"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Sylvain wrote:
However, there are a couple of advantages with
the Wings program; for one thing, it is preferable for the CFI,
for liability reasons;

Setting aside the fact that in the U.S. anyone can sue anyone else
for just
about any reason, I am unaware of any FAA regulation that would make
a CFI responsible for the actions of a pilot they had signed off on
their BFR.

It would be helpful if you could cite case law or regulations that
support your claim.

The CFI isn't responsible for the actions of a non-student pilot,

The post by Sylvain appears to have claimed otherwise.

The remainder of your post deals with the responsibility of a CFI with
respect to the CFI's actions - not the actions of another person. That was
a given - at least for me.

I believe the word was "liability" and not "responsibility", and this is
more or less correct. For each and every pilot a CFI provides a BFR, that
CFI can be subject to being called on the carpet by FSDO, and such things do
happen. In other words, his backside could very much be on the line. That
doesn't mean he's responsible for each and everything that pilot does for
the next 2 years, it just means it is a potential liability. And while yes,
the CFI is only responsible for his own actions in regards to the BFR, I
don't know of any CFIs who are so sure of themselves and their record
keeping abilities that they wouldn't be worried about the experience. It's
kinda like getting audited by the IRS. It's not something you look forward
to even if you have never cheated on your taxes.

So the bottom line is if the CFI is doing everything he is required to
do, he has nothing to worry about if a pilot he gave a BFR screws up.

Quite. My point of objection to Sylvain's post is that rumors and
assertions have a habit of becoming "fact". If CFIs started believing that
the FAA could hold them responsible for the actions of pilots who they
passed on BFRs, I have no doubt it could seriously impact aviation.

I can't really see that happening even on the extremely outside chance that
a usenet post could possibly start some sort of wildfire rumor across the
aviation community. There's no shortage of CFIs, and a good number of the
ones who are out there are already willing to work for slave wages, and many
of them don't seem to be too concerned about liability. Case in point,
let's say a CFI gives someone instruction in their own aircraft and both of
them manage to turn the airplane into scrap. The insurance company can very
well say that since the CFI was performing professional services in the
aircraft, it was being used for commercial purposes and therefore they
aren't going to pay. How many CFIs do you know carry personal liability
insurance for just such instances? I know a lot of CFIs and I don't know of
any that do.

Every CFI that signs off on a BFR should be worried about it coming back to
haunt them. That exactly why they should be doing at least the minimum
required by the FARs, if not far exceeding them, and documenting all of
their actions.