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