So who should pay for this error?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who should pay for this error?
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
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
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
--------------
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
--------------
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
I agree entirely KMS you know my views 
The stude concerned reads these pages. For the record I advised him to tell the FTO to shove the suggestion right up their ar$es. He didn't seem convinced he could or should.
Hopefully he'll read the above
I agree entirely
KMS you know my views The stude concerned reads these pages. For the record I advised him to tell the FTO to shove the suggestion right up their ar$es. He didn't seem convinced he could or should.
Hopefully he'll read the above
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by BigEndBob; 15th Sep 2006 at 23:22.
)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
----------------
FFF
----------------
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Stourbridge
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Far East
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I get them to follow the checks up to priming so they are ready to start as soon as I'm in.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 51st State
Age: 60
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the answer is obvious
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
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
