Who's at fault here?

AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,479
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Display name:
Namaste
While we were waiting for a new alternator at UNI, we spotted a sad 172 in a corner of the hangar.

We spotted the curled propeller and couldn't help noticing the engine was being torn down. It took a turn around the plane to notice the crumpled spar and bent wing. So, we mentioned to the mechanic that it looked like someone pranged it on landing. Nope. He told us the damage was caused on takeoff. He had to explain that to us.

Seems a guy was on his very first solo. First landing of his first solo. He'd been doing touch-and-goes with his instructor up til then, and then he got signed off for this flight. Instructor watched him come in for a perfect landing and then push in the power for the go. He grabbed the hand-held and started yelling to stop-stop-stop because it was supposed to be a full-stop landing, not a touch and go.

Student pulled the power and hit the brakes as hard as he could. Plane veered into a ditch and the student exited with minor injuries.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080630X00951&key=1
 
Not a CFI and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
But I would say the FAA is going to talk to the CFI about how TnG's were taught and stop and go's.
So I would say probably the CFI would be "on the hook" more than the student will be.

Mark B
 
OMG!!! CFI I believe IS on the hook. He should have kept his fricking mouth shut.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
OMG!!! CFI I believe IS on the hook. He should have kept his fricking mouth shut.
Click to expand...
...or at least taught the student how to do a proper rejected takeoff. I'm guessing that if the FSDO finds out about this, that CFI will be up for a 709 ride.

And, BTW, how many of you instructors give their students a few RTO's, and how many of the rest of you have been given that maneuver in training?
 
Ron Levy said:
...or at least taught the student how to do a proper rejected takeoff. I'm guessing that if the FSDO finds out about this, that CFI will be up for a 709 ride.

And, BTW, how many of you instructors give their students a few RTO's, and how many of the rest of you have been given that maneuver in training?
Click to expand...


Better yet, how many CFIs are teaching in aircraft with a nose wheel shimmy.
 
NC19143 said:
Better yet, how many CFIs are teaching in aircraft with a nose wheel shimmy.
Click to expand...

Assuming that it really was nose wheel shimmy and not a bad brake rotor on one side that made it feel like "shimmy" and also contributed to unequal braking on both sides which helped encourage the aircraft to not remain on the runway once the student started to really lean on the brakes.

But, to be clear, I ain't no A&P, NTSB accident expert, or nothing like that.
 
Ron Levy said:
And, BTW, how many of you instructors give their students a few RTO's, and how many of the rest of you have been given that maneuver in training?
Click to expand...

The CFI for my private started playing with the mixture during a takeoff roll to make sure I pulled the throttle immediately after hearing the engine make funny noises.
 
I'm not sure how nosewheel shimmy would result in loss of directional control, and we have only the student's statement to say that shimmy occurred, but proper RTO procedure would have avoided both shimmy and loss of directional control, whether they were related or not. Anyone else wondering how much runway remained in front of the plane when it stopped?
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not sure how nosewheel shimmy would result in loss of directional control, and we have only the student's statement to say that shimmy occurred, but proper RTO procedure would have avoided both shimmy and loss of directional control, whether they were related or not. Anyone else wondering how much runway remained in front of the plane when it stopped?
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't see anything in the NTSB report about the CFI telling him to stop?
 
All in all I would say it is the students fault because he is PIC at the time but, like it was said before the CFI should have kept his fricking mouth shut (if he said anything at all).

Ron, yes RTOs were part of my training.
 
Last edited:
I do teach rejected takeoffs and I also teach simulated low power or high DA takeoffs.

But, I also teach to use minimum braking. Unless the end of the runway is right on top of ya, use aerodynamic braking. That alone at full-idle will do a lot. I guide students to use aerodynamic braking and slowly transition to toe brakes. And, at no point should the wheels lock or even stop turning. I'm amazed at how many students (certificated pilots as well) I see spinning the plane on one tire. Just a few times on the same spot... the result will be noticed on one of the hard landings you make.
 
rmciottijr said:
All in all I would say it is the students fault because he is PIC at the time but, like it was said before the CFI should have kept his fricking mouth shut (if he said anything at all).
Click to expand...
Responsibility, unlike authority, cannot be delegated. CFI's are responsible for what they teach, as well as what they fail to teach, their students. Thus, responsibility for what happened in this case is shared if the CFI didn't adequately prepare the trainee for an RTO in this circumstance. But personally, if the CFI really did give a panicky-sounding "stop-stop-stop" call on CTAF, and there was no immediate peril to continuing the takeoff, that CFI is a dummy. RTO's are one of the most dangerous maneuvers in flying, and should not be initiated unless the situation is critical.
Ron, yes RTOs were part of my training.
Click to expand...
:)
 
A couple of things seem to be missing like the age of the student, hours flown. Both are factors since with age comes wisdom (and freedom of thought) and with hours, comes confidence and ability. The CFI should have just let the student continue along.
Once the student was on downwind, remind him to stop this time around. On the other hand, if the CFI was new, it might just have been his inability to handle the situation.
All the CFIs fault. He didn't properly instruct the student. He shouldnt have done T&Gs before the solo. He reacted poorly to the students actions. He needs to learn better control.
 
To answer Ron's question, I was taught ROTs. But it didn't start until after I decided to make a go around on a botched approach. I called a go around, my CFI said he was extremely happy to hear me say that. I was so pleased with myself because at the time we hadn't even discussed what to do in that case.

Thereafter many of our flights would result in the CFI unexpectingly call to go around or otherwise abort the landing. Perhaps we both learned something that day.
 
Richard said:
To answer Ron's question, I was taught ROTs. But it didn't start until after I decided to make a go around on a botched approach. I called a go around, my CFI said he was extremely happy to hear me say that. I was so pleased with myself because at the time we hadn't even discussed what to do in that case.

Thereafter many of our flights would result in the CFI unexpectingly call to go around or otherwise abort the landing. Perhaps we both learned something that day.
Click to expand...
But I thought the discussion was rejected Takeoffs, not go-arounds. We covered go-arounds, but I don't recall ever actually practicing a RTO. For that matter, I don't recall ever having done one!:hairraise: I need a biennial pretty soon. Maybe I'll add that to the list to cover!
 
silver-eagle said:
A couple of things seem to be missing like the age of the student, hours flown. Both are factors since with age comes wisdom (and freedom of thought) and with hours, comes confidence and ability. The CFI should have just let the student continue along.
Once the student was on downwind, remind him to stop this time around. On the other hand, if the CFI was new, it might just have been his inability to handle the situation.
All the CFIs fault. He didn't properly instruct the student. He shouldnt have done T&Gs before the solo. He reacted poorly to the students actions. He needs to learn better control.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the student, regardless of age or flight experience, let someone else abscond his PIC responsibilities.

Never let anyone at any time do anything to jeopardize the safety of your flight. Be that person your pax, ATC, a DE, or your CFI on a handheld.

It seems the PIC gave it up to the CFI. The student may be questioned but the CFI will feel the heat...rightfully.
 
am i the only CFI that believes that solo flight is solo flight?? After I sign off my students I leave the airplane and dont look back. its all up to them at that point.
 
gprellwitz said:
But I thought the discussion was rejected Takeoffs, not go-arounds. We covered go-arounds, but I don't recall ever actually practicing a RTO. For that matter, I don't recall ever having done one!:hairraise:
Click to expand...

I don't remember practicing them, but I got to do one for real while working on my Private. Tire went flat on a touch and go. I felt it starting to drag, pulled the power. CFI asked what was up, I told him to look out his window.

If it weren't for that dang tire, I would have soloed that day. As it was, I had to wait two more weeks until I was home again. :(
 
tonycondon said:
am i the only CFI that believes that solo flight is solo flight?? After I sign off my students I leave the airplane and dont look back. its all up to them at that point.
Click to expand...
Well, a lot of CFIs monitor the flight. But they should only get on the radio in case of significant problem or to offer words of encouragement if needed. Of course, I know of one solo flight involving a deaf student near Chicago. He was going into DuPage, got turned around somehow, and wound up busting both Midway and O'are's airspace. (He saw one of those airports beneath him, realized that he wasn't where he was supposed to be, and promptly flew into the other airport's airspace.) ATC was scrambling, trying to contact his CFI to discuss the situation, but the CFI was away from the airport; shopping, IIRC. The situation was certainly exceptional, and luckily it ended without any serious incident, but illustrates why a CFI might want to remain available during a student's first solo and maybe his/her XCs, too.
 
tonycondon said:
am i the only CFI that believes that solo flight is solo flight?? After I sign off my students I leave the airplane and dont look back. its all up to them at that point.
Click to expand...
I hear what you're saying there but for the first few times up, I think taxi-backs are a good idea. It gives the student a chance to relax after what may be the most tense moment short of their checkride.

After they've demonstrated good control without someone at their side, I may let them do touch-n-goes. But, many schools do not allow TnG's for solo students. I'll play it on a case by case basis.
 
gprellwitz said:
Well, a lot of CFIs monitor the flight. But they should only get on the radio in case of significant problem or to offer words of encouragement if needed. Of course, I know of one solo flight involving a deaf student near Chicago. He was going into DuPage, got turned around somehow, and wound up busting both Midway and O'are's airspace. (He saw one of those airports beneath him, realized that he wasn't where he was supposed to be, and promptly flew into the other airport's airspace.) ATC was scrambling, trying to contact his CFI to discuss the situation, but the CFI was away from the airport; shopping, IIRC. The situation was certainly exceptional, and luckily it ended without any serious incident, but illustrates why a CFI might want to remain available during a student's first solo and maybe his/her XCs, too.
Click to expand...
Many schools require the CFI to be available at the school or by phone in short range from the airport or arrange with another CFI to stand in for them. The whole idea is just in case there becomes a need to go "rescue" the student from a situation.

We have a similar policy.
 
This hits kind of close to home. When I learned in a Citabria, on my first solo I was told to go do three stop and goes. Nervous of course, but I did the first two pretty well. The third one I relaxed, and of course, bounced it a bit. Add some throttle, smooth it out, but bounced a second time. Natch - training kicked in and I added throttle to go around. Once I had climb, I called the tower and said 'Citabria 12345, going around'. The CFI was in the tower(long ago, I know) and while he could have got on and ranted all the tower said was 'Citabria 12345, report downwind'. That, more than anything gave me a giant boost of confidence that I was doing it right, despite the instructions from the CFI.

CFI shares some of the responsibility, but the nut behind the yoke made the decision to try stopping. I can honestly say, if the CFI had been yelling 'stop, stop, stop' in the radio, I would have been tempted to try an RTO, but prolly just gone with my first instinct. I say the PILOT was principally at fault for this.
 
Not a CFI (yet), but I'd attribute a large part of the accident to the instructor's reaction.

I flew with a friend of mine over a year ago. He's a private pilot, but hasn't flown in quite a few years. He sat left seat and his landings were improving quite a lot. On our last landing, however, he got scared by something. He touched down and hit the brakes as hard as he could. A little punch in the side stopped that.

If someone yells at you, and you have no experience, it's really easy to panic and just stop the plane however you can. Never yell at people.

-Felix
 
Ron Levy said:
And, BTW, how many of you instructors give their students a few RTO's, and how many of the rest of you have been given that maneuver in training?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. all my primaries do high speed taxis and get the throttle pulled right after the wheels lift off a few times. We also go over the reasons for aborting (engine failure or roughness, engine fire, runway incursion, abnormal rudder input).

silver-eagle said:
All the CFIs fault. He didn't properly instruct the student. He shouldnt have done T&Gs before the solo. He reacted poorly to the students actions. He needs to learn better control.
Click to expand...
I don't see a problem with T&G before solo, as long as it's clear that they are not done in solo until approved by the CFI. I do agree with everything else you said.
tonycondon said:
am i the only CFI that believes that solo flight is solo flight?? After I sign off my students I leave the airplane and dont look back. its all up to them at that point.
Click to expand...
I haven't got there yet. I still observe the supervised solos with a handheld. I have not had to use it but the plan is to stop the solo after a shaky landing.

sba55 said:
If someone yells at you, and you have no experience, it's really easy to panic and just stop the plane however you can. Never yell at people.
Click to expand...
While I try to never say never, I agree with you.

Joe
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty clear, even to a non-instructor, who made the more harmful mistake here... as long as the student was executing the unauthorized t&g safely, the instructor only had to advise him, calmly, once he got set on downwind that the next should be a full-stop. Alarming a first-solo student like that is obviously going to cause a problem. :eek:
 
Richard said:
On the other hand, the student, regardless of age or flight experience, let someone else abscond his PIC responsibilities.

Never let anyone at any time do anything to jeopardize the safety of your flight. Be that person your pax, ATC, a DE, or your CFI on a handheld.

It seems the PIC gave it up to the CFI. The student may be questioned but the CFI will feel the heat...rightfully.
Click to expand...
Let us not forget that this particular student had a lifetime experience of approximately 10 minutes as PIC and several hours under the direction of his/her CFI.
 
The mechanic who told us the story believed the CFI was at fault. I don't know how old the student pilot was, but since it was at the university, I'd guess about 18 or 19. According to the mechanic, the student is still flying. Didn't say whether the CFI is still teaching.

I also noticed the NTSB report doesn't mention the CFI. They cite the student only for the accident. hmmm.

Thanks for the great discussion. I always learn a lot from this board.

I don't believe I've EVER been taught how to handle a rejected takeoff. Not even by the instructor that had to take control and stop the plane during a lesson with Hubby after a deer wandered onto the runway as they were taking off.

My CFI also let me solo on my first solo. He could not see the runway from where he was. But he also allowed touch-and-gos for that first solo.
 
At least once every 10 takeoffs or so deer, turkey, or coyotes (MGW) show up somewhere on the runway.

Though Wednesday during flight number two with a new student pilot we were on short final when the T-craft driver thought it would be "cute" to nose out and keep rolling pass the hold line.

I told the student, "I have the power -- just maintain this rate of descent and I'll take over when we're close. If this guy pulls out on the runway we'll do a go around."

He saw we were committed to landing and so held his position. I learned later that this part of this guy's schtick. Ha Ha.

I'm actually looking forward to more wind and weather -- these guys only fly CAVU and the idiots are fewer when winds are >5.
 
This belongs under "I learned about flying when...". There are many things that are taught doing any kind of instruction that seem just matter of fact. It is how it is done and there is no room for drift. Newbies tend to focus on the last example. Nervous, excited, anxious, brain lock. The last thing they did is the next thing they will do (why else practice landings before signing the student off???). Practicing touch and goes then turning the student loose gets you exactly that. It doesn't matter what you tell them; they'll do the last thing they did.
Maybe you've never seen this behavior but I have, and almost weekly. As a large mainframe computer programmer, I find people constantly blaming the last change on the next problem, even if they are totally unrelated.
All I suggest is the newbie does not have enough experience to "wing it". A more appropriate action would be to let it happen and discuss the situation at another time.
 
AuntPeggy said:
The mechanic who told us the story believed the CFI was at fault. I don't know how old the student pilot was, but since it was at the university, I'd guess about 18 or 19. According to the mechanic, the student is still flying. Didn't say whether the CFI is still teaching.

I also noticed the NTSB report doesn't mention the CFI. They cite the student only for the accident. hmmm.
Click to expand...

That was my question earlier. Do you beleive the Mechanic who beleives the CFI is at fault or the NTSB report which states

NTSB Report said:
After touchdown, he inadvertently added power to do a touch and go rather than a full stop landing. Upon realizing that he was to make a full stop landing, he reduced power and applied the brakes.
Click to expand...

The difference in the stories seems significant to me.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Do you beleive the Mechanic who beleives the CFI is at fault or the NTSB report
Click to expand...
Since the student is PIC, the NTSB isn't gonna look any farther. I'm just surprised they didn't even mention the CFI, though. Maybe nobody told them.
 
silver-eagle said:
This belongs under "I learned about flying when...". There are many things that are taught doing any kind of instruction that seem just matter of fact. It is how it is done and there is no room for drift. Newbies tend to focus on the last example. Nervous, excited, anxious, brain lock. The last thing they did is the next thing they will do (why else practice landings before signing the student off???). Practicing touch and goes then turning the student loose gets you exactly that. It doesn't matter what you tell them; they'll do the last thing they did.
Maybe you've never seen this behavior but I have, and almost weekly. As a large mainframe computer programmer, I find people constantly blaming the last change on the next problem, even if they are totally unrelated.
All I suggest is the newbie does not have enough experience to "wing it". A more appropriate action would be to let it happen and discuss the situation at another time.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I keep the handheld on to listen to pattern calls and to be available if the student totally freaks out and needs some calming down, but during first solo teaching time is over -- now it's time to observe, record, and discuss later.

I saw this so many times coaching Basketball and baseball -- some kid is up to bat with 2 strikes and the coach is yelling batting tips from the third base line...
 
KennyFlys said:
Many schools require the CFI to be available at the school or by phone in short range from the airport or arrange with another CFI to stand in for them.
Click to expand...
Part 141 schools are required to have an instructor on the airport whenever a 141 student is sent up solo.
 
dmccormack said:
... with full flaps, 50' AGL, and no warning.
Click to expand...
First, what are you doing at 50 feet on takeoff with full flaps? Second, it would be a very dangerous thing to do a rejected takeoff at that point (flaps or no flaps) without a mile or so of runway remaining in front of you. In fact, that's not really an RTO -- you've already taken off!
 
While the NTSB will not cite the CFI (since the CFI wasn't part of the crew), I'll bet the FSDO has a talk with him about instructor responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top