Lawsuit in HPN accident

It didn't take them very long.


http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/p...505270315/1018

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 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."

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

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
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 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."

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 don't think it's a bad thing. But in a previous thread here regarding that
accident, several pilots expressed opinions that coincide with that excerpt
from the lawsuit.

--Gary

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 certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.
However, quite a few people on this newsgroup argued otherwise. I
don't think their arguments are valid, and I don't think any
experienced instructor would agree with them, but the jury won't be
made up of experienced instructors - it will be made up of non-pilots.

Further, I think that for a student, going up in actual low IMC with
the AVERAGE instructor is a bad thing, and all too likely to get one
killed, because the average CFI, while instrument rated (and possibly a
CFII) is not really qualified to instruct in IMC and quite likely isn't
even qualified to fly IMC himself, FAA certifications notwithstanding.
In other words, the issue is not only that the instructor did not
handle the situation properly, but that there was never a reasonable
expectation that he would.

Instructing in IMC is a lot different from instructing under the hood.
When you're dealing with a competent pilot, it's cake. You sit there,
you scan the instruments, you see that everything is going fine, you
offer the occasional pointer, and you log the time.

When you have a primary student flying his first approach in actual
IMC, it's a lot different. You KNOW he's going to lose it - it's just
a question of when. You're just as much on instruments as if you were
flying yourself, but the airplane is constantly in a bad way - the
student can just barely keep it together. You have to help just enough
to keep him in the game, but not so much that he stops learning. It's
no longer a question of how best to control the airplane, but of how
bad you can let the control get before you have to do something.

If the flight school was simply acting as a plane rental agency,
exercising no control over the instructors (some do operate that way)
and in effect treating them in a way that actually meets the definition
of independent contractor, I would say the suit against the flight
school would be baseless. If it's a more typical operation, it is not.
The suit against the flight instructor is valid in any case, but good
luck collecting anything.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.
However, quite a few people on this newsgroup argued otherwise. I
don't think their arguments are valid, and I don't think any
experienced instructor would agree with them, but the jury won't be
made up of experienced instructors - it will be made up of non-pilots.


I might be thinking of another accident, but wasn't some of the concern
regarding this accident due to the student being at a bar the night before
and the instructor was trying to build time and called the student to come
take an unscheduled lesson?

Recently, Michael posted:

Further, I think that for a student, going up in actual low IMC with
the AVERAGE instructor is a bad thing, and all too likely to get one
killed, because the average CFI, while instrument rated (and possibly
a CFII) is not really qualified to instruct in IMC and quite likely
isn't even qualified to fly IMC himself, FAA certifications
notwithstanding. In other words, the issue is not only that the
instructor did not handle the situation properly, but that there was
never a reasonable expectation that he would.

Yes, instructors have been known to behave quite similarly to normal
people. ;-)

If one makes bad decisions, one is likely to have consequences. But,
differs from a blanket notion that primary students should not be exposed
to any kind of IMC, which is where these lawyers are heading. I really
hope that someone gives them a clue before trial.

When you have a primary student flying his first approach in actual
IMC, it's a lot different. You KNOW he's going to lose it - it's just
a question of when. You're just as much on instruments as if you were
flying yourself, but the airplane is constantly in a bad way - the
student can just barely keep it together. You have to help just
enough to keep him in the game, but not so much that he stops
learning. It's no longer a question of how best to control the
airplane, but of how bad you can let the control get before you have
to do something.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's IMC and there's below-VFR
minimums. While these are both technically IMC, flying below VFR minimums
doesn't necessarily require pure reliance on instruments or difficulty in
controlling the aircraft.

Regards,

Neil

Yes, instructors have been known to behave quite similarly to normal
people. ;-)

Yes, and they've also been known to behave quite differently. The
issue here is that an instrument-rated private pilot who isn't actually
proficient enough to handle hard IFR (and knows it) simply won't fly
it. I've actually met a Cessna 421 owner like that - won't fly solid
IMC, won't fly to anything close to mins, etc. He doesn't need to.

A commercial pilot with a job that involves flying IFR is at a
different level. Under Part 135, single pilot IFR with pax takes 1200
hours, 100 in make and model, and a checkride every six months to a
year. Corporate flight departments don't have to do it that way - but
insurance forces them to do it anyway.

ANd then there's the CFI. He is under pressure to fly IMC even if he's
not comfortable. Pressure from his student who wants to experience IMC
and doesn't see what the big deal is - after all, the instructor is
instrument rated. Pressure from his finances - he needs the money
(seems to have been a factor here) and the flight time - airlines want
to see actual IMC time.

If one makes bad decisions, one is likely to have consequences. But,
differs from a blanket notion that primary students should not be exposed
to any kind of IMC, which is where these lawyers are heading.

If we're dealing with that exposure being provided by the average CFI
working at the average flight school, I don't think the lawyers are
wrong. My experience has been that the average CFI is not up to the
task.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that there's IMC and there's below-VFR
minimums.

Let's not forget that in this case, it was 200 and 1/2.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.

Primary private, or primary IR?

Matt Barrow wrote:
I certainly don't, and I've let primary students fly my plane in IMC.
Primary private, or primary IR?

Private primary, student pilot certificate only. Less than 50 hours
total time, and more than half of that in gliders. He did fine in the
cruise portion, needed some coaching in the descent, and in the
approach phase I had to take it away from him.

Michael

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
m...
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.


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