The response was heated. "You started it, by speaking to me publicly." He fully intends to radio any student at any time, due to his superior experience.

Would any other CFI accept this potential interaction in their employment relationship? I am the one who signs the student's book.
Anyone else come up against this?


Thank you Dudley and Sameas...

Yes, the student was solo. I was masking all gender implications. Apologies for the grammatical muddle.

You have both wandered closer to the issue that interests me: Employer/employee protocol versus who has responsibility for the 'training' or flight environment.

The owner has no category of FAA CFI - yet had been a military airman and instructed in a different category of hardware (in the '80s).

The solo student is also a part time employee of the flight school. So there is some significant level of 'response' to the owner's voice beyond the typical Unicom/CTAF traffic call.

Everyone has different perceptions, visual, auditory, reactions based on historic responses and outcomes. I strongly encourage my students to VISUALLY scan their pattern, and reciprocal/mirrored entries, straight-ins, all of which occur at this field by multiple categories of aircraft. They make their own radio call or two or three, but the emphasis is on looking for those many local machines that operate without radios, ie. ultralights, gliders and historic craft. By the time they solo, they ARE looking and do listen for/interpret CTAF calls. They typically have good traffic awareness.

In this case, my estimation was that the powered chute, so slow, so low, so big and so far away that I couldn't discern limbs or clothing, and moving opposite to the downwind leg, was SO wide of the pattern as to be irrelevant. Since the student reported not seeing it before or after any advisory calls, I felt affirmed in that opinion (post event).

Having someone try to direct a pilot's attention 'outside' of the pattern path, because of the novelty of the machinery, under the pretext of 'safety' is a distraction to the student. It offered the owner a 'reason' to talk to the flyer. I asked that he discontinue that, quietly, albeit publicly since we were standing ~ 20 feet apart. No one was standing between he and I.

What was the surprise was the public berating - "I'll speak to any student, anytime, over a matter of flight safety. My 5000 hours flight instructing beats your experience, and I'm responsible for every operation here. You can just expect that I'll talk as long as I need to to keep pilots safe. Don't you tell me who I can't talk to.' At volume, in front of staff and customers.
This - from the guy who is present on fewer than 20% of our flight days?

I am the ONLY CFI on staff - for 18 months. The prior CFI left due to age and inability to enter/exit the machines. I have been flight instructing full-time since 1990. I was hired based on my professional reputation. This is the first time I have been publicly dressed down by an employer.

I was just wondering how other CFIs might react in the same situation. Choke down their ego, and avoid the obvious rebuttal about legal liability? Tell the owner that this passes the bounds of owner participation (into the cockpit)?
Slap down a logbook to show 3500 hours instruction ? I don't know where to find the Emily Post reference on etiquette for this situation. NAFI is silent, I prefer to keep the job, but I don't intend to accept this behavior with no comment on any occasion.

I was imagining that someone else would write in and say -- Whoa there. That's majorly unacceptable..... and I could refer the owner to read the opinions posted. Sameas did that. Regrettably, I found the rec.aviation newsgroups had devolved to a dismal level of participation.... but I appreciate the responses that have been given.

Teacher