Lawsuit in HPN accident

"Neil Gould" wrote in
m:

Recently, Steve S posted:

It didn't take them very long.


http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/p...20050527/NEWS0
2/505270315/1018

Hey, it's a lot easier than chasing ambulances.

Here's the part that gets me:
"We do not contend that flying in small planes is dangerous, rather
that American Flyers failed to properly manage the risks in flying and
in so doing cut short this young man's life," said Paul Marx of the
firm DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Tartaglia, Wise and Wiederkehr,
who is representing Alexei and Olga Naoumov. "There is no defensible
or logical reason for a primary flight student who was still learning
how to fly in visual conditions to be receiving training in weather
conditions that were at or below those minimally required for
instrument flying. Doing so is simply reckless and irresponsible."

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?

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?

"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?

--Gary

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

Matt Whiting wrote in
:
snip
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

Unfortunately, the history will be eradicated from this free site soon,
but for a few hours more you can get it at:

http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?code=c&n=999&stn=Khpn

Here's a clip in case you missed it:

METAR KHPN 231456Z 19010KT 1/2SM FG VV002 12/12 A2955 RMK AO2 RAE11
SLP008 P0000 60008 T01220122 56013
METAR KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954 RMK AO2 RAB07
SLP004 P0002 T01220122
METAR KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952 RMK AO2 RAE55
SLP998 P0004 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2
METAR KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 RMK AO2 SLP996
60014 T01220122 10128 20100 56012
METAR KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 SLP993
T01220122
METAR KHPN 231956Z 18012G20KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2948 RMK AO2
RAB12 SLP985 P0003 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 232018Z 19012G20KT 160V220 1/2SM -RA FG OVC002 13/13 A2948
RMK AO2 P0001
METAR KHPN 232056Z 19014G20KT 1/4SM FG OVC002 13/13 A2947 RMK AO2 RAE43
SLP981 P0002 60005 T01280128 58015
SPECI KHPN 232118Z 19013G19KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2947 RMK AO2
RAB01 P0000


The accident report can be found he

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...28X00521&key=1

According to the report,
"According to initial information obtained from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the pilot and student pilot departed HPN, at 1209,
under an IFR flight plan, and flew to ALB. They then departed ALB at
1348, to return to HPN."

At 1209 local, 1609UTC, the last reported weather was

METAR KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954 RMK AO2 RAB07
SLP004 P0002 T01220122

At 1348 local, 1748 UTC, the last reported weather was

METAR KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952 RMK AO2 RAE55
SLP998 P0004 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2

You can download the approach plate from AOPA's web site if you are a
member:

http://download.aopa.org/iap/2005051...ils_rwy_16.pdf

And you will see that minimums on the ILS-16 for all four categories of
aircraft is 200-1/2. It would seem clear that the pilot took off in
weather that was below minimums - if some sort of problem arose, it
might not be safe to return to the airport. Basically, he was commited
to a trip shortly after leaving the runway, whether the problem was
equipment related, or even if his student pilot passenger decided he
wanted to abort the mission and just go home.

I don't think you'll find an official report of the status of the
MALSRS. The reason that I know that it was out was because I was there
that morning, planning a trip to the AVP area, and heard it on the ATIS.
That doesn't necessarily imply that it wasn't corrected by then.

Incidentally, as a moderately experienced instrument rated pilot, I
don't feel comfortable flying in weather that low unless I am at my
sharpest - both with respect to recent flying experience (ie: when's the
last time I practiced (or flew) a low approach?) and overall health and
concentration level (did I get enough sleep last night? Am I feeling
100%?). I chose to drive that day.

According to the report, "The CFI reported 168 hours of total flight
experience on his most recent application for an FAA second class
medical certificate, which was issued on March 7, 2003. According to the
flight school, at the time of the accident, the CFI had accumulated
about 900 hours, and the student pilot had accumulated 31.9 hours of
total flight experience."

snip

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.

He failed to go missed when the plane got about 200' low and hit a bank
of 75' tall trees that extend up to 591' MSL (about 150' AGL). He failed
to do this even after getting a Low Altitude alert from Tower. Not only
did he continue his approach significantly below 639' (the Decision
Height), but I believe he would have had a fully deflected low
glideslope indication at the time.

And the final piece of evidence, of course, is the expired medical,
which is also listed in the Landings Airmen database as having expired
in March of 2004 - over a year ago.

It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would seem that this
particular instructor's focus was not on the safe outcome of the flight
but instead on something else. There's no question that there are pilots
and instructors who could have flown this approach safely and without
incident. But there seems to be a plethora of evidence that would
indicate that this instructor had a pattern of not acting responsibly
and shouldn't have taken that student up in those conditions.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"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?

--Gary



What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand happened
at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the passenger is a
student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This is totally
different from either flying an approach from the right seat with no copilot
instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach and you trying to
save it from the right seat (with no copilot instuments). I'm an ATP with
1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS equipment and I would not let a
student pilot fly it to 200 and a half. How much can you let him get off
centerline or GS before you take it away from him? If you do take it away,
how out of trim is he? Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot
is not going to learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument
student might learn something.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

"Judah" wrote in message
8...

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?

--Gary




What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand happened
at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the passenger is a
student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This is totally
different from either flying an approach from the right seat with no copilot
instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach and you trying to
save it from the right seat (with no copilot instuments). I'm an ATP with
1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS equipment and I would not let a
student pilot fly it to 200 and a half. How much can you let him get off
centerline or GS before you take it away from him? If you do take it away,
how out of trim is he? Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot
is not going to learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument
student might learn something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

"Judah" wrote in message
58...

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?

--Gary




What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS
equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a half.
How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take it away
from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he? Learning is
incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to learn much from
trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student might learn
something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt

No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that was
attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly if
they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the CFI in
question wasn't

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS
equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a half.
How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take it away
from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he? Learning is
incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to learn much from
trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student might learn
something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt


No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that was
attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly if
they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the CFI in
question wasn't

I'm not a CFII either so I can't say for sure. My primary instructor
could certainly do anything from the right seat that he could do from
the left, and more than most pilots could do from the left (he's now in
his 80s and has more than 50,000 hours of flight time, a good part of
that in the right seat). I'd hope the same from a competent CFII,
including approaches to minimums, but maybe the instrument layout in
most light airplanes makes that impractical.

I agree that the CFI in question wasn't up to the task on this
particular day in this particular airplane, but then isn't that true of
any pilot involved in an accident? The hard part is knowing this is
going to happen before it happens! :-) Easier said than done.

However, I still don't think that one accident such as this proves that
all such operations are faulty, hazardous, irresponsible, etc. It
simply shows that this particular operation went terribly awry. If we
legislate or sue out of existence every operation that results in an
accident, then we'll soon have a very small envelope in which to fly.
That would be as dumb as increasing the required fuel reserve every time
a pilot miscalculates and runs out of fuel. The reality is that this
pilot busted minimums ... period. The fact that he was an instructor
and had a student along is not relevant.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II
ILS equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a
half. How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take
it away from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he?
Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to
learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student
might learn something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt


No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that
was attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly
if they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the
CFI in question wasn't

I'm not a CFII either so I can't say for sure. My primary instructor
could certainly do anything from the right seat that he could do from the
left, and more than most pilots could do from the left (he's now in his
80s and has more than 50,000 hours of flight time, a good part of that in
the right seat). I'd hope the same from a competent CFII, including
approaches to minimums, but maybe the instrument layout in most light
airplanes makes that impractical.


I doubt anybody can fly instruments as well from across the cockpit as they
can when they are in front of them.

I agree that the CFI in question wasn't up to the task on this particular
day in this particular airplane, but then isn't that true of any pilot
involved in an accident? The hard part is knowing this is going to happen
before it happens! :-) Easier said than done.

It isn't really that hard..simply don't take risks for nothing. There was
nothing to gain from taking this pre-solo student up to fly low approaches.
The student *can't even fly visually yet* and he probably hasn't learned
about tracking a VOR yet. It isn't in the syllabus, it isn't going to be on
the checkride.. The first rule of practicing anything is not to create a
real emergency. Ski schools don't teach beginning skiers on slope ending
with cliffs. Bull riding schools don't start you out on champion
superbulls. Martial arts students don't train with steel swords. I could
go on but you get the point. These things may all be appropriate for
advanced students but not beginning ones.

However, I still don't think that one accident such as this proves that
all such operations are faulty, hazardous, irresponsible, etc. It simply
shows that this particular operation went terribly awry. If we legislate
or sue out of existence every operation that results in an accident, then
we'll soon have a very small envelope in which to fly. That would be as
dumb as increasing the required fuel reserve every time a pilot
miscalculates and runs out of fuel. The reality is that this pilot busted
minimums ... period. The fact that he was an instructor and had a student
along is not relevant.

If we want to keep the decision making freedoms that we have, we have to
show that we are responsible. This student pilot probably had no idea of
the risk that he was exposed to. He probably didn't even know what the
minimiums were. I don't think that we need new rules but the flight school
will probably lose the lawsuit and rightfully so IMO. This was not a tragic
accident, it was a stupid one.

Mike
MU-2

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

"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?

--Gary


Will you sit right seat? Will you take off if the weather is BELOW
MINIMUMS?

There is a difference between LOW IFR and BELOW IFR...