Very well noted Tony. I agree 100%

Agreed,

But a completely different scenario than the one proffered by the original post.

Jg

Someone did something similar with a Piper Saratoga, selling it to a pilot with a few hundred hours and no IFR ticket. He with about 36 hours in the plane and 300 total. He had no instrument rating but was working on one. He flew at night. We all know the unfortunate outcome. We all miss JFK Jr.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/d ... Master.PDF

Are you suggesting JFK Jr would be alive if he was flying a 172 or a Cherokee? Why?

I personally don't think airplane type had anything to do with his accident. Had he killed himself in a 172, you can bet someone would say "why didn't he get a higher grade airplane for this trip?".

Maybe if he was flying an M600, he would have respected the airplane more and taken an instructor with him, and thus still be alive.

You can't go from zero to 500 hours without flying *something*, and whatever that is can still kill you.

I'm not a believer in the "lesser airplane is safer" theory. I am a believer in the "not respecting a lesser airplane makes them more dangerous" theory.

Mike C.

Take you logic elsewhere sir. Logic is not welcomed at this establishment during this decade.

Eric,

What "we", (MC, you, and me) lack is the "big brother/big sister" compassion that seems to permeate our government and society these days. Nobody is accountable for their actions or responsible for their mistakes. Their failures are the fault of others for not stepping up and shoring up their shortcomings.

The last time I got hit with a bogus lawsuit, at one point in my cross examination, I looked at the judge (no jury) and said, "your honor, one of the most interesting facets of my life today is that everyday, I wake up to find out that I am indebted to and owe somebody new that I don't even know." I won the suit.

So, remember Eric, we, you and me, owe everybody. Fess up man, we are guilty.

BT is becoming the cess pot of the absurd. Move over Bernie Sanders.

Jg

Agreed,

But a completely different scenario than the one proffered by the original post.

Jg

The cost of Defense of even frivolous and lawsuits without merit is high - higher in this industry than most here can even imagine.

The OP's question may get a different response if we're talking "personal judgement" vs. "potential gotchas."

Brian - if you're a rep having to ponder this question, I'd offer that you don't need BT's wisdom (as significant as it is)... you might need the blessing of someone higher on the ladder. I wouldn't make that decision (either way) on my own.

Unfortunately "being right" doesn't matter as much as it used to.


Edit: Admittedly I didn't see Brian's second post detailing the transaction. I am glad the pilot was flying naked (sans insurance) so an insurance company isn't paying a Hull and Liability claim. I hope the CFI never signed off the owner / pilot. The training center is "probably OK" since they didn't train the Owner, but it "could be argued" that they
"should have known".

Much of this depends on the State where all this took place... As I shared above, "being right" doesn't have a lot of weight in the legal system and the costs to defend (even when you are right) are prohibitive. I hope all those involved (except the pilot) don't get financially hurt by this.

I had a C-195 many years ago, and I interviewed everyone who called to buy it. If they were flying a -172 or Cherokee, I promptly told them this was not the airplane for them. Ultimately I sold it to an airline pilot who grew up in taildraggers and I knew he coulud learn to fly it. I offered to fly with him until he got comfortable. But he was an airline pilot and a taildragger pilot and So he took off and soon after loaded up a bunch of his friends in it and almost wrecked it. He told me something was wrong with it and he sold it to the first guy who came along who totaled it with serious injuries. He was landing a 195 at night in a dark hole airport. I have several hundred hours in the -195 and I was never comfortable landing it at night. This guy was non-current with no medical.

I can argue this either way. We can't control what happens after it leaves our hangar. We can help the new buyer find a good instructor/mentor, but all we can do is offer. Someone will take their money. I had an attachment to the -195 and did not want to see it destroyed.

If it were a Mustang or a Corsair, for sure, I would not sell it to someone unqualified unless they had a plan to get the experience needed to operate it safely.

I don't have an answer.

Are you suggesting JFK Jr would be alive if he was flying a 172 or a Cherokee? Why?

Maybe if he was flying an M600, he would have respected the airplane more and taken an instructor with him, and thus still be alive.

You can't go from zero to 500 hours without flying *something*, and whatever that is can still kill you.

I'm not a believer in the "lesser airplane is safer" theory. I am a believer in the "not respecting a lesser airplane makes them more dangerous" theory.

Mike C.

It's old, it's cliche, and it is true. As we make airplanes more idiot-proof, we just find better idiots. Airbus continues to prove it.


All of them will quit, all of them will break, and all of them will kill you. Even if only just barely.

I think this is a very important point.

It is entirely possible that NOT selling someone a pressurize turboprop leads to their death.

The newbie pilot without IR will have a steeper learning curve with an M600, but once over that, they will be a better pilot. During that learning, they will have more protection from their own faults, and they will have a far more reliable airplane than a piston single.

Mike C.

Each of my three airplane purchases was a plane that I wasn't ready for (yet) in terms of my flying progression. Two sellers were kind enough to fly the plane to me, and made sure I had a transition plan. One just wanted the funds to clear. None were in any way responsible for my subsequent operation of 'their' airplane... that responsibility ended with the sale transaction.

Motorcycle dealerships sell superbikes to reckless young men, some of whom die on those bikes. Bartenders serve alcoholics every day, with the inevitable results. Gun stores sell guns and ammo all day. I celebrate and cherish the freedom to make my own choices, and my own mistakes, and somehow I haven't died on a bike, or of a gunshot, or from cirrhosis. So you can guess that my vote falls solidly on the libertarian side of the discussion. A man has the right to be his own worst enemy, if that's his choice.



And now the story becomes more interesting, the refusal of the Piper authorized training center to train this pilot is the most salient part of this morality question, in my opinion. Imagine plaintiff's counsel asking incredulously "you sold my client a high-performance, complex airplane, but refused to train him how to fly it safely?"

I surmise that was an attempt to reduce their liability? I'd think a better answer would have been for Piper to train the customer AND his instructor. Maybe tell the pilot up front "we will train you but we will not sign you off" -- presumably he would need high-altitude, complex, and high performance endorsements.

It's weird how distorted behavior can come from trying to avoid liability.

My opinion, worth only what you paid for it... or maybe less!

Mark

From what I have seen of private students ... if the guy had 50TT and a private license ... he's probably a decent and dedicated pilot.

And yes, it's totally reasonable to sell someone a plane that you refuse to train them to fly. You can hire pilots.

I don't think Piper owns the training facility, and there are multiple sources for training.