"Michael" wrote in message
om...
Journeyman wrote \
Any statement that a private pilot with 1000 hours could be a good
instructor based on that qualification alone is so ridiculous I
won't
even address it, and I sincerely hope that the people on this group
are
smart enough to realize that this is pure nonsense.

I didn't make the statement

Nor did I, nor would I try to defend it. It's indefensible. In fact,
it's a perfect example of a straw man argument - change what someone
actually said to what you know you can argue with, then argue with it.
Knock down the straw man. It's used a lot because it works - all too
often, people won't take the time to notice that it's happened. It's
essentially a cheap rhetorical trick, and reflects poorly on anyone
who uses it.

I made the statement, not journeyman..... and I see no straw man
argument here. The general context of your statements was what I was
addressing, NOT your use or lack of use of the words "good" or
"competent" .

Your entire context in commenting on the CFI issue is that it's easy to
become a CFI, and that it takes no special skills, other than what can
be found in any 1000 hour pilot, which as I said, is ridiculous. There
most certainly are special skills required, or no FAA test would be
necessary for that 1000 hour pilot you're talking about.
Although you can restrict your comment to mean only the obtaining of the
rating as that pertains to passing the FAA tests as the source opinion
for your comment, I would submit that from your posts on this issue
here, and from your posts in the past that generally address your
"opinions" about instructors in general, it is quite reasonable to say
that you believe CFI's generally are of inferior quality and that you
would attribute this inferior quality at least in part to the average
CFI not owning an airplane, or partaking in long trips, which is again
ridiculous.
The qualities you would attribute to making a better instructor are not
in my opinion of prime importance to this issue, and show a certain
lacking of understanding on your part of exactly what qualities ARE
necessary in a CFI.
My comments about "good" or "competent" CFI's are just an expansion on
my own opinions on this issue, and should be in no way shape or form
misconstrued by you to be a misuse or twisting of your comments in a
straw man scenario.
Sorry, but I'm simply disagreeing with your opinions on flight
instruction as usual.
In the interest of clarity, I'm perfectly willing to deal with your
comments verbatim if you wish in the future and I'll make my expansion
comment more clear for you in the future to eliminate any
misunderstanding. :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
for email; take out the trash


What I actually said:

Becoming a CFI involves
a lot of jumping through FAA hoops, but it's certainly not difficult
or challenging. In fact, I can't say it requires acquiring any skill
or knowledge that the average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot
owner doesn't already have.

Note that I never said that "becoming a good CFI" or even "becoming a
competent CFI." Quite the opposite. And I stand by what I said -
meeting the FAA requirements to become a CFI will not require the
average 1000 hour instrument rated private pilot owner to acquire any
new skills or knowledge.

That's mostly a commentary on the sad state of affairs in instructor
certification, and a suggestion that more owners should try their hand
at instructing since the bar is set so low anyway, they can hardly do
worse than the average timebuilder and might do better.

It's safe to assume that
someone with 1000 hours of actually going places has learned
something
worth teaching to to someone who wants to use an airplane to actually
go places.

Right. This at least assures the owner-turned-CFI has SOMETHING of
value to teach. It may not be much, but it's still better than what
the average timebuilder can offer.

Michael