Lawsuit in HPN accident

Matt Barrow wrote:

And it beats waiting for the NTSB to figure out what REALLY happened.

It doesn't matter what REALLY happened -- this is a court of law, not facts. The
NTSB report will be inadmissible anyway, so why wait?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:6cQle.2216$zb.1696@trndny02...
Matt Barrow wrote:

And it beats waiting for the NTSB to figure out what REALLY happened.

It doesn't matter what REALLY happened -- this is a court of law, not
facts. The
NTSB report will be inadmissible anyway, so why wait?


"We have to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!!"

Neil Gould wrote:

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?

I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight training
in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training for the instrument
rating.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:68Qle.9731$Ib.666@trndny03...
Neil Gould wrote:

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?

I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training
in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training for the
instrument
rating.

Was he doing training or familiarization? If the latter, it's a good idea.

George Patterson wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:


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?


I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training
for the instrument rating.

And I think it is likewise for an instructor to give a primary student
only a few hours under the hood and then consider them prepared to exit
successfully an inadvertant encounter with IMC. A little time in the
soup for real is a real eye opener for a primary student. Makes one
much more respectful of one's ability at that point.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
George Patterson wrote:

I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training
for the instrument rating.

And I think it is likewise for an instructor to give a primary student
only a few hours under the hood and then consider them prepared to exit
successfully an inadvertant encounter with IMC. A little time in the
soup for real is a real eye opener for a primary student. Makes one
much more respectful of one's ability at that point.

In the military, they say "You fight like you train". One purpose of
training is to make it as realistic as possible, hence the wet run courses
in basic training. Analogy - real IMC.

Matt Barrow wrote:
In the military, they say "You fight like you train". One purpose of
training is to make it as realistic as possible, hence the wet run courses
in basic training. Analogy - real IMC.

So what is to be gained in the scenario at hand: Flying into conditions
that are SO marginal, that they may be below the minimums for an
instrument approach, with a student who has essentially no skills nor
time in the IMC environment. You have to crawl before you can walk.

Dave

On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:37:54 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

George Patterson wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:


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?


I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training
for the instrument rating.

And I think it is likewise for an instructor to give a primary student
only a few hours under the hood and then consider them prepared to exit
successfully an inadvertant encounter with IMC. A little time in the
soup for real is a real eye opener for a primary student. Makes one
much more respectful of one's ability at that point.


Matt

I can confirm that even minimal IMC training is very very useful.
My first encounter with IMC was 6 months after my PPL and only 0.3 hr
under the hood. Flew through a very heavy shower and did not expect to
looks visibility! Remained straight and level but expected to need a
180 but soon cleared to VMC after some 15-20 secs.

On another occasion 18 months after PPL (still only 0.3 hr IMC) was
directed by ATC to turn right to descend through a large hole in the
clouds. Lost horizon and heard the engine speeding. Remembered my
training so looked at the instruments and set level, reduced power
then checked gentle turn to achieve a 180. Got the leans slightly but
the horizon returned soon after. All over within 30 secs but even
minimal training DOES work! Thanks to my instructor a none event but I
remembered what I'd been taught about believing the instruments.

david

George Patterson wrote:

I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training in IMC.

It's been a while, but does the Private PTS require that the three hours of
non-visual conditions be simulated or can some be actual?

- Andrew

On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:21:26 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

George Patterson wrote:

I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight
training in IMC.

It's been a while, but does the Private PTS require that the three hours of
non-visual conditions be simulated or can some be actual?

61.109(3) doesn't say, it just says "3 hours of flight training in a
single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level
flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading,
recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the
use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to
instrument flight; "

Do the advocates for doing some actual during primary flight training
really see no difference between taking a student pilot through some
thin stratus at 5-6000 to show them what being inside a cloud is
really like, and attempting to shoot an ILS to at/below minimums?