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

[golden hawk]

https://pennrecord.com/stories/51164087 ... lane-crash

[rookiepilot]

About time.

[anofly]

yes , this will make flying cheaper for all of us...

[photofly]

One thing it might do is focus the minds of flight schools properly to supervise their trainee instructors.

[photofly]

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 017&akey=1

The instructor/PIC was conducting his first night flight for nearly 10 months. He could not have met the requirements of regulation 401.05 in respect of the carriage at night of the two passengers who died with him.

This was his first ever flight into IMC. And he was doing it from the right seat.

[rookiepilot]

yes , this will make flying cheaper for all of us...

Gee, priorities right, anyone?

[JasonE]

``Filed in the same court on the very same day, Oct. 15, the second litigation was brought by Tawfig’s family against the Flying Club, Transport Canada, Inc. of Concord, Ontario, Canada and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Washington, D.C.`

I fail to see how Transport Canada and the FAA could be at fault here? Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

[Zaibatsu]

The lawyers will make out like bandits, that’s for sure.

[photofly]

Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

What a lovely way to talk about a bereaved family.

To answer your question, they will probably suggest a failure of oversight on the part of both governments. Can’t say I blame them.

[rookiepilot]

Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

What a lovely way to talk about a bereaved family.

Beat me to it. Such a compassionate comment.

[digits_]

Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

What a lovely way to talk about a bereaved family.

To answer your question, they will probably suggest a failure of oversight on the part of both governments. Can’t say I blame them.

They can be bereaved and be gold diggers. It is probably their lawyer that added TC and FAA to the lawsuit, just in case. Not sure how the FAA would even be remotely responsible. And TC? If your information is correct, then the instructor was acting illegally. You can't expect TC to check all licenses before every flight.

[rookiepilot]

Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

What a lovely way to talk about a bereaved family.

They can be bereaved and be gold diggers.

I'm sure they arranged things so their son could die, just so they could launch a frivolous lawsuit. Got it.

No different to you than someone who sues because the airline won't allow them their emotional pet ostrich on board, right?

[photofly]

You can't expect TC to check all licenses before every flight.

I don’t know what TC did or didn’t do in this case, and I haven’t read the statement of claim, yet.

But generally speaking, nothing happens in a vacuum. The instructor undertook a flight that he should not have, the flight school (which had a duty to supervise) permitted a flight it should not have, and the government, it will probably be argued, which had a duty to make sure the flight school was properly exercising its supervisory responsibility, failed to do that.

Can I expect TC to check licences? No. I can, perhaps, expect TC not to permit the operation of a flight school that doesn’t supervise its instructors. I can, to use your example, expect TC to make sure that no flight school allows flights where licences are not in order. I’m pretty sure that’s what they try to do. It’s not illegitimate to test that in court, now, is it?

When I find out what the FAA is supposed to have done or failed to have done, I’ll let you know.

[lownslow]

Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

Sometimes it’s the insurance company that gets the frivolous looking lawsuits going. I suppose the theory is it helps cover the cost of this claim plus ideally can bring about changes to prevent future claims.

[ReserveTank]

Is SMS working yet?

[JasonE]

I fail to see how Transport Canada and the FAA could be at fault here? Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

What a lovely way to talk about a bereaved family.

I never said I didn't have any compassion for the families, au contraire. I believe it is the PIC's family that have named these governing bodies, not the passengers'.

Sometimes it’s the insurance company that gets the frivolous looking lawsuits going. I suppose the theory is it helps cover the cost of this claim plus ideally can bring about changes to prevent future claims.

You could be right. Either way, the governing bodies didn't force anyone to fly into adverse weather. I guess it will be up to the courts to decide now, not us.

[pelmet]

Gold diggers trying any avenue they can I think.

What a lovely way to talk about a bereaved family.

To answer your question, they will probably suggest a failure of oversight on the part of both governments. Can’t say I blame them.

Without discussing this case, there are no shortage of bereaved families that have greedily gone after others when their loved one screwed up and crashed. Being bereaved does not justify creating more victims by sueing innocent people(which includes taxpayers). Similar to my opinion that being a victim of crime does not give you the right to take away due process from others(something we see more and more of from victims these days.)

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

[photofly]

I never said I didn't have any compassion for the families, au contraire. I believe it is the PIC's family that have named these governing bodies, not the passengers'.

And you see a difference between the pilot's family and the passengers' families?

The pilot was like a 10 year old who found an unsecured gun and shot both himself and his 8 year old cousin dead. Everyone in that plane was a victim.

"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; (contrôle d’exploitation)"

406.11 (1) Subject to section 6.71 of the Act, the Minister shall, on receipt of an application submitted in the form and manner specified in the personnel licensing standards, issue or amend a flight training unit operator certificate where the applicant demonstrates to the Minister the ability to
(a) maintain an adequate organizational structure;
(b) maintain operational control;

Where was the operational control over this flight?

[rookiepilot]

Let's talk about greed then.

Isn't it greedy for any flight school to operate these "experience" flights that aren't required nor in any syllabus-- especially irrelevant for pre ppl students.

Flight schools want their aircraft back on time.

Those issues need to be addressed in court, including why TC allows flight schools to operate unnecessary flights of this kind.

[Aviatard]

Let's talk about greed then.

Isn't it greedy for any flight school to operate these "experience" flights that aren't required nor in any syllabus-- especially irrelevant for pre ppl students.

Were the students required to make the flight, or was it optional?

Greed certainly was a factor in the decision to push the weather to get the aircraft home.
Flight schools want their aircraft back on time.

That may be true, but is it known whether there was a daily rate in place for the aircraft, or whether the planes were booked the next day, or are you just assuming there were no arrangements available due to weather delays?

Those issues need to be addressed in court, including why TC allows flight schools to operate unnecessary flights of this kind.

Are you suggesting that TC monitor every flight, or that there can never be a flight done that doesn't exist in some syllabus?

I continue to be shocked this flight school remains in existence. The courts are a necessary and corrective avenue to punish poor behaviour.

If i'm not mistaken, the courts exist to settle disputes. Punishment may or may not enter into the matter.

[photofly]

I think if a flight is a training flight it needs to have clear training objectives, which need to fit in with the syllabus the student is paying for. A night IFR cross country through bad weather doesn’t meet any training target, when the student doesn’t have a PPL yet. I’m not particularly sure about an extended day VFR trip to Florida in toto, either, for that matter, but that’s at least arguable.

There’s zero problem about a flying club doing away trips to Florida for the weekend; great idea. But if your employees and instructors are piloting the plane, then get an Air Taxi OC with approval for US operations and don’t call it a “training exercise” to duck your responsibilities for the people you charge money to fly there.

Maybe we should point out the pilot qualifications for single-pilot IFR commercial flight with passengers: 1000 hours PIC, and 200 hours instrument time. Plus the aircraft needs a working autopilot. None of which was met. The two students who died were not “students” on that flight because it was a night IFR flight; they were passengers. And, they were paying. I don’t see why they were entitled to less safety consideration than an Air Taxi customer.

[rookiepilot]

I think if a flight is a training flight it needs to have clear training objectives, which need to fit in with the syllabus the student is paying for. A night IFR cross country through bad weather doesn’t meet any training target, when the student doesn’t have a PPL yet. I’m not particularly sure about an extended day VFR trip to Florida in toto, either, for that matter, but that’s at least arguable.

There’s zero problem about a flying club doing away trips to Florida for the weekend; great idea. But if your employees and instructors are piloting the plane, then get an Air Taxi OC with approval for US operations and don’t call it a “training exercise” to duck your responsibilities for the people you charge money to fly there.

Maybe we should point out the pilot qualifications for single-pilot IFR commercial flight with passengers: 1000 hours PIC, and 200 hours instrument time. Plus the aircraft needs a working autopilot. None of which was met. The two students who died were not “students” on that flight because it was a night IFR flight; they were passengers. And, they were paying. I don’t see why they were entitled to less safety consideration than an Air Taxi customer.

I can't improve on the above one iota. 100% agree with every point.

[digits_]

Let's talk about greed then.

Isn't it greedy for any flight school to operate these "experience" flights that aren't required nor in any syllabus-- especially irrelevant for pre ppl students.

Greed certainly was a factor in the decision to push the weather to get the aircraft home.

Flight schools want their aircraft back on time.

Those issues need to be addressed in court, including why TC allows flight schools to operate unnecessary flights of this kind.

I continue to be shocked this flight school remains in existence. The courts are a necessary and corrective avenue to punish poor behaviour.

Say what now?

Of course greed is a factor, otherwise the school wouldn't be in existence. However, these longer trips are more of a risk for the school, than the daily circuits. If the plane breaks, or is weathered out somewhere, you'll make less, not more on those longer trips. I actually applaud schools who do those longer trips. Assuming people aren't forced to go on those if they don't want to of course.
What's wrong with some extra flying, or doing exercises that aren't in the syllabus? I've had students who told me they wanted to learn to fly to go to the US. So why not take them out there during their training, even PPL training? Once they have the license they can do it themselves! Absolutely nothing wrong with preparing them for that. Pilots complain on avcanada all the time about bad training, fos don't know anything etc etc. Exercises like these are great to fight the puppy-mill attitude. Go places. FLY!

If the instructor is qualified, then doing some night vfr flying on the way back, or even IMC flying is a very valuable training tool. The PPL syllabus even calls for some instrument flying, so why not do it in actual IMC on a flight you would realistically encounter it. Again, with a qualified instructor following all rules and regulations of course.

Regarding the instructor: he is PIC. He was responsible, at least, to make sure he had his currency requirements. In Photofly's example, he is not one of the kids playing with the gun, he was the parent. If the school put undue pressure on him, then yes, they would be partially to blame as well. But the instructor had the final say. From that point of view, it is a bit sour to read that the instructor's family is apparently doing the suing?

All this based on the information shared in this thread.

[pelmet]

Let's talk about greed then.

Those issues need to be addressed in court, including why TC allows flight schools to operate unnecessary flights of this kind.

While I don't know the background details of this accident, I think these sort of flights are a great opportunity. A flying club that I used to be a member of had them all the time and no doubt, many had fantastic experiences.

There may be some regularory details that need to be changed but the last thing we need is an accident(likely cause by some poor decision-making-that happens on regular occasion in general aviation) resulting in enjoyable experiences and opportunities to learn being taken away by the mouthy mob. "Greed", "Unnecessary"....whatever. It seems whenever there is an accident, there is someone who wants to take away everything from all of us. Well, maybe TC shouldn't allow these planes to do any personal enjoyment flying...after all, it is not "Necessary". Lives could be saved.

Like I said, there may be some unique details to this case but how about we stop this over-reaction thing.

[photofly]

Regarding the instructor: he is PIC. He was responsible, at least, to make sure he had his currency requirements. In Photofly's example, he is not one of the kids playing with the gun, he was the parent.

No.

Once the cabin door was closed, and the aircraft first moved under its own power with the intention of taking off, the instructor was responsible. But up until that point, the FTU is 100% responsible for supervising whether the flight under its mandatory operational control - crewed by a trainee instructor - goes ahead or not.

Once the loaded gun is in the child's hand, with the safety removed, then sure, it's all the child's fault. Blame the child. Do you really imagine that the adults that put the gun where the kid could find it, and left the bullets in the clip, are not at fault?

What do you imagine the point of having a flight training regulatory regime is, if not to prevent a clusterfuck like this from occurring?

by some poor decision-making-that happens on regular occasion in general aviation

You have got to be kidding. "Some poor decision making that happens on regular occasion"?? I hope to hell not. No fucking way should we tolerate this apparent display of complete supervisory incompetence or recklessness. Not even once. Let's just review: First real IMC flight ever, at night, not night-current, flying on instruments for the very first time from the right seat, through a cold front, with two passengers, in a marginally equipped Cherokee. If that's "regular" poor decision making, I can't imagine what the irregular poor decision making looks like. God help us.

It seems whenever there is an accident, there is someone who wants to take away everything from all of us.

I don't want to take anything positive away from anyone, unless you think that having flight schools whose students and instructors die in predictable and avoidable circumstances is a feature that benefits Canadian aviation.

If this industry honestly can't put together an outfit that's capable of flying people to Florida and bringing them all back alive, then the right to give it a go damn well should be taken away.