autoranger:
Just to throw this one out there:
1. Assuming the "student" holds a solo sign off---this will still fall back onto the CFI, as the "student" is effectively operating on the CFI's signature until such times as he has been deemed competent by the FAA to act as PIC after being issued at a minimum a private license.
2. Now let us assume the "student" has a private license. The "instructor" was "presumed" to be giving instruction by the fact that he holds a CFI license, (I am assuming this for the purpose of this discussion---under certain circumstances he could give instruction without holding a CFI license). So, now he gets out and tells the "student" to shut down the aircraft....one assumes that the "instructor" will normally log the time as instruction given----thereby making himself liable, AND being the PIC for the purpose of the flight in the eyes of the FAA.
Let us assume that the "instructor" holds a CFI license and that this was an "instruction" flight. Determining who is the PIC on such a training flight is a factual issue depending upon the stories of the parties involved, (one of the parties being Bristow Academy). If a CFI gives, or agrees to give dual, then in the event of an accident or enforcement action for a violation, the FAA will probably go after the CFI, using the rationale in the Walkup decision below, (which I have cited before), emphasis added by me:
In determining whether the CFI aboard the aircraft was the PIC (in this case, subsequent to an accident, the CFI denied it) the judge in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36 (1988) said:
"... Similarly, the amount of time or whether the person is current and qualified would not in and of itself be dispositive. You could have a 15,000 hour Captain for one of the major airlines but if he's transitioning up to a 767, when he's being given instruction, he is still the student and the instructor pilot is the individual who is pilot-in-command of the aircraft." ...
"... Even if one is current and qualified, if you don't feel comfortable about doing particular types of maneuvers, whether its take-offs and landings or chandelles or whatever if you ask the flight instructor to check you out and to give you comments to improve your performance you are receiving flight instruction."
In perhaps the most important reasoning of the case (for CFI's), The judge in Walkup continued:
"... The mere fact of holding designation as certificated flight instructor doesn't mean that you are, ipso facto, pilot-in-command if you're aboard the aircraft. That is, possession of that certificate doesn't magically convert you into pilot-in-command as soon as you step aboard any particular aircraft, even if it is one in which you are type rated or current in. What makes the flight instructor the pilot-in-command is when he assumes that position as pilot-in-command
by giving or agreeing to give flight instruction. "
This case is still valid precedent and has been cited at least twice since then in other FAA certificate enforcement actions.
So, YES, I stand by my original statement:
Be interesting to see the FAA response on this one.
There is a way the "instructor" would NOT be liable and NOT face enforcement action, but alas is probably too late as I am sure he/she has given statements to the contrary by now..... but, IF, the purpose of the flight was for the student to log time, and that "student" held at least a private license in rotorcraft/helicopter, was flying in the designated "pilot seat", and the "person in the left seat" was there purely as a passenger, and this had been agreed upon BEFORE the flight, and NOBODY, (including Bristow Academy), were to dispute this, and it was preferably in writing---then the "person in the left seat" would not be liable regardless of what certificate or rating they held. And yes---as some people on here know---I am studying law, and am infinitely familiar with FAA enforcement actions. Feel free to "donate" to my education fund for the advice given........
