Lawsuit in HPN accident

"Neil Gould" wrote in
m:

Recently, Steve S posted:

It didn't take them very long.


http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/p...20050527/NEWS0
2/505270315/1018

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?

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

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?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's soloed
yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in LIFR, so
he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think it'd be
irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?


I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's soloed
yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in LIFR, so
he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think it'd be
irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

I don't, assuming that you are proficient in making approaches.
However, it seems that many here do. There have been claims that the
American Flyers instructor flew an approach in weather than was below
minimums. I haven't seen any official data that proves or disproves
that. Even so, I've flown a number of approaches into conditions
"reported" as below minimums. I've been able to complete a few and not
complete more than a few. Likewise, I've flown approaches in weather
that was reported above minimums and found that my flight visibility
wasn't sufficient to legally complete the arrival. Weather is what you
find at the time you are flying the approach. Reported/observed weather
is simply that and may or may not correlate to actual flight visibility
on the approach.

It is hardly irresponsible for a competent and proficient instrument
pilot to fly an approach in conditions reported at, or even below,
mininums. It is only irresponsible to continue the approach below the
published minimums. To me, that is what the American Flyers instructor
did wrong. It wasn't making the flight itself, it was descending below
minimums without having the appropriate ground facility references in sight.


Matt

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in
LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think
it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

--Gary



What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand happened
at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the passenger is a
student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This is totally
different from either flying an approach from the right seat with no copilot
instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach and you trying to
save it from the right seat (with no copilot instuments). I'm an ATP with
1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS equipment and I would not let a
student pilot fly it to 200 and a half. How much can you let him get off
centerline or GS before you take it away from him? If you do take it away,
how out of trim is he? Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot
is not going to learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument
student might learn something.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

"Judah" wrote in message
8...

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in
LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't think
it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

--Gary




What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand happened
at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the passenger is a
student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This is totally
different from either flying an approach from the right seat with no copilot
instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach and you trying to
save it from the right seat (with no copilot instuments). I'm an ATP with
1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS equipment and I would not let a
student pilot fly it to 200 and a half. How much can you let him get off
centerline or GS before you take it away from him? If you do take it away,
how out of trim is he? Learning is incremental and a pre-solo student pilot
is not going to learn much from trying to fly a low approach. An instrument
student might learn something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt

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

"Judah" wrote in message
58...

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches in
LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I don't
think it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

--Gary




What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS
equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a half.
How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take it away
from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he? Learning is
incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to learn much from
trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student might learn
something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt

No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that was
attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly if
they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the CFI in
question wasn't

Mike
MU-2

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed
student pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

I have a friend who's a lapsed student pilot (I don't recall if he's
soloed yet). He'd like to come along sometime when I shoot approaches
in LIFR, so he can see what it's like. (I'm not an instructor.) I
don't think it'd be irresponsible to take him along. Do you?

--Gary


Will you sit right seat? Will you take off if the weather is BELOW
MINIMUMS?

There is a difference between LOW IFR and BELOW IFR...

Recently, Judah posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in
m:

Recently, Steve S posted:

It didn't take them very long.


http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/p...20050527/NEWS0
2/505270315/1018

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?

Getting IMC exposure is not the problem.

Do you believe it is responsible to take a 32-hour, non-soloed student
pilot into weather that is BELOW IFR MINIMUMS?

Just to be clear, I was "Disregarding whether or not the instructor...",
IOW, I was asking about the lawyers' statement, not the instructor's
actions.

Regards,

Neil

Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Mike Rapoport wrote:

What you are proposing is totally different from what I understand
happened at HPN. Flying LIFR with a passenger is OK whether the
passenger is a student pilot, astronaut, or garden varierty human. This
is totally different from either flying an approach from the right seat
with no copilot instruments or letting a student pilot fly the approach
and you trying to save it from the right seat (with no copilot
instuments). I'm an ATP with 1500hrs in an airplane with full CAT II ILS
equipment and I would not let a student pilot fly it to 200 and a half.
How much can you let him get off centerline or GS before you take it away
from him? If you do take it away, how out of trim is he? Learning is
incremental and a pre-solo student pilot is not going to learn much from
trying to fly a low approach. An instrument student might learn
something.

Are you a CFII?

Matt


No but I don't think that CFIIs are qualified to fly the approach that was
attempted at HPN. I don't think anyone is.really qualified to fly an
approach cross-cockpit to minimiums with WX below minimiums, particularly if
they let a student pilot begin the approach. It is certain that the CFI in
question wasn't

I'm not a CFII either so I can't say for sure. My primary instructor
could certainly do anything from the right seat that he could do from
the left, and more than most pilots could do from the left (he's now in
his 80s and has more than 50,000 hours of flight time, a good part of
that in the right seat). I'd hope the same from a competent CFII,
including approaches to minimums, but maybe the instrument layout in
most light airplanes makes that impractical.

I agree that the CFI in question wasn't up to the task on this
particular day in this particular airplane, but then isn't that true of
any pilot involved in an accident? The hard part is knowing this is
going to happen before it happens! :-) Easier said than done.

However, I still don't think that one accident such as this proves that
all such operations are faulty, hazardous, irresponsible, etc. It
simply shows that this particular operation went terribly awry. If we
legislate or sue out of existence every operation that results in an
accident, then we'll soon have a very small envelope in which to fly.
That would be as dumb as increasing the required fuel reserve every time
a pilot miscalculates and runs out of fuel. The reality is that this
pilot busted minimums ... period. The fact that he was an instructor
and had a student along is not relevant.


Matt