NTSB Preliminary report on HPN crash

Tom Fleischman k wrote:

I don't think I ever said that I assumed that.

I don't think I ever made any statement about who was manipulating the
controls on the approach. I have no idea about that.

Sorry, I thought this statement, "calm down the student pilot in the right
seat," was an implication that the student pilot was flying.

Back when I was a student pilot, one of my early instructors demonstrated a
spin to me in a C152. If there were a flying moment that would cause a
student pilot to panic, this would have been it. Instead, I remained
naively calm and jovial. My point is simply that there are probably many
student pilots who have too much trust in their instructors and do not
realize the actual risk in which they are placed.

In this accident, it *seems* logical to me that the instructor would have
been flying this particular approach. Again, I cannot imagine any student
pilot being capable of flying an approach in actual conditions, nor an
instructor allowing a pre-PPL to do so. Most likely, the NTSB will not be
able to conclude who was actually flying the approach so we will never
know.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Tom Fleischman k wrote:

Now can you honestly say that you find nothing disturbing in any of this?

Now look who has misinterpreted what he has read. I never stated that I
found nothing disturbing about this accident. All aircraft accidents that
result in fatalities are disturbing to me, as they are to any pilot.

What I did post was this:

"I honestly didn't see anything that stuck out as *really disturbing* such
as drugs, alcohol, or a blatant mistake."

BTW, my statement was posted before the group figured out that the
instructor had an expired medical, assuming the report about his age at 45
being correct. In hindsight, the fact that his medical had expired by a
month (Class III expires in two years from March '03, right?) was somewhat
interesting for a large flight school such as AF. Did it expire because of
oversight or did it expire because the instructor had a condition that
wouldn't allow him to pass? We don't know.

Also, being unfamiliar with the approach, I would agree with you that
flying below the glideslope and not going missed as this aircraft did would
indicate a mistake, but when taking all of the aircraft accidents of this
type into account, this particular one has yet to stand out as *really
disturbing.* IMO, of course.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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.

wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2005 06:57:16 -0400, "Steve S"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

On Wed, 4 May 2005 22:27:09 -0400, "Steve S"
wrote:


How about why is an instructor taking a primary student, he doesn't even
have a pp-asel, up in 200- 1/2 with a 0 temp/dew point spread?


Where does it say that a pilot needs a pp-asel in order to take
instrument instruction?


It's not a question of needing one, just that there is limited benefit, if
any, of instrument instruction to a student still learning basic attitude
flying, navigation etc.



Maybe the student just wanted to see what it was like. Sort of like
folks who take aerobatic rides, glider rides, balloon rides. Limited
benefit? Who can judge?



I started IFR instruction with an instructor that refused to fly in
actual. I fired him and got another instructor. Nothing more goddam
useless than an IFR instructor who won't fly IFR.

He looked at the forecast and said he wouldn't do it without a second

engine, second alternator, second vac, ...

That's the logic that put me in a twin, where I do indeed have a second
engine, second generator, second vacuum pump, second attitude gyro -
well, you get the idea. I wouldn't absolutely say no for a one time
deal, but I wouldn't make a habit of making flights like that single
engine either. Eventually the odds will catch up with you.

What he said was particularly articulate. It would be a doable
flight *if* nothing went wrong.

Right. Thing is, nothing went wrong (with the airplane - everything
that could be checked after the crash checked out OK) and they died
anyway. And this, unfortunately, is the reality of most accidents. No
system failure. No gross violations of common sense. Just another
pilot who got behind the curve and mishandled the airplane in the
approach/landing or takeoff/climb phase of the flight. A twin would
have been no help.

Michael

I cannot imagine any student
pilot being capable of flying an approach in actual conditions, nor
an
instructor allowing a pre-PPL to do so.

You lack imagination. I've allowed a student pilot to fly an approach
in IMC, and he actually did quite well for a while (with a lot of
coaching, obviously). This was a much more demanding approach (night
circling NDB) in a much more demanding airplane (my Twin Comanche).
Eventually he started losing it (meaning he could no longer keep up
with what had to be done even with my coaching) and I had to take it
from him and complete the approach myself.

There's nothing wrong with an instructor allowing a student to fly an
approach in actual IMC - as long as the instructor is prepared to take
the airplane before a dangeerous situation develops.

There's no question here that the approach was mishandled, and I don't
consider it important to know who was actually manipulating the
controls. In any case, the CFI was PIC, and he was responsible for the
control inputs of the student. I suspect he simply got overloaded
trying to teach in IMC (or perhaps just fly in IMC). Either way, it
hardly matters. He overestimated his abilities, and has now paid the
ultimate price. His student paid too, and his only mistake was
overestimating the capabilities of his instructor. Sad but hardly
unique.

Michael

Mea culpa. You are correct, the news stories indicate he was 45, which
would make his medical almost a month out of date, which means he was
technically not legal to make the flight..

Michael

"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
.. .
Not according to the news reports I read. And since his 2nd class
reverts to third .. he does get 2 years. The accident was in April.
His medical would have been good till the end of March.

If he'd just recently renewed it, I wonder if the records might not have
been available yet for the preliminary accident report.

--Gary

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
I started IFR instruction with an instructor that refused to fly in
actual. I fired him and got another instructor. Nothing more goddam
useless than an IFR instructor who won't fly IFR.


I had the same experience a few years ago when I went for an IPC. At that
point I had about 1000 hours with about 100 approaches in actual. First he
refused to fly in my plane, which is a hell of a lot better maintained and a
much better IFR platform than the FBO planes. Then he added that he was
uncomfortable flying in actual since he didn't know me. Needless to say I
found another CFII.

Michael

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Yup. Fortunately, there are at least five ways for an instrument
pilot to detect that problem before it's too late: 1) double-check the
NAV/GPS switch; 2) observe the flag on the GS; 3) the GS needle should
start high and then come to center when approaching the FAF; 4) even
when established on the GS, a needle that stays perfectly centered at
all times should arouse suspicion; 5) a low-altitude alert should
certainly call attention to the problem.

--Gary

In this case there should have been a sixth way - the instructor sitting
right seat...