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

[digits_]

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.

They are responsible, but so is the instructor. You can't blame this fully on the FTU. Even in your example, the cabin door is locked, the instructor could say, "well f***, I don't like this, we shut down again".

The FTU might (intentionally or not) have dropped the ball by not preventing the flight, but the instructor is the one who crashed the plane. Even a trainee instructor should have the knowledge to say "I'm illegal for night flying" or "the weather doesn't look good enough for my experience" or "I don't have an IFR rating or am not current" or anything else. He crashed the plane eventually. It sucks that even if he got pushed to do the flight, he is still responsible for the flight.

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?

Oh absolutely. The child is a victim in your example. But as I said, I compare the instructor more to the parent, than to the child. You could say the instructor is the parent, and the FTU is the gun store that sold a loaded gun to someone without a license, be it intentionally or not.

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

It is to prevent accidents like these. But that regulatory regime does not absolve the PIC/instructor from having the final responsibility of taking off.

[photofly]

Breaking news: The young pilot is dead. However bad his decision making was, he paid for his errors, in ways I hope we never have to. I’d love to tear a strip off him and ask him what the hell he thought he was playing at. So would a few other people, I’m sure. But guess what: I can’t.

I never met him; but I’ve met a lot of other people like him. None of them deserve to die like that. They all deserve decent supervision, while they continue to learn good decision-making. It doesn’t look like he got decent supervision.

Now let’s talk about who else is to blame.

[rookiepilot]

All of you except PF are ignoring the potential pressure to get that plane home. Don't tell me that pressure isn't there from an FTU.

That instructor while PIC and seemingly at fault, based on the known facts to date, was an inexperienced child who got in way over his head, as far as I'm concerned. Be real interesting to hear the conversations prior to take off, between him and the FTU, or the senior instructor in the other aircraft.

The FTU gets it's insurance money if the plane crashes. They've lost nothing.

This attitude that the an FTU always knows best and is a well meaning, benevolent party, now being innocently attacked in a lawsuit? Doesn't fly with me.

[photofly]

That FTU and its owners

The owners are the members; it's a not-for-profit club.

The FTU gets it's insurance money if the plane crashes. They've lost nothing.

I'm sure they're enormously cut up about it; I don't imagine for one minute that it's only about money, for the flying club. They lost an instructor, two students, and three friends. But that's not really the point. Regrets are cheap.


I I'm still trying to decode the note in the NTSB report that the first aircraft to depart was supposed to "vector" the accident plane around any weather. What with, their on-board weather radar that neither aircraft had?

[digits_]

All of you except PF are ignoring the pressure to get that plane home. Don't tell me that pressure isn't there from an FTU. I happen to know for a fact, it is.

No I'm not. Yes there is pressure. And a pilot/instructor should say no. He is the one who takes off in the end. You can't blame it all on the FTU. The FTU putting pressure on the pilot, or failing in their supervisory role is no "get-out-of-jail-free" card for the pilot, unfortunately.

This attitude that the an FTU always knows best and is a well meaning, benevolent party, now being innocently attacked in a lawsuit? Doesn't fly with me.

What thread are you reading? Never in the history of AvCanada has an FTU been described as a well meaning, benevolent party. If you would put a (meaningless) number on it, I'd say the pilot is at least 50% to blame to end up in a "way over your head" scenario. If that 50% is suing the organisation responsible for the other 50%, then that strikes me as a bid odd. It's their right to do so of course, but I'd understand it more if the family of the students would sue everyone else involved. Not the family of the instructor who crashed the plane.

While it is extremely sad that the instructor and the students lost their life, that should not affect who is ultimately responsible for the crash. It might affect the severity of the punishment, but not who is at fault.

[rookiepilot]

But that's not really the point. Regrets are cheap.

They sure are. I hope young pilots get the lesson here, about pressure.

WTF business did ANY of those minimally equipped planes have planning a night IMC flight in any kind of weather? Crossing A cold front? That's nuts. Who made that decision? I don't like that plan in a SE piston even with onboard weather.

I had an ATC unit once try, repeatedly, to turn me into an active storm line with lightning strikes, to get back on my filed course, because my deviation was inconveniencing their traffic flow. I practically had to tell them to shut up. Sometimes saying no is necessary.

[pelmet]

I had an ATC unit once try, repeatedly, to turn me into an active storm line with lightning strikes, to get back on my filed course, because my deviation was inconveniencing their traffic flow. I practically had to tell them to shut up. Sometimes saying no is necessary.

So if you had been stupid and accepted their instruction and crashed and it was in an airplane in the same FTU training scenario, should the school be sued into bankruptcy due to your stupidity?

I don't think so.

[rookiepilot]

I had an ATC unit once try, repeatedly, to turn me into an active storm line with lightning strikes, to get back on my filed course, because my deviation was inconveniencing their traffic flow. I practically had to tell them to shut up. Sometimes saying no is necessary.

So if you had been stupid and accepted their instruction and crashed and it was in an airplane in the same FTU training scenario, should the school be sued into bankruptcy due to your stupidity?

I don't think so.

It's not even remotely a comparable scenario.

Mine was during the day, with blue skies parallel to the storm line. I never had to cross it. No brainer. I had a stormscope and nexrad too, both lit up like Christmas trees -- red cells -- , and a heck of lot more actual experience.

Absolutely the FTU is liable here for a lack of oversight and supervision, for even authorizing the take off from RIC, into a night IMC situation. That kid had never been in IMC. No way he should have been allowed by the FTU or supervising instructor to take off, simply because of requirement to cross a cold front. Heck the flight was illegal!

This instructor, while seemingly at least partly at fault, was a kid. Who was the adult in the room?
Somewhere along the way, either at home or on the trip, there was a severe breakdown in the process. Based on the reported facts.

[Aviatard]

So the lawsuits are filed in the United States against some Canadian entities, being Transport Canada and the flying club. Neither of these are subject to American courts. I wonder how that works. Can you just shrug off any decisions made in another country?

[photofly]

No. It's possible to enforce US court decisions in Canada, under many circumstances.

[pelmet]

I had an ATC unit once try, repeatedly, to turn me into an active storm line with lightning strikes, to get back on my filed course, because my deviation was inconveniencing their traffic flow. I practically had to tell them to shut up. Sometimes saying no is necessary.

So if you had been stupid and accepted their instruction and crashed and it was in an airplane in the same FTU training scenario, should the school be sued into bankruptcy due to your stupidity?

I don't think so.

It's not even remotely a comparable scenario.

Mine was during the day, with blue skies parallel to the storm line. I never had to cross it. No brainer. I had a stormscope and nexrad too, both lit up like Christmas trees -- red cells -- , and a heck of lot more actual experience.

Absolutely the FTU is liable here for a lack of oversight and supervision, for even authorizing the take off from RIC, into a night IMC situation. That kid had never been in IMC. No way he should have been allowed by the FTU or supervising instructor to take off, simply because of requirement to cross a cold front. Heck the flight was illegal!

This instructor, while certainly partly at fault, was a kid. Who was the adult in the room?
Somewhere along the way, either at home or on the trip, there was a severe breakdown in training and supervision.

The PIC is responsible. I took the time to read the report. Nothing about pressure from the school to return. Nothing about it even being a training flight. Maybe it was just a flight with the instructor as PIC going home and due to the weather it was not an official instructional flight but student was along for the ride with the intent to learn(as can be done on any flight). The NTSB says it was a "personal flight". How do you know who did the takeoff. Is it possible that you are just making assumptions with no evidence to back it up. We might like to know before the club get sued out of business simply because it appears the PIC quite possibly encountered difficulties while flying on instruments. Are you a lawyer?

[digits_]

This instructor, while certainly partly at fault, was a kid. Who was the adult in the room?

Euh... no... If you are an instructor you do not get to play the kid card, sorry. You are teaching other people who trust you with their life. They pay you to teach them how to fly. That (should) make you a professional, not a kid.

And to be fair, the supervising instructor could have been the same age as the "kid" instructor you mentioned.

[rookiepilot]

How do you know who did the takeoff. Is it possible that you are just making assumptions with no evidence to back it up. We might like to know before the club get sued out of business simply because it appears the PIC quite possibly encountered difficulties while flying on instruments. Are you a lawyer?

I have a brain. I'm not a lawyer, but do have an opinion. Isn't that what we do here?
Who did the takeoff is irrelevant. The PIC authorized the takeoff, whether he did it or not. I'm not assuming the student did the takeoff, doesn't matter anyway.

I think there is room for joint responsibility here.

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.

[photofly]

Of course. the baby cheeks class IV instructor made an error and killed three people. Just another regular mistake that happens all the time in GA. Nothing to see here, nothing to learn, move along please people, you’re blocking the gangway.

WTF?

[Aviatard]

This instructor, while certainly partly at fault, was a kid. Who was the adult in the room?

Euh... no... If you are an instructor you do not get to play the kid card, sorry. You are teaching other people who trust you with their life. They pay you to teach them how to fly. That (should) make you a professional, not a kid.

And to be fair, the supervising instructor could have been the same age as the "kid" instructor you mentioned.

The pilot was a 25 year old man. An adult.

[rookiepilot]

..

[pelmet]

How do you know who did the takeoff. Is it possible that you are just making assumptions with no evidence to back it up. We might like to know before the club get sued out of business simply because it appears the PIC quite possibly encountered difficulties while flying on instruments. Are you a lawyer?

I have a brain. I'm not a lawyer, but do have an opinion. Isn't that what we do here?
Who did the takeoff is irrelevant. The PIC authorized the takeoff, whether he did it or not. I'm not assuming the student did the takeoff, doesn't matter anyway.


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

Hang em' high.

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.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

[rookiepilot]

How do you know who did the takeoff. Is it possible that you are just making assumptions with no evidence to back it up. We might like to know before the club get sued out of business simply because it appears the PIC quite possibly encountered difficulties while flying on instruments. Are you a lawyer?

I have a brain. I'm not a lawyer, but do have an opinion. Isn't that what we do here?
Who did the takeoff is irrelevant. The PIC authorized the takeoff, whether he did it or not. I'm not assuming the student did the takeoff, doesn't matter anyway.


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

Hang em' high.

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.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Now that's amusing.

Both passengers were students, if you'd done your reading, and the club spokesperson itself was quoted as saying these trips were regular events for students to "gain experience". Again, try reading.

Not buying it at all.

Quoted:

"He was well-qualified to do this,” Hatcher, also a flying instructor, said, adding Tawfig would have been the one “in charge” on the aircraft."

Incorrect, since the flight was illegal -- based on a lack of night PIC currency documented in the report.

[pelmet]

I have a brain. I'm not a lawyer, but do have an opinion. Isn't that what we do here?
Who did the takeoff is irrelevant. The PIC authorized the takeoff, whether he did it or not. I'm not assuming the student did the takeoff, doesn't matter anyway.


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

Hang em' high.

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.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Now that's amusing.

Both passengers were students, if you'd done your reading, and the club spokesperson itself was quoted as saying these trips were regular events for students to "gain experience". Again, try reading.

Not buying it at all.

Quoted:

"He was well-qualified to do this,” Hatcher, also a flying instructor, said, adding Tawfig would have been the one “in charge” on the aircraft."

Incorrect, since the flight was illegal.

The instructor statement is only speculation.

Not sure who "HE" is.

I could go on this flight as well to gain experience. Watching someone else as PIC while I am a passenger is always experience.

Speculation without proof. Then again, juries have a history of "buying bullshit"......or shall we say....speculation.

[photofly]

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.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Your concerns not withstanding, it was reported at the time that both passengers were students of the instructor who was PIC. The recent TSB report points out that one student was in the left seat and was making the radio calls on departure. I'm not in any doubt that if logbooks of this or previous trips are examined, it will be found that the students logged dual instruction cross country time.

It would not be acceptable - anywhere - for an instructor to undertake a "private" flight where the two passengers just happened to be his students. That would be bootlegging, and no flight school would permit it. It wouldn't stand up to an instant's scrutiny under cross examination either. Even without the inculpatory statement from the club.

This whole episode looks bad - because it is bad.

Not sure who "HE" is.

He, is Rifat Tawfig, the pilot, who was 25 when he was killed.

[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.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Your concerns not withstanding, it was reported at the time that both passengers were students of the instructor who was PIC. The recent TSB report points out that one student was in the left seat and was making the radio calls on departure. I'm not in any doubt that if logbooks of this or previous trips are examined, it will be found that the students logged dual instruction cross country time.

It would not be acceptable - anywhere - for an instructor to undertake a "private" flight where the two passengers just happened to be his students. That would be bootlegging, and no flight school would permit it. It wouldn't stand up to an instant's scrutiny under cross examination either. Even without the inculpatory statement from the club.

This whole episode looks bad - because it is bad.

Totally.

I'm not a lawyer, but I could see any lawyer who was a pilot, absolutely drooling over the chance to try this and attempt to put these guys out of business.

Try suing me for saying so. You'd be laughed out of any court in the country.

I call it the way I see it, pelmet.

[photofly]

Why was the instructor in the right seat on this flight? Is that the usual seat for a PIC to occupy for an IFR night cross country flight in a Piper Cherokee?

[rookiepilot]

Why was the instructor in the right seat on this flight? Is that the usual seat for a PIC to occupy for an IFR night cross country flight in a Piper Cherokee?

Ding, ding, ding. Prosecution rests.

[pelmet]

It would not be acceptable - anywhere - for an instructor to undertake a "private" flight where the two passengers just happened to be his students. That would be bootlegging, and no flight school would permit it.

I think it is quite plausible, but......

Why was the instructor in the right seat on this flight? Is that the usual seat for a PIC to occupy for an IFR night cross country flight in a Piper Cherokee?

That is evidence coming to light that might change my mind on whether it was an instructional flight. Didn't see it in the report until now. And admittedly, I really don't know much about Flight Training Unit regulations.

What I would say is that it is no reason to not do cross-country flights for enjoyment/experience. Just follw the rules instead of taking away future experiences for pilots because the regs were broken.

[RatherBeFlying]

While the NTSB observes that the instruction was IFR rated, it seems his IFR was not current. 6000 over the Alleghanies will likely get you the bumps in any wind.

A higher standard is expected of an IFR rated PIC; so I suspect it will be difficult for the PIC's family to sustain a claim against the FTU. However the FTU looks to be in a poor legal position vs
the students' families as they are answerable for its instructor's conduct of the flight.