Bathman wrote:
The DTO in no way allows an instructor to freelance.I didn’t imply it did.
…it does not allow you to teach for stuff like the proposed Basic Instrument Rating.The rules haven’t been finalised, so I haven’t given up hope on that just yet.
Bathman wrote:
So yes its a step forward from the current ATO but its a step back a current RTF.
That is weird since from my point of view here in Sweden it is a huge step in the right direction. It is a lot easier to instruct on the students own aircraft and there is less room for the CAA to charge large amount of money since the required oversight is less. In Sweden I think the annual fees for a DTO will be around 500 euros which I do not think is ruining the fun for anyone.
Peter wrote:
I wonder if, WN, you happened to be dealing with a customer profile which was somehow self selecting on e.g. national culture, or certain aircraft types correlating with “tight” owners
You are probably right there. Germans are not afraid to take even the most ridiculous cases to court (like those leaves of you neighbor’s apple tree that fall into your garden and litter your expensive turf) and almost everybody, with the exception of me, has a legal expenses insurance through which he can do this without having to pay any legal fees.
“My” FTO had to change it’s terms and conditions many times over the years as consequence of those lawsuits. E.g. on an integrated ATPL course there is no need to do a separate PPL exam. Few students did it because it saved them 500 Euros for two hours flying and the examiner. But after a student’s dad (sucessfully) sued the school because his daughter was unable to finish her training within the 36 month timeframe and got nothing at all for the 60.000 Euros he paid, the school now made the PPL exam mandatory for everyone. So it is now guaranteed that they leave the school with a license .- and this is what the terms and conditions now say. Not “ATPL”, but “a license”. Ridiculous but obviously necessary. And everybody has to pay 500 Euros more for the course, thanks very much, stupid girl’s daddy!
Also we now fill in a “mission report” form after every flight, signed by both student and instructor to prove that lesson number D-401/2 was performed. So the student, after failing his checkride, can’t claim “no one ever taught me how to fly a non-precision approach”. You signed mission report D-401/2, dude! Go sue someone else.As a freelance instructor I would have to learn all those lessons on my own expense the hard way. Why should I?
and almost everybody, with the exception of me, has a legal expenses insurance through which he can do this without having to pay any legal fees.
we are 2 now :-)
Silvaire wrote:
That’s an odd perception, like something from the DDR
Funny you think that. This is social democratic corporatism. People living in rusty corrugated metal sheds is simply not tolerated (for better or for worse. Living in nice looking “sheds” made of timber, on the other hand, is OK 
) The ideal is a class-less society with equal opportunity for everyone, independent of who your father or mother is, or how much money they make. It’s the standard in all Nordic countries.
I would say the institutionalization and depersonalization of learning to fly is exactly what could lead to lawsuits… but when it’s two individuals freely cooperating that’s less likely to happen. Lawsuits against instructors individually are not something I’ve heard of personally before.
Re insurance, my system for decades has been to buy as little insurance as I think is reasonable, except for health insurance where I buy the most flexible and comprehensive available (that’s not really insurance, most of the payment is just a pre-payment scheme) On vehicles this has saved me many thousands because nobody has ever made a claim against me, or against any policy I’ve bought.
@LeSving, I prefer equality of opportunity over equal outcome. Regardless, the bizarre comments about living in metal shacks when faced with an employment challenge are actually appropriate for some areas not too far from me or used to be up to 20 or 30 years ago, within my memory – those areas are in Mexico, where people pile up unemployed until they can sneak across the border.
Silvaire wrote:
Lawsuits against instructors individually are not something I’ve heard of personally before.
I quote from here (http://www.kreindler.com/Publications/NYLJ-031913-Can-Flight-School-Be-Sued-Over-Former-Student-s-Accident.pdf): " Numerous cases have held flight schools liable for negligent oversight of a student training flight that ended in an accident. "
And I quote from there (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1999/august/pilot/pilot-counsel-(8)): " So far, the threat has been just that — a threat. The actual liability imposed on individual flight instructors has not been significant. But that is changing. "
And finally this paper here has a long list of case references: http://www.aviationattorney.com/publications/primer-aircraft-flight-instructor-liability
Mind you, all three from the US of A where flying buddies would never sue eachother…
That last paper is written by a law firm looking for business, so I would expect them to dig far and wide for any cases they can find.
And I don’t think they have done very well… the rest of the article is standard lawyer stuff i.e. “there is always a liability”. I remember discussing this with one UK lawyer who only half-jokingly said that it is impossible to give a different answer to any proposition. The practical situation is fortunately usually different.
However, in the FAA system it is true that they can be hard on instructors. In one case, post-crash, they went after the instructor even though he was a passenger (sorry, no reference; it was 10+ years ago) on the grounds that, basically, he should have got involved (maybe also in the preflight stuff) rather than just sat there like a potato. Also, anybody who holds or has ever held an FAA CFI certificate gets zero leeway (amnesty) following the discovery of undisclosed medical issues (I have that incidental snippet from a US based AME).
There is a thread here asking on this topic; nobody saw it.
Here is another one which went off the rails
I still don’t see instructor liability as an issue in Europe.
Obviously the FAA is another issue, and one to be taken seriously.
Anything can theoretically happen, but again I think a flight school is a target for a lawsuit and an instructor isn’t much of a target. I don’t think there’s a substantial issue for an FAA freelance instructor in the US either, assuming he doesn’t take weirdos for students. There’s therefore a saving in insurance cost (I don’t know anybody who carries it, as far as I know) along with the saving in facility cost, ‘management’ overhead, maintenance of fixed lesson plans, taxation and all the rest.
A flight school would probably make better sense if flying is intended to be your job, or because you’re a foreigner visiting the US specifically for the purpose of learning to fly. In both of those cases the available time tends to be very short, and a freelance instructor might not have the availability needed.
Still, I see no reason why I (or any other instructor) should give freelance instruction if I have the option (as I do) to do this under the roof of an FTO. I would also miss their Christmas dinner and the summer barbecue!
