a fuel problem, but complete fuel exhaustion is extremely unlikely, given the post-crash fire. He might have run one tank dry, but we'll have to wait for the NTSB report. David 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Could weather be a factor? I live in NYC and it's raining right now and its been overcast all day. --Blue387 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Where are all the people that watched V for Vendetta one too many times and think Bush and Cheney did it? Haizum 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Date concerns?

Is this really the place to put a ridiculous comment like: "This happened exactly one month after the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks." This is no place for conspiracy theories. --RavenStorm 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The FAA and NORAD have almost definitively shown that this was not an act of terrorism. Even if NORAD scrambled some fighters, they didn't really believe it was a terrorist attack either.PullToOpen ^talk 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --RavenStorm 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll also remove "The date of this incident, 10-11-06, written upside-down is 9-11-01", based on the same reasoning RavenStorm gave. (Furthermore, the statement is actually wrong; it's "90-11-01".) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; another editor got to that right as I was writing the above comment. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That'll be me =D --Ravenstorm 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"The date in US terms is 10/11 (11/10). Exactly 1 month after the 5th anniversary of 9/11. In another coincidence 9/11/01 mirrored horizontally and vertically is 10/11/6"

^ Come on man, are you f-ing kidding me? --Shuyin05 21:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's marginally neat, but certainly not encyclopædic. --J Morgan^(talk) 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be encyclopedic to state that, between the date and the site of the crash, some people worried it was terrorism, but preliminary investigations suggest otherwise. I don't think it's worth its own section, though—perhaps just a couple sentences under "Initial concerns". —Brent Dax 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You all sure about that? 10-11-06 upside down is 90-11-01 and backwards is 09-11-10. Although harmless, it is original research. --Uncle Bungle 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about if we look at it like this? --Henrickson 22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How about if you get a life? J-Dog 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are NOT FACTS. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia. If you have any proof that a majority of people believe in these theories, it is to be noted as: "Conspiracy Theories regarding this incident" and not as "Date Concerns." And anyways, just because all of those little things are true, what does that mean? To go on a short rant here, it makes no sense. Even if all of this was planned in accordance to 9/11, why would the conspirators behind all of this leave such noticeable evidence? Do they WANT to get caught? And who would be able to convince the plane's pilot to crash into a building for absolutely no reason? I repeat, theories are not proof. --Ravenstorm 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

People that choose to go this route have no class. Get a friggin' grip on reality people. If I'm out of line with this comment, tough crap. J-Dog 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This sounds like a recycling of the whole "New York Yankee 9/11 curse" thing all over again.

J-Dog, if we spend our time editing the talk pages here, we have barely have a life (No offence, itsd just nerdy (I admit it, I'm a nerd w/o wiki))--NFAN3 01:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Where are all the people that watched V for Vendetta one too many times and think Bush and Cheney did it? Haizum 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I only needed to scroll down the page...Haizum 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This year is the 18th year of Heisei and 9/11 was in 13th year. I don't see any coincidence. ;)--Revth 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment about the date written upside down was under the heading "Trivia", meaning just that and not meant to imply conspiracy. The license taken with the date formatting was slight, while still an item of interest. And though it's "original research", it is "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources "... there are relatively rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources ... An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" --User:67.91.122.20

P.S. only an idiot would format a date 09-11-01 when they mean 11th September 2001 :-P Either you say 11-09-01 or 01-09-11. Everything else is just plain silly :-P Nil Einne 09:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Silly to you. Not to us. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • Happy Halloween! • WP:NYCS}} 11:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Find a reason why the date concerns should be mentioned and I will put it back. As I said before, there is NO REASON whatsoever how this matters AT ALL. If we mentioned all coincidences for no reason in Wikipedia, why don't you go add a "Name Concern" to the Santa (Satan! ooohh) page? Or the "I'm Loving It" ad campaign for McDonalds is an anagram for Ailing Vomit? For goodness sake, I repeat, find a reason why it MATTERS that 09/11/01 rotated 180 degrees is 10/11/06. --RavenStorm 15:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone chill. It was just "trivia". Go live your lives. --User:67.91.122.20

Yankees did 10/11! (too soon?)--68.0.216.173 22:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be locked

There's a few n00b sayin' it's Bin whatever--NFAN3 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine now, do you think we should still protect it?Cameron Nedland 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth editing right now relating to the specific details and wording. There are really no significant edits that can be made until we get some more information (i.e., was Lidle piloting the plane, etc.) --taestell 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

ominous trend

In my opinion, restrict these articles -- or else invent a means of cataloging them. --VKokielov 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by cataloging? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...

Maybe what I mean is that, if an article becomes an article because of our shining media, then it ought to be labeled. There are plenty of plane crashes about. --VKokielov 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Destination?

My mum just told me that the news here in Nashville said that the final destination for the plane was to be Nashville. Does anyone have any idea if this is true? It seems like such a tiny plane would have a hard time getting here from New Jersey, but I'm not an aviation expert. Allie 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sprtscenter just said that they had no clue where the plane was headed, so who knows. J-Dog 23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just confirmed on channel 7 that it was returining to a Newark, New Jersey Airport. - Kreepman

I don't have a cite for this at the moment, but the reports I heard say that he was doing a quick sightseeing tour around Manhattan (not sure if he was returning to NJ next.. maybe to refuel)... the flying to Tennessee where he had a hotel room already booked, then flying home to California. I will try and find a cite for this before I add it. Stoneice02 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Similar incidents"

I just removed two articles linked in the "See Also" section as similar incidents, since we don't really know what this is similar to until we know what caused it (unless any general aviation crash is "similar," in which case why these two particular articles?). Certainly we have no reason to think it's like one of them, the Tampa one, which was a deliberate crash into a building. —Cleared as filed. 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What's a CFI?

Certified flight instructor or something? -- Avocado 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. CFI has a link to Flight instructor. --UNHchabo 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is "certificated flight instructor". — Reinyday, 22:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The FAA uses both. Either one is correct. 65.127.231.4 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The plane or the parachute?

There is no sign that Lidle's Cirrus, equipped with a Ballistic Recovery System, a parachute designed to bring the whole plane down to earth safely in case of an emergency, was ever used before the crash.

Doesn't make sense. One of the sources clearly has him flying the plane during an earlier interview. But why would the BRS be used before the day of the crash? Does this just mean "no sign that the BRS deployed before the crash"? --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pure speculation that the parachute could even be deployed in that situation. It should be removed completely. It's like saying the plane had "landing gear but it was unclear whether it was used before the crash." At 500 feet (the height of a 50 story building, I don't think it can be deployed and until someone says it can, it should be removed. --Tbeatty 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the airspeed it can be deployed as low as 260 feet according to the manufacturer [4]. Rmhermen 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The parachute was deployed only as a consequence of fire. It seems to be recurrent ocurrence in crashes of this type of planes that trigger a fire.--Gkklein 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not erally relevant to this article but does the fire trigger the rocket on the parachute or is it the parachute's rocket causing the fire? Rmhermen 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

MS Local Images Link

"# Microsoft Live Local images - The one with the entrance visible at street level. FireFox not supported." ^ Who said this? Works fine for me (I'm using firefox AND I'm on Linux) 66.65.102.61 02:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

About the parachute: There would be little effect at such a low altitude if the parachute was employed, and even so, the end result would probably only be decreased flight speed, which in this situation, from what we know of the crash, wouldn't improve your situation.

Add to See Also

Charles Bishop (pilot)

Nonsense. He was a dumb kid who intentionally flew a plane into a building. Until we know the details of this event as determined by the NTSB, there's no point in comparing the two events. —Cleared as filed. 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

C'mon! I had been trying to remember his name. This incident and this article prompted me to remember the "dumb kid who flew a plane into a building". Just how similar would the two events have to be! How many aircraft have ever struck a skyscraper? Should be on "See also". Paul Beardsell 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

At least one other should be: The Empire State Building - Nunh-huh 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Responses to the crash

• Now that we know the identity of the two individuals that were in the plane, shouldn't this article be cleaned up a bit as far as any "speculation" is concerned? We know that Lidle was not a terrorist yet there is still content about the FBI confirming that it was not a terrorist attack. Why? J-Dog 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Because almost anybody who heard about it initially thought "terrorist attack" and started coming up with theories along those lines. It's notable that even after five years, people are that on-edge. —Brent Dax 08:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, great. But now that we have the facts, who cares about the theories. Let's record what we know not what we were afraid of. This is Wikipedia, not a shrink's couch. J-Dog 15:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Which floor?

• The article says the 40th.
• The BBC are quoting the New York Fire Department that it hit the 20th [5].
• Canda.com [6] also say the 20th, but don't give a source.
• WTNH.com [7] and ESPN [8] say 30th and 31st.
• CNN [9] say 39th and 40th.
• 13abc.com say between 30th and 31st. [10]
• The New York Times say "about the 40th or 41st" [11]

What should the article say? Thryduulf 08:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I say....all of them. Actually, we should wait 'till some real confirmation comes in. Hbdragon88 09:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo from Manhattan showing the building (right) shortly before the fire was extinguished

WTNH, ESPN, and 13abc.com are all AP articles. The picture on the right (which is in the article) shows that the crash could not take place on the 20th floor. Apparently the building is only 40 stories but uses a weird floor numbering system going up to 50 floors. [12] The crash was 30 stories up from the street, but on the 40th floor of the building. I'm removing the 20th floor mention. Someone beat me to it. Michael Greiner 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox (pretty sure it was Fox) had reported 50th floor the day of... but I don't think that could possibly be right...

Here's another interesting contradiction courtesy From Emporis

“ Apartments are on floors 22-50, and the hospital occupies the lower floors.

- A small, private plane accidentally crashed into the building on 11 October 2006. Fire was shooting out of windows on the 20th floor of the 50-story building.

”

So according to Emporis records based on the floor occupations it would have crashed in the hospital section while most media stated that condo units were destroyed. Of course looking at the picture it is more obvious that the crash was on the 30th story. JForget 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny fact - according to government records ([13],[14],[15],[16]) there are only 42&PH stories (does it mean penthouses account for 8 floors?) - not 50, height of building is only 501.4 feet (not 512) and date of completion 3/15/91 - not 1988 --TAG 03:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"up to and including"

It's technically correct that the flight restriction was up to "and including" 1,500 feet. Merely "up to" 1,500 feet means it's legal to fly at 1,500, but not at 1,499. "Up to and including" means 1,500 is illegal. Such distinctions are important to pilots (and the FAA), but it might be unnecessary here. If anyone still thinks it should go, I won't revert. uFu 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Not even technical WP entries on aviation make the distinction.--Gkklein 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sprinklers in the building?"

NPR reported that 11 firefighters were injured due to slipping on a wet stairway. Does anyone know if the building had functioning automatic sprinklers? The fire didn't spread too much. Dave 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It has. Read building certificates of occupancy. It has smoke detectors, automatic sprinkler system and standpipe system. --TAG 06:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Life Insurance

What does everyone else think about the inclusion of information from the following news article into either this article or the Cory Lidle article? I am pretty neutral on it, but I came across the article and thought I'd put it up for debate. [17] Stoneice02 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably it's not good to put there. It's just a lawyers talk and subject to investigation. --TAG 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Something, at some point, should be included. The fact is that either one could have been the 'pilot-in-command', maybe even switching roles seconds before the crash. The implications of the possible speed of the deterioration of the flight, a younger instructor unilaterally taking command from an older, long-time, wealthy celebrity client. It makes for a notably rare and complex situation.--Gkklein 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If any information is included on Lidle's insurance, it should be in his article, not this one. This article is on the plane crash, and should only include facts relevant to the crash and its investigation. Akradecki 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

NTSB release states full go team investigation

I'm late for where I'm meant to be going already, but can someone add that a full go-team investigation has been launched? reference: http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/061011.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blood red sandman (talk • contribs) 06:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

Done. Thanks for the pointer! TransUtopian 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kathleen Caronna

An interesting coincidence: the plane crashed into the (empty) bedroom of Kathleen Caronna, who had previously been critically injured when a balloon knocked part of a lamppost onto her head during the 1997 Thanksgiving Day Parade. [18]. Creepy, though of course just coincidence. - Nunh-huh 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Just the facts, ma'am"

Folks, let's please keep the speculation out of this article. More than once I've had to removed text that reads something like "the NTSB has not yet determined if....". When the NTSB determines something, and it's published, then we report it. We don't need to stoop to the level of the television and print media that speculate as to the causes. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, therefore, please, let's stick to the known facts. Akradecki 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't speculate, but I added two sentences from a briefing a heard at today's fire drill, given by the responding fire chief. --Uncle Ed 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WHY?!!!

I've read the first 6 paragraphs of this article and still don't know why this happen. A couple of the sourced articles and they don't say neither, but a few do mention problems with fuel. Can anyone varify this and edit appropriately? CraigP 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Be patient. It's typical for the general public to want to immediately know why an accident occured, and the news media tends to feed this desire. However, such a conclusion will be the result of a thorough NTSB investigation, which usually takes months. Until the facts are presented at the conclusion of the investigation, it is inappropriate to post speculation about the cause of the crash.Akradecki 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sky News claims with this (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13546911,00.html) that the propellors were still turning, but I'm reluctant to add this as it seems a bit early, even coming from the NTSB. By the way, there is a good image of the building while still on fire here: http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1236981-27,00.html as well as a coastguard's image showing the moment of impact, but if they were added, to prevent the article being swamped with pictures it would be nescessary to remove at least one of those already there - this is an issue that needs discussed. - Blood red sandman 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There was only one propeller - it was a single-engine aircraft. Also this is the kind of information that news media get all excited about, but which means nothing. Akradecki 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested it was important; I mentioned it to demonstrate just how early a stage this investigation is in, that this is all we have, and that even it is something i have doubts about the veracity of. Blood red sandman 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

11 firefighter injuries?

Can anyone tell my why 11 firefighters were injured? that seems like a lot of injured firefighters for what was a fairly minor fire.

Anonymous: What makes you say it was a fairly minor fire? Did you see the video from the scene? The flames were pouring out of two stories of the building - both were gutted. A plane with jet fuel crashed into a building - this was hardly a kitchen fire. The question should be how is it that no one was killed other than the two on board. Tvoz 01:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates?

Editor Coasttocoast has removed the lat/long in the upper right corner, with the comment that other crash articles don't include this information. I'm of the opinion that this is actually helpful info, as it enables a person to punch the coords into Google Earth or equivalent and see the area inwhich the incident happened. Helps to put things in perspective. If other articles don't have them, they should! But, before reverting the deletion, I thought I'd see if there's a consensus to have this info put back in. Akradecki 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see "Sprinklers in the building?" above. — Reinyday, 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I follow what you're getting at Reinyday. What's you're point? Just asking... By the way, I see no reason why the coordinates shouldn't be included. It's simply another fact that would be included. Is it not encyclopedic? J-Dog 23:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates are missing from articles even like Times square - so this is not valid argument to remove them from others. I feel that coordinates are good - as over time it can be possible that Google Earth (or other servers) can geo-code articles and show them then people navigate over map. In the same time - I've added coordinates to Belaire Apartments - so people still can figure out crash location. --TAG 06:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"general aviation plane"

Opening sentence says "general aviation plane". This term is not wrong but not particularly enlightening as "general aviation" refers to a type of operation rather than a type of aircraft. What general aviation means is (i) not a scheduled airline and (ii) not military. Now, whereas both are true it would be better to replace those three words with "small private aircraft" as that implies the what the current words do i.e. (i) not scheduled, (ii) not military but also (iii) private, not commercial (and much commercial aviation is part of "general aviation") and (iv) small (and much general aviation is very large - cargo on a Boeing 747 is "general aviation"). Change done. Paul Beardsell 03:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

FAA restrictions?

Can somebody find source for FAA restrictions on official website - not newspapers like SportsIllustrated ? I've tried at https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/geo/geoQuery.html - but without success. --TAG 19:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was there where you were looking. The NOTAM reads:

ZNY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, VFR FLIGHT OPERATIONS INVOLVING FIXED WING AIRCRAFT (EXCLUDING AMPHIBIOUS FIXED WING AIRCRAFT LANDING OR DEPARTING NEW YORK SKYPORTS INC SEAPLANE BASE) IN THE EAST RIVER CLASS B EXCLUSION AREA EXTENDING FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN TIP OF GOVERNORS ISLAND TO THE NORTH TIP OF ROOSEVELT ISLAND, ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS AUTHORIZED AND BEING CONTROLLED BY ATC. TO OBTAIN AUTHORIZATION CONTACT LGA ATCT SOUTH OF GOVERNORS ISLAND ON 126.05.

—Cleared as filed. 14:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Link redirected (Yahoo!)

I have noticed this for a while now, but I was unable to inform everyone about this as I was (and I still am) busy in real life stuff.

... There is no indication that the aircraft's Ballistic Recovery Systems emergency parachute, designed to bring the plane down safely, was deployed...

The link now redirects to a new article that has nothing about the not-deployed parachute in it. I am unsure where to seek for another source about this (Possibly Google, but there could be plenty of them, very few of them, or even none at all). Vic226 17:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. diff. Tell me if I've missed something - it was a single query on Google to find original article by old title. --TAG 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename to 2006 New York City plane crash or Cory Lidle plane crash

The complete date is overkill, and the regular researcher may not remember the exact date when this happened, so "2006" may be enough. --Howard the Duck 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But already if I type "2006 New York plane crash" into the search box I get this article. And a researcher might type "New York 2006 plane crash". So that reasoning is bankrupt. Paul Beardsell 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The naming convention for disasters (well, most) is <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. So this'll be like "2006 New York City plane crash".

If NYC's a big city, then it could be "2006 Manhattan plane crash".

Comparing this to 9/11 is somewhat wrong, since 9/11 directly affected many thousands of people, so September 11 will be forever be etched in memory, like December 7 when Pearl Harbor was bombed. This event was relatively minor, and a researcher would not now the exact date when this happened; so if we'll use your example, we might as well move National Basketball Association into NBA and Attack on Pearl Harbor to December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor bombing.

As for other incidents, those were pretty minor, and very few people would bother researching on those crashes.

Also, Cory Lidle was one of two people in the plane, and the fact that he's a Yankees pitcher flying an aircraft which crashed into a Manhattan building can be a case for "Cory Lidle plane crash", but I'd rather go with 2006 NYC/Manhattan plane crash. --Howard the Duck 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article and putting redirects does NOT improve search quality. The only change you will get is title and will DECREASE Google search quality - as words in URL will have high priority. Anyway - I've casted my vote - can add nothing new. --TAG 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support 2006 New York City plane crash, but strongly oppose Cory Lidle plane crash, as his involvment is not the sole notable factor. Thryduulf 10:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support 2006 New York City plane crash and strongly oppose Cory Lidle plane crash as non-standard. Note that January 5, 2002 Tampa plane crash is a redirect to 2002 Tampa plane crash — Reinyday, 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support 2006 New York City plane crash and strongly oppose Cory Lidle plane crash for reasons given above Stoneice02 07:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 2006 New York City plane crash because 2006 is not over yet. I suggest that we wait until 1 Jan 2007. I am not invoking "tempting fate" or even "wishful thinking" but this rename is just 6 weeks premature. Paul Beardsell 03:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) But even then I think not right. See Odessa's comment, below. Paul Beardsell 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support the name change but User Psb does bring up a valid point. Of course, it is also easy to rename the article again if events in the next six weeks require a change. --JJay 03:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not NYC - but Manhattan plane crash. There were others incidents (but definitely smaller) in NYC like September 08, 2006 or June 08, 2006. Also - reasoning for rename is not clear. We have redirects already in place of proposed rename - so this mysterious researcher will find this page after redirect. In same time this long title make it clear it's not September 11 - but October 11 crash - as memory of this researcher is short he can also forget year of 9/11 crash - BTW, short test - do you remember year 9/11 happened ? Regarding Cory Lidle - there was one more person in plane - why not name after him ? --TAG 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's compelling. I agree. Paul Beardsell 19:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion re Manhatten/NYC, but I don't think that we need to be overly precise to differenciate between this and the 11th September 2001 attacks. 9/11 and all other frequently used terms already redirect to the article about the main attacks. Anyone who wants information about the 2001 attacks but can't remember the year is not likely find this article first at any of the proposed names - there is no New York City plane crash article currently, although it would not be a bad location for a dab page to this, the 11th September 2001, and any other plane crashes in New York we have articles on. If there is another notable plane crash in NYC during 2006 then we can rename articles then, but there is no need to premptively disambiguate. Thryduulf 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support 2006 New York City plane crash (or a variation including "Manhattan") and strongly oppose Cory Lidle plane crash -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support 2006 New York City plane crash and strongly oppose Cory Lidle plane crash. I don't think that we need to specifically say "Manhattan", as there's (thus far) no ambiguity with any other plane crashes in the five boroughs. I also disagree with TAG that the other incidents cited should have any bearing on the naming of this article: neither was a crash. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review

I've passed this article as a GA. My only concern is this sentence: "There were also reports of debris, luggage, and fuel falling to street level and starting a minor fire there.", which is uncited. If you could supply a citation as soon as possible, that would be great. CloudNine 11:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Plan?

The article states that his plan was to fly to TE and then to Dallas. Was his instructor coming with him? Why was he in the plane? TheHYPO (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)