Matt Whiting wrote in news:JvAaf.2391$lb.178682
@news1.epix.net:

Judah wrote:

This is the most bizarre definition of being in control that I've ever
heard of. If someone wets their pants and didn't intend to, you say
they lost control of their bladder. The fact that their bladder did
just what it is supposed to do when the "valve" muscle relaxes is
completely irrelevant.

I never said that the controls didn't function correctly. That would be
a control system failure. The fact is that the pilot didn't have
control of his airplane. Having your hands on the controls and
manipulating the controls doesn't mean you are in control. A student
making his first landing attempt in an airplane is handling the controls
and the airplane is doing just what the student tells it to do, but,
except in very rare instances, no first time landing by a student is in
control to any great extent.


Matt

Your comments are self-contradictory. Either the student is in control of
the airplane or he isn't. There is no "great extent". If the plane is in a
stall or spiral, and flying in a different direction than it is being
pointed, then certainly the plane is out of control. If the control
surfaces are not functioning properly, then certainly the plane is out of
control. But if a first time student is piloting a plane, and the plane
performs the actions that the pilot directs it, the plane is in control. If
the pilot is inexperienced, and as a result cannot properly hold a heading
or altitude, it doesn't mean the plane is out of control, it just means
that the pilot is a poor pilot.