Lawsuit in HPN accident

[Steve S]

It didn't take them very long.


http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS02/505270315/1018

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steve S > posted:

> It didn't take them very long.
>
>
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS02/505270315/1018

Hey, it's a lot easier than chasing ambulances.

Here's the part that gets me:
"We do not contend that flying in small planes is dangerous, rather that
American Flyers failed to properly manage the risks in flying and in so
doing cut short this young man's life," said Paul Marx of the firm
DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Tartaglia, Wise and Wiederkehr, who is
representing Alexei and Olga Naoumov. "There is no defensible or logical
reason for a primary flight student who was still learning how to fly in
visual conditions to be receiving training in weather conditions that were
at or below those minimally required for instrument flying. Doing so is
simply reckless and irresponsible."

Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation properly,
how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
instruction is a bad thing?

One of the best experiences that I had in my early training was exactly
this, and gave me the confidence to make good decisions if caught in IMC
inadvertently.

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> Recently, Steve S > posted:
>
>> It didn't take them very long.
>>
>>
> http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS02/505270315/1018
>
> Hey, it's a lot easier than chasing ambulances.
>
> Here's the part that gets me:
> "We do not contend that flying in small planes is dangerous, rather that
> American Flyers failed to properly manage the risks in flying and in so
> doing cut short this young man's life," said Paul Marx of the firm
> DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Tartaglia, Wise and Wiederkehr, who is
> representing Alexei and Olga Naoumov. "There is no defensible or logical
> reason for a primary flight student who was still learning how to fly in
> visual conditions to be receiving training in weather conditions that were
> at or below those minimally required for instrument flying. Doing so is
> simply reckless and irresponsible."
>
> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation properly,
> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
> instruction is a bad thing?

I don't think it's a bad thing. But in a previous thread here regarding that
accident, several pilots expressed opinions that coincide with that excerpt
from the lawsuit.

--Gary

[Michael]

> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation properly,
> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
> instruction is a bad thing?

I certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.
However, quite a few people on this newsgroup argued otherwise. I
don't think their arguments are valid, and I don't think any
experienced instructor would agree with them, but the jury won't be
made up of experienced instructors - it will be made up of non-pilots.

Further, I think that for a student, going up in actual low IMC with
the AVERAGE instructor is a bad thing, and all too likely to get one
killed, because the average CFI, while instrument rated (and possibly a
CFII) is not really qualified to instruct in IMC and quite likely isn't
even qualified to fly IMC himself, FAA certifications notwithstanding.
In other words, the issue is not only that the instructor did not
handle the situation properly, but that there was never a reasonable
expectation that he would.

Instructing in IMC is a lot different from instructing under the hood.
When you're dealing with a competent pilot, it's cake. You sit there,
you scan the instruments, you see that everything is going fine, you
offer the occasional pointer, and you log the time.

When you have a primary student flying his first approach in actual
IMC, it's a lot different. You KNOW he's going to lose it - it's just
a question of when. You're just as much on instruments as if you were
flying yourself, but the airplane is constantly in a bad way - the
student can just barely keep it together. You have to help just enough
to keep him in the game, but not so much that he stops learning. It's
no longer a question of how best to control the airplane, but of how
bad you can let the control get before you have to do something.

If the flight school was simply acting as a plane rental agency,
exercising no control over the instructors (some do operate that way)
and in effect treating them in a way that actually meets the definition
of independent contractor, I would say the suit against the flight
school would be baseless. If it's a more typical operation, it is not.
The suit against the flight instructor is valid in any case, but good
luck collecting anything.

Michael

[Earl Grieda]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
properly,
> > how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
> > instruction is a bad thing?
>
> I certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.
> However, quite a few people on this newsgroup argued otherwise. I
> don't think their arguments are valid, and I don't think any
> experienced instructor would agree with them, but the jury won't be
> made up of experienced instructors - it will be made up of non-pilots.
>

I might be thinking of another accident, but wasn't some of the concern
regarding this accident due to the student being at a bar the night before
and the instructor was trying to build time and called the student to come
take an unscheduled lesson?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Michael > posted:
>
> Further, I think that for a student, going up in actual low IMC with
> the AVERAGE instructor is a bad thing, and all too likely to get one
> killed, because the average CFI, while instrument rated (and possibly
> a CFII) is not really qualified to instruct in IMC and quite likely
> isn't even qualified to fly IMC himself, FAA certifications
> notwithstanding. In other words, the issue is not only that the
> instructor did not handle the situation properly, but that there was
> never a reasonable expectation that he would.
>
Yes, instructors have been known to behave quite similarly to normal
people. ;-)

If one makes bad decisions, one is likely to have consequences. But,
differs from a blanket notion that primary students should not be exposed
to any kind of IMC, which is where these lawyers are heading. I really
hope that someone gives them a clue before trial.

> When you have a primary student flying his first approach in actual
> IMC, it's a lot different. You KNOW he's going to lose it - it's just
> a question of when. You're just as much on instruments as if you were
> flying yourself, but the airplane is constantly in a bad way - the
> student can just barely keep it together. You have to help just
> enough to keep him in the game, but not so much that he stops
> learning. It's no longer a question of how best to control the
> airplane, but of how bad you can let the control get before you have
> to do something.
>
Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's IMC and there's below-VFR
minimums. While these are both technically IMC, flying below VFR minimums
doesn't necessarily require pure reliance on instruments or difficulty in
controlling the aircraft.

Regards,

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> Recently, Steve S > posted:
>
> > It didn't take them very long.
> >
> >
>
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS02/505270315/1018
>
> Hey, it's a lot easier than chasing ambulances.
>

And it beats waiting for the NTSB to figure out what REALLY happened.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
properly,
> > how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
> > instruction is a bad thing?
>
> I certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.

Primary private, or primary IR?

[George Patterson]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation properly,
> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
> instruction is a bad thing?

I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight training
in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training for the instrument
rating.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> And it beats waiting for the NTSB to figure out what REALLY happened.

It doesn't matter what REALLY happened -- this is a court of law, not facts. The
NTSB report will be inadmissible anyway, so why wait?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:68Qle.9731$Ib.666@trndny03...
> Neil Gould wrote:
> >
> > Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
properly,
> > how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
> > instruction is a bad thing?
>
> I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training
> in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training for the
instrument
> rating.

Was he doing training or familiarization? If the latter, it's a good idea.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:6cQle.2216$zb.1696@trndny02...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > And it beats waiting for the NTSB to figure out what REALLY happened.
>
> It doesn't matter what REALLY happened -- this is a court of law, not
facts. The
> NTSB report will be inadmissible anyway, so why wait?
>

"We have to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!!"

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>
>> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
>> properly,
>> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
>> instruction is a bad thing?
>
>
> I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
> training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training
> for the instrument rating.

And I think it is likewise for an instructor to give a primary student
only a few hours under the hood and then consider them prepared to exit
successfully an inadvertant encounter with IMC. A little time in the
soup for real is a real eye opener for a primary student. Makes one
much more respectful of one's ability at that point.


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
> >
> > I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
> > training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training
> > for the instrument rating.
>
> And I think it is likewise for an instructor to give a primary student
> only a few hours under the hood and then consider them prepared to exit
> successfully an inadvertant encounter with IMC. A little time in the
> soup for real is a real eye opener for a primary student. Makes one
> much more respectful of one's ability at that point.
>
In the military, they say "You fight like you train". One purpose of
training is to make it as realistic as possible, hence the wet run courses
in basic training. Analogy - real IMC.

[Dave S]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> In the military, they say "You fight like you train". One purpose of
> training is to make it as realistic as possible, hence the wet run courses
> in basic training. Analogy - real IMC.

So what is to be gained in the scenario at hand: Flying into conditions
that are SO marginal, that they may be below the minimums for an
instrument approach, with a student who has essentially no skills nor
time in the IMC environment. You have to crawl before you can walk.

Dave

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:37:54 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>George Patterson wrote:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
>>> properly,
>>> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
>>> instruction is a bad thing?
>>
>>
>> I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
>> training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training
>> for the instrument rating.
>
>And I think it is likewise for an instructor to give a primary student
>only a few hours under the hood and then consider them prepared to exit
>successfully an inadvertant encounter with IMC. A little time in the
>soup for real is a real eye opener for a primary student. Makes one
>much more respectful of one's ability at that point.
>
>
>Matt

I can confirm that even minimal IMC training is very very useful.
My first encounter with IMC was 6 months after my PPL and only 0.3 hr
under the hood. Flew through a very heavy shower and did not expect to
looks visibility! Remained straight and level but expected to need a
180 but soon cleared to VMC after some 15-20 secs.

On another occasion 18 months after PPL (still only 0.3 hr IMC) was
directed by ATC to turn right to descend through a large hole in the
clouds. Lost horizon and heard the engine speeding. Remembered my
training so looked at the instruments and set level, reduced power
then checked gentle turn to achieve a 180. Got the leans slightly but
the horizon returned soon after. All over within 30 secs but even
minimal training DOES work! Thanks to my instructor a none event but I
remembered what I'd been taught about believing the instruments.

david

[Matt Whiting]

Tom Fleischman wrote:
> On 2005-05-27 15:58:31 -0400, "Neil Gould" > said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
>> properly,
>> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
>> instruction is a bad thing?
>>
>> One of the best experiences that I had in my early training was exactly
>> this, and gave me the confidence to make good decisions if caught in IMC
>> inadvertently.
>
>
> I do not think that getting experience in IMC during primary training is
> necessarily a bad thing, in fact I think it is a good thing if done the
> right way, but the instructor is really obligated to use some degree of
> judgment. I think taking a primary student up into a benign stratus
> cloud layer in stable conditions to show him or her what the effects of
> spatial disorientation can be like is a very, very valuable lesson.
> However, the conditions that prevailed in the area that day were not
> suitable for this type of instruction, IMHO. The ceilings were very low,
> the temp/dewpoint spread was nil, the winds were sporadically very gusty
> and there were periods of heavy rain throughout the day. To take a
> primary student up in conditions like that was incredibly stupid and
> downright negligent and the parents should, and I predict will, win the
> lawsuit.

And if they win they will likely put another flight school out of
business... Just what we need.

Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Fleischman wrote:
>> On 2005-05-27 15:58:31 -0400, "Neil Gould" > said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
>>> properly,
>>> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
>>> instruction is a bad thing?
>>>
>>> One of the best experiences that I had in my early training was exactly
>>> this, and gave me the confidence to make good decisions if caught in IMC
>>> inadvertently.
>>
>>
>> I do not think that getting experience in IMC during primary training is
>> necessarily a bad thing, in fact I think it is a good thing if done the
>> right way, but the instructor is really obligated to use some degree of
>> judgment. I think taking a primary student up into a benign stratus cloud
>> layer in stable conditions to show him or her what the effects of spatial
>> disorientation can be like is a very, very valuable lesson. However, the
>> conditions that prevailed in the area that day were not suitable for this
>> type of instruction, IMHO. The ceilings were very low, the temp/dewpoint
>> spread was nil, the winds were sporadically very gusty and there were
>> periods of heavy rain throughout the day. To take a primary student up in
>> conditions like that was incredibly stupid and downright negligent and
>> the parents should, and I predict will, win the lawsuit.
>
> And if they win they will likely put another flight school out of
> business... Just what we need.
>
> Matt

They put themselves out of business. No instructor has any business flying
any primary student into low IMC without two full sets of flight
instruments. It was stupid and now the student is dead.

Mike
MU-2

[Andrew Gideon]

George Patterson wrote:

> I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
> training in IMC.

It's been a while, but does the Private PTS require that the three hours of
non-visual conditions be simulated or can some be actual?

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

As a CFI, I have no problem at all taking primary students into some
light IMC once or twice. It does a few things:

1. Once and for all, it kills the notion that a few hours of hood time
can allow you to even THINK about flying in the soup.

2. It helps them get a stronger connection between the actions of the
airplane and the instrument indications.

3. It helps them get a better understanding of ATC, communications, and
the airspace system.

4. It MAY help them not panic so much if they ever do wander into IMC.
If they can delay the panic just one or two minutes, it might well save
their lives someday.

However, this accident troubles me on a number of fronts, and I don't
see it as a standard vampire-lawyer thing (especially since the filing
attorney is a 1000-hour IFR-rated pilot himself, and goes out of his
way to show this isn't about the dangers of GA).

1. This is one of those 'hyper-accelerated' training programs. The
student had 32 hours, yet hadn't soloed yet. Most of his training had
been in HUGE blocks of flying time, 5 or 6 hours per day; hardly
condusive to good training.

2. This was a hard-IMC cross-country; not a limited flight into a few
clouds to introduce him to weather. The weather at the destination
(accident) airport (if I remember correctly) was 200 and 1/2. And it
had been a 2-3 hour X-C...what on earth purpose does that serve? What
benefit can a student who hasn't even soloed yet gain from a X-C in
serious soup, followed by an ILS approach to minimums?

3. American Flyers (like some other well-known national schools) has a
reputation for being both cookie-cutter in it's approach, and possibly
more focuses on the $30,000 brought in by a student taking the 'career
pilot' program than in turning out quality pilots, or possibly even in
safety.

As I said, exposing a primary student to IMC is quite reasonable. But
from what I have read of the accident, the lawyer may well have a good
case...esposing a rushed pre-solo student to a hard-IMC cross country
(perhaps just to keep him in the air, and keep the revenue coming, a
cynical part of me things) may very well be negligent...and looks to me
to be counterproductive at best.

Cheers,


Cap


Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Steve S > posted:
>
> > It didn't take them very long.
> >
> >
> http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS02/505270315/1018
>
> Hey, it's a lot easier than chasing ambulances.
>
> Here's the part that gets me:
> "We do not contend that flying in small planes is dangerous, rather that
> American Flyers failed to properly manage the risks in flying and in so
> doing cut short this young man's life," said Paul Marx of the firm
> DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Tartaglia, Wise and Wiederkehr, who is
> representing Alexei and Olga Naoumov. "There s no defensible or logical
> reason for a primary flight student who was still learning how to fly in
> visual conditions to be receiving training in weather conditions that were
> at or below those minimally required for instrument flying. Doing so is
> simply reckless and irresponsible."
>
> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation properly,
> how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
> instruction is a bad thing?
>
> One of the best experiences that I had in my early training was exactly
> this, and gave me the confidence to make good decisions if caught in IMC
> inadvertently.
>
> Neil

[Judah]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in
m:

> Recently, Steve S > posted:
>
>> It didn't take them very long.
>>
>>
> http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS0
> 2/505270315/1018
>
> Hey, it's a lot easier than chasing ambulances.
>
> Here's the part that gets me:
> "We do not contend that flying in small planes is dangerous, rather
> that American Flyers failed to properly manage the risks in flying and
> in so doing cut short this young man's life," said Paul Marx of the
> firm DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Tartaglia, Wise and Wiederkehr,
> who is representing Alexei and Olga Naoumov. "There is no defensible
> or logical reason for a primary flight student who was still learning
> how to fly in visual conditions to be receiving training in weather
> conditions that were at or below those minimally required for
> instrument flying. Doing so is simply reckless and irresponsible."
>
> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
> properly, how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC
> during flight instruction is a bad thing?

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:21:26 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>George Patterson wrote:
>
>> I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
>> training in IMC.
>
>It's been a while, but does the Private PTS require that the three hours of
>non-visual conditions be simulated or can some be actual?

61.109(3) doesn't say, it just says "3 hours of flight training in a
single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level
flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading,
recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the
use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to
instrument flight; "

Do the advocates for doing some actual during primary flight training
really see no difference between taking a student pilot through some
thin stratus at 5-6000 to show them what being inside a cloud is
really like, and attempting to shoot an ILS to at/below minimums?

[Gary Drescher]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>
> Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
> pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's soloed
yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in LIFR, so
he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think it'd be
irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>>
>>Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
>>pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?
>
>
> I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's soloed
> yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in LIFR, so
> he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think it'd be
> irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

I don't, assuming that you are proficient in making approaches.
However, it seems that many here do. There have been claims that the
American Flyers instructor flew an approach in weather than was below
minimums. I haven't seen any official data that proves or disproves
that. Even so, I've flown a number of approaches into conditions
"reported" as below minimums. I've been able to complete a few and not
complete more than a few. Likewise, I've flown approaches in weather
that was reported above minimums and found that my flight visibility
wasn't sufficient to legally complete the arrival. Weather is what you
find at the time you are flying the approach. Reported/observed weather
is simply that and may or may not correlate to actual flight visibility
on the approach.

It is hardly irresponsible for a competent and proficient instrument
pilot to fly an approach in conditions reported at, or even below,
mininums. It is only irresponsible to continue the approach below the
published minimums. To me, that is what the American Flyers instructor
did wrong. It wasn't making the flight itself, it was descending below
minimums without having the appropriate ground facility references in sight.


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>>
>> Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
>> pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?
>
> I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
> soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in
> LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think
> it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?
>
> --Gary
>
>

What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand happened
at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the passenger is a
student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This is totally
different from either flying an approach from the right seat with no copilot
instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach and you trying to
save it from the right seat (with no copilot instuments). I'm an ATP with
1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS equipment and I would not let a
student pilot fly it to 200 and a half. How much can you let him get off
centerline or GS before you take it away from him? If you do take it away,
how out of trim is he? Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot
is not going to learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument
student might learn something.

Mike
MU-2

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>>>
>>>Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
>>>pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?
>>
>>I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
>>soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in
>>LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think
>>it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?
>>
>>--Gary
>>
>>
>
>
> What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand happened
> at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the passenger is a
> student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This is totally
> different from either flying an approach from the right seat with no copilot
> instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach and you trying to
> save it from the right seat (with no copilot instuments). I'm an ATP with
> 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS equipment and I would not let a
> student pilot fly it to 200 and a half. How much can you let him get off
> centerline or GS before you take it away from him? If you do take it away,
> how out of trim is he? Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot
> is not going to learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument
> student might learn something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>>Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>>>>
>>>>Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
>>>>pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?
>>>
>>>I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
>>>soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in
>>>LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't
>>>think it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?
>>>
>>>--Gary
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
>> happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
>> passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
>> is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
>> with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
>> and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
>> instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS
>> equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a half.
>> How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take it away
>> from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he? Learning is
>> incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to learn much from
>> trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student might learn
>> something.
>
> Are you a CFII?
>
> Matt

No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that was
attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly if
they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the CFI in
question wasn't

Mike
MU-2

[Judah]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>>
>> Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed
>> student pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?
>
> I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
> soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches
> in LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I
> don't think it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?
>
> --Gary
>

Will you sit right seat? Will you take off if the weather is BELOW
MINIMUMS?

There is a difference between LOW IFR and BELOW IFR...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Judah > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Recently, Steve S > posted:
>>
>>> It didn't take them very long.
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050527/NEWS0
>> 2/505270315/1018
>>
>> Hey, it's a lot easier than chasing ambulances.
>>
>> Here's the part that gets me:
>> "We do not contend that flying in small planes is dangerous, rather
>> that American Flyers failed to properly manage the risks in flying
>> and in so doing cut short this young man's life," said Paul Marx of
>> the firm DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Tartaglia, Wise and
>> Wiederkehr, who is representing Alexei and Olga Naoumov. "There is
>> no defensible or logical reason for a primary flight student who was
>> still learning how to fly in visual conditions to be receiving
>> training in weather conditions that were at or below those minimally
>> required for instrument flying. Doing so is simply reckless and
>> irresponsible."
>>
>> Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
>> properly, how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC
>> during flight instruction is a bad thing?
>
> Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>
> Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
> pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?
>
Just to be clear, I was "Disregarding whether or not the instructor...",
IOW, I was asking about the lawyers' statement, not the instructor's
actions.

Regards,

Neil

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mike Rapoport wrote:

>>>What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
>>>happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
>>>passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
>>>is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
>>>with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
>>>and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
>>>instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS
>>>equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a half.
>>>How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take it away
>>>from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he? Learning is
>>>incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to learn much from
>>>trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student might learn
>>>something.
>>
>>Are you a CFII?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that was
> attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
> approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly if
> they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the CFI in
> question wasn't

I'm not a CFII either so I can't say for sure. My primary instructor
could certainly do anything from the right seat that he could do from
the left, and more than most pilots could do from the left (he's now in
his 80s and has more than 50,000 hours of flight time, a good part of
that in the right seat). I'd hope the same from a competent CFII,
including approaches to minimums, but maybe the instrument layout in
most light airplanes makes that impractical.

I agree that the CFI in question wasn't up to the task on this
particular day in this particular airplane, but then isn't that true of
any pilot involved in an accident? The hard part is knowing this is
going to happen before it happens! :-) Easier said than done.

However, I still don't think that one accident such as this proves that
all such operations are faulty, hazardous, irresponsible, etc. It
simply shows that this particular operation went terribly awry. If we
legislate or sue out of existence every operation that results in an
accident, then we'll soon have a very small envelope in which to fly.
That would be as dumb as increasing the required fuel reserve every time
a pilot miscalculates and runs out of fuel. The reality is that this
pilot busted minimums ... period. The fact that he was an instructor
and had a student along is not relevant.


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>>>>What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
>>>>happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
>>>>passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
>>>>is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
>>>>with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
>>>>and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
>>>>instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II
>>>>ILS equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a
>>>>half. How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take
>>>>it away from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he?
>>>>Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to
>>>>learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student
>>>>might learn something.
>>>
>>>Are you a CFII?
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that
>> was attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
>> approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly
>> if they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the
>> CFI in question wasn't
>
> I'm not a CFII either so I can't say for sure. My primary instructor
> could certainly do anything from the right seat that he could do from the
> left, and more than most pilots could do from the left (he's now in his
> 80s and has more than 50,000 hours of flight time, a good part of that in
> the right seat). I'd hope the same from a competent CFII, including
> approaches to minimums, but maybe the instrument layout in most light
> airplanes makes that impractical.
>

I doubt anybody can fly instruments as well from across the cockpit as they
can when they are in front of them.

> I agree that the CFI in question wasn't up to the task on this particular
> day in this particular airplane, but then isn't that true of any pilot
> involved in an accident? The hard part is knowing this is going to happen
> before it happens! :-) Easier said than done.

It isn't really that hard..simply don't take risks for nothing. There was
nothing to gain from taking this pre-solo student up to fly low approaches.
The student *can't even fly visually yet* and he probably hasn't learned
about tracking a VOR yet. It isn't in the syllabus, it isn't going to be on
the checkride.. The first rule of practicing anything is not to create a
real emergency. Ski schools don't teach beginning skiers on slope ending
with cliffs. Bull riding schools don't start you out on champion
superbulls. Martial arts students don't train with steel swords. I could
go on but you get the point. These things may all be appropriate for
advanced students but not beginning ones.

> However, I still don't think that one accident such as this proves that
> all such operations are faulty, hazardous, irresponsible, etc. It simply
> shows that this particular operation went terribly awry. If we legislate
> or sue out of existence every operation that results in an accident, then
> we'll soon have a very small envelope in which to fly. That would be as
> dumb as increasing the required fuel reserve every time a pilot
> miscalculates and runs out of fuel. The reality is that this pilot busted
> minimums ... period. The fact that he was an instructor and had a student
> along is not relevant.

If we want to keep the decision making freedoms that we have, we have to
show that we are responsible. This student pilot probably had no idea of
the risk that he was exposed to. He probably didn't even know what the
minimiums were. I don't think that we need new rules but the flight school
will probably lose the lawsuit and rightfully so IMO. This was not a tragic
accident, it was a stupid one.

Mike
MU-2

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:
<snip>
> I don't, assuming that you are proficient in making approaches.
> However, it seems that many here do. There have been claims that the
> American Flyers instructor flew an approach in weather than was below
> minimums. I haven't seen any official data that proves or disproves
> that. Even so, I've flown a number of approaches into conditions

Unfortunately, the history will be eradicated from this free site soon,
but for a few hours more you can get it at:

http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?code=c&n=999&stn=Khpn

Here's a clip in case you missed it:

METAR KHPN 231456Z 19010KT 1/2SM FG VV002 12/12 A2955 RMK AO2 RAE11
SLP008 P0000 60008 T01220122 56013
METAR KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954 RMK AO2 RAB07
SLP004 P0002 T01220122
METAR KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952 RMK AO2 RAE55
SLP998 P0004 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2
METAR KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 RMK AO2 SLP996
60014 T01220122 10128 20100 56012
METAR KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 SLP993
T01220122
METAR KHPN 231956Z 18012G20KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2948 RMK AO2
RAB12 SLP985 P0003 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 232018Z 19012G20KT 160V220 1/2SM -RA FG OVC002 13/13 A2948
RMK AO2 P0001
METAR KHPN 232056Z 19014G20KT 1/4SM FG OVC002 13/13 A2947 RMK AO2 RAE43
SLP981 P0002 60005 T01280128 58015
SPECI KHPN 232118Z 19013G19KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2947 RMK AO2
RAB01 P0000


The accident report can be found here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20050428X00521&key=1

According to the report,
"According to initial information obtained from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the pilot and student pilot departed HPN, at 1209,
under an IFR flight plan, and flew to ALB. They then departed ALB at
1348, to return to HPN."

At 1209 local, 1609UTC, the last reported weather was

METAR KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954 RMK AO2 RAB07
SLP004 P0002 T01220122

At 1348 local, 1748 UTC, the last reported weather was

METAR KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952 RMK AO2 RAE55
SLP998 P0004 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2

You can download the approach plate from AOPA's web site if you are a
member:

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20050512/NE-2/hpn_ils_rwy_16.pdf

And you will see that minimums on the ILS-16 for all four categories of
aircraft is 200-1/2. It would seem clear that the pilot took off in
weather that was below minimums - if some sort of problem arose, it
might not be safe to return to the airport. Basically, he was commited
to a trip shortly after leaving the runway, whether the problem was
equipment related, or even if his student pilot passenger decided he
wanted to abort the mission and just go home.

I don't think you'll find an official report of the status of the
MALSRS. The reason that I know that it was out was because I was there
that morning, planning a trip to the AVP area, and heard it on the ATIS.
That doesn't necessarily imply that it wasn't corrected by then.

Incidentally, as a moderately experienced instrument rated pilot, I
don't feel comfortable flying in weather that low unless I am at my
sharpest - both with respect to recent flying experience (ie: when's the
last time I practiced (or flew) a low approach?) and overall health and
concentration level (did I get enough sleep last night? Am I feeling
100%?). I chose to drive that day.

According to the report, "The CFI reported 168 hours of total flight
experience on his most recent application for an FAA second class
medical certificate, which was issued on March 7, 2003. According to the
flight school, at the time of the accident, the CFI had accumulated
about 900 hours, and the student pilot had accumulated 31.9 hours of
total flight experience."

<snip>

> It is hardly irresponsible for a competent and proficient instrument
> pilot to fly an approach in conditions reported at, or even below,
> mininums. It is only irresponsible to continue the approach below the
> published minimums. To me, that is what the American Flyers
> instructor did wrong. It wasn't making the flight itself, it was
> descending below minimums without having the appropriate ground
> facility references in sight.

He failed to go missed when the plane got about 200' low and hit a bank
of 75' tall trees that extend up to 591' MSL (about 150' AGL). He failed
to do this even after getting a Low Altitude alert from Tower. Not only
did he continue his approach significantly below 639' (the Decision
Height), but I believe he would have had a fully deflected low
glideslope indication at the time.

And the final piece of evidence, of course, is the expired medical,
which is also listed in the Landings Airmen database as having expired
in March of 2004 - over a year ago.

It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would seem that this
particular instructor's focus was not on the safe outcome of the flight
but instead on something else. There's no question that there are pilots
and instructors who could have flown this approach safely and without
incident. But there seems to be a plethora of evidence that would
indicate that this instructor had a pattern of not acting responsibly
and shouldn't have taken that student up in those conditions.

[Judah]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in news:AlPme.1172$4u.380
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

<snip>
> Just to be clear, I was "Disregarding whether or not the instructor...",
> IOW, I was asking about the lawyers' statement, not the instructor's
> actions.

Hi Neil,

The lawyer's statements, as quoted by your own post, are
>>> "There is
>>> no defensible or logical reason for a primary flight student who was
>>> still learning how to fly in visual conditions to be receiving
>>> training in weather conditions that were at or below those minimally
>>> required for instrument flying. Doing so is simply reckless and
>>> irresponsible."

Just to be clear, I believe that getting some actual IMC during primary VFR
flight training is a wonderful idea. But I don't believe it is appropriate
for said IMC exposure to be during "weather conditions that were at or
below those minimally required for instrument flying."

IMC exposure for a VFR pilot at altitude offers a great learning experience
for a scenario that the VFR pilot might one day get himself into, even if
he is a mostly responsible pilot. IMC exposure at 200' AGL is not a
situation I would expect any responsible VFR pilot to get himself into, and
offers no benefit toward VFR training.

As to whether it is reckless and irresponsible, I can't say for sure. I'm
not a CFII, and I don't know how much experience this particular instructor
has flying approaches into LIFR from the right seat. Nor do I know how
proficient of a pilot the student was, or if he had any training on
scanning technique. Was this his first flight "under the hood" or did he
have an hour already?

If it's any indication of where I stand on this issue, I had an
opportunity a couple of years ago to get some LIFR exposure before I got my
Instrument Rating. (I had my VFR, though, and about 150 hours IIRC.) I was
flying home from Maine and got stuck in Bridgeport because the ceilings
were dropping. After waiting a couple of hours and realizing it was getting
worse, I called the flight school that I was renting from, and they sent an
instructor (the Chief Instructor, actually) out to get me. By the time he
got there, it was LIFR at HPN. By mutual decision, I sat right seat, and
let the instructor fly the plane. The instructor told me later that I
probably was proficient enough to be able to hold altitude and headings to
handle it. But my flight was not about getting hours, it was about getting
home safely.

[Gary Drescher]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.
>>>
>>> Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed
>>> student pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?
>>
>> I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
>> soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches
>> in LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I
>> don't think it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?
>>
> Will you sit right seat? Will you take off if the weather is BELOW
> MINIMUMS?

No, you're right, I wouldn't take off then. I'd want to be able to approach
and land if a mechanical problem became apparent shortly after takeoff. On
the other hand, their takeoff was uneventful, so that danger didn't
materialize. When they flew the approach, in the absence of any mechanical
problem, below-minimum visibility should not have been dangerous; it should
just have prompted a missed approach. In fact, though, they crashed a mile
or two from the field--long before below-minimum visibility should have been
a factor at all. So even if taking off under those conditions was
irresponsible, that particular irresponsibility was arguably not
contributory to the accident, as things turned out.

And no, admittedly I'm not going to sit in the right seat or let my friend
fly. I have no experience giving instruction or flying from the right seat.
I don't know how if that would be particularly difficult for an experienced
instructor to do. But from the reports I've seen, we don't know if the
student was flying the approach at all; the NTSB report doesn't even say who
was sitting where. It's conceivable that for the return leg, the instructor
was sitting in the left seat and the student was just along for the ride.

--Gary

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> I doubt anybody can fly instruments as well from across the cockpit as they
> can when they are in front of them.

hmmm, I don't doubt that flying instruments from the left seat
is easier than flying instruments from the right seat. However,
that doesn't matter if one can safely fly instruments from the
right seat. A CFII friend always flys from the right seat. He's
done that for decades. It would be interesting to see you two
discuss this.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Judah > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in news:AlPme.1172$4u.380
> @newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
>
> <snip>
>> Just to be clear, I was "Disregarding whether or not the
>> instructor...", IOW, I was asking about the lawyers' statement, not
>> the instructor's actions.
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> The lawyer's statements, as quoted by your own post, are
>>>> "There is
>>>> no defensible or logical reason for a primary flight student who
>>>> was still learning how to fly in visual conditions to be receiving
>>>> training in weather conditions that were at or below those
>>>> minimally required for instrument flying. Doing so is simply
>>>> reckless and irresponsible."
>
> Just to be clear, I believe that getting some actual IMC during
> primary VFR flight training is a wonderful idea. But I don't believe
> it is appropriate for said IMC exposure to be during "weather
> conditions that were at or below those minimally required for
> instrument flying."
>
I agree with you. IMO, the conditions under wich this particular flight
was undertaken were unarguably unreasonable. Instructors sometimes make
bad decisions, and this is clearly an example. But, that doesn't mean that
flying in all IMC situations would be so. For example, a clear, moonless
night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)

I was objecting to a global statement that could establish a precedence
that could render any aspect of flying in IMC with a primary student
automatically "reckless and irresponsible".

Regards,

Neil

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>> I doubt anybody can fly instruments as well from across the cockpit as
>> they
>> can when they are in front of them.
>
> hmmm, I don't doubt that flying instruments from the left seat
> is easier than flying instruments from the right seat. However,
> that doesn't matter if one can safely fly instruments from the
> right seat. A CFII friend always flys from the right seat. He's
> done that for decades. It would be interesting to see you two
> discuss this.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI couldn't
fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI with around
1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI, has very minimial
time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs. If we just do the
math and consider that almost all of his time was sitting in the right seat
instructing, and that most of his students were probably not instrument
students, that most of his time with instrument students was in VMC, we are
left with *very* little time where this CFI was actually flying IMC and it
may have been his first time trying to fly IMC from the right seat.
Admittedly all this is somewhat conjecture but this guy sure as hell wasn't
some 30,000hr retired airline captain, this had to be one of the few times
that he had done this and he was doing it in very low conditions. I don't
think that it was reckless for him to go out and do this on his own but to
do it as part of a lesson was criminal.

My basic belief is that a student (of anything) need to be able to make
mistakes and learn in a protected enviornment. We must also provide more
protection to those unable to assess the risk of what they are doing. You
can see this in how the FAA regulates for hire operations more stringently
than Part 91 operations. I agree with most on this thread that exposure to
IMC is beneficial but I think that the CFI in this case went way over the
line. In fact, I suspect that he undertook this final flight for himself
rather than his student.

Mike
MU-2

[Jose]

> But, that doesn't mean that
> flying in all IMC situations would be so. For example, a clear, moonless
> night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)

Well, it only goes all the way to the ground if you are crashing. :)

If you are landing at a lighted runway, then the runway lights should
give you enough visual cues that you are not flying "on instruments".

Not all moonless nights are IMC.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > I certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.
> Primary private, or primary IR?

Private primary, student pilot certificate only. Less than 50 hours
total time, and more than half of that in gliders. He did fine in the
cruise portion, needed some coaching in the descent, and in the
approach phase I had to take it away from him.

Michael

[Michael]

> Yes, instructors have been known to behave quite similarly to normal
> people. ;-)

Yes, and they've also been known to behave quite differently. The
issue here is that an instrument-rated private pilot who isn't actually
proficient enough to handle hard IFR (and knows it) simply won't fly
it. I've actually met a Cessna 421 owner like that - won't fly solid
IMC, won't fly to anything close to mins, etc. He doesn't need to.

A commercial pilot with a job that involves flying IFR is at a
different level. Under Part 135, single pilot IFR with pax takes 1200
hours, 100 in make and model, and a checkride every six months to a
year. Corporate flight departments don't have to do it that way - but
insurance forces them to do it anyway.

ANd then there's the CFI. He is under pressure to fly IMC even if he's
not comfortable. Pressure from his student who wants to experience IMC
and doesn't see what the big deal is - after all, the instructor is
instrument rated. Pressure from his finances - he needs the money
(seems to have been a factor here) and the flight time - airlines want
to see actual IMC time.

> If one makes bad decisions, one is likely to have consequences. But,
> differs from a blanket notion that primary students should not be exposed
> to any kind of IMC, which is where these lawyers are heading.

If we're dealing with that exposure being provided by the average CFI
working at the average flight school, I don't think the lawyers are
wrong. My experience has been that the average CFI is not up to the
task.

> Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's IMC and there's below-VFR
> minimums.

Let's not forget that in this case, it was 200 and 1/2.

Michael

[Gary Drescher]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
et...
> I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI
> couldn't fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI
> with around 1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI, has
> very minimial time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs.

I understood the NTSB report to say that the pilot had about 900 hours
total, as reported by the flight school, with no indication of how much of
that time was accumulated *at* the flight school (though admittedly the
NTSB's wording is a little vague).

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> For example, a clear, moonless
> night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)

Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
moonless night is definitely not IMC.

--Gary

[Mike Rapoport]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> et...
>> I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI
>> couldn't fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI
>> with around 1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI,
>> has very minimial time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs.
>
> I understood the NTSB report to say that the pilot had about 900 hours
> total, as reported by the flight school, with no indication of how much of
> that time was accumulated *at* the flight school (though admittedly the
> NTSB's wording is a little vague).
>
> --Gary
>
>
True, it is not clear from the NTSB statements. I am making the assumption
that anyone accumulating over 700hrs in two years and working as a CFI
accumulated those hours instructing. My rational is that someone who would
work as a full time CFI is unlikely to be able to afford to pay for most of
those hours and it seems unlikely that a pilot with under 200TT two years
ago would have landed a piloting job between two years ago and today since a
number of hours had to be spent attaining the CFI and Commercial
certificates. Admittedly a speculation on my part.


Mike
MU-2

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> For example, a clear, moonless
>> night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground.
>> ;-)
>
> Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
> moonless night is definitely not IMC.
>
If you spend any time over a large body of water or undeveloped landscape
on a moonless night, you may arrive at a different opinion about that.
I've done both, and they're definitely IMC.

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> For example, a clear, moonless
>>> night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
>> moonless night is definitely not IMC.
>>
> If you spend any time over a large body of water or undeveloped landscape
> on a moonless night, you may arrive at a different opinion about that.
> I've done both, and they're definitely IMC.

It's just a matter of terminology. Yes, you're describing conditions that
require flying by instruments; and yes, the time spent in such conditions is
loggable as instrument time. But IMC has a specific meaning under the FARs.
It refers to visibility conditions that are less than the specified minimums
for Visual Flight Rules. If the conditions you describe were really IMC,
then you'd have to be instrument rated and under IFR to fly in those
conditions. But in fact, there's no such requirement, because those
conditions are not IMC.

Remember, VMC and IMC are defined primarily for purposes of *separation*
rather than aviation or navigation. On a clear, moonless night, you can see
other (properly lit) aircraft without difficulty, so there's no problem
maintaining visual separation. You may still need instruments to keep the
plane right side up, but that's a different matter.

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>For example, a clear, moonless
>>night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)
>
>
> Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
> moonless night is definitely not IMC.

It can be. If the moon is behind you any you are flying over water it
can be pretty hard to make out the horizon.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>For example, a clear, moonless
>>>night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
>> moonless night is definitely not IMC.
>
> It can be. If the moon is behind you any you are flying over water it can
> be pretty hard to make out the horizon.

See my second reply to Neil.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>>> Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
>>> moonless night is definitely not IMC.
>>>
>> If you spend any time over a large body of water or undeveloped landscape
>> on a moonless night, you may arrive at a different opinion about that.
>> I've done both, and they're definitely IMC.
>
> It's just a matter of terminology. Yes, you're describing conditions that
> require flying by instruments; and yes, the time spent in such conditions
> is loggable as instrument time. But IMC has a specific meaning under the
> FARs.

I've never heard of anyone logging time as "IMC". Though, I suppose that
could be synonymous with "actual instrument conditions". It seems we're all
in agreement that the flight time is loggable as instrument flight time.
But just for fun, let's look a little closer at the regulatory issues around
this situation... :)

61.51 doesn't refer to "instrument meteorological conditions".

(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person
operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments
under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

Of course, the FARs fail to define what "instrument flight conditions"
means. But one can make a pretty good inference simply by reading what's
loggable. That is "flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely
by reference to instruments".

The Part 61 FAQ only helps a little in understanding this question. One can
find the relevant passage by searching for the phrase "The question came up
about logging actual instrument". Someone has posted a copy of the relevant
passage on this page: http://cavucompanies.com/CAVU/discuss.htm If you
click on the "What constitutes 'actual' versus 'simulated' instrument time"
link, that will take you straight to the FAQ's answer.

It does little to give us confidence in the answer, when the author uses
phrases like "I agree with" and "it was always my understanding". However,
the core piece of useful information is that the author of the FAQ answer
agrees that flight in VMC when use of the instruments is required for
control of the aircraft is loggable as instrument flight time.

He further describes this situation as "simulated instrument conditions",
justifying that by pointing out that much of what makes VFR conditions VFR
has nothing to do with control of the aircraft, and everything to do with
avoiding obstacles (terrain, buildings, other aircraft, etc.).

In fact, given that there's no prohibition against flying under VFR even
when there are no outside references, and given that all of the various
visibility and cloud clearance requirements are designed for the sole
purpose of avoiding obstacles, one could make a very good argument that
avoiding obstacles is ALL that VFR conditions are about.

The reason I don't believe that it's truly an "either/or" thing is that we
have uncontrolled airspace, in which flight in IMC still requires an
instrument rating. Obviously, no one is concerned about separation, since
an unlimited number of aircraft are permitted in any given area of
uncontrolled airspace. So in that case, the requirement for an instrument
rating must be for the purpose of controlling an aircraft. Likewise, the
requirement for helicopters to be equipped with an autopilot for flight in
IMC (or is that for the helicopter to be certified for instrument flight...I
don't recall the specifics). Obviously (to me) the rules are written to
take into account terrain avoidance, aircraft avoidance, and control of the
aircraft.

The primary abandonment of logic comes with respect to the fact that even
though IFR is primarily (or entirely) about avoiding obstacles, the logging
of flight time that is used for obtaining an instrument rating, maintaining
instrument currency, etc. is based not on avoiding obstacles but rather on
control of the aircraft. Nonetheless, this does appear to be the reading
that the author of the Part 61 FAQ takes, and there's nothing elsewhere in
the FARs that would serve to disagree with this.

I realize that since none of this discussion really disagrees with the heart
of anything that's been written so far, and so everyone may find this really
boring. Oh well...you could've just skipped this post. :)

Pete

[Jose]

> and given that all of the various
> visibility and cloud clearance requirements are designed for the sole
> purpose of avoiding obstacles

Well, if you consider other aircraft to be obstacles, maybe. But as I
see it the visibility and cloud clearance requirements are designed for
the purpose of giving aircraft time to see and avoid. Something pops
out of a cloud, it takes some time to see it, recognize it, and avoid it.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Well, if you consider other aircraft to be obstacles, maybe.

Yes, I do. How hard would it have been for you figure that out, seeing how
just before the statement you quoted, I also wrote:

"...everything to do with avoiding obstacles (terrain, buildings, other
aircraft, etc.)."

> But as I see it the visibility and cloud clearance requirements are
> designed for the purpose of giving aircraft time to see and avoid.
> Something pops out of a cloud, it takes some time to see it, recognize it,
> and avoid it.

How is that incompatible with what I wrote? Especially when you take into
account the part of my post you obviously didn't read the first time?

Pete

[Jose]

> "...everything to do with avoiding obstacles (terrain, buildings, other
> aircraft, etc.)."

Duh! My bad!

I guess I need new spectacles. Yeah, that's it! :)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

<snip>

>> Will you sit right seat? Will you take off if the weather is BELOW
>> MINIMUMS?
>
> No, you're right, I wouldn't take off then. I'd want to be able to
> approach and land if a mechanical problem became apparent shortly
> after takeoff. On the other hand, their takeoff was uneventful, so
> that danger didn't materialize. When they flew the approach, in the
> absence of any mechanical problem, below-minimum visibility should not
> have been dangerous; it should just have prompted a missed approach.
> In fact, though, they crashed a mile or two from the field--long
> before below-minimum visibility should have been a factor at all. So
> even if taking off under those conditions was irresponsible, that
> particular irresponsibility was arguably not contributory to the
> accident, as things turned out.

True. But the fact that they did take off in weather that was below
minimums, helps to paint a picture of an instructor whose focus was on
something other than safety of flight.

> And no, admittedly I'm not going to sit in the right seat or let my
> friend fly. I have no experience giving instruction or flying from the
> right seat. I don't know how if that would be particularly difficult
> for an experienced instructor to do. But from the reports I've seen,
> we don't know if the student was flying the approach at all; the NTSB
> report doesn't even say who was sitting where. It's conceivable that
> for the return leg, the instructor was sitting in the left seat and
> the student was just along for the ride.

That is conceivable. It's equaly as conceivable that the instructor was
not IFR current. After all, he let his medical lapse, what's to say that
he didn't let his currency lapse?

Obviously, a lapsed medical and an irresponsible take off didn't cause
this accident. But they are among a series of facts that paint a picture
of an instructor who had a pattern of taking less than responsible
actions and failed to excercise good judgement.

Nobody's perfect, but the apparent trend makes it easy to assume
(perhaps incorrectly) that the cause of the accident lies in the hands
of the instructor as well...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:
>>
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> For example, a clear, moonless
>>>> night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground.
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a
>>> clear, moonless night is definitely not IMC.
>>>
>> If you spend any time over a large body of water or undeveloped
>> landscape on a moonless night, you may arrive at a different opinion
>> about that. I've done both, and they're definitely IMC.
>
> It's just a matter of terminology. Yes, you're describing conditions
> that require flying by instruments; and yes, the time spent in such
> conditions is loggable as instrument time. But IMC has a specific
> meaning under the FARs. It refers to visibility conditions that are
> less than the specified minimums for Visual Flight Rules. If the
> conditions you describe were really IMC, then you'd have to be
> instrument rated and under IFR to fly in those conditions. But in
> fact, there's no such requirement, because those conditions are not
> IMC.
>
I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. The
way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the
aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of
control. I suspect that we can make these things far more convoluted than
they need to be.

> Remember, VMC and IMC are defined primarily for purposes of
> *separation* rather than aviation or navigation. You may still
> need instruments to keep the plane right side up, but that's a
> different matter.
>
How would this be a different matter? Far more accidents are due to
colliding with fixed obstacles and terrain than with other aircraft.

Regards,

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. The
> way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the
> aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of
> control.

Well, I did say the distinction was *primarily* a matter of separation. Pete
correctly points out some other aspects of the distinction.

But regardless of what motivates the distinction, the point remains that a
clear, moonless night over the wilderness does not qualify as IMC (even
though the conditions require the use of instruments to keep the plane
upright), because flying in IMC, by definition, requires being under
Instrument Flight Rules and having a (current) instrument rating; whereas
flying over the wilderness on a clear, moonless night can be done under
Visual Flight Rules.

From the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary:
"Instrument Meteorological Conditions- Meteorological conditions expressed
in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the
minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."

The conditions you describe have visibility of many miles, no clouds, and no
ceiling; those are, by definition, Visual Meteorological Conditions, even if
everything is pitch black, with no visible horizon. (Night visibility is
defined in terms of the distance from which a prominent lighted object would
be seen.)

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective.

I don't. My response was intended only to agree with Gary's statement, and
to provide some additional insight into the situation. Nothing I wrote was
intended to dispute what Gary wrote, nor do I see anything that does.

> The way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the
> aircraft;

They do with respect to IFR versus VFR. They do not with respect to logging
instrument conditions (which requires only control of the aircraft solely
with reference to instruments, not a particular set of rules or
meterological conditions).

> "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of
> control.

"meteorological conditions" by itself describes nothing. You need the "I"
or "V" to make the phrase meaningful.

IMC versus VMC describe weather conditions (specifically, visibility and
clouds). IFR versus VFR describe a set of flight rules, only one of which
permits one to fly in or near clouds. Neither of those pairs has direct
control over logging instrument flight time (though there is, of course, a
strong correlation between IMC and instrument flight time).

> I suspect that we can make these things far more convoluted than
> they need to be.

One might even suggest you're demonstrating that now. :)

>> Remember, VMC and IMC are defined primarily for purposes of
>> *separation* rather than aviation or navigation. You may still
>> need instruments to keep the plane right side up, but that's a
>> different matter.
>>
> How would this be a different matter? Far more accidents are due to
> colliding with fixed obstacles and terrain than with other aircraft.

It's a different matter because VMC and IMC don't have anything to do with
whether you log flight time as "instrument flight time", from a regulatory
standpoint.

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your
>> perspective. The way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used
>> for control of the aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which
>> require a particular mode of control.
>
> Well, I did say the distinction was *primarily* a matter of
> separation. Pete correctly points out some other aspects of the
> distinction.
>
> But regardless of what motivates the distinction, the point remains
> that a clear, moonless night over the wilderness does not qualify as
> IMC (even though the conditions require the use of instruments to
> keep the plane upright), because flying in IMC, by definition,
> requires being under Instrument Flight Rules and having a (current)
> instrument rating; whereas flying over the wilderness on a clear,
> moonless night can be done under Visual Flight Rules.
>
> From the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary:
> "Instrument Meteorological Conditions- Meteorological conditions
> expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling
> less than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."
>
Point taken. I was inappropriately referring to "IMC" in my example.

Neil