Do you brief who is PIC?

[bradp]

Hi all,

With all the talk about Insurance and the other thread about commercial certification got me thinking - when you do recurrent / BFR in your Mooney do you brief who is the PIC? 

For me - although the person sitting next to me may have more experience my thought process is that I will be more than receptive to any ideas or suggestions that my right seat has, however, if the S hits the F I’m the owner / operator and responsible party and therefore I will remain the legal authority for the conduct of the flight. 

Pilots / mooney instructors what are your thoughts about who is PIC during instruction in an aircraft category / class in which the learner is qualified?  CFIs do you log PIC as a required crewmember when your learner is under the hood? How about during a BFR do you log it as dual given but not PIC (assuming <24 months)? 

[midlifeflyer]

Instructors do not log PIC time based on being PIC. We log PIC based on part of 61.51 (the Universal Rule of Logging Flight Time) which says a CFI may log all training given time as PIC. Actually being PIC is irrelevant to the logging issue.

in tems of acting as PIC, when I instruct in an owner's airplane, i make clear that the owner is PIC unless the owner is under a regulatory disability which precludes them from acting as PIC.

And yes, our roles are clear.

Edited April 29, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[takair]

What Mark said, however, you do want to brief positive hand-off of control.  You do not want to get into an argument over who has the plane when there is an issue.  It is a worthy discussion up front.  Ultimately, the instructor often takes the hit on the post accident investigation for not keeping the “student” and aircraft safe....so the FAA does put an additional burden on the CFI when instruction is being given.  Often, as CFI, one is trying to stretch your comfort level and they should be able to recover from any situation they get you into...even if it is outside of your comfort level.

[Cris]

One interesting anomaly about the PIC is if the safety pilot CFI or not has a basic med as opposed to a 3rd or higher class medical. Basic Med only covers the PIC so when acting as a safety pilot with a PiC the left seater if PIC and under a hood means the safety pilot with BasicMed is not legal to act as a safety pilot.  This is a result of the way the law was written. The workaround is to declare the safety pilot PIC when the owner/operator is under the hood. This can change at any point during a flight but should be briefed if one is flying with someone operating with BasicMed. 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Cris said:

One interesting anomaly about the PIC is if the safety pilot CFI or not has a basic med as opposed to a 3rd or higher class medical. Basic Med only covers the PIC so when acting as a safety pilot with a PiC the left seater if PIC and under a hood means the safety pilot with BasicMed is not legal to act as a safety pilot.  This is a result of the way the law was written. The workaround is to declare the safety pilot PIC when the owner/operator is under the hood. This can change at any point during a flight but should be briefed if one is flying with someone operating with BasicMed. 

That is the primary reason I plan to retain my third class certificate as long as I feel comfortable about getting it without a lot of hoopla(or until the FAA fixes the anomaly, whichever comes first).

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, takair said:

What Mark said, however, you do want to brief positive hand-off of control.  You do not want to get into an argument over who has the plane when there is an issue.  It is a worthy discussion up front.  Ultimately, the instructor often takes the hit on the post accident investigation for not keeping the “student” and aircraft safe....so the FAA does put an additional burden on the CFI when instruction is being given.  Often, as CFI, one is trying to stretch your comfort level and they should be able to recover from any situation they get you into...even if it is outside of your comfort level.

I always try to keep in mind that the PIC saying, "You take the flight controls in case of trouble," is an assignment of crew duties and not a relinquishment of command status.

But, yes, the FAA will always treat a CFI during an instructional flight as having flight responsibility virtually equivalent to a PIC. (The language in the cases is "a CFI is always PIC during an instructional flight," but that's technically incorrect in a number of situations.)

[Mooneymite]

I do not have an open pilot clause on my insurance policy.  I always brief that I am PIC to maintain coverage.

However, the more proficient pilot flies while I sleep.  

[mike_elliott]

I insist of being added as named insured additional pilot with a waiver of subrogation prior to getting into the plane. It costs the owner nothing additional, and makes sure my assets are not used to hedge an insurance companies responsibilities and liabilities if something were to happen.

[Mooneymite]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

 It costs the owner nothing additional....

It would cost me quite a bit. 

Because I own/operate more than one aircraft, I get a discount based on the fact that I can't be flying multiple airplanes at the same time.  I can add all the pilots I want, but I lose the discount.

[mike_elliott]

45 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

It would cost me quite a bit. 

Because I own operate more than one aircraft, I get a discount based on the fact that I can't be flying multiple airplanes at the same time.  I can add all the pilots I want, but I lose the discount.

Are you sure Gus, or just basing that on the fact that you get a discount because you have multiple planes? I have the same situation with a number of pilots, one owns 6 airplanes. It hasn't added any additional costs to any of them Gus. As a CFI, I would always be named in any lawsuit resulting in an accident if it were to happen, and without us both having the same insurance provided lawyer, I would respectfully decline flying with you. Life is too short as it is to spend the remaining of it on depositions, production of documents etc.

[Mooneymite]

25 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Are you sure Gus, or just basing that on the fact that you get a discount because you have multiple planes? 

When you're dealing with insurance brokers, the only thing you can be (sort of) sure about is what's in writing.  

I have had multiple planes in the past and could "name" pilots at no cost.

But when I went with this particlar broker, he got me a good rate... with the proviso that I be the only named pilot.  A couple of years later, I wanted to add my son and he told me I couldn't under the same rate rules, but I could under a more expensive rate.

[midlifeflyer]

26 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Are you sure Gus, or just basing that on the fact that you get a discount because you have multiple planes? I have the same situation with a number of pilots, one owns 6 airplanes. It hasn't added any additional costs to any of them Gus. As a CFI, I would always be named in any lawsuit resulting in an accident if it were to happen, and without us both having the same insurance provided lawyer, I would respectfully decline flying with you. Life is too short as it is to spend the remaining of it on depositions, production of documents etc.

I've found that whether it costs anything extra or not varies (along with policy terms, underwriting, etc) from company to company, aircraft to aircraft, owner to owner, and CFI to CFI.  And there is a very strong line of thought that having an additional named insured always cost something, even if it is just dilution of policy limits.   

In the accident situation in which you and the owner are both defendants, you might not have the same insurance provided lawyer. There is a potential conflict of interest and an insurer might decide to hire separate attorneys. Particularly if the owner policy is one in which defense costs are part of and not in additional to liability limits,  it's another possible dilution of the policy limits and yet another reason for a CFI to have his or her own liability policy, even if it's just to cover costs of defense.

 

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

 

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

even if it is just dilution of policy limits

the policy limits of say 100,000/1,000,000 or 1M smooth are the same. They are not diluted to 1/2. The insurance company still has the same policy  limits they are insuring to, albeit without a cfi's assets (or widow's) to hedge their losses against.

 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

 

the policy limits of say 100,000/1,000,000 or 1M smooth are the same. They are not diluted to 1/2. The insurance company still has the same policy  limits they are insuring to, albeit without a cfi's assets (or widow's) to hedge their losses against.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory as a major concern in general aviation,  but "dilution of limits" does not apply to the insurance company. It applies to the aircraft owner who bought the policy.  Here's how it works.

Let's say the widow in your example is the widow of a passenger who was riding in the back seat for that lesson. If she has a $2 Million claim, the insurer only pays $100,000. The owner and the CFI are liable for the rest. You can change that to a $1 Million "smooth" policy as well. There's still a substantial $1 Million claim not covered by insurance, the obligation of the pilot/owner. the CFI, or both, at the option of the claimant. The problem could, of course, exist still even if the CFI also had insurance (those premiums are pretty low), but the extra coverage could mean the difference between settling for the limits and attempts to get at the owner's other assets.

Yes, you can reject it as not worth worrying about too much. I do,  but I'm explaining, not advocating.

[mike_elliott]

47 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory as a major concern in general aviation,  but "dilution of limits" does not apply to the insurance company. It applies to the aircraft owner who bought the policy.  Here's how it works.

Let's say the widow in your example is the widow of a passenger who was riding in the back seat for that lesson. If she has a $2 Million claim, the insurer only pays $100,000. The owner and the CFI are liable for the rest. You can change that to a $1 Million "smooth" policy as well. There's still a substantial $1 Million claim not covered by insurance, the obligation of the pilot/owner. the CFI, or both, at the option of the claimant. The problem could, of course, exist still even if the CFI also had insurance (those premiums are pretty low), but the extra coverage could mean the difference between settling for the limits and attempts to get at the owner's other assets.

Yes, you can reject it as not worth worrying about too much. I do,  but I'm explaining, not advocating.

Ok, so the policy still has 100K seat limits, just as before naming the CFI as additional insured pilot with a waiver of subrogation. The owner would still be on the hook for the difference if the CFI didnt set foot in the plane. The limits haven't  been diluted, just the potential liability spread to others.  I appreciate your explaining the position to spread the plane owners liability to a CFI, but on the advice of counsel, I wont accept that going into a training session. I am sure there are a lot of young CFI's that dont think this thru or do not have any assets.

For me to get a non owned policy that will cover the cost of a new Ultra Acclaim (to cover all situations, 1M smooth, again to have a reasonable coverage) would force me to raise my rates an ADDITIONAL 80/hr for ALL students, including those that fly J's and C's. That wouldn't fly. My suggestion is if one is worried about the potential losses, insure properly. Get the 1M smooth. I have 5M smooth with one client, 3M with a couple others.  These pilots know the potential risks and insure for it. 100K sub limits wont really protect anyone's assets if you harm a pax. The 5K medical most have on insurance policies is minimalistic and really ought to be reviewed.

I am glad you are not advocating! To do otherwise with ea. CFI having a non owned policy that would cover them to the extend of the hull value they train and proper liability, could raise training costs substantially.  This would lead to people not spending the AMU's on themselves, the weak link in the accident chain, and cause rates to go even higher.

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Ok, so the policy still has 100K seat limits, just as before naming the CFI as additional insured pilot with a waiver of subrogation. The owner would still be on the hook for the difference if the CFI didnt set foot in the plane. The limits haven't  been diluted, just the potential liability spread to others.  I appreciate your explaining the position to spread the plane owners liability to a CFI, but on the advice of counsel, I wont accept that going into a training session. I am sure there are a lot of young CFI's that dont think this thru or do not have any assets.

For me to get a non owned policy that will cover the cost of a new Ultra Acclaim (to cover all situations, 1M smooth, again to have a reasonable coverage) would force me to raise my rates an ADDITIONAL 80/hr for ALL students, including those that fly J's and C's. That wouldn't fly. My suggestion is if one is worried about the potential losses, insure properly. Get the 1M smooth. I have 5M smooth with one client, 3M with a couple others.  These pilots know the potential risks and insure for it. 100K sub limits wont really protect anyone's assets if you harm a pax. The 5K medical most have on insurance policies is minimalistic and really ought to be reviewed.

I am glad you are not advocating! To do otherwise with ea. CFI having a non owned policy that would cover them to the extend of the hull value they train and proper liability, could raise training costs substantially.  This would lead to people not spending the AMU's on themselves, the weak link in the accident chain, and cause rates to go even higher.

I explain, not advocate, because we all do our own risk analysis, and I think it is important to understand the tools. Besides, the analysis of dilution (a real term discussed in professional literature, with quite a bit of disagreement on its importance) is different for the instructor than for the owner. 

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

I explain, not advocate, because we all do our own risk analysis, and I think it is important to understand the tools.

As do I, Mark, and appreciate your input. I think it is important for people to know that if they want a CFI to hedge their insurance companies bet, it will cost them substantially in increased training cost if the CFI is required to purchase a non owned policy to the limits of what they typically train in. I think we had this discussion a number of years ago concerning Bob's Acclaim when he had you add me. I understand why the insurance industry pushes for every pilot to have an additional non owned policy or non owned clause in their policy, but their benevolence is subordinated to that of the owner and the CFI in my risk analysis.

We need to be aware that meeting the open pilot warranty provides absolutely no protection for the pilot meeting the open pilot warranty, Only the plane owner. This is a very misunderstood concept I also think is important to understand.

[RobertGary1]

On 4/29/2018 at 4:37 AM, bradp said:

Hi all,

With all the talk about Insurance and the other thread about commercial certification got me thinking - when you do recurrent / BFR in your Mooney do you brief who is the PIC? 

For me - although the person sitting next to me may have more experience my thought process is that I will be more than receptive to any ideas or suggestions that my right seat has, however, if the S hits the F I’m the owner / operator and responsible party and therefore I will remain the legal authority for the conduct of the flight. 

Pilots / mooney instructors what are your thoughts about who is PIC during instruction in an aircraft category / class in which the learner is qualified?  CFIs do you log PIC as a required crewmember when your learner is under the hood? How about during a BFR do you log it as dual given but not PIC (assuming <24 months)? 

That's a poor assumption that it would be the owner. It needs to be discussed. 

From the FAA's perspective the CFI will always get busted if something happens, the FAA rarely seems concerned with who agreed to be PIC. Their reasoning is (correctly) that if you were providing proper supervision an error wouldn't occur.

CFI's always log PIC regardless, its a benefit the FAA gives us. Don't confuse logging PIC with serving as PIC. They are distinct in the FARs.

 

-Robert, CFII

[jaylw314]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 4:37 AM, bradp said:

Hi all,

With all the talk about Insurance and the other thread about commercial certification got me thinking - when you do recurrent / BFR in your Mooney do you brief who is the PIC? 

For me - although the person sitting next to me may have more experience my thought process is that I will be more than receptive to any ideas or suggestions that my right seat has, however, if the S hits the F I’m the owner / operator and responsible party and therefore I will remain the legal authority for the conduct of the flight. 

Pilots / mooney instructors what are your thoughts about who is PIC during instruction in an aircraft category / class in which the learner is qualified?  CFIs do you log PIC as a required crewmember when your learner is under the hood? How about during a BFR do you log it as dual given but not PIC (assuming <24 months)? 

Maybe the way to think about it is that although the pilot/owner is the acting PIC, the CFI is just as able to get in trouble even if he is not the acting PIC.

When the second pilot is not acting as an instructor, though, I make it a habit to brief who the acting PIC is.  I just got used to specifically briefing it while using safety pilots for my IFR training, since many of them would not have been able to act as PIC in a Mooney without a complex endorsement.

[RobertGary1]

25 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Maybe the way to think about it is that although the pilot/owner is the acting PIC, the CFI is just as able to get in trouble even if he is not the acting PIC.

When the second pilot is not acting as an instructor, though, I make it a habit to brief who the acting PIC is.  I just got used to specifically briefing it while using safety pilots for my IFR training, since many of them would not have been able to act as PIC in a Mooney without a complex endorsement.

And vis-versa many times the safety pilot wants to serve as PIC because its one of the ways you can both log PIC at the same time. There used to be a twin school that would send MEI students on long cross countries to get their hours for the MEI checkride. Two students, one flying under the hood the entire time and the other safety pilot. That way they both could log PIC. Switch seats and fly back same way.

 

-Robert

[jaylw314]

25 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

And vis-versa many times the safety pilot wants to serve as PIC because its one of the ways you can both log PIC at the same time. There used to be a twin school that would send MEI students on long cross countries to get their hours for the MEI checkride. Two students, one flying under the hood the entire time and the other safety pilot. That way they both could log PIC. Switch seats and fly back same way.

 

-Robert

Luckily, even thought they couldn't log PIC, it was easy to find safety pilots excited to fly a Mooney

[Yetti]

Don't discuss.  It's like the check ride.   It's my plane and they are my passengers that I need to keep safe.   There is nothing that the person in the right seat should need to do that takes away my responsibility to keep them safe during the entire flight.

It's a mindset that I take into every flight.  

 

 

[RobertGary1]

14 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Don't discuss.  It's like the check ride.   It's my plane and they are my passengers that I need to keep safe.   There is nothing that the person in the right seat should need to do that takes away my responsibility to keep them safe during the entire flight.

It's a mindset that I take into every flight.  

 

 

The FAA would disagree. If I'm serving as an instructor and you ding the plane they're go after my certificate for lack of supervision.

-Robert

[Yetti]

45 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

The FAA would disagree. If I'm serving as an instructor and you ding the plane they're go after my certificate for lack of supervision.

-Robert

If I take the mindset of keeping you safe and owning everything, then there will be no FAA involved.   The one time I might have needed an instructor doing initial training, there was no time for him to react.

Again just a mindset.

Which brings up the question of if both people are CFI and one is giving the other their Flight Review, and something gets dinged, who does the FAA go after?

[RobertGary1]

It should also be noted that your insurance company doesn’t care who the pic is. Your policy will reference the person “flying” or “piloting”. So you cannot let your friend fly and say “I was pic as the named pilot” the insurance company will deny the claim saying the person Flying wasn’t covered regardless of who was pic. 

-Robert