Unfair treatment of student

[ORBITAL]

A student pilot recently had an incident on landing whilst flying solo circuits resulting in a nose wheel collapse. The owner of the training centre has now told the student that he is not welcome to carry on his training anymore. Do you think this is an unfair way to treat the student as this was an accident ? Surely the student needs support and to get flying again as soon as possible

[SkyCamMK]

One cannot destroy someone's livelihood and expect to be welcome. Yes it is tough but the nosewheel incident is a common but avoidable accident. We can all make mistakes but we also have to pay for them. Put yourself in his shoes. Some schools only have one main aircraft to train on and if it is down revenue is lost so the cause of the loss must be isolated and dealt with. It's nothing to do with flying just plain ecomomics and human behaviour.

[ShyTorque]

It's a short sighted way of looking at it; at least if it's a one-off. Landing accidents have always happened and always will.

A student will learn very quickly from something like this upset and will undoubtedly not do it again. A better way to deal with this is to thoroughly debrief the incident, give re-training, get the student flying again asap.The next new student who comes along to fly might do exactly the same thing in any case.

I wonder how the flying school's insurance is?

[Say again s l o w l y]

It's not surprising, though it possible is harsh.

The flying school will have had a big financial hit because of an accident like that, so it's hardly rocket science that they are going to be annoyed.

To blame it solely on the student isn't really fair (depending on the stage of their training) however, it's the owners trainset and if they don't want you to play, then they don't have to.

As per usualy with stuff like that, none of here were present, so it's impossible to make a real judgement as there is always 3 sides to any story. Your side, their side and the truth...

[Genghis the Engineer]

SoCal - no, UK rental agreements usually include full insurance, with the renter paying an "excess" - the first £x (typically £500-£1000) of any damage.

From a UK perspective, US "renters insurance" is a hidden charge we wouldn't pay at home.



I've never heard of a student being banned after a solo accident - I do wonder if there is other information we don't have, such as the student's manner and attitude during the inevitable post-accident interview with the CFI.

G

[ORBITAL]

The student was shocked, apologetic and very embarassed about what he had done. I was the supervising FI and dealt with the aftermath, the CFI did not respond to my phone calls to late that evening and since has shown no interest in the matter. I understand that the owner has everywrite to say who flies their aircraft but the manner in how this has been done has been disgraceful im my opinion. The student has been progressing well in his course and a pleasure to teach. I have been working as an FI at this club for 6 years and has now left and will carry on teaching at another club that has welcomed me and my student.

[Pilot DAR]

I agree that there are two sides to be heard from to be fair, but a few transient thoughts enter my mind...

As a fixed wing student, I slightly damaged a 172RG. I honoured up, and paid half the cost to restore it (which equated to about 7 hours of rental time on it at the time). No hard feelings, just some ribbing form the club members for a while - I deserved it. Several lessons learned, "don't do that again (in that plane anyway), and promptly admitting you did the wrong thing, and grounding the plane is always better than pretending it was not you!

As a rotorwing student I did a poor engine start, and although I did not damage anything, I caused the need for a costly inspection. I spent the rest of the day assisiting with disassembly of the helicopter, and took the subject part for the required MPI inspection.

An instructor I know undershot a C-150 on a night landing, and took off the nose gear. She was handed tools, and spent the next three weeks of her time helping to repair the plane. She restored her honour, and the plane (and knows a lot about the front end of a 150 now!)

I of course cannot speak to the circumstances of the damage the OP mentioned, or the insurance or loss of use issues, however, perhaps the aircraft owner and student had a greater opportunity to come to an arrangement where the student helped with the repairs, and in doing so defrayed some cost. I accept that there's probably and engine rebuild and new prop in the repair, but I have to expect that the owner has planned for such a financial event with insurance. The learning opportunity for the student in that situation is surprisingly valuable, both from the "don't do that again" perspective, and just to get to know the workings of the plane better.

That having been said, a solo student is never solely responsible for an accident. A student could be solely responsible for deliberate action or carelessness (not an accident), but if the student was applying themselves as best trained, and and a nosewheel collapsed, the instructor bears some responsibility.

That student has learned a lesson. It could be wise for the school to offer to continue the training, and tidy up the loose ends of that lesson, for that student, and the others in the group too. Generally, circulating the wisdom gained form a bad experience will make all involved better pilots. Sending a person away in shame does not have the same positive affect...

[mad_jock]

It happens more often than you think.

If its a high volume school they can't afford the plane off line for 1-2 weeks while it gets fixed.

So they prefer to get rid and usually rip the student off for the rest of the course fee claiming its insurance excess. Another reason not to pay upfront.

There was one when I did my PPL although that wasn't due to crashing it.

Although with some schools I have heard of incidents where the nose wheel has colapsed and its blatantly obvious that it was due to a previous incident un reported and it was just that poor sods luck that it failed on that landing.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Orbital, sometimes you only discover the true nature of someone's personality in times of adversity. You're clearly unhappy with the way your CFI handled this and with the support you've received post-incident, so I'm sure you've done the right thing to move on and put this behind you.

Treat this as a learning experience for yourself and for your student, and you'll both be better pilots for it.

As far as liability goes, my take is that there is always going to be an unavoidable element of risk in flying instruction & deciding whether or not a particular student is competent to fly a particular sortie on the day can't be an exact science. Provided that neither of you were actually negligent, I'd say any financial loss should be borne by the stakeholders. A/C owners & flying training organisations are quite happy to take the profits when all is well, and they should stand for the losses when, despite everyone's best efforts, an incident such as this occurs. If you rent out your plane for ab-initio training, you must expect it will be flown by very inexperienced pilots, who will occasionally make expensive mistakes.

The owners might care to consider that stopping this particular student from flying their aircraft will do nothing to reduce the chances of the same thing happening in future.

[Whopity]

I'd say any financial loss should be borne by the stakeholders.The direct cost of this type of incident can easily exceed £12,000 taking into account the shock loading on the engine, new crank and prop etc, not to mention the loss of the airframe and its associated income whilst it is rectified. What do you think the profit in a PPL is? The cost can only realistically be covered by Insurance, and one must examine the number of times such events occur, as no doubt the insurers do. It is a costly and largely avoidable event however, there will always be a few such occurrences but if allowed to escalate, they will inevitably cost the club and students more for insurance. Without knowing the facts it is difficult to form an opinion. Many in aviation care about the aircraft they fly but, I notice from the state of many aircraft I fly, that there are plenty who do not!

[Whopity]

In the UK only one company offers liability insurance to instructors, I am not aware of any company offering insurance to "renters".

[goldeneaglepilot]

Wow, that is harsh - if there was no argument with the CFI and the student accepted / acknowledged what had happened and their proportion of blame. We are all human, we all make mistakes, thats part of lifes learning curve. It's not about the mistakes but how they are put right.

Was the instructor working on an employed basis or self employed? If the instructor was employed and felt so strongly that they left after the incident due to the way that the CFI handled things then maybe a thought to be considered is action for constructive dismissal.

With regards the student, hopefully they will have now gone to a school which recognises them as a revenue providing customer, and treats them as such.

Frankly I do wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, it's surprising that the name of the training organisation has not been published, it's not libel IF what has been printed is true.

[Piltdown Man]

Attributing 'fault' to a pupil is a hard thing to do as they are really flying under a release given to them by their instructor. If a student stoofs a plane in and you really want to blame somebody, you should start by looking at the instructor supervising them. I also can't accept that short of wilful damage, that any pupil is liable for damage they do. Pupils should be expected to make a mistake every now and again because that's what pupils do. Nor do I have any sympathy for any flight training organisation which has failed to plan for their aircraft to be dinged every now and again. Yes, of course there are people who should never be let near an aircraft but it's the job of the instructors to identify these people before they send them solo. And just out of interest, which country did this happen in? If it's in the UK, the "inevitable post-accident interview with the CFI" should only really happen after the AAIB have 'released' the pilot.

PM

[Sillert,V.I.]

Attributing 'fault' to a pupil is a hard thing to do as they are really flying under a release given to them by their instructor.

I'd agree - I don't think it's reasonable to attempt to recover the uninsured losses from a student in a case like this as they are entitled to rely on their instructor's judgment as to whether they have the necessary skills to be released for the flight.

I think it's an entirely different situation post PPL. Once you have your licence, the responsibility for safe conduct of the flight is yours alone, and then it's reasonable that you should be liable for the excess in an incident like this.

[WestWind1950]

good grief, he's a STUDENT! You can't blame a student for bumming things up, he's there to learn how to do it right and maybe just wasn't really ready. As mentioned above, if he was released by an instructor, then that instructor felt he was competent, thus the instructor must take part of the blame, or the school if there was a previous undetected damage.

In my world, schools must have special "training risk" insurance, not just simple rental insurance. In one club they have a special account that builds up cash to help cover such cases. Flying is expensive enough and I'm sure handling a student's accident the way it was in this case would truely de-motivate any beginner.

Yes, I know, I don't know all the details, but still.....

[mad_jock]

as they are entitled to rely on their instructor's judgment as to whether they have the necessary skills to be released for the flight.

Yes and the student will have the required skills and will have demonstrated them.

The student can be the best you ever had and very competent, they can still pull a blinder out of the hat and do something totally daft. In fact its the students that have sailed through that can pull the biggest blinders.

Usually something like this doesn't happen on the first or even second solo. Its a bit down the line on consolidation flights. The student starts feeling more relaxed, more confident, then when something starts going wrong they don't quite catch it in time or do something daft like put the nose down in the flare while ballooning instead of going around.

I wouldn't blame the instructor in the slightest if it was a one off, these things sometimes happen.

The clue is in the "training center" its a sausage factory. They really don't care what the student experence is or for that matter if they will come back. They are an aircraft down for 2-3 weeks and have now lost 7 hours flying per day as a result. This will knock other students back on thier courses and deprive instructors of pay. It won't be worth the risk of another plane getting stuffed in.

[Pilot DAR]

It won't be worth the risk of another plane getting stuffed in.

I'm not sure I understand the intended context of this statement. Perhaps it's not worth the risk of renting aircraft out at all for flight training - a decision which every aircraft owner is entitled to make, without criticizm. Perhaps it's not worth the risk of allowing that instructor to send another student solo. Then control the instructor's privilages more carefully! Perhaps it's not worth the risk of sending that student solo, Then control the instructor's privilages more carefully!

Now, that said, while we're busy pinning so much responsibility on the instructor, there does come a phase late in a student pilot's progress, where for all practical purposes, they are a pilot who has yet to have a license, and they should know better. The "license" is not the line in the sand for personal responsibility. I've certainly seen a few "experienced" pilots break off a nosewheel, so it's not just students, for whom this risk exists.

But, as has been said, the flying school won't share the profits with the student when things go well, so why would the student share the losses when they don't?

[Captain Capricorn]

Hi, Orbital

Pilot DAR especially talks a great deal of sense. I think you were right to move elsewhere. When I started with my present school three years ago a PPL damaged an aircraft on landing just after getting his licence. The CFI asked me to fly with him. We did advanced flying, precision landings, farm strip flying... The result: we both had a load of fun, the pilot improved his skills and regained his confidence, and now hires the club aircraft with no problems. IMHO we are in business to teach, not just cherry-pick the best students for the club. I have never given up on a student.

Cheers

CC

[mrmum]

It's a bit of a tricky situation this, if a customer takes out the front end of one of your aircraft, that can as Whopity suggested wipe out your whole profit for that year. The margins in PPL training in the UK are pretty small, nobody runs a flying school to get rich.
I've (so far) never had a student do write-off level damage to an aeroplane, however we have had the usual strobes/wingtips etc, worst thing was a damaged nose oleo, which cost a few thousand to fix as I recall. We just bit the bullet and paid to have these fixed, if you run a flying school or rent aircraft for long enough, eventually someone is going to break your aeroplane, that's just a fact of being in the business.

There is no "special" training risk insurance that I'm aware of, you just go to a broker the same as any other owner and tell them you will be renting/training on it, all this does is change the premium and excess. I think it is a good idea to have a "prang fund" or similar, which everyone can contribute to, which can then be used to cover the costs of such an incident, without having to ask the individual for a significant amount, as they will probably feel bad enough already. However, insurance is not the complete answer, as by the time you deduct the excess, loss of no-claims and increased premiums in subsequent years, it's not worth claiming for less than about £7-8k.

As to who should be held responsible, well student pilot or not, when solo they are the commander of the aircraft, so isn't it down to them. How responsible can the instructor be, when not in the aircraft, as long as the student was competent, consistent and briefed and the weather was suitable. You just wouldn't ever send students solo, if you were responsible as the authorising instructor for anything and everything they may do. Ultimately, I think it just has to be the school that takes the hit on this kind of thing. As has been said, different altogether for PPL holders, they should be liable for any damage that occurs as a result of their action or inaction.

[mad_jock]

DAR it was more a comment of the sausage factory mentality of processing the students

Thankfully I have always instructed in the enviroment that mrmum has described. While I was instructing full time I never had (and neither did a student or PPL) have an incident like as described.

This wasn't due to any particular skill on my part as an instructor or for that matter my collegues. It was just pure luck.

Or maybe it was the fact we always used to teach the book speeds for approach?

[Mechta]

I hope someone gets to do a good inspection of the broken noseleg bracket. As mentioned before, it could have been prior damage, or simply a fatigued component which chose that moment to give way. The CFI's aggressive attitude might be hiding guilt of a factor he was aware of.

BTW did anyone see 'The Apprentice' last week? The winning team were awarded flying lessons, and the landing in a PA28(?) they showed, looked a candidate for a nose leg removal. I can only assume the student released the back pressure part way through the flare.

[Tolka]

I'm not a lawyer but could it be argued that there is a contract (either implied or perhaps a written contract in more organised schools) between the school and the student, the contract being to teach the student to fly to a level where he or she is fit to do the flight test. Just curious to know if the school could be held to be in breach of contract by throwing the student out. If it was an implied contract there are unlikely to be any written conditions to cover such a scenario.

[B2N2]

A/C owners & flying training organisations are quite happy to take the profits when all is well, and they should stand for the losses when, despite everyone's best efforts, an incident such as this occurs. If you rent out your plane for ab-initio training, you must expect it will be flown by very inexperienced pilots, who will occasionally make expensive mistakes.


I can only assume that you are joking..correct?
Why..in the name of everything green...would the school/club take the brunt of the expenses?
That is what you carry insurance for and that is why the renter/student should carry additional insurance to cover the deductible.
If YOU damage a rental car do you let the rental company take the loss?
That will be the day.

I am suspecting we are not being told the whole story here.
The supervising instructor put in on this forum, why exactly?
The school/club as the sole right to ban somebody after a mishap.
It may have been the last straw in an ever escalating relationship.

[ORBITAL]

Yes the supervising instructor started this thread.
Yes the owner has the right to ban anyone.
No there has not been any bad relationship.
It is a small club and not hard up, infact they have bought a new aircraft already

The reason I am upset is the way the situation has been handled. The student has paid a lot of money for his training up till now appox 20 odd hours flying. In a time when he needed support because he felt awful about what he had done he was told that he was not welcome anymore.
The CFI whom you would expect to be the first person to help him get over this has done nothing at all, all because the owner who to be fair has not a lot of experience in avaition has made this decision with out any consultation with the flying staff.

Anyway I just wanted to get everyones thoughts and thank you for all your comments.To round things up I went up with the student on Sunday and he is keen to carry on with his PPL.

[goldeneaglepilot]

B2N2

In my earlier post (No 14 in this thread) I said:

"Frankly I do wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, it's surprising that the name of the training organisation has not been published, it's not libel IF what has been printed is true".

The fact that the instructor who raised the initial post has not commented in anyway about the point above, and the fact that someone has not enlightened the person concerned (the student) to this thread, is surprising. I did expect more in the way of the name of the company - as I said before if the instructor can prove its true then he has no worries about action for libel. In fact I would have thought his credibility would have increased as both a person with good moral values, and as an instructor.

Even a short explanation from Orbital (the instructor who started the thread) as to why he did not feel it was appropriate to publish the name of either the club or the CFI would have helped credibility. After all Orbital says he's ceased working for the club and is still in contact with the student, so it should not damage his employment, and may even stop the CFI potentially damaging Orbital's long term reputation as an instructor.

After all Orbital felt strongly enough to start a thread about this situation, I can't understand why - what did Orbital want to achieve?

It all seems very wishy washy, at the moment I suspect that someone is using the forum in a personal dispute rather than in a genuine attempt to enlighten, help and educate everyone.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there will be a bit more detail, maybe even the student might contribute and tell us what happened. Time will tell

[Contacttower]

BTW did anyone see 'The Apprentice' last week? The winning team were awarded flying lessons, and the landing in a PA28(?) they showed, looked a candidate for a nose leg removal. I can only assume the student released the back pressure part way through the flare.

Yes it really did didn't it! Looked more like to me the aircraft started to stall a few feet from the ground and the nose dropped as a consequence.

I had a friend who damaged aircraft during training, I forget the exact details but basically a Super Cub got a bit out of control on landing and ended up in for repair for a while I think...far from being chucked out he just continued on a different aircraft.

[ORBITAL]

Goldeneaglepilot just did before you last post.
I am not seeking any libel action and not in it to name, it's no big school or anything.
I don't know if the student even knows about prune, but will tell him.

[WestWind1950]

Anyway I just wanted to get everyones thoughts and thank you for all your comments.To round things up I went up with the student on Sunday and he is keen to carry on with his PPL.

I'm very glad to hear that. :ok: I think I would have given up and missed a lot of joy in flying......

[goldeneaglepilot]

Orbital - not sure why you would be looking to seek action for Libel? As far as I know, no one has written anything about you, however you have written about your old employer (he might consider libel against you, if your statements were felt to be untrue and damaging to him or his business)- has he written about you with regards the incident with the student that caused you to change employer?

Most students are supportive of their instructors, I guess yours would be in view of the fact that you have left the old company, because of an incident involving him.

I just hope that the posting was not an attempt to get your old employer to write something negative about you, that you could use against them.

Most people don't like being drawn into or used in other peoples arguments.

[ORBITAL]

I have only started this to pass on my experience to fellow instructors and to hear their thoughts on the matter . I am not interest in naming clubs, libel and any other stuff. I welcome all the response I have got.
At the end of the day the student has been up and will carry on and I have learnt more about life.

[goldeneaglepilot]

One good thing about this and other forun's is it often gives people an insight into the experience to expect from XYZ, be that a club, a business, an aircraft or a person. Those experiences can range from good, bad to down right terrible. It can help others avoid expensive learning curves and often get the very best out of their flying experiences.

It would seem from what you have said that you have moved to another club to work, hopefully for better pay and terms of employment. That in itself can be a very positive experience. It would have been helpful to have heard more, to have been able to decide if the experience you and your student had was isolated (for whatever reason) or was typical of a pattern at that club. Without the name, many will never know.

I have (for the experience rather than financial reward, which was poor) instructed at several clubs over the years, always part time. In my experience I have only ever seen the upmost support for a genuine student, the effort that they put into learning was reciprocated by instructors and club alike. Students have bad days, mistakes happen, whilst you (as an instructor) do your best to avoid them, accidents will happen. Hopefully damage is minimal and everyone does their best to support both student and associated instructor to gain something positive in terms of learning, from what is in essence a negative experience.

Had you published more (including the name of the business) it might have helped others with regards caution to any problems faced at that club.

[Pull what]

A student flys solo under the supervision of an instructor, it may be cheaper in the long run to say good bye to the instructor rather than the student.

[Big Pistons Forever]

This is a question that I think is very difficult to answer on the web. I think the correct answer of what to do with a student who bends an aircraft on a solo trip has to be looked at in the context of his/her entire training history, attitude, the circumstances of the accident, the actions of the instructor and the overall effect on the school.

Depending on the circumstances, I could see many possible outcomes from continuing training with the same instructor and a hearty "you will never do that again" from the CFI......... all the way to immediately showing the student the door with instructions that they are not welcome on the premises