Student Pilot/PIC Question

I've never heard of an FBO that didn't.

Aside from a contract, the renter is responsible for damage he causes. With a contract, many FBOs (just like Hertz and Avis) make the renter responsible for hull damage that occurs while the aircraft is checked out to the renter.

I have worked for six flight schools (FBO, academy, club, university) and none of them ever required a contract. This was back in the nineties.
 
I have worked for six flight schools (FBO, academy, club, university) and none of them ever required a contract. This was back in the nineties.

Both the schools where I worked did, but they didn't call it that; they called it a "Membership Application".
 
Can you give us specific examples why you feel that it will "most likely" be viewed as improper training?

I'm always interested in collecting data on CFI legal responsibility issues.
I only have one incident that I have been involved with. An instrument student of mine screwed up. He tried to lay the blame on me, though in this case it was obvious to all involved that he failed to comply with several FARs as well as common sense. As I have not heard if the investigation is closed yet I will PM you the details.

My point is that if somebody screws up there is no guarantee to the instructor that the student won't tell every lie in the book to save their own skin; and somebody might just believe them. I feel that if there is certificate action to be taken in the situation of a student solo gone awry, the instructor is the only one that has a certificate to act against.

I have seen far too many instructors that don't keep adequate records of student training and do not understand their responsibilities in regards to solo flights. Just this last week I stopped a student from going on a solo cross country because his endorsement was not dated. It turned out that the instructor had signed it days before and simply did not want to show up on a Saturday to supervise the flight. That instructor is looking for a new job now, but had that student not been checked and had an incident occurred then that instructor would be having bigger problems than just looking for a job.
 
My point is that if somebody screws up there is no guarantee to the instructor that the student won't tell every lie in the book to save their own skin; and somebody might just believe them. I feel that if there is certificate action to be taken in the situation of a student solo gone awry, the instructor is the only one that has a certificate to act against.
Not necessarily. There have been certificate actions against student pilots. There's one I recently came across (http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3622.PDF) in which a student pilot flew without the required endorsements and violated a TCA (it was in the early 90s before "Class B"). The twist was that by the time the certificate action was done the pilot had gone on to earn his private and commercial - all of which were covered by the suspension which usually is worded as "aiy airman certifciate held by you..."
 
Not necessarily. There have been certificate actions against student pilots. There's one I recently came across (http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3622.PDF) in which a student pilot flew without the required endorsements and violated a TCA (it was in the early 90s before "Class B"). The twist was that by the time the certificate action was done the pilot had gone on to earn his private and commercial - all of which were covered by the suspension which usually is worded as "aiy airman certifciate held by you..."


This happened to a student pilot I know. They were briefed on the TFR, flew through it on the their solo XC. Nothing happened to the instructor, but the student got his private license suspended once the final decision came through.
 
Back
Top