NTSB Preliminary report on HPN crash

I teach the instrument PTS in instrument conditions. It doesn't take
balls, just knowledge, skill, and confidence. I guess that it does
take balls, however, to put your real name and email address on the
NG. Where are yours? My balls have 12,000 hours of flight time. IF
you insist on flying in VMC with every instrument rated pilot and
aircraft that are new to you prior to getting wet, your comfort level
must be fairly low. Your attitude is the reason I am booked 4 months
ahead with students. The HPN incident was NOT a case of going to
minimums. It was the mistake of going below minimums. Yes, my
students get value for their training dollar, not a scarey carnival
ride. My post doesn't have any abusive language in it. Why does
yours?


On Sun, 08 May 2005 17:12:13 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 15:44:11 GMT, Bill Zaleski
wrote:

If your "instructional personal minimums" don't include training In
IMC down to legal minimums, in an airworthy aircraft, you are cheating
your students and charging too much, at any price. My students get
what they pay for. "Not on my ticket" is not an option for a
competent instructor.

Bill Zaleski www.instrumentratings.com


You ought to try reading the post before running off at the mouth.

I said I would not do an IPC in IMC with a pilot I have never flown
with in an aircraft I have never been in.

That is far from "training in IMC down to legal minimums", which I do
regularly, although it's really none of your business.

And we only have your say-so that your students get what they pay for.
Our recent thread about a CFII who was taking a student pilot to
minimums at HPN where they were both killed was an example of a
student who got "more than he paid for". Just because you have balls
doesn't mean you are giving someone his money's worth of training.

If you want to do unusual attitudes partial panel in IMC in a strange
aircraft on your ticket, that's your business. Just because I think
you are an idiot if you do, doesn't necessarily make you one.

I said "if you don't go to mins". You say that you do, so what's your
problem? You must be a troll, without a name...a touchy one at
that...


On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:59:01 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:13:41 GMT, Bill Zaleski
wrote:

My post doesn't have any abusive language in it. Why does
yours?


It was probably motivated by this gratuitous assertion of yours:


you are cheating
your students and charging too much,

Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk.
Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the
general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and
kill all hangar talk among pilots.

Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we
all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar
talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who
isn't.

We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable
doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing.
They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost
every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea
that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole
lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things
we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be
it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know
and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity.

(this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant)

Scott Moore wrote:
Tom Fleischman wrote:

If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA075&rpt=p



You're right. It IS disturbing that you are ready to be judge
and jury based on this report, which contains virtually nothing
new.

That's an unfortunate setup. On my GNC 300XL setup the VOR/GPS switch
is overriden by tuning in an ILS freq. I can't display the GPS CDI when
an ILS freq is tuned.

I think it was an option during the installation but 'recommended'

Peter R. wrote:
Gary Drescher wrote:
Not at all suggesting that this was the case, but at our local flight
school that has all late model C172SPs equipped with B/K KLN-94 GPS's and
moving maps, a number of students over the last few years have been known
to forget to toggle the NAV/GPS switch from GPS to NAV when transitioning
from en route to ILS approach.

As you know, when this happens the VOR1 instrument would show the CDI alive
(but really tracking the GPS's course for the localizer). The glideslope
needle, however, would be flagged and remain perfectly centered, as if the
pilot were flying a perfect glideslope.

Tom Fleischman wrote:

Baloney, it contains a lot that is new.

1 - There was communication with the tower throughout the approach and
the pilot was WARNED that he was too low and continued to descend
anyway.

So ? If the instructor was in the cockpit drinking beer with the student
and jerking off with a magazine, that hardly bears on the *ridiculous*
conclusion made here that somehow this flight *never should have been
made* because it involved because it involved a student and a pilot
flying IFR. The status of the passenger was irrelivant, he/she could
have been sightseeing for all I care. If the instructor was current,
then he/she could fly IFR.


2 - It appears that his medical was out of date and he was not legal to
be PIC on that flight.

3 - There was nothing wrong with the major aircraft systems that could
be evaluated on the preliminary report suggesting that a mechanical
problem was not a likely cause.

4 - It appears that American Flyers is incapable of even keeping track
of the medical currency of their instructors, a fairly simple task.
That is gross negligence IMHO.

I don't know where you get the idea that I have set myself up as judge
and jury on this. Obviously you have not been reading my other posts on
the subject. But the more information that comes out on this crash the
more disturbing it becomes.

Now, what's YOUR agenda here? Eh?


So maybe the pilot screwed up. Maybe American fryers did. Whats the bearing
on IFR safety here ?

"I'm sorry, I'm from the FAA, you can't go IFR with that student"

"but hes not a student, hes just a passenger"

"well, thats ok then...."

BTW from the report, all you have is the airplane was low, and the instructor
knew it. You don't know why he was low, or what he was doing about it
(if anything). That's an example of your being "judge and jury" here.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
om...
Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk.
Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the
general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and
kill all hangar talk among pilots.

Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we
all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar
talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who
isn't.

We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable
doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing.
They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost
every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea
that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole
lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things
we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be
it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know
and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity.

(this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant)

No rant at all--your post is a good perspective on usenet in general and
this issue in particular...

Scott Moore writes:

[...] BTW from the report, all you have is the airplane was low,
and the instructor knew it. You don't know why he was low, or what
he was doing about it (if anything). That's an example of your being
"judge and jury" here.

Tell me, just how much information would you require the feds to put
on paper before allowing yourself to form and state an educated
opinion about the wisdom of this flight?

- FChE

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Scott Moore writes:


[...] BTW from the report, all you have is the airplane was low,
and the instructor knew it. You don't know why he was low, or what
he was doing about it (if anything). That's an example of your being
"judge and jury" here.


Tell me, just how much information would you require the feds to put
on paper before allowing yourself to form and state an educated
opinion about the wisdom of this flight?

- FChE

Me ? Actually, never. Fortunately, nobody asks my opinion. Our yours,
either, for that matter. Before calling any dead pilot an idiot,
I recommend everyone take a good look in the mirror.

Sound like a needle using junkie you do.

Peter R. wrote:
During minor outpatient surgery many years ago I was hooked up to an IV and
awaiting the arrival of the doctor. With nothing else to occupy my mind, I
started to imagine what the IV needle must have looked like inside my vein,
the tip of the submerged needle pressing against the inside wall of the
vein and the suger-water dripping out of the point to mix with my blood,
creating a pinkish hue as the mixture was carried off downstream. The
image in my mind was so vivid I then passed out. :-)

.....I had to digress

Sound like a needle using junkie you do.

Sound like Yoda *you* do.

--
Peter