I particularly enjoyed the "He conducted two particularly tight turns where the bank angle firstly reached 57°, and then 62°. The bank limit for the C-17 is 60°"
You must be an amazing pilot to have never gone to 62° when trying to fly 60°
Tourist - You're missing a lot of relevant points here - and suffering from the same preoccupation with one detail, that ignores other vastly important details, as the crash pilot.
The information about the bank angle of the aircraft in question, is posted as merely indicative, relevant information, not causative information.
The information about bank angle is provided, as one of the facts, to be considered in conjunction with the other facts.
Neither I, nor any accident investigator, stated that exceeding the manufacturers recommended bank angle by 2°, was a major causative factor in the crash.
The relevant points are, that: The aircraft was being operated at a maximum recommended bank angle. No problem.
However... the addition of heavy control stick input, to carry out an excessively tight turn, in conjunction with inadequate airspeed, inadequate height, a lack of correct stall response...
COUPLED WITH... maximum bank angle... were all contributory factors to the crash.