Flight instructor or PIC responsibility?

[eggplantwalking]

Can any of you chaps quote or advise the JAR regulation stating the legal responsibilities of the PIC or instructor to a student for an aircraft under his/her command? For example: a student is charged 200 pounds per hour for flight training. The instructor of this student elects to make takeoffs and landings at an airport which charges a fee of 300 pounds for every circuit. Obviously, the student was unaware of this charge ( because he is a student) but, never-the-less receives a billing in the mail for the use of the airspace in addition to his stipulated 200 pounds per hour training fee. Obviously, someone is responsible for the circuit fee, or the fee for the use of the airspace. However, since the student had no previous knowledge of this cost, nor was he informed of it, can he be held responsible for its payment? Or, was it a cock-up by the instructor and itn should have been his responsibility for doing the correct homework pryor to the flight; ascertaining the potential costs and thus informing his student? I would have thought that a fixed training price per hour should include any and all costs including fuel, aircraft, instructor fees, landing fees, etc. Any comments would be most appreciated from the professional instructors or training captains out there.

[expedite_climb]

Many moons ago when I did my IMC training, my instructor took me to LBA to do an approach to GA. This would be ok, he said, because if we rang them first to check, they wouldn't charge us, so we wouldnt need to land...

Three weeks later I was presented with a 'minimum invoice amount'.

Wasnt best pleased, the trip had been a huge learning experience, but if boss man had had the correct facts we could have landed and paid half the price I was now paying.... aaah well.

[Gerund]

It seems pretty clear to me; you are not liable for any 'unreasonable' charges in relation to your training costs. What is reasonable, and what is unreasonable, is obviously a matter of opinion and, in the last resort will be decided by a court, if you cannot come to a compromise with your training provider.

If you have been told that approach and landing charges are in addition to the hourly rate, then these must be reasonable in relation to landing fees and approach fees in general, or you must be advised in advance. If you have not been so told, then you will be liable if it is normal practice within the training industry to add approach and landing fees to the hourly rate for training.

As far as the charges in relation to the flight concerned, they are the initial responsibility of the operator who must then charge them on as appropriate. It seems strange that you have received a bill direct. It sounds to me as if the initial bill went to the operator who then asked the airport to reinvoice you! Query this with the airport concerned. I believe you have no personal liability to the airport for the charges.

If it comes to a fight over this with your training provider, the common law principal of 'quantum meruit' will prevail. A court will make you pay 'a fair reward for services rendered' by your training provider. No court would deem it reasonable for you to have to pay 300 pounds per landing during your training. Bear in mind this is a question of what it is 'reasonable for you to pay your training provider'; it is eminently reasonable for the training provider to pay the airport - that is the charge and they should have known about it. You will end up having to pay a 'quantum meruit' based on approach and landing charges that are normal in training.

This is my tuppence halfpenny worth! Good luck!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Can't see where JAR regulations could come into this - sounds like contract law to me.

If your contract with the instructor/club/school doesn't go into this much detail then it will be up to the court to decide what the implied term was.

[MLS-12D]

I agree, this is not a JAR issue.

I don't know about the argument that hire of the aircraft and instructor is all-inclusive. In my experience, most flying schools have posted notices, or provide their students/renters with written policies, that expressly exclude landing fees. If your school didn't do that, you might credibly be able to say that you thought the 200 pounds included everything. But before you go down that road, double-check whatever communications you received from the school to ensure that landing fees weren't mentioned.

MLS-12D

P.S. The scenario posed by EPW actually happened to me when I was doing my night rating. My instructor proposed doing a 'low and over' at Buttonville airport, on the basis that no landing fee would be charged. About two weeks later (surprise!), the flying school received a bill for C$18 (approx., I can't recall exactly), which they added to my account. Needless to say, I wasn't thrilled (particularly when there was no need to do the 'low and over' in the first place), but it was an honest mistake and, like expedite_climb, I let it go. If the bill had been for 10x the amount, I wouldn't have been so forgiving, however!

[paulo]

I'm not a legal professional, but I would doubt the court would find in favour of the school unless there was something tangible to say you knew - e.g. previous flights & payment (by you) of charges into the same airport, you agreeing to some general exclusion ("blah blah charges are not included")... there has to be something that either explicitly or implicitly gets your consent.

Then again, you have to go to court, which is a bit dull. Esp. for 300 quid.

Best of luck.

[mad_jock]

Those amounts seem pretty bloody high, What type were you flying?


As for training apoproach costs its really an open ended agreement between yourself and your training organisation.

If you enter an airports ATZ you open yourself up to getting charged and I have in the past refused a vector and height not above because the feckers were trying to get me into the ATZ to charge me. They got told that I was VFR in Class G so negative.

Some airports these days are fly twats so know your airlaw. If they try and control you to seperate you from IFR traffic in airspace that they ain't allowed to tell them to sod off!!!

MJ

[dublinpilot]

Looking at Eggplantwalking's profile would suggest that epw is the instructor, not the student.

Personally I would have to say that I think reasonableness has to come into it.

If the student is a abinto student and is normally resonsible for land away landing fees then surely the instructor owes them a duty of care, and should warn them if they are landing somewhere that will cost them £100's if they normally pay £10.

However if the student is a qualified PPL or CPL and is a "student" training to add another rating onto their ticket, then maybe they should know better about where they are likely to be charged enormous fees, and the instructor may not have such a duty of care.

dp

[nonradio]

In any event the debt stays with the airframe - which can of course eventually be seized and sold to satisfy the debt.
I've said it before, but ( like Shakespeare) it can take the repeats: Whereas mortgages have to be registered with the UK CAA, the airport charge debts do not!! Caveat emptor, chaps

If you had any inkling that the landing fees would be huge, though you had not been specifically told, then some liability should be on your shoulders. Presumably your instructor was authorised by the school to undertake landing practice at this A/D in which case - his decision, his liability; and by definition, their liability...

[bluskis]

Assuming this scenario is in Belgium, I don't think common law, or any other sort of UK law would help in interpretation.

As a warning to others, if it happened, was it Brussels Intenational, or perhaps a Belgium military field?