Lawsuit in HPN accident

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
et...
I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI
couldn't fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI
with around 1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI, has
very minimial time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs.

I understood the NTSB report to say that the pilot had about 900 hours
total, as reported by the flight school, with no indication of how much of
that time was accumulated *at* the flight school (though admittedly the
NTSB's wording is a little vague).

--Gary

"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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
et...
I can't dispute any of what you say but I'd point out that this CFI
couldn't fly well enough from whatever seat he was in and also that a CFI
with around 1000hrs, 900 of which were gained while employed as a CFI,
has very minimial time actually flyiing instruments, perhaps under 50hrs.

I understood the NTSB report to say that the pilot had about 900 hours
total, as reported by the flight school, with no indication of how much of
that time was accumulated *at* the flight school (though admittedly the
NTSB's wording is a little vague).

--Gary


True, it is not clear from the NTSB statements. I am making the assumption
that anyone accumulating over 700hrs in two years and working as a CFI
accumulated those hours instructing. My rational is that someone who would
work as a full time CFI is unlikely to be able to afford to pay for most of
those hours and it seems unlikely that a pilot with under 200TT two years
ago would have landed a piloting job between two years ago and today since a
number of hours had to be spent attaining the CFI and Commercial
certificates. Admittedly a speculation on my part.


Mike
MU-2

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:

"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.

It can be. If the moon is behind you any you are flying over water it
can be pretty hard to make out the horizon.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

"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.

It can be. If the moon is behind you any you are flying over water it can
be pretty hard to make out the horizon.

See my second reply to Neil.

--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.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Well, if you consider other aircraft to be obstacles, maybe.

Yes, I do. How hard would it have been for you figure that out, seeing how
just before the statement you quoted, I also wrote:

"...everything to do with avoiding obstacles (terrain, buildings, other
aircraft, etc.)."

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.

How is that incompatible with what I wrote? Especially when you take into
account the part of my post you obviously didn't read the first time?

Pete