A warning message to flying instructors
From the newspaper The Australian, issue January15 2026.
Flight School to pay pilot $800,000. A flight training school must pay a former student almost $800,000 in damages, after it unsuccessfully appealed against a court decision that found it was at fault for a light aircraft crash. The student took action against Gobel Aviation, previously known as Soar Aviation, when a 2017 solo flight assessment at Bendigo went terribly wrong. The student claimed his instructor failed to follow procedure when he used the Foxbat's aircraft's dual controls to try and correct the plane's position on the runway, triggering a chain of events that resulted in a crash.
As both pilot and instructor applied the right rudder pedal, unaware of the other's actions, the aircraft veered to the right, taking out a light on the runway. In his confusion, the student pulled back on the control stick, which led to the Foxbat taking off at such an angle it stalled and crashed at a speed of about 110 km/h. Although both men walked away from the crumbled Foxbat, the student suffered ongoing psychological trauma which ended his dream of becoming a commercial pilot.
The County Court of Victoria ruled Gobel Aviation was responsible for the crash, due to the instructor's failure to communicate to the student that he was taking over control of the aircraft. The instructor agreed that it was proper procedure to say "taking over" when taking control of the aircraft, to which the student was to reply "handing over.". He did not announce he was taking over control, he did not ask the student to relinquish control, the Justice found.
The company appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria arguing the Justice had erred in the findings about the movement of the aircraft and Gobel Aviation's liability for the crash and the assessment of damages. The appeal was dismissed. Gobel Aviation argued there was no guarantee the student would ever have worked as a commercial pilot and a "discount" of at least 50 per cent should have been should have been applied.. The appeal judges said the Justice had applied a 25 per cent discount for the "uncertainty of life" which was found to be appropriate.
After a period of recovery the student returned to flying with another flying school but found he was extremely anxious when accompanied by an instructor and could not face the prospect of carrying passengers. The Justice accepted expert medical evidence that the student was unable to pursue his ambition of becoming a commercial pilot due to his post traumatic stress disorder. The Justice awarded damages of $797,373 including $561.412 for loss of earning capacity based on the difference between a commercial pilot's salary and that of his current job as a book keeper.
Comment. The whole period of flight of the incident aircraft would have been around 30 seconds from the initial swing during the take off roll, to climb, stall and impact. And all because the instructor made one simple error of judgement in the heat of the moment by not saying, "Taking Over. " The student must have got himself a pretty good lawyer who had the legal skills to persuade the court that the instructor was at fault for the accident. One can only wonder why there was no mention of the student's panic driven hauling back on the stick hard enough to cause a stall at low altitude leaving little hope of recovery before impact.
Last edited by Centaurus; 15th January 2026 at 04:23.