Breaking news!!

[rs]

This is the actual aircraft description from before the Cory Lidle sale. It is no longer on the original web site but is in the Google cache:
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1100733&dlr=1 as retrieved on May 30, 2006 06:43:53 GMT.

2002 CIRRUS SR20, S/N: 1230, N929CD, www.steelaviation.com, For Sale - $189,900
2002 Cirrus SR20

Price: $199900


Aircraft Information:
Total Time: 380
Engine Time: 380
Prop Time: 380
N-Number: N929CD
Serial Number: 1230
Annual Inspection Due:
IFR Cert. Due:
Aircraft Location: Brockton, MA
Aircraft Hangared: Yes
Avionics:
Avidyne EX5000 MFD
Garmin 430 #1 Nav/Com
Garmin 430 #2 Nav/Com
Garmin 340 Audio Panel
STEC 55X Autopilot with Alt. Pre-select
Sandel 3308 HSI
Exterior:
Overall white with blue accents, the plane is in like new condition.

Interior:
Shadow Gray leather interior in like new condition!

History:
A beautiful, super low time Cirrus the plane is ready for its new owner. Pride of ownership shows with this one. Complete and continuous log books no known damage history. Ready to go please give us call.

Now the real question is just how much capability existed on a 2002 Avidyne EX5000? This is an interesting question because the current "story" is that Cory and his instructor were "joy riding" up the East River, started to stray into restricted air space and had to make a 180 degree turn. They misjudged the turn because they were not paying attention to where they were.

Now the problem with this story is that it is supposed to be the avionics that is doing the paying attention because the computer is not staring out the window and getting distracted. The GPS tells it where it is and the terrain map tells it that "you are getting into trouble, do this".

The whole point of all of this avionics is to use it and it changes the way you fly the plane and the way you are taught to fly. Gone are those seat-of-the-pants days. However since there is no Cockpit Voice Recorder, we will never know what was happening those last few critical seconds.

As an aside, if you look up the tail number on the FAA registry you get the following message:

ATTENTION!
This aircraft's registration status may not be suitable for operation.
Please contact the Aircraft Registration Branch at 1-866-762-9434 for additional information.

It has been reported that if you look up the tail number of Flight 93, it is listed as being in service. This is false.

FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results
N591UA has multiple records

Reserved N-Number
Type Reservation Fee Paid
Mode S Code 51721341
Reserved Date 10/11/2005
Renewal Date 09/22/2006
Purge Date 11/11/2007
Pending Number Change None
Date Change Authorized None
Reserving Party Name UNITED AIR LINES INC
Street C/O LYTLE SOULE & CURLEE
119 N ROBINSON STE 1200
City OKLAHOMA CITY
State OKLAHOMA
Zip Code 73102
County OKLAHOMA
Country UNITED STATES


Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 28142 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date 07/01/1996
Model 757-222 Mode S Code 51721341
Year Manufacturer 1996 Cancel Date 09/28/2005
Reason for Cancellation Cancelled Exported To

Obviously, the date is a little suspect...

 

[Vulcan59]

Basically an eTWAS is an Enhanced Terrain Warning and Avoidance System. The Enhanced means that it gives terrain warning even when the aeroplane is in full landing configuration. It also ties up with the Weather radar system, if installed, where it can give manoeuver guidance when windshear associated with precipitation is encountered. Not too long ago, a plane could literally fly into a hill when in full landing configuration without any warning. The eTWAS relies on the GPS and a complete terrain database and other aeroplane parameters like speed, altitude, etc.

Once a warning is triggered, (example, TERRAIN, TERRAIN, PULL UP)the pilot must immediately disconnect the autopilot and carried out a very specific manoeuvre to avoid hitting terrain. The warnings are both aural and visual warnings. The visual warnings are displayed on the weather radar in the form of a coloured displayed, with red being high ground and green/yellow being relatively lower ground.

At present, I do not know of an automatic response by the autopilot to a terrain warning. Perhaps it might be used in cruise missiles.

 

[kommunikationisthekey]

Well, here's a curious thing:

The plane crashed on 10/11/06

Write that on a piece of paper and turn it upside down and you get

9/11/01 (ignoring the 0 at after the 9).

And also, the same day's new episode of South Park was about 9/11 conspiracies!

Coincidence?

Did a silly numerology thing

10/11/2006

1+0 / 11 / 2+0+0+6

1 / 11 / 8

add the month and year section together 1+8 / 11 and you get.....

9/11

I know you can play with numbers all you want and see all kinds of happy coincidences everywhere.... getting yourself trapped in the idea that the numbers are telling you something significant... getting trapped in the idea being the key...

and considering what AdPop said...

I must admit, this incident is a stroke of pure, uncontaminated genius.
- What do the p'crats love to do? Remind people of 9/11. How about crashing a plane into a tower in NYC? Will that do it? How about on 10/11? But no "terror" so it's not our fault -- brilliant!
- When do the p'crats like most to remind people about 9/11? Just before an election. How about just a few weeks before? And put a famous person in the plane, just to be sure.
- How do the p'crats like to take attention away from something damaging like the lewd Foley scandal. Distract with another story, even one that's basically meaningless. How about crashing a plane into a tower in NYC?
- Did they really need that distraction? Well, a day after an MIT/JH study says they're lying about the death toll in Iraq, they sure as hell do!! Misson accomplished.

and the convenient finding of the passport... coinciding with the information many 9/11 researchers mention.. that Mohamed Atta's was found .....

I thought that perhaps it was possible that these little coincidences could have been placed out there for the specific purpose of getting 9/11 researchers and "conspiracy nuts" to latch onto this story and waste time researching the possible nefarious reasons for this "non-event" .. distracting them from researching stories like the death toll in Iraq.... and at the same time giving the media a reason to repeat the words 9/11 endlessly...distracting those who believe the 9/11 myth with reminders of fear....

A two birds with one stone kind of thing perhaps?

edit
Oh yeah, forgot the other thing... the initial confusion as to whether it was a plane or helicopter that hit the building... somewhat similar to the confusing initial reports of the Pentagon crash..... another little tidbit 9/11 researchers might zone in on...

 

[1/2Hawk]

Is there a compelling reason you *wouldnt* want the autopilot to pull up for you if you were heading for terrain / obstacles? It just seems that crash avoidance is the key priority when aloft. Planes that automatically refuse to hit buildings sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

@ Cruise missiles: Path is rough tracked by an inertial navigation system (that cannot be "jammed"), which uses gyrascopes and accelerometers to note heading changes. System is augmented by a terrain contour matching system that compares the current terrain to stored terrain data, a bit like the eTAWS mentioned above. (Missile can also be navigated by GPS). Net sum, these guys can skim along hilly terrain at a height of 30 meters en route to target. Technologically feasible.

 

[rs]

Is there a compelling reason you *wouldnt* want the autopilot to pull up for you if you were heading for terrain / obstacles? It just seems that crash avoidance is the key priority when aloft. Planes that automatically refuse to hit buildings sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Sure, an autopilot has no "context". Is pulling up necessarily the correct response? Suppose you pull up and collide with another plane? Suppose you are headed under power lines and it would be preferred to continue to go under the line instead of try and fly through it?

There are two reasons that much of the avionics does not *actually* take control:

1) People do not *like* having computers fly the planes, even though it is currently feasible for a plane to fly completely autonomously. (Would you get on a plane if you knew that the cockpit was devoid of human presence?)
2) Companies who make avionics do not want to take (legal) responsibility for the decision, so their position is to provide the information but leave the actual decision (based on context) to someone/something else.

The fly-by-wire software on the Airbus will simply not allow the pilot to exceed the airfoil design limits whereas the Boeing fly-by-wire will simply do what the pilot commands. Surprisingly, this decision by Airbus was considered highly controversial among commercial pilots.

 

[1/2Hawk]

I didnt mean to say that pulling up was always the right choice - just an example. I guess I was thinking about a case where a pilot is non-responsive (heart attack, unconscious, etc). It'd be nice if an airplane at least tried to put out a warning beacon, avoid urban areas/water and set down in a flat patch near an airport or something.

But, I completely buy your second argument about the legal responsibility. On the first point, given the news stories about intoxicated pilots and whatnot - I think I *would* prefer autonomous flight. :) Anybody that flies regularly can tell the second that the autopilot is kicked off and the pilot regains control before landing because the plane suddenly goes all over the place. It'd also stop the Southwest guys from cutting across the top of my neighborhood to make up time on the way to BNA - everybody else flies along the highways like theyre supposed to.

 

[Vulcan59]

Well, they actually have this auto response capability years ago, but it will take time before they eventually implement it. 9/11 plays a part where it has prompted discussions like what if we could remotely control the planes when it is hijacked and bring it safely down, or wouldn't it be better if there were no pilots, etc. Legal responsibility is one area; getting the public to accept pilotless aeroplanes is another. And that is where it is heading, eventually, OSIT.