View Full Version : So who should pay for this error?
Flingingwings
29th Aug 2006, 09:58
Following an interesting chat over beer the other night what are your views on this little scenario?
Scenario is real and before anybody suggests it I'm neither the student or instructor and have no vested interest in how this matter is resolved :ok:
PPL student is sent out by an experienced instructor to start the aircraft unsupervised (SEP). Student for whatever reason starts the machine with the throttle open and causes damage :{
Who pays :confused:
It's been suggested by the FTO that the student should pay the insurance excess :(
IMHO as the FI is technically P1 ultimate responsibility rests with him/her, and that the FTO should pick up all repair costs. The burden on us is always to ensure as best as possible that the student gets it right. As I see it if this becomes commonplace it will get silly - student goofs pfl and lands heavily then pays for the instructors failings. Hardly a good advert for raising the industry status for instructors to be regarded as professionals and paid accordingly :eek:
1. What is the written policy of the organisation for the authorisation of personnel including ground personnel to start engines and to taxi the aircraft?
2. What is the written policy of the organisation for the loading of personnel when aircraft have engines running?
3. Was the student qualified to operate solo i.e. was this a student who had previously solo'ed but was this time on a dual flight?
You are quite right that the instructor was effectively P1 and has the responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and more importantly the safety of those on board from the moment that the first person boards the aircraft for the purpose of flight.
What needs to be done is a check to find out answers to the above and thus to find out if;
a) The organisation has poor prrocedures or practices which lead to the incident.
b) The instructor breached written procedures (authorising the start while not there, expecting to board with engines running when the procedures preclude this etc); and/or
c) The student was acting within or without their qualifications by starting the engine unsupervised.
Most organisations have clear instructions regarding the above. Often there is a formal method of authorisation of personnel as being competent to start engines and taxi aircraft. This procedure would include ground personnel as well as students.
When dealing with the insurance excess, one has to considder some factors;
1. Was this a commercial organisation which in order to maximise profit, accpeted a risk by only partly insuring agains a loss.
2. Was there an agreement that the student is responsible for any insurance excess. This would only normally apply when the student is a syndicate member i.e. part owner (in fact and not just name), is aware of and has agreed to the excess and is responsible for causing the loss. (see the above regarding procedures).
3. Most waivers signed regarding recoveries of losses or not holding organisations responsible in the event of an accident are worth slightly less than toilet paper.
I believe that if this is a case of an instructor on a dual flight instructing the student to start the aircraft and they will be out later then the organisation who employs the instructor will be responsible for the loss because either they did not put proper procedures in place and ensure that they were followed or their employee/ contractor disregarded the procedures.
Regards,
DFC
Flingingwings
29th Aug 2006, 16:32
DFC,
Can understand exactly where you are coming from.
To clarify the flight in question was to be a dual training exercise. Student soloed some time ago and was nearing test, in fact this flight was to be one of a few pre skills test 'tests'. Student went out to start a/c whilst Instructor signed out etc etc.
No written arrangement between FTO and student regarding insurance excess. Not an AOC or passenger carrying flight.
It struck me as an inappropriate way for the FTO to save themselves some cash, for what is ultimately the instructors error
FlyingForFun
29th Aug 2006, 16:37
Can't really add to DFC's reply, except to debate the general issue of students starting aircraft on their own.
It's been my experience that this is fairly widespread in the industry, but it's not something I've ever allowed my students to do. The reason isn't related to safety - I'm quite happy for students to start aircraft on their own for solo x-countries, or to go to the fuel pumps, for example. But surely there is an element of instruction which needs to be given on starting an engine? Just watch any new student starting an engine, and you will realise that it is not a trivial task. Just because we have done it so many times we can do it blindfolded in our sleep, students still find it a long and complex process, compared to starting a car, for example. Even after going solo, although no direct instruction is involved, I've always felt that there is benefit in supervising the student's starting procedure, and correcting it if there are errors (which there invariably are, albeit minor ones, up to and beyond skills test). This needs to be balanced with the confidence which comes from operating "solo", but my students always got plenty of "solo" engine starts when going for fuel by themselves (strictly after first solo).
Now that I don't teach ab initio any more, I still have the same rules for my advanced students, who are almost all new to multi-engine aircraft and find the starting process almost as daunting as a new student finds starting a C152 due to the big increase in the number of dials and controls. I still catch quite advanced students reading off the checklist that they need to check the oil pressure, and then pointing at the CHT guage or the vacuum guage. Or the big one - confusing the MP with the RPM guage when setting idle power.
Any thoughts from others?
FFF
--------------
hugh flung_dung
29th Aug 2006, 18:50
I've no idea what the answer is to the original question (DFC's probably nailed all the relevant points) but the general topic of student starts and shut-downs is a good one. IMHO it's like everything else: a balance of risk versus benefit.
Once the stude is judged able to do the pre-flight check most of us would probably leave them to do it unsupervised with the odd check question from time to time - risk that they may miss something but benefit from development of confidence and captaincy. Once I've judged them able to start safely I would normally leave them to start unsupervised; likewise once they've shown themselves capable of taxying and refuelling I would also get them to do that too - yes there's risk that they may screw it up but there's also significant benefit (again) from development of confidence and captaincy.
I also tend to leave studes to do the shutdown, but a couple of weeks ago I hopped out (park brake on) and looked back to see the aircraft slowly trundling forward - fortunately the stude woke up but I felt pretty helpless for a few seconds!
We can't remove all risk, we just need to make sure that the benefit outweighs the risk; just like every other action in life.
HFD
kissmysquirrel
29th Aug 2006, 21:54
I personally believe that as an instructor it is our responsibility to supervise our students until they have their own licence to operate the a/c. Until that time, we are supposed to be 'teaching' them.
At what point aren't we teaching them, even when they're solo? They have our permission and the skills they have, come from our methods of passing the knowledge across.
If the student messes up, isn't it our own failing as an instructor?
I would believe in this instance, the instructor is at fault as he should have been there to supervise the start and if he disagrees with this, then should he really be in the position of instructor and signing for an a/c under his control?
I believe the training facility in question here is more of a trial lesson factory anyway, and emphasis is put on how much money they can make from each student in whatever way possible. Whether it be from selling headsets or selling helicopters, the bottom line is 'can we fleece them for a bit more cash'?
All open to interpretation I guess but individual FTO/RF rules etc are rarely read by students. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
No written arrangement between FTO and student regarding insurance excess.
In that case I would hold the view that the organisation decided to save some money by under insuring against the loss.
They can not find the student responsible for the excess without finding the student responsible for the whole loss.
If the student accepts responsibility and the company is successful in recouping their loss, the insurance company could come after them and recover their loss as well!
To do that they will have to prove negligence on the part of the student. Having been certified as competent by the organisation to start, taxi, fly the aircraft and cope with relevant emergencies, the organisation has previously agreed that the student was competent (sent solo). The person responsible for the safety of the aircraft and those in it was not the student.
Had the student been injured then the student would have a good case against the organisation and the CAA/AAIB would have interesting questions as to how the absent aircraft commander expected to accomplish their responsibilities when not in or in the vicinity of the aircraft.
Mr.Instructor can you please explain how you as aircraft commander would initiate and supervise the evacuation of the aircraft in the event of a fire during engine start when you are no where near the aircraft that you are responsible for?
As for students doing the walkround. The check A must be completed by an engineer or competent licensed pilot. Thus I favour the instructor doing the A check and then later allowing suitable students to perform the pre-flight but always making a double check of fuel, oil and general airframe.
The system that works for me is;
1. Turn up early and do a good A check. Sign the tech log. Get student to complete their own check and see what they find.
2. After each flight check oil and fuel while student extracts themselves. Thus you already have the figures that the next student should find when they do the pre-flight.
3. As the student straps in, a quick visual check of latches, caps and general airframe and they can if far enough down the line do the pre-start checks while I strap in.
Regards,
DFC
Flingingwings
29th Aug 2006, 22:39
DFC,
I agree entirely:ok: KMS you know my views :E
The stude concerned reads these pages. For the record I advised him to tell the FTO to shove the suggestion right up their ar$es. He didn't seem convinced he could or should.
Hopefully he'll read the above :)
raviolis
29th Aug 2006, 23:18
If the student is following a before start checklist, shouldn't this include the power setting for the ignition ? (Idle, or half inch or something like that ?)
BigEndBob
30th Aug 2006, 06:56
This could drift into a maintenance problem.
Have recently worked at a club where none of their Cessna would start unless the throttles where wagged around...which really annoys me.
Students see this being done then copy.
Any nicely tuned Lycoming should start with a few mm's of throttle or even with throttle closed if warm, without risk of the engine suddenly bursting into power and pulling of the brakes.
Parking brakes..now thats a whole story in itself.
Mad Girl
30th Aug 2006, 07:00
Parking brakes..now thats a whole story in itself.
tell me about it :uhoh: :\ :ouch: :{ :ugh:
Flying Lawyer
30th Aug 2006, 09:06
For the record I advised him to tell the FTO to shove the suggestion right up their ar$es. Couldn't put it better myself. :ok:
(Although I'd have to in a work setting. ;) )
FL
As there is no stupid question....(this one might qualify..);
Why let the student start up on their own?
Is it wise as an instructor to board an airplane with the engine running?
What example are we giving here?
The flight is either booked out as a solo flight in which case the student is responsible; or the flight is booked out as a dual flight during which the instructor is responsible.
I would not allow a student ( no matter how experienced) to start and taxi unsupervised if it is to be a dual flight.
I might be missing the point here, but how much instructor time is saved by waiting inside till the engine is running?
I would hold the instructor liable for the damage, and since he works for the school the school will have to swallow the loss.
hugh flung_dung
30th Aug 2006, 16:43
It's not time that's the issue, it's the opportunity to boost the self-confidence of the stude and to start developing captaincy.
Yes there's a small risk, but it's significantly less than sending people on their first solo and IMHO the benefit outweighs it. If we are never to trust a stude to be alone in an aircraft with the engine running then the first time they are alone is on that first solo, and the first time they start or refuel by themselves is when they're on their first un-checked solo circuits - that's too big a step.
HFD
It's not time that's the issue, it's the opportunity to boost the self-confidence of the stude and to start developing captaincy.
Yes there's a small risk, but it's significantly less than sending people on their first solo and IMHO the benefit outweighs it. If we are never to trust a stude to be alone in an aircraft with the engine running then the first time they are alone is on that first solo, and the first time they start or refuel by themselves is when they're on their first un-checked solo circuits - that's too big a step.
Students will perceive it to be OK to enter/exit an airplane with the engine running..a dangerous habit, that was one of my points.
Aeronautical decision making skills are the hardest to learn and also the hardest to teach.
My other point is more academic, if it is to be a dual flight the instructor is responsible for everything,a proper preflight and start-up included.
Therefore the instructor should be present.
On a solo flight there is always an increased risk, inherent to flight training.
To minimize that risk we should be adhereing to safe practices during dual flights, at least to give the right example.
FlyingForFun
30th Aug 2006, 17:37
Strange. The percentage of replies advocating that solo starts are a "bad thing" does not seem to match my perception (as both a student and an instructor at a wide variety of schools) of the percentage of instructors who follow this practice.....
FFF
----------------
JonWhitehouse
30th Aug 2006, 20:17
It is strange, i agree. I guess having given a fair amount of instruction and examples of the start procedure, this instructor was happy that he had did not need to be present, as he expected the student to complete the start successfully. IMO an reasonable expectation, given the experience of the student. in this case he was wrong, it happens. He must still take responsibility for the damage, and thus must the FTO as his employers. The student was not liable in the slightest, as he is not qualified to take the responsibility himself.
Dude~
30th Aug 2006, 21:29
I never allow students to start the engine without me on board, not because I don't think they shouldn't, but because it makes me feel rushed strapping in getting comfy.:) I get them to follow the checks up to priming so they are ready to start as soon as I'm in.
It's not time that's the issue, it's the opportunity to boost the self-confidence of the stude and to start developing captaincy.
Yes there's a small risk, but it's significantly less than sending people on their first solo and IMHO the benefit outweighs it. If we are never to trust a stude to be alone in an aircraft with the engine running then the first time they are alone is on that first solo, and the first time they start or refuel by themselves is when they're on their first un-checked solo circuits - that's too big a step.
HFD
But the first time that;
The IR student, the IMC student, the CPL student, the Instructor student fly as Captain is after they get their qualification and often with passengers.
Do you think that the above courses should include student solo time like the PPL does?
Why not get rid of the solo time from the PPL and then restrict new PPLs to solo only until they have a certain amount of post PPL experience?
Why is solo flying often with no direct observation held in such high esteeme? In many cases, it is simply perfecting bad habbits. People with minimal solo usually do better than those with lots of solo prior to the GST.
Regards,
DFC
Needlesplit
31st Aug 2006, 13:57
If I was the student and had been left to my own devices when I clearly shouldnt have been (evidenced by the fact it all went wrong) I would be too busy filling in my claim for compensation than reading these threads - but just in case he/she is, try this:
Never mind paying THEM for their damage, what about YOUR mental shock, brand new but painful neck trauma, head aches, nightmares and now having to overcome a fear of flying!?
That could rack up enough cash to pay for your CPL/IR! (Either that or it will shut them up and make them go away with their silly damage claim) Oops what have I said:oh:
Never mind paying THEM for their damage, what about YOUR mental shock, brand new but painful neck trauma, head aches, nightmares and now having to overcome a fear of flying!?
That could rack up enough cash to pay for your CPL/IR! (Either that or it will shut them up and make them go away with their silly damage claim) Oops what have I said:oh:
Very hard to get a CPL with no medical.
Regards,
DFC
Needlesplit
1st Sep 2006, 23:49
True DFC, very true, but its funny how this non-specific stuff comes and goes.:ok: especially after 'professional' 'independent' legal advice at your local ambulance chasers: www.doweshaftemandhowe.com (http://www.doweshaftemandhowe.com)
On a serious note though: I can imagine an American lawyer lapping this up. Does this student start-up thing happen in the USA the most notoriously litigious society on the planet?
IMHO as the FI is technically P1
Thank God that's not the case in the US. The student is PIC when solo, however subject to any limitations the CFI determines.
(Now if there's an incident someone will probably want to talk to the CFI, but that is another story :) )
Flingingwings
2nd Sep 2006, 12:18
bfisk,
On a purely solo flight then the student would be P1 and would log the time accordingly.
The scenario here is different. Student goes out to aircraft and starts having been told to do so by the instructor, who will then join for a dual training lesson.
In any case students sign no 'agreement' until they begin to self fly hire. Shouldn't matter what the FTO say it doesn't change the fact that the full repair costs are down to them.
ShyTorque
6th Sep 2006, 22:42
Very hard to get a CPL with no medical.
Regards,
DFC
The money would make him feel better...... ;)
unfazed
7th Sep 2006, 08:24
Alternative viewpoint ....
Solo starts are a good confidence builder for students who are deemed competent at start up and taxi (bit of a judgement call for the instructor and some risk possible). Gets student in the mindset of PIC well before solo circuits.
If this student was supervised and deemed competent to follow checklist, start and taxi for fuel (example) - then can't see a problem.
The fact that there was an "incident" means that either the Instructor misjudged the students ability / confidence or the managed and limited risk materialised (unfortunately).
I would say Instructor risk materialised so learning session for the instructor re students ability - STUDENT SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT PAY !:{
stillin1
9th Sep 2006, 09:08
I may be missing something here, tis not the first time!
IMHO
If the instructor = aircraft captain for the flight = his fault for doing a p#ss-poor job of it = no student financial lialbility.:E
I can not remember being sent out to start the car during my driving lessons whilst the driving instructor had a last nervous ciggy in the bar!:ugh:
theresalwaysone
9th Sep 2006, 16:57
Running Starts
Thought some of you might be interested in this
##Taken from THE ASK CAPTAIN JON WEB SITE
____________________________________________________________ ____
RUNNING STARTS
I have just changed flying schools and my last school would not allow me to start the engine till the instructor was on board, the new school expects me to start the engine and wait for my instructor to climb on board, any comments
Thank you Bob
Your second school seems to have lower standards, let me explain my policy;
No pilot should ever start an engine and run it before everyone is on board in the same way no pilot should allow anyone to leave an aircraft with the engine(s) still running, not only is this common sense but also basic airmanship.
Many propeller accidents have occurred because of non-adherence to the above (and occasionally 'run forwards' into other aircraft.)
Allowing 'running starts' sets a very bad example to students and teaches them that this unsafe practice is acceptable.
Having seen the result of an accident where a pilot lost his footing and fell forward onto the propeller of an aircraft, which took his arm off, I would strongly urge all instructors to ban running starts as our Pilots Order Book does.
With normal operations there is never a justifiable reason to get into or out of an aircraft with the engine(s) running. Our students are briefed, as per The Flying Order Book, to prepare the aircraft for start but not to start it until the instructor is on board; the difference is less than 30 seconds.
Professional responsible instruction is about ensuring that students are disciplined in the formation of practices that will keep them safe throughout their flying careers.
Many instructors do not understand that it their responsibility to not only teach a student pilot to be able to handle an aircraft but also to be able to employ discipline and airmanship skills that will keep them safe throughout the rest of their flying careers.
My advice to you is never start an aircraft engine until everyone is on board and always shut down before anyone vacates the aircraft.
ASK CAPTAIN JON?
____________________________________________________________ ___
The Nr Fairy
10th Sep 2006, 08:13
theresalwaysone:
In the fixed wing world, I can see the logic. In the rotary world, rotors running embarkation and disembarkation is much more common.
It DOES boil down to a training issue - if the student doesn't complete the checklist properly, or hasn't been shown a "last minute" check before they pull the trigger, then it's down to the operator.
And if the student is paying a dual rate, then it implies they are being supervised, no ?
Unhinged
12th Sep 2006, 12:20
Was the original question related to aeroplanes or helicopters ? Given the poster's name and the type of question I had thought it was a heli question, but most of the answers are about aeroplanes - The risks at startup are different.
With aeroplanes the biggest realistic student risk I can see is not holding the brakes and rolling into another aircraft prop-first; Engine overspeeding on startup is not an issue.
With helicopters the biggest risk is starting with the throttle not fully closed. Without any flywheel or propellor to moderate things, the engine will overspeed so fast it'll make your eyes water. Forgetting to apply the brakes and rolling away isn't an issue on any training helicopter I know of.
So for a helicopter the risk happens extremely quickly but only affects the aircraft being started. For an aeroplane the risk is slightly slower to happen, but affects other aircraft (and maybe people !)
When I learnt to fly helicopters, my instructor sat with me for many many starts and then eventually would let me start on my own. All helicopter schools I know follow that same general pattern, and most have a notice on the door to the tarmac which has big bold writing saying something like "Thottle CLOSED !!" so it's the last thing students see as they go out. The general policy at the aeroplane school where I instruct is that we must be in the aeroplane before the student starts up. And so it is in most aeroplane schools.
Having said all of that, it seems to me that the Pilot in Command carries the can. If it's a dual instruction flight, everything is the instructor's responsibility. If it's a solo flight, then the student is responsible.
If the student followed the checklist correctly there wouldn't have been a problem....what better learning point? bet they won't do that again....but I don't mean to be flippant and thank god no-one was hurt!
or....don't ever let them do anything alone until they have passed the PPL test and never ever let them go solo as they might make a mistake! Obviously there is a balance and they have to learn, had the student had sufficient training to start alone....obviously had if already gone solo.
As to the drival about never getting in or out of an aircraft with the engine running......:ugh: no...I'm not going to bother responding!
As to the original point regarding the insurance tell them to shove it.....that's why we have insurance because accidents happen...as long as we learn the lessons from the mistakes..pref' someone elses! :ok:
theresalwaysone
17th Sep 2006, 19:04
As to the drival about never getting in or out of an aircraft with the engine running......:ugh: no...I'm not going to bother responding!
:ok:
But more probably because you do not know how to!
Personally I think the student has been poorly taught.
The route I take with them is.......
Up to first solo, I'm always on board for any start and taxi, even if it is only to the gas pumps.
I really question the instructional techniques of the FI involved. I drum it into my students to keep one hand on the throttle throughout starting. For me this is basic stuff that could of prevented this accident.
I also question the student starting then the FI jumping in with the fan going. This is bad practice IMO for a number of reasons;
1) I ALWAYS double check the oil and fuel before departure, this can't be done safely with the fan going.
2) I like to have a couple of minutes in the cockpit before starting to have a quick chat to go over the main points of the lesson.
3) So the student starts whilst the FI is finishing his coffee, FI gets distracted and the student sits there for 10 mins with the Hobbs ticking over, whilst FI pulls his finger out. This might be good for the school but not very polite to the students wallet.
Personally I'd make the FI pay the excess for being a poor instructor ;)
theresalwaysone
17th Sep 2006, 21:57
SD you sound like a professional instructor doing a good job.
i always check they have replaced and tightened the oil cap!
One other thing that you left out that is important;
It sets a bad example to the student, it teaches them that it is OK to have engines running and people boarding and vacating the aircraft.
Remember the Skymaster at Liverpool where the pilots girlfriend got out and walked into the running rear prop?
I am truly amazed to find out that instructors disagree with banning running starts
Sir Thomas
17th Sep 2006, 23:12
Hi guys,
First off, I'm not an instructor.
I'm interested to know wether you guys would advocate being present during engine start and warm up, gps programming etc. , on a student doing all this to a seneca or similar during IR training. Or any student who already has a commercial lic for that matter?
Cheers
JonWhitehouse
18th Sep 2006, 09:05
IMO, with a commercial lic on the aircraft you are training in, you would be qualified to start the aircraft yourself already, so there is no question of ability (or shouldnt be!).
I would not allow running changes personally for the reasons already raised.
As for whether you should or not is up to the captain (the instructor in this case), so it is his responsibility in exactly the same way as with a pre-PPL student. If it goes wrong its his problem and the school pays, but he may be more inclined to let you start up before he is onboard as you are less likely to screw it up.
JW
Hi guys,
First off, I'm not an instructor.
I'm interested to know wether you guys would advocate being present during engine start and warm up, gps programming etc. , on a student doing all this to a seneca or similar during IR training. Or any student who already has a commercial lic for that matter?
Cheers
The requirements regarding boarding the aircraft with engines running must be spelled out in the FTO's ops manual.
The FTO's Ops manual should have very clear guidance regarding the process of programming the GPS in two crew situations (as you describe).
Even if simulating single crew ops, the instructor should crosscheck what is programmed into the GPS in the same way that they will not depart on a navex without first checking the student's PLOG.
Regards,
DFC
Sir Thomas
19th Sep 2006, 23:34
Thanks guys