![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"A.Coleman" wrote in message
. .. The damned ceiling couldn't have been more than 500 feet. Temp/dewpoint spread was zero. Says something about American Flyers that it's taking a primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC . Was it _expected_ low IMC? When I was learning to fly, my instructor (13,000 hour ATPL) took me out in IMC with a cloudbase of 800 feet and two potential diversions to where the weather was nice just in case. The forecast said 800 feet for the rest of the day, and ATC said 800 feet when we started down the ILS. We went around at 500 feet (still in IMC) on the first attempt, just so we could resolve the conflict between what we heard and what we saw, and on the second attempt (at which point ATC's observations had been revised) popped out of the bottoms at 300 feet. The experience was most rewarding and educational. At no time was there any danger, we were well within the restrictions of the instructor's licence, the instructor was extremely experienced in IMC flying, training and examining (in fact he was my IMC rating examiner a couple of years later) and we had diversions just in case everything got foggy. It's not fair, then, to suggest that taking a student out in IMC was a bad thing to do. In my case it taught me how to not kill myself by inadvertently flying into a cloud (something that I'm not convinced you can learn properly on a nice day with foggles on). The only caveat here, though, is that the zero spread between temperature and dewpoint would have made me think twice. D. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"A.Coleman" wrote in
: The damned ceiling couldn't have been more than 500 feet. Temp/dewpoint spread was zero. Says something about American Flyers that it's taking a primary student up shooting instrument approaches in low IMC . When they left ALB, the METAR reported Vertical Visibility 200' and 1/8 mi visibility in fog that had been sitting at the airport all day. Plus earlier that day the Approach Lights were reported out of service (though I don't know if it was still inop at the time of the report I am referring to). 1/8 mi is below ILS 16 minimum @HPN. And VV002 is exactly minimum. But without a rabbit you lose a fair amount of latitude with an approach into below minimums. (ie: You can see the rabbit a few hundred feet ahead of the threshold, and once you see it you can go down another 100'. It's a big safety feature.) I know experienced Instrument Rated pilots who would cancel a flight in those conditions. By 3pm, the METAR reported VV002 and 1/2mi Visibility in Fog, so it was exactly at minimums. My guess is that the instructor felt that he could take the student up and take over at some point when the student was clearly out of his league. Still, I don't know enough about the instructor to know A) how far he would let the student go before he decided it was time to take over, B) if he had enough experience teaching THIS particular student to read through potentially confused signals to recognize when it was time to take over, and C) if he would be able to take over a potentially panicked approach in IMC, recover, and safely navigate the plane onto the ground from the right seat. None of us will ever know... But we can sure guess at it based on the unfortunate and dire result... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Metars that day were as follows
KHPN 232056Z 19014G20KT 1/4SM FG OVC002 13/13 A2947 KHPN 232018Z 19012G20KT 160V220 1/2SM -RA FG OVC002 13/13 A2948 KHPN 231956Z COR 18012G20KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2948 RMK AIRCRAFT MISHAP KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952 KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954 turns out that POU had 800 foot ceilings and 7 mile visability and DXR had 300 and 2 mile vis..... The most charitable thing we can say is that praciticing IFR approaches in those conditions with a PPL student was less than optimal judgement. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom wrote:
It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He was still working on his private ticket. If that is truly the case, then it would seem more probably that the instructor were flying the approach from the left seat. I cannot imagine any student pilot being able to, nor a primary instructor allowing the student to fly an approach in actual low IFR conditions. -- Peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
approach from the left seat
Sorry, meant to type right seat. -- Peter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter R." wrote in message
oups.com... It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He was still working on his private ticket. If that is truly the case, then it would seem more probably that the instructor were flying the approach from the left seat. I cannot imagine any student pilot being able to, nor a primary instructor allowing the student to fly an approach in actual low IFR conditions. It's quite possible that the student flew a chunk of the approach and then the instructor took over when it started to go a bit askew. When I was a student I flew a vectored rejoin, established (sort of) on the localiser and got down to about 600 feet with my instructor giving instructions all the way ("left a couple of degrees, take off about 100rpm, ..."). Only when the needles started to drift about did the instructor take over (and isn't it annoying when you've been slaving for five minutes to keep them vaguely right and the instant he takes over they hammer back to where they should be and stay there ? :-) Of course, the sign of a good instructor is that (a) he/she knows to take over while all is not lost; and (b) he/she realises that if he/she takes over a bit late, the direction to go in is up. D. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What he was doing was putting IMC time in the CFI's logbook.
It's worth noting that the student was NOT an instrument student. He was still working on his private ticket. It was a pretty low day for a student pilot to be shooting instrument approaches, in fact I have no idea what they were doing out there that day. I can't imagine my primary instructor allowing me out in such low weather. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Fleischman wrote:
Believe me, by the time he got to his final position he would have been handed off long ago. Normally NY App does the handoff shortly before clearing for the approach, certainly outside the HESTER (the outer makrker/FAF). He went down less than a half mile from the threshold. How is the approach clearance delivered *after* the handoff? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave wrote:
How is the approach clearance delivered *after* the handoff? It looks like you read it backwards. Tom point was that the handoff occurs there right after the approach clearance. -- Peter |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andrew Gideon wrote:
It's possible that there was no contact with the tower if the pilot hadn't been handed off yet (or if he never made contact with the tower after the hand-off). He's 1/4 mile from the runway and hasn't been handed off yet? George Patterson There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Embry-Riddle fatalities | James Robinson | Piloting | 1 | August 29th 04 06:46 PM |
GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief | Horvath | Military Aviation | 112 | August 25th 04 12:00 AM |
Thermal right, land left | John | Soaring | 195 | April 1st 04 11:43 PM |
Deliberate Undercounting of "Coalition" Fatalities | Jeffrey Smidt | Military Aviation | 1 | February 10th 04 07:11 PM |
JFK Jr.'s mean ol wife | I'm just a zero | General Aviation | 63 | July 15th 03 12:51 PM |