Seeking anecdotes about "instructor in command"

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?".


Well put. 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"?

A similar issue comes up with an IFR safety pilot. I was in a situation where
I was under the hood with a safety pilot, VFR under an overcast. My safety
pilot says "ok, you can take the hood off now, we're in the clouds".

WHAT????

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.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

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

...if the instructor knows he's taking the student outside
the envelops (and is thus extra vigilant)...

I assume that we're both
hoping that the instructor is
fully vigilant for the entire flight.


Well, only sort of. I expect the instructor (absent other issues) to be paying
attention to how I am flying the plane, not so much to how the plane is being
flown. The distinction is subtle, but consider that if the instructor were
the pilot flying (and I were baggage) the instructor's attention would be fully
occupied by the instruments and the view outside the window. When I take over
that task, I expect the instructor to be trying to make me a better pilot, not
so much trying to make this flight a safer flight.

An instructor will let different amounts of deviation go uncorrected, depending
on the level of the student. A new student can't recover very well from an
unstable approach, but a more experienced pilot can probably salvage approaches
that he shouldn't have screwed up in the first place. If an experienced pilot
makes a less than perfect approach, the instructor may not think all that much
of it, assuming the pilot flying can (and will) recover. So, here the
instructor is assuming more skill on the part of the pilot, and the pilot is
assuming the instructor will catch his mistakes (after all, that's what he went
up with an instructor for).

In this case, pilot and instructor do not agree as to where the edge of the
envelope is, and problems ensue. You can have the opposite scenario, where an
instructor is constantly correcting or taking over for minor deviations, which
could even be a matter of style (coming in steeply or shallowly for example).
Here the instructor isn't letting the pilot flying have enough rope, in the
other example there is too much rope.

When I talk about "instructor in command", I include also the cases where the
instructor says, for example on a cross country training flight, "let's go
under the overcast" (rather than file IFR and go through it, or fly on top of
it). The pilot might not be comfortable doing what he considers scud running,
and the instructor might be completely comfortable with the conditions. The
instructor gives no thought to the pilot's envelope (or decides that he's there
to stretch it a bit), and the pilot flying figures that this is the instruction
he's paying for, and goes ahead under the overcast (which he never would have
done alone).

The instructor has no reason to believe this is a problem for the student, and
the student expects that since the conditions are within the instructor's
limits, he will learn something.

Jose








--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
A similar issue comes up with an IFR safety pilot. I was in a situation
where
I was under the hood with a safety pilot, VFR under an overcast. My
safety
pilot says "ok, you can take the hood off now, we're in the clouds".

Wow. Had he let that happen intentionally? Or was that just his lighthearted
way of alerting you to an accidental cloud penetration?

--Gary

My safety pilot says "ok, you can take the
hood off now, we're in the clouds".

Wow. Had he let that happen intentionally? Or was that just his lighthearted
way of alerting you to an accidental cloud penetration?


I think it was intentional. He seemed pleased, in the same sense that an
instructor giving training (under an IFR flight plan) is pleased when actual
conditions are encountered. I don't think he realized that nobody was
separating aluminum at that point (though he knew we were VFR and I made it
clear that we were to remain VFR).

It's not all that easy to judge 500 feet from the bottoms of a cloud - they
always look closer than they are, and maybe he misjudged or overcompensated.

Ok.. what do I do? Climb, descend, turn around? We were pretty low to descend
blind out of the clouds, but my safety pilot said we had ground contact and I
descended out of it pretty quickly, told approach we were IMC, descending out
of it and turning around for home and went back to the home airport, where I
shot a practice approach there. I also made it clear that my safety pilot's
job was to keep us sufficiently clear of clouds, granite, and aluminum.

Although I stayed mostly under the hood, I did peek more than occasionally to
be sure we were sufficiently clear of these impediments to good times. In
retrospect, perhaps I should have ripped off the hood, bonked him with it, and
tossed him outside. Ironically, he's very safety conscious when it comes to
equipment - wanting backups for the vacuum and electrical system, and the
latest and greatest in GPS technology. (seems to be a trend - nobody looks at
the sectionals any more), so I was unprepared for this particular event.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)