Lawsuit after student solo crash

[Steve_W]

To the commenter who said that a landing straight ahead was possible - I have flown out of KJZP quite a bit and am fairly familiar with the airport and terrain. I love the field and the area, but it always troubled me that there were few good options for landing after power loss on climb out. The field where the plane crashed is much smaller than you would think from the picture. There was steep grade at the edge, and it was surrounded by tall trees. Not shown the in picture was the several large medical buildings adjacent to the field. There are not a lot of good visible options even if you have tried to plan ahead for such a power loss, especially with a nose-high sight picture. Looking in google maps, I can see one area that might be a clear straight-ahead landing place... but you wouldn't see it with the nose high, you would have to know it was there and be at the right height & energy to make it, and based on where it's at it is probably a steep hill. I am sure it was panic (and lack of experience) that led to sub-optimal decision-making and LOC. I haven't flown out of there regularly in a few months, but I'll take a closer look next time and see if if for my own well-being I can come up with better "plan B" options. These things make you think.

 

[Witmo]

A student who is allowed to solo must convince the flight school and CFI that he/she will come back safely. This is what it means to be a Pilot in Command. If the CFI cannot trust the student to check the fuel level (and oil, and the rest of the preflight steps), the student will not be endorsed to solo. If students can't be trusted to check their fuel/oil level on their own, they should stay on the ground. Like pregnancy, there are no gray levels between these points.
It seems you are advocating some kind of a dumbed-down elastic apron-string approach to flight instruction, post solo, and as I noted above, I believe that if it were implemented it will make flying even less safe than today.

I'm not advocating any dumbing down of anything. Strict supervision of students does not make the skies unsafe. Until they have that certificate in hand they are student pilots. I've flown in the military and I've flown civilian for over thirty years. At Air Force UPT students have made stupid mistakes and crashed airplanes for stupid reasons and been reinstated to training whereas a rated pilot would most probably be sent to a Flying Evaluation Board and have his wings taken for making the same mistake. I've seen fueling mistakes take the lives of pilots and students and it's frustrating. To just throw up one's hands and say that's just the cost we have to pay is BS. No one wants to die. Its obvious there's no changing your position. Let's agree to disagree. A student pilot is dead, may he RIP. If l had been his instructor I'd be taking a long and hard look at my performance. I hope the instructor can truthfully say he did his job and is able to have a clear conscience.

There's a case I remember where a former naval aviator was returning to flying after many years of inactivity. For whatever reason, he had never gotten his civilian certificates when he was active duty and now he had to get training and signed off for his private. His instructor flew with him and commented that this naval aviator flew better than he did and in no time at all, he signed him off to solo and fly his long cross country. The instructor reviewed the flight and fuel plan and could find no errors. He specifically admonished him to get fuel at his destination before returning. The naval aviator flew the flight and for some reason decided he could make the return trip without fueling. Not quite. Dead sticked it into a field, but survived unhurt. Despite 1000s of hours of flight time flying high performance jets, he made a stupid error of judgement. He admitted to the FAA that his instructor had told him he needed to fuel up at the outbase but he himself disregarded the advice. He took full responsibility. The FAA didn't think so. They suspended the CFI's certificate because he did not document the required solo cross country training squares. The "student" pilot suffered no FAA sanction because he was a student pilot. Didn't matter that he had more flying experience than the instructor, he was a student pilot. If the instructor had made the required training entries he would have skated but because he hadn't, his ticket was suspended and he had to ride with an Examiner to get it back. Moral of the story--the instructor had better be able to prove he provided the required training and a signature endorsement for a particular flight only proves he can sign his name.

 

[Hank S]

Like others, I learned to preflight the aircraft from day one, and accepted that as my own responsibility. The instructor always took my word for it, and this goes for helis, gliders and power planes. So I understood from day one that it was my word, even as a newbie, that kept us alive, and made doubly-sure that all was kosher. Transitioning to solos was trivial in this respect, since I had been "Preflighter in Command" from day two. My CFI (in all those categories and many different flight schools) never helped me preflight after the first lesson, and come to think of it, all my DPE's have trusted me with it too.
So to imply that the CFI, beyond the very first lesson, has any role (except perhaps a very casual and random one) in the preflight (or fuel checking which is part of it) is simply wrong, based on my very broad experience over many schools and aircraft categories. And as I mentioned above, if that implication were to become the norm, it would lead to a worse safety record.

You realize that witmo will not change his mind? He has convinced himself that student pilots are safety with helicopter instructors, and no amount of internet reasoning will change his mind. He's probably a helicopter parent, cutting his kid's meat so they don't hurt themselves with a sharp knife, critiquing their teachers' grading of their homework . . .

 

[RotorDude]

I'm not advocating any dumbing down of anything. Strict supervision of students does not make the skies unsafe. Until they have that certificate in hand they are student pilots. I've flown in the military and I've flown civilian for over thirty years. At Air Force UPT students have made stupid mistakes and crashed airplanes for stupid reasons and been reinstated to training whereas a rated pilot would most probably be sent to a Flying Evaluation Board and have his wings taken for making the same mistake. I've seen fueling mistakes take the lives of pilots and students and it's frustrating. To just throw up one's hands and say that's just the cost we have to pay is BS. No one wants to die. Its obvious there's no changing your position. Let's agree to disagree. A student pilot is dead, may he RIP. If l had been his instructor I'd be taking a long and hard look at my performance. I hope the instructor can truthfully say he did his job and is able to have a clear conscience.

There's a case I remember where a former naval aviator was returning to flying after many years of inactivity. For whatever reason, he had never gotten his civilian certificates when he was active duty and now he had to get training and signed off for his private. His instructor flew with him and commented that this naval aviator flew better than he did and in no time at all, he signed him off to solo and fly his long cross country. The instructor reviewed the flight and fuel plan and could find no errors. He specifically admonished him to get fuel at his destination before returning. The naval aviator flew the flight and for some reason decided he could make the return trip without fueling. Not quite. Dead sticked it into a field, but survived unhurt. Despite 1000s of hours of flight time flying high performance jets, he made a stupid error of judgement. He admitted to the FAA that his instructor had told him he needed to fuel up at the outbase but he himself disregarded the advice. He took full responsibility. The FAA didn't think so. They suspended the CFI's certificate because he did not document the required solo cross country training squares. The "student" pilot suffered no FAA sanction because he was a student pilot. Didn't matter that he had more flying experience than the instructor, he was a student pilot. If the instructor had made the required training entries he would have skated but because he hadn't, his ticket was suspended and he had to ride with an Examiner to get it back. Moral of the story--the instructor had better be able to prove he provided the required training and a signature endorsement for a particular flight only proves he can sign his name.

I don't disagree with you that the CFI in this case is very likely second-guessing himself trying to see where he went wrong. Odds are he just misjudged that student's character, in assuming he'd at least perform the basic preflight for his solo flight, and then scan the gauges periodically and head for home when low on fuel.
But I guess it's also possible that, theoretically (I know nothing about it), it was a shoddy operation where students were not taught properly and were allowed to solo without proper testing. I guess the FAA and NTSB will address those issues, so we may find out eventually.

But all that (and your anecdote about the ex-Naval aviator) has nothing to do with my point that solo student pilots are Pilots in Command, no less than a 30,000 hour 747 captain or an ace F-15 fighter pilot. That is the law, and hand-holding solo students (beyond the required checking of their cross country preparations) will result in their assuming that Mommy-CFI is watching over them, which will lower their level of focus, and will be hard to fix post-checkride.
Nothing sharpens your mind like knowing that your life depends on your own actions (or inactions).

 

[txflyer]

The young man doomed himself when he didn't do a proper preflight and did not ever once look at the fuel gauges. Tragic but true.

It's a simple case of screwing the pooch in an endevour where your first mistake can be your last.

I feel for his family, but two wrongs don't make a right. The litigation process will only bring more pain to all involved and even if there is a sizeable judgement, they won't enjoy that money.

 

[Witmo]

...student pilots are Pilots in Command, no less than a 30,000 hour 747 captain or an ace F-15 fighter pilot. That is the law.... .

BS. A student pilot does not have the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a rated pilot PIC. He requires endorsements for every cross country, his solo privilege usually expires after 90 days and has to be renewed, he can carry no passengers, he has arbitrary weather limits from his instructor on his solo endorsement. Student pilot PIC is hardly equivalent to actual rated PIC. Apparently airlines won't even count any PIC time other than actual rated PIC time, not even rated "sole manipulator" PIC time. So PIC time is different from PIC time in the eyes of the many to include the FAA (my naval aviator story) and airline hiring practices. You refuse to recognize that a student pilot PIC is not the same as a rated pilot PIC. Commercial pilots are held to a higher standard than private pilots who are held to a higher standard than a student pilot. You argue all log PIC and are held to the same standard since their log entry column has PIC at the top. You are mistaken.

 

[RotorDude]

BS. A student pilot does not have the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a rated pilot PIC. He requires endorsements for every cross country, his solo privilege usually expires after 90 days and has to be renewed, he can carry no passengers, he has arbitrary weather limits from his instructor on his solo endorsement. Student pilot PIC is hardly equivalent to actual rated PIC. Apparently airlines won't even count any PIC time other than actual rated PIC time, not even rated "sole manipulator" PIC time. So PIC time is different from PIC time in the eyes of the many to include the FAA (my naval aviator story) and airline hiring practices. You refuse to recognize that a student pilot PIC is not the same as a rated pilot PIC. Commercial pilots are held to a higher standard than private pilots who are held to a higher standard than a student pilot. You argue all log PIC and are held to the same standard since their log entry column has PIC at the top. You are mistaken.

I am not arguing "privileges". The 747 captain may also fly a heavy 4-engine jet, and do so for hire, etc. etc. This is a strawman argument.
My point is simply that the solo student is legally and actually the one (and only) Pilot in Command of the aircraft, for the duration of its flight. Every word in the FAA definition of PIC (which focuses on responsibility) applies to him/her. He/She is both acting and logging PIC. You seem to associate PIC with other unrelated things, and what some employers may think about that logged time is irrelevant.

 

[Witmo]

I am not arguing "privileges". The 747 captain may also fly a heavy 4-engine jet, and do so for hire, etc. etc. This is a strawman argument.
My point is simply that the solo student is legally and actually the one (and only) Pilot in Command of the aircraft, for the duration of its flight. Every word in the FAA definition of PIC (which focuses on responsibility) applies to him/her. He/She is both acting and logging PIC. You seem to associate PIC with other unrelated things, and what some employers may think about that logged time is irrelevant.

I know I'll never win an argument once the " straw man" card is played. Well done, I give up. There's no difference between 30000 hour ATP flying a PA38 and a kid who's on his second supervised solo in a PA38. They're both PICs, equal in the eyes of the law. Hope you never have to argue that in front of a jury...but I've given up. Commercial and ATP is only about additiona privileges and has nothing to do with being held to higher standard of airmanship and responsibility. PIC is PIC. Got it. Over and out.

 

[RotorDude]

I know I'll never win an argument once the " straw man" card is played. Well done, I give up. There's no difference between 30000 hour ATP flying a PA38 and a kid who's on his second supervised solo in a PA38. They're both PICs, equal in the eyes of the law. Hope you never have to argue that in front of a jury...but I've given up. Commercial and ATP is only about additiona privileges and has nothing to do with being held to higher standard of airmanship and responsibility. PIC is PIC. Got it. Over and out.

Here is my over and out. The point you are missing is that there can only be one Pilot in Command, and in the eyes of the law he/she is the one responsible for the safe completion of that flight. The aircraft may be any size, category or weight, the pilot may have any valid certificate or experience level, including student on a solo flight. Everything else is immaterial to who is legally and ultimately responsible for the safe conduct of that flight. That is the essence of the concept of Pilot in Command, as spelled out in the FARs. Out.

Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

(14 CFR 1.1 Definitions)

And in case the above is not specific enough for a student pilot acting as PIC, we have also:

§61.89 General limitations.
(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(1) That is carrying a passenger;
(2) That is carrying property for compensation or hire;
(3) For compensation or hire;
(4) In furtherance of a business;
(5) On an international flight, except that a student pilot may make solo training flights from Haines, Gustavus, or Juneau, Alaska, to White Horse, Yukon, Canada, and return over the province of British Columbia;
(6) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute miles during daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night;
(7) When the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface; or
(8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by an authorized instructor.

 

[azure]

Like others, I learned to preflight the aircraft from day one, and accepted that as my own responsibility. The instructor always took my word for it, and this goes for helis, gliders and power planes. So I understood from day one that it was my word, even as a newbie, that kept us alive, and made doubly-sure that all was kosher. Transitioning to solos was trivial in this respect, since I had been "Preflighter in Command" from day two. My CFI (in all those categories and many different flight schools) never helped me preflight after the first lesson, and come to think of it, all my DPE's have trusted me with it too.

Preflighter-in-Command (== PIC) - I like it. Yeah, I was too, I never saw my CFI preflight any plane that we took for a lesson, at least after the first couple of dual sessions. Of course, he may have done so before I arrived, and from the stories he's told me of some of his prior students, I'd be surprised if he didn't.

Still, in this case, I mostly blame the student pilot. The regs say he was PIC - PILOT-in-Command - while solo, so even though there was some supervision, I would still hold him responsible for checking the fuel. I certainly knew enough to do that from very early on, it's pretty basic. As others have said, you don't have to be a pilot to realize that a plane that runs out of go-juice is in trouble. Checking that you have enough of it is motivated by basic survival instinct. If he didn't have it, then yes, sad to say, Darwin has culled the herd.

 

[RyanShort1]

Ah, I just read the brief. I think the dad will win the case at least in court. I think it all boils down on the "supervised" solo definition that the jury buys or doesn't. I bet they will.

 

[RotorDude]

Ah, I just read the brief. I think the dad will win the case at least in court. I think it all boils down on the "supervised" solo definition that the jury buys or doesn't. I bet they will.

If the result of this lawsuit is that CFIs of solo students end up being held responsible for their student's preflight, I think it will significantly reduce the safety of future pilots trained under such a system. I doubt the FAA would ever go along with that, runaway juries notwithstanding.
(BTW, I am not a CFI.)

 

[danhagan]

Sad case.

Ten years ago, my CFI required a "ground day" right after the discovery flight and all we did for 2 solid hours is a hands on pre-flight of ALL the planes in the hangar (one had its NAV lights reversed - I guess that was the "trick" question ). We sumped, we added water to one sample to see the difference, etc. One AC was de-cowled, we went over stop-drilling, blown rivets, the works ...

After that he observed a few pre-flights and made sure it was conducted EXACTLY as instructed in the hangar on day 2. Despite that, he always confirmed oil and fuel level minimally himself before jumping in the right seat.

That said, the Sparrowhawk 152s fuel burn is higher than a regular 152, even though the paperwork on the STC says it should be identical (he had me check that as well - AC logs).

 

[RyanShort1]

If the result of this lawsuit is that CFIs of solo students end up being held responsible for their student's preflight, I think it will significantly reduce the safety of future pilots trained under such a system. I doubt the FAA would ever go along with that, runaway juries notwithstanding.
(BTW, I am not a CFI.)

We are all one FAA inspector with an axe to grind, and one disgruntled customer away from a career damaging situation. Seems like the rope isn't just the dangers in the airplane.

 

[Witmo]

Sad case.

Ten years ago, my CFI required a "ground day" right after the discovery flight and all we did for 2 solid hours is a hands on pre-flight of ALL the planes in the hangar (one had its NAV lights reversed - I guess that was the "trick" question ). We sumped, we added water to one sample to see the difference, etc. One AC was de-cowled, we went over stop-drilling, blown rivets, the works ...

After that he observed a few pre-flights and made sure it was conducted EXACTLY as instructed in the hangar on day 2. Despite that, he always confirmed oil and fuel level minimally himself before jumping in the right seat.

That said, the Sparrowhawk 152s fuel burn is higher than a regular 152, even though the paperwork on the STC says it should be identical (he had me check that as well - AC logs).

It sounds like you had an excellent CFI.

 

[Witmo]

We are all one FAA inspector with an axe to grind, and one disgruntled customer away from a career damaging situation. Seems like the rope isn't just the dangers in the airplane.

Ryan,
I have no love for FAA inspectors but as a CFI yourself, you know that the best defense to any inquiry is having done your job correctly. They can't fault someone for doing the job they get paid for but if someone isn't professional in accomplishing his/her duties, they're gonna successfully hammer them especially if a student screws up and kills himself or others. When an accident occurs in the military, the training records of the pilots involved are gonna get some serious scrutiny. I'm sure Part 121 operations are the same. Simply calling an accident "pilot error" and not trying to determine why that pilot or crew screwed up does nothing to prevent the same thing happening over and over. Its a simplistic answer and someone's death is discounted as Darwinian. When that Airbus pilot used full deflection rudder inputs (which resulted in the rudder departing) to recover from a wake encounter, he caused the accident-- obvious pilot error--what idiot would slam the rudder stop to stop when he had full rudder authority, but upon investigation it was shown he reacted as he was trained. Training changed and perhaps additional accidents were prevented.

This thread's accident would not result in any improvement if all we end up doing is calling it "pilot error" totally PIC's fault, when in reality something might be learned from it especially if there might be some systemic fault in the training program he was enrolled in. If there was a training deficiency or required supervision was not given, the school or instructor deserve whatever heat they get.

I can't see how supervising a student's every preflight could possibly make flying less safe. Supervision doesn't have to be handholding. Many CFIs I've been around let the student preflight but still check the most important items for themselves, gas on board and caps secured, oil, control locks removed, fuel shutoff valve, etc. It's not a lack of trust but realization that having additional eyes decreases the chance of missing something critical. Flying F-111s, if we weren't pressed for time prior to launch, both my crewmate and I did the walk around separately. I trusted him and he trusted me but it was better when we both backed up each other.

 

[RyanShort1]

Witmo,

We're MOSTLY on the same page, but the "catch all" phrases - stuff like careless and reckless, and in this case "supervision" can be, and have been exploited negatively or interpreted too far to punish those who actually did nothing wrong just because some insurance money might be available. That, and it's easy to assign responsibility (where it might be better off shared) out of sympathy or because one party is no longer available to answer questions.

Student pilots start out with a goal - to solo and become a pilot - and they should be recognize that there are consequences to failure just like those of us who are CFI's accept consequences. I started off as a student pilot having literally watched three 19 year olds stall and spin a Cessna 172 into the ground that had just taken off - probably not too different from this kid, except that they had fuel and the engine was running, they were just too aggressive - "hot dogging."

This thread's accident would not result in any improvement if all we end up doing is calling it "pilot error" totally PIC's fault, when in reality something might be learned from it especially if there might be some systemic fault in the training program he was enrolled in. If there was a training deficiency or required supervision was not given, the school or instructor deserve whatever heat they get.

I think I made it clear above that after reading the brief, I think there's a good chance that the school / instructor lose the case. The flip side is that some stuff "shouldn't" need to be documented in "minute" detail. I'm fairly certain that most instructors I've ever met - even stupid, rookie, and sloppy ones, are generally going to teach some things about checklist usage, fuel, etc... right from the start these days. If they have any kind of curriculum, syllabus, etc, it is GOING to be there. That and the fact that it was a Tomahawk school make it even more likely in my book that the student HAD been trained to some degree or another in fuel. No, this accident is not a good reason to require all flight training to be in aircraft with only a "both" switch, or some "failsafe" fuel deal as is talked about in the lawsuit, and I think that is what is annoying so many here. The student had to have been overconfident to some degree, careless, to some degree, and entirely too "trusting" of the aircraft to not be more concerned about the fuel. That's just odd. I think the case is likely frivolous, but I think they'll likely win the case with an uneducated jury. The discovery process would be interesting to read if it actually did turn up something really tangible showing that they were excessively lax in fuel training. Personally, I find the language of the case to be over the top with all of the emphasis on safe aircraft and such - as it is readily demonstrable that even "safely" maintained aircraft have mechanical failures, or dumb pilots from time to time and in today's instant digital society you'd pretty much have to live under a rock to not hear about an airplane crash.

I can't see how supervising a student's every preflight could possibly make flying less safe. Supervision doesn't have to be handholding. Many CFIs I've been around let the student preflight but still check the most important items for themselves, gas on board and caps secured, oil, control locks removed, fuel shutoff valve, etc. It's not a lack of trust but realization that having additional eyes decreases the chance of missing something critical. Flying F-111s, if we weren't pressed for time prior to launch, both my crewmate and I did the walk around separately. I trusted him and he trusted me but it was better when we both backed up each other.

I think a lot of instructors do that out of self preservation instinct since they are technically "PIC" on the flight and are responsible to have checked those items personally as PIC. It's not just a supervision responsibility. If you aren't on board the flight though, it is NOT your personal legal PIC responsibility anymore - by 91.103 it is the solo pilot's responsibility.

I will say that personally checking a student's gas on a solo flight is probably going to be something CFI's are going to have to think about doing maybe as a result of this case, but again, students SHOULD be competent to do so themselves by the time they are solo. It isn't rocket science and it's not hard to teach.

The other question of course is what constitutes "supervision" - and a lot of that is probably very open to interpretation. I would generally have been comfortable prior to this, to know the student's plan, the expected weather, duration of flight, when to expect him back, and to have just seen that the student was following his checklist and had completed it prior to departure if I knew that student had been taught how to use the checklist. Supervision obviously cannot mean "in cockpit," so there are reasonable limits to what should be expected of the CFI even in this case. The final failure wasn't the fuel, it was the stall / spin which is what is more embarrassing about the crash, except that rated pilots who have passed checkrides still do that, too.

 

[RotorDude]

Interestingly (and something I hadn't realized until this thread) the FAA has apparently neither requirement nor definition of "supervised solo" (if anyone knows differently please chime in). The concept obviously does exist, and did exist years ago when I first soloed a power airplane (as noted by the CFI in my logbook), but its meaning has been vague in my mind ever since. I think it means "CFI was at the airport", at a minimum. Maybe also "CFI went over the goals of the flight with the student". I think in some places it also means "CFI was monitoring the radio". I am not aware of any situation where it means "CFI performed a (backup) preflight for the student".

 

[Witmo]

Interestingly (and something I hadn't realized until this thread) the FAA has apparently neither requirement nor definition of "supervised solo" (if anyone knows differently please chime in). The concept obviously does exist, and did exist years ago when I first soloed a power airplane (as noted by the CFI in my logbook), but its meaning has been vague in my mind ever since. I think it means "CFI was at the airport", at a minimum. Maybe also "CFI went over the goals of the flight with the student". I think in some places it also means "CFI was monitoring the radio". I am not aware of any situation where it means "CFI performed a (backup) preflight for the student".

When I "supervise" an owner operator doing maintenance on his own aircraft and I sign the logbooks returning the aircraft to service, I take full responsibility that the work was done correctly. It might mean I handed him the proper tool and stood looking over his shoulder or it might mean I had trained him to do it previously and had closely supervised his doing the work previously and now I trusted him to do it without my being in close proximity. Regardless, my signature in the maintenance record means I provided the appropriate amount of supervision such that I, the certificated mechanic, take full responsibility that the job was done correctly. If the aircraft crashes because the job was done incorrectly, too bad, so sad, I'm screwed. If the airplane doesn't fall out of the sky, the amount of my supervision never gets questioned. This 21 year old ran out of gas on a supposedly "supervised" solo. I'd say on the face of it, a reasonable person would surmise that the supervision was inadequate as evidenced by the result. You can quibble about what supervision entails but I doubt you'd convince a reasonable person that allowing a student to run out of gas on his second solo meets the standard of adequate.

 

[TommyG]

Interestingly (and something I hadn't realized until this thread) the FAA has apparently neither requirement nor definition of "supervised solo" (if anyone knows differently please chime in). The concept obviously does exist, and did exist years ago when I first soloed a power airplane (as noted by the CFI in my logbook), but its meaning has been vague in my mind ever since. I think it means "CFI was at the airport", at a minimum. Maybe also "CFI went over the goals of the flight with the student". I think in some places it also means "CFI was monitoring the radio". I am not aware of any situation where it means "CFI performed a (backup) preflight for the student".

My definition is, you don't fly without me knowing and giving the ok to do so. The first few solo's I will be there at the field. The student is flying on my instructor rating, if he messes up. The FAA will be coming to talk to me about his mess up.

I have met CFI's and students that any given day the student will show up and just take the plane without the CFI knowing about it. That doesn't go for me. The first few flights, I will check the gas and oil myself without the student knowing. So far they all know to visually check the fuel, and have it topped off if needed.

 

[RotorDude]

My definition is, you don't fly without me knowing and giving the ok to do so.

I guess that confirms my suspicion that there is no official FAA definition of "supervised" solo, and apparently no such requirement either. So it boils down to local custom and tradition, every school or region having their own. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me their definition includes the CFI doing a complete backup preflight for the student, or accepting full legal responsibility for their flight (despite being on the ground).

 

[RotorDude]

When I "supervise" an owner operator doing maintenance on his own aircraft and I sign the logbooks returning the aircraft to service, I take full responsibility that the work was done correctly. It might mean I handed him the proper tool and stood looking over his shoulder or it might mean I had trained him to do it previously and had closely supervised his doing the work previously and now I trusted him to do it without my being in close proximity. Regardless, my signature in the maintenance record means I provided the appropriate amount of supervision such that I, the certificated mechanic, take full responsibility that the job was done correctly. If the aircraft crashes because the job was done incorrectly, too bad, so sad, I'm screwed. If the airplane doesn't fall out of the sky, the amount of my supervision never gets questioned. This 21 year old ran out of gas on a supposedly "supervised" solo. I'd say on the face of it, a reasonable person would surmise that the supervision was inadequate as evidenced by the result. You can quibble about what supervision entails but I doubt you'd convince a reasonable person that allowing a student to run out of gas on his second solo meets the standard of adequate.

I thought we had overed and outed, but in any case...
I don't think you can compare the A&P signature to a CFI doing "supervised solo" (whatever that means). I fully agree, as does the law, that the A&P/AI in a supervised annual bears complete responsibility for the work (hence many tend to resist this mode). But in this case the A&P/AI is welcome to inspect everything twice, if he/she wishes to.
In the case of a solo student, the CFI has no control over the pilot once he's out of the aircraft. There is also normally no CFI signature in the logbook for a solo student flight, beyond the solo endorsement in the back. So apples and oranges.
And what a "reasonable person" would say depends on your definition of "reasonable" and how much they know about aviation. If you present to him/her the fact that there is no legal definition of "supervised", that in most cases it simply means the CFI was at the airport, perhaps monitoring the radio, and that in no case does it mean the CFI performs a backup preflight for the student, I suspect such reasonable person would reach a very different conclusion from an uninformed one.

 

[Witmo]

I guess that confirms my suspicion that there is no official FAA definition of "supervised" solo, and apparently no such requirement either. So it boils down to local custom and tradition, every school or region having their own. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me their definition includes the CFI doing a complete backup preflight for the student, or accepting full legal responsibility for their flight (despite being on the ground).

I don't recall anyone advocating that the CFI bears full or 100% responsibility for a student's actions or omissions. This is not the same as saying a CFI bears no (0%) responsibility (to closely supervise a newly soloed student) because once he soloes and logs PIC, he alone bears full responsibility for his solo flights. Some CFIs have chimed in and said as a minimum, they check critical items such as fuel and a few other items, not necessarily a complete preflight.

 

[Witmo]

I thought we had overed and outed, but in any case...
I don't think you can compare the A&P signature to a CFI doing "supervised solo" (whatever that means). I fully agree, as does the law, that the A&P/AI in a supervised annual bears complete responsibility for the work (hence many tend to resist this mode). But in this case the A&P/AI is welcome to inspect everything twice, if he/she wishes to.
In the case of a solo student, the CFI has no control over the pilot once he's out of the aircraft. There is also normally no CFI signature in the logbook for a solo student flight, beyond the solo endorsement in the back. So apples and oranges.
And what a "reasonable person" would say depends on your definition of "reasonable" and how much they know about aviation. If you present to him/her the fact that there is no legal definition of "supervised", that in most cases it simply means the CFI was at the airport, perhaps monitoring the radio, and that in no case does it mean the CFI performs a backup preflight for the student, I suspect such reasonable person would reach a very different conclusion from an uninformed one.

The FAA does not define what supervision is on the maintenance side either. On a 100 hour or annual, no inspection item can be delegated so there's no supervision involved as in the sense of doing general maintenance. An A&P with IA has to do all of the inspection for an annual, and similarly, an A&P with or without IA has to do all of the inspection for a 100 hour.
That student pilot is flying on the signature of the CFI that endorsed him every time he solos. That CFI's certificate is on the table as long as he remains the CFI of record. That's why most CFIs put a 90 day limit or less on their endorsement so the student doesn't run off and continue to fly ad infinitum keeping the last CFI on the hook.
While a CFI cannot do much of anything to prevent a solo student from stall/spinning into the ground after he takes off, you can bet your bottom dollar that the FAA will be talking to that CFI and checking his records to ensure he provided stall recovery and spin avoidance training before signing the student off for solo.

 

[Witmo]

I
And what a "reasonable person" would say depends on your definition of "reasonable" and how much they know about aviation. If you present to him/her the fact that there is no legal definition of "supervised", that in most cases it simply means the CFI was at the airport, perhaps monitoring the radio, and that in no case does it mean the CFI performs a backup preflight for the student, I suspect such reasonable person would reach a very different conclusion from an uninformed one.

Good luck with that.

 

[RotorDude]

While a CFI cannot do much of anything to prevent a solo student from stall/spinning into the ground after he takes off, you can bet your bottom dollar that the FAA will be talking to that CFI and checking his records to ensure he provided stall recovery and spin avoidance training before signing the student off for solo.

I agree with this part.

 

[Mopauly]

I never leave the ground without at least 3/4 tanks. It's unfathomable to me NOT to visually check the fuel gauges and physically inspect quantities. Whatever I drain in preflight and after fueling goes back into the tanks. When you run out of gas in an airplane you can't pull over to the side of the road.

 

[RotorDude]

I never leave the ground without at least 3/4 tanks. It's unfathomable to me NOT to visually check the fuel gauges and physically inspect quantities. Whatever I drain in preflight and after fueling goes back into the tanks. When you run out of gas in an airplane you can't pull over to the side of the road.

I just completed a 6.5 hour flight the other day where I left the ground with not a drop of fuel, unless you count my energy bars.

 

[Sundancer]

Good God, what a grotesque way to loose a young guy! What a horror story for his family, too. . .

Being so young, I imagine his estate wouldn't be large enough to compensate the scool for the loss of the Tomahawk, and it would be awful cold to sue for the loss, anyway, even with the evident negligence on the pilot's part.

 

[Palmpilot]

Good God, what a grotesque way to loose a young guy! What a horror story for his family, too. . .

Being so young, I imagine his estate wouldn't be large enough to compensate the scool for the loss of the Tomahawk, and it would be awful cold to sue for the loss, anyway, even with the evident negligence on the pilot's part.

I believe that whether to sue the student pilot's estate would be up to the school's insurance company, not the school itself.

 

[FlyingTiger]

After reading all the comments, one issue stands out to me. If this CFI was like many others and felt it necessary to do his own pre-flight checks prior to flying with students, why wouldn't he check for a supervised solo as well? A jury is going to have a real hard time accepting this omission and a shreud Plaintiff's lawyer is going to be able to twist that into a narrative that since he wasn't personally at risk, he didn't care as much about the welfare of the student. Fair or not, I think that is really going to resonate with a jury.

 

[weilke]

After reading all the comments, one issue stands out to me. If this CFI was like many others and felt it necessary to do his own pre-flight checks prior to flying with students, why wouldn't he check for a supervised solo as well?

From what was posted on another board, the CFI did check the fuel with the student and found it to be sufficient for the planned flight. The flight ended up being longer than planned.

 

[jordane93]

Per my flight school, for the first 3 solos, we do 3 landings with the student then we hop out and let the student do some. These are considered our "supervised solo." After the first 3 solos are done, they are free to go on their own without having us do the landings with them. Sometimes I'm at the airport, sometimes I'm not. The only thing I do is have my student talk to me about weather and notams. If the tank isn't topped off the student knows to call the FBO for one.

 

[PPC1052]

Good God, what a grotesque way to loose a young guy! What a horror story for his family, too. . .

Being so young, I imagine his estate wouldn't be large enough to compensate the scool for the loss of the Tomahawk, and it would be awful cold to sue for the loss, anyway, even with the evident negligence on the pilot's part.

Maybe his parents signed a financial responsibility form.

 

[PPC1052]

I believe that whether to sue the student pilot's estate would be up to the school's insurance company, not the school itself.

The carrier probably can file suit if it wishes. But nothing prevents the school from suing if they want to.

 

[mscard88]

I always emphasized not rushing a preflight and to follow the checklist, as all CFIs do. Specifically emphasized checking fuel (look in the damn tanks), oil, and flight control freedom of movement (move the controls physically on preflight in addition to performing it IAW the checklist. I usually go up for a few landings on the second solo and then turn the student loose.

Haven't flown a Tomahawk but does it really have a 6 hour+ endurance? I think the report said the plane flew 4.9 hours previously, and then the student for it for another 1.5 before running it dry. So perhaps the student was legal w/ having the 30 minute fuel reserve but I feel either the student or the CFI should have put more fuel onboard. What the student actually took off with was really pushing it and rolling the dice. Sad indeed.

 

[RyanShort1]

I always emphasized not rushing a preflight and to follow the checklist, as all CFIs do. Specifically emphasized checking fuel (look in the damn tanks), oil, and flight control freedom of movement (move the controls physically on preflight in addition to performing it IAW the checklist. I usually go up for a few landings on the second solo and then turn the student loose.

Haven't flown a Tomahawk but does it really have a 6 hour+ endurance? I think the report said the plane flew 4.9 hours previously, and then the student for it for another 1.5 before running it dry. So perhaps the student was legal w/ having the 30 minute fuel reserve but I feel either the student or the CFI should have put more fuel onboard. What the student actually took off with was really pushing it and rolling the dice. Sad indeed.

I trained on Tomahawks for my private back around 2003. You have 30 usuable gallons I believe - 15 a side. You HAVE to switch tanks periodically if you want to use up your fuel, since there's no "both" switch. When I was flying with my instructor we always figured about 5.5-6.5 GPH with what was on board. I honestly would figure about 4.5 hours of flight time at 6 GPH with reserve. If the plane actually flew 4.9 without being re-fueled before that, someone was leaning properly and managing their speed and fuel burn pretty well on those previous flights.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that a solo student would not have already become familiar with the fuel system's operation and characteristics. Saying that the school would run on less than full tanks makes it MORE likely that students would know about the fuel and how to switch tanks and such rather than less in my opinion.

 

[Witmo]

The carrier probably can file suit if it wishes. But nothing prevents the school from suing if they want to.

The school could only sue for what the insurance doesn't cover, if anything. Highly unlikely since the cost of pursuing the student would probably be more than the prospective recovery.

 

[PPC1052]

The school could only sue for what the insurance doesn't cover, if anything.

I certainly can't speak for all states, but for the most part this isn't true-- although this may be a distinction without a difference. The insured has the right to sue for its losses, even if there is insurance that reimbursed the loss. In the event of recovery, the insured would hold the recovery in trust (or at least the amount above the uninsured loss) for the benefit of the insurance carrier. While the insurance carrier does have a right of subrogation, that does not negate the insured's right to sue. All subrogation does is let the insurance carrier stand in the shoes of its policy holder. Now, in some instances, when there is a settlement of the claim with the carrier, there may be some kind of assignment of the claim. I am talking about a separate instrument that is written up and executed by the insured that specifically transfers the right to sue to the carrier and not something that occurs automatically.

 

[PPC1052]

Highly unlikely since the cost of pursuing the student would probably be more than the prospective recovery.

This very well may be true, particularly in this instance. I have been involved in several matters though where the insured has sought recovery directly, even though there was insurance. Often this is because there was a dispute about the amount of the loss between the insured and the carrier as to how much the loss was. In that instance, you may see a compromise between the carrier and the insured, and the insured will try to recover the difference. Other times it occurs where there is a significant uninsured loss, as well as a deep pocket to recover from. Business interruption is an element of recovery that is sometimes not covered by insurance or is an element that was compromised because the amount of the loss is debatable. As a result, this type of loss often leads to the insured filing suit themselves.