Peter wrote:
They abandoned this after the instructor adopted a position that he was doing it purely privately, doing me a favour.
That doesn’t change the basic fact that he, as PIC, was responsible and liable for what happened. But presumably it changes the practicalities because without the cover of his school’s insurance he’s probably not worth going after.
Yes, exactly. There is no such thing as a private favour if the plane gets crashed.
An aviation insurer is not going to get deeply into cost recovery unless the payout is into 7 figures. And even then they might not in certain circumstances, one example of which was given to me as the instructor’s school being insured with the same company as the client’s plane 
I wrote about that experience here. It was pretty atrocious but nobody was injured. Now imagine a scenario where the only witness (the instructor) is dead and there is a whole lot to gain by the survivor (who has a family to feed, etc, but may be crippled) being just a little less than wholly truthful. And this has happened many times. Many flights where an instructor or an examiner were killed. I also have pretty extensive experience from 40 years in business where employees of a customer will lie through their teeth to a supplier, just to protect their jobs in company they know is going bust, for a few more months, and that is a much more benign scenario. Under extreme pressure, the only people who will speak the truth regardless of the cost to them are either the very poor or the very rich 
There is a lot of urban myth and hysteria around this subject. Any instructor training or an examiner testing needs to be PIC and insurance needs to have the instructor coverage – nearly all do, although some people miss that it must be when the owner/operator is getting training – ie you can’t lend the aircraft to an instructor for some solo! An FI or FE getting airborne as PIC without checking all docs in an unfamiliar aircraft is an idiot basically. Instructor liability insurance is, in my humble opinion, a waste of money if you read through what it actually covers – I’d be interested to know what actual payouts have ever been made. The cases of insurers or CAA actually going after an FI or FE for negligently performing their duties (as opposed to low flying or infringement for example) are so rare as to be irrelevant- those that I can name were where the FI was clearly totally negligent e,g falsifying records.
We have a local instructor. Last Sat they got lost 11 miles out to sea in a passing “mini front”. Got to minimum fuel. Couldn’t swing a VOR to find their position. Couldn’t track an NDB. Couldn’t follow a QDM. They had to send a SAR helicopter out to guide them to an airfield where they landed on fumes. The instructor wanted the SAR helicopter to guide them 51nm back to base despite stating they had 30 mins fuel. The ATC recordings are mesmerising as to how thick one person can be.
Another ex CFI in my local club nearly killed me when his airplane had a partial engine failure after take off, and he panicked and pulled back on the controls with the stall horn wailing. I took it off him and executed a 180 degree downwind landing.
I’m not worried about the comeback to the school or instructor for a some PPL getting a handy sign off, when we have people like this instructing. Who’s signing them off….
Ryanair claim 50% of all applications are unsuitable and I would quote a similar figure for instructors.
I feel the standard is alot worse than it used to be particularly with people who have completed there training in non UK schools.
Where stories abound of 100% pass rates. IR tests are done without foggles. The examiner does the RT and instructor courses completed in a week.
Graham wrote:
t’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….
Very salient point. I was approached recently, guy had lost his medical. He still wants to fly. I suggested we go flying in my aeroplane. I also highlighted the fact that he has lost his licence, and his ability to PIC an aeroplane. He did not get that point. He came back Its my plane, I will fly it, and I just want you along to check on me. I still have my licence I tried to explain that the flight would be my total responsIbility, as PIC. He could not get it. I declined his offer, but it was me apologising for being unable to assist him. Problem was he just went and got another guy to do it.
As always it is only when disaster strikes that all of these minor issues come out in the wash. It is also very evident that not many folks understand the regime they are actually participating in.
It is interesting the divergence between flying and driving. I think I am correct in saying that a learner driver is ultimately responsible for any catastrophe that befalls them, regardless of whether the instructor is a professional instructor or friend. I suppose part of the explanation maybe that aircraft usually have dual controls.
To a degree anyone flyng as PIC places themselves in a dangerous situation. If BeachBaby’s friend had accepted the arrangement then BB may well have accepted the “offer”. However, I wonder how many people woud strickly have the experience and knowledge to take on the role, given that they may find themselves flying the aircraft from the right hand seat, and it may be an aircraft type they have never flown before. I recall doing exactly this many years ago in a very sporty home built (albeit not as PIC) but realised if I had had to fly and land the aircraft from the right seat it would not have been pretty!
As to professional instructors, I suppose as with most things in life the standard varies. In theory having a professional qualification is indicative they have met a minimium standard, but in reality there are many pilots that will have thousands more flying hours than a newly qualified instructor. Personally I think flying with an instructor is a wonderful learning opportunity but of course only if he/she has something to contribute. You are paying for the service so it seems to me it is actually pretty pointless paying for something just to get the sign off – go find yourself an instructor appropriate to your level of skill and experience otherwise it is money wasted.
EU rules are certainly strange (in many ways). FAA pilot certificate status and medical status are two independent things, the pilot certificate is not contingent on a current medical. There is also a class of aircraft (FAA LSA) for which you can discontinue obtaining pilot medicals and continue using your pilot certificate.
I don’t see a CFI ticket as being any more a professional license (with the associated standards) than being a scuba instructor. In both cases there are good ones and bad ones and it’s your job to find one that meets your needs… which for flying might be anything from a quickie Flight Review up to preparing for check ride – which is the only standard that exists.
Re driving cars and motorcycles, I never had a driving instructor. By the time I was old enough to take the test (at 16) I had driven solo enough with a motorcycle student permit (from 15-1/2) and both bikes & cars off road that I just took the tests and passed. I had already soloed a C150 few days earlier
Silvaire wrote:
FAA pilot certificate status and medical status are two independent things, the pilot certificate is not contingent on a current medical.
I dont exactly follow? Surely even an FAA pilot cant be PIC without a current medical? Much the same in EASA land you may hold a pilot licence, but cant excerise the privilges without a current medical, you can let the medical lapse, obtain a medical and start flying again as PIC without having to do anything else (as long as you meet the usual currency requirments if you allowed your medical to lapse for a few months). We also have classes where no former medical is required – but not for anything that might be considered “complex” (complex not being the right word really, but I couldnt think of anything better!).
My father hasn’t had a medical or Flight Review since the early 90s. If he flew as PIC today, after obtaining a Flight Review from an instructor friend but with no new medical, he would be guilty of flying without a medical (only) unless legally flying an LSA, but would not be guilty of being PIC without a pilot certificate.
Flying as PIC without a current medical or Basic Med equivalent (if required for the particular aircraft) is a relatively minor issue, compared to flying without a valid Pilot Certificate.
