Court Ruling Brings Sigh of Relief but Not Immunity to Flight Schools, CFIs

A Pennsylvania court’s dismissal of Grady v. Aero-Tech Services should give flight schools and instructors a welcome sigh of relief, but it doesn’t give blanket immunity for educational malpractice.

Sara Withrow

Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 01:22 PM ET

Verified

The wreckage of the Cirrus SR22 G-1 (N451TD) shows the CAPS handle and safety pin still intact. [Photo: NTSB]

Key Takeaways:

A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging a flight school and its instructors were negligent in teaching a pilot about an aircraft's parachute system, following a fatal crash, was dismissed by appellate courts.
The dismissal was based on the "educational malpractice doctrine," which generally precludes negligence claims against educational institutions for instructional quality due to public policy concerns.
Courts cited reasons for dismissal including the difficulty in defining a standard of care, proving direct causation, preventing a flood of litigation, and avoiding judicial interference in educational standards, especially with FAA oversight for flight schools.
While the ruling offers temporary relief for flight schools and CFIs, experts caution it does not grant "blanket immunity," as schools could still face liability for fraud, breach of contract, or extreme negligence, such as failing to warn about known deadly aircraft characteristics.

See a mistake? Contact us.

The innovative airplane parachute system installed in the Cirrus SR22 does not guarantee survival in an accident. Like any aircraft system, there are multiple factors that contribute to its success, including proper training.

When PIC James J. Durkin failed to deploy the Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System, or CAPS, installed in the 2001 Cirrus SR22 G1 he was piloting in 2018—and the aircraft crashed, killing Durkin and a passenger—it sparked a lawsuit that put flight schools and CFIs around the country potentially on notice.