New York East river Crash update

[corjulo]

The Hard working boys over at the pilotcast.com put together a round table discussion on the Lidle crash with Hudson river flying expert Doug Stewart and Aviation writer Rinker Buck. Very lively discussion. Its show 47

www.pilotcast.com

 

[mikea]

Re: I need a clue

Will someone clue me in as to what to do once I am at the pilotcast site. Can I listen on dial up? Do I need a MP3 player? What is the story? Thanks. -- Mike

If you see that player on the left you can play the shows "live" using Flash.

You can download the show whole show. It's just an MP3 file. It'll take a while to download on dial-up but maybe let it work overnight. That one is 32MB in size.

The link that says "Play Podcast" and the .MP3 file link at the bottom link to the file. Highlight, right drag, save as... and ....wait until you have it. Then double click the file on your hard drive and it'll play through your sound application.

You could send feedback for help.

 

[infotango]

Listening to it right now.
Damn good program. I really need to listen to these more.

 

[Michael]

That one guy is just out for cirrus. he needs to get off it. That crash had nothing to do with cirrus. like the other guy said, it couldve happened in a cenna.

 

[NC Pilot]

it couldve happened in a cenna.

Or a Piper or Mooney, or a CESSNA.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That one guy is just out for cirrus. he needs to get off it. That crash had nothing to do with cirrus. like the other guy said, it couldve happened in a cenna.

Which guy? I think everyone did their share of both ripping Cirrus and stating that it wasn't all their fault and would've happened in another aircraft with the same pilot.

 

[bbchien]

The crash wouldn't have happened had there been an airman aboard. There was none. Just two pilots. Sigh.

 

[SCCutler]

I find myself wondering, though, how much time was spent looking at the airspace-defining lines on the Avidyne, instead of looking outside the windows at the environment, the terrain, where the fool thing was going.

 

[Capt Kirk]

I find myself wondering, though, how much time was spent looking at the airspace-defining lines...

...on a paper chart before they left the ground.

Len

 

[Henning]

I find myself wondering, though, how much time was spent looking at the airspace-defining lines on the Avidyne, instead of looking outside the windows at the environment, the terrain, where the fool thing was going.

I don't think it's been established it had glass. I believe a 2002 SR-20 would have been steam. Either way, they should have known the boundaries before they entered. Not too hard to miss, over water=OK, over land = BUST, into building = DEATH.

 

[Henning]

Which guy? I think everyone did their share of both ripping Cirrus and stating that it wasn't all their fault and would've happened in another aircraft with the same pilot.

It didn't have to happen in that airplane. I'm not getting why everyone likes to rip on Cirrus, they aren't bad planes. Granted they're marketing may be directed to an inexperienced audience, but then, so are Be-A-Pilot, I-Can-Fly, and Project Pilot. Fact is, Cirrus is doing what we have been bitching for someone to do for decades, update the technology and design of GA. Well, just like with any technology update, there's a learning curve, but the statistics are point out that the curve is leveling off. This whole rant that some people go on over the BRS chute is silly, it's not like it's automated to deploy and can screw you over. The problem I see is with airmen, not the aircraft. Not being certified for a spin is a non starter issue, there are lots of planes that aren't certified to spin. Fact is, it's difficult to get one to spin. The real issue with spins is most AIRMEN aren't qualified to spin, and that isn't limited to those who fly Cirrus aircraft. My only ***** with them is they haven't built a retract, and that you have no manual control of the prop.

I think the real issue why people are saying it's a horrid plane is because they can't afford one, but it's no less affordable than a ner G36 Bonanza, and everyone thinks it's a great plane, which it is. I suspect, in a decades time when you find more used Cirrus aircraft on the market at a more attractive price point, opinions about them will change.

People argueing that it wouldn't have happenned in a different airplane are just sticking their head in the sand over the real issue, we have a s**t system of training that for the most part has the blind leading the blind, and completely fails us in aeronautical decision making which is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of airmanship. It's all about making it easy so we get more people involved so things will get cheaper. It's always about cheaper and easier, never higher quality regardless the expense. This accident was the culmination of decades 'bottom line' thinking of GA. This attitude everyone complains about when the airlines have it, but GA fails to recognize it own complicity with the same attitude. I hear over and over "Look at the cost of...", well there you have it. Let's keep the cost of getting our ratings down. Lets lower the standards in a world that grows in complexity because the cost is getting too high, lets see where we get especially when we try to add more people to the ranks of GA to spread the burden further. "Sure you can be a pilot, it's easy, heck, I've only been doing this for 6 months, and I'm an instructor!"

 

[Michael]

Just read an article in AOPA SP, UofU is going glass with a new line of diamond aircraft.I believe flight safety in AZ uses cirrus as trainers as well. I hear alot of people saying low time student have no place in a complex aircraft. I dont buy that. with the right training, any pilot should be able to transition to any type of plane, (within reason) regardless of hours or experience. some of you will argue that todays CFIs cant train properly, and that is the only argument with substance with regards to this issue. how does a student know if his instructor is top notch? Just like the NY crash, the low time pilot took a CFI because he wasnt comfortable going at it alone for the first time. Very smart decision in my book, its what we are taught to do. How was he supossed to know the CFI wasnt going to help him learn anything, or get him killed.
So where do we go from here? More FAA regulations? I hear most of you saying CFIs should be trained more, however, everytime the FAA mandates anything new, most of you complain its not fair for GA, it will drive up the cost. etc.
[/rant off]

 

[SkyHog]

I disagree Henning, I personally think that instructors are doing a fine job, and that the additional learning that you are expecting should be on the pilot to learn.

I don't need a top notch CFI to teach me how to avoid airspace. I don't need a top notch CFI to teach me about VFR corridors. We do need to find a way to make GA cheaper and more accessable to the normal joe guy that would like to do it but can't afford it.

Without them, remember, we are all just rich pilots and the population will continue to try to restrict us.

But I agree about the Cirrus. The Cirrus bashing needs to stop, really. I have joked about it too, but truth be told, if I could afford one, it'd be on my list of possible planes just as much as any other newer plane. Without knowing the full facts of what happened in New York, I am not prepared to say that the pilot was not an airman, or that he was an idiot, because there are any number of possible ways this could have happened to a high time or low time pilot.

You high time guys (almost all of you lately) are really starting to harp on the "low time, know nothing" bashing, and its almost as bad as the Cirrus bashing. I realize that I (and others with fewer hours as well) do not have the same experiences as you guys do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are a danger or a threat. My CFIs had some weaknesses, and maybe weren't as good as your magic CFI that existed 50 years ago that made you fly 6 900nm cross country flights with nothing but a hunting compass and your wet thumb to judge wind direction, but they did the job they had to - trained me (and numerous other pilots) to be the pilot that the FAA wants.

Sorry to rant, but seriously, this has been a really big thing I'm seeing lately, remember, y'all were "young and dumb" too once, but you made it. Give us a chance to prove that we're not ALL idiots.

 

[NC Pilot]

From the Mountain Search Pilot Course Guide it is possible to make a 500 foot radius (1000 foot diameter) turn with a 45 degree bank and 70 to 80 knots airspeed. Chart 1-11 http://www.mountainflying.com/pdf%20files/CAP.pdf

On the PilotCast the expert stated that any speed greater than 70 knots and a 60 degree bank and he would have not made the 2100 foot diameter 180 degree turn.

Granted, the Mountain Course is using a 172, but the plane should not matter.

Is it just me, or is there a huge disconnect here?

 

[bbchien]

Sorry to rant, but seriously, this has been a really big thing I'm seeing lately, remember, y'all were "young and dumb" too once, but you made it. Give us a chance to prove that we're not ALL idiots.

It's not the Cirrus. It's the marketing to the newbie that is the inherent achilles heel for this aircraft.

Hey, let's move up to a minijet!

I was young and dumb, but like you, Nick, I had whatever that something is that allows judgement to develop. You need not be high time and need not have lotsa ratings. Some of the finest pilots have just PVT ASEL. There are some high time fools out there, too....just not many of them left.

 

[Frank Browne]

Interesting topic. There was a time in the not-to-distant past, when thousands upon thousands of 19-20 year olds were being trained to fly Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Marauders, Corsairs, Hellcats, etc. So what has changed? Are todays students that much different than students in the 1940's, or has the way students are being trained changed? I understand of course that pilots with poor judgement were weeded out rather efficiently then, but much of the weeding was done in the early stages of training.

 

[infotango]

From the Mountain Search Pilot Course Guide it is possible to make a 500 foot radius (1000 foot diameter) turn with a 45 degree bank and 70 to 80 knots airspeed. Chart 1-11 http://www.mountainflying.com/pdf%20files/CAP.pdf

On the PilotCast the expert stated that any speed greater than 70 knots and a 60 degree bank and he would have not made the 2100 foot diameter 180 degree turn.

Granted, the Mountain Course is using a 172, but the plane should not matter.

Is it just me, or is there a huge disconnect here?

I think that 45 degrees of bank and 70 knots of airspeed, would put a heavily loaded Cirrus dangerously close to the accelerated stall. Let's also not forget that the airplane was making a downwind turn, so their radius of turn would be substantially larger.
I've heard a rumor on the AOPA board, that the pilots had requested a flight through the Bravo from LGA, and been denied. I'm not sure if they were already over the east river at this point. So I'd guess that the turn was unplanned. Not a situation I'd want to be in.
Although hindsight is 20/20, it probably would have been a better idea for the pilots to have flown as close to the east side of the river as possible, and then executed a turn into the wind, towards the west. The shoreline on the west is pretty low, and you will only bust, Bravo if you overshoot rather than hit brick.
Again, hindsight is 20/20, and it's easy to say what you would have done from the comfort of your sofa. I think that many pilots get in a situation like this and become extreme optimists, they think: "I can get out of this safely, AND not bust any regs." It's pretty glib to say ex post facto "It's better to be alive and not flying for 90 days than dead," but it's also true.

 

[infotango]

It's not the Cirrus. It's the marketing to the newbie that is the inherent achilles heel for this aircraft.

Hey, let's move up to a minijet!

It's not that either, Bruce. Just about anybody who has been properly trained can properly fly almost anything. It may take some time, but I really believe that. The marketers could market Jets to new pilots, and still not hold responsibility. Even a new pilot, who only flies a jet on VFR days, in calm winds, to long wide runways, on the same exact flight (which he doesn't really need to take) often, is probably very unlikely to have a crash.
Unfortunately that's not the mission and attitude of the dangerous pilots. The danger is in the attitude of the pilots who buy these aircraft. It's the fact these pilots want to, and need to get places, and they want to do it in their shiny new airplane. They have no fear of the consequences, just like stupid teen drivers. And the risks of flying are insidious, with the exception of low level akro most things in flying don't feel risky, even though they may be very dangerous, until you crash.
Some pilots of these aircraft, feel that their single engine Cirrus is a replacement for the airlines, and while that may be true on some days, it isn't every day of the year, and it isn't on every single trip. They sit looking at their shiny white plane in the hangar, and say, "I bought you do make my life easier, and I'm going to fly you, damn what the crusty old instructor says."
So you have a combination of inability to properly judge the risks of the trip, combined with a need to have a rosy picture of the risks, because a lot depends on making the trip.

This is not to say that I don't think that judgement gets better with time. Bruce, has described flights I cannot imagine taking, and many with his family onboard, but he made the decision to take those flights with the benefit of his 10,000 hours in airplanes, and the full knowledge of the dangers posed by that weather, and with a known-ice twin.
The problem is that many of the pilots that crash their Cirrui have neither the experience nor the knowledge nor the equipment to safely navigate the weather they fly. And that could happen in any aircraft, from a 150 all the way to a 737.

 

[infotango]

Interesting topic. There was a time in the not-to-distant past, when thousands upon thousands of 19-20 year olds were being trained to fly Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Marauders, Corsairs, Hellcats, etc. So what has changed? Are todays students that much different than students in the 1940's, or has the way students are being trained changed? I understand of course that pilots with poor judgement were weeded out rather efficiently then, but much of the weeding was done in the early stages of training.

Thousands of these planes crashed as a result of bad piloting.

 

[Henning]

I disagree Henning, I personally think that instructors are doing a fine job, and that the additional learning that you are expecting should be on the pilot to learn.

I don't need a top notch CFI to teach me how to avoid airspace. I don't need a top notch CFI to teach me about VFR corridors.
Sorry to rant, but seriously, this has been a really big thing I'm seeing lately, remember, y'all were "young and dumb" too once, but you made it. Give us a chance to prove that we're not ALL idiots.

First off,I'd accept competent for instructors. The guy Lidle had with him shouldn't have let that accident happen, thats what he was being paid for, it's part of his job as a professional.

Secondly, when I was a "young and dumb" student pilot, I was flying around with an 86 year old guy who had flown in two wars and had multiple air services through his career. He wasn't even one of my official instructors, yet he taught me more about ADM than any of the young time building CFIs did and he, combinded with the instruction I received from my 20,000+hr II and my 40,000+ Ag instructor, that passed along experience and wisdom garnered by surviving as long as they did, that's what sticks with you through the years.
When you're all alone in that plane, and it's all going to hell and quick and you realize you're already 4 links into a chain of events, your instructors combined voices are the ones that are with you in your head. Do you want that voice to say "S**T I don't know" or do you want that voice to to say "You're alright, I've been here before, here's how we handle it..."

You are very correct, those of us posting here and now were all young and dumb and came through it. Perhaps I could come over and help you add a few states to your CONUS Challenge visiting the graves of my friends who were also young and dumb once. Sadly, they aren't able to post here tonight.

 

[Henning]

Interesting topic. There was a time in the not-to-distant past, when thousands upon thousands of 19-20 year olds were being trained to fly Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Marauders, Corsairs, Hellcats, etc. So what has changed? Are todays students that much different than students in the 1940's, or has the way students are being trained changed? I understand of course that pilots with poor judgement were weeded out rather efficiently then, but much of the weeding was done in the early stages of training.

The death toll of these guys crashing was very high as well, but yes, the primary difference was in the training, and still is. That's how the military gets away with it. Top level instruction, and if you can't hack it, you're gone.

 

[Areeda]

I don't think it's been established it had glass. I believe a 2002 SR-20 would have been steam. Either way, they should have known the boundaries before they entered.

For the record early SR20s still had GPS and MFD. Here's a panel shot of a 2003 which I believe would match the 2002.

Not too hard to miss, over water=OK, over land = BUST, into building = DEATH.

I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but the above facts seem hard to miss even on your first discovery flight. Plus with a CFI on board the bust belongs to him no matter who has the controls.

Joe

 

[TangoWhiskey]

The danger is in the attitude of the pilots who buy these aircraft. It's the fact these pilots want to, and need to get places, and they want to do it in their shiny new airplane. They have no fear of the consequences, just like stupid teen drivers.

I'm sure you're not saying this, but not everyone who "buys these aircraft" (implying Cirrus [Cirri?]) has a bad attitude.

In fact, Mr. Lidle planned to fly west WITH HIS INSTRUCTOR ON BOARD, and flew his wife and his instructor's wife commercially (scheduled airline service) ahead of them. His instructor was based out of California, so one can presume that he flew his instructor out to NY, too.

This is not a pilot who has a bad, dangerous attitude. It's a pilot who is taking every learning opportunity available to him.

 

[Henning]

I'm sure you're not saying this, but not everyone who "buys these aircraft" (implying Cirrus [Cirri?]) has a bad attitude.

In fact, Mr. Lidle planned to fly west WITH HIS INSTRUCTOR ON BOARD, and flew his wife and his instructor's wife commercially (scheduled airline service) ahead of them. His instructor was based out of California, so one can presume that he flew his instructor out to NY, too.

This is not a pilot who has a bad, dangerous attitude. It's a pilot who is taking every learning opportunity available to him.

You bet, and the instructor failed to monitor and teach for whatever reason.

 

[Skip Miller]

I've heard a rumor on the AOPA board, that the pilots had requested a flight through the Bravo from LGA, and been denied. I'm not sure if they were already over the east river at this point. So I'd guess that the turn was unplanned.

I think that rumor is not substantiatable. Being here in NYC, I have heard many times that the plane was not in contact with ATC and I have never heard that they did contact ATC. I am absolutely sure that the press would have been all over this issue - why did ATC effectively kill these people by denying them clearance (to further the sensationalism on this case) - if it were true.

There are ATC tapes. We would have heard of the contact from lots of media sources if this were true. The bottom line - these guys just blew it.

-Skip

 

[infotango]

I'm sure you're not saying this, but not everyone who "buys these aircraft" (implying Cirrus [Cirri?]) has a bad attitude.

In fact, Mr. Lidle planned to fly west WITH HIS INSTRUCTOR ON BOARD, and flew his wife and his instructor's wife commercially (scheduled airline service) ahead of them. His instructor was based out of California, so one can presume that he flew his instructor out to NY, too.

This is not a pilot who has a bad, dangerous attitude. It's a pilot who is taking every learning opportunity available to him.

Nope, and besides the comment on optimism, I was attempting to avoid speculating about the attitude of either of the pilots in this accident.
I also hope it didn't sound like I was implying that all cirri drivers are dangerous.

 

[Anthony]

I also hope it didn't sound like I was implying that all cirri drivers are dangerous.

I agree that all Cirri pilots are not dangerous. But the statisitcs may be indicating that some Cirri pilots have more money than flying experience and/or judgement to allow them to safely fly a high performance airplane like the Cirrus.

 

[SCCutler]

It is all, as always, about attitude.

I have a good friend who is a Cirrus pilot, and he is a very conscientious pilot. He also told me that the Cirrus factory training emphasizes not fixating on the Avidyne to the exclusion of basic piloting.

 

[grattonja]

88 hours plus a 160 knot cruise speed is, plain and simple, an invitation to trouble. There is a reason that every form of training out there, including military training, starts slower and moves up to faster. The military obviously moves pilots up to faster very quickly, but those pilots are immersed in what they are doing, and they are doing nothing but training.

I continue to question Cirrus' marketing strategy, which encourages pilots with enough money to take primary training in these aircraft. I know for myself, and I have not personally known any pilots either, who were ready to jump from a 172 straight into a Cirrus, either an SR20 or an SR22. No doubt there are such pilots. But their inherent abilities are above the average. At 88 hours, I was just barely licensed and was working on improving my basic skills in a 172. H--l, I've got almost 400 hours now and an instrument rating, and fly a Saratoga, and no doubt would be behind an SR20.

Too much speed, too soon. In this case, it no doubt contributed to a situation that proved fatal. I doubt it was the primary cause. But, looking at it for a moment, could he have gotten a 172 turned around in the same space? Was that where his head was when he made that 180?

Jim G

 

[kthompson2k]

Being a middle aged low time pilot who does not yet pretend to know all the answers but has lots of questions, other than a strong wind pushing him into this building how could he or the instructor have been looking out the windows and still fly into the building?
I have read of a 180 degree turn but have not followed this line very far.
If you were told to do a 180 by a controller would you still not look left,right,out before beginning this turn? I can understand both pilot and instructor being in an airspace they were not familar with but typically when one flies into an unfamilar area that is when you are on your game the most.
We will probably never know the truth as far as exactly how this happened. I for one would like to know to keep us from making this mistake again.

KT

 

[mikea]

88 hours plus a 160 knot cruise speed is, plain and simple, an invitation to trouble. There is a reason that every form of training out there, including military training, starts slower and moves up to faster. The military obviously moves pilots up to faster very quickly, but those pilots are immersed in what they are doing, and they are doing nothing but training.

I continue to question Cirrus' marketing strategy, which encourages pilots with enough money to take primary training in these aircraft. I know for myself, and I have not personally known any pilots either, who were ready to jump from a 172 straight into a Cirrus, either an SR20 or an SR22. No doubt there are such pilots. But their inherent abilities are above the average. At 88 hours, I was just barely licensed and was working on improving my basic skills in a 172. H--l, I've got almost 400 hours now and an instrument rating, and fly a Saratoga, and no doubt would be behind an SR20.

Too much speed, too soon. In this case, it no doubt contributed to a situation that proved fatal. I doubt it was the primary cause. But, looking at it for a moment, could he have gotten a 172 turned around in the same space? Was that where his head was when he made that 180?

Jim G

I trained in a 133 knot cruise Cherokee 235. I bought it pre-solo. It was shock to the system of student used to flying a 160HP Warrior. The difference is I didn't finish until a year and half and a lot, - a lot - of hours later.

I don't know why you think you'd be behind an SR20- It was an SR-20, not an SR-22.

As far as judgement: What a prudent, inexperienced low time pilot would do if he was smart is stay close to his instructor. I still do that. I get dual every year.

Cory Lidle had his instructor on board. His big problem is he had an instructor with poor judgement who though a quick study of the charts would be all that he'd need to fly the East River. Wrong. The instructor who probably know more about flying there than any, Doug Stewart, said he would never have been there without a Class B clearance.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There was a time in the not-to-distant past, when thousands upon thousands of 19-20 year olds were being trained to fly Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings, Marauders, Corsairs, Hellcats, etc. So what has changed?

Two words: Ground School.

 

[cwyckham]

Being a middle aged low time pilot who does not yet pretend to know all the answers but has lots of questions, other than a strong wind pushing him into this building how could he or the instructor have been looking out the windows and still fly into the building?
I have read of a 180 degree turn but have not followed this line very far.
If you were told to do a 180 by a controller would you still not look left,right,out before beginning this turn? I can understand both pilot and instructor being in an airspace they were not familar with but typically when one flies into an unfamilar area that is when you are on your game the most.
We will probably never know the truth as far as exactly how this happened. I for one would like to know to keep us from making this mistake again.

KT

The "canyon turn" has killed quite a few pilots, many of them experienced. The problem is that it takes a certain radius to get turned around, but most people are used to flying at altitude where you never have to judge your turn radius. Once you get into a tight spot, you might think you have room, but when you're most of the way through the turn and realise you're not going to make it, there aren't many options.

This is made far worse if you have a crosswind. Experienced mountain pilots will always fly up the downwind side of a valley so that they will be turning into the wind if they have to turn around, decreasing the turn radius (they also may get some ridge lift while they're at it, which is nice).

So, the key learning is that it pays to practice before you get yourself into a tight spot so you can train your eye. Also, you need to understand the factors influencing turn radius. Unfortunately, you want minimum speed and maximum bank angle, which is a perfect recipe for an accelerated stall. There's a really good analysis of the factors here. The short story is, unless you're experienced with such manoeuvres, you're probably best dropping a notch of flap and turning at 45-60 degrees as slowly as you safely can (which will depend on the stall speed of your aircraft).

Chris

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I continue to question Cirrus' marketing strategy, which encourages pilots with enough money to take primary training in these aircraft.

It's kind of a no-win situation for Cirrus. If they don't expand the GA market by selling planes to non-pilots, they won't sell nearly as many planes. So, their strategy will give them a very profitable bad reputation. No easy way out of that for them.

Too much speed, too soon. In this case, it no doubt contributed to a situation that proved fatal.

Speed isn't the only variable. If the pilots are educated in how to handle speed (don't get near anything complicated... and/or THROTTLE BACK!) it would be OK.

I've only gotten seriously behind an airplane twice (luckily, both times with a CFI aboard).

The first time was my first IFR cross country and my first flight in a complex airplane (a bad combination). I was fine until Madison Approach handed me off to Chicago Center, who asked me which approach I wanted when I had no clue and didn't even have the ATIS for my destination yet. I was behind that plane all the way in.

The second time was also fairly early in my instrument training. I was flying the SDF 36 approach into Fond du Lac and forgot one tiny little detail (slowing to approach speed) which, combined with some crazy winds aloft, put me on the DME arc with 170 knot groundspeed. The needle for the FAC was almost centered by the time I tuned it!

Ironically, both of the above flights were into FLD. Hmmm.

Anyway, the point is... It's not just the airplane's speed that's important. It's the speed of the situation.

 

[bbchien]

This is not a pilot who has a bad, dangerous attitude. It's a pilot who is taking every learning opportunity available to him.

This was a useless instructor.

Two words: Ground School.

A few more words: competitive pilot selection.

And if you can't hack it you're gone

Exactly. Except we let Darwin do it, taking the innocent along.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The "canyon turn" has killed quite a few pilots, many of them experienced. The problem is that it takes a certain radius to get turned around, but most people are used to flying at altitude where you never have to judge your turn radius. Once you get into a tight spot, you might think you have room, but when you're most of the way through the turn and realise you're not going to make it, there aren't many options.

This is made far worse if you have a crosswind. Experienced mountain pilots will always fly up the downwind side of a valley so that they will be turning into the wind if they have to turn around, decreasing the turn radius (they also may get some ridge lift while they're at it, which is nice).

So, the key learning is that it pays to practice before you get yourself into a tight spot so you can train your eye. Also, you need to understand the factors influencing turn radius. Unfortunately, you want minimum speed and maximum bank angle, which is a perfect recipe for an accelerated stall. There's a really good analysis of the factors here. The short story is, unless you're experienced with such manoeuvres, you're probably best dropping a notch of flap and turning at 45-60 degrees as slowly as you safely can (which will depend on the stall speed of your aircraft).

Chris

The benefits of a pilot's ability to turn an aircraft around (180 degrees) and the benefits of throttling back to reduce speeds (as Kent emphasized in his post) ...who'dathunkit?

When I see calculations for flying turns discussed in the thousands of feet radii, they always bring to mind my first instructor demonstrating a 180 degree canyon turn from cruise -the whole thing done in a short time, including the slowdown and measured in tens of feet radius.

Then I did some. So simple. Then other CFIs demoed them to me too in subsiquent training, like in high performance/complex aircraft at just over 100 hours total time. Later on I gladly demoed them to PAX and for my own practice. Then I taught them to my flight students from the early hours of their flight training, and also sadly, saw more than a few "experienced" pilots with considerable hours and yes, even working CFIs that had NEVER done them or even anything approaching that type of simple, safe, short radius turn.

 

[Henning]

Exactly. Except we let Darwin do it, taking the innocent along.

Eh... worlds pretty overpopulated anyway, and I'm not aware of many "innocents" over the age of 5. Nah, what we need to do is change the cultural perception towards death, evolution and the population of the planet, awarding "Martyrdom" for people who risk die in stupid ways.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

His big problem is he had an instructor with poor judgement who thought a quick study of the charts would be all that he'd need to fly the East River.[/I] Wrong.

This is total supposition, and what makes people who knew the instructor upset. Were you there? Did you see the preparations they made? How could you possibly know what the instructor "thought"?

Yes, it could have been lack of planning or poor judgement. But for all we know, there were two very careful and experienced pilots on board who carefully planned the flight and experienced a mechanical issue, jammed control or some other item that left both of them in a damn shame of a pickle -- a pickle any of us could have been in too. I hope, if something ever happens to me, that you all give me that benefit of the doubt.

 

[mikea]

This is total supposition, and what makes people who knew the instructor upset. Were you there? Did you see the preparations they made? How could you possibly know what the instructor "thought"?

Yes, it could have been lack of planning or poor judgement. But for all we know, there were two very careful and experienced pilots on board who carefully planned the flight and experienced a mechanical issue, jammed control or some other item that left both of them in a damn shame of a pickle -- a pickle any of us could have been in too. I hope, if something ever happens to me, that you all give me that benefit of the doubt.

It wasn't a control problem. A powered parachute couldn't have made that turn at 120 knots.

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Min_Radius.html

 

[tom.]

There are some high time fools out there, too....just not many of them left.

Yes there are. They like to barrel into the pattern with the radio turned down because they can. They taxi fast, take off in front of me when I'm on short final like they're God Almighty, and thunder into the FBO and blather when a student flies the pattern a little wide. They armchair quarterback after watching a constant diet of CNN and Fox and blame everyone else even though most of the aviation accidents we've had locally have involved the "high timers". Know what else? They all violate traffic laws like they mean nothing. Makes me sick.