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 lawsuit alleging a flight school and instructors were negligent for failing to adequately teach a pilot about the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS), which was not deployed in a fatal crash, was dismissed by Pennsylvania courts.
Both the trial court and the Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected the claim, ruling that "educational malpractice" is not a legally recognized cause of action due to public policy concerns, including the difficulty in defining a standard of care and avoiding judicial interference in educational standards.
This decision offers temporary relief for flight schools and CFIs against such malpractice claims, though it does not provide "blanket immunity" for other forms of negligence like fraud or failure 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.