Apparent plane crash on TPC Scottsdale Golf Course

denverpilot said:
Sigh. Dumb way to kill a bunch of people.

Civil suit should appreciate the tox report. That’ll make things easy for whatever assets are left to be gone. Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

That’s not where the money is unless this kid’s family is rich, they need to sue the engine manufacturer or FBO.
 
teejayevans said:
That’s not where the money is unless this kid’s family is rich, they need to sue the engine manufacturer or FBO.
Click to expand...

And that's why planes and avionics cost what they do.. Dumb kid on coke crashes plane and somehow the engine and FBO are at fault?
 
teejayevans said:
That’s not where the money is unless this kid’s family is rich, they need to sue the engine manufacturer or FBO.
Click to expand...
Yep, the old shotgun effect. Sue everyone and sort it out later.
 
denverpilot said:
If they look over and say, “You already know this crap and it’s going to stall ten knots faster than the bottom of the white arc in this turn. Hold my beer. Watch this....”

... You know you can move on to checking other topics. :)
Click to expand...

Why can't I get students like this??
 
A little cocaine never hurt no one
 
A few hours before...


Okay okay I'm being mean now...
 
It doesn't bother me that the student was using drugs. The media is certainly going after the wrong individual on this issue.
 
CC268 said:
Not trying to judge everyone on the plane, but judging by the social media profiles of some of the others...they were likely all living a similar lifestyle. Still very sad no doubt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd wager a $100 hamburger that all aboard were flying before they even took off.
 
NJP_MAN said:
It doesn't bother me that the student was using drugs. The media is certainly going after the wrong individual on this issue.
Click to expand...

I think the moral of the story is...only do coke and fly if you really trust your CFI
 
NJP_MAN said:
It doesn't bother me that the student was using drugs. The media is certainly going after the wrong individual on this issue.
Click to expand...

I am old so I have to ask. Why does it not bother you and who is the individual the media should be going after..??
 
ktup-flyer said:
Denzel Washington says otherwise
Click to expand...

th
 
Frankly, two takeaways for me from this otherwise tired and repetitious accident case study: 1) that advanced ratings can be a liability when riding shotgun in GA (sure, the cfi in question was the pic, but it still made me think about it), and 2) in my stage in life, there's really no flight profile these days where I'd be willing to exercise my civilian cfi ratings anymore, when juxtaposed to my livelihood and family obligations. I'm seriously giving consideration to letting the cfi expire. Too much to lose to deal with that kind of part 61/91 nonsense.
 
Walboy said:
How so? I'm wondering if you can be specific here? Assuming you have adequate insurance, selective on students/clients etc. Liability is something I think about all the time.
Click to expand...
Thats why I italicized the word "me". Im a professional and lifer instructor pilot for a living, which is ironic. I don't really pursue flight instruction outside of my job (military) and don't carry insurance beyond that to cover my recreational flying as a sole owner of my aircraft. So for me it feels as though keeping an active cfi is more of a liability when it comes to setting foot in another private aircraft in any capacity, as much as it pains me to lose the time, effort and money of getting the ratings and having paid every two years for the last 13 to renew. That's really all I meant.

Since you also won't catch me in the backseat of any spam can, I suppose it would be legally better for me not to be caught in the middle of an accident where the dope in the left or the FAA tried to come at me just because I have an active cfi rating while occupying a seat within reach of the controls. I think that's the one that worries me the most, since I can pretty much control for the fact I don't provide civilian flight instruction otherwise. Defending myself against somebody (the faa in particular) who would wish to argue they had the implicit expectation i was to act in a pic or cfi capacity by virtue of what my airman databse contains, would be much easier if my cfi was expired.

this accident is cut and clear since the only rated guy was the cfi, but nonetheless made me think about the opportunity costs of carrying an active cfi in my pocket as someone who only wishes to fly recreationally.
 
The crashes that scare me most are the ones I can picture myself being involved in. However, this story is the opposite. Departing at night, in mountainous terrain, in an overloaded airplane, while intoxicated. This is not something I will have to worry about.
 
NJP_MAN said:
the student could be unconscious from doing 8 balls for days for all I care, but how does an ATP/instructor let this flight take place?
Click to expand...

Maybe he was inattentive/oblivious to the stackup of causal factors.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Since you also won't catch me in the backseat of any spam can, I suppose it would be legally better for me not to be caught in the middle of an accident where the dope in the left or the FAA tried to come at me just because I have an active cfi rating while occupying a seat within reach of the controls. I think that's the one that worries me the most, since I can pretty much control for the fact I don't provide civilian flight instruction otherwise. Defending myself against somebody (the faa in particular) who would wish to argue they had the implicit expectation i was to act in a pic or cfi capacity by virtue of what my airman databse contains, would be much easier if my cfi was expired.
Click to expand...

Valente was specifically hired to act as PIC for the flight as the owner of the aircraft wasn't rated to fly it.

If you want to stay clear of that particular liability, don't agree to use your CFI ticket as a tool for someone else to get around licensing requirements. While there are other cases where the pilot with the higher rating was held responsible, I don't think this crash makes a good argument for that particular liability.
 
NJP_MAN said:
the student could be unconscious from doing 8 balls for days for all I care, but how does an ATP/instructor let this flight take place?
Click to expand...

Aahhh.... gotcha. I was thinking something weird like blaming the parent(s) for allowing or teaching the kid to start a life style like this as a teenager.
 
kyleb said:
Maybe he was inattentive/oblivious to the stackup of causal factors.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the media s
Zeldman said:
Aahhh.... gotcha. I was thinking something weird like blaming the parent(s) for allowing or teaching the kid to start a life style like this as a teenager.
Click to expand...
No, he was definitely misguided though. On his Instagram he made a point to celebrate his new Comanche had 6 seats. He had a few things left to learn but he wasn't the final authority in that airplane on that night.
 
weilke said:
Valente was specifically hired to act as PIC for the flight as the owner of the aircraft wasn't rated to fly it.
Click to expand...

He could be hired to instruct or he could be hired to fly the plane.

Hired to fly the plane was illegal in this case so he was hired to instruct.

And he didn’t instruct, obviously.

Nor do the photos suggest he was planning on much instruction nor exactly running any pre-departure ground school about the kid’s new toy.
 
denverpilot said:
He could be hired to instruct or he could be hired to fly the plane.

Hired to fly the plane was illegal in this case so he was hired to instruct.

And he didn’t instruct, obviously.

Nor do the photos suggest he was planning on much instruction nor exactly running any pre-departure ground school about the kid’s new toy.
Click to expand...
How would hired to fly the plane be illegal?
 
denverpilot said:
He could be hired to instruct or he could be hired to fly the plane.

Hired to fly the plane was illegal in this case so he was hired to instruct.

And he didn’t instruct, obviously.

Nor do the photos suggest he was planning on much instruction nor exactly running any pre-departure ground school about the kid’s new toy.
Click to expand...

I'm not caught up on all the details of the CFI in question, but why was it illegal for the CFI to be hired to fly the plane as PIC? Did the CFI own the aircraft (i.e. part 135 issues)?
 
Another question: would the CFI even be aware that the student pilot was intoxicated by cocaine?
 
I must say, after watching the videos, I still don’t understand how the CFI allowed the plane to bank left and then just keep banking left like that. What the heck?
 
What I'm about to say may come across as defending the CFI in this case, so let me start by saying that I'm not, at least not on the bottom line.

However---I do think it's really easy to judge in hindsight, and to do a lot of armchair quarterbacking here (and PoA does like to judge). I can imagine a lot of possible circumstances that make this accident explainable, though I won't go so far as excusable. Probably the CFI and the student were friends. Presumably the CFI did not know the student was high (because if he did, well, that one really is hard to get around), and maybe the student was pretty good at putting a normal face on being high; some people really can. Maybe the CFI asked the student about doing W&B and the student lied, either embarrassed or knowing it failed, and the CFI took his word. Maybe... you get the idea.

I'm not excusing the CFI here, and I agree that at the end of the day, this is on him---but I think it's worth acknowledging that these things may not always be as black and white as they can look in hindsight, and the path that ended up here may not be quite as unbelievable as the analysis would lead you to think.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I'm not caught up on all the details of the CFI in question, but why was it illegal for the CFI to be hired to fly the plane as PIC? Did the CFI own the aircraft (i.e. part 135 issues)?
Click to expand...

Yes. It’d be a commercial flight if all he was getting paid to do was fly.

CFIs have a “carve out” for “instruction” but some push the boundaries of instruction, and aren’t really teaching.

The reality is, if you’re loading the model chicks in the back to go to Vegas, it doesn’t pass a smell test of being serious “instruction”. But it can be legally done... kinda.

Not helping the rest of us much if you crash though. FAA has to be looking at that going, “Why do we allow non-required crew members or non-students to ride along?” Which would be a shame if they get forced to ban it.

Many people do actual training with spouses or other students observing in the back.

So something high profile like this where the “instruction” probably wasn’t, could lead to problems for all of us... never know.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
How would hired to fly the plane be illegal?
Click to expand...

hindsight2020 said:
I'm not caught up on all the details of the CFI in question, but why was it illegal for the CFI to be hired to fly the plane as PIC? Did the CFI own the aircraft (i.e. part 135 issues)?
Click to expand...

And to explain further. The student owned the airplane. He can hire a commercial pilot to fly it and his passengers, no problem.

It’s the passengers that gets grey. What was the owner’s relationship to them and how did they find out about this free flight to Vegas? Business relationships?

If the aircraft owner/operator “held out” and was simply “providing transportation” there’s a problem.

If not...

The aircraft is below 6000 lbs and the pilot has an instrument rating so, that stuff is covered...

You decide.

I can’t guess at how the passengers ended up on board, but the Commmercial certificate holder would have to know because it’ll trigger the operator needing an aircraft under 135 pretty easily...

All the kid had to do is post somewhere “anybody want to go to Vegas with me” where the lawyers can find it...

Also the whole thing probably forced them outside of their insurance. It’ll be interesting to see if the insurer fights it. If it was a paeudo-Commercial flight there may be wording in the policy that dumped the coverage.

If it was instruction, the policy CAN (but usually doesn’t) have wording to the effect of “nobody not needed for the flight on board”.

I’m sure the lawyers are dotting their Is and crossing their Ts on this one. Probably all get handled in sealed settlements though, so we’ll never know what they used as leverage or who gets what.
 
denverpilot said:
He could be hired to instruct or he could be hired to fly the plane.

Hired to fly the plane was illegal in this case so he was hired to instruct.
Click to expand...

Huh ? It would have been perfectly legal for Pedroza to hire Valente to fly him and his friends in his aircraft. Valente was a commercial pilot with a second class medical. Unless Pedroza charged the passengers, this was not any kind of commercial operation. This would have been a simple part 91 flight with a hired pilot. 'Legality' was not a reason why the fiction of an instructional flight was employed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top