CFI Renewals

[Richgj3]

Another thread about some DPE troubles in Alaska got off in part discussing CFI renewals. I usually renew with a weekend course or used the Gleim course during Covid and the most recent one also.

My question for the group goes like this: As far as I know there are three ways to renew.
1. A 16 hour course either in person or on line
2. Showing the FSDO 80% pass rate for at least 5 candidates (I think those numbers are right) in the past 24 months
3. Flying with a DPE essentially taking another check ride for the rating.

So the question is, how does a self employed instructor who does a lot of instruction, has renewed for years and years using method #2 and does not belong to any association of flight instructors stay up to date on changes? I know an instructor like this. Good instructor. Great pilot. Turns out safe students but recently has had some negative feed back from DPE on what we would consider “minor” stuff. For example, in a Renewal course a few years ago, FAA wanted us to emphasize intercept procedures and another time runway incursions were specifically targeted. So, this guy has no idea that those things are going to be asked to his students. Another example was he had an incorrect understanding of ADSB requirements with regard to airspace. I know, you can read all about it. But you have to be pro active. Other examples are I had to show him the FAR to convince him a Flight Review is logged as instruction and it’s not a check ride and you can’t fail it. You can fail to accomplish it satisfactorily but you can’t stop the guy from flying if his old FR hasn’t expired. Additionally, minor point again, but the one hour of oral for the FR is not required if the candidate is a current CFI.

So airplanes fly the same way they did in 1930 for the same reasons but I think it’s important for an instructor to give their students exposure to what’s different in operations in the 21st century and if you’re not aware, how can you do it? I know, this guy should be doing more reading on his own but for those few who don’t it seems their only link to keep the instructor informed is when the DPE gives them feedback. These are minor points but I do think it points out a loop hole.

I think if you go for your initial CFI-A you should be able to explain adverse yaw during the oral part. Private pilot, maybe not but CFI for sure. This guy knows it, I’m sure demonstrates it in the airplane but didn’t prep the candidate to see if he could teach what it is.

Maybe this is a unique case and it’s not worth talking about. As I said, this instructor is very good at what he does and his candidates can all handle their aircraft properly. They once in a while surprise the DPE during the oral, which I guess is better than doing during the practical test.

 

[frequent_flyer]

So the question is, how does a self employed instructor who does a lot of instruction, has renewed for years and years using method #2 and does not belong to any association of flight instructors stay up to date on changes?

Well, if the ACS is as good as FAA thinks it is, then all the instructor and applicant need to know is specified in that doument and the references that it provides.

The DPE should not be testing on anything that is not covered in the ACS.

How does any CFI, or any pilot for that matter, keep up with changes? I do, at most, two flight reviews a year and no primary or advanced instruction any more. I do try to keep up with changes because they may impact me.

Of all the sources I have for new information the on-line FIRC that I endure every two years is probably the least informative. Trouble is I'm paid up for life which makes it harder to break away and try other courses.

As an aside - how could anyone not understand adverse yaw if they had been taught the primary and secondary effects of the flight controls. I found out the answer during a flight review that I gave to a recently licensed pilot. He had never been taught primary and secondary affects so, no, he didn't understand adverse yaw. Needless to say that flight review was more than one flight and more than one hour.

 

[GreggB]

4. Add a new CFI rating
5. If you've done a bunch(5 iirc) of FRs and logged them in wings you can renew based on that.
Number 5 is spelled out in an Advisory Circular the number escapes at the moment.
As to your friend, feedback from a DPE also works. If his guys are passing he is doing fine. As bad as the writtens are they do force students to learn the FAA's current favorite hits. If the students are using a modern online groundschool or doing it with a different instructor they are also getting fresh info. It all works, none of it is perfect.

 

[Richgj3]

Some of the things that are not specifically covered in the ACS are subjective and covered in the oral. For example the ILS at our airport is notamed that the “minimums NA”. My DPE friend expects the candidate to know that when asked on the oral to brief the approach. On my CFI-I Check ride oral with the FAA I was asked to teach an NDB approach. A very “subjective” quiz.

I agree the ACS is the common document for CFI and DPE, but there are some things that either get or don’t get proper emphasis by CFI’s depending on their “currency”.

I know this is minor stuff, but I think if I were “king” I’d make abbreviated online course to go along with the FSDO renewal process.

 

[bob turner]

I try to keep up, but am not always successful. I never depend on the 16 hour courses, since I really don't have the ability to study four hours worth of materials in 16 hours. I let the thing time out, then take the quiz.

Keeping up with what the latest bullet point is tough - somebody came up with "hot spots" and it was a big deal for a while. Had no idea . . .

If I were young and wanted to instruct, I would go with a school, teach their syllabus 'till I got to 1500 hours, then off to the airlines. Not smart enough to teach ACS, so no more primary students.

 

[AKjurnees]

“So the question is, how does a self employed instructor who does a lot of instruction, has renewed for years and years using method #2 and does not belong to any association of flight instructors stay up to date on changes?”


Days on days of reading the FAA AC’s, there’s so much reading through the FAA websites, I cringe even thinking about it. They even have an option to send you new updates via email.

 

[cubdrvr]

Big difference between teaching a student to fly and flight instruction mandates from the FAA. I got my CFI in the 60's and was fortunate to have a great instructor from PVT thru CFI. I see lots of private pilots in my area that fly 10-15 hours per year, only use 5000' plus concrete, fly 10 kts faster on approach than necessary ( can't stall then), and are comfortable with that usage. They have no idea the capabilities of their aircraft. Since the beginning of my flight training stall/spin was, and still is, the leading cause of fatalities......but let's not teach stall/spin maneuvers anymore.....better to just wait for the buzzer to sound and push the nose down like you're gonna die if you don't. I don't have an answer to this other than show the student just how his aircraft performs in all attitudes.
I always required my students to demonstrate the aircraft performance at gross weight ......whole different animal. Too scary for the Feds? Too many government employees ............too little knowledge........and too much control. Just keep your paperwork in order.

 

[CubCruiser]

Let’s not confuse the FAA practical test requirements with quality flight instruction.

i still teach full stalls, turning stalls, spins and spin recovery, regardless of what they are going to be tested on a checkride and I do it with all my tailwheel students as well.

I’m amazed at the number of experienced pilots that come for tailwheel training that think the airplane will spin uncontrollably if we stall it in a turn. No conceptual understanding of coordinated flight, but they learn quickly.

Daryl

 

[BC12D-4-85]

As an older pilot-student I find the FAA's PTS, ACS, and AC's I've read so far this winter revealing. Who of my Part 91 age group (1970's) knew that's exactly how it's supposed to be done? I like many have had some valuable yet varied instruction, mainly by since retired dedicated and experience CFI and II's. There's still a few left with the gift and love of teaching. But after reading the FAA's Aviation Instructor's Handbook (3x), and several others that pertain to flying technique, I wonder what happened to Langewiesche and Kershner? And I wonder if that love of instruction or curiosity of flight will soon be replaced by committee written procedure?

Thanks to all the CFI's that are willing to share and instruct. Merry Christmas to you.

Gary

 

[Gordon Misch]

Yes, this. My initial instruction in the '70s included off-airport landings, developed spins with a turn or two, and even loops. Thank you, Steve Hewitt - you were a great instructor.

 

[RVBottomly]

Well, I'll jump in too, praising past instructors. Three turn spins in a Tomahawk were eye opening in 1978. Then I did it in Citabrias and it felt so gentle. Thanks Bob Van Der Velt.

 

[Richgj3]

My instructor in 1967 did spins, loops, barrel rolls and a split S or two in those brand new C150’s. Thank you Tom Roed. We did seven turns in a 150 one day. I think the heading indicator may still be spinning.

 

[skywagon8a]

Well, I'll jump in too, praising past instructors. Three turn spins in a Tomahawk were eye opening in 1978. Then I did it in Citabrias and it felt so gentle. Thanks Bob Van Der Velt.

I installed a set of floats on a PA-12 for one of Piper's test pilots who did the experimental flight tests on the Tomahawk. As I recall he wasn't impressed with the plane. It was too long ago for me to remember the stories except they were exciting from a test pilot's perspective.

 

[frequent_flyer]

I installed a set of floats on a PA-12 for one of Piper's test pilots who did the experimental flight tests on the Tomahawk. As I recall he wasn't impressed with the plane. It was too long ago for me to remember the stories except they were exciting from a test pilot's perspective.

Some know the PA-38 as the "Traumahawk". I only have 5 hours on type but I don't remember being traumatized.

 

[Richgj3]

Some know the PA-38 as the "Traumahawk". I only have 5 hours on type but I don't remember being traumatized.

I remember a bunch of years back some speculation that some of the PA-38 had different spin characteristics from others. At the time a story was floated suggesting the airplane(s)Piper used for certification had a difference in the internal wing structure from the production airplanes. I don’t recall if anything came of this or it was just speculation or what we call internet BS these days. The claim was the wing structure used in certification was stiffer than the one ultimately produced.

 

[skywagon8a]

I remember a bunch of years back some speculation that some of the PA-38 had different spin characteristics from others. At the time a story was floated suggesting the airplane(s)Piper used for certification had a difference in the internal wing structure from the production airplanes. I don’t recall if anything came of this or it was just speculation or what we call internet BS these days. The claim was the wing structure used in certification was stiffer than the one ultimately produced.

I seem to recall the issue did have to do with different spin characteristics. All my knowledge of the Tomahawk comes from my discussions with the test pilot. I never flew one.

 

[frequent_flyer]

"Stall/Spin Characteristics

The NASA Whitcomb GAW-1 airfoil is the driving force behind the Tomahawk’s unique to its class stall/spin characteristics. When the Tomahawk goes into a stall, it is designed so that the pilot must go through the entire textbook stall recovery procedure to get out of the stall. There are no shortcuts, and the plane is not built with self-recovery tendencies.
As you will recall, the CFIs wanted to be able to easily demonstrate spins to their students, and fortunately or unfortunately, the Tomahawk delivers on this aspect as well. The Tomahawk tends to drop a wing when it is in a stall. Add a little yaw, mishandle the ailerons, elevator, or rudder, and a spin is liable to develop.
The merits and dangers of the Tomahawk’s stall/spin characteristics are its most debated attributes."

ref - https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/piper-tomahawk-pa-38-everything-you-need-to-know

My 5 hours was in 3 different aircraft and included type checks in UK and USA. As I said I was not traumatized but I knew what a rudder was for and I enjoyed spins.

 

[mvivion]

I want to point out that there is NOTHING in the current Airman Certification Standards which prevents an instructor from demonstrating spins (assuming the training airplane is certificated for and can legally be spun with two up-don't try that in most Super Cubs), proper turning techniques, all sorts and flavors of stalls, etc, etc. The FAA is quite clear that the ACS is the bare MINIMUM standards which a private/instrument/commercial pilot must meet to be certificated. They are also quite clear that they highly recommend other types of training.

Spins: I firmly believe every pilot should be exposed to spins. That's my personal belief. That said, when the FAA removed spins from a required task for certification (except for the CFI), the stall spin accident rate decreased significantly.....we were killing quite a few people in stall/spin training accidents. So, it's hard to argue that stall/spin training is worth the risk....but....

One of the problems we have these days is that many of the practicing CFIs are building time toward a "real job", whatever that is. And, if every one of you haven't seen what the cost of training just to the Commercial standards is today, then it's totally understandable why you don't understand where we're at. Flight training is EXPENSIVE today, vastly more expensive than it was when I learned to fly. As in "holy sh*t" more expensive. And, by the way, flight instructor pay is waaaaay less than a barista at Starbucks makes. Go figure. So, how about jumping in here, all you folks reminiscing about "crusty old CFI's" back in the day.

By the way, the minimum to complete a Private Pilot Certificate is still 40 hours of flight time, just like it was when I learned to fly 52 years ago. Same amount of required time, but consider what's changed: Avionics, airspace, regulations, aircraft systems, etc, etc all have become much more complex for most students. So, do most finish in 40 hours? Probably not-it happens, but.

So, VERY expensive to train in today's world, and quite a bit of knowledge required besides the basic skills. Is it a wonder that we're turning out minimally prepared pilots?

And, finally: All you guys reminiscing about those "crusty old timers" we all learned so much from (and I do, regularly, it's a blessing), why aren't YOU one of those crusty old CFIs out there helping THIS generation of aspiring aviators to learn to fly BETTER? All you have to do is sign up for a CFI course, complete that, and saddle up.....lots of young pilots out there need their own generation of "crusty old CFIs".

Not interested in doing that? I kinda understand, so the other alternative is help some young aspiring aviator out financially, with $$$. Today's students rely heavily on loans and scholarships. Montana Pilots Association is awarding THREE $4000 flight training scholarships in a couple of months, and will do the same next year. AOPA offers even larger flight training scholarships. Where does that money come from? Donations. So, if you don't want to mentor a young pilot, find a local or national program that offers flight training scholarships, and donate as much as you're comfortable with.

We're not creating lazy pilots these days....there are a lot of good reasons some of these folks aren't getting the gold plated training they'd like to get.

Sermon over....back to whining about CFI refreshers.

MTV

 

[CubCruiser]

Avionics, airspace, regulations, aircraft systems, etc, etc all have become much more complex for most students. So, do most finish in 40 hours?

All of these can and should be learned on the Ground. They shouldn't effect flight time, other than perhaps a small amount . The problem is, logging ground time given doesn't get the CFI closer to 1500 hours so they waste "flight time" teaching this stuff when perfectly good ground trainers exist.

Every day I watch a local flight school start up 172's and sit in the tiedown for 10-15 minutes letting it warm up (here in Florida) when it could be warming up taxiing to the runway. They charge (and log) these kids for that time.

I routinely receive tailwheel students from a nearby Aviation University, some with decent stick and rudder skills, but few with aeronautical decision making prowess. A young man came to me recently and as we were talking after his flight, stated that during private, instrument, and commercial, he logged 63 hours of taxi time because his flight block ran out while waiting to depart an overcrowded schedule that the flight school set. This isn't making better pilots and it sure costs students a lot of money.

There's no excuse for student at a university studying aviation and taking ground school courses that is flying 3-4 times a weeks not finishing Private in less than 50 hours. The system is broken.

Daryl

 

[DENNY]

Daryl
I flew with a younger CFI recently and he told the same story. The flight school only paid the CFI for tack time so the first thing they did after a quick walk around is hop in the plane and start the engine. Then sit and discuss the plan for the days training while the plane warmed up for 15 min. the student got stuck paying a lot more for training just to talk in a plane sitting on the tarmac. This was done with a plane that just landed on a 80 degree day. If you don't have a sim with all the fancy stuff to play with it is hard to get the muscle memory and sequence in place to make the glass stuff work. PPL training should be mostly about flying, some engine care and feeding, in a basic aircraft. Save the high tech stuff for down the road.
DENNY

 

[frequent_flyer]

PPL training should be mostly about flying, some engine care and feeding, in a basic aircraft. Save the high tech stuff for down the road.

That would require having one fleet for private training and another fleet for commercial training. Remember that fixed gear and fixed prop is now acceptable for commercial training if aircraft meets TAA requirements. One fixed gear fleet with modern avionics meets requirements for private and commercial training.

ref 14 CFR 61.129 (j)

 

[CubCruiser]

Daryl
I flew with a younger CFI recently and he told the same story. The flight school only paid the CFI for tack time so the first thing they did after a quick walk around is hop in the plane and start the engine. Then sit and discuss the plan for the days training while the plane warmed up for 15 min. the student got stuck paying a lot more for training just to talk in a plane sitting on the tarmac. This was done with a plane that just landed on a 80 degree day. If you don't have a sim with all the fancy stuff to play with it is hard to get the muscle memory and sequence in place to make the glass stuff work. PPL training should be mostly about flying, some engine care and feeding, in a basic aircraft. Save the high tech stuff for down the road.
DENNY

I believe that is a major problem. These schools are integrating the entire curriculum into airline pilot training, rather than teaching each certificate to its intended outcome. A student that withdrawals from the flight program after receiving their Private should be able to function as a Private Pilot, yet they cannot because they didn’t receive the necessary experience from a CFI allowing them more and more responsibility.

I constantly hear instructors keying the mic and taking over when their student makes a minor mistake or omission. If it’s not time-critical, give them some aural feedback and let them try again. I can only imagine how “handsy” they are on the flight controls.

I spent a brief period working at an aviation university and trying to oversee their contracted flight school. They chose to combine Private and Instrument into one certificate and train ab initio in a Cirrus. It was common for a student to have 60+ hours and be able to shoot an ILS to minimums but they couldn’t land the airplane without assistance. Hard to explain to a parent that their child needs more than $40k to continue flight training and hasn’t soloed. They did separate the two certificates, but not after screwing a bunch of kids/parents out of a boat load of money. Leaving that position was more liberating than getting evacuated out of the Gulf War in a Blackhawk.

I enjoy being a full-time instructor working for myself. I set the standards and enjoy the results.

Daryl

 

[mvivion]

Daryl
I flew with a younger CFI recently and he told the same story. The flight school only paid the CFI for tack time so the first thing they did after a quick walk around is hop in the plane and start the engine. Then sit and discuss the plan for the days training while the plane warmed up for 15 min. the student got stuck paying a lot more for training just to talk in a plane sitting on the tarmac. This was done with a plane that just landed on a 80 degree day. If you don't have a sim with all the fancy stuff to play with it is hard to get the muscle memory and sequence in place to make the glass stuff work. PPL training should be mostly about flying, some engine care and feeding, in a basic aircraft. Save the high tech stuff for down the road.
DENNY

I hate to break this to you, but try to find a trainer these days that doesn’t have a glass panel. And, as Frequent posted, a school can’t afford one fleet, let alone two.

If schools are in fact padding times with taxi, intentionally, they should be shut down. That is bs. That said, at my local airport the other day, I waited 20 minutes after landing for clearance to my hangar, which is close. Risk averse controllers and busy traffic sucks. And there are two busy training operations here.

But, you probably won’t pay the bills with a school out in the pucker brush. For those criticizing here, my suggestion is to try actually running a primary through commercial training operation. I have, and it is indeed an eye opener. We had a strict policy that students HAD to come to a flight lesson prepared, meaning familiar with that lesson, up to speed on policy and homework complete. If a student failed in any of those categories, the flight lesson turned into a ground lesson, and the student was billed the instructors rate. That happened fairly often, usually till those students dropped out.

The problem there is, the school is paying for airplanes, and if those planes aren’t running, they’re not making money. A LOT of flight schools with great intentions have gone broke.

But, I told students that they had signed a contract with the school. Our obligation was to provide training. Their obligation was to show up, prepared!

I also initiated a “rule” at that program: If I heard an instructors voice on frequency, that CFI and I were going to have a sit down. Communicating is a vital part of learning to fly, and every time an instructor jumps on the radio the student isn’t learning. You HAVE to let them make errors. If it gets western, jump in and fix it with ATC, then shut up. We provided links to live ATC and several comm training programs.

It’s a tough business. We had a pretty decent lease arrangement for airplanes, but I feel for schools nowadays, seeing the prices of aircraft.

MTV

 

[cubdrvr]

Big flight schools create a monster they have to feed........hence the above posts. These schools, I think, teach for the airlines........not so much for the ranchers in the midwest that don't need licenses or medicals
My recommendation to a number of wannabe pilots was to find one or two more that want to learn and buy an old 150/172 ( not priced as reasonable today). Upon completion
aircraft can be sold or kept. Kept prices down.
There are no glass panel trainers in our area. I doubt I could learn them........or want to. I've retired to VFR and my old cub.......and no ADS-B airspace......yet.

 

[BC12D-4-85]

I try to read this daily incident/accident frequently> https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:93:::NO:::

I wonder if the source of these reports is a lack of sufficient or proper CFI training, or just the nature of flying? How much worse would it be without PTS/ACS? We can only train away so many of these human behavior or mechanical issues. If the skill level of road ragers or distracted drivers is any indication, some (actually most) should not be driving airplanes. No doubt the cost or time to learn is one filter.

Gary

 

[mvivion]

Big flight schools create a monster they have to feed........hence the above posts. These schools, I think, teach for the airlines........not so much for the ranchers in the midwest that don't need licenses or medicals
My recommendation to a number of wannabe pilots was to find one or two more that want to learn and buy an old 150/172 ( not priced as reasonable today). Upon completion
aircraft can be sold or kept. Kept prices down.
There are no glass panel trainers in our area. I doubt I could learn them........or want to. I've retired to VFR and my old cub.......and no ADS-B airspace......yet.

Shoot, Dave, you might be surprised. First time I flew a G-1000 I was blown away. With some practice on Garmin’s on line simulator, It occurred to me even I could fly IFR.

MTV

 

[bob turner]

Plus 1 to all that.

You do mean Hobbs time, while sitting there? Whatever they teach, it is apparently being taken seriously - I have timed 172s in my alley for ten minutes between engine start to brake release, and one particularly noisy Garret-powered Cessna twin started both engines, and a quarter hour later, still with brakes set, he called for an IFR clearance.

Today my big beef is 172 short approaches - the flight school is apparently teaching that you must request one if you plan on a base leg only one mile from the threshold - and readbacks:

"Actually looking for that traffic!" Or worse - "Cessna 1234, cleared for touch and go number two behind he King Air on one and a half mile right base, caution wake turbulence, Cessna 1234."