Who's the PIC?

NineThreeKilo said:
Ahh, by left I meant my other left :goofy:

RIGHT SEAT is what I meant to type.
Click to expand...
The FAA does not automatically assume that a CFI occupying the right seat of an airplane is always giving instruction and this is the PIC. They investigate, gather evidence (including the statements of the individuals involved), and then makes a determination based on all the evidence, including the actions of the various individuals.

There is a case on record (can't find it quickly but I believe it made AOPA Pilot) in which an instructor was riding in the back seat of a warbird but did not know the owner/pilot in the front seat didn't have a medical. When the plane wrecked, the FAA went after the owner/pilot for no medical, but he said the CFI in the back was the PIC, not him. The CFI told the FAA he was unaware of the owner/pilot's lack of a medical, that he thought he was just being offered a ride in the warbird, and that the owner/pilot had said nothing about the CFI acting as PIC or giving training. After investigating, the FAA agreed with the CFI and hung the owner/pilot.

For a fuller discussion of this issue, see http://web.law.und.edu/lawreview/issues/web_assets/pdf/83/83-3/83NDLR817.pdf.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Got a citation to the case or a verifiable publication discussing it? I'd love to read it.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to find that case for years since reading about it a long time ago, but without success. However, if a jury can find non-pilot asleep in the right seat contributorily negligent (I'm sure you, as a lawyer, are familiar with Newberger v. Pokrass), and higher courts uphold that verdict, it's not even a stretch for a CFI in the same situation to also be found negligent by a jury of 12 folks off the street selected by the trial lawyers for their pliability.

That said, it's not something about which I worry much.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA does not automatically assume that a CFI occupying the right seat of an airplane is always giving instruction and this is the PIC. They investigate, gather evidence (including the statements of the individuals involved), and then makes a determination based on all the evidence, including the actions of the various individuals.
Click to expand...
For example, a CFI flying with me in the event of an accident will have a wealth of evidence that he was not providing instruction, or being the PIC.

I'm very careful about who is giving me "instruction"...mainly due to the rules surrounding the Alien Flight Student Program, and the fact that I cannot receive instruction for many things without going through a pain-in-the-backside approval process from TSA.

Much of this evidence is in writing and contemporaneous...and accessible as part of my e-mail history in the event of my untimely demise.

Now, if I happen to be flying with a CFI (I know quite a few and frequently share aircraft with them), and they decide to give me a tip or two, I'm always open to learning new things, particularly from pilots who have more experience and expertise than I. But we are clear up-front that they are not providing instruction.
 
Ron Levy said:
That said, it's not something about which I worry much.
Click to expand...

If you worried about every situation in which 12 people who were unable to talk their way out of jury duty could find that you were responsible for something, you'd lead a boring life, wrapped in bubble wrap, never emerging from you home.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've been trying to find that case for years since reading about it a long time ago, but without success. However, if a jury can find non-pilot asleep in the right seat contributorily negligent (I'm sure you, as a lawyer, are familiar with Newberger v. Pokrass), and higher courts uphold that verdict, it's not even a stretch for a CFI in the same situation to also be found negligent by a jury of 12 folks off the street selected by the trial lawyers for their pliability.

That said, it's not something about which I worry much.
Click to expand...
Me neither.

Yep, I'm familiar with Pokrass. I'd love to read the trial transcript on that one. Problem with appellate decisions is that they don't typically get into the specifics of what the testimony was. Nor do you have a clue what negotiations took place. Must have been a heck of a job by the defense lawyer and/or a surprisingly good set of facts for him to work with.

There are, btw, similar cases in the automobile context - passengers being held to be contributorily negligent. As I recall, there was one in Minnesota or Michigan during the days when a plaintiff's contributory negligence was a complete bar to an award. The state supreme court was so disgusted with that one, it decided not to wait for the legislature to make the change to comparative negligence, although it only applied the new rule prospectively.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
If you worried about every situation in which 12 people who were unable to talk their way out of jury duty
Click to expand...
Some of them don't even try and are actually honored to be part of a system that lets its citizens have a major impact on real life decisions. By far most of the juries I've been directly involved with have been intelligent, educated and quite knowledgeable. Biases and prejudices are, of course, there, as they would be with any other type of system.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Some of them don't even try and are actually honored to be part of a system that lets its citizens have a major impact on real life decisions. By far most of the juries I've been directly involved with have been intelligent, educated and quite knowledgeable. Biases and prejudices are, of course, there, as they would be with any other type of system.
Click to expand...

You're right...

That was a cheap-shot on my part.
 
en·dorse·ment
enˈdôrsməntSubmit
noun
1.
an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.
synonyms: support, backing, approval, seal of approval, agreement, recommendation, championship, patronage, affirmation, sanction;

So...when you fly with a CFI, for a required signature (endorsement), how is it that you think that the fact that you pay for the signature should have some kind of influence on what or how you get that endorsing signature?

You have to demonstrate to that individual CFI that you deserve the endorsement. Therefore, he must be PIC in order to direct you in such a way as to make that determination.

You may not like his technique, and that is cause for a change of instructors, but how can he be actually making an endorsing decision if he does not direct in some way which puts him in charge, and having responsibility, to some degree?
 
PilotAlan said:
Yup.
My usual instructor was on vacation so I took someone else for a BFR that snuck up on me.
We agreed that I was PIC for the flight. During landing I felt resistance in the pedals. I full stopped and asked him if he was pressing on the pedals. He said yes, he didn't think I was putting in enough rudder.

I told him in no uncertain terms he was not to touch the controls in any way, shape, or form unless I:
1) was incapacitated, or
2) agreed to turn over the controls

He said if he thought necessary, he might take the controls.
I said if that was his position, he could get out of the airplane.
He agreed not to touch anything, except as stipulated above.
Click to expand...

I would have got out and told you to have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
nosehair said:
You have to demonstrate to that individual CFI that you deserve the endorsement. Therefore, he must be PIC in order to direct you in such a way as to make that determination.
Click to expand...
So, how does a CFI without a current medical provide instruction?
You may not like his technique, and that is cause for a change of instructors, but how can he be actually making an endorsing decision if he does not direct in some way which puts him in charge, and having responsibility, to some degree?
Click to expand...
Evaluation does not require supervision or command. Neither does instruction, especially recurrent instruction for currently certified people.
One can evaluate the performance of another without being in charge of that person. Happens all the time in all kinds of arenas.
Again, how can a CFI without a medical provide instruction?
 
PilotAlan said:
Evaluation does not require supervision or command. Neither does instruction, especially recurrent instruction for currently certified people.
?
Click to expand...
Anytime an instructor is on board providing any endorsement action, medical or not, and he allows an accident in the opinion of the NTSB, he will be held accountable.
You do the math.
 
Last edited:
nosehair said:
Anytime an instructor is on board providing any endorsement action, medical or not, and he allows an accident in the opinion of the NTSB, he will be held accountable.
You do the math.
Click to expand...
The question is not about the FAA.
The statement was:
...how can he be actually making an endorsing decision if he does not direct in some way which puts him in charge[?]
Click to expand...
The quote implies that there can be no endorsement decision without supervision or command by the instructor.
My statement was that in many industries and areas of knowledge, evaluation (especially of currently certified persons) are routinely performed without a supervisory or command relationship between the evaluator and the candidate.

This is not about the FAA, it's about the fundamental idea that an evaluator must have command over the person being evaluated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top