Bad Training Days in N. Texas....

Sounds to me, KP, that the 150 CFI deserves a 709 checkride...

The article implies that the helicopter struck wires as well, but some more research didn't find any reference to wires -- only that they were practicing "emergency maneuvers" which I assume means they were doing autorotations. This one is puzzling -- short of a mechanical failure about the only things I can think of which will cause a helicopter to fall 50 feet is either settling with power (virtually impossible during an auto) or a low RPM rotor stall -- possibly the latter because a botched auto could allow the rotor RPM to get low enough to get into an unrecoverable state.
 
Last edited:
Not enough information in that article to suggest a 709 ride for anyone -- could have been mechanical. In any event, note that the article says the aircraft were crashed by student pilots, but in both cases, a CFI was aboard giving instruction. Guess who the PIC is in such cases?
 
Ron Levy said:
Not enough information in that article to suggest a 709 ride for anyone -- could have been mechanical. In any event, note that the article says the aircraft were crashed by student pilots, but in both cases, a CFI was aboard giving instruction. Guess who the PIC is in such cases?
Click to expand...
You're right of course, Ron, there really isn't enough info. The PIC ain't the student I guess.

Which brings up a question. A rated pilot does dual with a CFI. I assume, but don't know for sure, that since the rated "student" logs PIC time (assuming the student is rated in category, class, and type) that he/she is also legally PIC? Or no?
 
RotaryWingBob said:
Which brings up a question. A rated pilot does dual with a CFI. I assume, but don't know for sure, that since the rated "student" logs PIC time (assuming the student is rated in category, class, and type) that he/she is also legally PIC? Or no?
Click to expand...
No, I think this was in another forum recently, and the concensus was that the highest rated individual in a position to affect the flight (e.g. with a view of the instrument panel) is the one the FAA would come after as PIC. That's not to say, of course, that they wouldn't put some culpability on the rated pilot.
 
RotaryWingBob said:
A rated pilot does dual with a CFI. I assume, but don't know for sure, that since the rated "student" logs PIC time (assuming the student is rated in category, class, and type) that he/she is also legally PIC? Or no?
Click to expand...
Insufficient data, but the basic assumption (that being able to log PIC time means you are the PIC) is flawed. Logging time in the PIC column and being the PIC are separate issues governed by separate regs.

To start with, the CFI may not even be qualified to be the PIC. For example, a CFI with no medical could be giving commercial pilot training to a rated PPL who is PIC-qualified and acting as PIC for the flight. OTOH, when doing the 250 nm IFR round-robin for the IR, the CFI-IA must be the PIC, because the trainee isn't instrument rated yet. Yet, in both cases, the trainee logs PIC time.

Between those extremes, there's a myriad of possibilities. Some owners don't like ceding PIC authority during flight reviews and IPC's, and as long as the owner is PIC-qualified and current to carry passengers, that's completely within the legal bounds as long as it's agreed up front. OTOH, FBO's generally require that FBO instructors instructing in FBO aircraft will be the PIC regardless of the trainee's qualifications or experience. Of course, if there's an accident or violation, even if the CFI wasn't the PIC, the FAA will usually go after him, too, on an instructor competence issue, i.e., he should have instructed the trainee/PIC not do do whatever silly thing he did.

IOW, as they said in the movie about managing a baseball team, "it's all situations."
 
gprellwitz said:
No, I think this was in another forum recently, and the concensus was that the highest rated individual in a position to affect the flight (e.g. with a view of the instrument panel) is the one the FAA would come after as PIC. That's not to say, of course, that they wouldn't put some culpability on the rated pilot.
Click to expand...
My friends in the FAA tell me that when there is no CFI in the plane but there is more than one rated pilot at a control station, they start by assuming the person in the left seat (for airplanes, right seat for helos) is the PIC and work from there. When there is a CFI at a control station, they assume the CFI (if PIC-qualified) was the PIC and work from that point. Of course, it can progress from either entering assumption, based on a lot of factors including aircraft ownership, PIC name on the filed flight plan, etc.
 
Ron Levy said:
Of course, it can progress from either entering assumption, based on a lot of factors including aircraft ownership, PIC name on the filed flight plan, etc.
Click to expand...

OK, that last one has me wondering. Say two club pilots take the club plane on a trip, and on the way back, I filed an IFR flight plan, but at the last minute, we decide that my IR buddy will fly back (left seat, PIC) instead. We already have a plan on file, so away we go. Something bad happens, am I on the hook?

To cover my a$$, should I cancel the plan and have him file?
 
Bill Jennings said:
OK, that last one has me wondering. Say two club pilots take the club plane on a trip, and on the way back, I filed an IFR flight plan, but at the last minute, we decide that my IR buddy will fly back (left seat, PIC) instead. We already have a plan on file, so away we go. Something bad happens, am I on the hook?
Click to expand...
Maybe.
To cover my a$$, should I cancel the plan and have him file?
Click to expand...
Yes, or just have FSS or ATC change the pilot's name when you call for the clearance.
 
Ron Levy said:
or just have FSS or ATC change the pilot's name when you call for the clearance.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ron, that sounds like a pretty easy thing to do.
 
Ron Levy said:
My friends in the FAA tell me that when there is no CFI in the plane but there is more than one rated pilot at a control station, they start by assuming the person in the left seat (for airplanes, right seat for helos) is the PIC and work from there. When there is a CFI at a control station, they assume the CFI (if PIC-qualified) was the PIC and work from that point. Of course, it can progress from either entering assumption, based on a lot of factors including aircraft ownership, PIC name on the filed flight plan, etc.
Click to expand...

I can't recall the particulars but wasn't there a case very recently where a inst CFI was on the plane as PAX. The piot/owner filed IFR but was not current or rated (can't remeber which). The plane augered in but the CFI survived and the NTSB is calling him the PIC of the flight. There is now talk about his certificate and lawsuits. Anyone remeber this story? I think it might have been on AvWeb but I cannot find it.
 
smigaldi said:
I can't recall the particulars but wasn't there a case very recently where a inst CFI was on the plane as PAX. The piot/owner filed IFR but was not current or rated (can't remeber which). The plane augered in but the CFI survived and the NTSB is calling him the PIC of the flight. There is now talk about his certificate and lawsuits. Anyone remeber this story? I think it might have been on AvWeb but I cannot find it.
Click to expand...
Pretty much correct, and the CFI needs a good lawyer, but if his version is accurate, should beat the FAA rap. However, civil court over liability damages could be a whole 'nother story, as you don't even have to be a pilot to be found contributorily negligent in an aircraft accident (Newberger v. Porkrass, 10 Avi. 17,118, 1967 -- passenger knew pilot was sleepy, passenger went to sleep, pilot fell asleep, airplane pancaked in; passenger found partially to blame for going to sleep when he knew pilot was sleepy rather than stay awake to make sure pilot stayed awake {where's the "roll eyes" icon?}).
 
Ron Levy said:
{where's the "roll eyes" icon?}).
Click to expand...

I'll get that one for ya...

:rolleyes:

Crazy case. I seem to recall you quoting that one in a different thread about something else too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top