AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2012 - 79

SUMMARY unchecked. It was on using the of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling in a two-to-one autopilot to escape from IMC. The VFR pilot becomes spatially disoriented in night IMC in a Cirrus SR22 split decision. It said, “An airplaintiffs’ belief was that the crash and crashes at high speed. would not have occurred if only that plane manufacturer’s common-law training had been received. It’s an duty to warn of dangers associJury finds manufacturer and training ated with the use of its aircraft interesting theory, but to my knowl- provider guilty of not providing instruction in use of autopilot specifidoes not include a duty to proedge, it has never been tested in any cally to escape from IMC. vide pilot training. A negligence scientific manner. The Private Pilot Practical Test claim against an aviation-training Appeals court overturns verdict, Standards require applicants to provider is barred under the educaciting prior state ruling that does not allow for educational malpractice demonstrate proficiency in basic tional-malpractice doctrine where instrument flight. Aeronautical and that pilot was appropriately the essence of the claim is that the knowledge areas include aeronau- warned of dangers and on how to provider failed to provide an effecuse autopilot. tical decision making and judgment. tive education.” Also required is the ability to recAdditionally, the pilot’s operognize critical weather situations ating handbook was cited as explaining how to use the autopifrom the ground and in flight, along with the ability to procure and use lot in great detail. There was ample weather reports and forecasts. warning about VFR pilots operating To exercise the privileges of the private pilot in IMC. The court held that the pilot had a duty to certificate, we must demonstrate these skills and review such documents. presumably be able to perform them after becomThe trial court’s verdict, had it not been reversed, ing certificated. Unfortunately, some pilots let their would have been a significant disincentive for both skills deteriorate, and some CFIs do not “retread” manufacturers and flight schools to provide any the pilot’s basic instrument skills on subsequent training beyond that which is legally required. flight reviews. That was not the case here. As noted Unfortunately, expensive and emotional legal battles previously, the pilot had nearly finished a full instru- do not erase the pain for two fatherless families—or ment rating program but was inexplicably taking the the associated negative perception that surrounds GA training in his old aircraft, a Cessna 172. The basics in the aftermath of accidents like this. The plaintiffs of instrument flight are the same for all aircraft, but appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which the performance characteristics and avionics equip- upheld the appeals court ruling, thus settling the matment between these two airplanes could hardly be ter in favor of Cirrus and UNDAF. more different. The CFII was not a defendant. Do you believe that this pilot fundamentally FAR 91.3 is unambiguous in declaring the pilot in understood the risk he was about to undertake? The command to be responsible for and the final author- human psyche is incredibly complex and the statisity as to the operation of an aircraft. The FARs also tics of probability and possibility arcane. The beauty are clear on certification, testing standards, and VFR of hindsight bias is that we can say, “Of course not.” pilots staying out of IMC. Even so, the trial jury found Did a demonic impulse push him to take the risk, or Cirrus and UNDAF jointly responsible at 37.5 per- did he honestly think he could make it? If more traincent each, and the estate of the pilot at 25 percent. It ing in decision making or autopilot management had awarded combined damages of $16.4 million to the been provided, would it have mattered? Is it possible families. to effectively change someone’s risk-taking profile? When is enough training provided, and who’s responL EG A L I T I E S A N D S O M E F I N A L Q U E ST I O N S. A sible after an accident? Should high-performance Minnesota court ruling prohibits lawsuits for edu- aircraft be sold to VFR pilots? There are lots of opincational malpractice because it’s extremely difficult ions but few facts. to determine if the teacher failed to teach or the stuThe one legal and moral certainty, to my way of dent failed to learn. The plaintiffs and trial court felt thinking, is that the pilot in command is responsible that the defendants were not an educational insti- for—and the final authority as to—the operation of tution and not entitled to such protection. (UNDAF an aircraft. This means recognizing your limitations, hardly could be anything else, but legal logic is not those of your aircraft, and the vagaries of weather clear to many of us.) forecasting. What do you think? AOPA Cirrus and UNDAF appealed, with AOPA filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support because SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS (asi@aopa.org) of the potential precedent. The Minnesota Court
www.aopa.org/pilot AOPA PILOT | 79

http://www.aopa.org/pilot

AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - September 2012