BFR - Instructor Liability
Fred Stellabotte
When an instructor gives a Biannaul Flight Review ..
Does he/she have any legal liability after
the flight review is over .. If the reviewed pilot
did something dump a year after the BFR and got hurt
could the reviewing instructor be held liable ..??
Thanks ...in advance
Fred J. Stellabote - CFIA SEL/MEL Comm Ins
Bill Mitchell
>Quick Question ...
>
>When an instructor gives a Biannaul Flight Review ..
>Does he/she have any legal liability after
>the flight review is over .. If the reviewed pilot
>did something dump a year after the BFR and got hurt
>could the reviewing instructor be held liable ..??
>
I suspect the answer is "it depends what the court says", which means
that the side with the most expensive lawyer probably wins.
Sounds like CFIs may need malpractice insurance here in the land of litigation..
--
mitc...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
G. David Frye
>When an instructor gives a Biannaul Flight Review ..
>Does he/she have any legal liability after
>the flight review is over .. If the reviewed pilot
>did something dump a year after the BFR and got hurt
>could the reviewing instructor be held liable ..??
In article <1991Oct9.2...@mdd.comm.mot.com> Bill Mitchell responds:
>I suspect the answer is "it depends what the court says", which means
>that the side with the most expensive lawyer probably wins.
>
>Sounds like CFIs may need malpractice insurance here in the land of litigation.
There isn't a good answer to this question. From my checking around, it
appears to be very difficult (read: completely impractical) for an independent
CFI to get liability insurance for instruction. CFI's affiliated with an FBO
or other Flight School are covered under the company's insurance as employees,
although there are instances of CFI's being treated as "independent contrac-
tors" by the company in order to get around the liability issue.
Two things work in the CFI's favor. First, most CFI's keep pretty good records
of instruction given, and can describe in some detail the kind of work done
for a particular pilot's BFR. The CFI would want a lawyer, of course, but the
evidence is going to be pretty difficult to refute: "so-and-so was asked to
perform these maneuvers, and at the time met the standards required by the
PTS. He may have done something really boneheaded later on, but he was able
to demonstrate {private,commercial} pilot knowledge and skills during the
BFR." It's in the CFI's interest to keep data like this. It's also a good
idea to avoid situations where, say, the pilot is a friend of the CFI and
gets a BFR involving 15 minutes of flight and a nod in the general direction
of part 91. Or the pilot is known to be a screwup, hasn't flown in 7 years,
and receives a BFR with no dual given beforehand.
The other thing is that, if you look at the history of aviation litigation,
you find that it's exceedingly rare for a CFI to be involved as a defendant.
That may only be because the CFI isn't considered a "deep pocket" because he
or she can't get liability insurance. I'm beginning to think that's a Good
Thing -- but I'll breathe a lot easier if and when Congress passes legislation
limiting "product liability" lawsuits.
G. David Frye, CFIAI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET: fr...@cerl.uiuc.edu PLATO: frye / s / cerl PHONE: (217) 333-7439
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Touretzky
>Sounds like CFIs may need malpractice insurance here in the land
>of litigation..
>--
>mitc...@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
This type of insurance is called E&O, for Errors and Omissions (basically,
negligence.) I had my insurance agent try to find me coverage when I
started giving primary instruction again. The result: it is not available
for individual flight instructors in the US. No one is willing to offer it.
I don't think it's out of the question for a CFI to be sued after an
accident, especially if it's a fatal accident and the plaintiffs are the
deceased's family. It might seem unlikely for the CFI to lose if he was
giving primary instruction and the pilot had subsequently passed, say, a
private pilot checkride, but if the CFI had provided a BFR or high
performance or complex airplane checkout and the pilot subsequently died,
the CFI would be in a pretty exposed position.
Even if the CFI doesn't get sued, there is a good chance that some
serious-looking people will want to talk to him if he was the last guy to
make an endorsement in a dead pilot's logbook. These might be FAA accident
investigators, or plaintiffs' lawyers.
As other people have suggested, the only reasonable defense is for the CFI
to document everything meticulously. For a BFR, it might be a good idea to
give a brief written test on part 91 and on the aircraft's performance,
similar to the pre-solo written test we're now required to administer to
student pilots. For a complex/high performance airplane endorsement I'd
insist on that.
-- Dave Touretzky, CFI-AIM and resident net.paranoid
Mike Myshatyn
> When an instructor gives a Biannaul Flight Review ..
> Does he/she have any legal liability after
> the flight review is over .. If the reviewed pilot
> did something dump a year after the BFR and got hurt
> could the reviewing instructor be held liable ..??
Whenever a pilot does something (e.g. violate FARs, incident, accident,
etc.) part of the investigation might be to go back to the last person
that either issued a license or rating (e.g. a Designated Examiner) and/or
go back to the last instructor that issued a BFR and/or Instrument
Competency Check. I was told by the FAA examiner many years ago (when I
got my CFI) to cover my butt in signing off BFRs by being explicit - e.g.
"...satisfactory...in an airplane single engine land...". This specific
example has to do with the fact that BFRs must only be done in an AIRCRAFT
for which you are rated. Purportedly, the signoff that the FAA guy
suggested covers me in case I give someone a BFR in a single engine plane
and they go off and kill someone in a twin. Bottom line is that the FAA
WILL go back to the last CFI that contributed to the training and/or
currency of the pilot in the event of an incident or accident.
--
Mike Myshatyn Bonanza N4896J Hewlett-Packard Company
ASEL/AMEL COMM, INSTR, CFI-IA User-Interface Technology Division
...!hplabs!fc.hp.com!myshatyn Ft. Collins, CO 80525
or ... mysh...@fc.hp.com (303) 229-4067
Mark Cousins
nobody take it that way, OK?
In rec.aviation, ds...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>As other people have suggested, the only reasonable defense is for the CFI
>to document everything meticulously. For a BFR, it might be a good idea to
>give a brief written test on part 91 and on the aircraft's performance,
>similar to the pre-solo written test we're now required to administer to
>student pilots. For a complex/high performance airplane endorsement I'd
>insist on that.
How incredibly sad this is. Maybe I'm being overly idealistic, or a
pollyanna, but I think that what an instructor does on a BFR or checkout
should be based on what it takes to get the job done, not on covering his
behind in the event of a lawsuit. It would be nice for me to think that the
high-performance checkout written test is being given to me because that's a
good way to measure my knowledge and performance, and not because it
in-writing documents what I did or didn't know at that moment.
I'm not criticizing Dave or anyone else here -- they're just doing what they
think is necessary. I'm just saddened that it seems to be necessary. Sigh.
I wonder what the world would be like if we weren't so focused on shifting
blame for the bad things that happen.
>-- Dave Touretzky, CFI-AIM and resident net.paranoid
^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's sad too.
Lawyers: just say no.
Mark
--
Mark Cousins Hewlett-Packard Co. m...@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs 19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659 Cupertino, CA 95014 FAX: (408) 447-4364