If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:68Qle.9731$Ib.666@trndny03... Neil Gould wrote: Disregarding whether or not the instructor handled the situation properly, how many of you feel that getting experience in actual IMC during flight instruction is a bad thing? I feel that it's reprehensibly careless for anyone to do primary flight training in IMC. It's a good idea during the latter stages of training for the instrument rating. Was he doing training or familiarization? If the latter, it's a good idea. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message news:6cQle.2216$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!!" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Fleischman wrote:
On 2005-05-27 15:58:31 -0400, "Neil Gould" said: snip 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? One of the best experiences that I had in my early training was exactly this, and gave me the confidence to make good decisions if caught in IMC inadvertently. I do not think that getting experience in IMC during primary training is necessarily a bad thing, in fact I think it is a good thing if done the right way, but the instructor is really obligated to use some degree of judgment. I think taking a primary student up into a benign stratus cloud layer in stable conditions to show him or her what the effects of spatial disorientation can be like is a very, very valuable lesson. However, the conditions that prevailed in the area that day were not suitable for this type of instruction, IMHO. The ceilings were very low, the temp/dewpoint spread was nil, the winds were sporadically very gusty and there were periods of heavy rain throughout the day. To take a primary student up in conditions like that was incredibly stupid and downright negligent and the parents should, and I predict will, win the lawsuit. And if they win they will likely put another flight school out of business... Just what we need. Matt |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Tom Fleischman wrote: On 2005-05-27 15:58:31 -0400, "Neil Gould" said: snip 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? One of the best experiences that I had in my early training was exactly this, and gave me the confidence to make good decisions if caught in IMC inadvertently. I do not think that getting experience in IMC during primary training is necessarily a bad thing, in fact I think it is a good thing if done the right way, but the instructor is really obligated to use some degree of judgment. I think taking a primary student up into a benign stratus cloud layer in stable conditions to show him or her what the effects of spatial disorientation can be like is a very, very valuable lesson. However, the conditions that prevailed in the area that day were not suitable for this type of instruction, IMHO. The ceilings were very low, the temp/dewpoint spread was nil, the winds were sporadically very gusty and there were periods of heavy rain throughout the day. To take a primary student up in conditions like that was incredibly stupid and downright negligent and the parents should, and I predict will, win the lawsuit. And if they win they will likely put another flight school out of business... Just what we need. Matt They put themselves out of business. No instructor has any business flying any primary student into low IMC without two full sets of flight instruments. It was stupid and now the student is dead. Mike MU-2 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
As a CFI, I have no problem at all taking primary students into some
light IMC once or twice. It does a few things: 1. Once and for all, it kills the notion that a few hours of hood time can allow you to even THINK about flying in the soup. 2. It helps them get a stronger connection between the actions of the airplane and the instrument indications. 3. It helps them get a better understanding of ATC, communications, and the airspace system. 4. It MAY help them not panic so much if they ever do wander into IMC. If they can delay the panic just one or two minutes, it might well save their lives someday. However, this accident troubles me on a number of fronts, and I don't see it as a standard vampire-lawyer thing (especially since the filing attorney is a 1000-hour IFR-rated pilot himself, and goes out of his way to show this isn't about the dangers of GA). 1. This is one of those 'hyper-accelerated' training programs. The student had 32 hours, yet hadn't soloed yet. Most of his training had been in HUGE blocks of flying time, 5 or 6 hours per day; hardly condusive to good training. 2. This was a hard-IMC cross-country; not a limited flight into a few clouds to introduce him to weather. The weather at the destination (accident) airport (if I remember correctly) was 200 and 1/2. And it had been a 2-3 hour X-C...what on earth purpose does that serve? What benefit can a student who hasn't even soloed yet gain from a X-C in serious soup, followed by an ILS approach to minimums? 3. American Flyers (like some other well-known national schools) has a reputation for being both cookie-cutter in it's approach, and possibly more focuses on the $30,000 brought in by a student taking the 'career pilot' program than in turning out quality pilots, or possibly even in safety. As I said, exposing a primary student to IMC is quite reasonable. But from what I have read of the accident, the lawyer may well have a good case...esposing a rushed pre-solo student to a hard-IMC cross country (perhaps just to keep him in the air, and keep the revenue coming, a cynical part of me things) may very well be negligent...and looks to me to be counterproductive at best. Cheers, Cap Neil Gould wrote: Recently, Steve S posted: It didn't take them very long. http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/p...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 s 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? One of the best experiences that I had in my early training was exactly this, and gave me the confidence to make good decisions if caught in IMC inadvertently. Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AmeriFlight Crash | C J Campbell | Piloting | 5 | December 1st 03 02:13 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |