Teacherjh wrote:

Well put.

Thanks. I don't think I've quite said it in a way which which I'm
completely happy, which is why I'm still trying.

The key is how much the instructor knows of the student (and
how
much the student tells him). "If this were bad, he'd say something" is
perfectly valid, if the instructor knows he's taking the student outside
the
envelops (and is thus extra vigilant). But this puts the onus on the
instructor to be vigilant after the student says so. Now who's "in
command"?

I'm not clear what point(s) you're making here. I assume that we're both
hoping that the instructor is fully vigilant for the entire flight. Is
that what you mean?

But I'm looking more from the non-instructing pilot's perspective. The
distinction, perhaps, is a difference between an explicit choice to go
beyond one's envelope and a less than explicit relaxation of the care with
which one is operating (because the instructor is there to catch mistakes).

Even if the instructor is perfect, this is still an increase in risk (as the
number of careful pilots in the plane is unnecessarily reduced {8^). More,
complacency can become a habit.

[...]

I was PIC - if I merged with another target, it would be my rear in the
sling
(before going into the casket). But I was trusting another.

To me, this is a separate issue. Misplaced trust is absolutely a risk. I
used to fly with someone (a pilot; not an instructor). When I finally
realized that this was not wise - because he'd habits I viewed as unsafe as
I came to know them - I stopped.

After that occurred, I had a chance to sit right seat with someone new to
me. It was when I first joined my club, and I thought riding along with
someone would be a good and fun way to learn various club procedures.

It wasn't until I was preparing for the flight that I realized how
uncomfortable I was. What if I was putting myself in the right seat next
to an untrustworthy pilot? Again.

[Happily, it all worked out well - he's a fine and safe pilot, and we had a
nice time.]

- Andrew