Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
The thought of "why the need for such sentence" is rather chilling. It means somebody probably tried, and the company should be lucky not learn from the news.
The 360 is not the problem. The height loss through the turn and the position where executed could be, if ignorant of the underlying safe altitude limits. I said before my first picture: the chart provides enough information to execute a 360 in an organized and well-controlled manner. Exactly that. Adding now: execute both safely and legally, definitely at least the first of the two. Fair enough, on the other side of the ring: The terrain, high temps, wind aloft, and GS angle ALSO provide for a mine-field battleground, where a stupid 360 would turn into an Air Crash Investigators episode faster than one can say "Sink-Rate".
Couldn't agree more.
Yes, going to the hold would be
safer (by doing something published) but I agree with FD, if done properly, taking care of the conditions that affect the manoeuvre (speed limit, safe altitude to descend, not going over to the non-holding side, doing it on the correct distance markers), I can't see anything unsafe with the 360.
I will agree with BSU in that speed is a doubt considering they were high. They would need to have the limit in check otherwise they'd surely miss the protected area.