Liability of an Instructor?

[michael36]

Hey

I am thinking of doing an Instructor rating program once I have completed my CPL training (Hoping to have my license by April). What I was curious about is, is an instructor liable for all the actions and inactions of their students.
i.e. You have cleared your student for a solo flight (after showing adequate competency in the circuit etc), then your student inadvertently enters an active runway without a clearance which endangers other aircraft. Another example, your student enters controlled airspace which inadvertently inflicts with an IFR flight, or your student damages the plane or crashes it resulting in serious injury or even death!
What will happen to you as an instructor, will you lose your license, fined, no longer allowed to instruct?
I guess instructors would rather not talk about these topics but it can and does happen, and I am just trying to prepare myself

[mates rates]

Make sure his training file reflects the standard required for the solo sequence he is conducting.Also,initially you will be operating under the supervision of a higher level instructor who will be required to authorise these flights.You will only be able to authorise different training by students when you gain the experience and the higher grade of instructor.It's all in the CAO's.

[in-cog-nito]

Hi there Michael.

Being an ex-CFI of a reasonable sized school with a large percentage of international students, I have some experience with some of the situations in your post.
If a student on a solo infringes an active runway or punches CTA, the school will get an ESIR which will be requiring responses from the PIC(the student) and the CP/CFI.
Basically, the Department want to know what you have learnt and how you will prevent it from happening in the future.

Some of the more serious ones where the student has nearly centre-punches an airliner or holds up 10 aircraft trying to get in and out of, say ML for instances, because they strayed within a mile of runway will attract some unwanted attention.

We had a student who caused those sort of problems once and it was the instructor's records that helped with the investigations. Even the CASA people were impressed and comment that this how it should be done. Clear, accurate and within writing a novel!

All I can say is that good paperwork can save your arse. Things like accurate detailed student progress records. "CTS ok, but will need more" just don't cut it.
AFRs and endorsements are another good one. If you into doing quickie flight reviews/endo and they have a fatal, the QC will probably ask " What did you do in that 1 hour VDO at Moorabbin when it takes most pilot's 0.2 or 0.3 to get to the runway and other 0.1 or so to get back?". As the judge once told me, If you haven't seen it, don't sign it.

So what my ramblings boil down to is this:
Good accurate and detailed paperwork can save your arse.
Go through with your students what you are writing. It's no secret! And get them to read, agree and sign it as well.
Don't do things by half or quickies.

If do things right, then you will have nothing to fear!
And remember, you can't save D:mad:heads from themselves.

In-cog

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

There could be liability problems if you work as a "sham contractor"...as I understand it you have to provide your own if you are not paid as an employee.

http://www.business.gov.au/BusinessTopics/Independentcontractors/Documents/Independentcontractorstheessentialhandbook.pdf

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Liability would be an issue if you were conducting endorsement training outside of the AOC (perfectly legal, mind you). I think you will find you are covered by the school's insurance policy if you are conducting training under the AOC itself (as ratings, license training must be).

[Horatio Leafblower]

Any employee working within the scope of his employment and obeying a reasonable and legal instruction from his employer is protected by the principle of vicarious liability.

ie: your employer told you to do it that way, or accepted your practice of doing it that way, therefore he wears it.

An employee is NOT covered under vicarious liability if he or she acts outside the scope of their employment or "on a folly of his own".

If you are a real contractor you are not protected by vicarious liability, because you aren't a 'servant' of the employer.

If you are a "sham contractor" (your barrister will need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that this is the case) then you are in reality an employee and therefore protected.

Your employer, in attempting to escape his liability, will be attempting to prove that either you are a genuine contractor OR that you acted contrary to the instructions in the Operations Manual.

Know your Ops Manual and work according to what's in it. If there is something in it that looks wrong, make sure the CP knows about it and dont do a "work around".

**usual warning about independant legal advice etc**