Owner/CFI Liability

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,524
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
A hypothetical:

An individual who is a rated pilot, owns an airplane of which he is competent and rated to fly solo. He decides to hire a CFI for some remedial training and to brush up on some maneuvers. Upon conducting the flight, they have a landing accident and the airplane gets damaged.

Who would be liable? The Pilot-Owner or the CFI? Would liability fall on whoever is decided to be PIC before the flight? Would both parties be liable since each of the two men are capable of acting as PIC?
 
Liable in what way? Financially? FAA knuckle-rapping?
 
Certainly why I don't provide civilian flight instruction anymore. My owner policy doesn't help me with flight instruction boo boos anyways, and I don't find the carrying of said extra insurance as justifiable given my current unwillingness to exercise civilian instruction. Right now the renewal doesn't cost me much considering my occupation's equivalency renewal allowances with the FAA , but I've been seriously considering letting it expire. The FAA's reverse halo effect attitude towards those holding advanced certs/ratings while exercising "lower" certificate privileges both alarms and discourages me.
 
Who was pic? What was the cause? Who had the care of making sure the landing was ok?

The trouble with hypothetical situations is the number of subtle details that you cannot supply.
 
Assuming both parties are insured, don’t the insurance companies work out the details?

I’m thinking car insurance. If two parties are involved the bean counters work out which insurance party pays x%

Not sure if that’s the same in the aviation world.
 
bflynn said:
Who was pic? What was the cause? Who had the care of making sure the landing was ok?

The trouble with hypothetical situations is the number of subtle details that you cannot supply.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that these things are never discussed and clarified in advance, because no one ever assumes there will be a problem that will make it relevant by the time the flight ends.

It seems intuitive to me that in the absence of any discussion to the contrary, the fully certified, current, and qualified owner is PIC unless he/she expressly asked the CFI to act as PIC instead. If I asked an instructor to fly with me and work on some things, and we did, and the flight was otherwise uneventful, I would log it as PIC.

So, short answer (and of course IMO only) --- you asked, "Who would be liable? The Pilot-Owner or the CFI?". My answer is 'Pilot-Owner'.
 
Truly very few discuss who is PIC before a flight. It sure does sound good, but rarely happens.
 
Ryanb said:
A hypothetical:

An individual who is a rated pilot, owns an airplane of which he is competent and rated to fly solo. He decides to hire a CFI for some remedial training and to brush up on some maneuvers. Upon conducting the flight, they have a landing accident and the airplane gets damaged.

Who would be liable? The Pilot-Owner or the CFI? Would liability fall on whoever is decided to be PIC before the flight? Would both parties be liable since each of the two men are capable of acting as PIC?
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be one or the other, and who was technically the FAA Part 1 PIC may be completely irrelevant.

Generally speaking, personal liability is a state law determination of whether a person had a role which required a certain level of care and whether an injury was caused because that person did not meet it. As my signature block puts it, the PIC is not the only person with flight safety responsibilities, even if we are only talking about the FAA.
 
Kritchlow said:
Truly very few discuss who is PIC before a flight. It sure does sound good, but rarely happens.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’ve definitely never had the discussion, if I’m renting the airplane, it’s just kind of implied that I’m PIC.
 
deyoung said:
Part of the problem is that these things are never discussed and clarified in advance, because no one ever assumes there will be a problem that will make it relevant by the time the flight ends.

It seems intuitive to me that in the absence of any discussion to the contrary, the fully certified, current, and qualified owner is PIC unless he/she expressly asked the CFI to act as PIC instead. If I asked an instructor to fly with me and work on some things, and we did, and the flight was otherwise uneventful, I would log it as PIC.

So, short answer (and of course IMO only) --- you asked, "Who would be liable? The Pilot-Owner or the CFI?". My answer is 'Pilot-Owner'.
Click to expand...
That would be my assumption as well.
 
The issue/concern is subrogation.

The kicker is that if the CFI is not named insured on the owner's policy, the insurance company can go after the CFI. If the CFI is not named, the insurance company may go after the instructor depending on the details of the accident or claim.

One of those 'do you feel lucky' things.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The issue/concern is subrogation.

The kicker is that if the CFI is not named insured on the owner's policy, the insurance company can go after the CFI. If the CFI is not named, the insurance company may go after the instructor depending on the details of the accident or claim.

One of those 'do you feel lucky' things.
Click to expand...

That, and you have to look at the open pilot clauses in your policy, does the CFI meet the flight experience requirements to be PIC in your aircraft?
 
Fearless Tower said:
The issue/concern is subrogation.

The kicker is that if the CFI is not named insured on the owner's policy, the insurance company can go after the CFI.
Click to expand...

The CFI could also be an "additional insured," meaning that he falls under the definition of insured by category rather than being named.
 
The FAA always knocks the CFI, or even another certificated pilot in the right seat.
 
I don't know the answer to OP's question but we always got our CFIs named insured in our policies.
 
What we don't know from the question is, what kind of liability? A lot of responses about being "named pilot" or "named insured" and subrogation depend on what occurred to lead to the claim, as well as the types of aviation insurance coverage and the wording of the policy.
 
If someone is a pilot in their own plane and screwed up the landing why would they try and blame the CFI?
 
Jamie Kirk said:
If someone is a pilot in their own plane and screwed up the landing why would they try and blame the CFI?
Click to expand...
There is something called CFI responsibility." There have been a number of cases standing for the principle that a CFI is always PIC, or at least has PIC-equivalent responsibilities on an instructional flight. In one of them, the CFI was found to not be responsible for a landing accident.
 
Our instructor is on our insurance. He is insured as well. Chips fall where they may. As long as I’m rated for what we are doing I would always think it’s on me.
But if I wasnt rated I’d be receiving dual in my plane hence my insurance right?
 
In Ohio:

4561.23 Presumption of pilot-in-command in airplane crash.

In the event of an airplane crash involving personal injuries, death, or property damage, it is rebuttably presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the pilot-in-command of such airplane when the airplane is occupied by more than one person.

The "pilot-in-command" is rebuttably presumed to be:

(A) The occupant of the left front seat in airplanes having side-by-side and fore-and-aft seating;

(B) The occupant of the left seat of an airplane which has only one transverse seat;

(C) In a tandem seated airplane, the occupant of the seat recommended by the manufacturer of such airplane when the airplane is flown solo.

(D) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), and (C) of this section, the occupant of the airplane possessed of an instructor's rating is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot-in-command when any part of the flight is for the purpose of instructing another in any phase of flying or navigating.

(E) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section, in all flights conducted under instrument flight rules the pilot-in-command is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot whose name appears on the flight plan.

(F) In the event that the occupants and their positions in the airplane at the time of the crash cannot be established otherwise from the evidence with reasonable certainty, it is presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the person occupying the pilot-in-command seat, as designated above, during or immediately before take-off.

Effective Date: 09-12-1961.
 
Clip4 said:
In Ohio:

4561.23 Presumption of pilot-in-command in airplane crash.
(F) In the event that the occupants and their positions in the airplane at the time of the crash cannot be established otherwise from the evidence with reasonable certainty, it is presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the person occupying the pilot-in-command seat, as designated above, during or immediately before take-off.

Effective Date: 09-12-1961.
Click to expand...

Ouchie.
 
Does this hypothetical insurance policy specifically allow "flight training" or "flight instruction" in said airframe? No? Guess what? No coverage.
 
Clip4 said:
In Ohio:

4561.23 Presumption of pilot-in-command in airplane crash.

In the event of an airplane crash involving personal injuries, death, or property damage, it is rebuttably presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the pilot-in-command of such airplane when the airplane is occupied by more than one person.

The "pilot-in-command" is rebuttably presumed to be:

(A) The occupant of the left front seat in airplanes having side-by-side and fore-and-aft seating;

(B) The occupant of the left seat of an airplane which has only one transverse seat;

(C) In a tandem seated airplane, the occupant of the seat recommended by the manufacturer of such airplane when the airplane is flown solo.

(D) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), and (C) of this section, the occupant of the airplane possessed of an instructor's rating is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot-in-command when any part of the flight is for the purpose of instructing another in any phase of flying or navigating.

(E) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section, in all flights conducted under instrument flight rules the pilot-in-command is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot whose name appears on the flight plan.

(F) In the event that the occupants and their positions in the airplane at the time of the crash cannot be established otherwise from the evidence with reasonable certainty, it is presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the person occupying the pilot-in-command seat, as designated above, during or immediately before take-off.

Effective Date: 09-12-1961.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting question as to whether this statute would be preempted. On the one hand, there is an argument for the application of field preemption in the realm of aircraft operation. On the other, this is arguably just an evidentiary presumption. So, maybe it's not really that interesting of a question.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
In Ohio:

4561.23 Presumption of pilot-in-command in airplane crash.

In the event of an airplane crash involving personal injuries, death, or property damage, it is rebuttably presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the pilot-in-command of such airplane when the airplane is occupied by more than one person.

The "pilot-in-command" is rebuttably presumed to be:

(A) The occupant of the left front seat in airplanes having side-by-side and fore-and-aft seating;

(B) The occupant of the left seat of an airplane which has only one transverse seat;

(C) In a tandem seated airplane, the occupant of the seat recommended by the manufacturer of such airplane when the airplane is flown solo.

(D) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), and (C) of this section, the occupant of the airplane possessed of an instructor's rating is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot-in-command when any part of the flight is for the purpose of instructing another in any phase of flying or navigating.

(E) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section, in all flights conducted under instrument flight rules the pilot-in-command is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot whose name appears on the flight plan.

(F) In the event that the occupants and their positions in the airplane at the time of the crash cannot be established otherwise from the evidence with reasonable certainty, it is presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the person occupying the pilot-in-command seat, as designated above, during or immediately before take-off.

Effective Date: 09-12-1961.
Click to expand...
So by that definition, which says the occupant which occupies the front left seat of a side by side airplane is PIC. How do the cards fall for those receiving dual instruction? CFI sits in the right seat, student in the left. Sounds like the student would be PIC no?
 
PPC1052 said:
It is an interesting question as to whether this statute would be preempted. On the one hand, there is an argument for the application of field preemption in the realm of aircraft operation. On the other, this is arguably just an evidentiary presumption. So, maybe it's not really that interesting of a question.
Click to expand...

Seems that it's an issue that relates only to injury or property damage, and not to certificate actions. Since the FAA doesn't really get involved in personal injury or property damage matters, seems that preemption may be unlikely. If that statute purported to take some sort of action against the pilot's certificates or privileges, I think it would be preempted.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The issue/concern is subrogation.

The kicker is that if the CFI is not named insured on the owner's policy, the insurance company can go after the CFI. If the CFI is not named, the insurance company may go after the instructor depending on the details of the accident or claim.
Click to expand...

Serious question, not just being cheeky.

Your post said "not named" in both cases. Was that intentional, or should one case have been "named."
 
bradg33 said:
Seems that it's an issue that relates only to injury or property damage, and not to certificate actions. Since the FAA doesn't really get involved in personal injury or property damage matters, seems that preemption may be unlikely. If that statute purported to take some sort of action against the pilot's certificates or privileges, I think it would be preempted.
Click to expand...
Insurance is one thing, FAA actions are another: if a CFI or another certificated pilot are behind controls [such as in the right seat], regardless of purpose, the FAA can, has, and will ding them in the accident report, if pilot error is the cause of an accident. Is it fair?
 
bradg33 said:
Seems that it's an issue that relates only to injury or property damage, and not to certificate actions. Since the FAA doesn't really get involved in personal injury or property damage matters, seems that preemption may be unlikely. If that statute purported to take some sort of action against the pilot's certificates or privileges, I think it would be preempted.
Click to expand...

You're in the ball park. Federal law clearly does not wholly preempt state tort actions. However, federal aviation law is so pervasive that it preempts the entire field of aviation operations under the doctrine of "field preemption." No state law regarding how to operate an aircraft can stand. For example, if the statute required the PIC to fly from the left seat, (for example, if it imposed strict liability, or negligence per se liability on the pilot for operating from the right seat) that would be preempted and would therefore not be enforceable. Similarly, a state cannot limit where you can fly, or how fast you can fly. Here, though all the state statute does is provide an evidentiary presumption for a jury in order to determine who was the PIC, rather than attempt to control how a pilot can operate the aircraft. So, I agree that this particular statute probably would be ok, although I haven't researched it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The issue/concern is subrogation.

The kicker is that if the CFI is not named insured on the owner's policy, the insurance company can go after the CFI. If the CFI is not named, the insurance company may go after the instructor depending on the details of the accident or claim.

One of those 'do you feel lucky' things.
Click to expand...

That, and if it was a training flight and the CFI was aboard....

This is why it’s very important to be comfy in any plane you’re going to CFI in.


hindsight2020 said:
Certainly why I don't provide civilian flight instruction anymore. My owner policy doesn't help me with flight instruction boo boos anyways, and I don't find the carrying of said extra insurance as justifiable given my current unwillingness to exercise civilian instruction. Right now the renewal doesn't cost me much considering my occupation's equivalency renewal allowances with the FAA , but I've been seriously considering letting it expire. The FAA's reverse halo effect attitude towards those holding advanced certs/ratings while exercising "lower" certificate privileges both alarms and discourages me.
Click to expand...

If you’re worried about crashing to the point this is a concern, best not to be CFIing
 
Ryanb said:
So by that definition, which says the occupant which occupies the front left seat of a side by side airplane is PIC. How do the cards fall for those receiving dual instruction? CFI sits in the right seat, student in the left. Sounds like the student would be PIC no?
Click to expand...

You might want to read the section. A CFI giving instruction is PIC. The whole purpose of this section is lawsuits. Who is liable when 2 or more pilots are in a plane under a suborgation claim made by an insurance company or a damage claim made by a plaintiff.
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
So by that definition, which says the occupant which occupies the front left seat of a side by side airplane is PIC. How do the cards fall for those receiving dual instruction? CFI sits in the right seat, student in the left. Sounds like the student would be PIC no?
Click to expand...
No, the phrase "notwithstanding" means "you can ignore anything that's already been said if the document is now saying something different".
So part "D", translated into regular English, means, "If there's a CFI giving dual instruction, the CFI is PIC, no matter what you just read in Parts A and B and C."
 
PPC1052 said:
It is an interesting question as to whether this statute would be preempted. On the one hand, there is an argument for the application of field preemption in the realm of aircraft operation. On the other, this is arguably just an evidentiary presumption. So, maybe it's not really that interesting of a question.
Click to expand...
Probably not. The statute is not overriding the FAA. It is setting a presumption for responsibility for acctdents and transgressions under state law. Accident law is state law.
 
Clip4 said:
In Ohio:

4561.23 Presumption of pilot-in-command in airplane crash.

In the event of an airplane crash involving personal injuries, death, or property damage, it is rebuttably presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the pilot-in-command of such airplane when the airplane is occupied by more than one person.

The "pilot-in-command" is rebuttably presumed to be:

(A) The occupant of the left front seat in airplanes having side-by-side and fore-and-aft seating;

(B) The occupant of the left seat of an airplane which has only one transverse seat;

(C) In a tandem seated airplane, the occupant of the seat recommended by the manufacturer of such airplane when the airplane is flown solo.

(D) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), and (C) of this section, the occupant of the airplane possessed of an instructor's rating is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot-in-command when any part of the flight is for the purpose of instructing another in any phase of flying or navigating.

(E) Notwithstanding divisions (A), (B), (C), and (D) of this section, in all flights conducted under instrument flight rules the pilot-in-command is rebuttably presumed to be the pilot whose name appears on the flight plan.

(F) In the event that the occupants and their positions in the airplane at the time of the crash cannot be established otherwise from the evidence with reasonable certainty, it is presumed that the airplane was being flown at the time of the crash, and immediately prior thereto, by the person occupying the pilot-in-command seat, as designated above, during or immediately before take-off.

Effective Date: 09-12-1961.
Click to expand...
This is very interesting. But it doesn't answer the OP's question.

I recently went flying with a CFI friend while my medical was lapsed. Before we took off, she said, "This is your plane, and we are going flying for fun, but since you are not eligible to be PIC, I will act as PIC. Nevertheless, you will fly unless you do something so unsafe that I feel the need to take over." It was for our own benefit to be clear on the roles. It likely would have had no impact on who was liable for whatever we're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Pilot owner and then the CFI sues for negligence for not landing properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top