Comments on: Roundup

By: Dibby

Dibby — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:00:28 +0000

Melvin, Lidle was not a student pilot, he was a licensed private pilot and legal to fly that particular plane. The reason the instructor was there was because he was going to accompany Lidle on a cross country flight back to CA. Something Lidle had never done before. Relatively inexperienced pilots often take instructors along on long trips like this.

Lidle had some time in the Cirrus, the instructor did not. I find it very likely that the purpose of the accident flight was a local familiarization flight for the instructor, prior to the big cross country trip. The instuctor was making the trip (note that I don’t say he was “hired”. I don’t know that.) because he had been Lidle’s primary flight instructor back in CA and they were friends.

If the weather on any part of the long trip had required instrument flight, then the instructor would have had to assume PIC duties, as he was instrument rated and Lidle was not. It would have been prudent for the instructor to want to familiarize himself with the unique layout of the Cirrus in anticipation that he might be required to be PIC in the near future.

Familiarizing oneself with a new cockpit is not generally considered dangerous. Since Lidle was the owner of the plane, I would certainly expect him to go along on the flight. Lidle had some experience (although limited) with the plane, and he was also more familiar with the NY area’s complicated web of airspace. There’s really nothing odd about this scenario. The owl hoots for me.

By: Melvin

Melvin — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:17:28 +0000

Dibby, time out here! You said ” . . . Lidle, with only 75 hours of flight time was] . . . familiarizing the instructor with the aircraft before their cross-country trip.”

The student instructing the instructor??? I’m afraid that owl doesn’t hoot: Why would an inexperienced pilot (75 hours) hire an instructor who is not familiar with a plane and have to instruct the instructor? Wouldn’t it make sense for the instructor to fly a plane like that on his own, knowing he has a trip coming up with a “greenhorn” pilot, BEFORE going up with the student?

By: Dibby

Dibby — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:28:23 +0000

“Who ever is in the left seat, even in an aircraft with dual controls is considered to be the pilot.”

This is just not the case. There is no Federal Air Regulation that makes the left seater the Pilot in Command (PIC). I often fly from the right seat with non-pilots sitting in the left. I am still PIC. If there are two qualified pilots aboard, they must decide between themselves who will be PIC. If they didn’t tell anyone, then it will be up to the jury to speculate it out.

Also, the Cirrus in question is not legally considered to be a complex aircraft. It lacks retractable landing gear. The controls are definitely not fly-by-wire. Sorry Jim, but I believe you’re getting a bit out of your depth on this one.

As far as instruction goes, the instructor had very little experience with Cirrus aircraft. I’d consider it most likely that Lidle took him up to familiarize him with the aircraft before their cross-country trip.

I’d also be willing to bet some bucks that Lidle was found in the left seat. Regardless of whether he was getting instruction (which I doubt), instructors usually sit on the right and non-instructors fly from the left.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:40:53 +0000

No. I’m not auguing for the sake of arguing here. The point that I’m trying to make here is that what ever Lidel may have done in the past or he intended to do in the future is irrelevant.

The entire issue is, was Lidle flying the plane or was he along as a passenger, on this particular flight. More to the point, can it be proven that he wasn’t just a passenger.

My concern over which seat Lidel was in is simple. Who ever is in the left seat, even in an aircraft with dual controls is considered to be the pilot. If I was a student under instruction I would be in the left seat with the instructor in the right. If I was just a passenger I would be in the right seat. Don’t ask me why this is so, it is just is a quirk of aviation. As a result it is harder to fly in the right seat due to the position of the throttle and other controls. With the small number of flight hours Lidel had, there is no way that he would be in the right seat in any other capacity than as just a passsenger.

I have linked a picture of the Cirrus SR20’s interior. Notice that the controls are fly by wire. In the left seat you control the aircraft with your left hand. In the right seat you use your right hand.

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/interior/

Without any other evidence, if Lidle was in the right seat there is no way to prove that he was anything other than a passenger.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:02:41 +0000

Jim, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. There is plenty of press coverage, both before and after Lidle’s death, about Lidle’s love for this particular plane that he owned and how he intended to fly it cross-country home to California after the baseball season. I also don’t see how the “right seat” matters given that the plane is dual-control.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:09:19 +0000

Ted,
That Lidle only had 75 flight hours only reinforces my point. The type of aircraft that they crashed is considered to be a complex aircraft. Complex meaning that it has a varible pitch propellor and retractable landing gear. It is not the type of aircraft that a pilot with only 75 total hours would be flying. That Lidel’s flight instructor would be ferrying the plane from the point of purchase to Lidel’s choice of airport is entirely possible. It happens all of the time. This goes toward my previous statement. If Lidel was in the left seat the insurance company wins, if he was in the right they lose.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:37:14 +0000

I think you’re defining “proof” too narrowly. There’s certainly, at a minimum, circumstantial evidence that this was a training flight given that Tyler Stanger had previously trained Lidle and that the plane has dual controls, and perhaps also documentary evidence. It’s also wildly implausible that Lidle, who already had 75 hours of flying time, hires a CFI for his own plane solely to be ferried around in a round-trip back to the airport he started at. If I’m the judge on these facts, I don’t even see a material dispute of fact unless the Lidle family has more information that they’re not disclosing.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:08:33 +0000

No. I didn’t miss Richard’s point. I made a mistake in my post. I meant to say “Unless the flight was made as a student under instruction.”. What may have been happening in that aircraft and what can be proven to be happening are two different things. Unless instruction was arrainged through a third party or Lidel can be shown to have been in the left seat, there is no proof that he was anything other than a passenger.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:28:08 +0000

Jim, I think you missed Richard’s point. Even if Lidle was a “student under instruction,” the policy exclusion would apply, because he was acting in the capacity of a student, rather than as a passenger. His flying instructor wasn’t flying him around to get from Point A to Point B.

But this surely isn’t the first case of this sort interpreting this insurance language in this sort of situation. Perhaps one of our insurance-guru readers can pitch in.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:28:34 +0000

I’m going to have to argue this one with you Richard. If the flight was the case of a student being under instruction (arranged through an FBO or school), it is going to come down to which seat was Lidle in? While there are controls for both seats, it is generally accepted that the left seat is for the pilot. If Lidle was in the left seat then the insurance company will probably win. If he was in the right seat with no other evidence proving that Lidle was actually flying the plane the insurance company will probably lose. It can be said that Lidle was following the policy’s rules by having the instructor fly him around even though Lidle owned the plane.