On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Ulrich Stauss <[email protected]> wrote:
> In theory the personal legal risk for a CFI should be lower from an L2 Ind Op. Hang on. Firstly: At best, the personal legal risk for a CFI is undefined (which is, itself, a personal legal risk) Secondly: At worst, the personal legal risk for someone who issues a rating should be around the question of whether the training was IAW the syllabus, and whether the trainee performed well enough to demonstrate that they met the requirements for the issuance of the rating. If Joe Bloggs comes to you and says they want an amphibious self-launch rating, and you’ve trained him against the amphibious self-launch syllabus, and he’s been tested against he conditions of the amphibious self-launch rating, and you’ve adequately recorded that those things have happened, then that’s where your liability begins and ends. If he subsequently goes out and crashes himself into a lake, you can show the investigator your documentation and say, “He wasn’t broken when he walked out of here,” and they’ll express paroxysms of joy over the fact that someone has kept enough of a papertrail to make their jobs easy. You’re not automatically on the hook just because some arseclown goes out and kills himself in a crash after you’ve signed them off, if you’ve signed them off properly. If the systems of training, checking, and certification within GFA aren’t providing that surety, then they’re clearly and obviously deficient. At the very least, they’ll make it impossible for the GFA to tell the regulator that their system of training is equivalent to the systems of training provided by CASA instructors or other sports aviation systems. Perhaps CFIs who recognize the existence of those deficiencies might want to improve them, or, alternatively, might assess their personal risks and decide that they don't want to be CFIs anymore. - mark
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
