Pilot landed gear up with CFI on board

K

kevmor99

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
95
Display Name
Display name:
kevmor99
A pilot who is a private pilot lands on the runway gear up because he forgot to put down the gear while receiving dual instruction. He was flying a typical traffic pattern in a plane he owns and has many hours in.

The pilot had a current flight review at the time but a discussion wasn't had to who was acting as PIC. Is the CFI responsible for damages or the pilot? If there were more incidents that happened with this CFI, would you report this to the FSDO?

Also, the CFI didn't sign the logbook after the flight.
 
The pilot was current to log PIC & owned the airplane I'd say the gear up incident was on him. Believe me, the CFI will be questioned by both the FAA & Ins. Co. The insurance company may opt to sue him especially if he had CFI Insurance. Nobody wants to pay.
 
I see this exploding into a religious war.
Should the PIC be responsible for the safety of the flight? Absolutely.
Should the CFI be responsible for the safety of the flight? That will cause bad feelings among members here for sure.

May the wars begin! :)
 
If I'm paying a CFI to instruct and observe my proficiency in the cock pit, I expect he is keeping a watchful eye on everything going on. As basic as lowering the landing gear, definitely should of been observed by the CFI.

I guess he was just joy riding and getting paid? Pilot is at fault, but the presence of the CFI can and does lead to a (at this point, FALSE) sense of security.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
They both get violated by FAA. Who pays is an insurance matter
Click to expand...
I thought the usual response to a gear-up landing was a 44709 ride, not an enforcement action.
 
The CFI screwed up for sure, but primary responsibility should lie with the pilot/owner. Now, is the CFI in any way "responsible" for the damages? Maybe not, as least in the legal sense. Most states don't recognize a tort for negligent instruction, which is arguably what this kind of claim would be best characterized as.
 
I'm sure even if the CFI was just hitching a ride, he'll catch hell from the feds
 
Palmpilot said:
I thought the usual response to a gear-up landing was a 44709 ride, not an enforcement action.
Click to expand...
Eh I was using "violated" as a general description of a negative experience with the FAA following the event. Not nessesarily referring to a particular course of action by the fsdo.
 
Y'all don't know yet what kind of instruction was being given.
PPL? Not this case.
Transition training or complex endorsement? Well, yes, the CFI should be watching the student like a hawk.
IR? A CFII won't act as PIC during a visual landing, he's not teaching during visual maneuvers.
But I am sure he will be hanged or burnt at the stake nonetheless. Why not, right? People love to shift blame whenever they can. (look at the dumb parents who forget their kids in a hot car and blame the manufacturer - Darwin would cry)
 
Last edited:
Not going to go into it but I kind of have some first hand experience with this.
 
I know two CFIs who've had students flip the gear handle up on them doing short field stuff thinking they grabbed the flaps.

(Insert disclaimer that a lot of CFIs simply won't allow moving flaps on landing anymore, here...)

Neither was violated or had 709 rides but both had students who "testified" that they did it, instructors both were in the process of slapping their hand away and just couldn't save it, and both had been counseled about the dangers of reaching for levers at touchdown when landing multiple times by the CFIs.

FAA made both do their penance by writing safety briefs about the problem for their respective flight schools. Both were sternly warned that action taken could have been worse if it weren't for their students saying they both earned them and tried to save it.

Different FSDOs, different decades. Both instructors well known as safety conscious and active in their respective local safety communities.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Probably depends on the definition of catching hell, but the CFI is probably going to get a 709 ride.
Click to expand...
Not in the case I quoted. In that scenario the CFI is along for the ride. Very unlikely he will get a 709 in that case. Not impossible, I suppose but HIGHLY unlikely.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Not in the case I quoted. In that scenario the CFI is along for the ride. Very unlikely he will get a 709 in that case. Not impossible, I suppose but HIGHLY unlikely.
Click to expand...
I only personal know of one case where a CFI was training a future CFI and student pulled the gear up on the ground. In that case, they both got 709 rides, but no violation.
 
is the 709 ride done against what privilege? Their highest pilot certificate applicable to the aircraft in question, or their instructor certificate?

I only ask supposing the CFI argues he wasn't acting in an instructor capacity. Is that something those of us CFI holders need to bear in mind when we ride as joyriders in other people's airplanes? Seems like a good reason to let the thing expire if that's the case.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Is that something those of us CFI holders need to bear in mind when we ride as joyriders in other people's airplanes?
Click to expand...

What if two CFI are flying together?

What if the non flying pilot has been drinking beer all day because it's the other pilot's turn to fly?
 
Totaled, I suppose. I hate it when that happens to a plane I've flown.
 
Palmpilot said:
Totaled, I suppose. I hate it when that happens to a plane I've flown.
Click to expand...
Yes. I've chatted with Heather about it. It was a mess. That was not an expensive 152.

I haven't talked to the owner. He's a local part time flight instructor, and that must have really hurt. His website still says it's "well maintained," so I hope he's still instructing....
 
Tarheelpilot said:
They both get violated by FAA. Who pays is an insurance matter
Click to expand...
Why do people say "get violated by the FAA"? Merriam does not recognize the word "violated" as meaning to punish. By saying the FAA violated someone, you are saying they treated you unfairly.
 
He should've bought a Piper Arrow, so the gear would've come down automatically, and this wouldn't have been a problem.
 
I suppose "typical traffic pattern" means he wasn't shooting an approach under the hood (which the CFI would certainly be watching closely)

Now then, if it was a flight review (formerly BFR) I would think that even the pattern work is training that should have the same scrutiny.

I'm a lowly PPL (complex and HP) and when I'm a safety pilot I know to confirm wheels down and locked.
 
I believe that if the PIC was taking instruction from the CFI in any capacity the CFI will be required to defend his action to the FAA.
 
NJP_MAN said:
Why do people say "get violated by the FAA"? Merriam does not recognize the word "violated" as meaning to punish. By saying the FAA violated someone, you are saying they treated you unfairly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I'll cherish it forever and ever.


If you continue reading the thread I clarified my post. Hopefully I was successful in conveying my intended message.
 
Tom-D said:
I believe that if the PIC was taking instruction from the CFI in any capacity the CFI will be required to defend his action to the FAA.
Click to expand...

That is easy to get around. "I was on that flight and am indeed a CFI. However I was not the PIC and not acting as CFI since I was in fact asleep. I was unconscious during the entire sequence of events. I was therefore present in the aircraft as a passenger only".
 
Cavorter said:
That is easy to get around. "I was on that flight and am indeed a CFI. However I was not the PIC and not acting as CFI since I was in fact asleep. I was unconscious during the entire sequence of events. I was therefore present in the aircraft as a passenger only".
Click to expand...
That is one way to defend your actions, as long as it does not differ from anyones else's story.

Pilot needs only to tell the FAA that he thought you were backing him up. and in fact you were reading the check list to him. bingo, your it.
 
What IF:::
The CFI was getting a check out in make and model? remember the CFI can't instruct in make and model until they have 5 hours in that make and model.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I'll cherish it forever and ever.


If you continue reading the thread I clarified my post. Hopefully I was successful in conveying my intended message.
Click to expand...
It's not really a shot at you. It's common vocabulary that people seem to learn from other people using it incorrectly. I wonder where it originated. When someone gets violated it is usually by people named J. Sandusky,J. Fogel or M. Jackson.
 
NJP_MAN said:
It's not really a shot at you. It's common vocabulary that people seem to learn from other people using it incorrectly. I wonder where it originated. When someone gets violated it is usually by people named J. Sandusky,J. Fogel or M. Jackson.
Click to expand...

To violate can mean to break a rule. I'm not a language guy so I don't know if it's acceptable to extend that to 'violated', but I'm guessing that's where it's coming from.

Of course you know that, but this being PoA, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your pedantry. :)
 
Tom-D said:
What IF:::
The CFI was getting a check out in make and model? remember the CFI can't instruct in make and model until they have 5 hours in that make and model.
Click to expand...

I have heard the 5 hours required by a few people. The only regulations I know of requiring 5 hours is for multi engine.
 
NJP_MAN said:
It's not really a shot at you. It's common vocabulary that people seem to learn from other people using it incorrectly. I wonder where it originated. When someone gets violated it is usually by people named J. Sandusky,J. Fogel or M. Jackson.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it personally. I was just being a snarky ******* for the fun of it. Hope you didn't take it personally either.

I think it comes from the bad inspectors in the system. People talk less about positive interactions and won't shut up about bad ones. Leading to people expecting to be violated if they deal with the FAA. I mean that in the correct usage of the word. There seems to be an expectation of getting it hard and dry if the man comes looking for you. It's generally not true. I think it's actually a very small % of the ASI's that are an issue. Unfortunately they are the ones most remembered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top