A warning message to flying instructors
 

From the newspaper The Australian, issue January15 2026.

Flight School to pay pilot $800,000. A flight training school must pay a former student almost $800,000 in damages, after it unsuccessfully appealed against a court decision that found it was at fault for a light aircraft crash. The student took action against Gobel Aviation, previously known as Soar Aviation, when a 2017 solo flight assessment at Bendigo went terribly wrong. The student claimed his instructor failed to follow procedure when he used the Foxbat's aircraft's dual controls to try and correct the plane's position on the runway, triggering a chain of events that resulted in a crash.

As both pilot and instructor applied the right rudder pedal, unaware of the other's actions, the aircraft veered to the right, taking out a light on the runway. In his confusion, the student pulled back on the control stick, which led to the Foxbat taking off at such an angle it stalled and crashed at a speed of about 110 km/h. Although both men walked away from the crumbled Foxbat, the student suffered ongoing psychological trauma which ended his dream of becoming a commercial pilot.

The County Court of Victoria ruled Gobel Aviation was responsible for the crash, due to the instructor's failure to communicate to the student that he was taking over control of the aircraft. The instructor agreed that it was proper procedure to say "taking over" when taking control of the aircraft, to which the student was to reply "handing over.". He did not announce he was taking over control, he did not ask the student to relinquish control, the Justice found.

The company appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria arguing the Justice had erred in the findings about the movement of the aircraft and Gobel Aviation's liability for the crash and the assessment of damages. The appeal was dismissed. Gobel Aviation argued there was no guarantee the student would ever have worked as a commercial pilot and a "discount" of at least 50 per cent should have been should have been applied.. The appeal judges said the Justice had applied a 25 per cent discount for the "uncertainty of life" which was found to be appropriate.

After a period of recovery the student returned to flying with another flying school but found he was extremely anxious when accompanied by an instructor and could not face the prospect of carrying passengers. The Justice accepted expert medical evidence that the student was unable to pursue his ambition of becoming a commercial pilot due to his post traumatic stress disorder. The Justice awarded damages of $797,373 including $561.412 for loss of earning capacity based on the difference between a commercial pilot's salary and that of his current job as a book keeper.

Comment. The whole period of flight of the incident aircraft would have been around 30 seconds from the initial swing during the take off roll, to climb, stall and impact. And all because the instructor made one simple error of judgement in the heat of the moment by not saying, "Taking Over. " The student must have got himself a pretty good lawyer who had the legal skills to persuade the court that the instructor was at fault for the accident. One can only wonder why there was no mention of the student's panic driven hauling back on the stick hard enough to cause a stall at low altitude leaving little hope of recovery before impact.

I’ve seen a few legal challenges over time. I recall a student at one school caused some damage on the ground, the school gave them the excess bill, well they lawyered up and got that overturned. The said school, which is now long closed, had a waiver everyone needed to then review and sign.

I was told there is a few legal cases going on at the moment with some certain GA owners around both workcover, and fairwork.

Safety Departments, even at smaller GA operators, often will require pilots to read and sign off on some safety alerts, while these are education, they are also filed away and kept on hand for any potential future legal needs. I’ve know one operator who sacked someone who breached rules continuously after signing, the employer won when it went to court, that piece of paper played a big part.

I cannot fathom in this day and age of litigation why anyone would want to start their career as a flying instructor with the risk involved. Just signing an aircraft out on a private hire could end up being a massive court mess and career ending.

"he/she/they didn't do the brief with the correct coloured pens on the whiteboard when I did my PFL lesson. I ran it out of fuel and pranged post PPL and its the instructors fault from 5 years ago"

And some members of the Legal Fraternity actually wonder why they are hated by some sections of the Community!:mad:

Indeed.


Seems to have been the student's fault by pulling back on the stick. Without that, they would still have hit the light but no more.

I suppose it was argued that the instructor should have prevented the yokes being pulled back.

My instructor crashed our C152 onto its nose-wheel and propellor on my 4th ever flying lesson, (I was hands and feet off, just observing, while he landed). But I wasn't traumatised by the heavy crash in the least, and went on to become an ATPL airline pilot.

This student doesn't seem to have had the "right stuff" in the first place, and am not really sure about them being awarded all those damages.

Surely they would have agreed to terms and conditions, which would/should have mentioned the possibility of accidents ?

I remember the product liability cases from the 70s I believe. Private pilot in the US ran out of fuel, crashed and successfully sued the aircraft manufacturer for not specifically warning pilots that they must carry sufficient fuel. This and other cases resulted in ridiculous warning stickers all over airframes and the eventual near total collapse of light aircraft production. Product liability insurance premiums being more than the aircraft were worth.

Presumably the insurance underwriters are liable under their common liability clause?

Looks like there will be nothing available in the cash tin from the flying school, according to ASIC:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2af291985d.jpg

It's the same jeopardy as teaching somebody to drive. The more experienced person in the supervision role holds the responsibility for what happens, regardless of who's in control. The supervisor should not allow the student to be in control if they are not safe, so it's their decision to allow the student to be in control in a particular scenario. The only time you could pass the buck to the student is if they intentionally try to cause a dangerous situation , or act illegally. Where it gets gray is solo operations, where the student can claim they were not trained for something or such. That's where thourough training records will save your skin.

Some students, stop hearing the instructor when they feel highly stressed.

You can yell at them and they will not hear you as they become so focused on what they are seeing and feeling and stop hearing altogether.

In an incident similar to the one being discussed, a student could claim (and believe it sincerely) that you never told them to release the controls.

I have also had students confirm handing over to me yet are still quite forcefully on the controls (they are basically holding on to whatever is in their grasp or I suspect used to pushing on a car brake pedal when under stress).

In this case, in a similar incident a student could claim (and believe it sincerely) that they did not have the controls and the the outcome was solely the result of the instructor's actions, not theirs.

I know SOAR is defunct so have no idea who is being held liable, if it is the instructor, I think there are surely grounds for appeal as how can it be positively determined that the instructor didn't demand control and it is not unknown for a student to have disobeyed (even if unintentionally) the instructor's commands, in a high stress situation?

It’s a sad indictment on our society when being awarded a shedload of money by the courts seems to make their ‘problems’ go away.

I’m trying to understand why the circumstances and outcome the subject of the OP seem to be striking anyone with the force of novelty and causing moral consternation.

Last time I checked, the pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the flight. In an instructor / student relationship, the instructor is – or at least should be - the person with superior knowledge and skills. The instructor is – or at least should be – aware of the possibility of the student doing something or failing to do something the outcome of which act or omission may put the safety of the flight at risk. So far as I am aware, the student in the circumstances the subject of the OP didn’t pull out a gun and shoot the pilot in command / instructor.

Seems to me like a durr-obvious situation in which the PIC/instructor bears some or all the responsibility for the outcome and for which the PIC/instructor’s employer is vicariously liable. What is the basis of any moral objection to the legal outcome?

I assume that those who disagree with the outcome will, in the event that their son or daughter is involved in an accident while being taught how to drive or tested by a driving instructor, step in and attribute entire responsibility for the accident to their son or daughter. Don't contribute to the decay of our society! Stand your ground and don’t let those lawyers complicate things by trying to attribute any responsibility for the accident to anyone else but your son or daughter. They shouldn’t have reacted in the way they did, even though the circumstances were an unusual surprise due to inexperience. They should not have assumed that the person in charge was competent and ultimately responsible for their safety.

Keeping good training records? That’s some risk mitigation genius, right there. Someone should add that to the Big Person’s Book Of Survival In The Real World.

Can anyone cite a single instance in which an instructor/training organisation has been held partly or wholly liable by a Court in Australia for death, injury or damage in an aircraft accident because of some deficiency in the training, 5 years before the accident, of the licensed pilot in command?

Just one?

Jonkster is right. During my flying instructor course at RAAF Central Flying School in 1956, spinning in a Wirraway was part of the syllabus. The Wirraway was a dual control aircraft with the student flying from the front seat and the instructor in the rear seat. On this occasion I had to "patter" the spin from the back seat while the CFS instructor took the part of the student in the front seat. There was no specific minimum height for recovery.
From 5000 ft I pattered the spin to the student in the front seat and recovered by 3000 ft. Then the CFS instructor took the part of the student in the front seat and I handed over to him and told him to have a go at spinning.

He did a three turn spin but made no attempt to recover. I told him to recover but we kept spinning. By now we had gone through about seven turns of the spin and losing a lot of height. I called "Taking over" but found the controls apparently jammed. I repeated the call and the "student" replied he was frightened. This was not funny anymore and still I could not move the controls from the back seat. I lost my cool and shouted at the student "Let go of the bloody controls" which he did immediately and I recovered from the spin.

At the subsequent de-briefing back at base, the CFS instructor said that if a student has frozen on the controls in fear then don't be afraid to use lurid language to hopefully shock him into letting go of the controls.

In todays legal atmosphere I wonder if I could sue the RAAF for my trauma caused by their instructor pretend freezing on the controls. I would have Buckley's chance of winning of course and probably get scrubbed for trying..

My comment in regard to training notes was more in regard to solo flights and after they complete training. During dual training the instructor is PIC, so carries the full burden of responsibility. If tgat instructor works for an entity such as a flying school, and complies with that schools policy and procedures then the financial liability will rest with the employer.

On a side note, as a joke. I remember an episode of Judge Judy where a student flying nav or area solo tried to sue the instructor for a forced landing following engine failure, due no fuel. The instructor provided evidence that the student had been signed off to daily and fuel the aircraft themselves, so Judy threw out the case noting that the instructor must be competant as the student sucessfully conducted the forced landing without power as trained, without injuring themselves.

If you had been traumatised by a demonstration that students sometimes to do unexpected and dangerous things requiring quick thinking and effective action on the instructor's part, perhaps you would not have met the criteria for the instructor qualification? Perhaps you would have scrubbed yourself?

Methinks that your long, safe, illustrious and enviable aviation career Centaurus is, in no small part, a consequence of you having 'the right stuff' to learn an important lesson that needed to be learnt rather than being traumatised by it.

(I recall a fighter pilot, who'll remain nameless, at a RAAF Squadron that will remain nameless, who scrubbed himself while I was there because he could no longer face the implications of air-air gunnery practise. As a callow youth at the time I thought it was selfish of him to have taken up a training slot for which many others, including me, would have given their right arm to occupy. Now that I'm old enough to be mature, I realise that his decision was a principled and courageous one.)

Hearing is the first faculty to be lost when under stress. Seen it demonstrated when a PNF put out a mayday (rightly so) that the PF didn't hear as he was rather busy at the time.

in this case it sounds like the instructor/PIC tried to take over and recover - possibly without saying the magic words - but the student then also manipulated the controls and it was the ‘dual input’ that possibly caused or at least contributed to the subsequent stall/crash.

I haven’t read the case but should the student pilot bear some responsibility as they shouldn’t have been on the controls once the unusual attitude/undesired aircraft state developed?

I for one would be interested to hear what total time and instructor time the instructor had.

R

In principle, a plaintiff can be held contributorily negligent (responsible in part or whole for their own injury), but that does not appear to be what's been found in this case. The judge at first instance (in the Victorian County Court) held that "the plaintiff bears no contributory responsibility for the collision". Ripper v Gobel Aviation Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] VCC 1907 (19 December 2024). The Judge's findings of fact leading to that conclusion start at paragraph 494 of the judgment.

I can't find the published decision of the Supreme Court yet, but it should be published here shortly.

Depending on the skills of Bloggs, the instructor will "hover" over the controls, with just a smidgen of touch, but not enough that the student thinks that the instructor is ghosting and that poor Bloggs isn't being given a chance to make a mistake, and thus learn. We have all had a qfi who we could feel on the controls - autorotations in a helicopter are a classic case.

The time taken for the thought to change from "This guy's doing great! I can back off a bit" to "Why the fork did he do that??" and take over, can be surprisingly short. In this case, the qfi is concerned with the pedals and the sound of hitting the light, when Bloggs surprises him by yanking back on the stick. Easy to be overpowered by a sudden yank while concentrating on your feet. I would side with the school on this one, and say that such a Bloggs would never have made it as a pilot, and no compensation for missing out on his Captain's pay at Cathay would be applicable.

I had a quick read of the findings, I think the decision was reasonable given the evidence provided. It seems this was an assessment flight, so the student was to be demonstrating their competence. As the aircraft veered left of center line it seems the instructor has, without verbal statement, applied right rudder. At the same time the student also applied right rudder. The aircraft very quickly swung right due to the force of two pilots providing input, and was in danger of exiting the runway, so without much hesitation the student pulled back to become airborne before going off the edge.

The judge focused on that there was possible confusion as to who was in control and un-coordinated control inputs by both pilots simultaneously. There is also a note as to why the reaction of the student is not considered contributory, basically they had not been trained in what to do if faced with a runway excursion, so that left them to do anything, including pulling back. Without guidance as what to do if faced with a runway excursion the reaction is understandable, pull back, the air seems safer than the trees. The reaction was induced by the instructors input without telling the student that they had done so, leaving the student to improvise without knowing how to. I think one point from the judge was very important, that is a lot was made about the normal take-off attitude, however spearing off the side of the runway is not a normal scenario, so prompted the reaction without thought of setting normal attitudes.

Do you even brief a student on what to do if faced with a runway excursion? Like, Close the throttle, resist trying to get airborne at an unsafe speed, etc... Sounds simple when you talk about it with no pressure or urgency, when it happens suddenly without prior thought the result could be anything. In any case we don't expect low time students to be able to handle the decision well, so when they start to lose control during take-off it's the instructors job to positively take over and fix the situation. Positive take-over is a verbal announcement and physical control, not sliding in an input here or there that could lead to confusion as to who is in control. Any training close the ground the instructor should be ready for anything.

What this accident highlights is the danger of instructors making inputs without letting the student know. Students can easily overreact and overcompensate for deviations, so the student must have realized the left deviation around the same time the instructor started to put in rudder, and put in a boot-full as well to stop it. In the past that boot-full would probably over-correct a little bit, but a few fishtails later and it would end up messy but straight. In this situation the force of the instructor moving the pedal amplified the boot-full from the student, enough to startle the student, put the aircraft towards the edge, and then elicit the reactionary response to rip it off the ground to avoid immediate danger.