I heard of an instructor who was fined by the CAA in court because the qualified PPL he accompanied for a revalidation of some kind, did not check the NOTAM's properly and they endangered a Red Arrows practise display nearby in an temporarily extended zone. ATC had to have them expedite a climb to 4000 ft. or something. I am not 100% familiar with all the details now but the instructor was under the assurance that the PPL had checked the NOTAM's and that was his mitigating factor in court. Nevertheless, he was still fined as the more senior license holder with responsibility for safe conduct of flight.
Some may view that as fair, some may view it is unfair as the qualified PPL should know better/ not have lied. In this case it seems fair to include the instructor into the proceeding, but unless its a instructor signing off a student PPL under his license, it would be hard to hold an instructor to account otherwise, like Jason says.
But I do understand where Peter is coming from. Something has gone wrong somewhere when a qualified PPL has busted 2 different airspaces so significantly and hasn't kept his license dates in check. I don't think he had mode C. Although not illegal, I think that's irresponsible these days too.
What's the issue?
As much as I am not much concerned about fellow car drivers that do incredibly stupid things and get fined, I don't am not concerned about fellow pilots doing the same. Note that the biannual VFR instructor flight under JAR/EASA is not a checkride, you can not pass/fail it, you can just do or not do it. If you're a kamikaze pilot, the instructor might refuse to sign that you did the flight but that's an extreme case.
EASA licenses do not expire btw, no more 5 year renewals! With an EASA license he would just have busted the airspace, not doing so without a valid license. Maybe the fine would have been slightly lower? 
I heard of an instructor who was fined by the CAA in court because the qualified PPL he accompanied for a revalidation of some kind
I could be wrong but I always thought that in a G-reg the instructor is always PIC - even when the LHS occupant holds sufficient papers to be PIC on that actual flight.
In the FAA world it is different and in my experience most stuff is logged by the LHS as PIC (or P1) unless he categorically does not hold the required papers to act as PIC.
It gets quite interesting when e.g. a plain PPL is having instrument training in actual VMC but under the hood. I think he can log that (G-reg) as PIC if the RHS is a "competent observer" so why not if the RHS is an instructor?
Paradoxically the only case I am aware of where a passenger, who just happened to have instructor qualifications, was made responsible for an incident because of that, was in the USA.
I don't am not concerned about fellow pilots doing the same
I think the main concern about others doing high public profile screw-ups is that it gives GA a bad name and leads to unwanted regulatory action which is based on emotion rather than safety data.
We don't need any more bad publicity...
What I find most depressing is when I go to regulatory presentations e.g. Eurocontrol or NATS (UK ATC) where it becomes apparent that some people are really poorly informed about GA. They come out with all kinds of regulatory threats. There are all sorts of prejudices going around, and also the airline pilot and ATC unions are powerful forces in formulating aviation regs.
And of course it's easy to pull out stats showing CAS busts by high-end GA (bizjets etc) substantially exceed CAS busts done by airlines, etc. It should not be suprising this is so because bizjets fly varied missions whereas most airline traffic is the same mission several times per day.
I invariably come out of those meetings rather depressed and hoping that cooler heads prevail in the end, which thankfully is what normally happens.
Also occassionally some crazy pilot kills several passengers, especially kids.
Note that the biannual VFR instructor flight under JAR/EASA is not a checkride, you can not pass/fail it, you can just do or not do it. If you're a kamikaze pilot, the instructor might refuse to sign that you did the flight but that's an extreme case.
Then why have it at all. It's almost completely pointless. Given the average age (I mean age since gaining the PPL) of the GA community, and given the occassionally dodgy PPL training, this flight is about the only opportunity to drag a load of pilots into the 20th century, never mind the 21st.
Almost nobody is going to willingly seek out a thorough checkride of any sort, so the only way to introduce specific content is to have the content mandated.
Hypothetically.
You haven’t flown for a couple of years so you recruit an instructor to accompany you in your aeroplane to get you current again.
Your first landing is sufficiently poor as to warrant both of you getting out and inspecting for damage but none is found so you resume flying.
At the second attempt to land both instructor and owner fail to observe the fact that the landing gear is not extended and a gear up landing ensues.
Has the instructor failed in his duty of care?
(For the avoidance of doubt, it’s not me).
An individual instructor would have a reasonable expectation that he is insured under the aircraft’s policy and that he is not the insurer in the event of an accident. I would suspect that expectation that hull insurance was to be included in the instructors hourly rate was not part of the contract. It does not appear the instructor acted maliciously to cause the damage. It would be morally corrupt to attempt to pursue the instructor unless he acted deliberately to damage the aircraft.
However, where the aircraft and instructor are provided as part of a package by a training organisation, it is a reasonable assumption that the insurance is then included in the agreement. An aircraft that does not clearly articulate the landing gear is not safely extended is an absolute design fault from a bygone era when expectations were very low.
When I did my tail-wheel conversion and flying, the group had a passenger form that is always left in aircraft insurance drawer, this was applied even if you have two instructors flying together as they had loads of “who is who?”
In practice, “the real blame” went to the guy in front if he can act as PIC unless the other in the back can’t, however, “the insurance liability” is clarified on the ground before flight…
I think this has been already discussed extensively here,
link
Just curious did any of the member had a gear up landing? any advice how not to forget it? how much was the cost = bill/downtime?
Two weeks ago, I saw someone doing it with a glider on grass, it did not cost him more than drinks in the bar but I don’t think the bill will be the same with C172RG, PA28R or TB20/M20
An individual instructor would have a reasonable expectation that he is insured under the aircraft’s policy and that he is not the insurer in the event of an accident. I would suspect that expectation that hull insurance was to be included in the instructors hourly rate was not part of the contract. It does not appear the instructor acted maliciously to cause the damage. It would be morally corrupt to attempt to pursue the instructor unless he acted deliberately to damage the aircraft.
Remember, this is hypothetical.
What are the chances of the insurer going to the instructor because of a failure in duty of care?
Stickandrudderman wrote:
What are the chances of the insurer going to the instructor because of a failure in duty of care?
I guess insurers will simply pay, then they will surely come back if the loss amount is huge but still less than instructor assets…this is how they deal with fraudulent claims (not the case here, but the process would be the same)
Posts moved to an existing thread.
It would be morally corrupt to attempt to pursue the instructor unless he acted deliberately to damage the aircraft.
I agree but it probably can happen, via a combination of these routes
Obviously an FI should have insurance cover and normally this is done via the school via which he is working. In the last point above the FI would be personally liable. I am familiar with one scenario (involving a prop strike with me in the LHS while taxiing for a differences training flight) where the insurer was going to go after the instructor’s school’s insurance. They abandoned this after the instructor adopted a position that he was doing it purely privately, doing me a favour. Obviously I never got invoiced for the “flight” 
I am sure I wrote about this incident here previously.
It ultimately hinges on who was PIC.
If the instructor was PIC then he is responsible for the aircraft, and hence for the gear-up landing. He is also responsible for ensuring that all the aircraft paperwork is in order, including ensuring that the insurance covers him to act as PIC.
Outside of a straightforward training school environment (their instructor, their aeroplane), it would seem incredibly important to agree prior to flight who exactly is PIC whenever you have an instructor (or anyone else with a licence) accompany you in the front seats. I’m sure Peter would agree, WRT that day 1 propstrike…
If the purpose of the flight is training or renewal/revalidation, then logically it would be fairly hard for an instructor to argue that they were not PIC.
It’s a mindset shift. I wonder how many instructors (particularly CRIs) get into the right seat of someone’s plane with a mentality of being along for the ride and helping the pilot out with a few pointers, rather than really appreciating that they are now legally responsible for this aircraft and all that entails – paperwork, the pre-flight, W&B, fuel planning, and everything else thereafter….
