Winds A Factor In Lidle Crash

K l e i n wrote:
I think the appropriate maneuver for this situation from the Commercial
Pilot syllabus would be half of a lazy-8.

What about an Immelman? (Granted, not from the Commercial syllabus.) Or
would it require too much altitude?

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

"Alan Gerber" wrote in message
...
K l e i n wrote:
I think the appropriate maneuver for this situation from the Commercial
Pilot syllabus would be half of a lazy-8.

What about an Immelman? (Granted, not from the Commercial syllabus.) Or
would it require too much altitude?

Why not a simple steep turn? It's easy to pre-calculate the turn radius for
a given airspeed, bank angle, and crosswind component. In this case, they
had plenty of room if they'd planned and executed the turn properly.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Alan Gerber" wrote in message
...
K l e i n wrote:
I think the appropriate maneuver for this situation from the Commercial
Pilot syllabus would be half of a lazy-8.

What about an Immelman? (Granted, not from the Commercial syllabus.) Or
would it require too much altitude?

Several reasons for them not to have used an Immelman:
1) it's a aerobatic maneuver for which the plane was not certified;
2) the pilots were likely untrained to perform such an aerobatic
maneuver;
3) many first attempts at an Immelman turn into an Immel-spin.

Why not a simple steep turn? It's easy to pre-calculate the turn radius for
a given airspeed, bank angle, and crosswind component. In this case, they
had plenty of room if they'd planned and executed the turn properly.

They tried and failed to perform a simple steep turn because they
apparently did not precalculate the maneuver.
The PIC was a PP and presumably not yet schooled in the lazy-8, however
the CFI obviously possessed a Commercial ticket and presumably was
schooled in this maneuver. The lazy-8 is not an aerobatic maneuver and
the Cirrus would have been capable of performing it.

Klein
p.s. I have performed lots of lazy-8's in aircraft ranging from
gliders to Turbo Commanders. The maneuver is easy, beautiful and lots
of fun. Go do some today (take an instructor along).

"K l e i n" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gary Drescher wrote:
K l e i n wrote:
I think the appropriate maneuver for this situation from the
Commercial
Pilot syllabus would be half of a lazy-8.
Why not a simple steep turn? It's easy to pre-calculate the turn radius
for
a given airspeed, bank angle, and crosswind component. In this case, they
had plenty of room if they'd planned and executed the turn properly.

They tried and failed to perform a simple steep turn because they
apparently did not precalculate the maneuver.

Or they precalculated incorrectly, or they calculated correctly but executed
it poorly.

The PIC was a PP and presumably not yet schooled in the lazy-8,

Has anyone established which of the pair was the PIC? The NTSB report said
nothing about that.

however the CFI obviously possessed a Commercial ticket and presumably
was schooled in this maneuver. The lazy-8 is not an aerobatic maneuver
and
the Cirrus would have been capable of performing it.

Sure, but beforehand there'd have been no reason to plan to do a half-lazy-8
rather than a steep turn; and by the time they knew their turn wasn't going
to turn out well, it was probably too late to do anything else.

p.s. I have performed lots of lazy-8's in aircraft ranging from
gliders to Turbo Commanders. The maneuver is easy, beautiful and lots
of fun.

Yup.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"K l e i n" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gary Drescher wrote:
K l e i n wrote:
I think the appropriate maneuver for this situation from the
Commercial
Pilot syllabus would be half of a lazy-8.
Why not a simple steep turn? It's easy to pre-calculate the turn radius
for
a given airspeed, bank angle, and crosswind component. In this case, they
had plenty of room if they'd planned and executed the turn properly.
They tried and failed to perform a simple steep turn because they
apparently did not precalculate the maneuver.

Or they precalculated incorrectly, or they calculated correctly but executed
it poorly.

Sure, but beforehand there'd have been no reason to plan to do a
half-lazy-8
rather than a steep turn; and by the time they knew their turn wasn't going
to turn out well, it was probably too late to do anything else.
I think that's exactly the point. Doing a half lazy 8 calls for a
clearing turn under normal circumstances when flying out over the
gridded landscape of Iowa. In the rotorcraft filled, obstruction
strewn, distraction filled low ceiling environs of the East River, a
half lazy 8 would require some forethought and a deep breath.

A steep turn is what was needed and apparently not done.

That part of the NYC VFR corridor should be for rotorcraft only - have
they done that yet?

Gary Drescher wrote:

Has anyone established which of the pair was the PIC? The NTSB report said
nothing about that.

There will most likely never be an answer to this question.


--
Peter

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:51:04 -0500, "Peter R."
wrote in :

Gary Drescher wrote:

Has anyone established which of the pair was the PIC? The NTSB report said
nothing about that.

There will most likely never be an answer to this question.

Hasn't the FAA ruled in the past, that the CFI or ATP is always
culpable as PIC regardless?