Lawsuit after student solo crash

This reminds of the thread titled "This is why we can't have nice things."

The obvious answer is the student pilot was cleared by his CFI to solo. So, he should have been skilled enough to ensure there was enough fuel in the tank for the flight and the required reserves.

But, did the CFI do his due diligence in training the student pilot adequately? Did the flight school have in place, the policies and cultural/social inducements to promote safe practices amongst the CFIs and students?

Those are the issues that, in this litigious, PC world we live in, that we must have answers to. This is why we can't have nice things!
 
I hate to sound like a Darwinist, but for that pilot-in-command (student or not) not to understand that for a plane to fly it must have fuel and the fuel level must be carefully checked before flight, indicates he would have likely not stuck around long even if he had picked another pursuit. I guess the instructor is slightly guilty too in not realizing that student was so utterly lacking in basic faculties, but that's harder to pin down.
 
The Pilot in Command is ALWAYS responsible for ensuring that the aircraft is ready to go (FAR 91.3). The PIC is supposed to know "everything possible" about the flight before starting (FAR 91.103).

But in this day where no one is held responsible for the results of their own actions if there is a bystander with insurance, someone else will end up paying out big bucks . . .
 
It just really make you wonder what some of these flight schools and CFIs are putting out there. What standards were there to solo the student? Was the CFI doing his job and teach flying, not just teach someone to go around the pattern?
 
Here's what the NTSB has so far:

NTSB Identification: ERA16FA005
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, October 08, 2015 in Jasper, GA
Aircraft: PIPER PA 38-112, registration: N4313E
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On October 8, 2015, about 1830 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-38-112, N4313E, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain after a loss of engine power in Jasper, Georgia. The student pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local instructional flight conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, which departed from Pickens County Airport (JZP), Jasper, Georgia.

According to a witness, the student pilot was on his second supervised solo flight. After takeoff from JZP, he flew out to the practice area and came back to the airport about an hour later. The student pilot then performed a touch and go landing on runway 16. During the climb after the touch and go, the witness heard the engine suddenly stop running. The airplane then "sunk down" and he observed the airplane turn to the left like the airplane was going to return to the airport. The airplane then appeared to enter an aerodynamic stall and then spin to the left. It was then observed to descend rapidly while still in the spin until it was lost from view behind trees, and the sound of impact was heard.

The airplane came to rest in a small grass covered automobile parking area located approximately 1,687 feet from the departure end of runway 16. All major components of the airplane were discovered on site. The initial impact point was located on a 252 degree magnetic heading from the wreckage, 36 feet from where the airplane had come to rest. There was no discernable wreckage path, and numerous components were spread throughout the area of the accident site.

Examination of the wreckage revealed that the aft fuselage was almost completely separated from the cabin, the engine had separated from the firewall, the propeller was separated from the engine, and the wings had remained attached to their fittings.

Examination of the flight control system revealed no evidence of any preimpact failures or malfunctions, and control continuity was established from the rudder, elevator, and ailerons, to the cockpit controls.

Examination of the cabin revealed that the master switch was in the "ON" position, and the magneto switch was in the "BOTH" position. The throttle was full forward, and the mixture was full rich. The electric fuel pump was in the "OFF" position.

Examination of the propeller revealed that the majority of damage to the nose spinner was concentrated on one side where it displayed crush and compression damage. Both propeller blades displayed minimal aft bending, minimal rotational scoring, and no evidence of leading edge gouging.

Examination of the engine revealed that oil was present in the rocker boxes and the galleries of the engine. Drivetrain continuity was able to be established, and the intake valves and exhaust valves on all four cylinders were functional. Thumb compression was present on all four cylinders, and internal examination utilizing a borescope revealed no anomalies. The spark plugs electrodes appeared normal and were light grey in color. Both magnetos were functional and produced spark from all towers.

Examination of the fuel system revealed that the engine driven fuel pump was functional. The carburetor was impact damaged, the float bowl had separated from the carburetor body, and the floats had been ejected from the float bowl. No evidence of fuel staining in the float bowl was present. The fuel strainer was devoid of fuel. The fuel selector valve was in the right fuel tank position.

After opening the fuel tank caps of the airplane in the position it came to rest in, with the left wing parallel to the ground, and the right wingtip about 6 feet above the ground with the right wing at an approximately 29-degree angle to the ground, a small amount of fuel approximately 1/4 inch deep was observed in the bottom of the left tank. None could be observed in the right tank.

After suspending the attached cabin section from a crane in a wings level position and draining the fuel system, examination of the contents of the left and right fuels tanks revealed that a negligible amount of fuel was present in the left fuel tank, and approximately a 1/2 cup of fuel was present in the right tank.

Examination of fuel receipts revealed that the airplane had last been refueled on October 5, 2015.

Examination of the "Time Sheet" which was recovered from the wreckage indicated that after it had been refueled, the airplane had flown on four other flights prior to the accident flight. Further examination of the time sheet also revealed that when the accident occurred, the airplane had flown 4.9 hours since the last refueling.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and airplane maintenance records, the accident airplane was manufactured in 1978. The airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed on October 3, 2015. At the time of the inspection, the airplane had accrued approximately 3,147 total hours of operation.

According to FAA records, the student pilot, age 21, held a third class medical with student pilot certificate issued on August 24, 2015. Review of pilot records indicated that prior to the accident flight, he had accumulated 13.5 total hours of flight experience, 1.3 hours of which, were in solo flight.​

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...df19-44f0-869f-d5cc5c6f5698&pgno=1&pgsize=200
 
Yeah, happened not far from me. Seen that Tomahawk in the pattern a lot in the past. Some of the people I work with knew the guy and had nothing but good things to say. Sad deal.

I gotta believe that he was taught fuel awareness and the use of checklists. No way he should have been released for solo without that.
 
Fuel gets checked twice according the checklist I've used since I was a student pilot (16 years ago). Master switch on. Check fuel gauges (among other items). Master switch off. Then, while checking around the perimeter of the aircraft, visually check the fuel level in all tanks. Cessna, Piper, it doesn't matter. Got fuel? Yes, OK. No, get some now. It's been this way since before my first solo. Sorry about this person's death, but I'm not seeing where blaming the FBO or flight school makes sense. But, I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer, either...
 
Ya gotta love how the plaintiff's attorney always convinces the next of kin that they are suing to make the world safe.

Georgia has modified comparative negligence. If the jury finds the student was more than 50% responsible, his family recovers nothing. However, the insurance companies are very likely to roll over and pay something. Nothing much will change and the airport, and no lives will be saved. The grieving father will buy a new boat and get on with life.
 
I really do no understand how you take off without checking the tanks, let alone not looking at the fuel gauges.
 
This is why the Flight school I trained at and now a different FBO I rent for both have a policy that, unless you tell them not to fill the tanks( for weight and balence issues) they always top the tanks after every student flight or renter flight.

Sad that someone lost their life over a touch and go!
 
This is why the Flight school I trained at and now a different FBO I rent for both have a policy that, unless you tell them not to fill the tanks( for weight and balence issues) they always top the tanks after every student flight or renter flight.

Sad that someone lost their life over a touch and go!

I think policies like that actually CAUSE more fuel manageken problems.

We defaulted the plane to 1/4 tanks when I had my school, after your flight you ether fueled it back to 1/4s or, if you went over you gave some free fuel to the next guy, since we rented DRY.

All of our students checked and calculated fuel for EVERY flight and fueled THEIR OWN planes. They didn't get in the habit of jump in and just go.
 
This is why the Flight school I trained at and now a different FBO I rent for both have a policy that, unless you tell them not to fill the tanks( for weight and balence issues) they always top the tanks after every student flight or renter flight.

That will work up until a heavy pilot and passenger jump in and crash because the plane is over gross.
 
In a similar vein....the families of the shooter in Aurora, Co (guy shot up the theater at the opening of the Batman movie a few years ago) are suing the theater chain for not having sufficient security and armed guards to prevent the shooting.
 
I haven't been able to find this info, but I thought I recalled that the student and CFI had first fueled another plane and when they did the runup they found an issue and changed to this plane. I also thought I remember that the CFI was in the plane to start and then got out. Certainly I can be totally wrong, just saying what I remembered about the story.
 
The student should have known that the engine requires fuel... And if he followed his checklist, as I'm sure he was taught, he would have seen it was lacking. I can't believe the thing was flown 4 other times and no one put fuel in it... Sounds almost systemic at the FBO/School... That said, I hope if I were an instructor I would be more involved with every solo; be it the first one or the last one prior to the check-ride, especially if the student has only 13 hours. I think a preflight of the airplane before the student arrives, would be prudent...

I was surprised to learn, recently, that birds toss their young out of the nest and watch them flounder on the ground until they either learn to fly or become lunch for a predator. I would think we humans could do better....
 
I haven't been able to find this info, but I thought I recalled that the student and CFI had first fueled another plane and when they did the runup they found an issue and changed to this plane. I also thought I remember that the CFI was in the plane to start and then got out. Certainly I can be totally wrong, just saying what I remembered about the story.

I looked back on older articles and don't see anything like this referenced. But, even if that was what happened, the minute the CFI left the plane, the student became PIC. It's PIC's responsibility to ensure the plane is safe for flight. The only way I could see this being the CFI's fault is if he failed to do his job in training his student to do thorough preflights. If other students come forward and attest that the CFI never showed them to check for fuel, then the parents may have a case.

Sad story. Poor kid. Poor parents.
 
The student pilot probably violated Federal regulations by not peforming a thorough preflight inspection. And if he did do the inspection, including visually confirming the fuel, he possibly violated a different regulation by flying with inadequate day VFR fuel. Bottom line, student screwed up. Pilot error. Everything else is just trying to milk it dry as a source of revenue for the lawyer and his client.
 
The student should have known that the engine requires fuel... And if he followed his checklist, as I'm sure he was taught, he would have seen it was lacking. I can't believe the thing was flown 4 other times and no one put fuel in it... Sounds almost systemic at the FBO/School... That said, I hope if I were an instructor I would be more involved with every solo; be it the first one or the last one prior to the check-ride, especially if the student has only 13 hours. I think a preflight of the airplane before the student arrives, would be prudent...

Not checking for fuel is a piloting 101 error. I'm also surprised that it got flown 4 more times without refueling, but I would never fly a plane, especially a community plane, without checking fuel.
 
It may seem heartless, but the kid was signed off for solo, so he should have known how to do a competent preflight.
Not heartless. You are correct. Of course, he should have been instructed properly to do so. He should have been instructed on check list use. I presume that he was so instructed, but we have no evidence one way or the other on the training he received. I also believe that there is a common sense element that any student that has solo-ed should have an understanding even without being told.
 
I haven't been able to find this info, but I thought I recalled that the student and CFI had first fueled another plane and when they did the runup they found an issue and changed to this plane. I also thought I remember that the CFI was in the plane to start and then got out. Certainly I can be totally wrong, just saying what I remembered about the story.

If what you're saying is accurate then wouldn't the CFI have been considered the PIC until he got out\? That would make the CFI the responsible person for the pre-flight checklist correct?

And I'm not saying the student shouldn't be considered the most responsible individual in this case. Just thinking about the legal viewpoint.
 
So the way I look at this is colored by a few student "surprises" of mine. Guys can be seemingly very competent and then do something off the wall or not according to their training when they get out on their own. The FAA looks at that as instructor error, but CFIs aren't omniscient, either and it's definitely possible to miss a character problem in only 15 hours of work.
Looking at the story, the loss of control issue concerns me almost more than the fuel deal as a CFI. The fuel deal, IMO could be overconfidence or distraction on the student's part, and it could be that he got wrapped up in a cell phone conversation or texting instead of his checklist. Stuff like that could account for not having checked the fuel. Stupid, but not the CFI's fault. The LOC and subsequent stall spin shows that the student's priorities and training were such that what should have been fresh in his mind about engine out procedures (which is part of the pre-solo requirements) wasn't quite there. That's what would make me feel terrible if this had been my student.
I had a student who was trained in a PA-28-180 and we did go over fuel management and the need to switch tanks IMO adequately - but they were almost always full due to school policy - so it was rarely "needed" even though we did switch tanks generally about every 30 min. He told be later that on one of his solo cross-country flights that he forgot to switch the tanks and actually had the engine quit on him. Thankfully he was at a good altitude and remembered his ABCFAST and emergency checklist and flew the plane towards where he was planning on landing. He followed the checklist, switched tanks, and the engine came back to life. That scared me (obviously) but the basic airmanship (fly the plane) and checklist is what saved him.
 
Last edited:
Georgia has modified comparative negligence. If the jury finds the student was more than 50% responsible, his family recovers nothing. However, the insurance companies are very likely to roll over and pay something. Nothing much will change and the airport, and no lives will be saved. The grieving father will buy a new boat and get on with life.

Sadly, this is all too accurate.
 
I can't believe the thing was flown 4 other times and no one put fuel in it... Sounds almost systemic at the FBO/School.

It's a common policy at many flight schools. They top off all the aircraft at the end of the day. Then, the following day, students/renters preflight the airplanes and request fuel when needed. Kind of like you would do if it were your own plane.

The media's outrage over "giving a student an empty plane" is a clear cut case of ignorance and assumption. And anyway, the airplane wasn't empty. The kid flew it for over an hour. Pilot error, nothing more.
 
If what you're saying is accurate then wouldn't the CFI have been considered the PIC until he got out\? That would make the CFI the responsible person for the pre-flight checklist correct?

And I'm not saying the student shouldn't be considered the most responsible individual in this case. Just thinking about the legal viewpoint.

It said the student flew for an hour and a half - so this is irrelevant. If the CFI was the PIC, He did a valid checklist, there was at least 1.5hrs of fuel on board, its the students fault for exceeding the amount available.
 
I feel sad that the kid died as a result but he made two cardinal mistakes:
1) forgot about fuel and made the engine quit
2) failed to land straight ahead where he had better options than turning around and spinning

Some might call it Darwin suicide, some might say it is bad luck. But all it takes is a jury of 12 dumb peers and this will turn into another huge payout to silence the grief of the family. And then another precedent will be set.
Now imagine the fallout from that. Schools will have to carry much higher insurance coverage, paying higher premiums and passing them onto the students. This will make it only harder to get new people into aviation.

Imagine if you ran a flight school and a student asked you "Why are your rates so high? The airplane is an old POS and fuel cost only $3/gal. Why so expensive at $200/hr?"
And you had to explain "$30/hr is for fuel, $20/hr for maintenance, $50/hr payment for the plane itself and the other $100/hr is the insurance premium so that your family can get a big settlement in case you screw up and kill yourself".
I don't think that would go over well.
 
They said it was a "supervised" solo.

And given the comment above saying the same thing, it's likely that the CFI started in the plane, which means he would of done the pre-flight.

So while it's still the student's fault, the CFI/School is probably going to get nailed here.
 
They said it was a "supervised" solo.

And given the comment above saying the same thing, it's likely that the CFI started in the plane, which means he would of done the pre-flight.

So while it's still the student's fault, the CFI/School is probably going to get nailed here.

When I was student pilot in power planes "supervised solo" simply meant the instructor was around somewhere (typically working with other students), but never inside the plane.
When he was inside the plane, it was "dual". Has this changed?
 
They said it was a "supervised" solo.

And given the comment above saying the same thing, it's likely that the CFI started in the plane, which means he would of done the pre-flight.

So while it's still the student's fault, the CFI/School is probably going to get nailed here.

Highly unlikely that the instructor started the plane. That's maybe done on a student's first flight, but after that, the student does it. Likewise for the preflight inspection. I've never heard of any instructor performing preflights for students beyond teaching them how to do it. By the time a student has soloed, he is WELL versed in preflight inspections and engine starts. I cannot imagine any possible situation where the student would not have been expected to know his fuel status.
 
it's likely that the CFI started in the plane, which means he would of done the pre-flight.

...errrr, my CFI never ever never once did a preflight on a flight I was on at ANY stage of the training. He walked me through every step each time but there was never a flight that I did not participate in or do the preflight entirely myself....which was surely the case by time I soloed.

If it there is any CFI that does a preflight inspection without the student as the PIC doing the preflight...that is indeed negligence on many levels.
 
...errrr, my CFI never ever never once did a preflight on a flight I was on at ANY stage of the training. He walked me through every step each time but there was never a flight that I did not participate in or do the preflight entirely myself....which was surely the case by time I soloed.

If it there is any CFI that does a preflight inspection without the student as the PIC doing the preflight...that is indeed negligence on many levels.

This 101%.
 
Every instructor I ever had always checked the fuel before getting in. Just for his own peace of mind.

Besides, I'm not arguing with you guys. I'm just saying if they make the case the solo was "supervised" and the CFI was originally PIC, they will likely get nailed.

What's right and what a court decides aren't always the same.
 
PIC means safety of the flight was the pilot's responsibility, Unless we have some reason to believe he was grossly mistrained, the responsibility was the pilot's.

Sorry for his family, but that is the way the FAA sees it, any other interpretation turns the concept of PIC on its head and opens the liability floodgates.
 
Sorry for his family, but that is the way the FAA sees it, any other interpretation turns the concept of PIC on its head and opens the liability floodgates.

The liability floodgates are already open. The jury is not bound by the FAA's determination of who was PIC or who was responsible. First off, the NTSB makes that determination. Second off, the NTSB report is not admissible in a court of law, by federal statute.

The jury will apportion blame based on the story they hear in court, how sympathetic the next of kin are, which attorneys they like better, and which expert they find more believable/likeable. The insurance company knowing that it is a crapshoot with a jury and knowing that the defense will probably cost at least $.5M, will offer a settlement. As it is found money to the next of kin, their fleeting desire to make the world safe for careless kids in airplanes will go out the window as the think about the new RV the money will buy, or put other kids through college, etc.

Cynical you say? Realistic! I have been their and done that as a defense dog.
 
... Thankfully he was at a good altitude and remembered his ABCFAST and emergency checklist and flew the plane towards where he was planning on landing. ...

I don't think I've heard ABCFAST before. What is it?
 
I don't think I've heard ABCFAST before. What is it?
It's kind of a priority checklist that an instructor taught me a long time ago.

A - Airspeed
B - Best landing site
C - Checklist - if impractical FAST
F - Fuel systems
A - Air (Carb heat, mix)
S - Spark, Squawk (Mags, Transponder)
T - Troubleshoot, Talk (Radio)

It's especially useful to me in that I don't have to fumble for anything if for some reason a checklist is misplaced.
 
Back
Top