FSNews-Masthd
MARCH 6, 2014
MEDIA COVERAGE 
  
Double Eagle Aviation works with the media

 

FSANA member Jim White of Double Eagle Aviation in Tucson, Arizona, was very pleased with the media coverage that his school received on their AeroCamp program. White reported that they are now running AeroCamp during non-summer time periods at the request of the public. What started out as a one-week AeroCamp program continues to blossom into multiple calendar dates throughout the year.

View Double Eagle Aviation TV coverage.

 

As Double Eagle's response shows, media coverage is important to the success of flight training providers. While buying advertising in media is expensive, earning media coverage through actions can get your operation noticed with minimal cost. Running programs such as AeroCamp can not only increase the activity and profitability of your operation, they can also be used to gain coverage by local media that will bring even more attention.

 

Next time your operation is conducting an AeroCamp or other programs, be sure to notify local media and invite them to take part. Please note: FSANA Aero programs like AeroCamp and AeroParty are intended for use by FSANA members only. 
Phoenix Aviation ad
HANDY RESOURCES  
 
Planning for TFRs

 

Temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) can have a significant effect on flight training operations. Getting a briefing prior to a flight will let you and your customers know if a particular flight can be completed, this doesn't always let you plan days or weeks into the future. Over the past couple of years, resources have become more robust that offer operators the ability to become aware of upcoming TFRs and plan appropriately for business operations. The best official online resource for TFRs remains the tfr.faa.gov website. It is a good idea for flight school operators to check this website a few times a week to see if any upcoming TFRs will be in your area of operations.

 

While presidential TFRs may be somewhat less predictive and may even be mobile, many TFRs have hard start and stop times that allow for good operational planning. An example of this is the upcoming TFR this weekend in South Florida (Click here for a TFR alert handout for more information) that has hard start and stop times.

 

One new resource that you might choose to use is the new AOPA TFR Alerts Twitter feed. By following this and even allowing these tweets to be pushed to your mobile phone, you may increase the likelihood that you won't miss the next TFR in your area. Click here to follow the AOPA TFR Alerts Twitter account.

 

When a TFR is going to affect your flight school, with a little advanced notice, you can take the opportunity to schedule or re-schedule students appropriately. It can also be a great opportunity to plan on having your instructors conduct simulator training, ground training, or even offering a special safety seminar (perhaps even on special use airspace) while the TFR is in effect to keep your customers interested, engaged, and away from the potential of busting a TFR in your flight school's aircraft.
LEGAL MATTERS 
 
Is educational malpractice something flight training 
providers should be concerned about?

 

Providing instruction and training to pilot candidates for any ratings or certificates is not without potential liability, but the answer to the question of how much and what types of liability is a little more murky. It may vary from state to state.

Specifically, the question of educational liability is one that has arisen in some recent cases. Educational liability may include a variety of areas of concern such as discrimination, employment practices, retaliation, sexual harassment, violation of intellectual property rights, whistle-blower charges, and others. The one that is most concerning to some in aviation is the educational liability concern of "educational malpractice."

Many large institutions carry insurance coverage that is intended to be comprehensive in its coverage of many areas of concern, including educational malpractice. This is coverage that few flight training providers carry.

Educational malpractice claims in a flight training context can include claims or suit against a training provider (typically in a civil court venue) when a tragedy befalls a current or former student and there is a claim that the training they were provided was not proper, adequate, or that it was erroneous. In these cases, an attempt to place blame for a tragedy (and potentially to recover damages) may be made.

Defending such a claim is not only potentially costly in the event that a case is lost, but just the process of defending (even successfully) such a claim may be so costly that it is impossible for the training provider to survive such a claim.

Bill DeYoung from Chuhak & Tecson (www.chuhak.com) has provided the following examples of recent aviation cases relating to educational malpractice.

The Minnesota Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of educational malpractice in the aviation context by making its ruling on another unrelated basis -- leaving Minnesota law favorable to aviation eductors.

GLORVIGEN v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORP.

Minnesota Supreme Court 
 
In the recent case of GLORVIGEN v. CIRRUS DESIGN CORP. the issue of educational malpractice was presented to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Gary R. Prokop and his passenger died when Prokop's Cirrus SR22 airplane crashed near Hill City. Prokop had purchased the SR22 just one month before the crash. Along with the purchase of an SR22, Cirrus provided a training program for new owners. One of the program's lessons detailed how to recover from a particular emergency flying situation in the SR22. Prokop never received that lesson, and was alleged to have been attempting to recover from that emergency situation when he crashed. The estates of both the pilot and his passenger filed suit against Cirrus as a manufacturer and seller, claiming it breached its duty to warn and to provide adequate instruction for the safe use of its airplanes. Cirrus sought indemnity from University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation (UNDAF) with which Cirrus had contracted to provide the training to the new owners. The Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an airplane manufacturer owed a duty to a noncommercial pilot who, after purchasing an airplane from the manufacturer but failing to receive all of the flight training promised to him as part of that purchase, died when his airplane crashed. In the lower courts a jury had found that the manufacturer was negligent. However, the court of appeals reversed that ruling and concluded that the manufacturer did not have a duty to provide training and that the claims were barred by the educational malpractice doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the appellate court finding that the manufacturer did not owe a duty to the pilot. However, the Supreme Court determined that because the court's ruling found that no duty even existed, the Supreme Court did not need to reach the other issues. Therefore, the Court did not address, among other things, the issues of educational malpractice or causation. While a strong ruling from a state Supreme Court confirming that claims against aviation educators and trainers for their instruction would have been welcome, the Minnesota Appellate Court opinion still provides strong and convincing support for prohibiting claims against aviation educators.
 
Claims for Educational Malpractice Claims Against
Flight Instructors Are Barred in Illinois

WAUGH v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC.
 
The Illinois appellate court just provided some significant protection to Flight Schools and Flight instructors in Illinois when it affirmed a lower court's ruling which prohibited claims against flights instructors based upon negligent training.  On January 30, 2006, a Cessna 421B crashed on approach to Palwaukee Airport in Wheeling, Illinois, killing all four aboard. The alleged pilot had undergone recent pilot training with two flight schools. He also spent five hours with a certified flight instructor (CFI) as part of a requirement to qualify for insurance in the plane. Various suits were initiated and included claims against the flight schools and the CFI for alleged negligent pilot training. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the trial court dismissed all claims for negligent training and instruction, and held that Illinois does not recognize the tort of "educational malpractice." The affected parties appealed challenging the trials court's ruling and contending that even if the claims were to be barred against the flight schools, they should be allowed against the individual CFI as he was a  "non-traditional educational institution" in which there existed a "much closer and immediate" relationship.  FSANA filed an amicus brief that supported the arguments of the flight schools and the individual instructor. FSANA's amicus brief was able to deftly highlight the strong public policy reasons why claims of this type should not be allowed. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the lower court's ruling, refusing to recognize the tort of educational malpractice. The appellate court also rejected appellants' arguments that even if educational malpractice claims are generally barred, they should be allowed against the CFI because he or she was not a traditional educational institution. The court found no legal basis to treat a CFI differently from flight schools. The appellate court based its decision on several public policy considerations and specifically relied upon the fact that it is a practical impossibility to prove that the alleged malpractice of an educator proximately caused the deficiency which led to the accident.
ACCREDITATION UPDATE   

Accreditation applications being accepted for 2014

 

The Flight School Accreditation Program application and guide has been updated for 2014 and are available on the FSANA website. Flight schools are encouraged to review and download the necessary forms to begin the process of accreditation.

 

Overseen by FSANA, the Accreditation Program is a process whereby flight schools can seek to improve their business practices by benchmarking their school against a strict set of operational standards. These standards have been set to help improve the overall performance of the business, to raise professional standards and to create a positive focus which will help flight schools to achieve best practices in the flight training industry.  

 

Accreditation can be a valuable business decision that will set your flight school apart in the perception of the public and business sectors. Give it a serious look. 
EXTRA EXTRA  
 
FSANA money-back guarantee

 

FSANA continues to create value for its members. Programs like AeroCamp are helping flight schools to create new revenue centers and attract customers, many who continue on to earn their first pilot certificate.

FSANA offers flight schools a money-back guarantee on their 2014 membership dues investment if the school operates at least one FSANA Aero program and does not generate enough profit to cover the cost of membership. Members are required to demonstrate that they have followed the FSANA program guidelines contained in the members-only toolkit associated with each program.

If you haven't already looked into conducting our Aero programs at your flight school, now is the time. You can't lose! 
FEEDBACK
 
What is the ideal primary flight training aircraft?
 
We want feedback from the readers of this newsletter! Tell us what is important to you as a school owner, manager or chief flight instructor. We will share the results in a later edition of Flight School News eMonthly. Send your thoughts to info@fsana.com  
 
In particular this time, we would like to hear from people about what in their view would be the ideal aircraft for primary flight training. 
eNews Sponsors:

 

 

Tecnam.com  


Click for information about advertising

in this publication
TRAINING NEWS LINKS
Inviting the Best
Aircraft Operators
in the Business to
Join Our Network.
UPCOMING EVENTS
2014 Flight Training
Advocacy Day in Washington, D.C.
More information to be announced soon...
U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE

Find Your U.S. Congressman  

 

Find Your U.S. Senator 

 

U.S. House Aviation Subcommittee 

 

U.S. Senate Aviation Subcommittee 

 

US Senate Education Committee 

 

US House Committee on Education and
the Workforce 

Click on images to download sample Aero program brochures
AeroCamp brochure
AeroParty brochure
AeroSolo brochure

FSANA Partners


The above companies are annual supporters of the FSANA mission and work of the association and its members.
    
Established in 2009, the Flight School Association of North America (FSANA) is the first and only association of its kind dedicated solely to the flight training industry. FSANA represents flight schools, firms that provide products and services to the flight training or aviation industry, and other supporting partners.

FSANA MISSION: The Mission of the Flight School Association is to work in alliance with the aviation and aerospace industry; to serve and foster the flight training industry; to provide programs and services that will enhance the ability of flight schools to serve their customers and communities; and to promote best business practices which will help flight schools and their industry thrive and increase the pilot population.
Copyright �2014. All Rights Reserved.
  
fsana.com  |  610-791-4359  |  info@fsana.com