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

[rookiepilot]

As for the flying club, its owners elect the directors, who hire the employees.

Any liability and how far it goes in this regard would have to be decided by a court of law, that is why courts exist is to settle such matters.

This is my stance. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's up to the courts to decide, as in any business that might be found liable for misconduct.

I never said anywhere: "A non profit's member's should be sued into bankruptcy".

Here is the reference that liability certainly can extend beyond an organization:

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

[RatherBeFlying]

As for pursuit of individual members for damages is concerned, I am doubtful:

1. Most likely the club is incorporated.

2. Members generally have to sign a liability waiver on joining or renewing membership. This waiver generally holds unless gross negligence can be proved - somewhat difficult when such trips have been safely completed for decades.

3. The club's insurers have access to experienced aviation lawyers.

4. To collect in Canada on a US judgement, application will have to be made to a Canadian court which has the power and duty to apply Canadian jurisprudence - including determination of quantum.

Of course survivors could possibly claim against any assets (aircraft) in the US for any shortfall in what could be obtained through Canadian courts. That option might be more productive for any US person or entity suffering damages from this accident. But how much could be realised from the seizure of a heavily used single engine trainer from a foreign country without maintenance records after paying the lawyer?

[photofly]

Of course it's incorporated. This "members should be bankrupted" is just too silly for words. Even by AvCanada's standards of silliness. Ontario Corporations Act, section 122:

122 A member shall not, as such, be held answerable or responsible for any act, default, obligation or liability of the corporation or for any engagement, claim, payment, loss, injury, transaction, matter or thing relating to or connected with the corporation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.38, s. 122.

The members are not liable, end of story.

[rookiepilot]

Of course it's incorporated. This "members should be bankrupted" is just too silly for words. Even by AvCanada's standards of silliness. Ontario Corporations Act, section 122:

Where did I write specifically, if you're referring to me, any non profits members be bankrupted?

There is an enormous, and obvious, legal difference between active, knowledgeable corporate ownership and passive non profit membership.

[photofly]

There is an enormous legal difference between active corporate ownership and passive non profit membership.

No, not really. By virtue only of their shareholdings, shareholders of profit-making corporations are only personally liable to the extent the face value of their shareholdings has not been paid up. Since all shares in existence since history began are all "fully paid up", shareholders aren't liable either. It wouldn't make any difference whether the flight school was a for-profit or not-for-profit. Members or shareholders are not financially on the hook for this.

However, that's not the same as saying that because they're only members (or shareholders) that their organization (club, company, whatever) shouldn't be held responsible because they don't want their club or company to suffer.

I can't really be bothered to look and see if you want to "bankrupt" (my how Dickensian we've become) any members, but I do recall you finding quotes to suggest that they were personally liable. I'm sorry - but they're not.

[rookiepilot]

However, that's not the same as saying that because they're only members (or shareholders) that their organization (club, company, whatever) shouldn't be held responsible because they don't want their club or company to suffer.

but I do recall you finding quotes to suggest that they were personally liable. I'm sorry - but they're not.

I posted a British link explicitly stating this is possible. I didn't invent it. If Canada in our little paradise states no one can be sued for anything -- so it seems sometimes -- fine.

Shareholders in a public company experience direct financial loss when their company is successfully sued -- say an SEC investigation for accounting fraud ----- certainly they can be called an "innocent" party. But are they? They are owners! Depends how one defines it, which as I said, a court would decide. I would think issues of active control come into it.

Instead of multiple shareholders, take a closely held company, involved daily in management decisions at a flying club, perhaps also holding management roles. That might change things. Again up to a court.

Rather than the ridiculous suggestion launched by Pelmet of the shareholders suing the plantiff, (the SEC in my example ) they can, and do, launch class action lawsuits against the company they hold shares in, to attempt to recover some of the losss in the value of their holdings.

[photofly]

Just remember - it's called a "limited" company because members' liabilities are limited.

Instead of multiple shareholders, take a closely held company, involved daily in management decisions at a flying club, perhaps also holding management roles.

Then they are not just members, they are officers - different story. But no liability attaches through membership or shareholding. Same in the UK - see the Companies Act, 2006.

[rookiepilot]

Just remember - it's called a "limited" company because liabilities are limited to the company, and not its members as individuals.

Instead of multiple shareholders, take a closely held company, involved daily in management decisions at a flying club, perhaps also holding management roles.

Then they are not just members, they are officers - different story. But no liability attaches through membership or shareholding.

What about a closely held company, where a family owns it and effectively is directing control, but holds no officer roles? Not uncommon, I would suppose. Our friend, Bombardier. Yes, board seats -- no officer roles, to my knowledge, without looking. Any doubt who is pulling the decision strings there?


I wouldn't bet the farm being referred to as an innocent shareholder.

As I said before, it depends if what occurred falls under accidental or wilful negligence.

Limited liability -- indemnifies shareholders from liability, say the the company goes BK because of mismanagement and has a large debt.

I'd be wary of extending that assumption as a get of jail card for wilful misconduct.

[photofly]

I'd be wary of extending that assumption as a get of jail card for wilful misconduct.

This is more of the same silliness. The rank and file members of the St. Catharine's Flying Club didn't willfully misconduct anything. Your hyperbole is drawing attention away from what really went wrong.

[photofly]

What about a closely held company, where a family owns it and effectively is directing control, but holds no officer roles?

See the law about shadow directors.
https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-7249

[digits_]

Greed? Let me tell you what's greedy.

The greed comes from flight schools that can stuff 2 students and an instructor in a plane for a trip to Florida and charge dual for a trip not on any PPL Syllabus.

There is ZERO purpose in Pre PPL students going on such a trip. Zero. Inexcusable.

CPL, 2 or 3 taking off for some cross border experience? No problem. I did. But then no instructor is involved. School can't milk the same amount of money.

There is also ZERO reason for an instructor to ever go beyond an oral brief for a cross border flight. It's not that complicated once paperwork is done.

Did those students pay for the instructors food and hotel too?

Good deal. Until everyone was killed.

TC should crack down on that kind of greed. Stick strictly to the syllabus for PPL anyway -- or lose your OC.

Students are vulnerable. They don't know anything. TC should protect them -- first.

Zero tolerance.

You who disagree --- think this kind of accident is GOOD for the GA image? GA is mortibound. Give your heads a shake.

My opinion on this incident hasn't changed, nor will it.

Once more: trips like these are NOT the big money makers for flying schools/clubs. They have way more risk and one mechanical breakdown throws your profit margin out of the window. Local trips and trips in the circuit are way more profitable.

I've been involved in multiple schools who got requests from their students to do international trips. None of them were very happy with it, but allowed it anyway as it is good experience for students.

Limiting trips like these to CPL students only is ridiculous. A Canadian PPL allows you to fly around the world in a Canadian registered airplane. So actually doing international long distance trips is perfectly valid training. Some (most?) pilots will never fly commecially, yet could be interested in longer trips for fun. Kudos to the flying club and FTUs who offer an incentive to do so.

While an international flight is not complicated once the paperwork is done, going through the whole process and just the idea that you are flying in a different country can scare people off. If they are uncomfortable doing it by themselves, then taking friends of an instructor along for training is an exteremely wise decision.

I'm worried this accident might trigger more knee jerk reactions like yours. And that would ruin a great experience for many student pilots.

[rookiepilot]

I'd be wary of extending that assumption as a get of jail card for wilful misconduct.

This is more of the same silliness. The rank and file members of the St. Catharine's Flying Club didn't willfully misconduct anything. Your hyperbole is drawing attention away from what really went wrong.

I'm not referring to this case specifically.

[rookiepilot]

I've been involved in multiple schools who got requests from their students to do international trips. None of them were very happy with it, but allowed it anyway as it is good experience for students.

Limiting trips like these to CPL students only is ridiculous. A Canadian PPL allows you to fly around the world in a Canadian registered airplane. So actually doing international long distance trips is perfectly valid training. Some (most?) pilots will never fly commecially, yet could be interested in longer trips for fun. Kudos to the flying club and FTUs who offer an incentive to do so.

While an international flight is not complicated once the paperwork is done, going through the whole process and just the idea that you are flying in a different country can scare people off. If they are uncomfortable doing it by themselves, then taking friends of an instructor along for training is an exteremely wise decision.

I'm worried this accident might trigger more knee jerk reactions like yours. And that would ruin a great experience for many student pilots.

Disagree across the board, sorry. No place for pre PPL students. Afterwards, NP.

If a PPL can't cross the border without a hand hold, my eyes roll, but it's more appropriate.

This accident is bad for aviation. On that we agree ---

[digits_]

If a PPL can't cross the border without a hand hold, my eyes roll, but it's more appropriate.

How do you expect them to be confident in doing it, if they have never been shown how to do it? I'm sure a lot of people can handle it, but for those who don't, there is nothing wrong with asking for help or training in areas they aren't proficient in.

If a student nails all the PPL exercises at 35 hours and wants to spend 5 hours on a long(er) international flight, what could possibly be wrong with that?

This accident is bad for aviation.

It is terrible for the people involved, but it is only "bad for aviation" if we let it be. People made mistakes that allowed this accident to happen, as discussed previously in this thread. Allowing international training flights, is not one of those mistakes.

This accident is bad for aviation. On that we agree and there should be zero tolerance for cowboy operations, in any regard.

Agreed.

[rookiepilot]

If a PPL can't cross the border without a hand hold, my eyes roll, but it's more appropriate.

How do you expect them to be confident in doing it, if they have never been shown how to do it? I'm sure a lot of people can handle it, but for those who don't, there is nothing wrong with asking for help or training in areas they aren't proficient in.

The airplane doesn't know it's in US airspace.

I think from my own experience it can be well handled with a thorough ground briefing, doing the pre flight customs routine, and hopefully the new pilot is comfortable somewhat talking to ATC -- I'd much rather be doing it that way to start off down there -- getting a proper US briefing coming and going, and navigating.

Some schools may not be comfortable without an instructor along, that's different. Still, better to do extra night work, extra hood time, extra diversions or emergencies (I think i did all of the above ) pre ppl than an experience trip.

My own amateur opinion -- I learned a lot more doing my own first US trip without an instructor. One can always go with a more experienced pilot.

[Aviatard]

My own amateur opinion -- I learned a lot more doing my own first US trip without an instructor. One can always go with a more experienced pilot.

So, like an instructor then?

[photofly]

I'm worried this accident might trigger more knee jerk reactions like yours. And that would ruin a great experience for many student pilots.

Dying in the back seat of a Piper Cherokee in bad weather with no competent pilot in either front seat is a really great training experience for many student pilots?

I must have missed something. Which chapter of the Flight Training manual is that lesson?

[rookiepilot]

My own amateur opinion -- I learned a lot more doing my own first US trip without an instructor. One can always go with a more experienced pilot.

So, like an instructor then?

Uhhhhh....don't get us started on that conversation.

[photofly]

The problem with this as a training scenario is not that it crosses an international border. The problem is that a dozen hours flying in a straight line isn’t necessary or helpful to get a PPL. A trip from St Catharine’s to Saskatoon would be just as inappropriate.

I don’t have any objection to flying clubs doing away trips, or student pilots going on them (if we could please just arrange for the clubs not to kill any of the students on the way back, it can’t be that hard, can it?) - just don’t put the student in the left seat, their own instructor in the right, and sell it as PPL training.

[digits_]

The problem with this as a training scenario is not that it crosses an international border. The problem is that a dozen hours flying in a straight line isn’t necessary or helpful to get a PPL. A trip from St Catharine’s to Saskatoon would be just as inappropriate.

I don’t have any objection to flying clubs doing away trips, or student pilots going on them (if we could please just arrange for the clubs not to kill any of the students on the way back, it can’t be that hard, can it?) - just don’t put the student in the left seat and sell it as PPL training.

Who says they sell it as PPL training or skills necessary to get a PPL? Just because you go on a flight before you have a PPL, doesn't mean it is considered part of the mandatory PPL curriculum. The flight training manual covers the exercises you need to master, but as far as I know it is not an exhaustive list. You can always do something extra.