St. Catharines Flying Club or Brampton Flight Center

[C.W.E.]

When I owned a flying school I would never have allowed a class four at that low hour rate to fly that trip period even it the weather was perfect....

....because in that area perfect weather can become bad weather in short order and flying at night in single engine airplanes is risky enough close to home never mind in that area of the country, it is not called thunderstorm alley for nothing.

[pdw]

That's captured right at that accident's time. Previous hits at 4-5min intervals did not have the tiny red area (right side of the gap on above image) and the gap is clearer (maybe possible to retrieve from flight-aware).

There were thunderstorms on the METAR that I posted for a full hour before the accident.

OK, except SYR is 100NM east of those northerly tracks

[rookiepilot]

That's captured right at that accident's time. Previous hits at 4-5min intervals did not have the tiny red area (right side of the gap on above image) and the gap is clearer (maybe possible to retrieve from flight-aware).

PDW -------

If your idea of a prudent plan is either, at night, in a completely unequipped aircraft, is to either:

Fly through a thick solid line filled with yellow cells,
Try to squeeze through ANY gap without radar, (and a strike finder) and not necessarily even with it --

I will not be flying with you.

Like PF, I do not get your defence of your local club.

As I said before, I doubt very much you've flown anywhere near serious convective weather.

I suggest you keep it that way.

Yellow can turn into a huge red cell in minutes.

[pdw]

Brett may not need to pick a flight school, he might learn everything he needs to know right here just reading AV Canada.

I studied the accident here that we're talking about in great detail in the weeks after. Not defending; it really looked to me that it was a surprise entry into the cloud ... judging by how far the other aircraft west of the accident plane still had to deviate west around that western head of the narrow cloudband (both reached cloud at the exact same time). The NTSB don't say anything about that ... and it's not the TSB's jurisdiction. So the anger around this seems to me more about the silence, which must at least be kept in part due to the small community grieving still going on.

[photofly]

The accident was eighteen months ago. I hope the flight school has made whatever changes it feels are necessary to the way it operates by now. And I hope the OP can ask what those changes have been.

[kilr4d]

I learned to fly at Brampton, and would happily recommend it.

Same here. Busy; narrow runways; right beside Class C; close to practice area; good management and instructors; decent aircraft, etc.

[PilotDAR]

it was a surprise entry into the cloud

Which, other than for prepared, filed IFR flight, should be followed by a 180, and exit from that cloud. Sure, conditions change, that's why turning around is a possibility! Decision making training, and good supervision are the prime things needed to assure that a 180 is always considered as an option!

I would not be flying a 172 into a yellow radar return weather system under any conditions!

[CpnCrunch]

I studied the accident here that we're talking about in great detail in the weeks after. Not defending; it really looked to me that it was a surprise entry into the cloud ...

Well, you mustn't have studied it very well. They filed an IFR flight plan at 7000ft, so it wasn't a "surprise entry into cloud".

[HiFlyChick]

...Are you telling me this was a practice flight for the instructor? I wonder if his passengers knew he was practicing something for his benefit, and not for theirs. How nice for them. Or not, as it turned out.

The man was a professional instructor, working for a professional flight school....

I guess I always thought that the purpose of the Class IV being under supervision was that he didn't pull anything like charging his students for stuff that he wanted to do for fun, which I agree seems like it might be the case here.

I perhaps have not been expressing my objections well - what I really object to with laying the blame for the accident entirely at the feet of the school, is that it can be perceived as taking responsibility off the shoulders of Class IV flight instructors to act like responsible pilots/adults. I left your quote about being professional in to emphasize that point. If they knew he was going to do something unsafe then yes, I agree they should do something about it. Given that a commercial pilot can walk in and request a rental and then take it away for a weekend wherever, based on him being licensed and presumably a responsible pilot, I don't see where it makes sense that a school should not be able to trust their instructors to at least act similarly. If they knew that he did unsafe things, then they are culpable if they keep him on. Also, they should be monitoring his students' progress and ensure that he is providing good service.

If they had any notion whatsoever that he would be endangering his students, then yes, they have an obligation to those students. I think my bias in this regard is due to the currently popular notion that "It's not my fault, the _____ should have told me/stopped me/protected me...." and the litigation that tends to follow. It's not my fault that I got hurt climbing that tower, they should have stopped me from doing it... it's not my fault my I got washed out to sea standing on the black rocks - I didn't read the signs so you should have put up a fence...it's not my fault I burned myself on the coffee - they didn't tell me it was hot....

No one likes to blame someone who paid with their life for poor judgement, but you also can't just blame the nearest entity, either. Maybe you're right and they knew he was unsafe or that he tended to push the limits, etc - if so, they should indeed have the sky fall on them and fall on them hard. But if instead they believed he was going on a cross country that the students requested and would exercise sound judgement in doing so, everything has to be considered before assessing blame/punishment.

[C.W.E.]

Flying schools have a responsibility to ensure safe flying over site in their flight operations both with their instructors and their renters.

When I operated a flying school my rules were based on risk management.

Single engine training at night was only allowed in accordance with the TC requirements and only in weather that was clear or scattered cloud.

I did not allow night or IFR flying with single engine aircraft both fixed and rotary wing outside of training for a license.

Also I did not allow single engine flying over water beyond gliding distance of land.

[pdw]

I would not be flying a 172 into a yellow radar return weather system under any conditions!

Comparing progress of two tracks on something like flightaware between two aircraft would subject the info to the typical delay (5min?) ... so not necessarily yellow on their data yet for that location 5-10 min before the accident sequence coordinates. (ie Which data source would have been the choice ?)

[PilotDAR]

so not necessarily yellow on their data yet for that location 5-10 min before the accident sequence coordinates.

I don't buy it. A well trained pilot would not enter conditions in a 172, which their peers would agree were dangerous 5-10 minutes later. Unforgiving weather does not pop up that quickly! Somehow, in the age before flat screens and internet weather information, we were commonly able to keep ourselves VMC based on hours old weather forecast and report information, and the occasional turn back. Why not now? Is there a degradation in pilot training and decision making since those days?

[rookiepilot]

Bottom line as well -- weather and night are a deadly mix, and inexperienced pilots will keep dying when that risk is disrespected, as has happened on many occasions in the past. You cannot visually assess buildups and cells well at night.

[gwagen]

...Are you telling me this was a practice flight for the instructor? I wonder if his passengers knew he was practicing something for his benefit, and not for theirs. How nice for them. Or not, as it turned out.

The man was a professional instructor, working for a professional flight school....

I guess I always thought that the purpose of the Class IV being under supervision was that he didn't pull anything like charging his students for stuff that he wanted to do for fun, which I agree seems like it might be the case here.

I perhaps have not been expressing my objections well - what I really object to with laying the blame for the accident entirely at the feet of the school, is that it can be perceived as taking responsibility off the shoulders of Class IV flight instructors to act like responsible pilots/adults. I left your quote about being professional in to emphasize that point. If they knew he was going to do something unsafe then yes, I agree they should do something about it. Given that a commercial pilot can walk in and request a rental and then take it away for a weekend wherever, based on him being licensed and presumably a responsible pilot, I don't see where it makes sense that a school should not be able to trust their instructors to at least act similarly. If they knew that he did unsafe things, then they are culpable if they keep him on. Also, they should be monitoring his students' progress and ensure that he is providing good service.

If they had any notion whatsoever that he would be endangering his students, then yes, they have an obligation to those students. I think my bias in this regard is due to the currently popular notion that "It's not my fault, the _____ should have told me/stopped me/protected me...." and the litigation that tends to follow. It's not my fault that I got hurt climbing that tower, they should have stopped me from doing it... it's not my fault my I got washed out to sea standing on the black rocks - I didn't read the signs so you should have put up a fence...it's not my fault I burned myself on the coffee - they didn't tell me it was hot....

No one likes to blame someone who paid with their life for poor judgement, but you also can't just blame the nearest entity, either. Maybe you're right and they knew he was unsafe or that he tended to push the limits, etc - if so, they should indeed have the sky fall on them and fall on them hard. But if instead they believed he was going on a cross country that the students requested and would exercise sound judgement in doing so, everything has to be considered before assessing blame/punishment.

I don’t agree, this wasn’t a flight of one aircraft. This wasn’t the poor choice of just one instructor. They were a group of aircraft flying in the same weather and making the same poor choices.

Luckily just one aircraft paid the ultimate price.

This clearly indicates a culture of risk taking and disregard for the inherent dangers of flying at this school.

That said the instructor in the accident airplane was PIC and with that was responsible for the lives on board, the lives on the ground and the aircraft. He failed to fulfill his obligations as a pilot.

Clearly their has been a failure in his instruction. He had not had the dangers of flight properly instilled within him.

His instructors let him down and even if they tried their best to instill the respect and knowledge he needed, they failed to recognize that their student was not capable of truly comprehending the risks.

The blame lays at many feet in this accident.

However the buck stops at the Chief Flight Instructor, he should have never allowed that flight off the ground in the first place.

[photofly]

...Are you telling me this was a practice flight for the instructor? I wonder if his passengers knew he was practicing something for his benefit, and not for theirs. How nice for them. Or not, as it turned out.

The man was a professional instructor, working for a professional flight school....

I guess I always thought that the purpose of the Class IV being under supervision was that he didn't pull anything like charging his students for stuff that he wanted to do for fun, which I agree seems like it might be the case here.

I perhaps have not been expressing my objections well - what I really object to with laying the blame for the accident entirely at the feet of the school, is that it can be perceived as taking responsibility off the shoulders of Class IV flight instructors

He’s dead. He’s now untouchable. Any criticism that otherwise would attach to that young man is now expunged. If he wasn’t a saint then, he sure is now.

If they knew he was going to do something unsafe then yes, I agree they should do something about it.

1. It was explicitly, legally, definitely, the school’s job to know what he was planning to do, in detail, and to approve or forbid it. That’s the meaning of “supervision” and “operational control”. It’s a gross dereliction of duty to give a class IV instructor the keys to an aircraft and not know the details of each and every flight he or she makes. How can you possibly not understand that?

2. And, even without the benefit of hindsight, what he was going to do was palpably stupid, unthinkable, dangerous, dumb, idiotic, crazy, how many more words do we need?

Given those two facts - HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY NOT BE THE SCHOOLS FAULT!!!?

[rookiepilot]

But if instead they believed he was going on a cross country that the students requested and would exercise sound judgement in doing so, everything has to be considered before assessing blame/punishment.

This may be piling on, but the above statement is simply blind FTU defending. Maybe it's my advancing years, but young people needlessly dying rather upsets me, HiFly.

This was not "a cross country the students requested". This was well reported, by the school themselves, this was a regular event initiated, organized and facilitated by the school. They are therefore completely responsible in my view.

I am really curious if the slightest bit of pressure was exerted by the school to get those aircraft back to base in a timely manner.

[C.W.E.]

We know that some TC inspectors read this tread especially when it is something as high profile as this subject.

Like many others here it is my opinion the school did not have operational control over their employee and their property.

What do you T.C. inspectors have to say about this, am I wrong?

. ., my real name.

[HiFlyChick]

...This was not "a cross country the students requested". This was well reported, by the school themselves, this was a regular event initiated, organized and facilitated by the school. They are therefore completely responsible in my view....

That's a good point, Rookie, and you're right, regardless of the circumstances, it was a tragedy that the three young men died. I hope that the FTU did indeed make changes that would hopefully help prevent this in the future. I also hope that other will not give in to get-home-itis. I see in the latest ASL that there is a new GA safety group that sees TC and COPA cooperating - it'd be great if they were to bring back the old Pilot Decision Making (PDM) seminars that let participants analyze their own weaknesses so they could be aware and not fall victim to them.

[Aviatard]

1. It was explicitly, legally, definitely, the school’s job to know what he was planning to do, in detail, and to approve or forbid it. That’s the meaning of “supervision” and “operational control”. It’s a gross dereliction of duty to give a class IV instructor the keys to an aircraft and not know the details of each and every flight he or she makes. How can you possibly not understand that?

2. And, even without the benefit of hindsight, what he was going to do was palpably stupid, unthinkable, dangerous, dumb, idiotic, crazy, how many more words do we need?

Given those two facts - HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY NOT BE THE SCHOOLS FAULT!!!?

I don't disagree that the CARS can or should be interpreted this way. Even at your school, Mister Fly, there are too many flights for the CFI to be able to know the details of each and every flight that takes place. How is this even possible to achieve?

[photofly]

there are too many flights for the CFI to be able to know the details of each and every flight that takes place.

If a flight school schedules such a colossal number of five-aircraft weekend trips to Florida piloted by Class IV flight instructors that the CFI doesn't have time to exercise effective oversight, then there are two options:

1. Employ sufficient assistant CFI's so that effective oversight becomes possible, OR
2. Don't let class IV flight instructors pilot aircraft on weekend trips to Florida.

Neither of those options needs much imagination to think of; and option 2 is even cost-free. Personally I have a strong preference for option 2.

As I said in the other thread, I don't think weekend trips to Florida belong in a PPL syllabus at all; there's very little loggable instruction towards the licensing requirement that can be undertaken on such a trip. If it's done for the benefit of "experience" then it can wait until those who want the experience already have a PPL.