EFATO at EASA Florida today (10 July 2011)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Exeter
Age: 48
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFATO at EASA Florida today (10 July 2011)
It just made it to the FAA website:
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 9202C Make/Model: PA28 Description: PA-28 CHEROKEE, ARROW, WARRIOR, ACHER, D
Date: 07/10/2011 Time: 1525
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: ORMOND BEACH State: FL Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON TAKEOFF, CRASHED OFF THE RUNWAY, ORMOND BEACH, FL
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 1 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
OTHER DATA
Activity: Training Phase: Take-off Operation: OTHER
FAA FSDO: ORLANDO, FL (SO15) Entry date: 07/11/2011
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 9202C Make/Model: PA28 Description: PA-28 CHEROKEE, ARROW, WARRIOR, ACHER, D
Date: 07/10/2011 Time: 1525
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: ORMOND BEACH State: FL Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON TAKEOFF, CRASHED OFF THE RUNWAY, ORMOND BEACH, FL
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 1 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
OTHER DATA
Activity: Training Phase: Take-off Operation: OTHER
FAA FSDO: ORLANDO, FL (SO15) Entry date: 07/11/2011
Last edited by B2N2; 11th Jul 2011 at 17:50.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to add that I did post on these forms about the insurance situation and possible lack of insurance.
In the possible scenario the student and instructor will be paying their own bills for their medical treatment.
Remember this when you consider a school - ask them about their insurance. Their bills will easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars.
There is no requirment to have minimum insurance by the FAA or US government - so if any school says they have what is required it does not protect you at all!
Read between the lines.
In the possible scenario the student and instructor will be paying their own bills for their medical treatment.
Remember this when you consider a school - ask them about their insurance. Their bills will easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars.
There is no requirment to have minimum insurance by the FAA or US government - so if any school says they have what is required it does not protect you at all!
Read between the lines.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is the case, the CAA should hang its head in shame. These FTOs have the blessing of the CAA; that institution seems to think sophistry is OK.
Is there anyone at the CAA out there who can justify this - I don't want to hear caveat emptor! We pay fees to the CAA; but we only pay Caesar because he's the only regulator on the block and makes the rules. The content of the Gatwick aquarium deserves to be drained.
If a CAA approved FTO - UK, Europe, US - has insufficient insurance provision, should this not be reason for suspension of approval? There are so many gotchas in this game that for newbies (and beyond) guidance should be given.
Yes, it might incur cost - but hey - when has that stopped this benighted institution?
You take the money to provide a service. Behave like a regulator and provide that service, dammit.
Is there anyone at the CAA out there who can justify this - I don't want to hear caveat emptor! We pay fees to the CAA; but we only pay Caesar because he's the only regulator on the block and makes the rules. The content of the Gatwick aquarium deserves to be drained.
If a CAA approved FTO - UK, Europe, US - has insufficient insurance provision, should this not be reason for suspension of approval? There are so many gotchas in this game that for newbies (and beyond) guidance should be given.
Yes, it might incur cost - but hey - when has that stopped this benighted institution?
You take the money to provide a service. Behave like a regulator and provide that service, dammit.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What requirment to have insurance is the problem?
I'm pretty sure the CAA have no minimum insurance requirement for FTOs - there may be on for G-reg aircraft but no for FTOs.
Therefore they're not in violation of anything legal - I assume they meet the minimum standards now (although previous threads and newspaper stories suggest otherwise) but these really don't provide you as an individual with any kind of protection for your health bills etc - so that's why beware if a school says they have the "required insurance"
I'm pretty sure the CAA have no minimum insurance requirement for FTOs - there may be on for G-reg aircraft but no for FTOs.
Therefore they're not in violation of anything legal - I assume they meet the minimum standards now (although previous threads and newspaper stories suggest otherwise) but these really don't provide you as an individual with any kind of protection for your health bills etc - so that's why beware if a school says they have the "required insurance"
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not suggesting anything illegal is happening - the US authorities would, I am sure, dump on them from a great height if that was the case.
Having met a number of these wannabes acting under the delusion that they are getting their training at minimum cost (I was one once), I know that a minor medical condition in the US could wipe them out financially and curtail their training. That is their problem, however, and they should have a minimal degree of medical cover, as you would when holidaying there.
However, if, as seems in this case, the student is damaged in a FTO's aircraft while under instruction from a FTO's instructor, the FTO should be held liable. The student is as much a third party as someone damaged on the ground.
If this provision is not catered for the CAA should suspend their goodwill, strike the FTO from the list and make it public that they have taken this action for this reason.
This is not anti competitive; you get on the list abiding by a standard. You are struck off if you fail to adhere.
What saddens me in this case is that somewhere, sometime, a group of people have sat in a room and discussed how they word advertising in such a way that it propounds maximally, delivers minimally and precludes legal recourse.
In my opinion the CAA is guilty by association. Just as other civil service run departments who uphold the law. Oh, but I forget - they are not civil service.
Having met a number of these wannabes acting under the delusion that they are getting their training at minimum cost (I was one once), I know that a minor medical condition in the US could wipe them out financially and curtail their training. That is their problem, however, and they should have a minimal degree of medical cover, as you would when holidaying there.
However, if, as seems in this case, the student is damaged in a FTO's aircraft while under instruction from a FTO's instructor, the FTO should be held liable. The student is as much a third party as someone damaged on the ground.
If this provision is not catered for the CAA should suspend their goodwill, strike the FTO from the list and make it public that they have taken this action for this reason.
This is not anti competitive; you get on the list abiding by a standard. You are struck off if you fail to adhere.
What saddens me in this case is that somewhere, sometime, a group of people have sat in a room and discussed how they word advertising in such a way that it propounds maximally, delivers minimally and precludes legal recourse.
In my opinion the CAA is guilty by association. Just as other civil service run departments who uphold the law. Oh, but I forget - they are not civil service.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I attended OBA many years ago I am ashamed to say, and on induction the you had the option of paying $100 dollars "damage to hull" insurance which most people signed up to.
Recently I am pretty sure OBA were forced to cease trading by county inspectors due to them not having adequate insurance in place.
Regarding medical insurance a normal travel policy will noy cover you for flying training, I took out an aviation insurance policy from trafford's insurance, which was recommended by OBA which would cover any illness or injury sustained while training abroad. It was similar to a policy for a ski holiday or any other extreme sports trip which is not covered in your normal two week package in the sun travel policy
Recently I am pretty sure OBA were forced to cease trading by county inspectors due to them not having adequate insurance in place.
Regarding medical insurance a normal travel policy will noy cover you for flying training, I took out an aviation insurance policy from trafford's insurance, which was recommended by OBA which would cover any illness or injury sustained while training abroad. It was similar to a policy for a ski holiday or any other extreme sports trip which is not covered in your normal two week package in the sun travel policy
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, too, went to Traffords when starting my PPL training. This was only after an innocent comment regarding purpose of visit to the US was flagged by an astute representative at Barclaycard - their travel insurance didn't cover air related incidents/accidents and medical cover.
The only time any aspect of insurance arose was before the solo PPL training happened and I was offered the hull loss excess waiver. Subject to conditions this was and is always accepted.
My point here is more an ethical one. Take it right down to a tourist going for a jolly; if there is an incident/accident, should the tourist be liable for their medical care or become third party collateral and therefore covered by the FBO/FTO's insurance?
You can argue caveat emptor in a mom'n'pop outfit in the midwest, but as a flight student you are restricted to available providers by a regulator - the CAA.
The CAA is a monopoly service provider to the UK citizen. There is a covenant; we adhere to the regulations, they provide a service. Part of this service should include the FTO has a degree of insurance that covers the pax. You are not, after all, PIC.
I am not for one moment suggesting the CAA provides this cover, just that it monitors its training providers.
If the FTO doesn't have this insurance and the full cover details available on all advertising, they shouldn't have the CAA seal of approval. Period.
The only time any aspect of insurance arose was before the solo PPL training happened and I was offered the hull loss excess waiver. Subject to conditions this was and is always accepted.
My point here is more an ethical one. Take it right down to a tourist going for a jolly; if there is an incident/accident, should the tourist be liable for their medical care or become third party collateral and therefore covered by the FBO/FTO's insurance?
You can argue caveat emptor in a mom'n'pop outfit in the midwest, but as a flight student you are restricted to available providers by a regulator - the CAA.
The CAA is a monopoly service provider to the UK citizen. There is a covenant; we adhere to the regulations, they provide a service. Part of this service should include the FTO has a degree of insurance that covers the pax. You are not, after all, PIC.
I am not for one moment suggesting the CAA provides this cover, just that it monitors its training providers.
If the FTO doesn't have this insurance and the full cover details available on all advertising, they shouldn't have the CAA seal of approval. Period.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethics don't come into it when business is concerned.
At the end of the day it is for you to ask and to check all the paperwork you are required to sign.
[Not PIC] Very true but what about when you are?
Don't get me wrong with this - I am not some liberal pinko who believes the state should wipe my nose and arse at every turn. When, however, we cannot go elsewhere and they extract what seem to be large amounts of money from trainees, it sticks in the craw that they feel nothing is owed in return.
At least if they were civil service there would be a degree of accountability.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the delay in reply - some thieving tinker stole the copper between me and the telephone exchange!
I am not suggesting the CAA impose anything on the FTOs. I am merely suggesting that while they hold the whip hand and restrict the usage of FTOs without their blessing we should get more from a regulator.
Seeing as BigGrecian's comment
indicates a hypothetical scenario, I cannot see this conversation going any further.
I am retiring, unsatisfied and still expecting more from a quango.
I am not suggesting the CAA impose anything on the FTOs. I am merely suggesting that while they hold the whip hand and restrict the usage of FTOs without their blessing we should get more from a regulator.
Seeing as BigGrecian's comment
In the possible scenario the student and instructor will be paying their own bills for their medical treatment.
Remember this when you consider a school - ask them about their insurance. Their bills will easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars.
Remember this when you consider a school - ask them about their insurance. Their bills will easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars.
I am retiring, unsatisfied and still expecting more from a quango.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a very good question!
Specifically since the owner was "rumoured" to be in the UK.
"If" The CFI and Head of Training were absent - so they shouldn't have even been completing training in the first place....
That, the CAA could go after them for.
Specifically since the owner was "rumoured" to be in the UK.
"If" The CFI and Head of Training were absent - so they shouldn't have even been completing training in the first place....
That, the CAA could go after them for.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFATO at EASA
My information is that Capt Fisher resigned from the company many months prior to the crash at Ormond Beach and has had no connection with EASA since that time.
Following that resignation (reason unknown) I understand that the CAA were made aware of the decison and that Adrian Thompson (the owner) took over the postion of CFI and Head of Training without a time gap.
Perhaps this info will be of help to those making posts about this subject?
Following that resignation (reason unknown) I understand that the CAA were made aware of the decison and that Adrian Thompson (the owner) took over the postion of CFI and Head of Training without a time gap.
Perhaps this info will be of help to those making posts about this subject?
Endsleigh Travel Insurance
For what its worth.....
Few years back aged about 47/48, I went on hols to malta, having arranged with the local microlighting club to do some training with them.
I knew that my travel ins would not do the job.
Endsleigh, the student insurers have a policy for the nutters who do bunjy jumping or white water rafting et al. I phoned for a quote: £30 ish for a fortnight, defo flying training covered.
Worth a look. Even for 2 months or whatever.
Few years back aged about 47/48, I went on hols to malta, having arranged with the local microlighting club to do some training with them.
I knew that my travel ins would not do the job.
Endsleigh, the student insurers have a policy for the nutters who do bunjy jumping or white water rafting et al. I phoned for a quote: £30 ish for a fortnight, defo flying training covered.
Worth a look. Even for 2 months or whatever.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Moon
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not want to side with OBA / EASA but I can't can agree with the posts here insisting on name and shame.
Is insurance a requirement for the business being conducted? Is it the CAA's responsibility to enforce this? I don't think this comes under their remit.
They are responsible for enforcing standards under the JAR's and thats it. Lets not give them additional powers / standards to enforce.
There must be some level of responsibility on the students shoulders here. They are not a passenger. They caused the flight to take place by asking an instructor to take them into the air. I'm not saying they are 100% responsible but they should take some care to ensure all aspects are covered from their stand point.
If you rent a car and turn down damage waiver which is extra, you are responsible.
If you go into a resturant to eat a steak recommended by Gordon Ramsey, GR is not responsible for ensuring that the restauant has sufficient insurance if you slip in the bathroom, or if you happen to get food poisoning.
When they tax a london bus, the DVLA check insurance is valid on the day of issuing the tax disk, but they are not responsible for ensuring continued coverage.
The PM said it well this week, and I paraphrase:
We should promote personal responsibility, not entitlement.
Do your leg work guys before you fly with anyone, both in the USA and the UK. Ask questions, demand answers. Don't assume it is someone else responisbility to ensure you are covered.
Again, not supporting OBA (its the last thing I would ever do). But no more regulations please. We will end up like the Roman Empire else!
Is insurance a requirement for the business being conducted? Is it the CAA's responsibility to enforce this? I don't think this comes under their remit.
They are responsible for enforcing standards under the JAR's and thats it. Lets not give them additional powers / standards to enforce.
There must be some level of responsibility on the students shoulders here. They are not a passenger. They caused the flight to take place by asking an instructor to take them into the air. I'm not saying they are 100% responsible but they should take some care to ensure all aspects are covered from their stand point.
If you rent a car and turn down damage waiver which is extra, you are responsible.
If you go into a resturant to eat a steak recommended by Gordon Ramsey, GR is not responsible for ensuring that the restauant has sufficient insurance if you slip in the bathroom, or if you happen to get food poisoning.
When they tax a london bus, the DVLA check insurance is valid on the day of issuing the tax disk, but they are not responsible for ensuring continued coverage.
The PM said it well this week, and I paraphrase:
We should promote personal responsibility, not entitlement.
Do your leg work guys before you fly with anyone, both in the USA and the UK. Ask questions, demand answers. Don't assume it is someone else responisbility to ensure you are covered.
Again, not supporting OBA (its the last thing I would ever do). But no more regulations please. We will end up like the Roman Empire else!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Everyone....
I joined this forum about 30 minutes ago and was quite surprised to find a thread about the crash of N9202C.
I was actually on an hours building course with EASA at the time of this crash. The crash of N9202C happened in the morning...but one of the things that struck home was that I had been flying this aircraft the night before and had been doing some circuits on it at night. I think it had only done a couple of hours flight time since I last flew it.
But a couple of days before the crash, a friend of mine flew the aircraft and diagnosed the electric fuel pump as not working, so I placed the aircraft U/S. Naturally, we thought that this had caused the crash.
But apparently, through word of mouth, the FAA investigation found that the left (or right maybe) fuel tank was completely empty and the other tank was completely full up....so it would appear the the pilot/instructor just never changed tanks, and therefore ran one dry.
Before anyone tries to pin blame on me...I ALWAYS filled the aircraft up fully after each flight and the fuel pump was working when I flew it. The instructor however, who's from Sweden, is I believe the most experienced instructor there (except for Bill, the CFI) and he's the one who taught me all of my PPL lessons last year, so I find it hard to understand that he didn't change fuel tanks. The student however, it was his first ever flight and they are both fine now...and they both had good insurance. Whether they did fail to change tanks and therefore bled one dry I do not know, that's just what I heard.
On another note about Insurance....I'm not trying to sell, but in 2010 when I done my PPL I went with traffords for about £130. But when I went for my hours building this year, I went with a company called JS Insurance (Jade Stanley) who provided better cover, for £75.36.
I joined this forum about 30 minutes ago and was quite surprised to find a thread about the crash of N9202C.
I was actually on an hours building course with EASA at the time of this crash. The crash of N9202C happened in the morning...but one of the things that struck home was that I had been flying this aircraft the night before and had been doing some circuits on it at night. I think it had only done a couple of hours flight time since I last flew it.
But a couple of days before the crash, a friend of mine flew the aircraft and diagnosed the electric fuel pump as not working, so I placed the aircraft U/S. Naturally, we thought that this had caused the crash.
But apparently, through word of mouth, the FAA investigation found that the left (or right maybe) fuel tank was completely empty and the other tank was completely full up....so it would appear the the pilot/instructor just never changed tanks, and therefore ran one dry.
Before anyone tries to pin blame on me...I ALWAYS filled the aircraft up fully after each flight and the fuel pump was working when I flew it. The instructor however, who's from Sweden, is I believe the most experienced instructor there (except for Bill, the CFI) and he's the one who taught me all of my PPL lessons last year, so I find it hard to understand that he didn't change fuel tanks. The student however, it was his first ever flight and they are both fine now...and they both had good insurance. Whether they did fail to change tanks and therefore bled one dry I do not know, that's just what I heard.
On another note about Insurance....I'm not trying to sell, but in 2010 when I done my PPL I went with traffords for about £130. But when I went for my hours building this year, I went with a company called JS Insurance (Jade Stanley) who provided better cover, for £75.36.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance
Hello, Adam,
Having viewed the responses to this topic, there does seem to be differing answers to some of the points raised.
Of course, I am delighted to learn that the two pilots in the crashed aircraft are now OK...great news!
The reason for the crash I opine, was not a matter for PPruners to debate but for the US authorities to investigate and resolve and I trust that the final analysis will be duly published.
The matter of insurance however, I would have thought, should be of vital interest to prospective students.
If the info being banded around means that this particular flight training organisation does not have in place, a comprehensive insurance policy which will protect and cover its customers when in training in a Company aircraft, then I, for one, am astonished.
What Company would not consider such to be a normal part of a service contract to protect their clients?
I trust the absence of such a policy is clearly noted in any 'enrolment' paperwork prior to acceptance to train?
Am I being naive?
Having viewed the responses to this topic, there does seem to be differing answers to some of the points raised.
Of course, I am delighted to learn that the two pilots in the crashed aircraft are now OK...great news!
The reason for the crash I opine, was not a matter for PPruners to debate but for the US authorities to investigate and resolve and I trust that the final analysis will be duly published.
The matter of insurance however, I would have thought, should be of vital interest to prospective students.
If the info being banded around means that this particular flight training organisation does not have in place, a comprehensive insurance policy which will protect and cover its customers when in training in a Company aircraft, then I, for one, am astonished.
What Company would not consider such to be a normal part of a service contract to protect their clients?
I trust the absence of such a policy is clearly noted in any 'enrolment' paperwork prior to acceptance to train?
Am I being naive?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: EGYD
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trust the absence of such a policy is clearly noted in any 'enrolment' paperwork prior to acceptance to train?
Also they charge an insurance deductible - when "rumour" has it they don't have insurance - which I'm pretty sure it fraud.
