Flight school sued for $50,000,000

[Milkdud99]

On the medical. If they guy's medical was expired, which it certainly seems to have been, he could continue to do instruction if the "student" was able to be PIC. This student hadn't soloed yet, so obviously not capable of being PIC.

IT's a sad day.

If their was a private pilot (seeking actual instrument training) and an instructor (who didn't have a medical), "actual" training could not take place because the private is not rated for instrument conditions, so the PIC would have to fall down to the instructor, who cannot act as PIC because he doens't have a medical.

All in all just a sitty situation

 

[cale42]

It will never cease to amaze me how people feel compelled to condemn others without knowing the whole situation or the people involved. I did a lot of my training at American Flyers and want to point out a few things.


1. Their 141 syllabus is designed so that the solo is the very last thing a student pilot does before taking their private ride. Even the best student, who could solo at 8 hours does 30 hours of training including X-C, night and hood work before soloing. So in that program a 30 hour student who hasn't soloed isn't a red flag.

2. When I trained there I often trained 8 and 10 hour days that involved 4-6 hours of flight time. Thats less than what many professional pilots fly and certainly less than most other professional jobs demand, just because you don't like to fly that much doesn't mean other people aren't cut out for it.

3. Getting a PVT student in actual is IMHO one of the most useful things you can do. No amount of hood time can prepare them for the overwhelming spatial disorientation if they were to get in a cloud. On a soft IFR day, 600 or 800 ft ceilings and 2 miles i will certainly do a short flight with them to show them what its like. Will still use the hood to accomplish BAI and unusual atts, but nothing compares with seeing what it is really like.

It was a tragic accident and there were definitely some questionable decisions made(personally LLWS in clouds scares the daylights out of me), but just because some parts of the flight were out of some peoples comfort zones on this board doesn't make it wrong.

cale

 

[Iceman21]

It will never cease to amaze me how people feel compelled to condemn others without knowing the whole situation or the people involved.

Name one reason why a 32 hour student, pre-solo or not, should have a lesson in 200 OVC and 1/2 mile vis and I will cease condemnation. There is simply no reason for a student of that type to be flying in that type of weather. He was a paying passenger at best.

1. Their 141 syllabus is designed so that the solo is the very last thing a student pilot does before taking their private ride. Even the best student, who could solo at 8 hours does 30 hours of training including X-C, night and hood work before soloing. So in that program a 30 hour student who hasn't soloed isn't a red flag.

It is a very well designed syllabus, but that is not what the topic is about.

2. When I trained there I often trained 8 and 10 hour days that involved 4-6 hours of flight time. Thats less than what many professional pilots fly and certainly less than most other professional jobs demand, just because you don't like to fly that much doesn't mean other people aren't cut out for it.

Agreed.

3. Getting a PVT student in actual is IMHO one of the most useful things you can do. No amount of hood time can prepare them for the overwhelming spatial disorientation if they were to get in a cloud. On a soft IFR day, 600 or 800 ft ceilings and 2 miles i will certainly do a short flight with them to show them what its like. Will still use the hood to accomplish BAI and unusual atts, but nothing compares with seeing what it is really like.

See above, where does hard IFR fit in here, as experience by the gents that that met earth below the glideslope?

It was a tragic accident and there were definitely some questionable decisions made(personally LLWS in clouds scares the daylights out of me), but just because some parts of the flight were out of some peoples comfort zones on this board doesn't make it wrong.

If you cannot see that this flight was a flight that should have never left the classroom then there is some ADM missing from your curriculum. I know AF, trained there, and worked there and I understand why this flight happened but that doesn't mean it should have.

 

[cale42]

Iceman.. Please note that nowhere in my post did I say that this flight should have happened. My comments were aimed at the people who felt that the flight should not have happened because it was a "bad student" or because taking a PVT student in actual is wrong.. and many of the comments on the thread seemed accusatory about those topics. I was just responding to that aspect of the thread.

However I will also not sit and second guess whether a flight should have happened or not. Probably it was not a flight I would have made, but since I wasn't making the decision at the time I can't say that for sure. It is a personal frustration of mine how quick we(humans.. and even more so pilots) are to judge people when we weren't there or in the situation.

cale

 

[Milkdud99]

Probably it was not a flight I would have made, but since I wasn't making the decision at the time I can't say that for sure. It is a personal frustration of mine how quick we(humans.. and even more so pilots) are to judge people when we weren't there or in the situation.

cale

Probably????? why cant you say for sure??? i for sure wouldn't take a GA aircraft up where it would be tough to get back to the field. 200' ceilings!! kinda tough to get back into the airport if they drop even 1 foot

just because some parts of the flight were out of some peoples comfort zones on this board doesn't make it wrong

yes, most people have their own comfort zone and some people don't know theirs, i dont know the instructor on board, but it is my guess, and it is a GUESS, that he wasn't too bright, first by not having a valid medical, second for thinking about going up that day, and third for acutally going up. it seems that he could be overconfident, which its the overconfident ones that get people hurt.

(disclaimer) all ihave said was a GUESS dont get ur panties tied in a knot! LOL

 

[Iceman21]

I do know for a fact that there were more factors involved here than just weather, though those factors do not outweigh the needs of a student at anytime in my eye's.

And that is a reason why I don't work there anymore.

 

[cale42]

Milkdud,

While I certainly support every pilot having their own personal minimums, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a GA aircraft up in IFR minimums if the pilot is comfortable and trusts the airplane. I fly 172's when there is 200' ceilings, and I will continue to do so. The airplanes I fly are well equipped fully IFR airplanes with dual vacuum pumps and mostly with moving map GPS to enhance situational awareness and they are on a maintenance program I fully trust. If ceilings drop 1 foot as you mention that is why I have an alternate. I beleive any pilot who wants to do this for a living should be comfortable at IFR minimums. I have personally flown a number of flights where I never broke out on the practice approaches, you go missed and go try somewhere else.

The LLWS is a whole other situation that has to be separately addressed, but there are many pilots who fly a whole variety of GA aircraft right down to IFR minimums, nothing crazy about it.

 

[flatspin7]

Having worked for American Flyers as a CFI (I am not going to say when and where-not HPN) there were multiple times when I was pressured to take a private student up in some fairly low IFR conditions... I did it one and realized it just banged the student around ind really didnt do much for the student--- The 3 hours of IFR time for a private should be focus on BAIF and getting out of IMC--- approaches may be introducted but there is no way and no benefit to take a student out to get his a$$ kicked in 200-1/2.

A new private student (pre-solo) should not be kept in the air for more than 2 hours any way-- any more than that and they really stop learning. They have other problems with their accelerated courses--- making unrealistic promises and then cutting corners to get students done.

Part 141 self examining authority --- turns a "check ride" into a "we wont fail you" event--- I have seen students walk out the door of that place with a private who had no business being near and airplane.. ie- I refused to sign him off and some else did behind my back.

P.S. An accident like this while tragic isnt a shock. The student had no clue what he was in for. American Flyers had it coming.

 

[irapilot]

cale42,

Quick question, more of a thought, really. You are in a C-172R on the ILS to RWY 16 at HPN. It is 200 and 1/2. Your student is in the left seat so you are sitting in the right with a somewhat crooked view of the panel. You have just crossed FARAN at 2000 MSL and your engine begins to display high oil temp, low oil pzr and starts to clank loudly. You begin to have trouble holding altitude. You are around 14 miles from the airport. What is your plan? What do you do?

 

[sky37d]

As I see it, the issue isn't 200 and 1/2. You can't pass the checkride if you can't do that. The issue isn't what is your personal comfort level.

The issue is does a primary student really learn anything when you go spend the entire flight in IMC. I would think, that repeated exposure to IMC is good, but only to demonstrate what it is like, and then go back and get out and talk about it.

To plan a flight with a primary student that is completely IMC, seems silly.

Also, you bring up a valid point, that the instructor is really handicapped flying a precision approach to minimums from the right seat.

The lawsuit alleges that AF did silly things, 2 people lost their lives, and AF should not do those things.

Remember, many of the rules we have about flying come from someone else's death. Hopefully, we will all learn from this one, and not become another statistic.

 

[Milkdud99]

your engine begins to display high oil temp, low oil pzr and starts to clank loudly. You begin to have trouble holding altitude. You are around 14 miles from the airport. What is your plan? What do you do?

Well thats not an issue because he trusts their maintanence program... and if you trust it, the planes will never have a problem (said sarcastically)

If ceilings drop 1 foot as you mention that is why I have an alternate. I beleive any pilot who wants to do this for a living should be comfortable at IFR minimums.

ok... IF the pilot is comfortable flying at IFR mins, then he well also be comfortable flying with the minimum fuel requirement. And 45 min especially in the northeast, really doesn't get you out of the weather. As i remember if one place is bad, there all usually bad, not like florida!


Being comfortable doesn't mean being safe!

 

[cale42]

Originally Posted by irapilot
your engine begins to display high oil temp, low oil pzr and starts to clank loudly. You begin to have trouble holding altitude. You are around 14 miles from the airport. What is your plan? What do you do?


Originally posted by Milkdud99
Well thats not an issue because he trusts their maintanence program... and if you trust it, the planes will never have a problem (said sarcastically)



Cmon.. based on that logic you would never fly IFR in a single engine airplane. Irapilots scenario could happen just as easily in a caravan or a pilatus, and hopefully you aren't saying we can't fly those to minimums either. Single engine IFR is and always will be a calculated risk, and that, milkdud, is where my trust of the maintenance will affect my decision. There are dozens of companies flying Lances, Saratogas, and 210's on night cargo runs, and I'm guessing their pilots don't say no to a flight because weather at their destination is at minimums. If you want to make it a rule to never fly hard IFR in a single engine airplane so be it, but I think that is overdoing it a little.

Sky37d.. you are right, I'm not arguing the value of the flight, I wouldn't take a primary student in that. I'm arguing the ability to fly GA to mins.

Milkdud, when I do fly low IFR in a 172 I usually carry 2-3 hours of reserve fuel for the specific reasons you mentioned.

The long and short of this in my mind is these 2 things
1. Not really the best value flight for a PVT student.. no doubt about it.
2. Flying IFR in any single engine, but especially pistons will ALWAYS be a calculated risk. You do what you can to mitigate it, but the reality for most pilots doing this for a living is that at some point you will be flying some single engine hard IFR.

cale

 

[BoilerUP]

I've flown actual approaches in a 172 and Arrow with students of varying skill levels.

I think as an instructor, if you don't equip your students to survive an inadvertent encounter with IMC, you are failing them. And that consists of far more than a 180 turn. I like to have my students fly a pseudo VOR-A approach to the airport, and have them at least once fly an ILS approach so they can appreciate the value of an instrument rating and understand the hazards of continued VFR into IMC.

I like taking my primary students up into IMC so they can gain an immediate respect for clouds and low visibility. Sometimes clouds aren't necessary, just a wonderfully hazy summer day as the sun is setting to the west. It truly makes them appreciate 'decent VFR' days.

I was a 100hr private and got caught between layers while climing through a hole to VFR on top. I was in full IMC for about a minute, and a standard rate climbing turn popped me on top of the layer. I've never been so scared in an airplane in my life, and I learned more about myself, my skill level, and decision making in those 60 seconds than in any experience I've had since then, with the possible exception of my first 10 hours of dual given.

I screwed up in a big way and survived to tell about it. Now, I make sure even my primary students understand weather and ADM far above the PTS requirements. We don't each to pass a checkride (or at least, we all shouldn't) - we teach to make a safe, competent pilot.

 

[Milkdud99]

If you want to make it a rule to never fly hard IFR in a single engine airplane so be it, but I think that is overdoing it a little.

Sky37d.. you are right, I'm not arguing the value of the flight, I wouldn't take a primary student in that. I'm arguing the ability to fly GA to mins.

Milkdud, when I do fly low IFR in a 172 I usually carry 2-3 hours of reserve fuel for the specific reasons you mentioned.

The long and short of this in my mind is these 2 things
1. Not really the best value flight for a PVT student.. no doubt about it.
2. Flying IFR in any single engine, but especially pistons will ALWAYS be a calculated risk. You do what you can to mitigate it, but the reality for most pilots doing this for a living is that at some point you will be flying some single engine hard IFR.

cale

first off i wanna say you've succesfully turned a conversation into an arguement LOL (from what you said LOL)"I'm arguing the ability to fly GA to mins"

Next, the reason i was being sarcastic in the last post was because you said you have trust in your MX crew.

Third, there is work and there is training. When u r working for somone like a cargo operation, you have to be comfortable with the company before you take the position. Im sure there SOP's are more strict than the FAR is.
When training a pilot, think of it as the instructor is the boss. the instructor is the one that is supose to make the sane desicions.

As people get more experienced, they start to become more confident and could start to cut corners to get to the same ending. If an instrutor is teaching a pilot that it is ok to go up when the weather is at mins, then the student is under the impression that "well my instructor and i did it in mins, so i can do it in mins" and then the student will start to think "well if i did it in mins, then i could go that 25' lower to get back into the airport" which is how people get killed.

That is why i am against taking a student up in mins. i would take them up in IFR, just not mins.

We can go back and forth on this all year, because it is about PERSONAL judgemet. no one is right and no one is wrong, its just one side thinks people take big risks and the other side thinks they are little girls! lol

 

[irapilot]

No, I really want to know, what is your plan, what would you do?

You are right, many IFR operations take place in IMC. It is all a calculated risk. But the PT-6 that your two example aircraft are powered by increase the safety margin by a bit as the inflight failure/shutdown rates are much lower than a piston. Still, if one doesn't have a plan or the ability to deal with the situation when (not if) it happens all is really lost. It is about your ability to manage the risk, have as many options and outs and avoid risk that is too high.

Speaking to this flight in particular, well, I try not to second guess too much but I have to say while I agree with exposing your primary students to varied weather and conditions I don't see how a solid IFR flight to 200 and 1/2 at HPN of all places really is the most wonderful idea.

My .02

 

[cale42]

Milkdud,

Sorry, really didn't mean to be argumentative.. I was actually just thinking we have managed to keep this thread relatively conversational instead of confrontational and I hope to continue that. Its that darn Italian in me that always wants it to be an arguement... You make some great points about what will the student think, I would like to hope that I can train my students to fly to minimums, but I do emphasize heavily that you never go below them, and I will not for one second hesitate at DH, but go full power and proceed to my alternate if there is no runway in sight. Your right in the end though, it is absolutely personal judgement, and every situation requires its own decision. While I trust in my own judgement and abilities I would like to think I know when to put myself in check too, and hopefully that combination will continue to keep me alive.

Irapilot. What I would do is trim for best glide, see if I can coax any power out of my engine or if it needs to be shutdown, declare an emergency, make a decision on if I can make it to airport and if not ask for radar vectors to some level of a less populated area if altitude permit. After that I'm going to set up for an emergency landing and I'm going to prepare myself for what I will do when I break out of the clouds. When I do I will look for in order, open fields, atheltic fields, lakes/ponds and lastly roads. I will expect to make a decision in my first 5 seconds out of the clouds and I will stick with what I choose and try and set it down. That is my plan. Obviously you are right that the PT-6 is a better more reliable engine, but my example of the Lances, Saratogas, and 210's, many of them on 135 certs with less than stellar maintenance is very apt. I will continue to fly single engine IFR because it is a necessary evil right now, and every flight I will hope for the best, and keep my fingers crossed for the day when I don't have to do it anymore.

cale

 

[NoPlaneNoGain]

I remember this day because a soldier gave me his patch as he got off of our airplane. I held for about 10 minutes with isolated storms in the area, waiting for the visibility to improve to shoot the approach to 200 and 1/2. I think the crash must have occurred about 15-20 minutes after we departed KHPN. It was a crappy day for us and I would not want to be instructing in a c172 with a student pilot in that kind of Wx.
It is a sad situation.

 

[Milkdud99]

Its that darn Italian in me that always wants it to be an arguement...

same here LOL

 

[lasflyer]

I also figured that they wouldn't learn much watching me fly the approach which at 200 & 1/2 I'd be doing. I'm not sure if I'd take an instrument student up in 200 & 1/2 unless they were very good. Not much room for error there. And flying the approach from the right seat would be annoying as well.

I think you hit the nail on the head, although I would think that flying the approach from the right seat (presumably without co-pilot instruments) would be more than an annoyance, particularly for such a low time CFI. At 900 hours, he probably only received his instrument rating a year ago, and how much time can he have actually manipulating the controls, let alone flying actual IMC.

I am not an instructor but I can't see any training benefit to what was being done -- except perhaps training of the CFI. Like others, my guess is that the school or CFI just didn't want the down time.

It is sad that it cost two people their lives.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

Milkdud,

While I certainly support every pilot having their own personal minimums, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a GA aircraft up in IFR minimums if the pilot is comfortable and trusts the airplane. I fly 172's when there is 200' ceilings, and I will continue to do so. The airplanes I fly are well equipped fully IFR airplanes with dual vacuum pumps and mostly with moving map GPS to enhance situational awareness and they are on a maintenance program I fully trust. If ceilings drop 1 foot as you mention that is why I have an alternate. I beleive any pilot who wants to do this for a living should be comfortable at IFR minimums. I have personally flown a number of flights where I never broke out on the practice approaches, you go missed and go try somewhere else.

The LLWS is a whole other situation that has to be separately addressed, but there are many pilots who fly a whole variety of GA aircraft right down to IFR minimums, nothing crazy about it.

All of that fancy equipment, but when the rubber meets the road, you still only have one "piston" engine and one alternator. Not a great combination. As for the argument about the Caravan or Pilatus, there are statistics somewhere where the PT-6 has had very, very few mechanical failures which led to inflight engine shut down. Now comparing this to piston engines, and reliability of the turbine far outweighs the piston. This is why operators have more flexibility in when operating in weather right at FAR minimums in a turbine engine. They have the odds on their side that the turbine infront of them will keep turnin'. Today's piston engines are reliable. However, turbine reliability is far greater.

 

[Workin'Stiff]

Nope. Only required to hold a 3rd class. As it was explained to me, as an instructor I'm being hired to teach, not to fly the airplane. In fact, if the student is capable of acting as PIC (not the case here) you don't even need a medical. Assuming the instructor was under 40, he's still got another 11 months on his medical before it expires.

So in this case, his medical was of no value for the purpose of flight instructing. He was required to act as PIC in this instruction. So for the purpse of the "commercial" flight and the "flight instruction," he was required to hold at a minimum a second class medical as per 61.23(a)(2).

 

[igneousy2]

I can see doing an IFR local flight for a student pilot but why an IFR X-Ctry.

Also, I would be curious as to what the forecast weather at the field was. If 200 and 1/2 was forecast in the main body I do not see how AF could have a defense.

I would not be "comfortable" flying a C172 down to 200 and 1/2 with me flying, let alone a student flying. Having more actual instrument time then this instructor has total time I cannot imagine this instructor being comfortable enough to allow the student to do the flying. What is the benefit to the student if they are not even allowed to do the flying.

When I was the manager of a flight school I found that instructors were always too eager to do approaches with the students. BAI is boring, the old pattern A pattern B stuff is boring but it is the foundation. Aside from using one to get back to the field from a lesson, approaches should be toward the end of the instrument program. The 3 hours for the private pilot should be used for BASIC ATTITUDE INSTRUMENT FLYING. Doing a 3 hour cross country does not do the student any good as most of it is S&L.

Later

 

[sky37d]

Also, I would be curious as to what the forecast weather at the field was. If 200 and 1/2 was forecast in the main body I do not see how AF could have a defense.

I think a lot of people would like to know what the forecast was at the time.

I cannot imagine this instructor being comfortable enough to allow the student to do the flying. What is the benefit to the student if they are not even allowed to do the flying.

Doing a 3 hour cross country does not do the student any good as most of it is S&L.

Later

I think that fundamentally, this is the basis of the suit.

 

[cale42]

Workin Stiff...

I beleive that even if you are are required to act as PIC during a flight that involves instruction a third class medical is still adequate. The FAR's specifically say you only need a third class medical to instruct. This includes instructing private students, where by default you have to act as PIC. So the same logic should transfer to a flight in actual that is for the purpose of instructing. Third class medical is adequate.

cale

 

[JimNtexas]

Was this school one of the ones that have FAA approval to give a combined private pilot and instrument rating with one checkride?

 

[Iceman21]

A third class medical is required to instruct period. You do not need a 2nd class if the student is not rated.

 

[Milkdud99]

Workin Stiff...

I beleive that even if you are are required to act as PIC during a flight that involves instruction a third class medical is still adequate. The FAR's specifically say you only need a third class medical to instruct. This includes instructing private students, where by default you have to act as PIC. So the same logic should transfer to a flight in actual that is for the purpose of instructing. Third class medical is adequate.

cale

you need a second class medical to act as a commercial pilot tho, which if being an instructor, isn't that acting as a commercial pilot...

 

[Iceman21]

Yes, but the FAR provide a specific regulation concerning medicals for flight instructors.

 

[LNKav8R]

According to the 'new' FAA thinking, we should try to start our students out as a Comm/Instrument student and if they decide to only go for the private license, then so be it. I don't know if I agree with the thinking about trying to start a private pilot student as an Instrument student too. I think that I'd have no problem taking a student into the soup, but it would have to be well after some initial training. What happened to the idea of looking outside the aircraft? I was taught to look outside more often than looking in. It's frustrating to me that flight schools often have to pay for the problems caused by and overzealous flight instructor. I've seen it happen a lot. A good flight school should have a full set of minimums(usually higher than the FAA mins) and a good Chief Flight Instructor that watches his/her instructors and makes sure they follow these rules. HUMBLE OPINIONS ONLY!!!!

 

[RichardRambone]

Whats IMHO stand for? Its been driving me nutz.