N201MKTurbo

Mooney Down - KCHD

Recommended Posts

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

11 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

see above

The National Transportation
Safety Board (hereinafter NTSB or
the Board), in one of its earlier cases
clearly states that regardless of who is
manipulating the controls of an aircraft
during an instructional flight, the CFI is
always deemed to be the pilot in com-
mand.19 The Board even goes so far to
state that it makes no difference what
level of proficiency a student may have
attained, the flight instructor is still the
pilot in command

 

It's been proven many times. 

 

Na, I'll let you find them. They're out there and not difficult to find. You've wasted enough of my time. Especially since I believe some of these questions are supposed to be part of a check ride. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

following your logic, every accident is the fault of the CFI as he should have "taught them not to do that' whether he is present or not. In fact, CFI's have been sued years after instruction because of, well, somebody's got to pay, and it is the job of the slip and fall industry to make sure someone does. 

This mentality tends to limit primary instructors to be young,  ignorant, and assetless. And it makes me re-think my daily rate...just sayin... 

But to answer your question, yes he was there to give instruction. Was he there as a guarantee against preventing the Pic from having an accident? Here is where your perception of an instructors' role is skewed. More accidents have been prevented for sure by instructors, but instruction does not come with a guarantee we can prevent you from doing something that might get us both killed. Most of the time we can and do, but this isnt an ironclad guarantee.

A "student pilot" is on a solo cross country, as a requirement for his/her Private Pilot license.  The Instructor gave the endorsement for the flight.  Something goes wrong and the student has an accident....

As much as it would be fun to instruct for the Private, there is absolutely no way I would ever consider teaching the Private.  No amount of money would convince me to change my mind about that one.  The only way I am going to risk what I have is to be in the airplane in the right seat.  And that means I won't ever consider riding in the back seat either.  And I won't teach in an airplane in which I am not totally familiar.  There's a good reason to be an airplane specific instructor, and specifically for me the Mooney.  I've taught extensively in every model except the D and G and there aren't many D's, and the G differs from the F only to the extent of its twisted wing.  The Mooney wing is the Mooney wing.  Unlike even the Cessna 150, near the "break", if the plane is going to fall off on a wing, you can feel it start to do that and take immediate corrective action.  The stabilized approach to landing attitude can be set in your mind.  It becomes obvious when a student has the wrong attitude, and I will not let it go too far.  Know the airplane, reduce the risk.

When it comes to teaching, I always assume the worst.  When I haven't it comes back to bite me, as the time I didn't personally check the fuel "in the tank" before takeoff.  We trained for a couple of hours at low power settings.  The fuel in the right tank indicated ½. Then, after takeoff and after turning downwind, the engine began to sputter.  I declared an emergency, said, "I've got the airplane" and managed to successfully land downwind.  The plane was newly purchased and it turned out the fuel gage was frozen in place.

There are so many good reasons to teach: meeting new and interesting people; the satisfaction of seeing a student successfully complete a rating, and being a part of  it; transitioning a person with a newly purchased airplane and seeing the excitement and joy that brings to them; going on rock band tours all over the country as an instructor;  jet type rating as a result of teaching;  teaching new avionics; and how about being paid to just go flying.

Sooo, I think I will continue to be a flight instructor in spite of much that has been said in this thread.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting enough there is actually a definition for PIC:

Pilot in command means the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

Carry on

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chriscalandro said:

The National Transportation
Safety Board (hereinafter NTSB or
the Board), in one of its earlier cases
clearly states that regardless of who is
manipulating the controls of an aircraft
during an instructional flight, the CFI is
always deemed to be the pilot in com-
mand.19 The Board even goes so far to
state that it makes no difference what
level of proficiency a student may have
attained, the flight instructor is still the
pilot in command

from the article I posted previously:

In a 1995 case, the FAA sought to suspend a flight instructor’s certificate following an accident in which the instructor was conducting a “check-out” flight for an experienced pilot. While performing a touch-and-go operation, the student applied full power after touchdown. Then, without warning or direction from the instructor, the student reduced power and applied full braking with only 300 ft of remaining runway. The aircraft crashed through a perimeter fence and ran another 400 ft into a cornfield.

Refusing to affirm the FAA’s suspension of the instructor’s certificate, the NTSB said although flight instructors are expected to do “all things possible for the safety of the flight,” they are not held liable for the safe outcome of the training flight. Despite the instructor being recognized as PIC of the flight, the NTSB said, an experienced pilot’s unexpected actions at a critical moment in a critical phase of flight made it impossible for the instructor to prevent the accident.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This...

1 hour ago, chriscalandro said:

The National Transportation
Safety Board (hereinafter NTSB or
the Board), in one of its earlier cases
clearly states that regardless of who is
manipulating the controls of an aircraft
during an instructional flight, the CFI is
always deemed to be the pilot in com-
mand.19 The Board even goes so far to
state that it makes no difference what
level of proficiency a student may have
attained, the flight instructor is still the
pilot in command

is a long ways from this... 

On 9/14/2019 at 6:11 PM, chriscalandro said:

When it comes to the FAA and trouble, whoever has the most experience is the one on the hook.  Not necessarily the PIC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one example, a gear up, or a badly performed short field is another. 

The FAA I believe tried to charge the CFI in that case, which is exactly what I'm talking about here. 

The NTSB however did not agree. Either way, I'm sure you can agree it was a mess for both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I see how this is going to play out and at this point all I can say is good luck to you. 

I have a feeling you will find out sooner or later. You know, karma and all that. 

The several people who have PMed me several regulations and articles backing what I have said here is good enough for me that I got my point across that I don't need to continue this discussion with you not always right, but never in doubt. 

 

Edited by chriscalandro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

following your logic, every accident is the fault of the CFI as he should have "taught them not to do that' whether he is present or not. In fact, CFI's have been sued years after instruction because of, well, somebody's got to pay, and it is the job of the slip and fall industry to make sure someone does. 

This mentality tends to limit primary instructors to be young,  ignorant, and assetless. And it makes me re-think my daily rate...just sayin... 

But to answer your question, yes he was there to give instruction. Was he there as a guarantee against preventing the Pic from having an accident? Here is where your perception of an instructors' role is skewed. More accidents have been prevented for sure by instructors, but instruction does not come with a guarantee we can prevent you from doing something that might get us both killed. Most of the time we can and do, but this isnt an ironclad guarantee.

A CFI who can't keep the other guy out of a departure stall isn't much of a CFI.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, steingar said:

A CFI who can't keep the other guy out of a departure stall isn't much of a CFI.  

Have you never forgot to reset your trim and then applied full power?    It's an event that you make sure not to repeat.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yetti said:

Have you never forgot to reset your trim and then applied full power?    It's an event that you make sure not to repeat.

Yeah, and my CFI pushed the yoke to keep us out of the departure stall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steingar said:

Yeah, and my CFI pushed the yoke to keep us out of the departure stall.

So you did not learn the lesson and are doomed to repeat it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Igor_U said:

I'm sure this will not change opinion of some people but nevertheless is interesting article to read about being what PIC, FAR and NTSB enforcement:

http://www.peter-ftp.co.uk/aviation/misc-euroga/2018-83ndlr817.pdf

 

Nice find!  It seems to provide references to the two cases in the article I found.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Nice find!  It seems to provide references to the two cases in the article I found.   

Yes,

it looks like no one reads (or remembers) legal articles in AOPE Pilot. I seem to remember a couple of examples described over past 2 decades about FAA enforcements to pilots onboard not flying... of course I have no links and all my magazines are safely in hangar. :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Igor_U said:

Yes,

it looks like no one reads (or remembers) legal articles in AOPE Pilot. I seem to remember a couple of examples described over past 2 decades about FAA enforcements to pilots onboard not flying... of course I have no links and all my magazines are safely in hangar. :D

 

You can get a lot of them online now, although I don't know how far back in time they go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

This...

is a long ways from this... 

Good catch Paul

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Yetti said:

So you did not learn the lesson and are doomed to repeat it.

Dead people don't learn very much.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, steingar said:

A CFI who can't keep the other guy out of a departure stall isn't much of a CFI.  

Wow.. such a judgement call with "No information about this incident.  Things happen very quickly in Mooneys.  My saying is "If you weren't in the cockpit, you shouldn't judge another's actions".

Can't we support our fellow Mooniacs here in MooneySpace until they are proven wrong?  Give them our support over their loss.  Just sayin'

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 8:25 AM, donkaye said:

A "student pilot" is on a solo cross country, as a requirement for his/her Private Pilot license.  The Instructor gave the endorsement for the flight.  Something goes wrong and the student has an accident....

As much as it would be fun to instruct for the Private, there is absolutely no way I would ever consider teaching the Private.  No amount of money would convince me to change my mind about that one.  The only way I am going to risk what I have is to be in the airplane in the right seat.  And that means I won't ever consider riding in the back seat either.  And I won't teach in an airplane in which I am not totally familiar.  There's a good reason to be an airplane specific instructor, and specifically for me the Mooney.  I've taught extensively in every model except the D and G and there aren't many D's, and the G differs from the F only to the extent of its twisted wing.  The Mooney wing is the Mooney wing.  Unlike even the Cessna 150, near the "break", if the plane is going to fall off on a wing, you can feel it start to do that and take immediate corrective action.  The stabilized approach to landing attitude can be set in your mind.  It becomes obvious when a student has the wrong attitude, and I will not let it go too far.  Know the airplane, reduce the risk.

When it comes to teaching, I always assume the worst.  When I haven't it comes back to bite me, as the time I didn't personally check the fuel "in the tank" before takeoff.  We trained for a couple of hours at low power settings.  The fuel in the right tank indicated ½. Then, after takeoff and after turning downwind, the engine began to sputter.  I declared an emergency, said, "I've got the airplane" and managed to successfully land downwind.  The plane was newly purchased and it turned out the fuel gage was frozen in place.

There are so many good reasons to teach: meeting new and interesting people; the satisfaction of seeing a student successfully complete a rating, and being a part of  it; transitioning a person with a newly purchased airplane and seeing the excitement and joy that brings to them; going on rock band tours all over the country as an instructor;  jet type rating as a result of teaching;  teaching new avionics; and how about being paid to just go flying.

Sooo, I think I will continue to be a flight instructor in spite of much that has been said in this thread.

I can’t disagree with your reasons for not providing instruction to private pilot candidates, but this speaks to the demise of general aviation in this country.  There’s a lot of older experienced pilots who would make good cfis for the next generation and unfortunately, they’re sitting on the sidelines due to perceived (or real) liability issues.  If we can’t solve this through insurance or by limiting liability, we will continue to see a decline in pilots while also losing lots of good experience from older cfis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:
On 9/17/2019 at 9:25 AM, donkaye said:

 

I can’t disagree with your reasons for not providing instruction to private pilot candidates, but this speaks to the demise of general aviation in this country.  There’s a lot of older experienced pilots who would make good cfis for the next generation and unfortunately, they’re sitting on the sidelines due to perceived (or real) liability issues.  If we can’t solve this through insurance or by limiting liability, we will continue to see a decline in pilots while also losing lots of good experience from older cfis.

Unfortunately, liability is a real concern for CFI’s. Although I use to instruct pilots of all levels in many different single and multiengine airplanes, tailwheel airplanes, and gliders, I rarely instruct these days due to liability concerns and limited time. I already work in a high liability profession, so while I really enjoyed part time instructing, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense for me to place me or my family at financial risk.

CFIs don’t share the same protections as DPEs. While I was fortunate to have universally good experiences with my clients, it’s foolish to think bad things can’t happen to you no matter how good a pilot or instructor you are or think you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

I can’t disagree with your reasons for not providing instruction to private pilot candidates, but this speaks to the demise of general aviation in this country.  There’s a lot of older experienced pilots who would make good cfis for the next generation and unfortunately, they’re sitting on the sidelines due to perceived (or real) liability issues.  If we can’t solve this through insurance or by limiting liability, we will continue to see a decline in pilots while also losing lots of good experience from older cfis.

I have nearly 6,300 hours of teaching, almost half my total time, and mostly in Mooneys.  I have no intention of stopping.  I've been doing it for over 25 years now pretty much full time, and haven't lost that spark for flight.  But liability is a real issue for anyone with assets due to our very litigious society.  Although I have my own CFI insurance, there is no insurance that will come anywhere near covering me.  Therefore, I won't teach anyone unless I'm named on their policy with a waiver of subrogation.  In one very prominent situation this year, the insurance company refused to give it, even with my credentials and after I discussed the potential consequences with them.   While no instructor might have prevented the situation. the result absolutely reaffirms the need for instructors to be covered as an additional insured with the waiver of subrogation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our litigious society takes an inordinate amount of joy from our lives, whether it be the joy of teaching flying through our jobs and everything in between, we as pilots carry 1-2m in various insurance, I’m a small lowly accountant and carry a couple million in malpractice insurance, I’ve given up my audit practice this year after 40+ years providing the service. The compliance costs including insurance is totally ridiculous. People bitch at Doctors, dentist, veterinarians,accountants and lawyers due the unbelievable high rates that must be charged to comply with crazy regulations. Back to instructing  I assume to be properly covered eg, like Don mentions he’d have to go to Lloyd’s of London or various other means if at all available just to teach the art of flight, a sorry litigious world has been created 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Danb said:

Our litigious society takes an inordinate amount of joy from our lives, whether it be the joy of teaching flying through our jobs and everything in between, we as pilots carry 1-2m in various insurance, I’m a small lowly accountant and carry a couple million in malpractice insurance, I’ve given up my audit practice this year after 40+ years providing the service. The compliance costs including insurance is totally ridiculous. People bitch at Doctors, dentist, veterinarians,accountants and lawyers due the unbelievable high rates that must be charged to comply with crazy regulations. Back to instructing  I assume to be properly covered eg, like Don mentions he’d have to go to Lloyd’s of London or various other means if at all available just to teach the art of flight, a sorry litigious world has been created 

And is a big addition to the cost of certified airplanes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.