Lawsuit in HPN accident

"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 in message
news
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.

I've never heard of anyone logging time as "IMC". Though, I suppose that
could be synonymous with "actual instrument conditions". It seems we're all
in agreement that the flight time is loggable as instrument flight time.
But just for fun, let's look a little closer at the regulatory issues around
this situation...

61.51 doesn't refer to "instrument meteorological conditions".

(g) Logging instrument flight time. (1) A person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person
operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments
under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions.

Of course, the FARs fail to define what "instrument flight conditions"
means. But one can make a pretty good inference simply by reading what's
loggable. That is "flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely
by reference to instruments".

The Part 61 FAQ only helps a little in understanding this question. One can
find the relevant passage by searching for the phrase "The question came up
about logging actual instrument". Someone has posted a copy of the relevant
passage on this page: http://cavucompanies.com/CAVU/discuss.htm If you
click on the "What constitutes 'actual' versus 'simulated' instrument time"
link, that will take you straight to the FAQ's answer.

It does little to give us confidence in the answer, when the author uses
phrases like "I agree with" and "it was always my understanding". However,
the core piece of useful information is that the author of the FAQ answer
agrees that flight in VMC when use of the instruments is required for
control of the aircraft is loggable as instrument flight time.

He further describes this situation as "simulated instrument conditions",
justifying that by pointing out that much of what makes VFR conditions VFR
has nothing to do with control of the aircraft, and everything to do with
avoiding obstacles (terrain, buildings, other aircraft, etc.).

In fact, given that there's no prohibition against flying under VFR even
when there are no outside references, and given that all of the various
visibility and cloud clearance requirements are designed for the sole
purpose of avoiding obstacles, one could make a very good argument that
avoiding obstacles is ALL that VFR conditions are about.

The reason I don't believe that it's truly an "either/or" thing is that we
have uncontrolled airspace, in which flight in IMC still requires an
instrument rating. Obviously, no one is concerned about separation, since
an unlimited number of aircraft are permitted in any given area of
uncontrolled airspace. So in that case, the requirement for an instrument
rating must be for the purpose of controlling an aircraft. Likewise, the
requirement for helicopters to be equipped with an autopilot for flight in
IMC (or is that for the helicopter to be certified for instrument flight...I
don't recall the specifics). Obviously (to me) the rules are written to
take into account terrain avoidance, aircraft avoidance, and control of the
aircraft.

The primary abandonment of logic comes with respect to the fact that even
though IFR is primarily (or entirely) about avoiding obstacles, the logging
of flight time that is used for obtaining an instrument rating, maintaining
instrument currency, etc. is based not on avoiding obstacles but rather on
control of the aircraft. Nonetheless, this does appear to be the reading
that the author of the Part 61 FAQ takes, and there's nothing elsewhere in
the FARs that would serve to disagree with this.

I realize that since none of this discussion really disagrees with the heart
of anything that's been written so far, and so everyone may find this really
boring. Oh well...you could've just skipped this post.

Pete

and given that all of the various
visibility and cloud clearance requirements are designed for the sole
purpose of avoiding obstacles

Well, if you consider other aircraft to be obstacles, maybe. But as I
see it the visibility and cloud clearance requirements are designed for
the purpose of giving aircraft time to see and avoid. Something pops
out of a cloud, it takes some time to see it, recognize it, and avoid it.

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

Recently, Gary Drescher posted:

"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.

I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. The
way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the
aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of
control. I suspect that we can make these things far more convoluted than
they need to be.

Remember, VMC and IMC are defined primarily for purposes of
*separation* rather than aviation or navigation. You may still
need instruments to keep the plane right side up, but that's a
different matter.

How would this be a different matter? Far more accidents are due to
colliding with fixed obstacles and terrain than with other aircraft.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
I think that Peter Duniho's response casts doubt on your perspective. The
way I see it, "I" and "V" indicate the mode used for control of the
aircraft; "MC" describes the conditions which require a particular mode of
control.

Well, I did say the distinction was *primarily* a matter of separation. Pete
correctly points out some other aspects of the distinction.

But regardless of what motivates the distinction, the point remains that a
clear, moonless night over the wilderness does not qualify as IMC (even
though the conditions require the use of instruments to keep the plane
upright), because flying in IMC, by definition, requires being under
Instrument Flight Rules and having a (current) instrument rating; whereas
flying over the wilderness on a clear, moonless night can be done under
Visual Flight Rules.

From the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary:
"Instrument Meteorological Conditions- Meteorological conditions expressed
in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the
minima specified for visual meteorological conditions."

The conditions you describe have visibility of many miles, no clouds, and no
ceiling; those are, by definition, Visual Meteorological Conditions, even if
everything is pitch black, with no visible horizon. (Night visibility is
defined in terms of the distance from which a prominent lighted object would
be seen.)

--Gary