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

[rookiepilot]

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

Probably true, definitely too bad if so.

----The problem with a settlement is its usually for an undisclosed amount, without the party admitting wrongdoing. Very low key and minimal public attention.

This is not corrective, with the publicity that a court judgment would achieve.

I recognize for the families, this may not be their prime concern.

[photofly]

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

Probably true, definitely too bad if so.

Well, no. You might want to see punishment, but that’s not the purpose of a court action for damages. The purpose of a suit is for the plaintiffs to be made whole, so if there’s a settlement that’s a good thing.


If you want punishment, you’ll have to look to TC as the regulator with the power to impose sanction.

[Aviatard]

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).

That hasn't been my experience, through 3 separate TC audits, although I've seen a wide range of supervision systems. None were that rigid. There seems to be a range of interpretations, depending on the inspector you get. I'm not saying that's a bad idea, just that it wasn't used in any of the FTUs I've worked at. Maybe your CFI annoyed TC?

I've no idea what was in place at the St. Catherine's club at the time. I agree with you and Mr. Rookie that whatever was done, either it broke down or wasn't adequate in the first place.

[pdw]

Seems to me that junior instructor delegated his decision process to the (presumably more experienced) instructor in the aircraft ahead. Cost 3 lives.

On flightaware it was evident the accident AC was was overtaking to the east of the leading plane on parrallel course (20km apart) at the time and is into trouble just as it overtook about same time as the surviving plane changed course to "vector" westward (providing flightaware co-ordinates are reliable for comparison of tracks/timing).

[pelmet]

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

That FTU and its owners should be sued into bankruptcy,

As Photofly stated, the members are the owners. I happen to be a member of more than one flying club. Both have had accidents(like every school I happen to rent from). If an accident were to happen that has nothing to do with me and someone out there is advancing a proposal to sue me and the rest of the members into bankruptcy....I might just get a group together to try the same with you.

Even if not successful, I would be happy to cost that person a lot of legal money(or just wasted time) out of spite.

[rookiepilot]

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

That FTU and its owners should be sued into bankruptcy,

As Photofly stated, the members are the owners. I happen to be a member of more than one flying club. Both have had accidents(like every school I happen to rent from). If an accident were to happen that has nothing to do with me and someone out there is advancing a proposal to sue me and the rest of the members into bankruptcy....I might just get a group together to try the same with you.

Even if not successful, I would be happy to cost that person a lot of legal money(or just wasted time) out of spite.

I stand by every word I've said -- based on the known facts, which have eluded you.

That flying club should not be in existence today, in my opinion, based on the known facts. End of story.

You realize if you lost, which you would, your group would be liable for my legal costs, and I'd counter sue for every hour of my time and damages. Very Agressively too.

This is a forum. We state opinions here all the time based on the known facts, which I have done. A lot of accidents have a load more speculation than this one has seen here.

If you can't handle that get off this site.

[photofly]

If an accident were to happen that has nothing to do with me ...

I’m afraid if you’re a club member, and it’s a club accident, it has everything to do with you. You elected the directors, and they employed the CFI and instructors. It’s really the members’ responsibility to themselves to make sure their club is properly and safely run. That can’t be abrogated. And everything the club does, it does in the name of its members.

Just because you weren’t in the accident airplane - doesn’t let entirely you off the hook.



BTW If you win in court, you can usually get about half your costs awarded. You have to cover the rest yourself, even if you win.

[rookiepilot]

If an accident were to happen that has nothing to do with me ...

I’m afraid if you’re a club member, and it’s a club accident, it has everything to do with you. You elected the directors, and they employed the CFI and instructors. It’s really the members’ responsibility to themselves to make sure their club is properly and safely run. That can’t be abrogated. And everything the club does, it does in the name of its members.

Just because you weren’t in the accident airplane - doesn’t let entirely you off the hook.

Exactly this. I'm no lawyer. I am however somewhat familiar with aspects of corporate law.

I'm shocked Pelmet you'd sign on without understanding your personal liability.

[photofly]

Ok. Settle, everyone. There’s no personal liability to the members, they don’t have to reach into their pockets to pay a settlement. See 91(1) of the Ontario Not For Profit Corporations Act.

I’m just saying, the members have the final say on how a club is run.

[rookiepilot]

Ok. Settle, everyone. There’s no personal liability to the members, they don’t have to reach into their pockets to pay a settlement. See 91(1) of the Ontario Not For Profit Corporations Act.

And is that the case for wilful negligence? I'm not so sure on that. There can be a distinction depending on how the court views the negligence and if a proper duty of care was followed.

Found this US reference:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt%5Colr%5 ... R-1373.htm

As I thought:

"Club directors and members can be sued by people who sustain physical injuries because of the negligence or intentional misconduct of directors or members while engaged in club activities. But if the club is a nonprofit tax exempt organization, the directors, officers, and trustees, are shielded from liability by a broadly-worded state immunity law. The immunity only covers policy or decision-making duties. And it does not cover reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct."

"Reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct describes conduct that is more culpable than negligence. It involves intentionally doing an act of unreasonable character, in disregard of a risk the actor knows of or in a disregard of a risk so obvious that he should have been aware of it. The risk is so great that it is highly probable that harm will follow."

---- you tell me if that fits.

[pelmet]

Ok. Settle, everyone. There’s no personal liability to the members, they don’t have to reach into their pockets to pay a settlement. See 91(1) of the Ontario Not For Profit Corporations Act.

I’m just saying, the members have the final say on how a club is run.

Well, our Rookie Pilot wants to bankrupt them all. I'm not planning on leaving the forum any time soon, and if he only gets half his cost back from counter-lawsuits, then good. I think as a whole, the members he is trying to bankrupt could outlast him and at least one person would go bankrupt eventually.

Thanks for the law reference, though. A good example of laws passed to protect innocent people from the likes of what we see here.

[A346Dude]

I'm not a member of any flying club, but I don't see how it's a good thing for GA in Canada if any of them get sued out of existence. I find it hard to believe that this one is beyond the pale with regards to recklessness and negligence, while the rest are all perfect and something like this could never, ever happen to them. Maybe I'm wrong.

[photofly]

Ok. Settle, everyone. There’s no personal liability to the members, they don’t have to reach into their pockets to pay a settlement. See 91(1) of the Ontario Not For Profit Corporations Act.

And is that the case for wilful negligence? I'm not so sure on that. There can be a distinction depending on how the court views the negligence and if a proper duty of care was followed.

The club members would never be liable. Pelmet wouldn’t have to pay anyone. But if he’s a member of the club, and if the club is found to be at fault and is disadvantaged (perhaps it can’t afford next year’s insurance, or perhaps TC removes the club’s OC for a period on public safety grounds, until better supervision is arranged) then he can’t get stroppy at the families. It’s his club, and his club screwed up.

Distinct from the members, one or more directors or officers could be personally liable if they failed in one or more of their duties.

The ONCA is not yet in force (incredibly, since it was passed by Queens Park 8 years ago) but it’s still indicative, because it didn’t set out radically to change the landscape. So I don’t think what applies today (actually still the Ontario Corporations Act) is very different. The ONCA says:

43 (1) Every director and officer in exercising his or her powers and discharging his or her duties to the corporation shall,
(a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation; and
(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. 2010, c. 15, s. 43 (1).

Three things to note. Firstly as far as I know in this case no suit has been filed against any officer or director personally alleging he or she failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care, diligence or skill.

Secondly it’s a high bar. Much higher than simply claiming the club is responsible.

Thirdly it would be unheard of for a director to accept an appointment to a board - or an officer to an office - of a not for profit corporation without the corporation providing directors and officers liability and indemnity insurance to defend against such a suit.

Fourthly (ok, I lied) I don’t know to whom the directors’ duties of care are owed. It may be only the members can pursue a director personally.

[rookiepilot]

I'm not a member of any flying club, but I don't see how it's a good thing for GA in Canada if any of them get sued out of existence. I find it hard to believe that this one is beyond the pale with regards to recklessness and negligence, while the rest are all perfect and something like this could never, ever happen to them. Maybe I'm wrong.

First, of course I do not want to see flying clubs deteriorate in Canada.

I am talking about this case. Perhaps "sued out of existence" is a little harsh. But to see NO corrective action at all, I strongly disagree with.

3 very young people are dead, and it appears entirely preventable. That is what matters to me. It is all that should matter to anyone.

You're the same group that hammers unsafe 705's. This is infinitely worse in my view. There should be ZERO tolerance for unsafe FTU operations, because these are TEENAGERS!

TC has taken no action in this case (to my knowledge). Perhaps they have, and it's not public. If it's not public, how does that action effect change on the industry? (In regard to these "experience" trips, for example).

If they won't in a case like this, what is the standard for them to do so? Is it that wrong for the families to seek justice if it's denied them in any other way?

Absent TC -- the courts are an important corrective tool to effect change. This isn't a case with passengers stuck on a taxiway for 3 hours. It is not trivial or frivolous, although it appears my view there is in the minority. Teenage students dead. Too bad, so sad.

I don't understand this aversion to corrective action. Three young lives call for it.

I'm done here. Let's continue sending kids on night IMC flights in convective weather in basic trainers. All good.

Roll the dice, then.

[pelmet]

Ok. Settle, everyone. There’s no personal liability to the members, they don’t have to reach into their pockets to pay a settlement. See 91(1) of the Ontario Not For Profit Corporations Act.

And is that the case for wilful negligence? I'm not so sure on that. There can be a distinction depending on how the court views the negligence and if a proper duty of care was followed.

The club members would never be liable. Pelmet wouldn’t have to pay anyone. But if he’s a member of the club, and if the club is found to be at fault and is disadvantaged (perhaps it can’t afford next year’s insurance, or perhaps TC removes the club’s OC for a period on public safety grounds, until better supervision is arranged) then he can’t get stroppy at the families. It’s his club, and his club screwed up.

Distinct from the members, one or more directors or officers could be personally liable if they failed in one or more of their duties.

The ONCA is not yet in force (incredibly, since it was passed by Queens Park 8 years ago) but it’s still indicative, because it didn’t set out radically to change the landscape. So I don’t think what applies today (actually still the Ontario Corporations Act) is very different. The ONCA says:

43 (1) Every director and officer in exercising his or her powers and discharging his or her duties to the corporation shall,
(a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation; and
(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. 2010, c. 15, s. 43 (1).

Three things to note. Firstly as far as I know in this case no suit has been filed against any officer or director personally alleging he or she failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care, diligence or skill.

Secondly it’s a high bar. Much higher than simply claiming the club is responsible.

Thirdly it would be unheard of for a director to accept an appointment to a board - or an officer to an office - of a not for profit corporation without the corporation providing directors and officers liability and indemnity insurance to defend against such a suit.

Fourthly (ok, I lied) I don’t know to whom the directors’ duties of care are owed. It may be only the members can pursue a director personally.

Thanks Photofly, it is obvious with this discussion and others that I have had with you that your knowledge of the regulations and how it applies appears to be excellent and very useful.

I am talking about this case. Perhaps "sued out of existence" is a little harsh.
3 very young people are dead, and it appears entirely preventable. That is what matters to me. It is all that should matter to anyone.

You're the same group that hammers unsafe 705's. This is infinitely worse in my view. There should be ZERO tolerance for unsafe FTU operations, because these are TEENAGERS!

Absent TC -- the courts are an important corrective tool to effect change. This isn't a case with passengers stuck on a taxiway for 3 hours. It is not trivial or frivolous, although it appears my view there is in the minority. Teenage students dead. Too bad, so sad.

I don't understand this aversion to corrective action. Three young lives call for it.

I'm done here. Let's continue sending kids on night IMC flights in convective weather in basic trainers. All good.

Roll the dice, then.

Whether or not the deceased are teenagers is meaningless to me as ALL lives matter and it is a tragedy regardless of age. But it is certainly not all that matters. Innocent people being sued into bankruptcy over an tragedy is not the kind of society any of us should want. That is why these laws were made, otherwise, no clubs would exist. And if you 'dare criticize' these ridiculous ideas of suing innocent people into bankruptcy, you are accused of not caring and being willing to more teens to their deaths.

In the end, I think what we have is another example of occasional posters that want to make a big statement for their own effect without thinking of the consequences. Then they can be the one that publicly(although anonymously) bashed TC, the club, the FAA and whoever else. It can feel good to say the of the things that we see said instead of calm, rational, non-emotional outside analysis and discussion on corrective action to prevent future tragedies.

Which is why we have certain laws. I guess with that, I am done as well.

Keep calm and carry on, with lessons learned.

[B208]

An example of failing FAA oversight in this case however, would be appreciated.

The FAA oversees the manufacturer of the vacuum pump that failed. My guess would be the plaintiffs will pursue that avenue.

[B208]

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'

There are many hidden treasures in the CARs if you know where to look:

421.62 Class 4 Supervision Requirement

The holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating shall be under the supervision of the holder of a Class 1 or 2 Flight Instructor Rating, in the applicable category, and shall submit for review to the supervising instructor the following:

(1) the training program for each student undergoing training by the holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating;

That means that the Class IV is supposed to get approval from their supervising instructor.

[RatherBeFlying]

I suspected that the accident pilot was not IFR current as he hadn't done any recent approaches, but it seems he had recently passed an IFR proficiency test (for what that was worth - keeping in mind that you can get and maintain an IFR rating without ever being in a cloud, let alone at night).

However he was not night current.

Legally he could rent a plane and fly IFR with cost sharing passengers, but distinguishing between a private or instructional flight gets murky when the plane belongs to his employer FTU and the passengers are his students. The court, after submissions from expensive lawyers, will come up with a solution that will likely not satisfy many in the pilot community.

While the report shows he flew into an area of rain according to ATC radar and ground witnesses, I don't see a conclusive finding he flew into cloud.

Kennedy flew into the ocean approaching Martha's Vinyard on a moonless night with some mist, albeit legal VFR. Over the Alleghanies with sparse habitation coupled with high cloud, mist and here rain, it can be difficult to find a horizon looking out the windshield - and easy to be misled by an illusionary horizon.

At night you may not know there's a cloud ahead until you notice there's no lights on the ground or visible stars. In the meantime you may have ended up in an unusual attitude.

While the NTSB report shows impact damage to the vacuum pump, it seems to have been operating before impact.

[MrWings]

I suspected that the accident pilot was not IFR current as he hadn't done any recent approaches, but it seems he had recently passed an IFR proficiency test (for what that was worth - keeping in mind that you can get and maintain an IFR rating without ever being in a cloud, let alone at night).

After an IPC is completed, you are current for 12 months afterward.

[digits_]

There are many hidden treasures in the CARs if you know where to look:

421.62 Class 4 Supervision Requirement

The holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating shall be under the supervision of the holder of a Class 1 or 2 Flight Instructor Rating, in the applicable category, and shall submit for review to the supervising instructor the following:

(1) the training program for each student undergoing training by the holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating;

That means that the Class IV is supposed to get approval from their supervising instructor.

No it doesn't. Approving a training program does not mean you have to approve every single flight at exactly the time it happens. Unless that's what you told TC of course.

A traning plan can simply be "flight 1: practise exercise 1-5, flight 2 ex 3-7" etc. That does not mean that flight 1 or flight 2 need to be approved every time by the instructor.