CFI Rating and Liability

[flyersfan31]

Until recently, I had been planning on getting my CFI and working for peanuts when my kids are both in school full-time. For me, it would be a hobby. My wife does the heavy financial lifting. This would just keep me off the streets and in the air.

I said until recently, because I got cold feet due to legal liability. I am fortunate to be well-off financially, so I have a fair amount to lose in the worst case scenario. I do have an umbrella liability policy, for what it's worth. I would not want to title things in my wife's name because she has her own liability issues which I won't go into, but suffice it to say it's better that things stay in my name if they can.

Yet, the desire is still there. The words of the DPE who signed off my Comm/Multi are still ringing in my ears. He really encouraged me to become a CFI, which was a real compliment in my opinion. Yet, the liability issue worries me.

I realize most CFIs don't have a lot to lose, being kids out of college. I was wondering if any, more senior, CFIs might have some perspective on the issue. Is there the CFI equivalent of D&O insurance? What can one do to protect one's assets (other than not signing off bozos to solo)? Am I nuts to worry about this?

 

[TMetzinger]

I'm in a similar boat.

YES, you can get insurance (but perhaps not enough depending on your net worth) as a private flight instructor. You can also not do primary flight training, only advanced training with rated pilots (which will help somewhat).

I'm going to get the AGI, then the CFI, and then take a careful look at the risks and the protection I could get from a flight school or individual liability coverage, and then decide what sort of instruction to do. I may initially limit myself to BFRs, intro flights, sim work, or advanced stuff like G1000/autopilot training.

Regardless, I'm going to get the certificate because I think it will make me a better aviator and a better candidate for other jobs down the road.

 

[poadeleted20]

It is most unlikely your umbrella policy covers flight instructing. In any event, all you can do is buy as much liability insurance as you can, and make sure you mind your documentational p's and q's -- that's key to avoiding losing in court, and your insurance will pay for the defense.

 

[flyersfan31]

It is most unlikely your umbrella policy covers flight instructing.

I concur.

In any event, all you can do is buy as much liability insurance as you can, and make sure you mind your documentational p's and q's -- that's key to avoiding losing in court, and your insurance will pay for the defense.

Yup, that's pretty much what I expected. Kind of like being a doctor. The question isn't whether you'll be sued, but when. Documentational p's and q's -- I like that.

 

[gismo]

It is most unlikely your umbrella policy covers flight instructing. In any event, all you can do is buy as much liability insurance as you can, and make sure you mind your documentational p's and q's -- that's key to avoiding losing in court, and your insurance will pay for the defense.

Ron, could you post links to some relevant cases where a CFI was sued? Some where they won and some where they lost?

 

[dmccormack]

This is an interesting paper on CFI Liability.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, could you post links to some relevant cases where a CFI was sued? Some where they won and some where they lost?

Sorry -- since I left the university, I lost my Lexis/Nexis legal case access. If someone has that or Westlaw, they could do the research, but I can't anymore. Spike or AdamZ can probably help on that.

 

[gismo]

I know a few folks with substantial assets who claim to be "judgement proof" but I don't know how they pulled that off. I'd like to do some instruction when I retire in a few years but the liability issue has me concerned as well.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ron, could you post links to some relevant cases where a CFI was sued? Some where they won and some where they lost?

There are so few as to be virtually inconsequential. And the reported decisions tend to be appeals which makes an analysis harder. 90+% of all lawsuits get settled (a good reason to have some insurance) and of those that go to trial much less than 10% even get appealed.

FWIW, this is a FAQ I started to put together a few years ago. It still applies:

==============================
As a veteran of a number of CFI liability discussions, it seems that the CFI liability that everyone worries about is virtually non-existent, and the liability that exists is one few CFIs worry about. My personal analysis (which means I can rely on it but you can't) is that our liability as instructors are, in order of highest to lowest):

1. When we are in the aircraft. Pretty obvious, but this seems to be the one that most CFIs seem to worry about the least.

2. When a student pilot is soloing (and even here there a very few cases).

[Big Gap. Cavern, actually. But these are the ones that CFIs tend to be most concerned about]

3. The day after a BFR or IPC.

4. The day after the pilot passes a checkride based on our recommendation.

[Grand Canyon]

5. Sometime later.

Truth is that I've never even heard of a real case that isn't covered by (1) or (2). Not too surprising. When the last time you heard of a medical school sued for a graduate's malpractice?

And I've asked. I've been running an on-line challenge since 1998 or 1999: Tell me about a real situation when a CFI was successfully sued because of something that happened when the CFI was not in the airplane. No urban legends allowed. No, "Well, I heard about this guy who was the third cousin of a nephew of my ex sister in law who..."

I've managed to collect a total of two solid references.

First is a case from 1958. A flight school was successfully sued when a student pilot took off with the control lock on. Pretty much a strict liability analysis that hasn't been repeated anywhere.

Second is not a case. In response to my "challenge" someone mentioned (and I was able to verify) an NTSB determination of "improperly instruction" as a probable cause of a solo student's stall-spin accident in which the student was killed. I count it because it's highly likely that the CFI was sued or that his insurance settled (unless he was totally uncollectible).

So that's about it. Two real examples over the last 36 years. Huge liability! Scares the crap out of me. Not.

I'm still collecting.
==============================

Personally, I don't worry much about the liability.

 

[flyersfan31]

This is an interesting paper on CFI Liability.

Yes, it is. Thanks.

 

[Ted]

I'd say, get the rating anyway. There is no reason not to, and there is nothing that says you have to use it.

What you then choose to do with it is up to you. Personally, I'm intending on getting my CFI. I already have several students lined up. These are friends of mine, people who I'd love to teach how to fly and whom I'm not concerned with suing me. Like you, I am fortunate enough to be well off financially so I would have a good amount to lose as well. So, simply put, I plan on being careful who I pick as a student.

While that doesn't necessarily mean you won't get sued, to me it certainly decreases your probability. The students who you do get will probably be the ones who you are then able to give great experiences to (like my instructor has for me), and be extremely fortunate to have you. This will also make it a better experience for you, because you can pick and choose who you want for a student.

No law that I am aware of states that you are required to teach anybody. When you have the fortunate problem of being well off financially, this makes it even better that you can afford to only take who you want to.

For what it's worth, having met you I believe your attitude would be positive and encouraging to new pilots... just make sure to tell them what I told you about the mixture knob.

 

[flyersfan31]

There are so few as to be virtually inconsequential. And the reported decisions tend to be appeals which makes an analysis harder. 90+% of all lawsuits get settled (a good reason to have some insurance) and of those that go to trial much less than 10% even get appealed.

Settled, but at what cost? That's what concerns me. I suppose you can negotiate a settlement to the limit of your coverage, but a greedy plaintiff and accommodating attorney, seeing what I have, might want to reach for more. Based on only what I know from this thread (!), it would seem that I would have to foul up in a mighty beeeeeeg way to get myself in that position.

Still, your points are valid and helpful, especially in light of the information in the CFI Liability paper linked above.

 

[poadeleted20]

Settled, but at what cost? That's what concerns me. I suppose you can negotiate a settlement to the limit of your coverage, but a greedy plaintiff and accommodating attorney, seeing what I have, might want to reach for more.

Perhaps if you were in the plane, but otherwise, the case law cited in the paper Dan posted would seem to deter such an attempt -- too much chance of coming away with nothing but legal bills rather than taking the insurer's proposed settlement (which will necessarily be under the insurance limit), and Mark's research supports this. Frankly, based on that paper and Mark's research, I feel better than I did before, and believe even more firmly that as long as you don't let your trainee crash, give all the training the FAA requires, and properly document all the training you give, there's not much chance of losing a case like this.

 

[dmccormack]

Perhaps if you were in the plane, but otherwise, the case law cited in the paper Dan posted would seem to deter such an attempt -- too much chance of coming away with nothing but legal bills rather than taking the insurer's proposed settlement (which will necessarily be under the insurance limit), and Mark's research supports this. Frankly, based on that paper and Mark's research, I feel better than I did before, and believe even more firmly that as long as you don't let your trainee crash, give all the training the FAA requires, and properly document all the training you give, there's not much chance of losing a case like this.

I agree completely.

I use the Jepp flight training syllabus, with the Part 141 Flight Training folder, and document what was covered on each flight, in addition to the logbook entries (student's and mine).

I also keep a small notebook with more free form comments.

It seems the weakest link is documentation proving "yes, we covered that."

 

[MauleSkinner]

...and believe even more firmly that as long as you don't let your trainee crash, give all the training the FAA requires, and properly document all the training you give, there's not much chance of losing a case like this.

If I were to speculate (and by golly, I think I will! ), I'd guess that the 1958 case that Mark referenced might have a different outcome had the CFI included "pretakeoff checklist" in his training documentation. I don't know that he didn't, but many of us remember/have in our logbooks/actually signed in somebody else's logbook a simple "OK SOLO" statement prior to someone being kicked from the next, an occurence far more common in 1958 than today, I'd guess. (More speculation, by golly! )

Heck, I'd even go so far as to speculate that many of us made our first solo flights illegally, because the instructor just got out of the airplane to let us do a few patterns when we were comfortable and confident, and take care of the paperwork later.

Fly safe!

David

 

[gprellwitz]

What you then choose to do with it is up to you. Personally, I'm intending on getting my CFI. I already have several students lined up. These are friends of mine, people who I'd love to teach how to fly and whom I'm not concerned with suing me. Like you, I am fortunate enough to be well off financially so I would have a good amount to lose as well. So, simply put, I plan on being careful who I pick as a student.

While that doesn't necessarily mean you won't get sued, to me it certainly decreases your probability. The students who you do get will probably be the ones who you are then able to give great experiences to (like my instructor has for me), and be extremely fortunate to have you. This will also make it a better experience for you, because you can pick and choose who you want for a student.

Ted,
I don't disagree with your conclusion, as I think the chance of getting successfully sued is very small. However, carefully selecting your students will not do much to limit your chances. If you WERE to get sued, it would likely be by the student's heirs (or maybe his/her passengers' heirs), or the plane's owner, or the student's insurance company, etc., and you can't very well vet them.

 

[nosehair]

Heck, I'd even go so far as to speculate that many of us made our first solo flights illegally, because the instructor just got out of the airplane to let us do a few patterns when we were comfortable and confident, and take care of the paperwork later.

Yep. Right there is what it is. That's how my instructor did it, and how I did it for many years.

Incomplete documentaion is the source of most all court cases of liability for instructors. As long as you have your student's signature attesting to received training and knowledge, you are clean.

 

[TMetzinger]

Perhaps if you were in the plane, but otherwise, the case law cited in the paper Dan posted would seem to deter such an attempt -- too much chance of coming away with nothing but legal bills rather than taking the insurer's proposed settlement (which will necessarily be under the insurance limit), and Mark's research supports this. Frankly, based on that paper and Mark's research, I feel better than I did before, and believe even more firmly that as long as you don't let your trainee crash, give all the training the FAA requires, and properly document all the training you give, there's not much chance of losing a case like this.

I agree - that paper made me feel better. Proper documentation will help a lot. I also like the stage checks my flight school insists on, where a student will be independently evaluated by a senior instructor at defined times.

The Jepp system really does offer some assistance with documentation too. I remember getting the grades after each lesson, and it was clear just by looking at the folder what had been covered, what sort of progress I was making, etc.

 

[AdamZ]

Settled, but at what cost? That's what concerns me. I suppose you can negotiate a settlement to the limit of your coverage, but a greedy plaintiff and accommodating attorney, seeing what I have, might want to reach for more. Based on only what I know from this thread (!), it would seem that I would have to foul up in a mighty beeeeeeg way to get myself in that position.

Still, your points are valid and helpful, especially in light of the information in the CFI Liability paper linked above.

Andrew, generally and I mean generally liability cases follow the same path they are:

1) Incident causing injury or allegded to cause injury
2) Investigation by Attorney and experts if expert testimony is needed. In Aviation cases I'd say you need an expert. ( keep in mind that contrary to what a lot of folks post folks don't just walk into an attorneys office and say I'm hurt and its Joes fault and the Attorney sues Joe) A ton of money is put into many of these cases and the Attorney dosen't want to throw away 50-150K in expenses on a crap case.
3) A claim is made with the party accused of negligence ( Defendant)
4) Defendant turns it over to his/her/its insurance carrier
5) Insurance Carrier investigates the claim and sets a "reserve" (value) from Zero to what ever At this point your dealing with an adjuster rather than a defense attorney.
6) If the carrier and claimant can reach an agreement the case is settled if not it gets assigned to a defense attorney and the two attorneys duke it out all the while trying to still settle the case.

If the case gets settled it is most likely that the insurance company has paid the entire settlement less any deductible. The excption is when the Defendant's insurance carrier sends a reservation of rights letter where in it say hey buddy you killed Donald Trump and you only have a $10,000 policy so were gonna pay the 10 grand and save ourselve the legal cost.

Here's another bit of information for you. Plaintiff's Attorneys don't want to have to go after your assets if they don't have to, they rathe just get a check from the carrier. Your assets may be owned as Tennants by the Entirties whcih in some states such as PA can't be touched if only one spouse is liable. They may not be liquid, They may be encumbered ie a car, plane or home. I always tell clients that they don't want to be in a positon of selling Joe Schmoes Orange velour couch with the cigarette burn holes and Kid drool and dog hair to get the money to pay the Judgment debt that Joe Schmoe owes.

 

[TMetzinger]

Hey Adam, doesn't an insurance company have a duty to defend you, if you haven't committed gross or criminal negligence? I didn't think they could just say "We're gonna pay out to your policy limit, and you're on your own for the rest".

 

[poadeleted20]

If I were to speculate (and by golly, I think I will! ), I'd guess that the 1958 case that Mark referenced might have a different outcome had the CFI included "pretakeoff checklist" in his training documentation.

As that case was in Dan's paper, I can say that the instructor did so train the student, but on this flight, told the student the airplane was ready to go before the student preflighted it. Apparently, the student relied on that statement to skip the normal preflight checks, and the court found that compelling.

I don't know that he didn't, but many of us remember/have in our logbooks/actually signed in somebody else's logbook a simple "OK SOLO" statement prior to someone being kicked from the next, an occurence far more common in 1958 than today, I'd guess. (More speculation, by golly! )

Since the FAA and NTSB hung the instructor who wrote "OK to solo" in a student's book some years back, I hope we're all doing it by the book, including the FAR's and AC 61-65E.

Heck, I'd even go so far as to speculate that many of us made our first solo flights illegally, because the instructor just got out of the airplane to let us do a few patterns when we were comfortable and confident, and take care of the paperwork later.

Days gone by...never to return.

 

[poadeleted20]

Incomplete documentaion is the source of most all court cases of liability for instructors. As long as you have your student's signature attesting to received training and knowledge, you are clean.

That acknowledgement has value if the student claims you never covered something you did cover, but it is less than worthless in your defense (and, in fact, provides evidence for the plaintiff) if the documentation over that signature doesn't include everything the FAA says is required for that certificate/rating/privilege.

Document, document, document.

 

[inav8r]

Hey Adam, doesn't an insurance company have a duty to defend you, if you haven't committed gross or criminal negligence? I didn't think they could just say "We're gonna pay out to your policy limit, and you're on your own for the rest".

My brother was the target of a liability suit where my brother felt he did nothing wrong. The jist of the story was the amount of the suit wasn't "excessively large" and his insurance company wanted to settle for a portion of the amount requested. My brother went nuts, and he wanted to fight it but in the end there was nothing he could do.

If I remember correctly, I *think* his insurance company told him that he could defend the case out of pocket - but the insurance company would only cover him up to the amount of the agreed upon settlement - not the amount of his coverage. (All of this part could be completely wrong, I admit).

My brother reluctantly signed the paperwork and paid the deductible to make it all go away.

 

[poadeleted20]

My brother was the target of a liability suit where my brother felt he did nothing wrong. The jist of the story was the amount of the suit wasn't "excessively large" and his insurance company wanted to settle for a portion of the amount requested. My brother went nuts, and he wanted to fight it but in the end there was nothing he could do.

This was an aviation instruction suit?

If I remember correctly, I *think* his insurance company told him that he could defend the case out of pocket - but the insurance company would only cover him up to the amount of the agreed upon settlement - not the amount of his coverage. (All of this part could be completely wrong, I admit).

...but it sounds accurate. Once the insurer has a deal in place to get them out of the problem for a fixed price, they are not going to risk having to pay more.

 

[markb5900]

My brother was the target of a liability suit where my brother felt he did nothing wrong. The jist of the story was the amount of the suit wasn't "excessively large" and his insurance company wanted to settle for a portion of the amount requested. My brother went nuts, and he wanted to fight it but in the end there was nothing he could do.

If I remember correctly, I *think* his insurance company told him that he could defend the case out of pocket - but the insurance company would only cover him up to the amount of the agreed upon settlement - not the amount of his coverage. (All of this part could be completely wrong, I admit).

My brother reluctantly signed the paperwork and paid the deductible to make it all go away.

I am not an attorney but deal with them and the insurance industry for my work quite a bit.
What I have seen in my experience is that the when you get right down to the numbers, it is almost always cheaper to settle a case than it is to litigate it out and that is why the insurance companies will make a settlement.
I have had my "moments" of WANTING to litigate a claim on principle, but in the end for no other reason than when you look at the ledger book, you "saved" money by not having to go to court.

Mark B

 

[KennyFlys]

I am not an attorney but deal with them and the insurance industry for my work quite a bit.
What I have seen in my experience is that the when you get right down to the numbers, it is almost always cheaper to settle a case than it is to litigate it out and that is why the insurance companies will make a settlement.
I have had my "moments" of WANTING to litigate a claim on principle, but in the end for no other reason than when you look at the ledger book, you "saved" money by not having to go to court.

Mark B

Hence the term, "Nuisance Suits." They are brought knowing there will never be a trial and it's cheaper for the defendant and their insurance to get a fast settlement than spend any time and money on even the most simple defense.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hence the term, "Nuisance Suits." They are brought knowing there will never be a trial and it's cheaper for the defendant and their insurance to get a fast settlement than spend any time and money on even the most simple defense.

Until the US adopts the British "loser pays winner's costs" system (which ain't likely considering the relationship between Congress and the US trial lawyers groups), that will remain a fact of life.

 

[Dudley Henriques]

I have spent some time as a free lance CFI tutoring aerobatics as well as primary instruction both as a private jobber and working for an FBO.

My advice to instructors has always been the same concerning the liability issue. Be thorough, and document everything. This means keeping accurate and meticulous records of EVERYTHING you do with any specific student both on the ground and in the air.

If a student or even a certificated pilot that you trained has an accident down the line, the liability aspect changes completely if the CFI has certifiable documentation stating unequivocally that the student/pilot trained by the instructor received proper instruction concerning the factors involved in the accident.
Mind you, it's not fool proof, and especially as a deep pockets target, you could be sued, but under much more favorable conditions with proper documentation in play than without it. The insurance company will be in a MUCH better position if you keep meticulous records of EVERY exposure you have to the teaching environment.

There are no guarantees in the instruction business. In today's litigious society, ANYONE who performs a service or a product for humanity is a potential target.

The name of the game in the CFI business is DOCUMENTATION!!! Be professional, document, and KEEP the documentation for every hour of dual.
Best of luck to you.

 

[TMetzinger]

My brother was the target of a liability suit where my brother felt he did nothing wrong. The jist of the story was the amount of the suit wasn't "excessively large" and his insurance company wanted to settle for a portion of the amount requested. My brother went nuts, and he wanted to fight it but in the end there was nothing he could do.

If I remember correctly, I *think* his insurance company told him that he could defend the case out of pocket - but the insurance company would only cover him up to the amount of the agreed upon settlement - not the amount of his coverage. (All of this part could be completely wrong, I admit).

My brother reluctantly signed the paperwork and paid the deductible to make it all go away.

A settlement that gets the insurance company and the named insured off the hook is fine (though possibly morally repugnant). I was concerned with a situation where you're sued for 10 million, your insurance coverage is 1 million, and your insurance company settles for 1 million or a portion thereof and you're still exposed for the other 9. In cases of gross or criminal negligence that's understandable - the insurance company only signed up for 1 million of exposure, but in cases where you may not have been negligent at all I don't think the insurance companies are allowed to pay off and abandon you.

 

[AdamZ]

Hey Adam, doesn't an insurance company have a duty to defend you, if you haven't committed gross or criminal negligence? I didn't think they could just say "We're gonna pay out to your policy limit, and you're on your own for the rest".

Often times yes Tim. It will depend on the language of the policy. Most folks don't ever read their policy. There is a difference in some policies between Coverage and Duty to Defend. Many carriers who will not cover the loss may still defend if the policy calls for it or if they are afraid they could be nailed for bad faith if they don't.

 

[AdamZ]

Hence the term, "Nuisance Suits." They are brought knowing there will never be a trial and it's cheaper for the defendant and their insurance to get a fast settlement than spend any time and money on even the most simple defense.

Kenny and Mark that was much more true in years past but really not so much anymore. Carriers are VERY tight with their money. No attorney worth their salt takes a case now with the attitude I'll just settle it. I never take a case I'm not willing to take to trial.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Settled, but at what cost? That's what concerns me. I suppose you can negotiate a settlement to the limit of your coverage, but a greedy plaintiff and accommodating attorney, seeing what I have, might want to reach for more.

That's part of the personal risk analysis that each of us has to make.

As others have pointed out, assuming a a reasonable amount of insurance, in most cases, settlements will occur within liability limits. While people do su out of insurance, the cost of litigation, even for an evil plaintiff's attorney, has to be worth it. Most of the time it's not.

Can you goof up enough and cause enough damage to make it worth while for someone to go after you personally? Absolutely.

But a personal exposure calculation might take into consideration

• Likelihood of the event occurring
• Potential size of damage
• Ease or difficulty in proving fault
• What you have to lose
• Insurance mitigation

How you put them together (and some of them can be a bit subjective since there isn't always data there) determines how you see your exposure. After that, it becomes a very personal decision as to whether it's within your risk tolerance or not. That personal decision can be as much a by-product of fear as reason.

btw, my online request? Notice that, so far, there have been no takers in this thread. And how many instructors have some of us come in comntact with? Also, I may have a very small update in a few weeks. I'm doing a talk for an instructor group in afew weeks. I'll ask them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Kenny and Mark that was much more true in years past but really not so much anymore. Carriers are VERY tight with their money. No attorney worth their salt takes a case now with the attitude I'll just settle it. I never take a case I'm not willing to take to trial.

True. Like a lot of societal trends, things are not static. Once upon a time, for example, manufacturers of products were responsible for next to nothing. The available theories of products liability made it very difficult for a truly injured plaintiff to prove it. Unhappy with what it saw as a bad result (defective products but no responsibility for them) , society moved on to theories of product liability that eased the burden and made it more worthwhile for the cases to be taken. Pendulum swings the other way and you start to see the bad results on the other side - questionable responsibility and runaway juries (although probably not as bad as people think). Society begins to recognize this as a bad result also and the pendulum begins swings back.

Ideally, the inherent stability of society, like the stability of an aircraft, begins to dampen the oscillations. Unfortunately, the inheret stability of an aircraft tends to work better.

 

[poadeleted20]

A settlement that gets the insurance company and the named insured off the hook is fine (though possibly morally repugnant). I was concerned with a situation where you're sued for 10 million, your insurance coverage is 1 million, and your insurance company settles for 1 million or a portion thereof and you're still exposed for the other 9...

They can't do that. Absent a civil release for the rest from the plaintiff, the insurance company cannot get away for less than the face value of the policy. OTOH, if the insurer sees the potential for damages in excess of their coverage, they can issue a letter telling you they're signing out for their face value, but (as I understand it) they still have a duty to defend you (as long as you realize that the defense cost will be deducted from their coverage).

 

[Dave Siciliano]

We've had the same discussion on the AvSig board with about the same results. One of the well known attorneys on there issued a challenge to produce a case where an instructor was successfully sued and the pickings were pretty slim. Settlements were also discussed and can't be quantified (as was discussed here).

There seems to be less risk than is generally conveyed by the instructors I chat with, but it doesn't mean there isn't any. I've debated getting my CFI and the liability and the time it would take to do a good job teaching keep pulling me away. Fortunately (or unfortunately), my businesses take a lot of time and I don't know if I could dedicate the time needed to teach at the level I would demand of myself.

Best,

Dave

 

[AdamZ]

True. Like a lot of societal trends, things are not static. Once upon a time, for example, manufacturers of products were responsible for next to nothing. The available theories of products liability made it very difficult for a truly injured plaintiff to prove it. Unhappy with what it saw as a bad result (defective products but no responsibility for them) , society moved on to theories of product liability that eased the burden and made it more worthwhile for the cases to be taken. Pendulum swings the other way and you start to see the bad results on the other side - questionable responsibility and runaway juries (although probably not as bad as people think). Society begins to recognize this as a bad result also and the pendulum begins swings back.

Ideally, the inherent stability of society, like the stability of an aircraft, begins to dampen the oscillations. Unfortunately, the inheret stability of an aircraft tends to work better.

Mark you have pretty much summed the situation up perfectly!!!

 

[flyersfan31]

Great discussion. I'm glad I asked the question, because although I know none of this passes for legal advice () it does give me a lot more comfort.

I'm still a little worried about the same thing Tim is, namely, plaintiffs going for more than what you're insured for. With the right representation, that should be a limited risk. ESPECIALLY because I will make sure to dot my i's and cross my t's every step of the way.

Maybe the dream is still alive. Thanks to all of you!!

 

[gismo]

Yep. Right there is what it is. That's how my instructor did it, and how I did it for many years.

Incomplete documentaion is the source of most all court cases of liability for instructors. As long as you have your student's signature attesting to received training and knowledge, you are clean.

Just guessing, but I doubt that complete training documentation would help much if the student crashed during dual instruction after a malfunction led to a marginally successful off airport landing in unfriendly terrain. Chances of that are small but not anywhere near zero.

 

[TMetzinger]

If it's dual, the student didn't crash, the CFI did. in which case liability is the same as with any other pax.

Most of the scary issues with CFI liability are for what the student does when solo or post-checkride, when the CFI isn't physically present.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If it's dual, the student didn't crash, the CFI did. in which case liability is the same as with any other pax.

Most of the scary issues with CFI liability are for what the student does when solo or post-checkride, when the CFI isn't physically present.

Exactly. As I mentioned, the post-checkride seems to be the scary issue; yet I have never even heard of one case where it happened.