Episode #115 "Barflying"

A place to post misc. feedback to individual eps.
Forum rules
We'd love to have you Reply to posts in this Forum, but please don't create new Topics here. One exception: If we haven't created a thread for a particular episode, feel free to get it started. For other subjects, I suggest creating new Topics in Virtual Hangar=>Other Topics. Thanks.
User avatar
champguy
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:37 pm
Location: Florence, (Coastal) Oregon

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby champguy » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:58 am

When the ground is rushing up, things get stressful and communications can get missed or mixed up. In those situations I don't give a F.F. about who can or is logging PIC. The person who is functioning and has basic survival instincts will become PIC and do what needs to be done. It is the confusion around who is in charge that can lead to a dangerous situation.This is why prior discussion, clear and open, is so important.
Remember, not all who wander, are lost.
Image

RV10girl
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby RV10girl » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:18 pm

:o You people completely missed my point! I was talking about what the insurance company and the FAA think about "responsibility" when a CFI is onboard any light aircraft flight. Check the NTSB reports and the FAA law decisions. The CFI is always considered the PIC, for the purposes of liability and prosecuting after the accident (as in, there was a flight instructor onboard so how did he/she let them crash?). My commentary was based on my clear understanding that if things go bad, the FAA is going to blame it on me. They always do.

I have no desire to BE THE PIC in every airplane I fly, so please, worry not. I'm as content as the next guy to let someone else do the flying every now and again and put my head back and take a nap, just ask my husband. Really. (And yes, he's a CFI too. With about 10 times the logged hours of flight experience.)

RV10girl
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby RV10girl » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:20 pm

DJTorrente wrote:I've never seen Amy post here, so I'm not sure if she reads the forums... Anyway, I can't be the only one who wondered (tongue-in-cheek) if her "Women of Cessna" article included a centerfold... :twisted:



I read the forums, darlin'. And yeah, we do centerfolds--you should check out http://www.afwdigital.org and you'll see!

Greg Bockelman
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby Greg Bockelman » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:14 pm

RV10girl wrote::o You people completely missed my point!


Well then maybe it wasn't made very well.

I was talking about what the insurance company and the FAA think about "responsibility" when a CFI is onboard any light aircraft flight.


You know, that sounds suspiciously like the FAR Part 1 Definition of "Pilot In Command". I am not sure how you are differentiating the two.

Are you talking ANY light aircraft flight, or just instructional flights?

Check the NTSB reports and the FAA law decisions.


I would like to see one because I can't find any. Maybe I am using the wrong search string.

The CFI is always considered the PIC, for the purposes of liability and prosecuting after the accident (as in, there was a flight instructor onboard so how did he/she let them crash?).


I don't buy this. Two separate issues. One, there are cases where the CFI CANNOT be PIC when they are giving dual instruction. And two, are you telling me that the FAA/Insurance companies are saying that if you are a passenger in the back seat asleep on a plain old flight from A to B in a non instructional setting that you can still be held responsible as PIC? I don't think so.

Now, if you are telling me that during periods of time where you are giving dual instruction that you are being held responsible, I can buy off on that.

My commentary was based on my clear understanding that if things go bad, the FAA is going to blame it on me. They always do.


My "clear understanding" is that this is not necessarily true.

I have no desire to BE THE PIC in every airplane I fly, so please, worry not.


But that isn't how you came across. I can go back and find the actual quote if you would like.

I'm as content as the next guy to let someone else do the flying every now and again and put my head back and take a nap,


But the way I interpreted what you said, both here and on the podcast, the FAA/Insurance companies would still hold you responsible if something untoward happened. And frankly, I don't think that is true.

just ask my husband. Really. (And yes, he's a CFI too. With about 10 times the logged hours of flight experience.)


Well, THAT brings up a whole different kettle of fish (which sort of proves my point) to be reserved for a different thread :)

Anyway, thanks for the response, Amy.

RV10girl
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby RV10girl » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:18 pm

Always happy to respond. Your arguments are good - and I'd rather believe your side, frankly. It would make me less worried about my own liability every time I go on a demo flight or a ride with a friend. In the meantime, I pick my flight instruction / recurrent training clients carefully, brief each flight with care, and stay alert. It is CYA. And smart.

Cavebear42
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:56 pm
Location: All Over California

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby Cavebear42 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:26 pm

I did understand your point. And PIC seems to be whatever is convenient to the accident investigation. If you read the PilotCouncil section of AOPA Pilot magazine, you will see the definition of PIC becoming more and more cloudy all the time.
Check out July 08, where we learn that you become the PIC if the PIC was not legal to fly and you know it (regardless of the fact that you didn't agree to be PIC.) Back in Jan 08 where we leaned that you can be PIC if you grab the controls to save your own life (and are therefore responsible for the airspace violation which you happened to be in when you grabbed them.)

Fact of the matter is, Amy is right. If the plane crashes (or violates a reg) she may be declared PIC whether she was flying the plane or sitting in the back seat taking pictures. It kind of depends on how the investigator decides to write it up.

The important thing here is to make sure you know who will do what in the case of an emergency. 2 pilots on-board make a flight crew and we should work out how that crew will deal with situations.

User avatar
champguy
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:37 pm
Location: Florence, (Coastal) Oregon

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby champguy » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:04 pm

" I pick my flight instruction / recurrent training clients carefully, brief each flight with care, and stay alert. It is CYA. And smart."

That was my point, confusion in the cockpit when it is unclear who is doing what, who is in charge and who is flying the plane, is just asking for trouble.

By the time the lawyers or bureaucrats get involved it is too late for any common sense. They will go after the deepest pockets, or the hardest won rating, or both if they can manage it.
Remember, not all who wander, are lost.
Image

Greg Bockelman
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby Greg Bockelman » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:37 pm

For what it is worth, I asked on another board about CFI liability when the CFI was not providing instruction.Two very intelligent, very knowlegeable people, both CFI's, and one a lawyer, replied. In a nutshell, what they said was that there are no known cases of a CFI being held responsible for something that happend while they were in an airplane and not providing instruction. As a CFI myself, this is an issue I choose not to worry about. I do my due dilligence and let it go at that.

Now, another troubling issue that has come up recently is that ONE of the agencies, not sure which, NTSB or FAA, has come out with rulings that whoever was handling the controls at the time of an incident was deemed to be PIC. That goes against everything that is written in the FAR's and against previous history, IIRC.

Bottom line to this is that I have a saying that I THINK I coined. That is, "The FAA can violate you for anything they want, at any time, for any reason."

You all be careful out there. Just don't do anything stupid, and don't let anyone else do anything stupid, CFI or not, and go fly. Ultimately the FAA and/or the NTSB will sort out the issues and there isn't much anyone can do about their findings.

Dave Higdon
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:02 pm

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby Dave Higdon » Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:53 pm

This discussion -- and I am not a CFI nor a candidate to become one -- illustrates why every year my hands happily send off the annual check to AOPA's Legal Services...and why they'll continue to receive that annual check...enough friends of mine who have been violated merely on the basis of pissed-off neighbor's statements -- statements that took a lot of time, effort and money to assertively refute -- provide me with living reminders of why...the old "guilty until you prove your innocence" tilts the entire process...witness the recent NTSB reversal of a mechanic's receiving a revocation of his A&P. IA and commercial pilot licenses based on two inspectors unfounded presumptions of something not shown to be factually supported...the NTSB reversed 'em on all counts...after it cost the guy untold problems...

-- Dave

Cavebear42
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:56 pm
Location: All Over California

Re: Episode #115 "Barflying"

Postby Cavebear42 » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:07 pm

Dave Higdon wrote:This discussion -- and I am not a CFI nor a candidate to become one -- illustrates why every year my hands happily send off the annual check to AOPA's Legal Services...and why they'll continue to receive that annual check...

-- Dave


That is very true. This is a check which I happily write as well. Nothing beats this insurance policy.


Return to “Episodes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests