Unfair treatment of student
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfair treatment of student
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
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cranfield UK
Age: 70
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality check
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Moderator
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...
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...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I'd say any financial loss should be borne by the stakeholders.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
PM
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Moderator
It won't be worth the risk of another plane getting stuffed in.
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?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Southern England
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?