I suspect that the comments regarding 57° and 62° indicate that the pilot was attempting to turn the aircraft at its absolute limit rather than at the bank angle defined for the display.
That meant he was exceeding his authorisation. However, whilst that might have been an error of discipline, his failure to recognise and recover from an accelerated stall in the turn was a fundamental handling error, with fatal results. He had ample time to recover at the incipient stage, but persisted with his mishandling until the aircraft entered an irrecoverable fully developed stall.
Safe rule stretchers? If you can prove that the rule itself is too restrictive, then get it changed. Selective obediance to flying orders is a dangerous notion - a pilot flying 'well outside of various limits for significant parts of the job' is an accident waiting to happen.
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Dec 2010 at 10:54.