Lawsuit in HPN accident

Recently, Michael posted:

Further, I think that for a student, going up in actual low IMC with
the AVERAGE instructor is a bad thing, and all too likely to get one
killed, because the average CFI, while instrument rated (and possibly
a CFII) is not really qualified to instruct in IMC and quite likely
isn't even qualified to fly IMC himself, FAA certifications
notwithstanding. In other words, the issue is not only that the
instructor did not handle the situation properly, but that there was
never a reasonable expectation that he would.

Yes, instructors have been known to behave quite similarly to normal
people. ;-)

If one makes bad decisions, one is likely to have consequences. But,
differs from a blanket notion that primary students should not be exposed
to any kind of IMC, which is where these lawyers are heading. I really
hope that someone gives them a clue before trial.

When you have a primary student flying his first approach in actual
IMC, it's a lot different. You KNOW he's going to lose it - it's just
a question of when. You're just as much on instruments as if you were
flying yourself, but the airplane is constantly in a bad way - the
student can just barely keep it together. You have to help just
enough to keep him in the game, but not so much that he stops
learning. It's no longer a question of how best to control the
airplane, but of how bad you can let the control get before you have
to do something.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's IMC and there's below-VFR
minimums. While these are both technically IMC, flying below VFR minimums
doesn't necessarily require pure reliance on instruments or difficulty in
controlling the aircraft.

Regards,

Neil

Yes, instructors have been known to behave quite similarly to normal
people. ;-)

Yes, and they've also been known to behave quite differently. The
issue here is that an instrument-rated private pilot who isn't actually
proficient enough to handle hard IFR (and knows it) simply won't fly
it. I've actually met a Cessna 421 owner like that - won't fly solid
IMC, won't fly to anything close to mins, etc. He doesn't need to.

A commercial pilot with a job that involves flying IFR is at a
different level. Under Part 135, single pilot IFR with pax takes 1200
hours, 100 in make and model, and a checkride every six months to a
year. Corporate flight departments don't have to do it that way - but
insurance forces them to do it anyway.

ANd then there's the CFI. He is under pressure to fly IMC even if he's
not comfortable. Pressure from his student who wants to experience IMC
and doesn't see what the big deal is - after all, the instructor is
instrument rated. Pressure from his finances - he needs the money
(seems to have been a factor here) and the flight time - airlines want
to see actual IMC time.

If one makes bad decisions, one is likely to have consequences. But,
differs from a blanket notion that primary students should not be exposed
to any kind of IMC, which is where these lawyers are heading.

If we're dealing with that exposure being provided by the average CFI
working at the average flight school, I don't think the lawyers are
wrong. My experience has been that the average CFI is not up to the
task.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's IMC and there's below-VFR
minimums.

Let's not forget that in this case, it was 200 and 1/2.

Michael