The Failure

Jeffrey Voight wrote:

>>> So, another take-off, and off we go. Since our weather was 2500
>>> broken, the instructor didn't want to do stalls under the ceiling.
>>> He broke out the instrument plates and told me to worm my way up
>>> above the clouds, "you will *not* be doing this without an instrument
>>> rating so, don't get the impression that this is safe."

>> Methinks this instructor needs to learn that the best way to
>> convey "this isn't safe" to a student is *Don't Do It*.
>> If you say "don't get the impression this is safe", but *you're*
>> doing it, well, the phrase "actions speak louder than words" is time
>> worn for a reason

> I felt a whole lot safer at 4000 feet above the clouds with an
> instructor that could get me back home than I did at 1800 feet AGL doing
> stalls with the scud-runners.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

His lips were saying "you won't do this without an IR. don't think
this is safe", while his hands (so to speak) were putting you in
a situation which led you to *feel safer*, in a beautiful clear
smooth environment.

You felt safer at 4000 ft. It's beautiful up there.

Which message do you think came through to you more strongly?
What he said? Or what he did (had you do)?

Sydney

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

> Which message do you think came through to you more strongly?
> What he said? Or what he did (had you do)?

I don't know that I agrew with your concern. Assuming that the instructor
filed, I'm not sure I see the problem. I mean, even as a VFR student I
knew about the IFR rating.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon <ag7337@tagonline.com> wrote in message news:<bge4rm$tse$3@tea.int.tagonline.com>...
> Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
>
> > Which message do you think came through to you more strongly?
> > What he said? Or what he did (had you do)?
>
> I don't know that I agrew with your concern. Assuming that the instructor
> filed, I'm not sure I see the problem. I mean, even as a VFR student I
> knew about the IFR rating.

I didn't see anything in there about the instructor filing or
requesting an IFR clearance. I agree, I wouldn't have a
concern if that's what happened. That wasn't my interpretation
of what happened -- just "do as I say, not as I do" and pick
their way up through a hole, was my impression.

Perhaps the original poster will clarify.

If an IFR flight plan was filed and clearance received, I don't
understand why the CFI felt it necessary to make the warning he
was reported to have made.

Cheers,
Sydney

>From my standpoint, I thought he made it very clear that sucker holes
>are not to be played with, and once one has an IFR rating, they're no
>longer known as sucker holes if you're on an IFR flight plan.
>

If I get above the clouds with no holes and want to decend while flying VFR. I
call center and ask for a pop-up clearance.
Then I can decend through this cloud layer.
Of course I would have an IFR clearance and I have an IFR ticket.