Legal Briefing

Student pilots aren't exempt from FAA sanction

Student pilots rarely face FAA enforcement actions, in my experience. An obvious reason is that during most flights, the student is accompanied by a flight instructor who is acting as the pilot in command of the flight. If there is a problem, it usually falls on the flight instructor, not the student. Another reason is that when a student pilot embarks on a solo flight, that student usually has spent hours preparing for the flight and has taken every precaution, under the guidance of an experienced flight instructor, to make sure the flight proceeds smoothly. There are other reasons, I'm sure. Occasionally, however, we see the FAA take swift and serious action when a student pilot breaks the rules. Here is such a case.

The student had been learning to fly for about a year and was within a few weeks of taking his private pilot checkride. On the date in question, he planned a solo flight. However, his fianc�e came to the airport and wanted to fly with him, so he took her on the flight. Upon landing, the student encountered his former flight instructor, who admonished the student for his actions. A few weeks later, the student, his former flight instructor, and his current flight instructor met and worked out an arrangement in which they wouldn't report the student's action to the FAA if the student agreed to take 15 hours of additional dual instruction.

It's unclear exactly what transpired after that, but it seems that the former flight instructor changed his mind and threatened to report the event to the FAA. At some point, both the former flight instructor and the student brought the matter to the attention of two different FAA inspectors in two different Flight Standards District Offices. The student admitted his error and was counseled by one FAA inspector. That inspector determined that the counseling and the remedial training plan adequately addressed the matter and that no further action was necessary, and he closed the matter in his office. A few dozen miles away, the former flight instructor gave the information to another FAA inspector who decided to investigate the matter. After the inspector completed his investigation, he sent the information he gathered to the FAA's legal office, and the FAA's lawyer sent an emergency order of revocation to the student pilot, immediately revoking his airman medical and student pilot certificates.

The FAA charged that the student violated FAR 61.89(a)(1), which prohibits a student pilot from acting as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying a passenger, and FAR 91.13(a), which states that no person may operate an aircraft in a careless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. The FAA further charged that the student had shown a deliberate disregard for the federal aviation regulations, that he lacked qualifications to hold a student pilot certificate, and that revocation was therefore appropriate.

There was no hearing in this case. Instead, the FAA's case and the student's defense were put forth in briefs concentrating on whether there were any genuine factual disputes that required a hearing or whether the undisputed facts were enough to allow the judge to decide the case. In his brief, the student admitted the conduct, but he argued that his certificate should not be revoked because the FAA had not established that he lacked the care, judgment, and responsibility to hold the student pilot certificate. The judge was not persuaded:

"As Respondent concedes that he carried his passenger 'against his better judgment,' the inference, which I made from that statement, is that he knew that his decision to carry a passenger was contrary to the provision of Section 61.89(a) and thus his action was a deliberate choice to act in violation of that FAR. Subsequently, Respondent participated in a scheme to prevent his deliberate violation coming to the attention of the FAA. In addition, the FAA's position is supported by the NTSB's historical determination that a violation of Section 61.89(a) is a serious offense warranting revocation and, therefore, one that establishes lack of qualification. That Respondent presumably completed his flight without incident has no bearing upon the issue of lack of qualification. The question of lack of qualification is, rather, based upon his decision to undertake the flight in deliberate violation of the FARs and his subsequent actions related thereto."

The judge's decision was affirmed on appeal. A tough lesson for this student, but one for all of us to keep in mind.

Kathy Yodice is an attorney with Yodice Associates in Washington, D.C., which provides legal counsel to AOPA and administers AOPA's legal services plan. She is an instrument-rated private pilot.