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

[B208]

An example of failing FAA oversight in this case however, would be appreciated.

The FAA oversees the manufacturer of the vacuum pump that failed. My guess would be the plaintiffs will pursue that avenue.

[B208]

Read, I hate quoting Cars but this is getting stupid.

(4) The Chief Flight Instructor of a flight training unit shall be responsible for operational control.

(5) A person who is appointed as Chief Flight Instructor for a flight training unit identified in subsection (1) shall be responsible for:

(a) the management of the overall pilot training program;
(amended 2006/12/14)

(b) the supervision of all flight and ground instructors of the flight training unit;
(amended 2006/12/14)

(c) the direct supervision of Class 4 flight instructors, including the designation of a Class 1 or Class 2 flight instructor to supervise a Class 4 flight instructor;

If I was a lawyer -- I'd be all over this CAR in going after the flight school.

Hang em' high.

I don't think the last section you triumphantly highlighted means what you think it does. The term direct supervision just means that students must receive a supervisory check flight once before solo and once before flight test.

421.62 Class 4 Supervision Requirement:
(2) flight progress checks for each student at intervals to be specified by the supervising flight instructor, but at least once before the first solo flight and once before the flight test for issue of the pilot licence;

You'd be better off being the hanging judge on subsection (4) operational control:

400.01 (1): operational control means the exercise of authority over the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of a flight in the interest of the safety of the aircraft and the regularity and efficiency of the flight;

So if this really was an instructional flight, and it seems that it was, the CFI should have looked at the circumstances and said no to the flight. Now git to hangin'

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.

[RatherBeFlying]

I suspected that the accident pilot was not IFR current as he hadn't done any recent approaches, but it seems he had recently passed an IFR proficiency test (for what that was worth - keeping in mind that you can get and maintain an IFR rating without ever being in a cloud, let alone at night).

However he was not night current.

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.

Kennedy flew into the ocean approaching Martha's Vinyard on a moonless night with some mist, albeit legal VFR. Over the Alleghanies with sparse habitation coupled with high cloud, mist and here rain, it can be difficult to find a horizon looking out the windshield - and easy to be misled by an illusionary horizon.

At night you may not know there's a cloud ahead until you notice there's no lights on the ground or visible stars. In the meantime you may have ended up in an unusual attitude.

While the NTSB report shows impact damage to the vacuum pump, it seems to have been operating before impact.

[MrWings]

I suspected that the accident pilot was not IFR current as he hadn't done any recent approaches, but it seems he had recently passed an IFR proficiency test (for what that was worth - keeping in mind that you can get and maintain an IFR rating without ever being in a cloud, let alone at night).

After an IPC is completed, you are current for 12 months afterward.

[digits_]

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.

[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.