Lets all admit that this accident was the confluence and outcome of serial
misjudgments, just like the examples in the textbooks. Can anyone argue that
good judgment ruled the day?

That flight had no business happening. That instructor had no business
taking a VFR primary student on a cross-country to Albany in Saturday's
weather and back practicing instrument approaches in really low IMC under
pressure to "work overtime". That primary student had no business flying
low IMC without a modicum of instrument training after a night shooting pool
[--and downing a few beers expecting not to fly- does anyone doubt the
likelihood of a young guy and few beers in a pool hall in Yonkers?-] and
subjugating his cautious expectations to the anxieties of money-anxious
instructor. The school had no business having a policy void against sending
up an off-the-shelf C172 in low IMC with the temp/dewpoint spread at zero
with a VFR primary student.

I invite all the posters who previously characterized this flight as a
CFII's opportunity to introduce a VFR primary student to the wonders of a
low IMC cross country as a confidence builder, to run that by me again.
Please also try to argue that this wasn't a major CFIT ****-up!





"john smith" wrote in message
news
Tom Fleischman wrote:
Here a couple of alarming stories about the pilots who went down at HPN
last weekend:

Interesting that you choose to use the word "alarming".
Do you actually believe everything the newspapers print?

This does NOT look good.

You seem to be inferring quite a bit from an untrained, incomplete
source for aviation accident investigation determination.