Lawsuit in HPN accident

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"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?

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

No, you're right, I wouldn't take off then. I'd want to be able to approach
and land if a mechanical problem became apparent shortly after takeoff. On
the other hand, their takeoff was uneventful, so that danger didn't
materialize. When they flew the approach, in the absence of any mechanical
problem, below-minimum visibility should not have been dangerous; it should
just have prompted a missed approach. In fact, though, they crashed a mile
or two from the field--long before below-minimum visibility should have been
a factor at all. So even if taking off under those conditions was
irresponsible, that particular irresponsibility was arguably not
contributory to the accident, as things turned out.

And no, admittedly I'm not going to sit in the right seat or let my friend
fly. I have no experience giving instruction or flying from the right seat.
I don't know how if that would be particularly difficult for an experienced
instructor to do. But from the reports I've seen, we don't know if the
student was flying the approach at all; the NTSB report doesn't even say who
was sitting where. It's conceivable that for the return leg, the instructor
was sitting in the left seat and the student was just along for the ride.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

snip

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

No, you're right, I wouldn't take off then. I'd want to be able to
approach and land if a mechanical problem became apparent shortly
after takeoff. On the other hand, their takeoff was uneventful, so
that danger didn't materialize. When they flew the approach, in the
absence of any mechanical problem, below-minimum visibility should not
have been dangerous; it should just have prompted a missed approach.
In fact, though, they crashed a mile or two from the field--long
before below-minimum visibility should have been a factor at all. So
even if taking off under those conditions was irresponsible, that
particular irresponsibility was arguably not contributory to the
accident, as things turned out.

True. But the fact that they did take off in weather that was below
minimums, helps to paint a picture of an instructor whose focus was on
something other than safety of flight.

And no, admittedly I'm not going to sit in the right seat or let my
friend fly. I have no experience giving instruction or flying from the
right seat. I don't know how if that would be particularly difficult
for an experienced instructor to do. But from the reports I've seen,
we don't know if the student was flying the approach at all; the NTSB
report doesn't even say who was sitting where. It's conceivable that
for the return leg, the instructor was sitting in the left seat and
the student was just along for the ride.

That is conceivable. It's equaly as conceivable that the instructor was
not IFR current. After all, he let his medical lapse, what's to say that
he didn't let his currency lapse?

Obviously, a lapsed medical and an irresponsible take off didn't cause
this accident. But they are among a series of facts that paint a picture
of an instructor who had a pattern of taking less than responsible
actions and failed to excercise good judgement.

Nobody's perfect, but the apparent trend makes it easy to assume
(perhaps incorrectly) that the cause of the accident lies in the hands
of the instructor as well...

Recently, Judah posted:

"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?

Just to be clear, I was "Disregarding whether or not the instructor...",
IOW, I was asking about the lawyers' statement, not the instructor's
actions.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in news:AlPme.1172$4u.380
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

snip
Just to be clear, I was "Disregarding whether or not the instructor...",
IOW, I was asking about the lawyers' statement, not the instructor's
actions.

Hi Neil,

The lawyer's statements, as quoted by your own post, are
"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."

Just to be clear, I believe that getting some actual IMC during primary VFR
flight training is a wonderful idea. But I don't believe it is appropriate
for said IMC exposure to be during "weather conditions that were at or
below those minimally required for instrument flying."

IMC exposure for a VFR pilot at altitude offers a great learning experience
for a scenario that the VFR pilot might one day get himself into, even if
he is a mostly responsible pilot. IMC exposure at 200' AGL is not a
situation I would expect any responsible VFR pilot to get himself into, and
offers no benefit toward VFR training.

As to whether it is reckless and irresponsible, I can't say for sure. I'm
not a CFII, and I don't know how much experience this particular instructor
has flying approaches into LIFR from the right seat. Nor do I know how
proficient of a pilot the student was, or if he had any training on
scanning technique. Was this his first flight "under the hood" or did he
have an hour already?

If it's any indication of where I stand on this issue, I had an
opportunity a couple of years ago to get some LIFR exposure before I got my
Instrument Rating. (I had my VFR, though, and about 150 hours IIRC.) I was
flying home from Maine and got stuck in Bridgeport because the ceilings
were dropping. After waiting a couple of hours and realizing it was getting
worse, I called the flight school that I was renting from, and they sent an
instructor (the Chief Instructor, actually) out to get me. By the time he
got there, it was LIFR at HPN. By mutual decision, I sat right seat, and
let the instructor fly the plane. The instructor told me later that I
probably was proficient enough to be able to hold altitude and headings to
handle it. But my flight was not about getting hours, it was about getting
home safely.

Recently, Judah posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in news:AlPme.1172$4u.380
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

snip
Just to be clear, I was "Disregarding whether or not the
instructor...", IOW, I was asking about the lawyers' statement, not
the instructor's actions.

Hi Neil,

The lawyer's statements, as quoted by your own post, are
"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."

Just to be clear, I believe that getting some actual IMC during
primary VFR flight training is a wonderful idea. But I don't believe
it is appropriate for said IMC exposure to be during "weather
conditions that were at or below those minimally required for
instrument flying."

I agree with you. IMO, the conditions under wich this particular flight
was undertaken were unarguably unreasonable. Instructors sometimes make
bad decisions, and this is clearly an example. But, that doesn't mean that
flying in all IMC situations would be so. For example, a clear, moonless
night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)

I was objecting to a global statement that could establish a precedence
that could render any aspect of flying in IMC with a primary student
automatically "reckless and irresponsible".

Regards,

Neil

But, that doesn't mean that
flying in all IMC situations would be so. For example, a clear, moonless
night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)

Well, it only goes all the way to the ground if you are crashing.

If you are landing at a lighted runway, then the runway lights should
give you enough visual cues that you are not flying "on instruments".

Not all moonless nights are IMC.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
For example, a clear, moonless
night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)

Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
moonless night is definitely not IMC.

--Gary

Recently, Gary Drescher posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
For example, a clear, moonless
night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground.
;-)

Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
moonless night is definitely not IMC.

If you spend any time over a large body of water or undeveloped landscape
on a moonless night, you may arrive at a different opinion about that.
I've done both, and they're definitely IMC.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
Recently, Gary Drescher posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
For example, a clear, moonless
night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground.
;-)

Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
moonless night is definitely not IMC.

If you spend any time over a large body of water or undeveloped landscape
on a moonless night, you may arrive at a different opinion about that.
I've done both, and they're definitely IMC.

It's just a matter of terminology. Yes, you're describing conditions that
require flying by instruments; and yes, the time spent in such conditions is
loggable as instrument time. But IMC has a specific meaning under the FARs.
It refers to visibility conditions that are less than the specified minimums
for Visual Flight Rules. If the conditions you describe were really IMC,
then you'd have to be instrument rated and under IFR to fly in those
conditions. But in fact, there's no such requirement, because those
conditions are not IMC.

Remember, VMC and IMC are defined primarily for purposes of *separation*
rather than aviation or navigation. On a clear, moonless night, you can see
other (properly lit) aircraft without difficulty, so there's no problem
maintaining visual separation. You may still need instruments to keep the
plane right side up, but that's a different matter.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

For example, a clear, moonless
night is also loggable as IMC, and goes all the way to the ground. ;-)


Well, it can be loggable as instrument time, but not as IMC--a clear,
moonless night is definitely not IMC.

It can be. If the moon is behind you any you are flying over water it
can be pretty hard to make out the horizon.


Matt