NTSB Blames Instructor Only???

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,036
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Reading this NTSB report, I find it odd that all blame would be shifted to the contracted flight school and the instructor. Is it possible that there was a conflict of business interests and a little bit of deference to the FBI? Why was the Commercially Rated FBI pilot not determined (at least partially) responsible as a Student, while also a Pilot Flying? Anyone know any background on this that is not in the NTSB report?

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20001212X19735&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Why was the Commercial Rated FBI pilot was not responsible as a Student, while also a Pilot Flying?
Click to expand...
Because the student was not the PIC. It’s no different than receiving dual instruction from a CFI. Just because you have your hands on the flight controls and are doing much (if not most) of the flying, the CFI is still the PIC and the student is not held accountable.
steingar said:
The CFI was PIC in this instance. Safety of the flight was his responsibility.
Click to expand...
This.
 
If there's an instructor on board, that's where the blame goes, 90% of the time.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Reading this NTSB report, I find it odd that all blame would be shifted to the contracted flight school and the instructor. Is it possible that there was a conflict of business interests and a little bit of deference to the FBI? Why was the Commercial Rated FBI pilot was not responsible as a Student, while also a Pilot Flying? Anyone know any background on this that is not in the NTSB report?

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20001212X19735&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA
Click to expand...
You’re seriously confused why the instructor was held wholly responsible for a fatal accident that occurred due to failing to perform the skills he was being employed to teach during that flight?
 
Pilot in command means just that, regardless of which seat you're sitting in, whether you're manipulating the flight controls, who pays your salary, or how many flight hours you have.

It's the instructor's job to maintain a safe learning environment for the pilot receiving training.
 
Especially since the “student” was here for mountain type training. It’s seemingly an area of operation he was relying on the CFI’s expertise for.

If they ran out of gas I would certainly argue for shared blame between the two.
 
I dont like “shared” blame. If a commercial pilot and CFI run out of gas, I suggest they should each get full blame.
 
Brad Z said:
Pilot in command means just that, regardless of which seat you're sitting in...
Click to expand...
Wasn't there something recently that said that you can't CFI (and therefore PIC) from the back seat?
 
The real question is why argue about blame between two dead guys? Are you the CFIs wife?
 
Salty said:
You’re seriously confused why the instructor was held wholly responsible for a fatal accident that occurred due to failing to perform the skills he was being employed to teach during that flight?
Click to expand...
Not confused but there are certainly FAA Chief Counseling opinions that make a Commercially Rated pilot at fault even while receiving training.

This isn’t training for a new rating, type, class, etc. It’s “just” a new environment. Why wouldn’t BOTH be held responsible?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Not confused but there are certainly FAA Chief Counseling opinions that make a Commercially Rated pilot at fault even while receiving training.

This isn’t training for a new rating, type, class, etc. It’s “just” a new environment. Why wouldn’t BOTH be held responsible?
Click to expand...
The NTSB in one of its earlier cases clearly states that regardless of who is manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an instructional flight, the CFI is always deemed to be the PIC. The NTSB even states that it makes no difference what level of proficiency a student may have attained, the flight instructor is still the PIC. The rationale is that a flight instructor’s function on an instructional flight is to teach. If he or she allows the flight to enter a situation that compromises safety (which the CFI did in this case <box canyon scenario>), than the CFI has breached his or her duty as pilot in command.

Does that clear it up?
 
So can a pilot ever log PIC time if there is a CFI onboard?
 
Ryanb said:
The NTSB in one of its earlier cases clearly states that regardless of who is manipulating the controls of an aircraft during an instructional flight, the CFI is always deemed to be the PIC. The NTSB even states that it makes no difference what level of proficiency a student may have attained, the flight instructor is still the PIC. The rationale is that a flight instructor’s function on an instructional flight is to teach. If he or she allows the flight to enter a situation that compromises safety (which the CFI did in this case <box canyon scenario>), than the CFI has breached his or her duty as pilot in command.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the general rule makes sense to me, but especially in this situation: Even if the trainee is a captain at a major or an experienced military pilot or something, if they go to an instructor and say "I don't know how to safely fly in mountainous regions, please show me," and then the instructor says "we are going to fly this plane into that canyon," I don't fault the trainee, no matter what their other experience, for trusting the instructor.
 
skier said:
So can a pilot ever log PIC time if there is a CFI onboard?
Click to expand...
Yes, but under certain circumstances.

PPL students cannot log PIC, IR students can, CPL students can, ME students cannot and CFI students can. So, while this pilot was a rated CPL, he was not the PIC because he was receiving dual instruction from a CFI acting as an instructor on an instructional flight.
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
So, while this pilot was a rated CPL, he was not the PIC because he was receiving dual instruction from a CFI acting as an instructor on an instructional flight.
Click to expand...
He would not be considered PIC but he could log PIC anytime he was sole manipulator of the controls (assuming he was rated in cat & class), which answers the question you replied to if not the intent of the thread. PPL students can also log PIC when they are solo, with the proper endorsements of course.

Nauga,
to the letter
 
Y'all...please don't confuse acting and logging PIC time. Logging PIC time is irrelevant to this discussion.
 
asicer said:
Wasn't there something recently that said that you can't CFI (and therefore PIC) from the back seat?
Click to expand...
What does instructing from the back seat have to do with this accident? The flight instructor in this accident was in the right (front) seat.
 
Brad Z said:
Y'all...please don't confuse acting and logging PIC time. Logging PIC time is irrelevant to this discussion.
Click to expand...
Thanks Brad....I thought PoA has long since answered the PIC question. Now, how did the NTSB fault ONLY the Instructor considering the FAA's stance that the Commercially rated student was likely a contributor? (somewhere in the recess of my mind I'm thinking of a see-and-avoid failure being attributed to a Student Pilot)
 
Jaybird180 said:
Thanks Brad....I thought PoA has long since answered the PIC question. Now, how did the NTSB fault ONLY the Instructor considering the FAA's stance that the Commercially rated student was likely a contributor? (somewhere in the recess of my mind I'm thinking of a see-and-avoid failure being attributed to a Student Pilot)
Click to expand...
In this situation, the instructor was presumably the more experienced one and selected the canyon which proved to be unsuitable.

If you were to go out and do acrobatic training and instructor sets you up in a hazardous situation, that's on him not you. There's no expectation that the FBI pilot could have known the canyon was too narrow.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Thanks Brad....I thought PoA has long since answered the PIC question. Now, how did the NTSB fault ONLY the Instructor considering the FAA's stance that the Commercially rated student was likely a contributor? (somewhere in the recess of my mind I'm thinking of a see-and-avoid failure being attributed to a Student Pilot)
Click to expand...
Yer making my head hurt. One guy needed training in canyon flying. One guy agreed to train the other guy in canyon flying. They died canyon flying. Who the hell is any sane person going to blame?
 
Brad Z said:
What does instructing from the back seat have to do with this accident? The flight instructor in this accident was in the right (front) seat.
Click to expand...
I was wondering, prior to that something that came out, whether it was possible to instruct as PIC from the backseat.
 
asicer said:
I was wondering, prior to that something that came out, whether it was possible to instruct as PIC from the backseat.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s possible.

PiperJ3Cub5.jpg
 
Jaybird180 said:
Thanks Brad....I thought PoA has long since answered the PIC question. Now, how did the NTSB fault ONLY the Instructor considering the FAA's stance that the Commercially rated student was likely a contributor? (somewhere in the recess of my mind I'm thinking of a see-and-avoid failure being attributed to a Student Pilot)
Click to expand...
Do you have an interest in this particular accident or something? You seem unwilling to accept the fact that CFI is the responsible party after several of us have clearly stated ‘why’ more than a few different times. This is certainly not the first accident of its kind, nor is it unique for the NTSB to come to this type of conclusion.
 
Ryanb said:
You seem unwilling to accept the fact that CFI is the responsible party after several of us have clearly stated ‘why’ more than a few different times.
Click to expand...
A relevant cite would be far more authoritative than "Because we said so."

Nauga,
and the difference between fact and opinion
 
nauga said:
A relevant cite would be far more authoritative than "Because we said so."

Nauga,
and the difference between fact and opinion
Click to expand...
After reading the narrative, I’m not sure what other references you need to determine the nature of the accident and the negligent party involved. It seems quite plainly stated. Plus, their conclusion isn’t opinion based, it’s factual - or at least as factual as one can ever get.
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
After reading the narrative...
Click to expand...
I read the narrative. That would be a good reference for the facts of this particular case. For the general "it's always this way," one is not sufficient.

Ryanb said:
If [the NTSB's] ruling determines the outcome of pending litigation, than that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Click to expand...
Not much crumbling. 49 USC para 1154(b): "No part of a report of the Board,related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." That's generally assumed to mean the final report in my experience, "Facts" from factuals are sometimes admissible but they don't assign causal factors (aka 'blame'). But don't take my word for it. ;)

Nauga,
and traceability
 
flyingron said:
NTSB is a bunch of stooges who aren't interested in either the truth or aviation safety.
Click to expand...

That would imply there's no point in reading any of their reports as there would be nothing to learn from any of them. :rolleyes:
 
I found this sentence from the NTSB report interesting.
"The flight instructor and pilot-in-command was seated in the right front seat of the airplane. Born on July 12, 1942, he was 57 years old."
 
While there may be a number of things to argue with, I don't have that much of a problem with the NTSB placing the probable cause of the accident on the instructor's decision to teach box canyon emergency maneuvers, as opposed to the trainee's decision to go along with it,

I don't think the certificate enforcement case law about CFIs having PIC-type responsibility is necessarily relevant to probable cause determinations. Besides, it was a Colorado Skyways airplane. Good chance the CFIs were the pilots in command, not just "deemed" pilots in command by virtue of being instructors.

All the questions raised here suggests this might be a good example of why NTSB probable cause determinations are not admissible in liability lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
Vance Breese said:
I found this sentence from the NTSB report interesting.
"The flight instructor and pilot-in-command was seated in the right front seat of the airplane. Born on July 12, 1942, he was 57 years old."
Click to expand...
The accident occurred 09/01/1999.
 
GRG55 said:
That would imply there's no point in reading any of their reports as there would be nothing to learn from any of them. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
On investigations where they don't actually investigate anything and conduct the investigation with gross indifference to the truth like my accident, they aren't.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Reading this NTSB report, I find it odd that all blame would be shifted to the contracted flight school and the instructor. Is it possible that there was a conflict of business interests and a little bit of deference to the FBI? Why was the Commercially Rated FBI pilot not determined (at least partially) responsible as a Student, while also a Pilot Flying? Anyone know any background on this that is not in the NTSB report?

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20001212X19735&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA
Click to expand...

The CFI chose the location and accepted the weather for the training. Cardinal rules of flight instruction, safety is job 1, don’t turn a simulated emergency into a real emergency.
 
Last edited:
The Probable Cause at the top of the report says it all. Any discussion beyond that is debating what the meaning of is is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top