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 educational malpractice against a flight school and instructors for failing to teach a pilot about the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) was dismissed by Pennsylvania courts.
Both the trial court and the Superior Court affirmed the "educational malpractice doctrine," which generally bars negligence claims based solely on instructional quality due to public policy concerns, difficulty in defining standards of care, and potential for excessive litigation.
The ruling, if it stands, offers a degree of protection for flight schools and CFIs from educational malpractice claims, though it is not considered "blanket immunity" for other types of legal action.
The plaintiff has appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, meaning the legal implications for flight training liability are still subject to further review.

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.