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