Student Pilot crashes into flight school

And !surprise! it wasn't terrorism nor did it cause a building to fall down in utter destruction! :rolleyes:
 
I wonder what "the consequences" will be.

I suspect he and perhaps his family are liable for the damages what around $50K for the plane and building, plus probably something for loss of use.

I suspect the FAA will revoke his student pilot certificate and make it difficult if not impossible to get another.

What do you think?
 
Areeda said:
I wonder what "the consequences" will be.

I suspect he and perhaps his family are liable for the damages what around $50K for the plane and building, plus probably something for loss of use.

I suspect the FAA will revoke his student pilot certificate and make it difficult if not impossible to get another.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Just as a data point - one aircraft that I looked at was bought in year X by person A. In about year X+2 it shows up in the NTSB data base after an accident involving a "non-certificated" pilot. Person A shows up in the FAA data base as having recieved a PP cert. in about year X+3.

So, having a wreck without the proper paperwork does not appear to automaticly be the end of things...
 
He'll probably come to his senses and quit flying after he realizes boats are better for picking up chicks:D
 
So that's why students can't fly pax... it makes the plane go off the runway and towards the nearest building! :rolleyes2: :D
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Just as a data point - one aircraft that I looked at was bought in year X by person A. In about year X+2 it shows up in the NTSB data base after an accident involving a "non-certificated" pilot. Person A shows up in the FAA data base as having recieved a PP cert. in about year X+3.

So, having a wreck without the proper paperwork does not appear to automaticly be the end of things...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but having an accident is one thing. Illegally carrying a passenger is another thing altogether.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Yeah, but having an accident is one thing. Illegally carrying a passenger is another thing altogether.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Oh, c'mon. No one caught that? And this year being the 30th Anniversary of Airplane?

I am disappointed.

-Rich
 
mikea said:
More for his CFI if he was in any way in compliance with his solo endorsements, which I doubt.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't want to be his CFI, even if he were being a dumba$$ without permission. I have a feeling that level of stupidity is going to harm the instructor and the school for some strange reason...

I can imagine the instructor:

First: :hairraise:

Second: :incazzato:

I also wouldn't want to be the person to put a CFI (or school) in that situation. I'm going to guess no one has serious medical bills, since he was the only one going to hospital. Still, going off the reservation (carrying a passenger as a student!!????!!!) means even if he has his own "renter" insurance it won't cover it, and the school's insurance sure as hell won't cover the plane.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Just as a data point - one aircraft that I looked at was bought in year X by person A. In about year X+2 it shows up in the NTSB data base after an accident involving a "non-certificated" pilot. Person A shows up in the FAA data base as having recieved a PP cert. in about year X+3.

So, having a wreck without the proper paperwork does not appear to automaticly be the end of things...
Click to expand...

But was the pilot carrying a passenger?
 
JesseD said:
I really wouldn't want to be his CFI, even if he were being a dumba$$ without permission. I have a feeling that level of stupidity is going to harm the instructor and the school for some strange reason...

I can imagine the instructor:

First: :hairraise:

Second: :incazzato:

I also wouldn't want to be the person to put a CFI (or school) in that situation. I'm going to guess no one has serious medical bills, since he was the only one going to hospital. Still, going off the reservation (carrying a passenger as a student!!????!!!) means even if he has his own "renter" insurance it won't cover it, and the school's insurance sure as hell won't cover the plane.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that? Can you show causality? Did he come out of the plane with his Johnston sticking out with lipstick on it?
 
Henning said:
JesseD said:
I really wouldn't want to be his CFI, even if he were being a dumba$$ without permission. I have a feeling that level of stupidity is going to harm the instructor and the school for some strange reason...

I can imagine the instructor:

First: :hairraise:

Second: :incazzato:

I also wouldn't want to be the person to put a CFI (or school) in that situation. I'm going to guess no one has serious medical bills, since he was the only one going to hospital. Still, going off the reservation (carrying a passenger as a student!!????!!!) means even if he has his own "renter" insurance it won't cover it, and the school's insurance sure as hell won't cover the plane.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? Can you show causality? Did he come out of the plane with his Johnston sticking out with lipstick on it?
Click to expand...

My policy specifically excludes any flight by a student pilot with a non-CFI passenger.
 
shenanigans said:
My policy specifically excludes any flight by a student pilot with a non-CFI passenger.
Click to expand...

That lets them off the hook with regards to the liability on the passenger, but not necessarily the aircraft, some states maybe, most states they have to show causality. That may not be too difficult, but it's not a slam dunk.
 
Henning said:
That lets them off the hook with regards to the liability on the passenger, but not necessarily the aircraft, some states maybe, most states they have to show causality. That may not be too difficult, but it's not a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

That's weird. The way the exclusion's written, it seems to apply to the entire insurance. What's the point of a state allowing the exclusion for passenger liability but requiring proof of causality for it to apply to the aircraft part?
 
shenanigans said:
That's weird. The way the exclusion's written, it seems to apply to the entire insurance. What's the point of a state allowing the exclusion for passenger liability but requiring proof of causality for it to apply to the aircraft part?
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily let them off the hook for anything really, exclusions have been overcome in court and have cost insurance companies big money in punis awarded by juries. Not saying it would hold in this case, but just that you can't take anything as a given.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top