Winds A Factor In Lidle Crash

Matt Whiting wrote:
Ron Lee wrote:

My fate in is my hands, not "by the grace of..."

No kidding? You built every part of your airplane yourself? You know
that the crank was properly heat treated and will never fail? You do
your own annuals so that you know nothing was missed?


Absolutely. He's a safe pilot. Ask him... he'd be the first to tell you.
Whether anybody else would pipe up in his defense is undetermined.


Amazing that you aren't at all dependent on others or the vagaries of
things mechanical. I'm impressed.


Aren't we all? **** only happens to other folks.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Matt Whiting wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:

The real cause was he was an idiotic and inept pilot that day who
left his wife without a husband and kids fatherless.

Fortunately, being an idiotic and inept usenet poster is more
forgiving...


Matt

I suppose you would fly with a pilot like him? Would you let your
wife or kids fly with him if he were alive and just narrowly missed
the building?

Maybe you would like to fly with the pilots who crashed at LEX?

There are idiot pilots and we have seen a few cases lately.
Unfortunately they take people with them instead of just themselves
sometimes.

Ron Lee

Ron;

Let me explain to you how this works in the real world.

Even the most highly trained pilots in the world screw up from time to
time. Trust me, I know quite a few of them :-)
Flying is an endeavor where you operate in an environment that is
constantly trying to kill you and everybody in the airplane with you. Its
that simple! The "trick" as we say in the business, is to get yourself to
the point where you can handle this environment on a constant basis. This
means that a pilot, from the beginning student to the long time ATP and
CFI, has to be constantly up to the task.
A pilot's level of competence changes from day to day; actually minute to
minute really. You can be sharp and on top of things one minute and off
your edge the next minute just long enough to kill yourself.
Keeping this edge sharp as a pilot is really a full time job, and even
then there's no guarantee that you won't have a 2 second lapse and forget
something that will kill you.
Flying an airplane is controlling a moving object that includes you and
the people with you in a 3 dimensional area that exists at very high
speed. This can be likened to having someone throw random knives at you
from twenty feet away while you constantly try and duck out of the way and
not get hit with one. Given those conditions, you can get some idea of how
long one could do this without dodging the wrong way and taking a knife
right in the face.
All this doesn't mean a pilot can't prepare for, and be able to function
properly in the midst of all this potential danger. It does mean however,
that all of us....and I mean ALL of us, have those moments in flying where
we do exactly the wrong thing. If we're lucky, and what we screwed up on
wasn't at the exact wrong time, we survive, learn from what happened, and
truck on trying never to replicate THAT mistake again.
These two guys in the Cirrus had one of the moments I'm talking about
here. They weren't stupid, and I'm sure they didn't want to die. They
screwed up, and the numbers played out against them. Instead of having one
of those "experiences" I'm talking about, they didn't make it.
What we have to do as pilots is learn from their mistake so that WE become
just a little bit safer and our edge gets just a little sharper.
This preconception some people have about pilots having to be perfect just
doesn't wash in the real world. I've seen pilots with thousands of hours
flying the hottest airplanes in the world that I knew to be the best of
the best killed right in front of me; the result of an instant of
distraction. It happens.
Instead of putting these guys down which doesn't bring them back or
enhance the flight safety issue, just realize they were two guys who made
a mistake. God knows they paid for it.
Just learn and move on. Concentrate just a bit more on sharpening your own
edge and at least something good will have come from this accident.
Dudley Henriques


Hear, Hear.

Al G

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
: ".Blueskies." wrote:
:
: Just push some 'top rudder' to help hold the nose up while you are doing that steep turn. Report back your
findings...
:
: I've done steep turns with many students. None have *ever*
: tried to use top rudder to hold the nose up. It's just not
: something they think of doing. When the nose gets low and
: speed builds, they pull the stick back - sometimes to great
: excess, when what they should be doing is taking out some
: bank, then bringing the stick back. Even when they haul
: back on the stick in a vain attempt to bring the nose up,
: we've never been close to stall.
:
: In contrast, I have often seen a student try to sneak in
: some rudder to make the base to final turn a bit faster when
: what they should be doing is rolling in some more bank -
: something they are afraid to do.


What angle of bank do you do accelerated stalls at? We always did them at 45° bank or a little more. Really no that
hard to do...

I did have a student once who got all out of whack doing steep turns to the left. I watched the ball drop to the bottom
as we slowed down and then it snapped right over into a right spin. He never saw it coming and it was a great lesson...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ...
: One of the first things I do when talking flight safety to pilots is to tell
: them emphatically that they should NEVER start thinking about themselves as
: being "safe" pilots. This can lead to a complacency that can become a vary
: dangerous habit pattern for a pilot. Its far too easy for a pilot who thinks
: of himself/herself as "safe" to relax and lose that keen desire for the
: constant improvement demanded by flight operations.
: This basic psychology is recognized both in the airline and military flight
: safety communities.
: The key to flight safety demands that a pilot develop a mental outlook about
: the flight environment that requires a constant monitoring of performance.
: This monitoring should be ingrained toward improvement rather than
: maintaining the status quo. In other words, a pilot who thinks of
: himself/herself as being "safe", is generally more susceptible to accepting
: their level of performance rather than actively seeking to improve it.
: These are subtle factors indeed, as they relate to the flight safety
: picture, and basically amount to a proper attitude toward self evaluation,
: but absolutely necessary in the development of a sound flight safety
: environment for a pilot.
: You can sum all this up simply by saying that a really safe pilot never
: thinks of himself/herself as being safe, but rather constantly thinking in
: the context of how to become "safer".
: Dudley Henriques
:


Great post Dudley. It is kind of like always trying to expect the unexpected, evaluating each approach and landing and
trying to see where you made mistakes and why, listening to the beat of the engines and the hum of the airstream. To me,
that awareness is what flying is really all about, definitely being in the 'zone' so to speak...

".Blueskies." wrote in message
. ..

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
: One of the first things I do when talking flight safety to pilots is to
tell
: them emphatically that they should NEVER start thinking about themselves
as
: being "safe" pilots. This can lead to a complacency that can become a
vary
: dangerous habit pattern for a pilot. Its far too easy for a pilot who
thinks
: of himself/herself as "safe" to relax and lose that keen desire for the
: constant improvement demanded by flight operations.
: This basic psychology is recognized both in the airline and military
flight
: safety communities.
: The key to flight safety demands that a pilot develop a mental outlook
about
: the flight environment that requires a constant monitoring of
performance.
: This monitoring should be ingrained toward improvement rather than
: maintaining the status quo. In other words, a pilot who thinks of
: himself/herself as being "safe", is generally more susceptible to
accepting
: their level of performance rather than actively seeking to improve it.
: These are subtle factors indeed, as they relate to the flight safety
: picture, and basically amount to a proper attitude toward self
evaluation,
: but absolutely necessary in the development of a sound flight safety
: environment for a pilot.
: You can sum all this up simply by saying that a really safe pilot never
: thinks of himself/herself as being safe, but rather constantly thinking
in
: the context of how to become "safer".
: Dudley Henriques
:


Great post Dudley. It is kind of like always trying to expect the
unexpected, evaluating each approach and landing and
trying to see where you made mistakes and why, listening to the beat of
the engines and the hum of the airstream. To me,
that awareness is what flying is really all about, definitely being in the
'zone' so to speak...

That's it exactly. The perfect mental attitude for a pilot as that relates
to flight safety is one that accepts no standard as being sufficient to
define being "safe" and all standards as simply a standard to be made
better.
Dudley Henriques

"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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:38:19 -0600, "Frank....H" wrote in
:

Or the traffic pattern definition does not allow for wind direction. Even
a
high time pilot would be prone to "fly the pattern" rather than deviate
from a published route.

Being based on the west coast, I'm not familiar with the published
procedure to which you refer. I searched the AOPA web site, and did a
Google search, but was unable to locate it. Are you able to provide a
URL to the graphic depiction or written description of the route?

There are published helicopter routes, but nothing for fixed-wing aircraft.
The helicopter routes do have traffic keeping to the right on both the
Hudson River and East River, and it is conventional for all aircraft to keep
to the right on the Hudson (I don't know for sure about the East River).

--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