I have seen in one organisation instructors signing Part 3 of maintenance releases for solo pilots when they haven't even left their briefing room, let alone conducted the inspection they are signing for; now that is a time when they could find themselves in a big fat world of hurt. When I questioned this practice I was told "that signature is me authorising the student for the solo flight".. err....ok, good luck with that.
Not surprised at all, as with the other thread where a pilot who showed significant lack of knowledge of aerodynamics, especially around the stall somehow gained instructor approvals.
Wait...he had 40 hours and still not solo or able to maintain centreline??- By 17 December 2017, Mr Ripper had completed almost 40 flight hours and was able to conduct take-offs, handle flying an aircraft and was ready for solo flight.
(d) during the take-off roll, the aircraft drifted slightly, and no more than a couple of metres, to the left of the centre line of the runway
Always hard to blame the student with such limited information. I've seen students fail to progress because of poor instruction, poor personality match ups, and a few other things unrelated to the students actual potential, which is where proper supervision of instructors and student progress is required. However, if they indeed did have issues that led to such high hours then disciplined instruction is what is needed. And feeding in controls without verbal comment is definitely not what is required. Which unfortunately for the instructor/company leans to favor the student even more as they have less reason to react appropriately if already proven to have deficiencies, placing more onus on the instructor to be wary and ensure the safety of the operation.