Good Instructors...

In article k.net, Dudley Henriques wrote:

First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an airplane
that makes one better or not better qualified as an
instructor....absolutely nothing.

There are things you learn about flying by going places that you don't
learn sitting in the training environment. None of it's on the PTS,
but it's vital information if you're going to fly out beyond hectobuck-
burger range. This is objective truth.

If you don't fly long trips, you just won't know what you're missing.
As a renter pilot, such trips are inaccessible or prohibitive. As
graduate student, er, instructor, most "timebuilders" just won't have
the money to pay for this kind of training, and it doesn't advance
their careers.


Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation
who have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the finest
CFI's I've ever known in professional aviation.

I'm sure you have. But you can be an expert in something specialized
and less than completely knowledgable in something related.

Pick an example. Say an instructor chose to specialize in primary
training. Such an instructor would probably be a bad choice to go
with for instrument training.


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, so I don't have to defend it, but it's
not _pure_ nonsense. Rather, it's mildly impure nonsense. IOW,
there is a grain of something useful there. 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. Whether that alone makes them competent at teaching is
another thing entirely.


All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the
minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about

You can pretty much generalize that to any area of teaching.


The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us as
long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system that
requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger and
better things. There's a pertinent point that should be made about this.
Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a specific CFI as
being on the negative side of the quality equation! This is important to

Absolutely. I've met more conscientious and less conscientious
instructors, but I've generally been lucky with the ones I've had.
You don't need kilo-hours and kilo-mile trips to be a good instructor
for primary training (to pick a random example). And a good primary
instructor doesn't need to be a good instrument instructor.


Morris

I am an instructor, and I have flown long trips for personal business.
But I fail to see how those long trips are an essential experience for
instructing. It makes a good hangar story, and it may impress an
uninformed student. In my opinion, critical examination of the issues
(like the discussions taking place in this NG) to be far more valuable
for the experience and knowledge of an instructor. However, you have a
valid point about things that are not in the PTS. This is particularly
true for the IFR environment. There are many unwritten rules of IFR that
you only learn by flying in the system. But it is not difficult to
incorporate those elements into the standard IFR training. You don't
have to embark on a 1000NM trip. ATC works the same way whether it is
Cleveland Center or Albuquerque Center. Tracon works the same way
everywhere. FSS works the same way. FAR's are the same. Except for
weather and regional accents, what else is so different that is critical
to the experience of an IFR pilot? Please explain.





Journeyman wrote in
:


In article k.net,
Dudley Henriques wrote:

First of all, there is absolutely nothing involved in owning an
airplane that makes one better or not better qualified as an
instructor....absolutely nothing.

There are things you learn about flying by going places that you don't
learn sitting in the training environment. None of it's on the PTS,
but it's vital information if you're going to fly out beyond
hectobuck- burger range. This is objective truth.

If you don't fly long trips, you just won't know what you're missing.
As a renter pilot, such trips are inaccessible or prohibitive. As
graduate student, er, instructor, most "timebuilders" just won't have
the money to pay for this kind of training, and it doesn't advance
their careers.


Secondly, I have known many instructors through my career in aviation
who have done nothing but teach who are in my opinion among the
finest CFI's I've ever known in professional aviation.

I'm sure you have. But you can be an expert in something specialized
and less than completely knowledgable in something related.

Pick an example. Say an instructor chose to specialize in primary
training. Such an instructor would probably be a bad choice to go
with for instrument training.


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, so I don't have to defend it, but it's
not _pure_ nonsense. Rather, it's mildly impure nonsense. IOW,
there is a grain of something useful there. 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. Whether that alone makes them competent at teaching is
another thing entirely.


All this being said, really good instructors are unfortunately the
minority in the CFI community, but pilots who generalize about

You can pretty much generalize that to any area of teaching.


The time builders have always been with us and always will be with us
as long as giving dual is the cheap path to a building block system
that requires the time being spent in the air to qualify for bigger
and better things. There's a pertinent point that should be made
about this. Being a time builder doesn't necessarily disqualify a
specific CFI as being on the negative side of the quality equation!
This is important to

Absolutely. I've met more conscientious and less conscientious
instructors, but I've generally been lucky with the ones I've had.
You don't need kilo-hours and kilo-mile trips to be a good instructor
for primary training (to pick a random example). And a good primary
instructor doesn't need to be a good instrument instructor.


Morris

Andrew Sarangan wrote
Except for weather

Yes, except for weather. But you know, except for weather, effective
and complete pilot training could be done in about 40 hours. Except
for weather, there would never be a need to get an instrument rating.
Except for weather, all trips could be planned in detail before
leaving. Except for weather, you could plan your flight and fly your
plan with complete confidence.

Are there other factors?

Terrain? Would not be a factor except for winds and temperature
(weather).
Traffic congestion? Could be planned for perfectly, if weather was
fully predictable.

In reality, weather is probably the biggest issue in light airplane
flying.

The longer the trip, the lower the probability of completing it
without encountering questionable weather. You can wait out the
weather on a 200 mile trip; on a 2000 mile trip you're going to have
to fly in it. That requires a higher level of skill and (if you're
dealing with any sort of time constraint) judgment. Of course there
are always exceptions - you can fly a Champ around the country,
landing in every state, and never fly in any questionable weather. In
fact, you can do the flight entirely in sunshine. It will take
months.

Weather is different in different parts of the country, but the basic
principles of mechanics and thermodynamics that underlie it are the
same everywhere. If you always fly in the same area, you learn the
specifics of that one area, and you can do that without a solid
understanding of the mechanism. You can learn by rote - red sky in
morning, sailor take warning. If you cross weather systems, you have
to learn weather at a deeper, more fundamental level - or get stuck a
lot.

Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with your other points
either. ATC is not the same everywhere. You can fly on the Gulf
Coast for years without getting a reroute in the air. On the East
Coast, I've never managed an IFR flight of more than 200 miles without
a reroute. That may well reflect my limited understanding of the
system - perhaps other people can do better - but that's only further
proof that making more long trips makes a difference.

Then there are the factors that you supposedly know about. We all
learn about density altitude and doing full-power runups, but it's a
very different experience when you take off and your rate of climb is
200 fpm. Especially when there is thermal activity. You can read
about it in a book, but it's not the same as actually being there. If
it were, experience would not count.

On a long trip, you go places that not only have you never visited,
but nobody you know has actually visited. You have to learn to handle
surprises - like that beacon that got moved half a mile, to the other
side of the runway, that all the locals know about, but which is still
depicted in the old location on the approach plate. Makes shooting an
NDB approach to mins at night a real treat.

Long trips are concentrated experience. There really is more to it
than a series of short local trips. I find it amazing that someone
who has actually done a lot of long trips would not see that.

Michael

I agree with you about having to face weather changes on a long xc
flight. But the orginal poster implied that there were many factors that
were different about long trips. That is what I was questioning. Also,
just because someone flies short trips does not mean that person always
flies in good weather. You don't have to go on a long trip to see how
weather changes. If you wait long enough, that same weather system will
move towards you. You can trade time for space. I know what you are
thinking - the pressure to continue in deteriorating weather is greater
when you are on a trip. I agree with that. But that is a judgement
issue. You don't have to send someone on a 2000NM trip to learn a
judgement skill that they could learn at home. Weather is meant to be
learned at home, not in the air. You don't have to fly into a
thunderstorm or icing to know that it is not a good idea.

OK, so what's the big deal about reroutes? We get them here quite often.
As a matter of fact, just got one today on a training flight. We get a
reroute even during a 150NM trip. If a student does not know how to
handle reroutes, that is a weakness in his training. I agree that you
are more likely to encounter a reroute on a long trip. But you can do
the same on a short trip. Just file an impossible route. If you are
lucky, you will get a reroute before departure. If you are not lucky,
you will get rerouted in the air. There are also strategies that one can
use to avoid reroutes, even in unfamiliar areas. That is a different
subject matter that I will be happy to discuss. You don't have to go on
a super-long trip to experience reroutes.

Regarding density altitude that I 'supposedly know about' (please, you
don't know what I supposedly know), I have lived in the Rockies, and
have given mountain flight training, and I have taught IFR in the
mountains. I know very well what density altitude does. I really doubt
that a transient pilot on a long cross country will learn enough about
density altitude effects to make him experienced. Most transient pilots
do not go into airports that really require intimate knowledge of
density altitudes. Most runways are long enough for this to be a non-
issue. Have you flown into Leadville? It is the highest airport in the
US, but it is really not a big deal due to the long runway there. Then
try Glenwood Springs. That is serious. Most transient pilots don't go
there. They land at places like Santa Fe and Colorado Springs, where
they can get away with little knowledge of density altitude. The
textbook knowledge is enough to survive there. I don't see what is so
profound about landing at those places. Living in the mountains and
flying there is what gets you the experience. But that involves short
trips, not long trips. That is ironic. Most of the pilots who get killed
in Colorado are from other states. Most airplanes laying at the bottom
of Independence Pass are from out of state.

I'll show my ignorance here, but if an NDB has moved by half a mile,
would there not be a NOTAM amending the approach chart?

I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I realize the value of
long trips. I have done many myself. I just don't see what is so
profound that makes them so important for IFR experience. If you are
encountering new stuff on a long trip that you have never encountered
before, then you missed out some things in your training. But I do agree
with you that the PTS leaves a student far short of real IFR knowledge.
The CFI-mills that produce instructors that barely satisfy the PTS is
where the problem lies. I think we agree on that. Where we disagree is
that a pilot who has made many long trips is necessarily any skillful
than someone who has received a _well-rounded_ training in a local
environment.





(Michael) wrote in
om:

Andrew Sarangan wrote
Except for weather

Yes, except for weather. But you know, except for weather, effective
and complete pilot training could be done in about 40 hours. Except
for weather, there would never be a need to get an instrument rating.
Except for weather, all trips could be planned in detail before
leaving. Except for weather, you could plan your flight and fly your
plan with complete confidence.

Are there other factors?

Terrain? Would not be a factor except for winds and temperature
(weather).
Traffic congestion? Could be planned for perfectly, if weather was
fully predictable.

In reality, weather is probably the biggest issue in light airplane
flying.

The longer the trip, the lower the probability of completing it
without encountering questionable weather. You can wait out the
weather on a 200 mile trip; on a 2000 mile trip you're going to have
to fly in it. That requires a higher level of skill and (if you're
dealing with any sort of time constraint) judgment. Of course there
are always exceptions - you can fly a Champ around the country,
landing in every state, and never fly in any questionable weather. In
fact, you can do the flight entirely in sunshine. It will take
months.

Weather is different in different parts of the country, but the basic
principles of mechanics and thermodynamics that underlie it are the
same everywhere. If you always fly in the same area, you learn the
specifics of that one area, and you can do that without a solid
understanding of the mechanism. You can learn by rote - red sky in
morning, sailor take warning. If you cross weather systems, you have
to learn weather at a deeper, more fundamental level - or get stuck a
lot.

Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with your other points
either. ATC is not the same everywhere. You can fly on the Gulf
Coast for years without getting a reroute in the air. On the East
Coast, I've never managed an IFR flight of more than 200 miles without
a reroute. That may well reflect my limited understanding of the
system - perhaps other people can do better - but that's only further
proof that making more long trips makes a difference.

Then there are the factors that you supposedly know about. We all
learn about density altitude and doing full-power runups, but it's a
very different experience when you take off and your rate of climb is
200 fpm. Especially when there is thermal activity. You can read
about it in a book, but it's not the same as actually being there. If
it were, experience would not count.

On a long trip, you go places that not only have you never visited,
but nobody you know has actually visited. You have to learn to handle
surprises - like that beacon that got moved half a mile, to the other
side of the runway, that all the locals know about, but which is still
depicted in the old location on the approach plate. Makes shooting an
NDB approach to mins at night a real treat.

Long trips are concentrated experience. There really is more to it
than a series of short local trips. I find it amazing that someone
who has actually done a lot of long trips would not see that.

Michael

Andrew Sarangan wrote
I agree with you about having to face weather changes on a long xc
flight. But the orginal poster implied that there were many factors that
were different about long trips.

And I think most of them relate to weather in the end.

I know what you are
thinking - the pressure to continue in deteriorating weather is greater
when you are on a trip. I agree with that. But that is a judgement
issue. You don't have to send someone on a 2000NM trip to learn a
judgement skill that they could learn at home.

Here I think we fundamentally disagree. No judgment can be learned in
the training environment, because nothing is at stake. Tomorrow is as
good as today, West is as good as North. When you actually need to be
somewhere specific at a specific time, then judgment comes into play.

However, on a short trip it's relatively simple - planning around the
weather is not generally possible (or at least not worth it - who will
take a 300 mile detour on a 100 mile trip?). On a long trip, a 300
mile detour may not add all that much. The decision matrix becomes
far more complex.

Weather is meant to be
learned at home, not in the air. You don't have to fly into a
thunderstorm or icing to know that it is not a good idea.

Well, you really do have to fly in icing to know what is acceptable.
Otherwise, your only option is to stay out of cloud every time the
temperatures are below freezing - making the instrument rating useless
in half the country for half the year. I will be the first to admit
that this is where my IFR skills are weakest - not much icing on the
Gulf Coast.

And you really do have to fly near (not in) thunderstorms to figure
out what is acceptable. Otherwise your only option is to maintain the
20 (or is it 30 now?) nm from each cell that the AIM calls for, and
that means you won't be doing much flying here on the Gulf Coast.

There is a limit to what you can teach on the ground - eventually you
have to fly. Experience matters.

OK, so what's the big deal about reroutes? We get them here quite often.

And we don't get them here much at all. And yes, you CAN train for it
here - but not the way you suggest. Forget filing an impossible route
- around here, there's no such thing. You will have to play ATC for
the student. Now, once the weather gets really ugly you will get
reroutes - but we just don't have that much of it. I've been flying
IFR for 4 years, I've been instructing, and I've made it a point to
get all the actual IMC that I can - and I still have not broken 100
hours. I make every effort to get my students actual IMC, and 3-5
hours is all I can manage. That means that if I want to really
prepare them for what happens when they leave the nest, I have to get
good at simulating. You need to see it a few times before you
simulate it.

Regarding density altitude that I 'supposedly know about' (please, you
don't know what I supposedly know), I have lived in the Rockies, and
have given mountain flight training, and I have taught IFR in the
mountains. I know very well what density altitude does. I really doubt
that a transient pilot on a long cross country will learn enough about
density altitude effects to make him experienced.

He will learn a whole lot more than if he never goes. Sure, you know
about density altitude - because you live with it. If you don't get
intimate with it, it will severely limit the utility of your flying.
Same for me and thunderstorms. Same for ice and the guys in the Great
Lakes Ice Machine. My point is not that you can get it all in one
trip, but that you will learn a whole lot more if you go than if you
don't.

Most transient pilots
do not go into airports that really require intimate knowledge of
density altitudes. Most runways are long enough for this to be a non-
issue. Have you flown into Leadville? It is the highest airport in the
US, but it is really not a big deal due to the long runway there. Then
try Glenwood Springs. That is serious. Most transient pilots don't go
there. They land at places like Santa Fe and Colorado Springs, where
they can get away with little knowledge of density altitude. The
textbook knowledge is enough to survive there.

The part you're missing though, is that while the textbook knowledge
is enough to survive, it's not enough to really be comfortable. You
don't start with the tough fields. All I can tell you is that I could
compute density altitude and takeoff and climb performance with the
best of them when I first took off out of West Texas, but the
experience of the first five minutes of that flight was a real
eye-opener. The textbook knowledge was enough for me to survive - and
accumulate additional knowledge.

I'll show my ignorance here, but if an NDB has moved by half a mile,
would there not be a NOTAM amending the approach chart?

It wasn't the NDB, it was the airport rotating beacon. And no, the
change was NOT recorded anywhere, though the locals all knew about it.
What made the process fascinating was breaking out, finding the
beacon, and then looking for the runway - in the wrong place. The
beacon had been moved to the opposite side of the runway. On a clear
day, not an issue. At night in limited vis - well, I almost went
missed due to not finding the runway.

I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I realize the value of
long trips. I have done many myself. I just don't see what is so
profound that makes them so important for IFR experience.

I guess I'm missing something. If you realize their value, then why
are you arguing against their value?

If you are
encountering new stuff on a long trip that you have never encountered
before, then you missed out some things in your training.

Absolutely. The problem is, there is so much to learn, EVERYONE
misses out on some things in training. My goal in training a student,
expecially an IFR student (and I admit that IFR training is most of
the instruction I do - call it playing to your strengths) is to give
him better training than what I had, and fewer surprises down the
road. I suppose if I ever get to the point where I know ALL there is
to know and good enough to get it all across, then I will train a
student who doesn't need to go on any long trips to learn anything.
But I'm not hopeful.

But I do agree
with you that the PTS leaves a student far short of real IFR knowledge.
The CFI-mills that produce instructors that barely satisfy the PTS is
where the problem lies. I think we agree on that. Where we disagree is
that a pilot who has made many long trips is necessarily any skillful
than someone who has received a _well-rounded_ training in a local
environment.

I suppose that could be true in theory. I just think in this case the
difference between theory and practice is a lot greater in practice
than it is in theory.

But you're right - I'm starting from a somewhat different assumption.
I know that most people DON'T get solid, well rounded training in the
local environment. Those who make long trips on a regular basis get
the holes filled in. However, as you pointed out with your remark
about the airplanes at the bottom of the canyon from out of state,
that's if they survive. It's possible that someone who has never made
a long trip still has the depth and breadth of knowledge to instruct
because HIS initial training was solid - but given the quality of
training that is generally available out there, it's not the way to
bet.

And even if that is the case, there is still a difference between
knowing about it and having done it. There are IFR pilots out there
who have significantly less intrument experience than I do who
nonetheless are much more able to handle IFR in potential icing
conditions - because MOST of their IFR time is in icing conditions,
while you can count my experiences with icing conditions on the
fingers of one hand. On paper, though, we know all the same things.

Finally, there is a difference in depth of knowledge required to teach
a thing or just do it. I've done aerobatics. I can do it. I won't
teach it, because I haven't done it enough.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

Here I think we fundamentally disagree. No judgment can be learned in
the training environment, because nothing is at stake.

I have extreme difficulty believing that anyone who actually does flight
instruction could seriously say such a thing.

"C J Campbell" writes:

"Michael" wrote:
Here I think we fundamentally disagree. No judgment can be learned in
the training environment, because nothing is at stake.

I have extreme difficulty believing that anyone who actually does flight
instruction could seriously say such a thing.

And yet there you have it. Michael uses an assertive style of making
pronouncements that assumes an audience open-minded enough not to
interpret them at their most straw-man shallow.

The underlying point is of course something like this: when one is
training, one's instructor or one's flight school sets many rules
associated with e.g. weather. These rules, along with the presence
of an instructor giving dual, conspire to provide such a margin of
comfort that the student does not have to think that hard about
go/no-go. She knows she will be overruled if the margin is being
eaten into. Thus, a sense of responsibility for judgement in the
student is not as well developed during training as afterward, when
she actually makes binding unsupervised decisions, and has to live
with the consequences.

- FChE

In article , Andrew Sarangan wrote:
I am an instructor, and I have flown long trips for personal business.
But I fail to see how those long trips are an essential experience for
instructing. It makes a good hangar story, and it may impress an
uninformed student. In my opinion, critical examination of the issues
(like the discussions taking place in this NG) to be far more valuable
for the experience and knowledge of an instructor. However, you have a
valid point about things that are not in the PTS. This is particularly
true for the IFR environment. There are many unwritten rules of IFR that
you only learn by flying in the system. But it is not difficult to
incorporate those elements into the standard IFR training. You don't
have to embark on a 1000NM trip. ATC works the same way whether it is
Cleveland Center or Albuquerque Center. Tracon works the same way
everywhere. FSS works the same way. FAR's are the same. Except for
weather and regional accents, what else is so different that is critical
to the experience of an IFR pilot? Please explain.


Leaving out weather? Weather's the biggest part of it. I was
sitting in the FBO at South Bend, IN this summer looking at the
radar, watching a line of thunderstorms develop outside my
destination at Iowa City, IA (Hi, Jay). Looked to me like I could
go South around it and then come back North. I asked a local pilot
who was sitting around updating his Jepp plates. He says, look at
the way it's curling, it's probably going to continue forming along
this curve. Why don't you go to Peoria and get an update there.

Did that. Landed short of the storms, with options to call it a
day or wait it out before continuing on. Looked at the radar.
It formed exactly the way he said it would.

Experiencing the different weather patterns gives you a chance to
improve your decision making. Do you rush to beat the weather?
Wait it out to see how things develop? Divert North? Divert South?
Backtrack? Fly over the highway, or across the mountains? Climb
above the clouds or run the scud? Fly direct or along the airways?


Aside from weather, there are other things you learn going beyond
hectobuck-burger range. Knowing to keep a roll of quarters in case
lunch is whatever you can get out of the vending machine; knowing to
keep enough cash on hand so you can pay the friendly mechanic who
saves your butt when the alternator fries itself. Knowing that an
unbusy midwest controller might forget about you and knowing what to
do when you've gone out of radio range. Knowing that this particular
IFR route takes you mostly over a highway but that one takes you over
hostile terrain, but the weather is better. Knowing when to land at
a smaller airport and when to land at a larger one. Knowing when to
call it a day and when to push it.

Besides, ATC is different around the country. Around here, they're
busy so you have to be crisp with your radio work, and don't even
hope for a pop-up clearance. Around the Midwest, they may be so
bored they forget to hand you off. In the Pacific Northwest during
icing season you have to know you can request "shuttle vectors" to
climb over the low terrain before proceeding on course over hostile
terrain.

I had my first inflight rerouting flying from ORF to HPN when I
bought the plane. I filed a route that took me over JFK. I was
cleared as filed. About halfway there, the controller gives a
bunch of fixes and airways that take me in a neat arc around
The City. Okay, you do your diversion exercise for the private,
but by the time you do it, you already know the area you're
flying in. It's just _different_ when you have to do it IRL.


Talking about these things is never going to be the same as
experiencing them. But talking with someone who has experienced
it is more valuable than talking with someone who only has book
knowledge.


Morris

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.

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

"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