Winds A Factor In Lidle Crash

[Larry Dighera]

http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/061103.htm
UPDATE ON CIRRUS PLANE CRASH IN MANHATTAN, NEW YORK


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Transportation Safety Board today released the following
update on its investigation into the accident involving a Cirrus
Design SR-20 N929CD that crashed into an apartment building while
maneuvering above Manhattan, New York on October 11, 2006.
The accident occurred about 2:42 pm eastern daylight time. The
airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire. The
certificated private pilot owner of the airplane, New York Yankees
pitcher Cory Lidle, and a certified flight instructor were fatally
injured. Marginal Visual Flight rules conditions prevailed, and no
flight plan was filed for the flight that departed Teterboro Airport
(TEB), Teterboro, New Jersey. The personal sightseeing flight was
conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part
91. There were 1 severe and 2 minor injuries on the ground.

The Safety Board go-team was composed of four teams: Airworthiness,
Powerplants, Operations, and Witnesses. The Weather, Air Traffic
Control and Aircraft Performance group chairmen gathered data from
NTSB headquarters. Parties to the investigation are Cirrus Design,
Federal Aviation Administration, Teledyne Continental Motors, and
Ballistic Recovery System.

The on-scene examination of the wreckage has shown that there was no
sign of an in-flight fire or damage to the airplane. The airplane
impacted the 30th floor of the apartment building, bounced off, then
fell to the street below, where it came to rest inverted and was
engulfed in a severe post crash fire. The engine was ejected from the
airplane and entered the building through an apartment window on the
30th floor.

The New York Central Park Automated Observation System reported that
at the time of the accident, that the winds were from 060 degrees at 6
knots, visibility at 7 statute miles, ceiling overcast at 1800 feet
above ground level, the temperature was 17 degrees Celsius, the
dewpoint was 13 degrees Celsius and the altimeter was 29.90 inches of
Mercury (Hg). No visibility restrictions were reported at any of the
surrounding airport weather stations. An aircraft that was landing at
Newark Liberty International Airport (KEWR) at the time of the
accident was equipped with a weather reporting capability that
indicated that the winds at 700 feet altitude were from 095 degrees at
13 knots.

Over fifty witnesses to the accident were identified and many
interview summaries were obtained from the New York Police Department.
Eleven of those witnesses saw the airplane before it impacted the
building.

Radar data indicate that the airplane was flying over the east side of
Roosevelt Island prior to initiating a 180 degree turn. At this
location, there would have been a maximum of 2100 feet clearance from
buildings, if the full width of the river had been used. However, from
the airplane's mid-river position over Roosevelt Island, the available
turning width was only 1700 feet. The prevailing wind from the east
would have caused the airplane to drift 400 feet toward the building
during the turn, reducing the available turning width to about 1300
feet. At an airspeed of 97 knots, this turn would have required a
constant bank angle of 53 degrees and a loading of 1.7 Gs on the
airplane. If the initial portion of the turn was not this aggressive,
a sufficiently greater bank angle would have been needed as the turn
progressed, which would have placed the airplane dangerously close to
an aerodynamic stall.

Since the accident, The FAA issued a Notice to Airman prohibiting
fixed wing aircraft such as the accident flight from operating in the
East River Class B Exclusion area where the accident occurred unless
authorized and controlled by ATC. This will prevent pilots from
encountering a situation in which they must attempt a complete u turn
in order to avoid entry into controlled airspace.

Maintenance records for the accident airplane indicated that all
Airworthiness Directives and Service Bulletins had been complied with.
The propeller and engine have been examined by Safety Board
investigators at their respective manufacturers and they indicated
that they were operating normally.

Additional work continues in the investigation. Two damaged portable
GPS units were recovered from the wreckage and sent to the
manufacturer to try to recover additional data. The memory chip
associated with the airplane's Multifunctional Display was retrieved
and sent to NTSB headquarters to try to recover any stored data. A
damaged laptop computer that was found in the wreckage and may contain
flight log information, is being examined at NTSB headquarters.
Several cockpit instruments are being examined in the Safety Board
laboratories, and work is underway to enhance a video obtained from
the Coast Guard that shows the airplane's impact with the building.

A graphic depicting radar tracks from several local radar facilities
may be found at the following link on the Board's website:
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf




Media Contact: Keith Holloway, 202-314-6100

[Doug[_1_]]

I think there is a lesson here for all of us pilots. When in close
quarters, consider the wind. Even better allow DOUBLE (or some other
amount you are comfortable with) the turning room for a 180 degree turn
around. Also, go out and practice a "minimum radius turnaround" (hint,
generally the slower you go the smaller the radius, the steeper you go
the smaller the radius etc). We learn a chandelle in commercial
manuevers, which is not really a minimum radius turnaround. I wonder if
the FAA would consider modifying the chandelle to BECOME a minimum
radius turnaround manuever? At any rate, try and learn from these
pilots mistakes. I know I have been in some tight mountain canyons and
not really considered the effects of the wind as I probably should
have. I just looked and there was room so I executed the turn. So far I
have been served well by my eyes and distant estimates, but perhaps I
should allow a little more room for error if there is any signifigant
tailwind during the turn.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/061103.htm
> UPDATE ON CIRRUS PLANE CRASH IN MANHATTAN, NEW YORK
>

Has there been an update on the Comair crash that I missed? Anyone heard
the status of the copilot?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/061103.htm
>> UPDATE ON CIRRUS PLANE CRASH IN MANHATTAN, NEW YORK
>>
>
> Has there been an update on the Comair crash that I missed? Anyone heard
> the status of the copilot?
>

Nothing other than he is being sued.

COMAIR FIRST OFFICER NAMED IN CRASH SUIT
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/735-full.html#193638)
First Officer James Polehinke, the lone survivor of the Comair Flight
5191 crash, is among those named in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the
family of a Florida man who died in the crash. In a news release,
lawyer Stephen Marks, who has won a number of multimillion-dollar
settlements in airplane crash suits, said he tried to keep Polehinke
out of the case directly but he was unable to come to terms with his
insurance company. The suit also names Comair, and Marks says it's
clear that the pilot and airline are to blame. "Comair has
acknowledged publicly that its pilots were using an outdated airport
map in an attempt to make excuses for departing from the wrong
runway," he said. "Therefore, both the airline and its pilots are
clearly responsible for this tragedy despite what we are sure will be
efforts by their insurer and lawyers to blame others."

[Ron Lee]

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

Ron Lee

[John Theune]

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.
>
> Ron Lee
Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

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.



Jesus Christ! There but for the grace of God go many of us. You were never a
newby?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[mike regish]

See:
http://www.unionlabel.org/docs/S-O_06-LabelLetter.pdf

mike

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> The real cause was he was an idiotic and inept pilot that day who
> left his wife without a husband and kids fatherless.
>
> Ron Lee

[Matt Whiting]

Doug wrote:

> I think there is a lesson here for all of us pilots. When in close
> quarters, consider the wind. Even better allow DOUBLE (or some other
> amount you are comfortable with) the turning room for a 180 degree turn
> around. Also, go out and practice a "minimum radius turnaround" (hint,
> generally the slower you go the smaller the radius, the steeper you go
> the smaller the radius etc). We learn a chandelle in commercial
> manuevers, which is not really a minimum radius turnaround. I wonder if
> the FAA would consider modifying the chandelle to BECOME a minimum
> radius turnaround manuever? At any rate, try and learn from these
> pilots mistakes. I know I have been in some tight mountain canyons and
> not really considered the effects of the wind as I probably should
> have. I just looked and there was room so I executed the turn. So far I
> have been served well by my eyes and distant estimates, but perhaps I
> should allow a little more room for error if there is any signifigant
> tailwind during the turn.
>

The nice thing about a chandelle in this circumstance is the altitude
that it would have gained them.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

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

[.Blueskies.]

Why?

"mike regish" > wrote in message ...
: See:
: http://www.unionlabel.org/docs/S-O_06-LabelLetter.pdf
:
: mike
:
: "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
: ...
: > The real cause was he was an idiotic and inept pilot that day who
: > left his wife without a husband and kids fatherless.
: >
: > Ron Lee
:

[Ron Lee]

John Theune > 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.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

I did

[Ron Lee]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> 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.
>
>
>
>Jesus Christ! There but for the grace of God go many of us. You were never a
>newby?
>
>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

And to top it off there was an "instructor" on board. I was a newbie
and am in certain situations but don't expect me to ever crash into a
building. I stand by my comment. He was an idiot.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

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

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Lee wrote:

> 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?

No, but how do you know this before the accident happens?


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

Again, what indication was there before the crash? And, yes, I probably
would fly with them. I've made my share of mistakes in nearly 30 years
of flying. The difference between them and me is that mine haven't yet
resulted in an accident.


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

There are idiots who are pilots and pilots who make dumb mistakes. The
two aren't the same. Personally, based on your comments, I'd fly with
any of the four pilots you have referenced above before I would fly with
you.

Matt

[Jay Beckman]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>Jesus Christ! There but for the grace of God go many of us. You were
>>never a
>>newby?
>>
>>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
>
> And to top it off there was an "instructor" on board. I was a newbie
> and am in certain situations but don't expect me to ever crash into a
> building. I stand by my comment. He was an idiot.
>
> Ron Lee

There was an instructor aboard who was from California...not NY.

This accident is just like all the others...there is a chain of events
which, if you break one of the links, probably does not happen.

Cory Lidle ****ed up and he paid for it. I agree with Mort, there but for
the grace of God...

I'm glad you're perfect Ron...I hope it pays off for you in the long run.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> This accident is just like all the others...there is a chain of events
> which, if you break one of the links, probably does not happen.
>
> Cory Lidle ****ed up and he paid for it. I agree with Mort, there but for
> the grace of God...
>
> I'm glad you're perfect Ron...I hope it pays off for you in the long run.



My bet is that Ron isn't perfect. One of these days as he ****s up in a major
way he'll realize it. Me, I **** up all the time but at least I have enough
insight to know it. It also tends to make me more forgiving of other's
mistakes.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jose[_1_]]

> (hint, generally the slower you
> go the smaller the radius, the steeper you go
> the smaller the radius etc).

.... and the slower =and= steeper you go, the more the risk of a stall/spin.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dudley Henriques]

"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

[mike regish]

Reference to the Comair crash. I might have responded to the wrong post.

mike

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. ..
> Why?
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
> : See:
> : http://www.unionlabel.org/docs/S-O_06-LabelLetter.pdf
> :
> : mike
> :
> : "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : > The real cause was he was an idiotic and inept pilot that day who
> : > left his wife without a husband and kids fatherless.
> : >
> : > Ron Lee
> :
>
>

[Ron Lee]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>Jay Beckman wrote:
>> This accident is just like all the others...there is a chain of events
>> which, if you break one of the links, probably does not happen.
>>
>> Cory Lidle ****ed up and he paid for it. I agree with Mort, there but for
>> the grace of God...
>>
>> I'm glad you're perfect Ron...I hope it pays off for you in the long run.
>

>My bet is that Ron isn't perfect. One of these days as he ****s up in a major
>way he'll realize it. Me, I **** up all the time but at least I have enough
>insight to know it. It also tends to make me more forgiving of other's
>mistakes.

Don't have to be perfect. Just avoid the Darwinistic, idiotic thing
like Lidle did. For those who use "But for the grace of God" gambit,
I have no desire to fly with you.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:37:01 -0500, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote in
>:

>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.

From the radar track available here:
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf it would
seem that flying up the corridor when there's a cross wind isn't very
smart. When they entered the corridor, the die was cast baring
climbing above the roof tops, entering Bravo airspace, or executing a
chandelle type course reversal (or ditching).

A prudent pilot who mentally flew the route on the ground before
departing would stand a good chance of discovering this gotcha, and
planned one of the three actions mentioned above, or at least
calculated the turning radius of his aircraft beforehand.

Planning is the key.

Is there any evidence so far indicating they got a weather briefing
immediately before departure, and that the cross wind had been
observed and reported?

Disclaimer: Because of the limited amount of factual information
available at this time, and my complete lack of familiarity with the
location, my comments are primarily speculative as they relate to this
specific mishap.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> >Jay Beckman wrote:
> >> This accident is just like all the others...there is a chain of events
> >> which, if you break one of the links, probably does not happen.
> >>
> >> Cory Lidle ****ed up and he paid for it. I agree with Mort, there but
for
> >> the grace of God...
> >>
> >> I'm glad you're perfect Ron...I hope it pays off for you in the long
run.
> >
>
> >My bet is that Ron isn't perfect. One of these days as he ****s up in a
major
> >way he'll realize it. Me, I **** up all the time but at least I have
enough
> >insight to know it. It also tends to make me more forgiving of other's
> >mistakes.
>
> Don't have to be perfect. Just avoid the Darwinistic, idiotic thing
> like Lidle did. For those who use "But for the grace of God" gambit,
> I have no desire to fly with you.
>
> Ron Lee

Nor I with you.

I've made more than a few stupid mistakes, including some in airplanes, and
I try very hard to recognize them and to learn from them. I've also watched
a very experienced pilot demonstrate close patterns on a windy day and not
allow for the amount of crosswind--and nothing bad happened only because the
airport was a rather large open area. And perhaps the effect of wind on a
180 degree turn deserves a little more coverage in groud school. But, IMHO,
there is a great deal of truth in "But for the grace of God ..."

Peter

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm pretty much in the dark on it as I haven't researched it at all. I did
see the track though. It looks like they shallowed the turn for some reason
then tightened it up again. Its puzzling at best???
Dudley Henriques

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:37:01 -0500, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>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.
>
> From the radar track available here:
> http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf it would
> seem that flying up the corridor when there's a cross wind isn't very
> smart. When they entered the corridor, the die was cast baring
> climbing above the roof tops, entering Bravo airspace, or executing a
> chandelle type course reversal (or ditching).
>
> A prudent pilot who mentally flew the route on the ground before
> departing would stand a good chance of discovering this gotcha, and
> planned one of the three actions mentioned above, or at least
> calculated the turning radius of his aircraft beforehand.
>
> Planning is the key.
>
> Is there any evidence so far indicating they got a weather briefing
> immediately before departure, and that the cross wind had been
> observed and reported?
>
> Disclaimer: Because of the limited amount of factual information
> available at this time, and my complete lack of familiarity with the
> location, my comments are primarily speculative as they relate to this
> specific mishap.

[Alan Gerber]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> From the radar track available here:
> http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf it would
> seem that flying up the corridor when there's a cross wind isn't very
> smart. When they entered the corridor, the die was cast baring
> climbing above the roof tops, entering Bravo airspace, or executing a
> chandelle type course reversal (or ditching).

I'd love to see radar tracks for other aircraft, either from that day or
days with similar weather. It would be illuminating.

> Planning is the key.

Agreed. While I was in training, I flew the Hudson River Corridor with my
CFI. When we reached the Statue of Liberty, we got clearance to enter the
class B airspace and overfly EWR. I remember thinking that when I did it
on my own, I'd better have a REALLY good plan for how I was going to
handle it if Newark Tower declined the clearance.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:13:26 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote in
>:

>But, IMHO, there is a great deal of truth in "But for the grace of God ..."

While we are all occasionally victims of lapses in memory and
judgment, and subject to the vagaries of circumstances beyond our
control or best estimation, somehow the fatalistic tone of the phrase
"There but for the grace of God go I" seems capable of leading to
apathy toward flight preparation.

Because each of us is God-like to a greater or lesser extent, we are
capable of bestowing considerable grace upon ourselves through
thorough flight planning.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
> Don't have to be perfect. Just avoid the Darwinistic, idiotic thing
> like Lidle did. For those who use "But for the grace of God" gambit,
> I have no desire to fly with you.



Not a problem. You're the last I'd invite to fly with me.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> While we are all occasionally victims of lapses in memory and
> judgment, and subject to the vagaries of circumstances beyond our
> control or best estimation, somehow the fatalistic tone of the phrase
> "There but for the grace of God go I" seems capable of leading to
> apathy toward flight preparation.


Not at all. I mention it in the same vein as when a high schooler hits a tree
after drinking on a Friday night. When I was in high school, I drank quite a
bit on the weekends myself. Never hit a tree but I don't feel morally or
otherwise superior to the poor slobs who did. "There but for the grace of
God... "

I'm not a newby pilot anymore as I've been flying off and on now for 30 years.
But I made several boneheaded mistakes along the way which didn't bite me but
did others. "There but for the grace of God.... "

I recognize that we all make mistakes, some minor and some serious. And for
some people, the same thing we get away with may kill them. "There but for the
grace of God...".

I'm just glad it wasn't me. Or anybody I know.

And frankly, those who refuse to recognize their own weaknesses go through life
with their head buried in their ass. (Ron Lee, this means you.)




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> From the radar track available here:
> http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf it would
> seem that flying up the corridor when there's a cross wind isn't very
> smart. When they entered the corridor, the die was cast baring
> climbing above the roof tops, entering Bravo airspace, or executing a
> chandelle type course reversal (or ditching).

Did they ever mention what was the height of the building that they "became
one with"? Was it possible to overfly the building without busting the
Class-B? Turn off the Mode-C, go a bit above the Class-B, drop back down
and turn back on the Mode-C... At the very worst, bust the Class-B for a
second, drop back down, and hope no one notices... Even if they do, they
have to get your tail number... Take the "scenic route" home, stopping at
various airports along the way to confuse any tracking that they might do of
your aircraft... No matter what you do, it's got to be better than turning
your new fiberglass aircraft into a pile of shards...

[Peter Dohm]

> > From the radar track available here:
> > http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf it would
> > seem that flying up the corridor when there's a cross wind isn't very
> > smart. When they entered the corridor, the die was cast baring
> > climbing above the roof tops, entering Bravo airspace, or executing a
> > chandelle type course reversal (or ditching).
>
> Did they ever mention what was the height of the building that they
"became
> one with"? Was it possible to overfly the building without busting the
> Class-B? Turn off the Mode-C, go a bit above the Class-B, drop back down
> and turn back on the Mode-C... At the very worst, bust the Class-B for a
> second, drop back down, and hope no one notices... Even if they do, they
> have to get your tail number... Take the "scenic route" home, stopping at
> various airports along the way to confuse any tracking that they might do
of
> your aircraft... No matter what you do, it's got to be better than turning
> your new fiberglass aircraft into a pile of shards...
>
>
I am not familiar with the area, but took a look at an online version of the
New York Terminal Area Chart. My best guess is that the Condominium
building is within the Class B surface area, and therefore they must have
busted the airspace a few seconds before they hit it.

In addition, I believe that this is exactly the sort of problem that the
NASA form was designed to solve. IIRC the idea was that a pilot could pop
up, 'fess up, and provide observations and resulting statistical data in
exchange for immunity--provided that it did not appear to become habitual.
The outcome in this case has deprived all of us of the pilots' observations

Peter

[Ron Lee]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>And frankly, those who refuse to recognize their own weaknesses go through life
>with their head buried in their ass. (Ron Lee, this means you.)

>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Smooth move Mortimer. You can't deny that Lidle made a grossly stupid
move that any competent pilot could have avoided. What he did was
like me hitting Pikes Peak. So you just resort to name calling.

I probably fly more than most of the people here do (non-paid flying)
yet I don't kill myself or others because I am a safe pilot.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"Grumman-581" > wrote:

>Did they ever mention what was the height of the building that they "became
>one with"? Was it possible to overfly the building without busting the
>Class-B? Turn off the Mode-C, go a bit above the Class-B, drop back down
>and turn back on the Mode-C... At the very worst, bust the Class-B for a
>second, drop back down, and hope no one notices... Even if they do, they
>have to get your tail number... Take the "scenic route" home, stopping at
>various airports along the way to confuse any tracking that they might do of
>your aircraft... No matter what you do, it's got to be better than turning
>your new fiberglass aircraft into a pile of shards...

Exactly. Busting Class B (not in the path of jets) is far better than
what they did. Better yet get a clearance to enter Class B. So IMO
that was not just a minor error than anyone here would have done (But
for the grace rationale), it was gross stupidity that left two
"pilots" dead.

Ron Lee

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 19:37:01 -0500, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>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.
>
> From the radar track available here:
> http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD_final_turn_3radars.pdf it would
> seem that flying up the corridor when there's a cross wind isn't very
> smart. When they entered the corridor, the die was cast baring
> climbing above the roof tops, entering Bravo airspace, or executing a
> chandelle type course reversal (or ditching).
>
> A prudent pilot who mentally flew the route on the ground before
> departing would stand a good chance of discovering this gotcha, and
> planned one of the three actions mentioned above, or at least
> calculated the turning radius of his aircraft beforehand.
>
> Planning is the key.
>
> Is there any evidence so far indicating they got a weather briefing
> immediately before departure, and that the cross wind had been
> observed and reported?
>
> Disclaimer: Because of the limited amount of factual information
> available at this time, and my complete lack of familiarity with the
> location, my comments are primarily speculative as they relate to this
> specific mishap.


Was there anything, other than traffic, that would have barred Lidle from
moving to the left side of the corridor and making a right turn into the
wind?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Shallow turns
> encourage excess rudder and make it easy to get too slow.

Interesting. I'll keep that in mind upstairs.

> Moreover, have you ever actually tried to stall/spin
> when banked to greater than 45 degrees?

No, but I've made many such turns.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Was there anything, other than traffic, that would have barred Lidle from
> moving to the left side of the corridor and making a right turn into the
> wind?

Dunno, but if he wasn't thinking of wind (and 8 knots isn't much if
you're not in a narrow canyon) he may simply been keeping to the right,
like road traffic. I've done that turn before, racking a 150 over on
its wing, and thought nothing of it.

I do find it interesting how far off the three radars are. This raises
a question of how accurate they are considered to be as evidence in an
airspace bust. I do remember many years ago being accused of being a
mile off centerline when I was dead on on an approach in California.
The aircraft ahead was similarly accused - I assume their radar was out
of alignment.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Ron Lee wrote:
>> Smooth move Mortimer. You can't deny that Lidle made a grossly stupid
> move that any competent pilot could have avoided. What he did was
> like me hitting Pikes Peak. So you just resort to name calling.


No, I resorted to name calling because you did it first, and you picked a target
who couldn't answer. Nobody denies he made a mistake. It cost him a lot more
than yours did, so far. Didn't your mother teach you not to speak ill of the
dead?


> I probably fly more than most of the people here do (non-paid flying)
> yet I don't kill myself or others because I am a safe pilot.


No. You're an arrogant pilot. The two aren't the same thing. Luck will only
carry you so far.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Ron Lee]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

>> I probably fly more than most of the people here do (non-paid flying)
>> yet I don't kill myself or others because I am a safe pilot.
>

>No. You're an arrogant pilot. The two aren't the same thing. Luck will only
>carry you so far.

Here again you are wrong. I know I am safe and those who fly with me
will attest to that. You won't find me flying into a mountain canyon
hoping to do a fancy maneuver to escape impact...or flying to a Class
5 thunderstorm, or taking off with a load of ice on my wings.

Ron Lee

[Larry Dighera]

On 8 Nov 2006 09:18:02 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote in
>:

>They'd have been able to make the turn
>even more easily if they'd moved to the other side and
>turned into the wind.

Too true. Which leads to the conclusion that they weren't aware of
the crosswind component, hadn't been briefed on the wind, or ...

[gpsman]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:13:26 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >But, IMHO, there is a great deal of truth in "But for the grace of God ..."
>
> While we are all occasionally victims of lapses in memory and
> judgment, and subject to the vagaries of circumstances beyond our
> control or best estimation, somehow the fatalistic tone of the phrase
> "There but for the grace of God go I" seems capable of leading to
> apathy toward flight preparation.
>
> Because each of us is God-like to a greater or lesser extent, we are
> capable of bestowing considerable grace upon ourselves through
> thorough flight planning.

.... incorporating that aforementioned good judgment.

ISTM flying that route is not unlike choosing to fly up, more or less,
a slot canyon, at low altitude, without many reasonable answers to
"what if...?". http://i14.tinypic.com/43xzxb5.jpg

Maybe some training in flying canyons would be an appropiate
requirement for future pilots, or at least some reading of those
recommended procedures.

I think it may be overly generous to allow fixed-wing aircraft in that
corridor at all. The lack of "outs" would easily lead me to a "no-go"
decision under the best of other circumstances.

IMO, overconfidence bends the most airplanes, pilots and passengers.
-----

- gpsman

[Jose[_1_]]

> Which leads to the conclusion that they weren't aware of
> the crosswind component, hadn't been briefed on the wind, or ...

.... didn't think it was significant. That's an easy mistake especially
for a new pilot in a fast airplane to make.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On 8 Nov 2006 10:32:18 -0800, "gpsman" > wrote
in . com>:

>I think it may be overly generous to allow fixed-wing aircraft in that
>corridor at all. The lack of "outs" would easily lead me to a "no-go"
>decision under the best of other circumstances.

It's my understanding, that the ceiling is 2,000', so apparently there
are alternatives to flying it at 500'.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:33:05 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> Which leads to the conclusion that they weren't aware of
>> the crosswind component, hadn't been briefed on the wind, or ...
>
>... didn't think it was significant. That's an easy mistake especially
>for a new pilot in a fast airplane to make.
>
True. There are at least three possibilities.

[Bill Watson]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Dudley's right, and the way I look at it, there are two big
> components to the way a pilot has to make his decision about
> whether he is going to undertake the risk. The first is to
> realistically evaluate his own level of competence. The
> second is to evaluate the level of difficulty/risk inherent
> in the specific situation. It's how well the difference
> between those gets evaluated that makes a good pilot.
Or fear...
I used to live in the middle of that turn (Roosevelt Island) and at the
same time, gave my first VFR corridor ride to my Dad. I mean, if you
are going to give a ride to the person you want to impress most with
your relatively new flying skills, and you live in NYC, where else are
you going go?

So I planned and executed a successful tour in a rented 172. I flew
over the GW bridge, down the Hudson, past the WTC, made a 180 out over
the NY harbor and back out via the GW.

Now, why didn't I fly past my apartment on Roosevelt Island, make a 180
and do a tour of the upper eastside?

Because I was scared. Too scared to fly anything up the East River over
the Tram, over the Island and thru the 59th Street heliport traffic.
Just too scared of screwing up. Heck, the Hudson scared the stuff out
of me as it was. IOTW, I evaluated my level of compentence against the
difficulty/risk inherent in the situation and chickened out.

Good pilot? Safe pilot? Nahh, just alive by the grace of ...

....plus what Dudley said so well.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It's my understanding, that the ceiling is 2,000', so apparently there
> are alternatives to flying it at 500'.

It's very badly marked, but the limits of the Bravo are 70/11, so the
ceiling is 1100 feet. He was flying at 700 or so.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[.Blueskies.]

Just push some 'top rudder' to help hold the nose up while you are doing that steep turn. Report back your findings...

Oh, be sure you are at least 3,000 agl...



"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
: Jose > wrote:
:
: >have you ever actually tried to stall/spin
: >> when banked to greater than 45 degrees?
: >
: >No, but I've made many such turns.
:
: You really should try to see if you can stall at banks above
: 45 degrees. It's very enlightening. My conclusion is that
: the stall/spin resistance goes up as the bank increases for
: most aircraft I fly. A spin requires yaw relative to the
: aircraft's axis, and as you approach 90 degrees of bank in a
: turn, the yaw rate approaches zero.
:
: --
: Rule books are paper - they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
:
: - Ernest K. Gann, 'Fate is the Hunter.'

[.Blueskies.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...

: I'm just glad it wasn't me. Or anybody I know.
:
: And frankly, those who refuse to recognize their own weaknesses go through life
: with their head buried in their ass. (Ron Lee, this means you.)
:
:
:
:
: --
: Mortimer Schnerd, RN
: mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
:
:

Uh huh, I too have done stupid things, but I still call the Lexington KY and this Lidle crash good demonstrations of
stupid pilot tricks. Yes, learn, but don't let them off so easily. They are bonehead mistakes and everyone needs to
watch out for themselves to be sure they don't get in to that stupid state of mind....

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

..Blueskies. wrote:
> Uh huh, I too have done stupid things, but I still call the Lexington KY and
> this Lidle crash good demonstrations of stupid pilot tricks. Yes, learn, but
> don't let them off so easily. They are bonehead mistakes and everyone needs
> to watch out for themselves to be sure they don't get in to that stupid state
> of mind....


Let them off so easily? What would you have me do? Dig them up so we can all
slap the **** out of them? I think they've already paid as much as they had to
give.

Jeez... this is a tough crowd.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[K l e i n]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
> > I think there is a lesson here for all of us pilots. When in close
> > quarters, consider the wind. Even better allow DOUBLE (or some other
> > amount you are comfortable with) the turning room for a 180 degree turn
> > around. Also, go out and practice a "minimum radius turnaround" (hint,
> > generally the slower you go the smaller the radius, the steeper you go
> > the smaller the radius etc). We learn a chandelle in commercial
> > manuevers, which is not really a minimum radius turnaround. I wonder if
> > the FAA would consider modifying the chandelle to BECOME a minimum
> > radius turnaround manuever? At any rate, try and learn from these
> > pilots mistakes. I know I have been in some tight mountain canyons and
> > not really considered the effects of the wind as I probably should
> > have. I just looked and there was room so I executed the turn. So far I
> > have been served well by my eyes and distant estimates, but perhaps I
> > should allow a little more room for error if there is any signifigant
> > tailwind during the turn.
> >
>
> The nice thing about a chandelle in this circumstance is the altitude
> that it would have gained them.
>
> Matt

I think the appropriate maneuver for this situation from the Commercial
Pilot syllabus would be half of a lazy-8. This provides a minimum
lateral displacement 180 degree reversal but does require some vertical
space to execute, also a reasonable airspeed. Perhaps the safest
execution would be to first lower the nose to gain speed, then do the
half lazy-8 into the wind. Another way of describing this is that it
is a mild wingover with only a 60 degree bank instead of 90 degree in a
full wingover.

Klein

[Ron Lee]

Bill Watson > wrote:

>Now, why didn't I fly past my apartment on Roosevelt Island, make a 180
>and do a tour of the upper eastside?
>
>Because I was scared. Too scared to fly anything up the East River over
>the Tram, over the Island and thru the 59th Street heliport traffic.
>Just too scared of screwing up. Heck, the Hudson scared the stuff out
>of me as it was. IOTW, I evaluated my level of compentence against the
>difficulty/risk inherent in the situation and chickened out.
>
>Good pilot? Safe pilot? Nahh, just alive by the grace of ...

No, you used proper judgement consistent with your abilities.

Ron Lee

[Bill Watson]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> Well, I'd say you made good, safe decisions.
I try to make more of 'em now but can't say I was really doing that
then. Mortality just wasn't in the equation - but embarassment, fear,
and other emotionally driven factors were.
>
> Is there anyone here who thinks the Lidle aircraft might
> have inadvertently gone up the East River, thinking they
> were returning up the Hudson, then suddenly realized their
> error? I don't know enough about the facts to know if
> that's a possible scenario.
>
No, I really doubt it. You really have to misread the chart *and* he
had spent enough time in NYC to know what Manhatten island looks like.
I really doubt it.

[Bill Watson]

Ron Lee wrote:
>> Good pilot? Safe pilot? Nahh, just alive by the grace of ...
>
> No, you used proper judgement consistent with your abilities.
>
> Ron Lee
Thanks Ron.

Sounds like you've done enough flying over enough years to be a safe
pilot, and one I'd be pleased to fly with. However, given the level of
arrogance and cocksure'edness displayed in your comments here, I'm not
sure that I would be so pleased to fly with you when you were younger
and/or less experienced.

Living pilots can always point to their existence as evidence of their
superior skills and judgement. And worse, they can always point to
other pilots' demise as evidence of their lacking the same.

Fate is the Hunter, and there but for the grace of ...

Bill Watson - not believing in fate or god, yet humble in the face of
both nonetheless

[Dudley Henriques]

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


"Bill Watson" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Lee wrote:
>>> Good pilot? Safe pilot? Nahh, just alive by the grace of ...
>>
>> No, you used proper judgement consistent with your abilities.
>>
>> Ron Lee
> Thanks Ron.
>
> Sounds like you've done enough flying over enough years to be a safe
> pilot, and one I'd be pleased to fly with. However, given the level of
> arrogance and cocksure'edness displayed in your comments here, I'm not
> sure that I would be so pleased to fly with you when you were younger
> and/or less experienced.
>
> Living pilots can always point to their existence as evidence of their
> superior skills and judgement. And worse, they can always point to other
> pilots' demise as evidence of their lacking the same.
>
> Fate is the Hunter, and there but for the grace of ...
>
> Bill Watson - not believing in fate or god, yet humble in the face of both
> nonetheless

[Frank....H]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On 8 Nov 2006 09:18:02 -0600, T o d d P a t t i s t
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>They'd have been able to make the turn
>>even more easily if they'd moved to the other side and
>>turned into the wind.
>
> Too true. Which leads to the conclusion that they weren't aware of
> the crosswind component, hadn't been briefed on the wind, or ...

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.

It seems this route was known to be a bit of a "challenge". It's probably
too late, but in the future I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to allow the
direction of turns along the route to be based on wind direction.

--
Frank....H

[Ron Lee]

Bill Watson > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>>> Good pilot? Safe pilot? Nahh, just alive by the grace of ...
>>
>> No, you used proper judgement consistent with your abilities.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>Thanks Ron.
>
>Sounds like you've done enough flying over enough years to be a safe
>pilot, and one I'd be pleased to fly with. However, given the level of
>arrogance and cocksure'edness displayed in your comments here, I'm not
>sure that I would be so pleased to fly with you when you were younger
>and/or less experienced.
>
>Living pilots can always point to their existence as evidence of their
>superior skills and judgement. And worse, they can always point to
>other pilots' demise as evidence of their lacking the same.
>
>Fate is the Hunter, and there but for the grace of ...
>
>Bill Watson - not believing in fate or god, yet humble in the face of
>both nonetheless

Bill, you are using an incorrect meaning of "arrogant." Arrogant is
saying I am the best pilot around. I have never said that and
probably never will. But despite the other response what I lack in
experience/training I make up for in good judgement...hence I am safe.

BTW, for those of you who defend Lidle, his actions jeopardized people
in that building and on the ground.

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

Ron Lee

[Bill Watson]

Ron Lee wrote:
>> Pilots can always point to their existence as evidence of their
>> superior skills and judgement. And worse, they can always point to
>> other pilots' demise as evidence of their lacking the same.
>>
>> Fate is the Hunter, and there but for the grace of ...
>>
>> Bill Watson - not believing in fate or god, yet humble in the face of
>> both nonetheless
>
> Bill, you are using an incorrect meaning of "arrogant." Arrogant is
> saying I am the best pilot around. I have never said that and
> probably never will.
>
Ron, I don't know why you would choose to duke it out over word
definitions but here goes (my ***)

Arrogance (Ar"ro*gance) (#), n.
[F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.]
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing
manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of
rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or
importance of the person to an undue degree; **proud contempt of
others** lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.

> But despite the other response what I lack in
> experience/training I make up for in good judgement...hence I am safe.
You know, I'm just sparring with you here. Dudley is giving you the
real deal. Read with me what he is saying and learn.

> BTW, for those of you who defend Lidle, his actions jeopardized people
> in that building and on the ground.
No defense here. Just trying hold back on the proud contempt.

> My fate in is my hands, not "by the grace of..."
You need to get out more. Try reading "Fate is the Hunter" by Gann.
Hopefully you and I both will be lucky enough that our fate remains in
our skilled hands, at least until it doesn't anymore.

Mauledriver

[Ron Lee]

Bill Watson > wrote:

>Ron Lee wrote:
>>> Pilots can always point to their existence as evidence of their
>>> superior skills and judgement. And worse, they can always point to
>>> other pilots' demise as evidence of their lacking the same.
>>>
>>> Fate is the Hunter, and there but for the grace of ...
>>>
>>> Bill Watson - not believing in fate or god, yet humble in the face of
>>> both nonetheless
>>
>> Bill, you are using an incorrect meaning of "arrogant." Arrogant is
>> saying I am the best pilot around. I have never said that and
>> probably never will.
>>
>Ron, I don't know why you would choose to duke it out over word
>definitions but here goes (my ***)
>
>Arrogance (Ar"ro*gance) (#), n.
>[F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.]
>The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing
>manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of
>rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or
>importance of the person to an undue degree; **proud contempt of
>others** lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.
>
> > But despite the other response what I lack in
> > experience/training I make up for in good judgement...hence I am safe.
>You know, I'm just sparring with you here. Dudley is giving you the
>real deal. Read with me what he is saying and learn.

His stuff was just high on the fluff scale to digest. I am better
able to determine if I am safe or not than anyone on this forum.


>> BTW, for those of you who defend Lidle, his actions jeopardized people
>> in that building and on the ground.
>No defense here. Just trying hold back on the proud contempt.

Just plain contempt. You assume the "proud" part. I would better
call it "disgust."

>> My fate in is my hands, not "by the grace of..."
>You need to get out more. Try reading "Fate is the Hunter" by Gann.
>Hopefully you and I both will be lucky enough that our fate remains in
>our skilled hands, at least until it doesn't anymore.

I prefer Calvin & Hobbes.

Ron Lee

>Mauledriver

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...


> His stuff was just high on the fluff scale to digest. I am better
> able to determine if I am safe or not than anyone on this forum.

Actually, (pardon my high side fluff here :-) its virtually impossible for
any pilot to be the definitive judge on how "safe" they are, as this
requires not only a highly specific, but a highly objective observation that
requires an extremely professional approach to the subject.
This is why doctors go to other doctors for treatment and why a good lawyer
will NEVER defend himself in court. The element of objectivity MUST be
present in any accurate analysis.
And as I have said, considering yourself as being the best judge of your own
competence is the first thing any good professional dealing directly with
flight safety and the individual pilot will eliminate from the equation.
Please know that I intend no putdown here of your abilities as a pilot. If
its any consulation, I will tell you up front that I'm a fairly good stick
myself (or used to be anyway :-) and all through my career as a professional
pilot, when I wasn't busy helping to evaluate other pilots proficiency
level, I actively sought out competent help in determining my own
proficiency level at any given time.
Trust me. If you want the professional approach to this issue; this is the
way it is.
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

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?

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


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Lee wrote:

> His stuff was just high on the fluff scale to digest. I am better
> able to determine if I am safe or not than anyone on this forum.

You've got this arrogance thing down to a science.


> I prefer Calvin & Hobbes.

Now that is a surprise!


Matt

[Larry Dighera]

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?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

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

[Alan Gerber]

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

[Al G[_1_]]

"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

[.Blueskies.]

"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...

[.Blueskies.]

"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...

[Dudley Henriques]

".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

[Gary Drescher]

"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]

"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

[K l e i n]

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).

[Gary Drescher]

"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

[Bill Watson]

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?

[Peter R.]

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

[Larry Dighera]

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?