CFI liability

[Richard]

Not so hypothetical situation.

We're friends, I'm a commercially rated pilot with Pt 135 IFR mins. I'm current and proficient in the typical SE planes I fly. You know me to be diligent in systems and procedures.

You are ATP, hold current CFI, ex-121 CP and currently fly occassional charters in MU-2 or 400 series Cessna. For the last several years you have owned a 1980 Mooney 200 HP.

I just bought a plane new to me. Say, a 1980 Mooney 200 HP with digital IFR panel. I have little Mooney time and that was more than 12 months ago. However, in the last 6 months I've flown 400+ hours in complex, high performance.

The meat of it....

I wish to use you to help me develop a proficiency in my new plane. I have met your insurance requirements and have named you as additional pilot but not additionally insured. At all times I am PIC and occupy the left seat. Per your desire, this can involve formal proficiency flights with payment for your services or we can just work out some kind of informal agreement.

Would you be comfortable with the above? If not, why and what would it take in order for you to agree to the above?

 

[Everskyward]

I have met your insurance requirements

Shouldn't this say, "You have met my insurance requirements" or are we doing it in my plane?

 

[Richard]

Shouldn't this say, "You have met my insurance requirements" or are we doing it in my plane?

I was thinking the ATP will have some minimum ins requirement to be satisfied before they step foot in my new to me airplane. What that minimum is would be determined by that person ostensibly based on their comfort/experience. When I say requirement I mean personal requirement.

If they require one million smooth the deal is off.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I am sort of confused.

I will be the ATP pilot. You will be the new Mooney owner.

Are you asking me to provide instruction in MY Mooney, or YOUR Mooney?

If you are asking me to do it in MY Mooney, I am not going to provide you instruction in my plane because I am not insured for it.

If you are asking me to provide you instruction in YOUR plane, I would want to talk to your insurance company and make sure they weren't going to subrogate against me if anything untoward would happen. If the insurance company buys off on that, then I am ok with it. Otherwise, I would want you to either provide me with some sort of insurance to cover me, or do whatever your insurance company requires to cover me.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

If they require one million smooth the deal is off.

Why would they care what coverage YOU had on YOUR plane? I would think all they would care about is if they were covered if something would happen. If so, I can't see them caring at all what kind of coverage you have.

 

[Areeda]

I would think the instructor would want to be a named insured rather than a named pilot.

I could be wrong but I believed the difference is as a named pilot it's possible for the insurance company to subrogate any damages paid out to them.

It's been my experience that if the instructor is more experienced than the owner they can be added to the policy for free or maybe a nominal charge. I ask for a quote from possible students and I am willing to pay a reasonable amount myself.

Joe

Edit: Greg types faster.

 

[Richard]

Greg, and others. See the bold in my original post. This is in MY plane. Because I doubt any concentious pilot holding an ATP and CFI would have some kind of requirements I addressed that. Why would they care? Because this litiguous society for starters.

I could have carry enough liability for most everyone to be comfortable but if that person as I described in my original post is not comfortable, we don't have any sort of deal.

As a pvt person I certainly would care of the amount and terms the owner carries. I imagine even more so if I were CFI rated.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I would think the instructor would want to be a named insured rather than a named pilot.

However, my insurance agent says that is rare if nonexistent.

I could be wrong but I believed the difference is as a named pilot it's possible for the insurance company to subrogate any damages paid out to them.

You are exactly right. Additionally, the only reason they would name a pilot is if they do not meet the open pilot provisions of the policy.

 

[Richard]

Yes, Joe. That is my understanding. I purposefully worded it as I did in order to get comments on that specific point. It isn't any trouble at all to have this other person named as additonally insured. I simply wanted to see if that would be a dealbreaker.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Richard, as a CFI, as long as I am covered, and your insurance won't come after ME if something happens, I could care less what coverage you have. It just does not affect me.

In a civil trial, however, all bets are off and there really isn't any coverage available that protects against that.

 

[Richard]

...the only reason they would name a pilot is if they do not meet the open pilot provisions of the policy.

That is interesting. My experience when I owned the Stinson L-5, the ins co wanted several non-owners named. Pilots with loads of F-4U, SNJ, BT-13, T-28, T-Craft, Aeronca, etc time.

 

[Everskyward]

Greg, and others. See the bold in my original post. This is in MY plane. Because I doubt any concentious pilot holding an ATP and CFI would have some kind of requirements I addressed that. Why would they care? Because this litiguous society for starters.

In the real world (not on the internet) there are plenty of ATP/CFIs who wouldn't have a clue what you are asking. Why would the student need to meet these requirements? After all a CFI can instruct someone with zero time in type or zero time period.

 

[Richard]

Richard, as a CFI, as long as I am covered, and your insurance won't come after ME if something happens, I could care less what coverage you have. It just does not affect me.

In a civil trial, however, all bets are off and there really isn't any coverage available that protects against that.

Greg, thank you. So you mean the FAA coming after the highest rated pilot in this case, you) is not a consideration? And would not the ins co findings be somewhat based on the FAA determinations?

I could just go fly and avoid the whole thing. I'd rather take advantage of the knowledge of others.

 

[Richard]

In the real world (not on the internet) there are plenty of ATP/CFIs who wouldn't have a clue what you are asking. Why would the student need to meet these requirements? After all a CFI can instruct someone with zero time in type or zero time period.

Not a clue or not a care?

Think of it as one asking another if there exists a layer of protection against action against their certificates in the case of violation/incident/accident.

 

[Areeda]

However, my insurance agent says that is rare if nonexistent.

I believe that varies by state.

I've asked for a letter of non-subrogation and here in California they name you as an insured.

But you said it the best, it's not the form, I just want the insurance company to cover me too. Basically treat the pilot and instructor as on the same side in case anything goes tango-uniform.

Joe

 

[Everskyward]

Not a clue or not a care?

Not a clue... well maybe both.

Think of it as one asking another if there exists a layer of protection against action against their certificates in the case of violation/incident/accident.

Insurance isn't going to protect you against a violation.

This is just an anecdotal incident but I had an insurance claim with a gear up (mechanical, not forgetting) during an IPC where I was the PIC. The CFI was an ATP but I was not. She didn't ask any insurance questions, had never seen the airplane before that day and had never flown with me. In fact we had only met about a week before. Neither the insurance company nor the FAA ever asked who the CFI was.

 

[TMetzinger]

I am sort of confused.

I will be the ATP pilot. You will be the new Mooney owner.

Are you asking me to provide instruction in MY Mooney, or YOUR Mooney?

If you are asking me to do it in MY Mooney, I am not going to provide you instruction in my plane because I am not insured for it.

If you are asking me to provide you instruction in YOUR plane, I would want to talk to your insurance company and make sure they weren't going to subrogate against me if anything untoward would happen. If the insurance company buys off on that, then I am ok with it. Otherwise, I would want you to either provide me with some sort of insurance to cover me, or do whatever your insurance company requires to cover me.

+1. As an instructor, I want to be indemnified against liability for everything except my gross negligence.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Greg, thank you. So you mean the FAA coming after the highest rated pilot in this case, you) is not a consideration?

Not really, because that has pretty much been proven an OWT.

Besides, that isn't the subject at hand. At least I didn't think so. I though this was about insurance and that does not even fit into this discussion.

And would not the ins co findings be somewhat based on the FAA determinations?

Uhh, again, this is somewhat apples and oranges. I am not sure the insurance company cares what the FAA says as long as the pilots weren't doing anything outside what the policy covers.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

We did a pretty thorough study of lawsuits against CFIs and could only find one where the CFI was actually found to owe damages. However, as you know, district courts don't render written decisions and settlements are often confidential. In any case, the CFI getting sued seems to occur pretty rarely. Then, if sued, if normal standards are demonstrated, it's pretty hard to prevail. Of course, it's expensive to be named in a lawsuit and to defend against it, even when one is right.

We had a BPPP instructor that was highly qualified and had built up assets before retiring. He wanted to be named an additional pilot, wanted a waiver of subrogation and wanted us to sign an indemnity waiver: we decided to use another instructor! When we name an additional pilot, it can dilute our coverage if there is an accident with joint liability. So, there are two sides to this.
When claims are very rare to begin with, lawsuits are rarer and where a CFI doesn't have material assets, we ask them to qualify under the open pilot clause and will get a waiver of subrogation if we use them repeatedly. If the CFI has material assets and is worried, we may name them as an additional pilot, but that's it. No indemnity waivers on top of all that.
I have numerous CFIs that will instruct in the P-Baron just to log time in it; so, we may have more choices than some.

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

One (more) reason I don't look for CFI business. Too much on the line for pitiful pay.

We did a pretty thorough study of lawsuits against CFIs and could only find one where the CFI was actually found to owe damages. However, as you know, district courts don't render written decisions and settlements are often confidential. In any case, the CFI getting sued seems to occur pretty rarely. Then, if sued, if normal standards are demonstrated, it's pretty hard to prevail. Of course, it's expensive to be named in a lawsuit and to defend against it, even when one is right.

We had a BPPP instructor that was highly qualified and had built up assets before retiring. He wanted to be named an additional pilot, wanted a waiver of subrogation and wanted us to sign an indemnity waiver: we decided to use another instructor! When we name an additional pilot, it can dilute our coverage if there is an accident with joint liability. So, there are two sides to this.
When claims are very rare to begin with, lawsuits are rarer and where a CFI doesn't have material assets, we ask them to qualify under the open pilot clause and will get a waiver of subrogation if we use them repeatedly. If the CFI has material assets and is worried, we may name them as an additional pilot, but that's it. No indemnity waivers on top of all that.
I have numerous CFIs that will instruct in the P-Baron just to log time in it; so, we may have more choices than some.

Best,

Dave

 

[dmccormack]

There are margins of concern I choose not to worry about.

Even 2% of my time dedicated to .0000000001% probability is too much, IMHO.

 

[poadeleted20]

At all times I am PIC and occupy the left seat.

If I'm giving you training, I am by FAA decree the PIC, and you are going to be paying for my time at my regular rates. Not being an additional insured doesn't bother me in that situation because I have my own instructional insurance, but I'll definitely need to know that I meet any requirements to be instructing you under your insurance policy so I know your policy is in force as well as mine. Given those conditions, I'm perfectly comfortable to provide training to you so you become proficient in your new Mooney.

If I'm not giving you training, what am I doing there?

 

[jnmeade]

If I'm not giving you training, what am I doing there?

Hypothetical situation. Pilot A buys an airplane in which category and class s/he is rated but not experienced and insurance company want X hours of "dual". They are willing to let pilot B, who is current and extremely qualified in the plane but not a CFI, provide the "dual".

Whatever the insurance company calls this, is it truly "dual". In what capacity is Pilot B? Mentor? Observer? Trainer? Instructor?

Pilot B would certainly not sign off the log book for any training, would he?

Assuming Pilot A declares s/he is PIC, is there likely to be any situation in which Pilot B is found to be in fact the PIC?

 

[poadeleted20]

Hypothetical situation. Pilot A buys an airplane in which category and class s/he is rated but not experienced and insurance company want X hours of "dual". They are willing to let pilot B, who is current and extremely qualified in the plane but not a CFI, provide the "dual".

When the insurers say "dual," they mean training with a CFI. Just ask them. If they allow a non-instructor to fly along as PIC while Pilot A builds time, it's not "dual" as that obsolete term was used.

Whatever the insurance company calls this, is it truly "dual".

It's not "dual" as that term is used in the industry (training given by an authorized instructor) without an instructor present. Some companies might allow a non-instructor to act as PIC while Pilot A flies the plane, but that wouldn't be "dual."

In what capacity is Pilot B? Mentor? Observer? Trainer? Instructor?

From the FAA's perspective, Pilot B would either be PIC or a passenger.

Pilot B would certainly not sign off the log book for any training, would he?

Not unless non-CFI Pilot B wanted the next FAA Inspector who saw that logbook to write him up for violating a whole host of FAR's.

Assuming Pilot A declares s/he is PIC,

Thus voiding the insurance? Remember, s/he's not yet insured to act as PIC without that "dual" time. Pilot B would have to be PIC in order for the insurance to be in force.

is there likely to be any situation in which Pilot B is found to be in fact the PIC?

Depends on what Pilots A and B tell the investigators after the accident/incident/deviation, and "A said/B said" can get ugly for everyone. Note that Pilot A acting as PIC would void the insurance before getting the required fam time, and after an accident, that could induce Pilot A to tell everyone involved that Pilot B was PIC. With that kind of finger-pointing, it often comes down to "who has the best lawyer?" rather than what actually happened.

All in all, I think B would be most unwise to get involved in this situation without being a CFI.

 

[TMetzinger]

I've seen insurance companies require "dual" - meaning instruction from an appropriately rated CFI. Sometimes they specify that the CFI must have X hours make and model.

I've also seen insurance companies require an appropriately rated and experienced copilot in the airplane until the insured has a certain amount of experience as PIC. The insured is still acting as PIC, he's still covered, and the copilot is NOT necessarily a CFI. The pro copilot in this case logs only the time he's actually flying the airplane, as he's not a required crewmember (in the eyes of the FAA) otherwise, unless they play the pilot/safety pilot routine.

My uncle did a LOT of this kind of flying in the '80s with new MU-2 pilots. They first got twenty hours of dual with a CFI and then had to have a pro copilot (with at least 250 hours MU2 PIC) for another fifty hours before they could be covered "solo".