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