Andrew Gideon wrote
I'm drawing a very important distinction between "trusting" and
"complacent".

I'm not sure you can effectively do that.

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).

I'm glad you realize it's tough, but I think it's worse than that. I
think the line is impossible to define in a manner useful to the
student, because almost by definition it will require a level of
knowledge and judgment that the student will not posess.

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.

But in order to trust the instructor, you have to believe the
instructor really knows best. In other words, you have to believe
that while you are operating outside your envelope, the instructor is
well within his. This is made more difficult because there are many
documented cases where this was not true. All I can say is, choose
your instructor carefully. Just because the FAA gives a guy a piece
of paper doesn't mean he's qualified.

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".

Now you're changing the situation. Yes, poor communications can be
deadly. It is indeed quite possible for the student to see something
the instructor has missed. It is absolutely legitimate and proper for
the student to bring this up. However, it is equally legitimate for
the instructor to say "Yes, I'm aware of this, and it's not a problem
because..." and you either trust the instructor and keep going or you
get another instructor.

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.

And that's fine - as long as you don't translate this to mean that the
most scared pilot makes the decision.

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.

And that's fine - unless you interpret it to mean that the least
comfortable pilot gets to decide that a diversion, precautionary
landing, or 180 will be done when it's not necessary.

Consider an extreme case - a low time VFR-only pilot is flying with an
ATP. The visibility ahead is terrible and the ceilings are low. The
ATP decides this is no big deal, files IFR, and proceeds to his
destination. Should his decision change because of the low time
VFR-only pilot in the right seat? Does it matter if the pilot in the
right seat is acting as copilot - maybe tuning radios and keeping
track of maps?

If the answer is yes, that's a great rule - if you never need to
accomplish anything (as the more experienced pilot) or never need to
learn anything (as the less experienced pilot). The whole point of
becoming a better pilot is to develop the skill and knowledge that
will allow you to complete a flight when others can't. The whole
point of carrying a copilot is to be able to offload some tasks onto
that copilot, which reduces your workload and allows you to extend
your capability without giving up the safety margin. The whole point
of riding copilot with a more experienced pilot is to learn from the
more experienced pilot and extend your capability. The least
comfortable pilot rule works against these goals.

The concerns of the copilot should be addressed, but the ultimate
decisionmaking authority remains with the captain. Always. And yes,
somtimes that means pressing on when the copilot is uncomfortable
because the captain is comfortable.

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.

I think you need to separate the two. The student who stops paying
attention becuase the instructor is there does indeed increase the
risk unnecessarily. He should vocalize his concerns, both because
there is a possibility that the instructor missed something, and
because this will allow the instructor to determine where the
student's weaknesses are and address them. However, operating outside
one's own envelope by definition means accepting an uncomfortable
situation. Let's say in the above case that the ATP lets the VFR-only
pilot fly. I assure you that VFR-only pilot will be uncomfortable as
he negotiates the transition to instruments and flies in the bumps and
rain. However, it will be a spectacular learning experience for him -
even if he never goes on to get an instrument rating, it will improve
his odds of successfully handling a VFR-into-IMC emergency.

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?".

I think the real difference is not intent but communication.

When operating outside one's envelope, there is unavoidable risk. I
feel this risk is justified by the gains to be made in skill and
knowledge, which will increase capability and reduce risk on future
flights, but let's not lose sight of the fact that not all risk is
avoidable.

The risk caused by poor communication in such a situation IS
avoidable, and should be avoided.

It is said that two CFI's in a primary trainer equal half a student
pilot, and I can tell you from experience that this can be very true.
When I decided that I wanted to be a tailwheel instructor (a REAL one,
not just what the FAA considers legal) a friend of mine, who is a real
tailwheel instructor, gave me some dual in his Champ. I was already a
CFI and a tailwheel pilot at the time - in fact I had hundreds of
landings in a taildragger - but there is a difference between being
good enough to do it and good enough to teach it. But first we did
some brushup - on a narrow paved obstructed runway of course, since
grass is too easy. We almost lost the airplane.

My experience had been in a 7ECA Champ (no, not a Citabria - there was
such a thing as a 7ECA Champ) which had toe brakes and a big engine.
We were flying a 7BCM Champ, with heel brakes and a smaller engine. I
got a bit off center, botched the rudder correction (not being used to
heel brakes - I only ever had a few hours in a heel-brake Cub and that
was years ago), and the small burst of throttle didn't do what I was
used to. Fortunately, my friend caught it before we hit the trees.

This was a perfect example of poor communication. He thought I
already knew how to do it. I thought it would be fine because he was
there. We've been a lot more careful about preflight briefings when
we fly together since then. However, even after we rebriefed and I
expressed my concerns that the runway was too narrow and too
obstructed - we kept flying. I was outside my comfort zone, but not
outside his.

Basically, I think you're invoking intent when what we're really
dealing with is just communication. The intent was the same first and
second time around; it's just that the first time around we botched
the communication and nearly put a wing in the trees.

As a corollary to this, I don't think it makes sense to place the
communication burden entirely on the student or copilot. The
instructor or captain also has a responsibility to communicate.
Ideally, he should anticipate the concerns of the student or copilot
and address them pre-emptively.

Michael