If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in
m: Recently, Steve S posted: It didn't take them very long. http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/p...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? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Judah" wrote in message 8... 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Mike Rapoport wrote: "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... "Judah" wrote in message 58... 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Judah posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in m: Recently, Steve S posted: It didn't take them very long. http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/p...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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AmeriFlight Crash | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | December 1st 03 02:13 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |