What happens to a CFI when a student crashes

A

Alexb2000

En-Route
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
3,530
Location
Dallas, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Alexb2000
I know a local CFI that I did an IPC with that fairly recently had a primary student crash and total a really nice 172. Student was on his first solo, lost control, went off the runway, into a ditch, student uninjured, plane was smashed up.

I imagine for any CFI their worst fear is having a student crash.

So what happens after that? I assume the FAA will get involved with the CFI?
 
The FAA will certainly have a discussion with the CFI. Depending on how that goes, the CFI may face a 709 reexamination.

Really all depends on the individual circumstances. You can be certain that the CFI is already disturbed by the event.
 
Last edited:
I usually sign somebody else's name and number in the logbook. No reason to offer them a sitting target.:D
 
wabower said:
I usually sign somebody else's name and number in the logbook. No reason to offer them a sitting target.:D
Click to expand...

How do I spell your last name, Wayne? :D

Seriously, stuff happens. As a CFI you do everything humanly possible to assure a student is ready, both skill-wise and from an emotional standpoint. But we're not clairvoyant. I think as long as the student has been given all the pre-solo training required, you've dotted all the i's and crossed the t's I'm not sure how much the FAA is going to pin on the CFI.
 
Would there be a record on the CFI's number? Kind of like traffic ticket points?
 
Alexb2000 said:
I know a local CFI that I did an IPC with that fairly recently had a primary student crash and total a really nice 172. Student was on his first solo, lost control, went off the runway, into a ditch, student uninjured, plane was smashed up.

I imagine for any CFI their worst fear is having a student crash.

So what happens after that? I assume the FAA will get involved with the CFI?
Click to expand...

Tim summed it very well for you. Yes, the FAA is going to have a chat with the CFI and depending upon circumstances the CFI may face a 44709 ride on his CFI.
 
It really depends on the circumstances, the FAA knows accidents in training will happen, that's why students aren't allowed passengers, that way when they screw up they only kill themselves.
 
Those flight student/CFI issues are why I require the written record of the passed FAA ground exam demonstrating knowledge proficiency by a third party and also, am never in a hurry to solo them even if they are in a hurry.

Actually by the time I let them solo, they could fly their checkride and pass, which is just what all of them have safely done within short order.
 
The key is going to be documentation. If it says somewhere in the training lessons 'RLOC awareness discussed', the CFI is a-ok. You are dealing with a buerocracy, it is not about what you teach, it is about what you document.

The CFI I got my complex sign-off from had someone else belly-in the plane a couple of years later (nobody hurt). That pilot had received his complex sign-off from the CFI 10 years earlier. The FAA tried to levy at $6000 fine against the CFI because the sign-off did not include reference to the fact that emergency gear extension was discussed. He appealed and got it overturned after myself and others testified that the training indeed included the emergency drill, even if the narrative in the log did not say so.
So yes, there is a liability in signing your name in someones logbook.
 
weilke said:
The CFI I got my complex sign-off from had someone else belly-in the plane a couple of years later (nobody hurt). That pilot had received his complex sign-off from the CFI 10 years earlier. The FAA tried to levy at $6000 fine against the CFI because the sign-off did not include reference to the fact that emergency gear extension was discussed. He appealed and got it overturned after myself and others testified that the training indeed included the emergency drill, even if the narrative in the log did not say so.
So yes, there is a liability in signing your name in someones logbook.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't document all the required training required by the regulations, and that is nothing new. The FAA emphasizes this heavily in instructor training, testing, and review programs. In fact, DPE's are supposed to be checking that there every one of the items of flight proficiency in 61.107/127/etc are specifically documented in the applicant's logbook before starting a practical test. The regulations require not only that the training occur, but that it be properly documented, including what was covered:

(h) Logging training time.
(1) A person may log training time when that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.

(2) The training time must be logged in a logbook and must:

(i) Be endorsed in a legible manner by the authorized instructor; and
(ii) Include a description of the training given, the length of the training lesson, and the instructor's authorized signature, certificate number, and certificate expiration date.
Click to expand...
However, I do note that 61.31(e) does not include a specific requirement for training in emergency gear extension, so a specific entry for that is not required, and the FAA was probably somewhat off the mark in pursuing that case.

(e) Additional training required for operating complex airplanes.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a complex airplane, unless the person has--

(i) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in a complex airplane, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane, and has been found proficient in the operation and systems of the airplane; and
(ii) Received a one-time endorsement in the pilot's logbook from an authorized instructor who certifies the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.
Click to expand...
This is also discussed in the excellent legal paper "Does This Tiger Have a Tail?"
http://www.thecfi.com/Tiger by the Tail.pdf
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
However, I do note that 61.31(e) does not include a specific requirement for training in emergency gear extension, so a specific entry for that is not required, and the FAA was probably somewhat off the mark in pursuing that case.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things that are not anywhere in a regulation but that a particular FAA inspector may require for you to keep your livelihood. Proving him wrong costs anywhere between $5000 an $20000 in attorneys fees of which only a part can be recorvered under equal access to justice act proceedings.
 
weilke said:
There are a lot of things that are not anywhere in a regulation but that a particular FAA inspector may require for you to keep your livelihood. Proving him wrong costs anywhere between $5000 an $20000 in attorneys fees of which only a part can be recorvered under equal access to justice act proceedings.
Click to expand...
That's not quite true. An individual inspector cannot hit you with an enforcement action all by him/herself. The inspector must present the case to a Regional Counsel who reviews it for legal sufficiency and then sends the dreaded registered letter. I'm sure R&W can tell you of situations where the RC sent cases back to the inspector with the FAA equivalent of a grand jury's "no true bill" finding.

In the case you presented, the only charge I see having merit would be the instructor's failure to fully describe the training given, a relatively minor offense, since there is no specific requirement for emergency gear extention training in 61.31(e). In that regard, the testimony of the friends that such training was given was both irrelevant to the issue you said was at hand (since that training isn't required by regulation), and also proof of violation of 61.51(g)(2)(ii) (which apparently was not charged). Also, a $6000 civil penalty for an individual flight instructor for such a recordkeeping violation is extremely odd, since certificate action is both the norm and what is recommended in FAA Order 2150.3B in such cases. Such a penalty for an individual's violation of Part 61 would be more appropriate to someone without a certificate to take, either because they never had one or the one they had was suspended or revoked.
 
weilke said:
There are a lot of things that are not anywhere in a regulation but that a particular FAA inspector may require for you to keep your livelihood. Proving him wrong costs anywhere between $5000 an $20000 in attorneys fees of which only a part can be recorvered under equal access to justice act proceedings.
Click to expand...

If you knew how an EIR (Enforcement Investigative Report) worked and what was actually involved in processing an enforcement you would realize how silly your quote above actually is as well as your described enforcement proceeding against the alleged CFI.

Start with Order 2150.3B http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/2150.3 B W-Chg 4.pdf
 
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII said:
Those flight student/CFI issues are why I require the written record of the passed FAA ground exam demonstrating knowledge proficiency by a third party and also, am never in a hurry to solo them even if they are in a hurry.

Actually by the time I let them solo, they could fly their checkride and pass, which is just what all of them have safely done within short order.
Click to expand...

So you require them to be proficient in soft field and short field landings before they can solo?

I think the first solo is an important confidence-builder that lets a student know he/she has reached the first checkpoint in mastering the basics of flight. My criteria is meeting the guidelines for first solo on a consistent and safe basis, although not necessarily perfection.

There was a good article which I will have to track down that talked about the upward creep in the averge hours to solo and get a license. Some attribute it to CYA by CFIs and fear of liability for a student mishap. The concern is this causes a higher dropout rate and is throttling the pilot population.

Personally, I think you have to strike a reasonable balance. Yes, by solo my students could pass a DPE's first, normal landing and go-around tasks, but they may not be proficient in every other task on the PTS, many of which won't even be introduced until the xc phase of training.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
In the case you presented, the only charge I see having merit would be the instructor's failure to fully describe the training given, a relatively minor offense, since there is no specific requirement for emergency gear extention training in 61.31(e).
Click to expand...

The charge was: 'you sent someone out into the world who didn't know how to extend the gear on this plane and scratched up a runway so obviously your training was deficient and you are a bad person'.
 
weilke said:
The charge was: 'you sent someone out into the world who didn't know how to extend the gear on this plane and scratched up a runway so obviously your training was deficient and you are a bad person'.
Click to expand...

Try getting that through an EIR and get the Regional Attorney to pursue it. :nonod:
 
Yep, those tasks are not that hard to add by the near-solo point, and it has not discouraged any of my students from PPL completion. I figure one of the best ways to CYA is to make sure the flight student can cover their own when PIC. I also have them do a phase check with a CFI of their choice too, which is a great experience and "confidence builder". And the near-40 hours to PPL goal has been attained by a number of my flight students as well but not all of them.

If they ever should drop out because of a few hours dual, then somebody else with lower standards can pick them up easily enough as CFI or, it indicates a level of judgment I personally don't need to be dealing with, no matter what they think is best for them as Neophlytes.


LDJones said:
So you require them to be proficient in soft field and short field landings before they can solo?

I think the first solo is an important confidence-builder that lets a student know he/she has reached the first checkpoint in mastering the basics of flight. My criteria is meeting the guidelines for first solo on a consistent and safe basis, although not necessarily perfection.

There was a good article which I will have to track down that talked about the upward creep in the averge hours to solo and get a license. Some attribute it to CYA by CFIs and fear of liability for a student mishap. The concern is this causes a higher dropout rate and is throttling the pilot population.

Personally, I think you have to strike a reasonable balance. Yes, by solo my students could pass a DPE's first, normal landing and go-around tasks, but they may not be proficient in every other task on the PTS, many of which won't even be introduced until the xc phase of training.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top