Narrative:

On sep/sun/03, at approximately XA00 eastern daylight time, in my capacity as flight instructor, I elected to conduct a training flight under part 91, originating from orl to remain in the local traffic pattern, in a cessna 172SP, under visual flight rules. Reported WX at the time of departure is noted below: 'korl 00000KT 10SM FEW008 SCT021 27/26 A2990 rmk AO2 SLP127 T02670256 $=.' the subsequent metar's (which were disseminated after landing) were: korl 00000KT 10SM BKN009 BKN014 BKN021 28/26 A2991 rmk AO2 SLP129 TO2780256 51012=. Korl VRB03KT 10SM clear 28/25 A2992 rmk AO2 SLP132 TO2830250=.' initially, as my student preflted the aircraft, skies were essentially clear with few clouds at approximately 2000 ft. By the time we were ready to begin the engine start sequence, I noted aloud to my student that a lower-level scattered cloud layer had rolled in and that we would need to keep an eye on the WX to ensure we maintained VFR. As we taxied to the run-up area, ground control advised that an aircraft was an unspecified distance to the north of the airport reported bases as low at 700 ft. From the ramp I could see that the area immediately to the north of the airport (the traffic pattern for runway 7-25) was essentially clear with few to scattered clouds at approximately 1000-12000 ft while the area to the west/southwest of the airport (approach for runway 7) looked to be broken at approximately 1000 ft. We made left traffic for runway 7 and were easily able to maintain VFR (minimum cloud clearance and visibility). On our second circuit I noted that a more solid cloud layer (perhaps scattered to broken) was rolling in slowly from the w-nw. I contacted tower and stated that we noticed the bases were dropping and that we were requesting a special VFR clearance. The tower replied with 'I have your request. The class D surface area is currently VFR. Maintain VFR.' I replied with 'roger.' I was 1 of 2 aircraft in the local traffic pattern at this time. There had been 2 VFR departures at the time of our initial takeoff and I believe one other aircraft departed VFR as we flew the pattern as well. Another aircraft in an unspecified area transmitted to tower that he did not think the WX was VFR at his location, that he felt the bases were at 800-1000 ft and specifically said 'I really don't think this is VFR.' the local controller acknowledged his transmission. We made a touch and go and on the third circuit, still maintaining VFR in the area to the north of the airport, the pilot of the aforementioned aircraft in the unspecified area again transmitted that he felt the WX was not VFR and stated that 'I don't know if the tower really wants to allow touch and goes right now.' the local controller did not reply, but transmitted to my student and I that we were 'cleared to land, full stop,' then made the same transmission to the other vrf aircraft in the local pattern. We acknowledged the clearance and landed without incident. I am certain that at no time did my aircraft violate the cloud clearance and visibility requirements of part 91.155(a). However, I do feel that in my role as a flight instructor I should have been more conservative when electing to conduct this flight. My student was a low-time and impressionable student pilot who may have gotten the wrong message from my willingness to conduct the flight in the aforementioned conditions. As such, I feel that my flight was legal and safe, but not an example of good instructional judgement. I will endeavor to remember that in the future, just because a flight is safe and legal does not mean that an instructional goal is being met, or that the best interests of the student are being served. The actions I am undertaking as a result of this incident are to: 1) brief my student on the importance of observing the requirements of 91.155(a) and emphasize being conservative when it comes to WX decisions. 2) review adm (aeronautical decision making) section of the aeronautical information manual. 3) review foi (fundamentals of instructing) laws of learning, and apply that review to how I instruct my students.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 INSTRUCTOR PLT CONTINUED FLT INSTRUCTION AFTER 2 PLT RPTS INDICATED IFR CONDITIONS EXISTED.

Narrative: ON SEP/SUN/03, AT APPROX XA00 EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME, IN MY CAPACITY AS FLT INSTRUCTOR, I ELECTED TO CONDUCT A TRAINING FLT UNDER PART 91, ORIGINATING FROM ORL TO REMAIN IN THE LCL TFC PATTERN, IN A CESSNA 172SP, UNDER VISUAL FLT RULES. RPTED WX AT THE TIME OF DEP IS NOTED BELOW: 'KORL 00000KT 10SM FEW008 SCT021 27/26 A2990 RMK AO2 SLP127 T02670256 $=.' THE SUBSEQUENT METAR'S (WHICH WERE DISSEMINATED AFTER LNDG) WERE: KORL 00000KT 10SM BKN009 BKN014 BKN021 28/26 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP129 TO2780256 51012=. KORL VRB03KT 10SM CLR 28/25 A2992 RMK AO2 SLP132 TO2830250=.' INITIALLY, AS MY STUDENT PREFLTED THE ACFT, SKIES WERE ESSENTIALLY CLR WITH FEW CLOUDS AT APPROX 2000 FT. BY THE TIME WE WERE READY TO BEGIN THE ENG START SEQUENCE, I NOTED ALOUD TO MY STUDENT THAT A LOWER-LEVEL SCATTERED CLOUD LAYER HAD ROLLED IN AND THAT WE WOULD NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE WX TO ENSURE WE MAINTAINED VFR. AS WE TAXIED TO THE RUN-UP AREA, GND CTL ADVISED THAT AN ACFT WAS AN UNSPECIFIED DISTANCE TO THE N OF THE ARPT RPTED BASES AS LOW AT 700 FT. FROM THE RAMP I COULD SEE THAT THE AREA IMMEDIATELY TO THE N OF THE ARPT (THE TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 7-25) WAS ESSENTIALLY CLR WITH FEW TO SCATTERED CLOUDS AT APPROX 1000-12000 FT WHILE THE AREA TO THE W/SW OF THE ARPT (APCH FOR RWY 7) LOOKED TO BE BROKEN AT APPROX 1000 FT. WE MADE L TFC FOR RWY 7 AND WERE EASILY ABLE TO MAINTAIN VFR (MINIMUM CLOUD CLRNC AND VISIBILITY). ON OUR SECOND CIRCUIT I NOTED THAT A MORE SOLID CLOUD LAYER (PERHAPS SCATTERED TO BROKEN) WAS ROLLING IN SLOWLY FROM THE W-NW. I CONTACTED TWR AND STATED THAT WE NOTICED THE BASES WERE DROPPING AND THAT WE WERE REQUESTING A SPECIAL VFR CLRNC. THE TWR REPLIED WITH 'I HAVE YOUR REQUEST. THE CLASS D SURFACE AREA IS CURRENTLY VFR. MAINTAIN VFR.' I REPLIED WITH 'ROGER.' I WAS 1 OF 2 ACFT IN THE LCL TFC PATTERN AT THIS TIME. THERE HAD BEEN 2 VFR DEPS AT THE TIME OF OUR INITIAL TKOF AND I BELIEVE ONE OTHER ACFT DEPARTED VFR AS WE FLEW THE PATTERN AS WELL. ANOTHER ACFT IN AN UNSPECIFIED AREA XMITTED TO TWR THAT HE DID NOT THINK THE WX WAS VFR AT HIS LOCATION, THAT HE FELT THE BASES WERE AT 800-1000 FT AND SPECIFICALLY SAID 'I REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS VFR.' THE LCL CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED HIS XMISSION. WE MADE A TOUCH AND GO AND ON THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STILL MAINTAINING VFR IN THE AREA TO THE N OF THE ARPT, THE PLT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ACFT IN THE UNSPECIFIED AREA AGAIN XMITTED THAT HE FELT THE WX WAS NOT VFR AND STATED THAT 'I DON'T KNOW IF THE TWR REALLY WANTS TO ALLOW TOUCH AND GOES RIGHT NOW.' THE LCL CTLR DID NOT REPLY, BUT XMITTED TO MY STUDENT AND I THAT WE WERE 'CLRED TO LAND, FULL STOP,' THEN MADE THE SAME XMISSION TO THE OTHER VRF ACFT IN THE LCL PATTERN. WE ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLRNC AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. I AM CERTAIN THAT AT NO TIME DID MY ACFT VIOLATE THE CLOUD CLRNC AND VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF PART 91.155(A). HOWEVER, I DO FEEL THAT IN MY ROLE AS A FLT INSTRUCTOR I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CONSERVATIVE WHEN ELECTING TO CONDUCT THIS FLT. MY STUDENT WAS A LOW-TIME AND IMPRESSIONABLE STUDENT PLT WHO MAY HAVE GOTTEN THE WRONG MESSAGE FROM MY WILLINGNESS TO CONDUCT THE FLT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CONDITIONS. AS SUCH, I FEEL THAT MY FLT WAS LEGAL AND SAFE, BUT NOT AN EXAMPLE OF GOOD INSTRUCTIONAL JUDGEMENT. I WILL ENDEAVOR TO REMEMBER THAT IN THE FUTURE, JUST BECAUSE A FLT IS SAFE AND LEGAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN INSTRUCTIONAL GOAL IS BEING MET, OR THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STUDENT ARE BEING SERVED. THE ACTIONS I AM UNDERTAKING AS A RESULT OF THIS INCIDENT ARE TO: 1) BRIEF MY STUDENT ON THE IMPORTANCE OF OBSERVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 91.155(A) AND EMPHASIZE BEING CONSERVATIVE WHEN IT COMES TO WX DECISIONS. 2) REVIEW ADM (AERONAUTICAL DECISION MAKING) SECTION OF THE AERONAUTICAL INFO MANUAL. 3) REVIEW FOI (FUNDAMENTALS OF INSTRUCTING) LAWS OF LEARNING, AND APPLY THAT REVIEW TO HOW I INSTRUCT MY STUDENTS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.