Bugger...........should I have to pay for the damage?

[mumbles]

I was doing a mock flight test with a pre CPL student. During the preceeding two autorotations the student terminated the flare too low and was given one more opportunity to perform a text book auto recovering at a 5 foot hover. During the third auto the student leveled the skids but was too slow in raising the collective and the helicopter touched the ground flicking lose gravel into the tail rotor and damaging one balde which may be beyond repair.

I accept full responsibility for the damage as I was not quick enough in recovering the situation from the student.

My question is should I be liable for the cost of a new blade or should I be given a written warning or just sent down the road.

What is the industry norm????

[helimutt]

mumbles:
Who was PIC? Does the insurance not cover this or is that not an option? I would assume that anyone asking for a mock test flight would be PIC and expected to be able to fly!
Just my point of view but if it had been me and I'd been flying and logging P1 then I'd pay up if the insurance didn't cover it.

[SPS]

If someone has asked for a mock test isn't it likely that he/she is PU/T with no licence and therefore P1 is the instructor?

Anyway, it would be simpler here in NZ, different rules, the tester/examiner is NEVER P1 (a major difference) and then who knows??

I reckon this ocurrence should be an insurance borne cost anyway, as P1 can get it wrong too, BUT! As always, the dreaded excess may be as much as a TR blade and fitting.

[gokel]

Every damage unless negligent or irresponsible ,should be covered. In Spain it´s hard for the pilot even in the airforce someone has been required to pay. Also there´s a lot of trouble if landing places are not legal heliports.(99% aren,t). There´s a lot of info in www.apythel.org (http://www.apythel.org) , know our market and see how is IIIworld piloting.

------------------

[whatsarunway]

Assuming the student has a licence ie ppl then he should be able to perform a touchdown auto , given that you were doing a check ride the student was p1/s ie pilot in command under supervision, but he was still in command! id say the norm would be for the insurance to cover it and the p1 (under supervision or otherwise) to ensure the insurance it there , if not then it comes out of the p1s pocket.


good luck.

[Hughes500]

The insurance will cover the blade with the exception of the xs which is normally the first 5% of hull value. Therefore I doubt the insurance will cover the blade.

However did you sign anything to say you pay for the first 5% of hull value, if not you are in the clear

Good luck

[A109]

The bloke's licence is irrelevant ,it was instruction therefore licensed airport required. The state of the ground of an area to which you are autorotating should be such that it would be ok for a complete engine off, obviously you don't know that the engine will definitely respond at the bottom. A bit of gravel flying is surely an act of God as you have to allow the bloke to make a mistake before you can tell him what he did wrong. (Though not in a Robinson of course!) If anyone was at fault it was the airfield for the state of their autorotation area. You however don't say who owns the helicopter, under whose auspices you were carrying out the instruction,etc etc . Is there a bit more to this than meets the eye? It should be a simple insurance job as long as everything is kosher. Whatever the insurance doesn't cover should be down to the aircraft owner as long as he has agreed to instruction being carried out with his aircraft. Any professional "punishment" is not called for, after all you didn't let him pile into the ground having pulled in the lever at a couple of hundred feet without opening the throttle! You can do that in a Bell 47 by the way and still recover!

[This message has been edited by A109 (edited 05 February 2001).]

[Flying Lawyer]

mumbles
It's impossible to give a definitive answer to your question from the limited information you've provided because there are too many variables but, you are unlikely to be liable for the cost of repairs.
It is certainly not the industry "norm" for an instructor to be liable for damage caused whilst instructing. If it was, most young instructors couldn't possibly take the risk of instructing.
I assume you are employed by the school, not the student but, are you an employee or a self-employed freelance instructor?
If you are a employee, you should have a contract of employment. What does it say, if anything, about such incidents?
What, if anything was said, about insurance cover when you started your employment with the school?
You say you accept full responsibility for the damage. Don't!
There is often a big difference between "moral" responsibility and legal responsibility. Although Helimutt's approach is commendably generous, it may not necessarily be the correct answer in law and, of course, what people "would do" in theory is not always what they would do if it happened to them.
On the very limited information you've provided, my preliminary views are:
No, you should not be liable for the cost of a new blade.
A written warning might be reasonable.
Unless there have been previous incidents where you were at fault, you should not be "just sent down the road."
It is almost certain that there will be insurance cover. The "Excess" may be greater than the costs of repairs, but that is a financial arrangement between the school and the insurance company designed to reduce the amount of the premiums. It doesn't affect your position.
If you are asked to complete forms for the insurance company, be VERY careful what you say. Keep your account short and simple. You can always add more detail later if required.
Do NOT make any admission of blame. There may be a question which asks whom you consider to be responsible for the damage. The short answer is "X - who was flying at the time of the incident." Leave it to others to argue that you should have taken control in time to prevent the damage.
NB:
The questions I've posed are just some of the factors which need to be considered - I don't mean that you should answer them here.
Given that the total cost of a new blade (parts and labour) is likely to be considerable, you should take advice from a specialist aviation solicitor if there is any suggestion that you should pay for the damage. Similarly, if there is any suggestion of sending you "down the road".

As a Barrister, I cannot become directly involved in your problem. However, if you wish me to give you the names of a few aviation solicitors, please feel free to e-mail me.

Tudor Owen

[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 06 February 2001).]

[tech]

Don't beat yourself up. I know you feel bad but training has a lot of associated risk. You did the best you could , it was unforseen, unintentional. Flight schools have to be prepared for that sort of thing.
To paraphrase a hi-time instructor"if a school doesn't write off a machine every couple of years then they ain't providing realistic training."
It is just one of the hazards of the job along with bent skid tubes, overspeeds ect.

[The angry palm tree]

I think A109 was on the right track with this, surely the area available/supplied for autorotations was probably not suitable? We do autos onto a grass strip thats as smooth as a bowling green, my CFI would have kittens if we bounced down on gravel!

[Hoverman]

I assume Mumbles was very grateful for the free legal advice from Flying Lawyer.

Are you very busy at the moment Mumbles? :rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by Hoverman (edited 08 February 2001).]

[nomdeplume]

mumbles
It's now four days since Flying Lawyer took a lot of trouble to answer your question. Presumably it was worrying you, or you wouldn't have posted the question.
Lawyers aren't exactly famous for giving their advice free of charge, but Flying Lawyer often does so on PPRuNe.
Perhaps nobody's asked you to pick up the bill for the damage, so your worries are over. But, even if they are, don't you think it's only common courtesy to thank him?

[mumbles]

As it happens I responded to The Flying Lawyer via e-mail thanking him. However, considering he has not replied, and it would appear there is a questioning of my appreciation, I will now take the liberty of thanking him and everyone else who have openly shared their experiences, more publicly.
As it has turned out more recently, things are sorting themselves out I am pleased to say.
Thanks again all. Take care.

[Flying Lawyer]

mumbles
I'm pleased things are sorting themselves out for you.
I wouldn't want you to think I ignored your email - nothing received.
Good Luck

[HeloTeacher]

Personally, if my flight school had even hinted at my paying the cost in a situation such as this, my resume's would be rapidly looking for a better home.

A109: where do you operate, I was wondering about the comment you made about instruction requiring a cerified airport?