Michael wrote:
And that's my point - you're either turning out a
credible instructor, or you're just preparing somoene to take the test.
If your involvement is measured in anything less than years, it's the
latter. So why worry about quality? It's either there to begin with
(meaning the candidate is already a credible teacher when you get him)
or it's not. He'll pass the test either way.
UH wrote:
The difference, in my view, is the experience needed to evaluate the
candidate and tailor the training program to the candidate's situation.
================================================== ==================
Since I am not authorized to administer initial CFI checkrides, I
cannot speak directly to how to conduct that test. I have given a lot
of thought as to the conduct of a CFI who wishes to add the Glider to
his certificate. As always, the answer is in plain sight in the
PTS--the examiner is charged with evaluating whether the applicant can
do all of the selected manuevers and give EFFECTIVE instruction,
otherwise it is a fail.

The syllabus I use in conducting CFI training is individually tailored.
I expect that an additional rating CFI would have a baseline to add to
while an initial instructor would not. In either case I spend much,
much more time on the ground discussing teaching, mentoring, evaluating
and the absolute necessity of being a positive example AT ALL TIMES.
After all, one cannot teach an intricate pre-flight inspection to a
student, then hop into a waiting ship a moment later without causing a
disconnect in the student's mind about the importance of what was just
taught.

The assertion earlier that contest or diamond badge pilots are the best
instructors would not stand the scrutiny of a visit to the local field
on a race day. In many cases the behaviors exhibited in judgement,
knowledge and temperment are polar opposites to the requirements of
good flight instruction.

Terry