Seniority and liability

[simon]

Does anyone know of accident details involving a King Air that resulted in a fatality where an FAA inspector was a passenger in the back of the aircraft and was either cited by the FAA as negligent in his responsibility as the most senior rated crew member or named in a lawsuit for effectively the same reason, in other words, the two guys in the front were private not commercial etc.

I am trying to look up the case.

I know it sounds crazy that a person in the back could be held responsible, but that's why I need to look it up.

[Buzz]

I can't think of one, but it might help if you give some kind of time frame, when referring to an aircraft which has been in production for nearly 50 years.

[simon]

Dunno. It was a a story related to me by someone else, from someone else etc.

[PHall]

I'm willing to bet that he was named in the lawsuit. Accident lawyers usually cast the widest net possible to see what they can get.

[Eclipse]

I seem to recall the discussion here, more as a threat and excuse not to fly as a passenger rather than advice or legit issue, but can't find anything
much on it article-wise beyond the general lawsuits people file when they crash and "weren't taught right".

[Flying Pig]

Flying in the back, I cant see how the FAA inspector could be held liable.  That would be like an airline captain riding as a passenger being held liable for the crews actions.  Not in the cockpit with no access to the controls I think thats a little much unless there is more to the story.

[simon]

That's why I asked. I am not saying it didn't happen, but as pilots we've all heard our share of "facts" from other pilots over the years. A couple of them I did my research on and found them to be blatantly wrong, which was only annoying when it was a CFI educating a private pilot.

When I hear some flying rule that doesn't sound right, now I just quietly point to the FAR/AIM and say "Show me where". When it is an aviation story about some pilot that did something and did (or did not) get into trouble or get sued, I want a reference. Otherwise I discard it. These stories seem to be self perpetuating and become immortal around airports and pilots. After all, we do love to talk aviation just for the sake of conversation.

I have given up looking for this particular one. Being assigned some kind of responsibility or fault while in the back is definitely out there. Hence my interest. Since bringing this up, a CAP member and attorney has raised the example of an ATP who was suspended when two pilots in front busted the ADIZ, but so far I can only find an ATP example where the guy was actually in the front and signed the pilot's logbook as dual - Different situation.

Then there's the AF447 captain, who was, of course, in the back! (Yeah yeah, I know, different circumstances).

[dbaran]

I can't speak to the particular accident, but you might be able to find it by looking for a citation of Administrator v. Hamre, which was an NTSB case in 1977 that laid out the concept that the CFI is deemed to be PIC if they're instructing.  I'd have to expect that the rumored case you're looking for is a Part 91 situation, as both 135 and 121 require that the PIC be determined before the flight.

There is a long article that discusses the various aspects of the situation you're referring to called "The Pilot in Command and the FARS: The Buck Stops Here (Almost)", which can be found at:

http://web.law.und.edu/LawReview/issues/web_assets/pdf/83/83-3/83NDLR817.pdf