So who should pay for this error?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 51st State
Age: 60
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True DFC, very true, but its funny how this non-specific stuff comes and goes.
especially after 'professional' 'independent' legal advice at your local ambulance chasers: 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?
especially after 'professional' 'independent' legal advice at your local ambulance chasers: 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?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
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 !
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
IMHO
If the instructor = aircraft captain for the flight = his fault for doing a p#ss-poor job of it = no student financial lialbility.
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!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running Starts
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?
____________________________________________________________ ___
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?
____________________________________________________________ ___
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...... 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!
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......
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!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a house
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by theresalwaysone; 17th Sep 2006 at 22:40.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Stourbridge
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 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
