rickair7777

This is not exactly true. Historically, the FAA may attempt to burn ANY rated pilot who is in the cockpit, flying or not...this includes the backseat of a small GA airplane! The premise is that everyone should have known better and spoken up.

The FAA will certainly weigh the blame (and punishment) according to your ratings...higher ratings will be held to a higher standard, and CFI and ATP are the highest.

But in this case I think the student is off the hook because the transgression involved instrument procedures...since he is not instrument rated, he cannot really be held responsible. The same would apply with a student pilot certificate holder under almost any circumstances...the CFI is responsible, even when the student is soloing!

NoyGonnaDoIt

Same with the FAA. But, I don't know if it's different in the service, but in the FAA's world, the PIC's ultimate responsibility for a flight doesn't mean "sole" responsibility. In multi-pilot crews, for example, it's very common for the FAA to go after both the PIC and the SIC for a violation.

It can work the same in the CFI-student relationship. If the student does something unexpected that the CFI was not in a position to counter, the CFI might not be held responsible. There's an interesting NTSB case involving a bad landing by a private pilot during an instructional flight. The NTSB on the one hand said that a CFI is always deemed to the the PIC on an instructional flight. OTOH, the NTSB also said that the CFI/PIC was not responsible for the bad landing.

So, let's take an extreme example – suppose in your word, the student is a bit of a lunatic, takes control and does something that violates the rules and the CFI is simply not able to stop him. Would the CFI be assigned all of the responsibility and the student none?

If so, that would be a big difference between the military and civilian worlds. It would suggest that in the military the written rules are paramount, while in the civilian, the facts of the specific situation can have a significant effect on the application of the rules.

NoyGonnaDoIt

I've been looking for that case for about 10 years now. The closest I've come to the legend of the back-seat CFI is an NTSB report in which a CFI (with the "I" standing for idiot) convinced a relatively new private pilot to fly in marginal conditions with a broken attitude indicator, with predictable results.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X05581&key=1

But the infamous back seat CFI who's just a passenger acting like a passenger instead of a moron? Can't find it anywhere.

USMCFLYR

Thanks for the good explanation. I've never had enforcement action taken against me - or initiated against me so I don't know how it would go down.
I was with an IP once in th T-2 flying to Vance AFB on a Saturday. There was no other traffic and the IP asked for "closed" traffic. He then continued to fly the "closed" traffic pattern for the next three times around the pattern. This is a little different because we don't really have the equivalent in the USN/USMC. Anyways....on the taxi in he got the request to call the tower after he got to Base Ops. He spoke with the Tower Supervisor who informed him that he was suppose to REQUEST the "closed" pattern each time.

The point is - in the military's eyes - I as the student would not have gotten into trouble for that action if they wished to pursue it because he was the IP and the PIC and ultimimately responsbile for EVERYTHING that happens on that flight.

To give another example of how flight leadership is view in the military, I was the division lead (4 planes) going to land at NAS Cecil back in the day. My -4 lands last and stasnds on the brakes a little hard and eventually has hot brakes which melted the fuse plug and deflated his tires. I saw this as he taxied cleared and told him that he had hot brakes (smoke coming off the brakes and tires) and called for the ARFF to come help him and such. I did nothing worng with leading the division into the break, broke the flight up with proper interval, flew the correct pattern, etc.... HE MESSED UP THE LANDING.

I still stood tall in front of the Commanding Officer and answered for the actions of my flight member because I w as the desingated ddivision lead and responsible for EVERYTHING that happens within my flight.
Outside of aviation - remember the stories of Ship's Captains being relieved of duty because the ship ran aground on a sandbar/reef or something in the middle of the night even though all the watch standers and fduty officers were fully qualified?

Now in my current situation, I've been told that I am the responsible party if my Replacement Pilot busts and altitude on a ferry flight even if he is in a different airplane and flying combat spread formation. If that isn't true then glory be, but it is how I've worked over the last few years and thankfully it worked out for me. WHEW!

As far as the OP's original question.....it sounds like the safest thing to do is to file the form. Good advice all the way around.

USMCFLYR

Phantom Flyer

I disagree with your statement. Yes, in a multi-crewed aircraft, the F.A.A. can violate both crew members for FAR rules violations but the P.I.C is solely responsible for the conduct of the flight.

Having served on numerous incident/accident investigation boards (Two NTSB accident investigations), the individual held responsible for the incident/accident was the Pilot-in-Command, not the S.I.C. There is a difference between a "crew" being violated for an infraction of FAR's and sole responsibility for the aircraft operation. The P.I.C. is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft from brake release to setting the brakes at the destination. This includes compliance with all applicable company and FAR's.

G'Day Mate

rickair7777

It would not be in the NTSB unless metal was bent. I'm positive I have read about it in one of the flying mags, maybe AOPA? If you really wanted to find an example...

It's not particularly unreasonable...in Japan if the driver gets a DUI, so do ALL of his passengers. Idea being that everyone should have known better.

NoyGonnaDoIt

We may have different definitions. To me (and I think Webster), "sole" means "only" and having "sole responsibility" means the only person with responsibility. People with no responsibility can't be violated.

If you agree that in a multi-pilot crew, both can be violated, then by my definition both have responsibility. Your definition may be different but we are talking about the same thing.

NoyGonnaDoIt

I'm also thinking of the NTSB as in the administrative court that hears enforcement trials brought by the FAA against pilots, not just NTSB as in the body investigating bent metal. If there were an enforvcement action against a pilot who was in the back seat, it would probably be in the NTSB adjudicatory reports.As I said, I've been looking for over 10 years. That includes numerous online aviation forums – even the old usenet. – challenging others to come up with examples. One would think that in more than ten years and all those folks, someone would be able to come up with a real example if it were true. If you're really positive that it exists...

Roll Inverted and Pull

One thing that hasn`t been mentioned, if you file a NASA report, make sure that you send it "Return Recipt Requred". What if what you did would lead to certificate action and the NASA folks said that they never received your form? It`ll cost you a couple of bucks to send it this way, and well worth it.

NoyGonnaDoIt

Never a bad idea for a certified mail backup in case of loss, but the online filing with immediate confirmation of receipt and the assignment of a verification number does work pretty well.