UK Court finds Instructor negligent in fatal training accident.

[CurtissJenny]

Heard a recent story about a 1993 fatal accident where a student on an early nav-x hit a cloud covered hill. Fatal.
The UK court found the instructor negligent. A sum of money reportedly awarded against the instructor.

Can someone in the know please flesh out what this was all about.

[cessnababe]

This case was SHAHER v BRITISH AEROSPACE FLYING COLLEGE and I read a report in the BBC NEWS ONLINE on 28th May 2002.
the court awarded £40,000 to a couple whose son died when his aircraft crashed into a SCottish hillside after flying into cloud. The judge said the instructor was wholly wrong to authorise the flight as the student was not trained to fly in cloud and there was significant caloud along the route. The student was held 50% to blame and it appears that there had been repeated concern about the student's accuracy in flying, his ability to keep a prpoer lookout and his willingmess to follow instructions.

Please note that this information is taken direct from the report and contains no comment or opinion of my own.

[grow45]

The full court decision can be read at the Scottish Courts Web site - http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinionsv/a1928_01.html.

As far as I know it has not been appealed.

[martinidoc]

The flight was a solo nav-ex.

The instructor was found liable mainly because in the training record he had indicated several areas of "carelessness" particularly relating to lookout, situational awareness etc.

The instructor authorised the flight with no expectation that the flight would be completed, because of poor weather on one sector. He had presumed that the student would divert back to Prestwick. However, the training record also indicated that the student was not good at following instructions.

It was accepted that the student did not have the ability to perform a 180 degree turn on instruments and get out of cloud if he entered inadvertently, despite having completed 90 hours instruction.

You can find the complete opinion at www.scotcourts.gov.uk , then go to opinions and search on flying instructor.

As a consequence the instructor was found 50% liable.

[Meeb]

Here is the report of the Court Of Session:

Lord Wheatley's Opinion (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinionsv/a1928_01.html)

[JSMYTHE17]

Appalling story here - people should not work for nothing if you are potentially going to end up in court like this. Your legal fees alone will wipe you out

Can any legal people comment whether criminal prosecution of the instructor is now a possibility

Also can anyone comment on whether the AAIB report coincides with the comments of the judge. To me it sounds as if the judge has made a fairly decent attempt at understanding the issues. I just want to know if the AAIB held similar views etc

[Centaurus]

Interesting "criticism" the phrase: "Not good at following instructions". What a classic example of vague generalisation. Yet the dead student is damned by that sentence.

Having had the requirement to read through many progress report sheets written by all grades of flying instructors, I would say that 75% are poorly written and reflect on the instructors lack of schooling in simple report writing.

In fact I am certain that many flying schools that train instructors do not adequately cover (if at all) the subject of concise and accurate writing up of students progress reports. Some reports that I have seen have a childish style of writing.

Example: "Robert - you must learn your checks. You must learn to keep your hand on the throttle at all times. Robert - you must try harder to to concentrate during the downwind leg. You keep on drifting inwards." Or:

"Bill improving but still needs to watch his speeds on final"

What a meaningless and ineffectual piece of report writing.

It concerns me that badly phrased sentences may convey a different meaning to different people - and an apparently innocuous phrase as the one above "Not good at following instructions" is seized upon by the judiciary or a cunning legal eagle and the poor bloody student is damned for life as a rebel.

CFI's have a direct responsibility to the student to ensure that the instructor writes a fair and reasonable assessement of each dual flight. I believe that where criticism of the student's ability is entered by an instructor in the student's record, the student should be offered the opportunity to read his record and have redress if he considers the instructor's comments do not represent the facts. The same principle should apply to the progress reports written up by a check pilot or flight simulator instructor.

[Grim Reaper 14]

I would hate to say that this is a simple case, but (to my inexperienced mind at least) it revolves around a single issue:-

Should any Instructor, when admitting that they had no expectation of a student finishing a XC due to deteriorating weather, actually sign a student out to commence the exercise?

The ability, learning difficulties or flair of the student should be entirely inconsequential here, as should any records of training, criticisms or otherwise. Had the student been told that they could not be signed out for this flight due to bad weather, the abilities of the student, the records and comments about them would never have been an issue.

I'm afraid I would hold the Instructor entirely responsible for this tragedy, as it is his authorisation of this flight that directly resulted in the death of the student. Negligence, pure and simple.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

One has to be circumspect as this has been the subject of litigation.

Grim Reaper - be careful damning fellow instructors simply because you do not have all the facts. Which you don't.

The instructor in question was an is a throughly professional bloke much like those you work with every day and count yourself amongst.

This student has 90+hrs on a CAP509 course. Hypothetically such an experienced pilot - way beyond the required standard for a PPL + IMC rating - ought to be able to conduct a 180 on instrument. People will speculate that a flight authorised to be conducted 1000ft below 8/8ths cloud as a minimum would be outside of its authorisation if it inadvertently entered a consistent flat cloud layer.

Looking outside of this case I have heard instructors articulate difficulties in controlling students from radically different cultures. In some cultures in the world ones parentage embues a status which means disregarding the advice or instructions of others is entirely reasonable behaviour regardless of scenario.

Moving back to the specifics of this topic. I can attest that the standard of written report demanded by BAe is very very high. I have seen a good friend fired solely due to sloppy student records. Fired.

It could be argued, not by me, that to take one line of a 20 page student records file and hold it up in court to 'hang' an instructor is all our worst fears come true.

Since the dawn of flight training students have always been sent forth and killed/injured themselves. The standards across the profession are very high and that is why in this case the CAA have taken no action. One might summise that they deemed there was nothing to be gained outside of the courts.

WWW

[DB6]

You've covered most of it, WWW, as ever, but here's my tuppennyworth: I too know the instructor in question - he was in fact one of my instructors at BAe Prestwick, and is I think it's fair to say an example of the top echelon of instructing.
Every time we as instructors send someone off solo we place a certain amount of trust in them, in their integrity as well as their abilities. From what I know of the case this student broke that trust and paid the price. I never fell out of cloud that I shouldn't have entered with the aircraft's wings fluttering behind me BECAUSE I WAS TOLD NOT TO. So was he, whether from another culture or not. The judgement is utter bollocks and to my mind raises questions about the objectivity of the court.

[juggernaut]

Totally agree with WWW in this case, the poor instructor in question was blamed for the total negligence of the student and is in my view totally free of blame. As soon as the wheels leave the ground it is out of your hands. The non aviation jury were misled by the fact that the student disobeyed his instructors explicit instructions and entered cloud and lost control, this was not the first time he had disobeyed instructions and his training records recorded that he completed an unauthorised landing at another airfield while on a solo cross-country during earlier training, this also was done without permission and I think reflects the mind set of the student. This whole court case thing is extremely worrying and is a very dangerous precedent for others to follow.There for the grace of god go I.

[Flyin'Dutch']

At face value it seems outrageous that the instructor was found guilty but...............if you read the entire summing up and replace the name of the unfortunate student with your own kid's name it all reads a bit different.

I thought that the verdict was a pretty balanced view.

MHO of course

FD

[Meeb]

Flyin'Dutch', whilst you are entitled to your opinion, it should not be emotionally charged.

The details have to be examined devoid of all personal emotion.

What you have said is completely wrong and very misleading.

juggernaut, there was no jury involved, Lord Wheatley came to this ridiculous decision all on his own.

Centaurus, whilst what you say may be relevant to some flying schools, I can assure you that in a 509 training establishment flying reports must be clear and accurate. On an inspection visit the CAA will pull a training file at random for scrutiny. To suggest that experienced commercial flying instructors do not know how to write concise reports is, quite frankly, daft!