voorheesh wrote:... If you run into an older CFI or pilot who does not like to hear this kind of input, you might be better off finding someone else to fly with.
What about younger ones? (grin)
At arms length, I must say that my earlier comments were candids... expressions of astonishment that a professional instructor of this stature would allow any lesson or demonstration deteriorate so badly and subsequently fail to take responsibility for the outcome.
Voorhees and tripslip38 have brought an aspect that I frankly had not considered in this discussion. When I fly as a CFI with a client, (who may be a student or an ATP or another CFI....or anywhere in-between) it is always discussed prior to launch WHO is ultimately responsible for the safety of flight. In the case of a qualified PIC undergoing a flight review in his owned airplane, for example, if I am the CFI administering the review....I am not the PIC, but I still bear responsibility for the safe outcome of the lesson. It is understood between us that, if at any time I observe an unsafe situaton, that I have authority/prior-permission to act to prevent danger and/or accident. (Of course, the drawback is that it also confers responsibility to me of any damage that may occur as the result of my failure to act.)
I have flown with owners in a non-instructive relationship as well, for example, when travelling to get a hamburger with an acquaintance, in which I am not acting as either CFI or pilot monitoring. I am acting as a passenger. Am I responsible if the PIC takes dangerous chances or unsafely operates the airplane? If I am sitting up front...maybe.
Accident investigations have often held the non-flying (monitoring) pilot responsible for failure to prevent an accident if that monitoring pilot were qualified and current in type. (One such report which caught me by surprise was a few years ago when a non-flying/non-instructing pilot was held mutually responsible for a gear-up landing ... even though he was not flying, and the PIC was the aircraft owner. The report held him responsible because he "knew or should have known" the gear was not down and failed to act.
If that is the standard by which pilots are to be held...then it must be a higher standard that pilots who are also instructors must hold. And that was an important element in my earlier remarks.
From the point of my profession, I agree with Voorhees analysis. From the point of sheer astonishment and disappointment in his (Sparky's) failure to take responsibility.... and from the standpoint of a mere reader, were my comments made. I have no animosity toward Sparky at all. I am fortunate that I have not (many times) ended up in the same boat. I am learning from this story. (And I'll assume responsibility if I'm ever in that boat and let a client tear up his plane.)