On 01/15/08 10:35, B A R R Y wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:

Of course, during instrument training the instructor should take full
responsibility for see and avoid. However, during my training if the
CFII was unable to spot the conflicting aircraft and it was getting close,
I came out from under the hood and looked for it. IMHO, the safety of
the flight was far more important than staying under the hood and not
helping.

Besides the risk of injury or death, you're also PIC.

Actually, that must be agreed upon before the flight by both the student
and the CFII (assuming the student can act as PIC with regard to FARs).

At the flight school I attended, it was policy that the CFII would be PIC
during dual training flights. Also, I've heard that in such flights, the
CFII would have a hard time denying PIC responsibility in the event of an
incident (although I never actually tested this).


Usually, I spotted it within a few seconds and just went back under
the hood.

I wouldn't care for any system that prevented me from being able to
do that.

Same here, and I've only had to help twice, but I'm glad we don't have
to completely block the left front corner of the cockpit.

Amen. I'm not sure I would fly under such circumstances... I guess it's
no different than being in the passenger cabin of a passenger jet.


On a side note, the CRM method I set it up with safety pilots and
instructors, as well as suggest when I'm acting as safety pilot, is that
the person looking will also answer the ATC traffic calls themselves.
The flying pilot will still do all the normal IFR radio stuff, but this
simplifies internal cockpit comms.

I do the same. It makes good sense.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA