Flight school sued for $50,000,000

[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.