CFI liability

[Gtbigair2006]

Okay! So I have a scenario that I can't quite get a straight answer to. This isn't about me, but I have heard of CFIs that have been held responsible for an accident of which the CFI was NOT providing instruction and was NOT acting as PIC.

A pilot who was NOT a CFI flying his own airplane and invited the CFI along for a ride as a passenger only. Again the CFI was NOT providing any instruction whatsoever.

The PIC was flying low and the CFI made it clear that he was not comfortable with his reckless flying and the PIC reassured him that he did it all the time. Moments later while the CFI was checking his phone the a/c clipped power lines and damaged several control surfaces. The CFI then took the controls from the PIC and made a successful forced landing off airport, with minor injuries.

I know that the standing "rule" is that the CFI is always PIC, but can the FAA hold the CFI responsible while not acting in his authority? Should all CFIs refrain from flying with anyone without providing instruction or acting as PIC?

 

[DavidWhite]

The CFI is most certainly not PIC, unless established otherwise. Now, when he grabbed the controls and made a forced landing with injuries he made himself liable in one form or another.

 

[gprellwitz]

The CFI is most certainly not PIC, unless established otherwise. Now, when he grabbed the controls and made a forced landing with injuries he made himself liable in one form or another.

OTOH, he's around to accept that (alleged) liability, which may not otherwise be the case!

 

[Gtbigair2006]

I have heard of two pilots busting an altitude and the sleeping CFI in the back catching some of the responsibility. That is hearsay, but I have heard other cases similar to that in which the CFI is held responsible while not acting as PIC.

 

[MachFly]

I have heard of two pilots busting an altitude and the sleeping CFI in the back catching some of the responsibility..

I believe I heard that too.

 

[LDJones]

I heard of a guy who actually knew a guy who said a guy he knew who might have been a CFI had told him that this actually happened to someone he knew. So it must be.

 

[saracelica]

I believe whoever has the highest rating in the plane is always responsible. My DPE told that to me since my husband is IR he'd always be responsible for what I do in the plane. Maybe that's why I want my IR as well (to catch up)

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay! So I have a scenario that I can't quite get a straight answer to. This isn't about me, but I have heard of CFIs that have been held responsible for an accident of which the CFI was NOT providing instruction and was NOT acting as PIC.

I've heard such stories before, but never seen any documentation to support them.

A pilot who was NOT a CFI flying his own airplane and invited the CFI along for a ride as a passenger only. Again the CFI was NOT providing any instruction whatsoever.

The PIC was flying low and the CFI made it clear that he was not comfortable with his reckless flying and the PIC reassured him that he did it all the time. Moments later while the CFI was checking his phone the a/c clipped power lines and damaged several control surfaces. The CFI then took the controls from the PIC and made a successful forced landing off airport, with minor injuries.

By taking the controls from the other pilot, the CFI was exercising final authority over the flight, and thus showed that he was acting as PIC, not the other pilot. This has nothing to do with being a CFI, just that he exercised control over the flight by taking the controls from the other pilot. There are cases on point, such as Administrator v. Corredor.

I know that the standing "rule" is that the CFI is always PIC,

The so-called "Hamre doctrine" states that on an instructional flight, the instructor is "deemed to be" the PIC for enforcement purposes. However, that does not mean the PIC is strictly liable for whatever the trainee does. Also from the Hamre decision:

Despite respondent's status as flight instructor and pilot
in command, we will not impose strict liability on him for all of his student's mistakes. Although flight instructors are expected to "do all things possible for the safety of the flight," they are not held strictly liable for its safe outcome.​

​

​

but can the FAA hold the CFI responsible while not acting in his authority?

As stated above, no, but in the situation you describe, the CFI demonstrated that he was in fact acting as PIC, since he took the controls from the pilot who had been flying.

Should all CFIs refrain from flying with anyone without providing instruction or acting as PIC?

Not at all. But they should refrain from doing anything that indicates they are the de facto PIC by overriding something the assumed PIC does, as the CFI in the scenario you described did. Had the other pilot requested the CFI take the controls, as opposed to the CFI seizing the controls, the outcome would likely be different, as in that case the other pilot would still be acting as the final authority for the flight, i.e., the PIC, and the CFI would likely not be held responsible for the low-flying violation.

 

[poadeleted20]

The CFI is most certainly not PIC, unless established otherwise.

When not giving instruction, I agree.

Now, when he grabbed the controls and made a forced landing with injuries he made himself liable in one form or another.

Exactly.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I heard of a guy who actually knew a guy who said a guy he knew who might have been a CFI had told him that this actually happened to someone he knew. So it must me.

And he says it's pretty serious.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[poadeleted20]

I have heard of two pilots busting an altitude and the sleeping CFI in the back catching some of the responsibility. That is hearsay, but I have heard other cases similar to that in which the CFI is held responsible while not acting as PIC.

I think you misheard. There's simply no legal way that happens. OTOH, I have heard of a case where a CFI sleeping in the back was found liable for damages in civil court after a PP crashed a plane in bad weather, but was not held accounable by the FAA. The jury's logic was that the CFI knew the weather was poor, and that the PP might not have been up to the task, and should have done something to prevent this from happening. That is not unlike the case of Newberger v. Pokrass, where the sleeping non-passenger in the right seat was held in civil court to be contributorily negligent for not doing anything to keep the pilot, whom he knew to be tired, from falling asleep himself, which resulted in the crash. But those have nothing to do with FAA enforcement actions.

 

[marcoseddi]

How convenient he said dont fly low, and then went on his phone when he didn't feel comfortable if I was scared I would have been hawking the surroundings and operations

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe whoever has the highest rating in the plane is always responsible.

Not so, at least for FAA purposes.

My DPE told that to me since my husband is IR he'd always be responsible for what I do in the plane. Maybe that's why I want my IR as well (to catch up)

That DPE is wrong. Perhaps you should ask that DPE for either a regulation or case law which says that.

 

[Gtbigair2006]

The CFI seized the controls after hitting the power lines because the pilot was not able to control the a/c. He more or less saved both of their lives. Wouldn't he be liable from that point on? I.e. any property damage from a forced landing rather than not complying with minimum safe altitudes?

To me it doesn't seem so black and white I guess. Nor have I read a story like this one. Usually the CFI was acting as an instructor and lied about it during the investigation and the FAA through inductive reasoning catches this.

 

[write-stuff]

It sounds like a stretch, but based on some of the cases publicized in the news over the past decade, I wouldn't rule anything out. It would probably be a very difficult job for the plaintiff, but the defendent CFI might settle out of court rather than pay money to fight it.

An attorney friend told me once that it isn't an attorney's job to decide who is at fault. His job is to bring the case forward and let the court decide. So he saw no problem whatsoever with casting an exceedingly wide net. The fact that innocent people would be forced to pay to defend themselves was irrelevant to him. Sad actually.

 

[jesse]

Not at all. But they should refrain from doing anything that indicates they are the de facto PIC by overriding something the assumed PIC does, as the CFI in the scenario you described did. Had the other pilot requested the CFI take the controls, as opposed to the CFI seizing the controls, the outcome would likely be different, as in that case the other pilot would still be acting as the final authority for the flight, i.e., the PIC, and the CFI would likely not be held responsible for the low-flying violation.

Don't buy it Ron. If the CFI were in the right seat and they ran into a damn power line regardless of the CFI taking over the controls to save his ass he's going to be hearing from the FAA. The instructor might have a chance of avoiding the electric chair if hadn't acted as PIC in 10 years or it were in a type the instructor knew nothing about (P51 demo flight).

A "he was not providing instruction whatsoever" sounds like two people trying to make some crap up to try and save the certificates of the guy who needs it (the CFI). The FAA will see through that.

 

[Gtbigair2006]

Don't buy it Ron. If the CFI were in the right seat and they ran into a damn power line regardless of the CFI taking over the controls to save his ass he's going to be hearing from the FAA. The instructor might have a chance of avoiding the electric chair if hadn't acted as PIC in 10 years or it were in a type the instructor knew nothing about (P51 demo flight).

A "he was not providing instruction whatsoever" sounds like two people trying to make some crap up to try and save the certificates of the guy who needs it (the CFI). The FAA will see through that.

It was just a friendly ride share from a stranger and the CFI took him up on his offer. Him being a CFI was only incidental to the flight. Like I said there was NO instruction on this flight. Can't make it any more clear than that.

 

[jesse]

It was just a friendly ride share from a stranger and the CFI took him up on his offer. Him being a CFI was only incidental to the flight. Like I said there was NO instruction on this flight. Can't make it any more clear than that.

Moments later while the CFI was checking his phone the a/c clipped power lines and damaged several control surfaces.

The CFI has some serious risk tolerance issues if he is "checking his phone" while they are low enough to hit power-lines. That whole story is just BS.

 

[j1b3h0]

When I made my "living" as a CFI, I was protected from lawsuits by...abject poverty! Everything I owned wouldn't pay an attorney for a couple of hours.

 

[taters]

If the CFI was smart the "story" wouldn't include his presence..what fn idiots

 

[write-stuff]

When I made my "living" as a CFI, I was protected from lawsuits by...abject poverty! Everything I owned wouldn't pay an attorney for a couple of hours.

Yep, poverty is good alternative to liability insurance. But not all CFIs are poor or uninsured.

 

[Gtbigair2006]

The CFI has some serious risk tolerance issues if he is "checking his phone" while they are low enough to hit power-lines. That whole story is just BS.

It was just for a second. Power lines are near invisible in the air and they were 200+ agl

 

[Gtbigair2006]

Jesse I'm sure that you have went flying with a friend or flew low. If not I'm not buying it and I'd call BS.

 

[poadeleted20]

Don't buy it Ron. If the CFI were in the right seat and they ran into a damn power line regardless of the CFI taking over the controls to save his ass he's going to be hearing from the FAA. The instructor might have a chance of avoiding the electric chair if hadn't acted as PIC in 10 years or it were in a type the instructor knew nothing about (P51 demo flight).

A "he was not providing instruction whatsoever" sounds like two people trying to make some crap up to try and save the certificates of the guy who needs it (the CFI). The FAA will see through that.

You can believe that if you wish, but the case law on point says otherwise. OTOH, if the CFI does take the controls (as opposed being asked to fly the plane by the PIC), s/he's demonstrating that s/he is in fact the PIC, and then that position on the FAA's part would be justified by case law.

 

[JGoodish]

Don't buy it Ron. If the CFI were in the right seat and they ran into a damn power line regardless of the CFI taking over the controls to save his ass he's going to be hearing from the FAA. The instructor might have a chance of avoiding the electric chair if hadn't acted as PIC in 10 years or it were in a type the instructor knew nothing about (P51 demo flight).

A "he was not providing instruction whatsoever" sounds like two people trying to make some crap up to try and save the certificates of the guy who needs it (the CFI). The FAA will see through that.

On what basis would the CFI justifiably be held liable simply because he is a CFI? If you fly with me, and I'm PIC, I make the decisions and you live with them, CFI certificate or not. On the other hand, if I fly with you, I'm not going to let you kill me. The CFI certificate doesn't automatically grant someone authority over someone else without one, but it would seem reasonable that any qualified pilot would invest some attention toward the safe outcome of a flight in which he is a passenger.

I have heard of at least one case where both pilots flying together in a retract were assigned some liability from the FAA for a gear-up landing, simply because they were both qualified in the airplane and in crew member positions. That seems at least plausible, but doesn't specifically involve a CFI certificate.


JKG

 

[RotorAndWing]

Gotta love all these "This is what the FAA will do" threads.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Gotta love all these "This is what the FAA will do" threads.

Especially when the specific question involved liability which is not an FAA concern.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Especially when the specific question involved liability which is not an FAA concern.

Yep..........

 

[JGoodish]

Gotta love all these "This is what the FAA will do" threads.

The bottom line is that the FAA can and has been inconsistent in "what they will do" in response to potential enforcement action for various violations, but we have history to guide us in that regard. I think the original question had to do with regulatory liability, which is a valid question and concern.


JKG

 

[poadeleted20]

The bottom line is that the FAA can and has been inconsistent in "what they will do" in response to potential enforcement action for various violations, but we have history to guide us in that regard. I think the original question had to do with regulatory liability, which is a valid question and concern.

...and for which there is ample case law on point. At the end of the day, the standard is who actually acts as PIC, i.e., who exercises final authority. Grab the controls from the putative PIC, and you just exercised that authority.

That said, if it comes down to it, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. That's why if I'm in a control seat and the putative PIC tries to do something really stupid (like the buzzing in the OP's scenario), I will not just express discomfort with the situation, I will seize the controls (and if necessary cold-cock the moron) before we hit those power lines, not after. We can argue about that later when safely on the ground without the FAA becoming involved, because as long as nothing bad happens, there's no liability (civil or FAR) to worry about, and at that point, I really don't care if that bozo never lets me in his/her plane again, because I won't be getting in again even if s/he begs me.

And I'm not going to be head-down playing with my cell phone while all that happens, either -- my aviation survival instincts are too well established to do that at sub-91.119 altitudes. So maybe that CFI in the OP's scenario deserves to be hammered by the FAA just for being plain dumb.

 

[jesse]

Jesse I'm sure that you have went flying with a friend or flew low. If not I'm not buying it and I'd call BS.

I've flew with plenty of friends. We don't fly around at altitudes where power lines are a threat and I certainly am not playing with my cell phone if they're doing something incredibly stupid that is going to kill us.

Could you please point me to a map that shows me where these 200ft AGL power lines are? The only way I could believe that is if they were flying through a river valley or something - which is indeed a good way to hit power lines.

If this happened to me I would fully expect my FSDO to be all over my ass. They've essentially already told me that's how things will go down. Even if they can't hit you for that incident it doesn't mean they're not going to be watching you like a hawk. Helps that their office is just down the ramp.

 

[JGoodish]

And I'm not going to be head-down playing with my cell phone while all that happens, either -- my aviation survival instincts are too well established to do that at sub-91.119 altitudes. So maybe that CFI in the OP's scenario deserves to be hammered by the FAA just for being plain dumb.

Maybe, but that hammering I suspect would and should occur because he is a certificated and qualified pilot, not simply because he is a CFI. The CFI certificate should be wholly irrelevant unless the flight is an instructional flight.


JKG

 

[RotorAndWing]

The bottom line is that the FAA can and has been inconsistent in "what they will do" in response to potential enforcement action for various violations, but we have history to guide us in that regard. I think the original question had to do with regulatory liability, which is a valid question and concern.


JKG

The problem here is the so called "experts" on FAA matters and procedures are using Google as their source of reference without any real knowledge of the inner workings or procedures of the Agency. You're dealing with sciolist who have developed and perpetuate an image on the web boards that they are somehow "insiders" to the Agency and can speak with absolute authority on Agency procedure and policy.

These "experts" are essentially engaging in daily mental masturbation.

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe, but that hammering I suspect would and should occur because he is a certificated and qualified pilot, not simply because he is a CFI. The CFI certificate should be wholly irrelevant unless the flight is an instructional flight.

Agreed. And I think the case law is consistent with that, too.

 

[Everskyward]

I've flew with plenty of friends. We don't fly around at altitudes where power lines are a threat and I certainly am not playing with my cell phone if they're doing something incredibly stupid that is going to kill us.

Exactly. I'm sure I haven't flown with as many friends as Jesse, but when it's their airplane that they own or rented, they are PIC and I am a passenger unless I am asked to play another role.

 

[Gtbigair2006]

I've flew with plenty of friends. We don't fly around at altitudes where power lines are a threat and I certainly am not playing with my cell phone if they're doing something incredibly stupid that is going to kill us.

Could you please point me to a map that shows me where these 200ft AGL power lines are? The only way I could believe that is if they were flying through a river valley or something - which is indeed a good way to hit power lines.

If this happened to me I would fully expect my FSDO to be all over my ass. They've essentially already told me that's how things will go down. Even if they can't hit you for that incident it doesn't mean they're not going to be watching you like a hawk. Helps that their office is just down the ramp.

High tension wires are 200ft AGL. They are all over sectionals in my part of the country. Lots of hydro power being directed to other states. I would expect a little more professionalism out of a CFI Jesse. I was simply asking for some sort of opinions and thoughts from the community. I wasn't expecting my story to be called BS or use of derogatory language towards others.

Everyone else thank you for the responses and info!

 

[jesse]

High tension wires are 200ft AGL. They are all over sectionals in my part of the country. Lots of hydro power being directed to other states. I would expect a little more professionalism out of a CFI Jesse. I was simply asking for some sort of opinions and thoughts from the community. I wasn't expecting my story to be called BS or use of derogatory language towards others.

Everyone else thank you for the responses and info!

Think about it. At the end of a day if an instructor in the right seat PIC or not is so unaware of the risk he's exposed to that he's playing with his cell phone as they run into powerlines. He should really be reevaluating his decision making.

Those are my thoughts. I'm not afraid to call stupid stupid.

 

[Gtbigair2006]

I agree one hundred percent, it was stupid. I would have my eyes locked outside at that altitude regardless, but my concern is whether or not the CFI should be held responsible for another pilots actions?

 

[jesse]

I agree one hundred percent, it was stupid. I would have my eyes locked outside at that altitude regardless, but my concern is whether or not the CFI should be held responsible for another pilots actions?

Unlikely we will be able to come up with a conclusion based on the little evidence provided. There are lots of details that could swing that either way. For example perhaps the last 10 flights had the instructors signature as dual but then suddenly this one didn't, etc. etc.

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree one hundred percent, it was stupid. I would have my eyes locked outside at that altitude regardless, but my concern is whether or not the CFI should be held responsible for another pilots actions?

Are you asking that regulatorily, civilly (i.e., in a suit for damages in civil court), or morally?

From an FAA regulatory perspective, per the doctrine discussed in the Corredor case linked above, it appears the CFI demonstrated that he was acting as PIC when he wrested control of the aircraft from the putative PIC (as suggested in the original post, and as opposed to the PIC asking him to fly it), and thus has responsibility for what happened, which does not appear to have been so sudden and surprising as to excuse him from strict liability under the exception to the Hamre doctrine discussed in the Strobel case, also linked above.

In a civil suit brought by a third party injured as a result (or even by the putative PIC), I can easily see a jury finding the CFI to have been negligent in doing nothing to prevent the accident which a "reasonable person" probably should have seen as a likely outcome of the putative PIC's actions without intervention by the CFI.

Morally?

But Jesse and I clearly agree that the CFI had to be pretty dumb to have let this happen, regardless of the moral or legal (either FAA or liability suit) issues.

BTW, I don't see anything in the original post scenario to make the fact that he was a CFI an issue for FAA action. I use the term "the CFI" only to describe the individual involved, not to suggest that his holding a CFI ticket is relevant to an FAA proceeding, since the scenario says this was not an instructional flight. Note that Corredor was not a CFI, but was still held accountable by the FAA for the violation because he acted as the PIC by taking control from the putative PIC.