Lawsuit in HPN accident

"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 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!!"

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

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

"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

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

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