Winds A Factor In Lidle Crash

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

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

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

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

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

Gary Drescher wrote:

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

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


--
Peter

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

Gary Drescher wrote:

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

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

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