St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

[rookiepilot]

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Is this still your position Pelmet?

[photofly]

There are many hidden treasures in the CARs if you know where to look:

421.62 Class 4 Supervision Requirement

The holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating shall be under the supervision of the holder of a Class 1 or 2 Flight Instructor Rating, in the applicable category, and shall submit for review to the supervising instructor the following:

(1) the training program for each student undergoing training by the holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating;

That means that the Class IV is supposed to get approval from their supervising instructor.

No it doesn't. Approving a training program does not mean you have to approve every single flight at exactly the time it happens. Unless that's what you told TC of course.

A traning plan can simply be "flight 1: practise exercise 1-5, flight 2 ex 3-7" etc. That does not mean that flight 1 or flight 2 need to be approved every time by the instructor.

That’s possibly true. But one hopes that a PPL training plan that says “flight 22: night IFR cross country through cold front, for student experience” is going to get rejected.

And if that flight wasn’t on the training plan then it shouldn’t have been done.



I’m also unsure what the problem with the vacuum pump was, or if there was one. It sounds like it may not have been installed correctly, but it’s very hard to tell from the NTSB report.

[B208]

There are many hidden treasures in the CARs if you know where to look:

421.62 Class 4 Supervision Requirement

The holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating shall be under the supervision of the holder of a Class 1 or 2 Flight Instructor Rating, in the applicable category, and shall submit for review to the supervising instructor the following:

(1) the training program for each student undergoing training by the holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating;

That means that the Class IV is supposed to get approval from their supervising instructor.

No it doesn't. Approving a training program does not mean you have to approve every single flight at exactly the time it happens. Unless that's what you told TC of course.

True, but it does mean that supervision is more than just the two supervisory flights. The spirit of the regulation is that the supervising instructor will mentor and monitor the class IV. The letter of the regulation is open for interpretation.

A traning plan can simply be "flight 1: practise exercise 1-5, flight 2 ex 3-7" etc. That does not mean that flight 1 or flight 2 need to be approved every time by the instructor.

That's what the FIG already does in the lesson plans section.

[digits_]

That’s possibly true. But one hopes that a PPL training plan that says “flight 22: night IFR cross country through cold front, for student experience” is going to get rejected.

And if that flight wasn’t on the training plan then it shouldn’t have been done.

That might not have been in there, but "international VFR flight" could have been. If the instructor then decides to do that international flight in IMC, then it is on him and not necessarily on the supervising instructor. It is the class 4 who is not following the training plan in this example, not the class 2.

Not saying that is what happened, it is just one way to explain how the class 2 might (mabye) not be at fault.

[photofly]

Legally he could rent a plane and fly IFR with cost sharing passengers, but distinguishing between a private or instructional flight gets murky when the plane belongs to his employer FTU and the passengers are his students. The court, after submissions from expensive lawyers, will come up with a solution that will likely not satisfy many in the pilot community.

While the report shows he flew into an area of rain according to ATC radar and ground witnesses, I don't see a conclusive finding he flew into cloud.

Two comments: he was sitting in the right seat, with his own student in the left (and another in the back) - it’s rather hard to argue this wasn’t an instructional flight. No doubt a significant issue will be who was paying for the flight, and what was the practice of similar trips south in respect of the logging dual time by students, and the logging of instructional time by the instructor.

I think if you are an instructor and you want to fly a non-instructional flight with someone who is a student of yours you should make every effort for it to not look like an instructional flight. Don't let the student/passenger make radio calls, don’t let them sit on the left, etc.

And secondly he filed IFR, and flew into weather. Again, hard to say it was VMC conditions at all times.

Remember, the standard of proof in civil litigation is only “more likely to be true than not”.

[rookiepilot]

That’s possibly true. But one hopes that a PPL training plan that says “flight 22: night IFR cross country through cold front, for student experience” is going to get rejected.

And if that flight wasn’t on the training plan then it shouldn’t have been done.

That might not have been in there, but "international VFR flight" could have been. If the instructor then decides to do that international flight in IMC, then it is on him and not necessarily on the supervising instructor. It is the class 4 who is not following the training plan in this example, not the class 2.

Not saying that is what happened, it is just one way to explain how the class 2 might (mabye) not be at fault.

He filed IFR. And many months out of night currency -- it's no ones responsibility to say something before he planned a flight at night with students?

[digits_]

That’s possibly true. But one hopes that a PPL training plan that says “flight 22: night IFR cross country through cold front, for student experience” is going to get rejected.

And if that flight wasn’t on the training plan then it shouldn’t have been done.

That might not have been in there, but "international VFR flight" could have been. If the instructor then decides to do that international flight in IMC, then it is on him and not necessarily on the supervising instructor. It is the class 4 who is not following the training plan in this example, not the class 2.

Not saying that is what happened, it is just one way to explain how the class 2 might (mabye) not be at fault.

He filed IFR. And many months out of night currency -- it's no ones responsibility to say something before he planned a flight at night with students?

If the supervisor knew, then yes he should have said something. But again, the PIC still decides if he takes off or not.

[photofly]

Why does the PIC decide whether to take off? Does he get to overrule an instruction not to fly, from his supervisor, because he’s PIC?

I think you might be imagining that someone is suggesting because nobody stopped the flight, the PIC is blameless. That’s not what anyone is saying. Of course he should not have flown when not meeting for instance the recency requirements for carriage of passengers, and it was his responsibility to know that. But it wasn’t *only* his responsibility.

[pelmet]

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Is this still your position Pelmet?

Resolved way back on page 2.....

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 5#p1059803

[rookiepilot]

He filed IFR. And many months out of night currency -- it's no ones responsibility to say something before he planned a flight at night with students?

If the supervisor knew, then yes he should have said something. But again, the PIC still decides if he takes off or not.
[/quote]

It's his job to know. Neither the supervising nor the club can play that card "we didn't know he wasn't night current".

This was a newly hired class 4. It's reasonable to assume the supervising would be expected to know currency of his class 4's. If he didn't, that doesn't look good for the clubs procedures.

[lownslow]

It’s been a while since I had to know this, but does an instructor even need to be night current? Logic says they should be, but some instructor rules defy logic.

[photofly]

Recency requirements are for the carriage of passengers. So no requirement if it’s a student with an instructor on an instructional flight. The accident flight had a second student in the back seat, who must have been a passenger at the time. So yes.

There’s a bit of catch 22 there. If anyone still insists this wasn’t an instructional flight, then there was no currency for carriage of passengers at night.

[rookiepilot]

Recency requirements are for the carriage of passengers. So no requirement if it’s a student with an instructor on an instructional flight. The accident flight had a second student in the back seat, who must have been a passenger at the time. So yes.

There’s a bit of catch 22 there. If anyone still insists this wasn’t an instructional flight, then there was no currency for carriage of passengers at night.

Back seat passenger. So both attributes apply.

That is totally bizarre one can be out of currency, then take up a student on an instructional flight. Wow.

[digits_]

Why does the PIC decide whether to take off? Does he get to overrule an instruction not to fly, from his supervisor, because he’s PIC?

He can't (legally). But he is in the US, and his supervisor is in Canada, there is nothing stopping him from getting in the plane and going. In this example, you can't blame the supervisor.
If the supervisor says go, then the PIC can legally say no if he has safety concerns or is unfit for duty.

Either way, the pilot decides if he goes flying.

To clarify: not saying either of those things happened on this accident flight.

I think you might be imagining that someone is suggesting because nobody stopped the flight, the PIC is blameless. That’s not what anyone is saying. Of course he should not have flown when not meeting for instance the recency requirements for carriage of passengers, and it was his responsibility to know that. But it wasn’t *only* his responsibility.

That is the impression I got yes. Or at least almost blameless. Glad to hear that is not the case.

It's his job to know. Neither the supervising nor the club can play that card "we didn't know he wasn't night current".

This was a newly hired class 4. It's reasonable to assume the supervising would be expected to know currency of his class 4's. If he didn't, that doesn't look good for the clubs procedures.

I assume you don't know exactly what happened either. My examples are above are merely indicating that a supervising class 2 is not necessarily responsible for every single flight of a class 4. He CAN be if that is what they agreed upon with TC, but purely based on the CARs, that is not guaranteed.

What if nobody mentioned that the flight was gonig to take place at night? I don't think every class 2 instructor tells every class 4 to not fly at night if they are doing day circuits and to not fly into imc when VFR?

For example: "hey, these students want to learn to cross the border. Can I take them on a trip to florida next week?"
- "Sure, here, read this document on border crossings, let me know if you have any questions. Obviously keep an eye out for the weater, and if possible try to make it back by the end of the month. If you run into any problems let me know"
"ok cool"

That satisfies all CARs, yet the supervisor does not exactly know at what time or what day this particular flight takes place. So can he be blamed if the class 4 takes off into IMC?

If the rumours are true that the supervisor put pressure on the class 4 to get back, then yes, he would be partially to blame. But if he didn't put any pressure, I fail to see how he can be held responsible.

[rookiepilot]

CARS to me seem like Tax regulations at times.

Interpretations wide enough to drive a truck through.

[Squaretail]

That satisfies all CARs, yet the supervisor does not exactly know at what time or what day this particular flight takes place. So can he be blamed if the class 4 takes off into IMC?

Technically it doesn't satisfy all the CARS since it puts the CFI derelict of 426.22 (5) (l)

(l) decisions with respect to flight safety during flying periods;

So arguably its the CFI's duty to know when every flight is taking place (the "flying periods") to make such decisions. The only time he could maybe not be blamed is if the class 4 acted against his specific instruction not to fly. In short, if the CFI doesn't hold the ability to override the decisions of his/her staff, or doesn't exercise that responsibility, he/she isn't doing their job.

[photofly]

For example: "hey, these students want to learn to cross the border. Can I take them on a trip to florida next week?"
- "Sure, here, read this document on border crossings, let me know if you have any questions. Obviously keep an eye out for the weater, and if possible try to make it back by the end of the month. If you run into any problems let me know"

That doesn’t meet 10% of the requirement for effective supervision or operational control, not least of all because as you say

yet the supervisor does not exactly know at what time or what day this particular flight takes place.

“Our planes are 1000nm away in a foreign country, couldn’t tell you if they’re in the air or on the ground right now” is NOT operational control.

Prudence would dictate that if the supervisor was remote, the instructor should have given the supervisor a thorough briefing for each and every leg of the proposed flight, particularly about the weather expected enroute. And the supervisor would have verified the accuracy of the briefing him or herself, with online sources or - heaven help us - a call to FSS.

Did I read the report correctly that not even the pilot called for a weather briefing?

[digits_]

That satisfies all CARs, yet the supervisor does not exactly know at what time or what day this particular flight takes place. So can he be blamed if the class 4 takes off into IMC?

Technically it doesn't satisfy all the CARS since it puts the CFI derelict of 426.22 (5) (l)

(l) decisions with respect to flight safety during flying periods;

So arguably its the CFI's duty to know when every flight is taking place (the "flying periods") to make such decisions. The only time he could maybe not be blamed is if the class 4 acted against his specific instruction not to fly. In short, if the CFI doesn't hold the ability to override the decisions of his/her staff, or doesn't exercise that responsibility, he/she isn't doing their job.

Looks like you are right. Thank you for the reference! That could put part of the blame on the CFI though, not on the supervising class 2, unless the CFI was also the supervising class 2.

[digits_]

“Our planes are 1000nm away in a foreign country, couldn’t tell you if they’re in the air or on the ground right now” is NOT operational control.

That's true, good point.

[photofly]

Looks like you are right. Thank you for the reference! That could put part of the blame on the CFI though, not on the supervising class 2, unless the CFI was also the supervising class 2.

and if the CFI appoints a supervisor who doesn’t supervise, whose duty to remedy that is it, and who is to blame when they don’t?

Look, the CFI could very well have appointed someone as his or her delegate, responsible to the CFI for flight safety of the trip, with on the spot responsibility for operational control. Maybe that happened, but if it did, the system broke down.

We don’t know what the division of supervision was on the trip; so we can’t lay it at any individuals door. But overall something went horribly wrong.