Ron Lee wrote:
If he ran out of fuel on his first solo, I would think the FAA would be
looking for his CFI.

Agree with that. But the student was still pilot in command.

Ron Lee


The student was in command, and the lawyers would I'm sure argue that
reading to the letter of the law, but make no mistake; there was an
instructor failure here, a serious instructor failure.

On any first solo, there is, as an integral part of that scenario, a
TRANSITION of power as relates to pilot in command.
It is incumbent on ANY flight instructor, when making the decision to
initiate this transition of control to pass from the instructor to the
student, to take all the steps necessary to insure the safety of the
student. This includes a complete checking of the condition of the
aircraft to insure it is safe and ready to turn over to the student for
solo.

It might satisfy the FAR's and the law to throw down on this student for
running out of fuel on a first solo, but in my opinion, I hope every
instructor reading this post will stop for a second and think about
professional responsibility and how that relates to an instructor
signing off a student for solo and allowing him to do so with inadequate
fuel in the tanks to complete the flight.

Good instructors NEVER stop thinking about the safety of the student,
and in this case, the instructor in my opinion failed miserably to back
up and cross check the student's airplane prior to turning the student
loose.
The bottom line on this incident is that although the FAR's might define
PIC, the FAR's fall way short of defining what constitutes
professionalism in a flight instructor.


--
Dudley Henriques