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.