First Solo Boo Boo

i hope it was a rental :D:D
i kid , i kid
 
Ouch. I cannot imagine what I would have done if it were me.
 
So what happens here in terms of liability? Does the school's insurance cover the damage to the aircraft?

Does this do anything to the student's progress in training or affect how quickly he can get his PPL?
 
Why did he report his ground speed? Sounds like he may have been looking somewhere other than where he should have.
 
jpl9869 said:
So what happens here in terms of liability? Does the school's insurance cover the damage to the aircraft?

Does this do anything to the student's progress in training or affect how quickly he can get his PPL?
Click to expand...
Typically, a flight school has their own insurance that covers their aircraft and instructors. When you fly solo, you are not covered under their insurance policy, which is why it’s a good idea to take out a non-owners policy to cover yourself.

Without knowing this particular place of business, I would imagine that he or she will be liable to cover damage expenses and possibly loss of revenue on the airplane while it’s under repair.

Overall, it sounds as though the student was too lax on rudder input to correct the lateral movement.
 
Last edited:
Someone had a bad day,hope they had renters insurance.
 
jpl9869 said:
So what happens here in terms of liability?
Click to expand...
My school wouldn't let me solo until I provided proof of renters insurance (non owner aircraft insurance). I had to get insurance with certain amounts (liability $1M, physical damage $5K each occurrence) that were set by the school. I thought all schools did the same (meaning not allow students to solo w/o renters ins).
 
When I was working on my CFI and on short final, the C-152 in front of me went off the left side of the runway. I asked the tower if he needed me to go around..... He said "No, he is completely off the runway, you are good to land."

We landed, exited the runway and stopped on the taxi way next to the off road Cessna. My instructor asked the pilot what happened. He said, "I don't know, I think the cross wind got me."

The wind sock was hanging like a dead man...... no movement.
 
Hippike said:
I thought all schools did the same (meaning not allow students to solo w/o renters ins).
Click to expand...
Nope not all require it. Pretty ignorant not to have it though IMO.
 
Zeldman said:
When I was working on my CFI and on short final, the C-152 in front of me went off the left side of the runway. I asked the tower if he needed me to go around..... He said "No, he is completely off the runway, you are good to land."

We landed, exited the runway and stopped on the taxi way next to the off road Cessna. My instructor asked the pilot what happened. He said, "I don't know, I think the cross wind got me."

The wind sock was hanging like a dead man...... no movement.
Click to expand...
I had something similar happen to me once...and I could have sworn, at the time, that it was a crosswind...closer examination of my '43 Taylorcraft found something like this instead (not my incident but looked the same):

upload_2018-2-20_13-12-31.png

Made me feel better that my piloting wasn't directly to blame.
 
I should probably look into the insurance more, but ours is a part 61 flight club and I have been told we are covered when we fly the aircraft as a solo student and when renting once I have my ppl.

I wouldn't want to imagine what that student and CFI are going through right now. Stresses me out just thinking about it.
 
upload_2018-2-20_15-9-5.png

Sounds like a good landing to me. Not a great one, mind you, but still a good one.
 
Ronbonjovi said:
I should probably look into the insurance more, but ours is a part 61 flight club and I have been told we are covered when we fly the aircraft as a solo student and when renting once I have my ppl.
Click to expand...
"You" being covered means the FBO is covered when you're flying their airplane. You are not covered if a third party decides to sue you for damages, or if the FBO's insurance company decides you are at fault and chooses to subrogate against you.
 
:eek:I had renters insurance and had landings down pretty good before I bought my plane 25 hrs in.:eek:
 
Zeldman said:
When I was working on my CFI and on short final, the C-152 in front of me went off the left side of the runway. I asked the tower if he needed me to go around..... He said "No, he is completely off the runway, you are good to land."

We landed, exited the runway and stopped on the taxi way next to the off road Cessna. My instructor asked the pilot what happened. He said, "I don't know, I think the cross wind got me."

The wind sock was hanging like a dead man...... no movement.
Click to expand...

Maybe he farted? o_O :dunno:
 
When I was a student, I was advised to have insurance with HULL to cover the schools deductible and LIABILITY as I saw fit. The hull portion drives the premium more than the liability IIRC.
 
Renters insurance with hull liability is less than $200 per year. Seems like it would be foolish to not get it regardless of what the school requires.
 
deftone said:
Renters insurance with hull liability is less than $200 per year. Seems like it would be foolish to not get it regardless of what the school requires.
Click to expand...
Yeah this.
 
Two words when everything isn't perfect : "Go around"
 
tawood said:
I had something similar happen to me once...and I could have sworn, at the time, that it was a crosswind...closer examination of my '43 Taylorcraft found something like this instead (not my incident but looked the same):

View attachment 60297

Made me feel better that my piloting wasn't directly to blame.
Click to expand...
The one time I ground looped was partially due to the departure of both tailwheel control springs which unknown to me had just been installed by another part owner who got them from Home Depot.
 
gismo said:
The one time I ground looped was partially due to the departure of both tailwheel control springs which unknown to me had just been installed by another part owner who got them from Home Depot.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s the problem right there: everyone in the taildragger world knows to go to Tractor Supply for their vintage tailwheel parts!
 
gismo said:
The one time I ground looped was partially due to the departure of both tailwheel control springs which unknown to me had just been installed by another part owner who got them from Home Depot.
Click to expand...

Damn Experimental builders!! Everyone know you should go to Lowe's Aviation Supply. :D
 
paflyer said:
Two words when everything isn't perfect : "Go around"
Click to expand...

If you’re already below 45 kts, it might be better not to go around if you are losing directional control. One of my instructors said “sometimes it’s better not to add energy to an already bad situation.”

My personal thoughts are, once my plane has slowed below flying speed, I’m probably going to try to make the best of things on the rollout.
 
TylerSC said:
If you’re already below 45 kts, it might be better not to go around if you are losing directional control. One of my instructors said “sometimes it’s better not to add energy to an already bad situation.”

My personal thoughts are, once my plane has slowed below flying speed, I’m probably going to try to make the best of things on the rollout.
Click to expand...

Don't agree. Adding power will instantly increase control effectiveness and stability, though in some airplanes you might not want full power to avoid an excessive out-of-trim condition. I also would add that I see way too many people slamming the throttle in abruptly during go-arounds. :no:

Just accepting that you will crash is ridiculous, and is an example of a hazardous attitude, resignation.
 
dmspilot said:
Don't agree. Adding power will instantly increase control effectiveness and stability, though in some airplanes you might not want full power to avoid an excessive out-of-trim condition. I also would add that I see way too many people slamming the throttle in abruptly during go-arounds. :no:

Just accepting that you will crash is ridiculous, and is an example of a hazardous attitude, resignation.
Click to expand...

I don’t mean anyone should accept a crash - but I do think there is a point where it would be more dangerous to attempt a go around. Depending on the circumstances. That’s the basic idea my instructor was trying to get across.
 
dmspilot said:
Don't agree. Adding power will instantly increase control effectiveness and stability, though in some airplanes you might not want full power to avoid an excessive out-of-trim condition. I also would add that I see way too many people slamming the throttle in abruptly during go-arounds. :no:

Just accepting that you will crash is ridiculous, and is an example of a hazardous attitude, resignation.
Click to expand...
Actually, adding power in an already bad situation can change the outcome from bent metal to bent pilot. It isn't always a good idea. Had I done so in my worst landing I'd probably not be here typing this.
 
steingar said:
Actually, adding power in an already bad situation can change the outcome from bent metal to bent pilot. It isn't always a good idea. Had I done so in my worst landing I'd probably not be here typing this.
Click to expand...

Did I actually say that you should always add power in every bad situation? Your statement is so vague that I can't even argue with it, because I don't know what you're trying to say.
 
dmspilot said:
Did I actually say that you should always add power in every bad situation? Your statement is so vague that I can't even argue with it, because I don't know what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
That sometimes keeping the power out is the best solution to the impending problem. There are instances where just allowing the aircraft to roll itself into the situation is better than applying power and trying to fly out of it. Folks have died from trying to go around instead of just letting the thing play out.
 
Ronbonjovi said:
I wouldn't want to imagine what that student and CFI are going through right now.
Click to expand...

Considering the accident occurred February 17, 2016 I figure both have moved on and are likely doing just fine.
 
dmspilot said:
Don't agree. Adding power will instantly increase control effectiveness and stability, though in some airplanes you might not want full power to avoid an excessive out-of-trim condition. I also would add that I see way too many people slamming the throttle in abruptly during go-arounds. :no:

Just accepting that you will crash is ridiculous, and is an example of a hazardous attitude, resignation.
Click to expand...

Do that in a Spitfire and you'll die. Nothing to do with out-of-trim though.
 
dmspilot said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

As with some other high performance planes, P-factors can be stronger than rudder/aileron authority at very low speeds. This of course is a very extreme situation, but just an example that sometimes adding power is not the right solution.
The plane I fly has 105" prop and 1200hp and I can tell you if you are slow with high AOA especially with flaps 40 as you are just before landing, just adding full power will make you do quite a dance on the rudder pedals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top