Lawsuit in HPN accident

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

"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?

"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

Matt Whiting wrote in
:
snip
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

Unfortunately, the history will be eradicated from this free site soon,
but for a few hours more you can get it at:

http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?code=c&n=999&stn=Khpn

Here's a clip in case you missed it:

METAR KHPN 231456Z 19010KT 1/2SM FG VV002 12/12 A2955 RMK AO2 RAE11
SLP008 P0000 60008 T01220122 56013
METAR KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954 RMK AO2 RAB07
SLP004 P0002 T01220122
METAR KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952 RMK AO2 RAE55
SLP998 P0004 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2
METAR KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 RMK AO2 SLP996
60014 T01220122 10128 20100 56012
METAR KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 SLP993
T01220122
METAR KHPN 231956Z 18012G20KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2948 RMK AO2
RAB12 SLP985 P0003 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 232018Z 19012G20KT 160V220 1/2SM -RA FG OVC002 13/13 A2948
RMK AO2 P0001
METAR KHPN 232056Z 19014G20KT 1/4SM FG OVC002 13/13 A2947 RMK AO2 RAE43
SLP981 P0002 60005 T01280128 58015
SPECI KHPN 232118Z 19013G19KT 3/4SM -RA BR OVC002 13/13 A2947 RMK AO2
RAB01 P0000


The accident report can be found he

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...28X00521&key=1

According to the report,
"According to initial information obtained from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the pilot and student pilot departed HPN, at 1209,
under an IFR flight plan, and flew to ALB. They then departed ALB at
1348, to return to HPN."

At 1209 local, 1609UTC, the last reported weather was

METAR KHPN 231556Z 18006KT 1/4SM -RA FG VV002 12/12 A2954 RMK AO2 RAB07
SLP004 P0002 T01220122

At 1348 local, 1748 UTC, the last reported weather was

METAR KHPN 231656Z 19013KT 1/2SM FG VV002 13/13 A2952 RMK AO2 RAE55
SLP998 P0004 T01280128
SPECI KHPN 231743Z 17016G22KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2

You can download the approach plate from AOPA's web site if you are a
member:

http://download.aopa.org/iap/2005051...ils_rwy_16.pdf

And you will see that minimums on the ILS-16 for all four categories of
aircraft is 200-1/2. It would seem clear that the pilot took off in
weather that was below minimums - if some sort of problem arose, it
might not be safe to return to the airport. Basically, he was commited
to a trip shortly after leaving the runway, whether the problem was
equipment related, or even if his student pilot passenger decided he
wanted to abort the mission and just go home.

I don't think you'll find an official report of the status of the
MALSRS. The reason that I know that it was out was because I was there
that morning, planning a trip to the AVP area, and heard it on the ATIS.
That doesn't necessarily imply that it wasn't corrected by then.

Incidentally, as a moderately experienced instrument rated pilot, I
don't feel comfortable flying in weather that low unless I am at my
sharpest - both with respect to recent flying experience (ie: when's the
last time I practiced (or flew) a low approach?) and overall health and
concentration level (did I get enough sleep last night? Am I feeling
100%?). I chose to drive that day.

According to the report, "The CFI reported 168 hours of total flight
experience on his most recent application for an FAA second class
medical certificate, which was issued on March 7, 2003. According to the
flight school, at the time of the accident, the CFI had accumulated
about 900 hours, and the student pilot had accumulated 31.9 hours of
total flight experience."

snip

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.

He failed to go missed when the plane got about 200' low and hit a bank
of 75' tall trees that extend up to 591' MSL (about 150' AGL). He failed
to do this even after getting a Low Altitude alert from Tower. Not only
did he continue his approach significantly below 639' (the Decision
Height), but I believe he would have had a fully deflected low
glideslope indication at the time.

And the final piece of evidence, of course, is the expired medical,
which is also listed in the Landings Airmen database as having expired
in March of 2004 - over a year ago.

It's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback, but it would seem that this
particular instructor's focus was not on the safe outcome of the flight
but instead on something else. There's no question that there are pilots
and instructors who could have flown this approach safely and without
incident. But there seems to be a plethora of evidence that would
indicate that this instructor had a pattern of not acting responsibly
and shouldn't have taken that student up in those conditions.

"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

"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...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"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?

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

No, you're right, I wouldn't take off then. I'd want to be able to approach
and land if a mechanical problem became apparent shortly after takeoff. On
the other hand, their takeoff was uneventful, so that danger didn't
materialize. When they flew the approach, in the absence of any mechanical
problem, below-minimum visibility should not have been dangerous; it should
just have prompted a missed approach. In fact, though, they crashed a mile
or two from the field--long before below-minimum visibility should have been
a factor at all. So even if taking off under those conditions was
irresponsible, that particular irresponsibility was arguably not
contributory to the accident, as things turned out.

And no, admittedly I'm not going to sit in the right seat or let my friend
fly. I have no experience giving instruction or flying from the right seat.
I don't know how if that would be particularly difficult for an experienced
instructor to do. But from the reports I've seen, we don't know if the
student was flying the approach at all; the NTSB report doesn't even say who
was sitting where. It's conceivable that for the return leg, the instructor
was sitting in the left seat and the student was just along for the ride.

--Gary

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