Teacherjh wrote:

(it was me who called it that). Not so much "complacent" as "trusting"...
you are there to learn, and you must trust the instructor to take you
beyond your
level of comfort in order to do this. Some can get complacent too, but
that's not necessary for bad things to happen.

I'm drawing a very important distinction between "trusting" and
"complacent". That is, in fact, the entire point I want to get across:
that trust is good, but taking it into complacency is bad.

Sure, that's obvious when I write it that way laugh. But it's not
something I see discussed, and I've been looking for it recently. More,
the line can be tough to define, although I'm trying (as you'll see below).

It is absolutely necessary that a pilot trust an instructor to get the best
use out of that instructor. The example you and I are both using - going
past one's personal "envelope" with an instructor as guide - is one such
very good use.

However, this idea of the instructor as a safety mechanism can be taken too
far with the pilot has in his mind, even if quietly, "if this was bad, he'd
say something".

This is similar to some of what I've been reading about CRM, in that the
recommendation is that the concerns of the least confortable pilot are
paramount. That is, if one of two pilots think conditions (ie. weather)
are bad, then they're treated as bad - even if the other pilot is
comfortable with the conditions.

But a pilot with an instructor that accepts an uncomfortable situation - or
that stops looking for them - because the instructor is in the aircraft is
giving away that safety net.

It's a bit of a vague line between "going past the envelope" and "least
comfortable rules". As best I can see, the difference is in intent. I
might plan, for example, to go past my comfort level in x-wind landings
with an instructor. That's different from attempting a landing possibly
outside my skill level because "if this was bad, he'd say something".

With intent comes communication. For example: "I've never landed in gusts
this severe; shall we try?".

- Andrew