St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

[rookiepilot]

..

[pelmet]

How do you know who did the takeoff. Is it possible that you are just making assumptions with no evidence to back it up. We might like to know before the club get sued out of business simply because it appears the PIC quite possibly encountered difficulties while flying on instruments. Are you a lawyer?

I have a brain. I'm not a lawyer, but do have an opinion. Isn't that what we do here?
Who did the takeoff is irrelevant. The PIC authorized the takeoff, whether he did it or not. I'm not assuming the student did the takeoff, doesn't matter anyway.


If I was a lawyer -- I'd be all over this CAR in going after the flight school.

Hang em' high.

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

[rookiepilot]

How do you know who did the takeoff. Is it possible that you are just making assumptions with no evidence to back it up. We might like to know before the club get sued out of business simply because it appears the PIC quite possibly encountered difficulties while flying on instruments. Are you a lawyer?

I have a brain. I'm not a lawyer, but do have an opinion. Isn't that what we do here?
Who did the takeoff is irrelevant. The PIC authorized the takeoff, whether he did it or not. I'm not assuming the student did the takeoff, doesn't matter anyway.


If I was a lawyer -- I'd be all over this CAR in going after the flight school.

Hang em' high.

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Now that's amusing.

Both passengers were students, if you'd done your reading, and the club spokesperson itself was quoted as saying these trips were regular events for students to "gain experience". Again, try reading.

Not buying it at all.

Quoted:

"He was well-qualified to do this,” Hatcher, also a flying instructor, said, adding Tawfig would have been the one “in charge” on the aircraft."

Incorrect, since the flight was illegal -- based on a lack of night PIC currency documented in the report.

[pelmet]

I have a brain. I'm not a lawyer, but do have an opinion. Isn't that what we do here?
Who did the takeoff is irrelevant. The PIC authorized the takeoff, whether he did it or not. I'm not assuming the student did the takeoff, doesn't matter anyway.


If I was a lawyer -- I'd be all over this CAR in going after the flight school.

Hang em' high.

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Now that's amusing.

Both passengers were students, if you'd done your reading, and the club spokesperson itself was quoted as saying these trips were regular events for students to "gain experience". Again, try reading.

Not buying it at all.

Quoted:

"He was well-qualified to do this,” Hatcher, also a flying instructor, said, adding Tawfig would have been the one “in charge” on the aircraft."

Incorrect, since the flight was illegal.

The instructor statement is only speculation.

Not sure who "HE" is.

I could go on this flight as well to gain experience. Watching someone else as PIC while I am a passenger is always experience.

Speculation without proof. Then again, juries have a history of "buying bullshit"......or shall we say....speculation.

[photofly]

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Your concerns not withstanding, it was reported at the time that both passengers were students of the instructor who was PIC. The recent TSB report points out that one student was in the left seat and was making the radio calls on departure. I'm not in any doubt that if logbooks of this or previous trips are examined, it will be found that the students logged dual instruction cross country time.

It would not be acceptable - anywhere - for an instructor to undertake a "private" flight where the two passengers just happened to be his students. That would be bootlegging, and no flight school would permit it. It wouldn't stand up to an instant's scrutiny under cross examination either. Even without the inculpatory statement from the club.

This whole episode looks bad - because it is bad.

Not sure who "HE" is.

He, is Rifat Tawfig, the pilot, who was 25 when he was killed.

[rookiepilot]

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.

Your concerns not withstanding, it was reported at the time that both passengers were students of the instructor who was PIC. The recent TSB report points out that one student was in the left seat and was making the radio calls on departure. I'm not in any doubt that if logbooks of this or previous trips are examined, it will be found that the students logged dual instruction cross country time.

It would not be acceptable - anywhere - for an instructor to undertake a "private" flight where the two passengers just happened to be his students. That would be bootlegging, and no flight school would permit it. It wouldn't stand up to an instant's scrutiny under cross examination either. Even without the inculpatory statement from the club.

This whole episode looks bad - because it is bad.

Totally.

I'm not a lawyer, but I could see any lawyer who was a pilot, absolutely drooling over the chance to try this and attempt to put these guys out of business.

Try suing me for saying so. You'd be laughed out of any court in the country.

I call it the way I see it, pelmet.

[photofly]

Why was the instructor in the right seat on this flight? Is that the usual seat for a PIC to occupy for an IFR night cross country flight in a Piper Cherokee?

[rookiepilot]

Why was the instructor in the right seat on this flight? Is that the usual seat for a PIC to occupy for an IFR night cross country flight in a Piper Cherokee?

Ding, ding, ding. Prosecution rests.

[pelmet]

It would not be acceptable - anywhere - for an instructor to undertake a "private" flight where the two passengers just happened to be his students. That would be bootlegging, and no flight school would permit it.

I think it is quite plausible, but......

Why was the instructor in the right seat on this flight? Is that the usual seat for a PIC to occupy for an IFR night cross country flight in a Piper Cherokee?

That is evidence coming to light that might change my mind on whether it was an instructional flight. Didn't see it in the report until now. And admittedly, I really don't know much about Flight Training Unit regulations.

What I would say is that it is no reason to not do cross-country flights for enjoyment/experience. Just follw the rules instead of taking away future experiences for pilots because the regs were broken.

[RatherBeFlying]

While the NTSB observes that the instruction was IFR rated, it seems his IFR was not current. 6000 over the Alleghanies will likely get you the bumps in any wind.

A higher standard is expected of an IFR rated PIC; so I suspect it will be difficult for the PIC's family to sustain a claim against the FTU. However the FTU looks to be in a poor legal position vs
the students' families as they are answerable for its instructor's conduct of the flight.

[photofly]

"He was well-qualified to do this,” Hatcher, also a flying instructor, said...

I have a feeling this comment (from the CFI) may come back to bite the club.

[photofly]

While the NTSB observes that the instruction was IFR rated, it seems his IFR was not current. 6000 over the Alleghanies will likely get you the bumps in any wind.

A higher standard is expected of an IFR rated PIC; so I suspect it will be difficult for the PIC's family to sustain a claim against the FTU. However the FTU looks to be in a poor legal position vs
the students' families as they are answerable for its instructor's conduct of the flight.

The instructor passed an instrument proficiency check just five days before the accident, and in the same airplane, so I’m not sure it could be said his Instrument Rating was not current.

It’s most likely that the instructor was a contractor, and not an employee. In which case the doctrine of vicarious liability (of an employer) would not extend. I can see the club held responsible for the decision to undertake the flight on the basis of their duty to supervise and maintain operational control, but I can’t see a way for the club to be held liable for the actions of the pilot once he departed. And from what I’ve read, that is not in fact part of the claim.

What basis do you have to say that a higher standard is expected of an IFR rated PIC? Higher standard than what? It seems to me that crashing and killing yourself and two passengers failed to meet any standard at all, high, or low.

[lownslow]

It’s most likely that the instructor was a contractor, and not an employee.

That's an easy one to argue. It's exceptionally difficult for most pilots to actually meet the requirements of a contract employee and I know of a handful of schools who have been slapped by the tax man over their selective interpretation of the rules.

[photofly]

The various factors that would determine that question are not known to us. But it's possible to be considered an employee by the CRA but not by the WSIB or a court for the purposes of liability. All those agencies will make their own decisions.

[Aviatard]

Read, I hate quoting Cars but this is getting stupid.

(4) The Chief Flight Instructor of a flight training unit shall be responsible for operational control.

(5) A person who is appointed as Chief Flight Instructor for a flight training unit identified in subsection (1) shall be responsible for:

(a) the management of the overall pilot training program;
(amended 2006/12/14)

(b) the supervision of all flight and ground instructors of the flight training unit;
(amended 2006/12/14)

(c) the direct supervision of Class 4 flight instructors, including the designation of a Class 1 or Class 2 flight instructor to supervise a Class 4 flight instructor;

If I was a lawyer -- I'd be all over this CAR in going after the flight school.

Hang em' high.

I don't think the last section you triumphantly highlighted means what you think it does. The term direct supervision just means that students must receive a supervisory check flight once before solo and once before flight test.

421.62 Class 4 Supervision Requirement:
(2) flight progress checks for each student at intervals to be specified by the supervising flight instructor, but at least once before the first solo flight and once before the flight test for issue of the pilot licence;

You'd be better off being the hanging judge on subsection (4) operational control:

400.01 (1): operational control means the exercise of authority over the initiation, continuation, diversion or termination of a flight in the interest of the safety of the aircraft and the regularity and efficiency of the flight;

So if this really was an instructional flight, and it seems that it was, the CFI should have looked at the circumstances and said no to the flight. Now git to hangin'

[photofly]

I don't think the last section you triumphantly highlighted means what you think it does. The term direct supervision just means that students must receive a supervisory check flight once before solo and once before flight test.

That is not how Transport Canada inspectors interpret the rule. They require the supervising instructor to approve every single flight of a class IV instructor, and make the FTU implement a reporting system to enforce that.

See also 421.63(1).

[rookiepilot]

I don't think the last section you triumphantly highlighted means what you think it does. The term direct supervision just means that students must receive a supervisory check flight once before solo and once before flight test.

That is not how Transport Canada inspectors interpret the rule. They require the supervising instructor to approve every single flight of a class IV instructor, and make the FTU implement a reporting system to enforce that.

See also 421.63(1).

I'd add -- I'd expect the lawyers are well aware of this fact, which is why both the FTU and TC are legitimately included in the suit. In my view, this wasn't a personal flight gone bad, an entire process tragically broke down.

Only PF and myself appear to see this, and it's totally bizzare the sympathy I'm reading for the flight school instead of for an inexperienced instructor and 2 teenagers.

[rookiepilot]

I took the time to read the report.

Nothing about pressure from the school to return. Nothing about it even being a training flight. Maybe it was just a flight with the instructor as PIC going home and due to the weather it was not an official instructional flight but student was along for the ride with the intent to learn(as can be done on any flight).

The NTSB says it was a "personal flight". How do you know who did the takeoff. Is it possible that you are just making assumptions with no evidence to back it up. We might like to know before the club get sued out of business simply because it appears the PIC quite possibly encountered difficulties while flying on instruments. Are you a lawyer?

I'm still looking for the basis for your statements, including I'm liable to be sued.

[lownslow]

I'd expect the lawyers are well aware of this fact

I used to assume the same about these situations but avenues I've seen that would have been a slam dunk in their respective suits oddly enough almost never get followed.

[photofly]

The standard of proof in a civil action is only "on the preponderance of the evidence", which is to say the plaintiff has only to show that what they claim is more likely than not to be true.

In any case, this will never go to a trial, everything settles out of court with the insurers.