Things have changed since then and so should they in terms of such voluntary exposures to risk, even as light as this silly demonstration of the quality of judgement of those involved is.
Of course the risk is low as it is in most ops today and of course it was done thousands of times.
This mindset is the most upsetting thing (to me only, of course)!
How can we EVER let a student take control of an aircraft then ???
Donīt you dare and argue against that, because then you are promoting unsafe things. (In my mind, a student is more dangerous than a F-18 fighter pilot - only if the F-18 is not armed of course)
The industry's safety record is exceptional, the fatal accident rate enviably low for the very reasons that people here are wondering out loud about the dumb priorities of an organization or an individual operation that would place non-pilots, or non-endorsed pilots in the seat whether they flew X-plane or were endorsed on F-18's or whatever.
Thats bull
and judging from your posts that I have read in the past, you know it.
We in the "western world" are way to afraid, (knowadays we are afraid of being afraid) and way to much in favour of regulations these days. If you honestly think we can regulate every and anything to make things safe, then you are wrong.
If this dude is/was a fully qualified pilot, then it is COMPLETELY different than the Aeroflot story.
Btw. if a training captain in the right seat canīt do anything to keep the airplane safe, than I fail to see how supervision can be done. It must be unsafe then.
The regulations-forbid-it-brigade have got it wrong. (it might be forbidden what they did, but it isnīt in any way, shape or form dangerous)