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...