I am starting to wonder if it is a bad idea for the LML to be used as 
a form for speculation regarding the causes of an accident, 
especially after a death.
Would it make more sense to wait until the NTSB publicly publishes 
their results. At which time we can have an informed dialogue where 
we all can potentially learn something from the tragedy.

Kevin,

 

Sometimes the NTSB never publishes a "Probable Cause" report.  People often want to discuss an accident while it is fresh in their mind.  Speculation is not necessarily a bad thing in that there are often safety offshoot discussions resulting from some of the speculation.

 

Take the Cirrus 20 crash into a mountain side like residential building in NYC whilst in an impossible turn.  USA Today had some great graphics and the NTSB, having more information than many of us, indicated the problem with the turn - i.e. the turning space was a bit tight worsened by the east wind moving the air mass towards the riverside buildings.  While there was some question about the reason for turning, it seems that the PIC just didn't want to contact La Guardia tower for transit through their airspace as the VFR defined corridor was coming to an end.  The claim is that the 180 degree turn had to be done in less than about 1700 feet of horizontal space with an approximate loss of about 300 feet because of crosswind drift and at a constant bank of over 50 degrees at the estimated speed of 97 Kts, reducing the width to about 1400 feet.  Well and good as this seems to be the box canyon problem.  Do you know the turn radius of your aircraft at several speeds and bank angles? 

 

I had a spreadsheet for calculating the distance traveled and radius of turns at race speeds and different bank angles.  I modified the Excel spreadsheet to calculate the Width of an 180 degree turn at different bank angles at a given speed and crosswind component.  It also calculates the increase in stall speed for a given clean level flight stall speed based on increased load factor.  My numbers are very close to those in the NTSB statement.  Down load the spreadsheet and plug in your own numbers in the shaded boxes. For example, were I sightseeing at 140 KTAS and did a 180 with the same wind conditions at a 60 degree bank, the turn width would have been 2300 feet (300 feet contributed by the 13 Kt cross wind - maybe that would have put me beyond that building).  My clean stall speed would have moved up to about 100 Knots.  It would have been a lot easier to just call the LGA tower.

 

I have been interested in one where a 235 hit the perimeter fence at a CA airport - what was the purpose of the low approach angle?  This one took the NTSB 15 months to issue the probable cause report.  The pdf is attached.  Personally, I like an approach steeper than 3 degrees on final - more options should something not be right.

 

How about this spin accident?  Training, showoff, bad mistake or something else?  This accident was in Jan, 2005 and there is still no probable cause report.  There are spin discussions on the LML all the time - If only we knew what was going on in the cockpit..........

 

Note that the recent turbine accident is not yet even listed in the NTSB monthly report files:

 

 

Thoughtful speculation and discussion helps me think about things I should or shouldn't be doing, just like virtual "duh" training.