Lawsuit in HPN accident

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

In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

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

hmmm, I don't doubt that flying instruments from the left seat
is easier than flying instruments from the right seat. However,
that doesn't matter if one can safely fly instruments from the
right seat. A CFII friend always flys from the right seat. He's
done that for decades. It would be interesting to see you two
discuss this.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

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

hmmm, I don't doubt that flying instruments from the left seat
is easier than flying instruments from the right seat. However,
that doesn't matter if one can safely fly instruments from the
right seat. A CFII friend always flys from the right seat. He's
done that for decades. It would be interesting to see you two
discuss this.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule


I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI couldn't
fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI with around
1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI, has very minimial
time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs. If we just do the
math and consider that almost all of his time was sitting in the right seat
instructing, and that most of his students were probably not instrument
students, that most of his time with instrument students was in VMC, we are
left with *very* little time where this CFI was actually flying IMC and it
may have been his first time trying to fly IMC from the right seat.
Admittedly all this is somewhat conjecture but this guy sure as hell wasn't
some 30,000hr retired airline captain, this had to be one of the few times
that he had done this and he was doing it in very low conditions. I don't
think that it was reckless for him to go out and do this on his own but to
do it as part of a lesson was criminal.

My basic belief is that a student (of anything) need to be able to make
mistakes and learn in a protected enviornment. We must also provide more
protection to those unable to assess the risk of what they are doing. You
can see this in how the FAA regulates for hire operations more stringently
than Part 91 operations. I agree with most on this thread that exposure to
IMC is beneficial but I think that the CFI in this case went way over the
line. In fact, I suspect that he undertook this final flight for himself
rather than his student.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
et...
I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI
couldn't fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI
with around 1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI, has
very minimial time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs.

I understood the NTSB report to say that the pilot had about 900 hours
total, as reported by the flight school, with no indication of how much of
that time was accumulated *at* the flight school (though admittedly the
NTSB's wording is a little vague).

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
et...
I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI
couldn't fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI
with around 1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI,
has very minimial time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs.

I understood the NTSB report to say that the pilot had about 900 hours
total, as reported by the flight school, with no indication of how much of
that time was accumulated *at* the flight school (though admittedly the
NTSB's wording is a little vague).

--Gary


True, it is not clear from the NTSB statements. I am making the assumption
that anyone accumulating over 700hrs in two years and working as a CFI
accumulated those hours instructing. My rational is that someone who would
work as a full time CFI is unlikely to be able to afford to pay for most of
those hours and it seems unlikely that a pilot with under 200TT two years
ago would have landed a piloting job between two years ago and today since a
number of hours had to be spent attaining the CFI and Commercial
certificates. Admittedly a speculation on my part.


Mike
MU-2