Is this normal, or kind of a jerk move?

[poadeleted20]

I can't recall exactly, but isn't that sufficient (the pre-solo knowledge and pre-solo flight), along with an endorsed medical? My recollection was that the 90 day logbook spaces were for additional 90 day periods, but I'm not a CFI either.

The training for the 61.87(c) endorsement need not be in the same make and model, so that endorsement is not make/model-specific. OTOH, the training for the 61.87(n) endorsement must be in that make/model, and the endorsement is make/model specific. So, the 61.87(c) endorsement is necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[poadeleted20]

You should have left it unmentioned because it is completely and totally untrue. Insurance laws don't allow for that.

Yes, they do. I guarantee that if there had been an accident, and the FBO's insurer discovered the accident pilot did not have the necessary endorsements, the FBO's insurer would deny coverage and that would stand up in any court in the land. If you read those FBO policies, the FBO is obligated under the contract to ensure renter qualifications before releasing the aircraft to the renter for use. That makes it a breach of contract, thus voiding the contract.

As for the renter's own insurance, I'm pretty sure it includes similar language regarding qualifications to fly the rented aircraft -- again, a "breach of contract" issue easily enforced.

 

[Henning]

Not unless he also scratched out the log entries for all that flight and ground training, and the OP didn't say anything suggesting that.

True, but the signatures are no longer validated to count for training. IOW the hours count but the tasks don't. It's marginal and most likely will be viewed by the FAA as an idiot instructor, but technically when he voids a compendium it voids the articles to that compendium.

 

[steingar]

Yes, they do. I guarantee that if there had been an accident, and the FBO's insurer discovered the accident pilot did not have the necessary endorsements, the FBO's insurer would deny coverage and that would stand up in any court in the land. If you read those FBO policies, the FBO is obligated under the contract to ensure renter qualifications before releasing the aircraft to the renter for use. That makes it a breach of contract, thus voiding the contract.

As for the renter's own insurance, I'm pretty sure it includes similar language regarding qualifications to fly the rented aircraft -- again, a "breach of contract" issue easily enforced.

I keep seeing these "the insurance company won't pay" posts, and I wonder if an insurance company has ever denied coverage for something like this. I tend to think not, the community is small, and they have more to loose by denying coverage than they have to gain. But my knowledge of insurance and the issues surrounding it is limited at best.

 

[Henning]

Yes, they do. I guarantee that if there had been an accident, and the FBO's insurer discovered the accident pilot did not have the necessary endorsements, the FBO's insurer would deny coverage and that would stand up in any court in the land. If you read those FBO policies, the FBO is obligated under the contract to ensure renter qualifications before releasing the aircraft to the renter for use. That makes it a breach of contract, thus voiding the contract.

As for the renter's own insurance, I'm pretty sure it includes similar language regarding qualifications to fly the rented aircraft -- again, a "breach of contract" issue easily enforced.

That's part true since the FBO is the insured, not the OP, however to say the claim would be denied because of the acts of his employee is incorrect, that is one of the things he insures against. If you crash a rental plane, you never get denied a claim from the FBO's insurance because you aren't the insured party, the FBO is.

The insurance has the option to subrogate the claim against the OP which means in order to get back the money they have to sue him.

If he has renters insurance, they will subro it back to the FBO because they allowed him to take up a plane lacking qualifications. With that log book like that, if the FBO handed him keys to solo, they hold all the liability.

 

[poadeleted20]

True, but the signatures are no longer validated to count for training.

The training is validated by the signatures for each flight and ground training session. Scratching out the endorsements has no effect on that.

IOW the hours count but the tasks don't.

Again, not unless the instructor also scratched out the log entries for that training in which the tasks covered in those sessions were listed.

Of course, this assumes the training was properly logged as required by 61.51 -- which, given the other errors this instructor made, might not be a real good assumption. But if all the tasks required by 61.87 weren't logged in the individual training session entries, then the endorsement was always invalid, since the instructor would have been certifying that the trainee had received training which was never recorded as having been given -- and that would be a serious violation.

It's marginal and most likely will be viewed by the FAA as an idiot instructor, but technically when he voids a compendium it voids the articles to that compendium.

Ummm.......no. All he voided were the endorsements, and that doesn't affect the entries for training elsewhere in the logbook.

 

[poadeleted20]

I keep seeing these "the insurance company won't pay" posts, and I wonder if an insurance company has ever denied coverage for something like this.

The law books are full of cases where coverage was denied for lack of qualification, usually involving lack of a currently valid flight review endorsement.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's part true since the FBO is the insured, not the OP, however to say the claim would be denied because of the acts of his employee is incorrect, that is one of the things he insures against.

Employers are indeed responsible for failure of their employees to act as required by their insurance. The employees are acting as agents for their employer in this situation, so if they fail to ensure the qualifications of the renters, the employer is responsible for that failure which is a breach of the insurance contract. That's why employers fire employees who fail to perform such duties properly. Do you think Hertz's insurers will pay off if a Hertz employee lets an unlicensed driver rent a Hertz car?

 

[vintage cessna]

That's part true since the FBO is the insured, not the OP, however to say the claim would be denied because of the acts of his employee is incorrect, that is one of the things he insures against. If you crash a rental plane, you never get denied a claim from the FBO's insurance because you aren't the insured party, the FBO is.

The insurance has the option to subrogate the claim against the OP which means in order to get back the money they have to sue him.

If he has renters insurance, they will subro it back to the FBO because they allowed him to take up a plane lacking qualifications. With that log book like that, if the FBO handed him keys to solo, they hold all the liability.

You've got this backwards. It is fairly rare for an insurance company to subtogate against a renter. In fact many FBO's policies state that the insurance company won't surbrogate.

However, the policy states that only qualified pilots vetted by the FBO will fly the airplanes. If a pilots' BFR or medical is expired and he damages the aircraft, the insurance will not pay the FBO. There is no subrogation since the claim is not paid. The FBO will have to sue the renter.

 

[Henning]

The training is validated by the signatures for each flight and ground training session. Scratching out the endorsements has no effect on that.

Again, not unless the instructor also scratched out the log entries for that training in which the tasks covered in those sessions were listed.

Ummm.......no. All he voided were the endorsements, and that doesn't affect the entries for training elsewhere in the logbook.

Correct, and what is being endorsed are all those signatures are valid and factors completed, they are points in a process that represent the parts there of. When you 'VOID' a testimonial, you void all the parts of that testimonial. With no further evidence to the contrary with the training requirements being voided on the endorsement, the supposition would be that the entries had been tampered with.

Granted, the evidence is still there and this is a kludge f- of a mess, however, when he writes VOID on the endorsement that is testimonial to all the other signatures, the standard would have it void all the signatures involved. What f-ing idiot....

 

[DaleB]

Well, the matter is settled as far as I am concerned. I spoke with the owner this afternoon. As soon as I mentioned voiding an endorsement he immediately replied, "What? He can't do that!" I knew it was going to be OK. Anyway, as I suspected, this was a misunderstanding on the part of a brand new CFI on what could and should be done with a solo endorsement after he's no longer training a student. One of his instructors advised voiding his 90-day solo endorsement. Anyway, between the owner, the chief pilot (who is also a DPE) and the instructor, they have that straightened out so it won't happen again. The instructor printed labels to reproduce the original endorsements, and made a notation that they were placed in the logbook due to the original endorsements being mistakenly voided. The medical cert has a PA-28 solo endorsement on it again. So we're good (though I am quite certain some here will disagree). The mistake has been corrected, remedial training applied. I'll probably follow up with a question to the FSDO at some point to make sure they are OK with it.

 

[Henning]

I'll probably follow up with a question to the FSDO at some point to make sure they are OK with it.

Likely they will be, but I'd get that on the record and clarified before the time comes where they ask for your log and ask you to clarify it if you catch my drift. It's always easier to clear up a screw up before you're in trouble.

 

[gprellwitz]

Glad it worked out for you! But, as Henning indicated, get something in writing now from the FSDO so there will never be a question in the future.

 

[Henning]

Glad it worked out for you! But, as Henning indicated, get something in writing now from the FSDO so there will never be a question in the future.

I give no better than 50/50 that they allow the sticker solution. You would think they would, but it's iffy as the rules go.

 

[PPC1052]

Glad it worked out. That could have been a mess.

As to the insurance laws, I would caution anyone giving or relying on legal opinions to tread carefully where the person a) does not have a complete copy of the insurance policy, and b) is not familiar with the laws in the specific state where the controversy arises. I see a lot of blanket assertions that may or may not be true. I hesitate to say that people don't know what they are talking about, particularly where many issues are correctly spotted and identified. But there is too much certainty expressed, and in some cases, probably incorrect conclusions. Insurance laws vary from state to state.

 

[bobmrg]

He signed your student certificate/medical for solo in type (make/model) aircraft. You were 1/2 good, he failed to make the proper logbook endorsement. He failed and the Chief CFI of the operation needs to correct him. Any CFI worth his salt should have his own personal copy of AC91-65E that has all the endorsements. Most FBO / Flight clubs want copies of those endorsements in your training folder.

Another concern not mentioned, if you had an incident that damaged the aircraft, the insurance company would be justified in denying the claim.

You do mean 61.65E, right?

Bob Gardner

 

[Palmpilot]

I hesitate to say that people don't know what they are talking about, particularly where many issues are correctly spotted and identified. But there is too much certainty expressed...

I agree. One thing I have noticed is that lawyers are less likely than non-lawyers to make their opinions on legal questions sound like certainties. I think there's a lesson in that...

 

[Captain]

Ah, but there's the rub. Pilots know everything about everything. Don't believe me? Ask me anything...

 

[DaleB]

Ah, but there's the rub. Pilots know everything about everything. Don't believe me? Ask me anything...

Man, how true is THAT? Not a jab at you, Cappy, but it's a common enough phenomenon around here. I don' t know how all these people got to be almost as smart as me.

Bwa-hahaha.

 

[Henning]

You tend to learn more when your life depends on it or you self cull from the community.

 

[N801BH]

You tend to learn more when your life depends on it or you self cull from the community.

....

That is called "Darwinism"...

 

[Henning]

....

That is called "Darwinism"...

When they start handing you fast toys when you're 12 and betting on you racing while drinking beer and making you go faster yet, you learn to look out for yourself because these guys would bet on anything. They loved me, I weighed 60lbs and only knew two throttle settings, full and off.

 

[poadeleted20]

Correct, and what is being endorsed are all those signatures are valid and factors completed, they are points in a process that represent the parts there of. When you 'VOID' a testimonial, you void all the parts of that testimonial. With no further evidence to the contrary with the training requirements being voided on the endorsement, the supposition would be that the entries had been tampered with.

Granted, the evidence is still there and this is a kludge f- of a mess, however, when he writes VOID on the endorsement that is testimonial to all the other signatures, the standard would have it void all the signatures involved. What f-ing idiot....

Henning is so far out in left field he's going to need his ticket validated to get back in the ballpark. Totally bogus stuff without foundation in the regulations or case law.

 

[Everskyward]

I agree. One thing I have noticed is that lawyers are less likely than non-lawyers to make their opinions on legal questions sound like certainties. I think there's a lesson in that...

No kidding!

 

[FlyingDeacon]

If there was any doubt in your mind you had made the right decision before this incident, I'm sure this helped to clear it up.

Q - could the scribble throughs potentially cause problems if let's say he's ramp checked in the future?

 

[DaleB]

If there was any doubt in your mind you had made the right decision before this incident, I'm sure this helped to clear it up.

Yup. And not becuase the kid's a jerk; her's really not. He's a complete newbie CFI who got some really horrible advice from someone who should bloody well have known better. Having zero prior experience with endorsements -- literally -- he took that advice. Now he knows better.

Q - could the scribble throughs potentially cause problems if let's say he's ramp checked in the future?

That's what I'm going to ask the FSDO when I get some time to call them.