Winds A Factor In Lidle Crash

"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

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 he
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD...rn_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.

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

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 he
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD...rn_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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
From the radar track available he
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD...rn_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

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.

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

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
From the radar track available he
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD...rn_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...

From the radar track available he
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/N929CD...rn_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