Pilot Training and the Standard of Care
When an accident raises questions about a pilot's performance, the training record often becomes one of the most important documents in the matter. It shows what the pilot was taught, how proficiency was checked, and whether the training reflected the aircraft and the operation the pilot actually flew. Reviewing pilot training against the standard of care requires more than confirming that certificates were current. It requires understanding how training is designed and delivered in practice, which is where an aviation expert witness with flight department leadership experience is useful.
I am an ATP-rated Chief Pilot with more than 5,000 flight hours, leading a Part 91 corporate flight department in Tampa, Florida. Overseeing crew qualification, recurrent training, and proficiency is part of that role. The standard of care in this context is an operational question: what training, checking, and supervision would a comparable operation consider appropriate for this pilot, this aircraft, and this mission? How that operational benchmark fits into any legal standard is a matter for counsel.
The Regulatory Floor
Training requirements depend on the kind of operation. To act as pilot in command, a pilot must have completed a flight review within the preceding 24 calendar months (61.56). A pilot in command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot, or of a turbojet-powered aircraft, must also complete pilot-in-command proficiency checks under 61.58. For a Part 91 corporate flight department, those requirements are the regulatory minimum, and most departments go well beyond them through recurrent simulator training and their own internal standards.
Part 135 operators carry a broader obligation. Under Subpart H, the certificate holder must maintain an approved training program that includes initial, transition, upgrade, and recurrent training, and under Subpart G, pilots must pass recurring competency and instrument proficiency checks, including the checks required by 14 CFR 135.293 and 135.297. Line checks under 135.299 evaluate the pilot in actual operations. FAA guidance on stall prevention and recovery training (AC 120-109A) and on upset prevention and recovery training (AC 120-111, Change 1) shows how training expectations have developed in response to accident history.
Regulatory compliance is a floor, not the standard of good practice. A pilot can hold every required certificate and still have received training that did not prepare them for the situation they encountered.
What a Training Review Examines
A useful review begins with the pilot's history: certificates and ratings, total and recent experience, experience in type, and any prior checkride failures or remedial training. It then looks at the training program itself: its syllabus, the maneuvers and scenarios covered, the use of simulators or aircraft, and whether the content addressed the hazards relevant to the accident. Checking and evaluation records show whether the pilot was assessed against defined standards or simply signed off. Finally, organizational oversight shows whether the operator identified and responded to weaknesses in its pilots or its program.
Each of these areas is compared with what comparable operations would consider sound practice. A common issue is the gap between training as documented and training as delivered. Records may show that a maneuver was completed without showing how it was evaluated, by whom, or to what standard. Instructor and check airman qualifications, training center records, and the operator's own training manual can help close that gap. Where they cannot, the limits of the record should be stated plainly rather than filled with assumptions.
Connecting Training to the Accident Sequence
Training deficiencies matter only where they bear on what happened. The analysis has to connect the specific training content, or its absence, to the decisions and actions in the accident sequence. A pilot who received thorough stall recovery training and still mishandled a stall raises different questions than a pilot who was never trained in the scenario at all. The NTSB's findings often address training directly, and they provide an investigative foundation for an independent operational review.
Frequently Asked Questions
What training records are typically relevant?
Pilot certificates and logbooks, operator training and checking records, training center syllabi and grade sheets, instructor and check airman qualifications, and the operator's training manual in effect at the time.
Does meeting FAA training requirements establish that training was adequate?
Not by itself. Regulatory requirements set the minimum. Whether the training was adequate for the specific operation is an operational question examined against established practice.
Can a review address both the pilot and the operator?
Yes. Training analysis typically moves from the individual pilot's qualifications to the program and oversight that shaped them.
Do you consult for both plaintiff and defense counsel?
Yes. The review follows the training record wherever it leads.
Discuss a Pilot Training Matter
When a matter raises questions about how a pilot was trained, checked, or supervised, an early independent review can identify the records that will answer them. Learn more about AeroVerdict's aviation expert witness services.