Lawsuit in HPN accident

On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:37:54 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

George Patterson wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:


Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation
properly,
how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight
instruction is a bad thing?


I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training
for the instrument rating.

And I think it is likewise for an instructor to give a primary student
only a few hours under the hood and then consider them prepared to exit
successfully an inadvertant encounter with IMC. A little time in the
soup for real is a real eye opener for a primary student. Makes one
much more respectful of one's ability at that point.


Matt

I can confirm that even minimal IMC training is very very useful.
My first encounter with IMC was 6 months after my PPL and only 0.3 hr
under the hood. Flew through a very heavy shower and did not expect to
looks visibility! Remained straight and level but expected to need a
180 but soon cleared to VMC after some 15-20 secs.

On another occasion 18 months after PPL (still only 0.3 hr IMC) was
directed by ATC to turn right to descend through a large hole in the
clouds. Lost horizon and heard the engine speeding. Remembered my
training so looked at the instruments and set level, reduced power
then checked gentle turn to achieve a 180. Got the leans slightly but
the horizon returned soon after. All over within 30 secs but even
minimal training DOES work! Thanks to my instructor a none event but I
remembered what I'd been taught about believing the instruments.

david