AVIATOR pOinls - American Bonanza Society

When more than one rated pilot has access to the flight
controls of an aircraft, it can create confu sion as to
which pilot is considered pilot in command (PIC).
Federal Aviation Regulation 91.3 states that the PIC is the person
who is directly responsible for, and is the final authority, as
to the operation of an aircraft. This may seem to be a straightforward
regulation, but it lacks clarification when determining
which pilot is considered PIC at a specific moment in the flight.
This becomes even more important when attempting to determine
which pilot may have caused an accident.
The problem of identifying the PIC in these situations can
be complicated and may have severe ramifications for your
insurance coverage. This is in part due to the fact that the term
PIC has different implications, depending on the context in
which it may be used.
Pilots who received their training in the milital)l will recall
that the PIC was considered the pilot who signs for the aircraft
and is held accountable for the acts of the crew. This may be a
clearcut rule for the milit3l)l, but it does not apply to civi lian
flights when there is more than one pilot at the controls wi th no
agreement in place as to which one is considered PIC.
The courts have ruled broadly on this issue. some ruling
that FAA and NTSB rules and regulations are binding. Other
case law has ruled that the FAA is the final authority over the
operation of the aircraft, but that the regulations do not alter
the common law governing negligence and burden of proof.
In Todd v. Weikle, the court employed the "presumption
of continuity" in holding that the pilot who operated the aircraft
on takeoff was the PIC at the moment of impact, in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Some state legislatures have tried to create laws to govern
these situations. Ohio's Motor Vehicle, Aeronautics and
Watercraft Code in part dictates that it is presumed that the
pilot in command, who is flying the aircraft at the time of the
crash, and immediately prior thereto, is the occupant of the left
front seat unless any part of the flight is for instruction, and
then the CFT is presumed to be the PIC.
The Minnesota Rule, created by the Minnesota Supreme
Court, states that a CFI is presumed to be PIC at the time of a
training flight accident, even if the second pilot was licensed
and manipulating the controls.
The various examples indicate that determining the PIC
can be complex. An FAA or NTSB determination does not
bind the courts. The courts will try to deal with these issues
fairly, but most judges and jurors will not have any aviation
background to draw from and may make the wrong decision.
It is certain that it is best to have clear lines of communication
between pilots in the cockpit as to who is considered the PIC
and under what circumstances. This could eliminate much
heated disagreement and litigation after a loss.
It is not important that ABS members become experts on
the various legal theories on this subject. It is imperative, however,
that they understand how the determination of the PIC
may affect the typical aircraft insurance policy.
The Pilot Warranty found in any aircraft policy typically
names each of the approved pilots and then provides for certain
minimum pilot ratings and hourly requirements. It is
important that each insured understand that if a PIC is not
approved-either by name or by meeting the mirtimum pilot
requirements-the pol icy would be void in the event of an
in flight accident caused by the pilot.
The situation of hav ing two pilots with access to the controls
and both are approved pilots does not normally pose a
coverage problem. It may well present a problem of who is in
command. However, when one of the pilots is not qualified
under the policy, the insured may be placing their coverage in
jeopardy if a non-covered pilot is allowed to fl y the aircraft, or
agrees to allow the aircraft to be used for training of a pilot
who is not approved under the insurance pOlicy. They may
have a mistaken belief that the insurance policy would not be
voided as long as an approved CFI or other approved pilot has
access to the controls of the aircraft. Since this is not the intention
of most underwriters, an insured should not assume that
the insurance carrier would pay a resulting loss.
Most underwriters are of the opinion that using the aircraft
for instructing an additional pilot increases the hazard,
and they should be notified and have an opportunity to charge
the appropriate premium. It is possible follow ing a crash that
a determination may be made that the CFT is not pilot in command
of the aircraft.
In the court case Udseth v. United States, the U.S. Tenth
Court of Appeals held that the CFI could not be held liable for
a fatal crash in the absence of direct proof that the student pilot
or the CFI was flying the aircraft at the time of the accident.
It is important to have a clear understanding of which pi lot
will have PIC responsibilities whenever your aircraft is flown
with more than one pilot. [t is also important that you not rely
on your avialion knowledge or intuition to determine whether or
not a pilot is approved under the insurance policy. If there is any
question. please contact your Falcon insurance represe ntative
and have the pilot specifically approved under the policy.
@
Thanks 10 all members who have their insurance coverage Ihraugh Ihe ASS pragram adminislered by Falcon Insurance Agency. There is no extra
charge 10 Ihe individual member. and Falcon's active sponsorship of ASS pragrams helps us expand services 10 all members. The more members
who use Falcon. Ihe more cloullhe agency has in Ihe aviation insurance induslry on our behalf. If you're nol part of Ihe ASS Insurance Program. we
urge you 10 obla in a quole from Falcon prior 10 your nexl renewal. Call Falcon 01 BOO-259-4ASS (4227).