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

[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.

[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.