![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There is a world of difference
between the normal primary/advanced instuction most CFIG's do and preparing a candidate for CFIG. That's awfully self-congratulatory. Also not true. Preparing a candidate for the CFIG is really quite easy. I know at least a couple of CFIG's who prepared students for the CFIG in just a few flights and had the students breeze right through the checkride - when in every case both student and instructor had less than 100 hours in gliders and minimal (in one case NO) XC experience. And in one case I was the student, and in another the instructor. The CFIG is a very easy ticket to get. Don't pretend it's some major achievement - it's not. It's significantly less of an achievement (in terms of required effort, preparation, and skill) than the silver distance. Of course there is a big difference between simply being a CFIG and being a good teacher of soaring. The latter requires you to be both a good soaring pilot and a good teacher. Such individuals are very rare. I have no idea how you would go about creating one intentionally. I am quite certain you're not going to do it quickly. It takes years to become a good teacher. It also takes years to become a good soaring pilot. Neither process can be effectively rushed. But if you just need a CFIG, all you need is another CFIG, a tow plane and tow pilot, a two seat glider, and a pilot with a couple hundred hours (of which only a couple dozen need be in gliders). It will take a couple of weekends at most, and that's if your glider pilot lacks a commercial glider ticket. The most difficult and time-consuming part will be getting a glider-qualified FAA inspector to fly with the guy if he isn't already a power CFI. I agree it is much easier to teach a good instructor soaring than it is to teach a good soaring pilot instructing. I think that's a fairly meaningless statement. The skill sets required of a good instructor are very different from those required of a good soaring pilot, and different people learn different things at different rates. Everything depends on what you consider an adequate minimum standard. If you decide that a glider instructor needs to be a spectacular teacher but can be an indifferent soaring pilot, then of course you are right. On the other hand, if you consider the FAA standard (passing the required tests) an adequate test of teaching ability, but would expect the instructor to have demonstrated at least the minimum competence in soaring that the silver distance represents, you are certainly wrong. It would take a lot less time and effort to teach an experienced glider pilot to effortlessly pass a CFIG ride than it would take to teach an experienced power CFI to safely fly his silver distance. All this said, In my experience, the very best way is to have the CFIG candidate spend the required time with a person like Burt, or Terry, or other who does many CFIG ratings and has a good syllabus for this program. It will be accomplished in a fraction of the time Compared to what? If you're comparing to what typically happens at a club, I agree with you. I worked on my commercial (never mind CFIG) for months at my club. Never really made any progress. Some of the instructors were excellent, some were marginal, but the worst part was no two were in agreement on what I needed to do and there was no continuity to my training. Eventually I gave up, went to a commercial operation - and in one day I was ready. After I took my commercial, I went straight to my CFIG - and that was also done in one day. This was at a local commercial operation, with an instructor who had less than 50 hours in gliders and had never flown XC. to a high standard A high standard of what? Instructional ability? You're not going to develop that in days or even weeks. Soaring ability? Same problem. The truth is, any sort of offsite, intensive course can only be effective at teaching maneuvers - not the 'soft' skills that separate a good teacher from someone going through the motions or the air awareness that allows a seasoned XC pilot to do 200km while the novice counts himself lucky to have done 50. Sadly, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of places where this can be done here in the US. I don't see why it's sad. I don't really see the demand either. Most people have very limited vacation time in the US - such a course would need to be fairly short (no more than two weeks at the very, very most - and really it needs to be one week for broad appeal) and with that limitation, it's not really possible to do anything more than preparation for the test. Since the test is very easy, there's no great reason to prepare with a specialist. The shortage of CFIG's that all clubs seem to experience has nothing to do with the difficulty of becoming one, and everything to do with the fact that it's just not an attractive proposition. Everyone always points to the huge numbers of CFI's in power, but that's not at all the same thing. If it were not for the kids who need to build time to go to the airlines, there would be a shortage of power CFI's as well. It's hard work, takes a lot of time, pays little, and is a liability headache. Only those of us who truly love to teach will do it all. There's precious little a club can offer as incentive, and thus it never ceases to amaze me how many clubs actually offer huge disincentives (more duty days than others, requirement to fly with anyone who asks, etc.). Michael |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'd be interested to have Terry or Burt, or other long time instructors
weigh in on your opinions. Having done this many times, I can not imagine how you can properly prepare a candidate for instructing( notice I did not say passing the practical test) in the time you describe. The difference, in my view, is the experience needed to evaluate the candidate and tailor the training program to the candidate's situation. As to the attractivness of the instructing situation, those that do it get rewards that might mean little to some folks but are big to some of us. Examples- the look on a 14 year olds face after first solo, the call that your student just won his or her first race, the call that "I just made captain at my airline, I just got my CFIG, I just got into the Air Force, I just did my Silver, Gold, Diamond. I thought it was abig deal 32 years ago and still think it is today. Sorry to be excessively self congratulatory, intent was to provide background of experience to support my opinions. UH |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jun 10, 8:57 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring From: - Find messages by this author Date: 10 Jun 2005 05:57:35 -0700 Local: Fri,Jun 10 2005 8:57 am Subject: Looking for a CFIG Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse I'd be interested to have Terry or Burt, or other long time instructors weigh in on your opinions. Having done this many times, I can not imagine how you can properly prepare a candidate for instructing( notice I did not say passing the practical test) in the time you describe. Hank, I'd weigh in once here, except I'm not sure what point Michael is trying to make - or if just wants to start a lengthy debate how long it takes to help a CFIG candidate meet the challenge. I'm just too busy at Marfa, training CFIG's, to write many long replies. Takes time to mentor a CFIG, but I can help most candidates reach their goal, if they are willing to make the commitment. And then there is the CFI renewal evey 24 months. If they attend a glider-specific course such as the Soaring Safety Foundation Flight Instructor Renewal Clinics (FIRC) or actually fly with a glider examiner, then they are way ahead. Renewing with the FSDO based on familiarity is less than ideal. You can check the schedule of SSF glider-specific FIRC's at www.soaringsafety.org A kid I soloed at age 14 will report to the USAF Academy this month. Yep, I'm proud. As far as asking CFI's to do some extra work around the hangar, I've noticed that those CFI's that who have been owners of other businesses don't have a problem with helping out with the meet & greet, cleaning a canopy, wiping the bugs off the leading edge of the glider wings, etc. It's the self-employed attitude. If it needs to be done, then the self-employed folks get to it. They see the big picture. I also pay my CFI's $30./hour (ground & flight instruction) to prepare a candidate for my checkride. I'll make some money from the tows and glider rentals. When I put the word out on the internet for "guest instructors" at Marfa on certain dates, I get a lot of replies. 'Nuff talkin'. Gotta go fly now. Y'all come visit west Texas to soar, and maybe learn something new. Burt Compton Marfa Gliders, west Texas www.flygliders.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Having done this many times, I can not imagine how you can properly
prepare a candidate for instructing( notice I did not say passing the practical test) in the time you describe. I can't. It can't be done in a weekend. Or a week. Or a month. Takes much longer - takes consistent development and mentoring over the course of years. 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. The difference, in my view, is the experience needed to evaluate the candidate and tailor the training program to the candidate's situation. Evaluating a candidate's teaching ability is easy. Primary students can do that effectively - they just can't evaluate the subject matter expertise (since they don't know the subject matter). Some people are good teachers, some are not. You can't take someone who is not and make him into someone who is in a a few weeks time. I know people who have gone off to two week CFI schools taught by people who churn out many CFI's - both glider and power. The result is always the same. They all come back with a ticket. Those who could teach before still can, and those who couldn't still can't. I've also known some people who learned to instruct - but that was always in the local area, by long term mentoring. Michael |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. I think the assertion that a CFI checkride (initial or add-on) effectively evaluates the ability to instruct will not withstand close scrutiny. Further, anyone who has flown with a variety of instructors will know this is true - many of them can't really teach. In power, the overwhelming majority can't teach - their reasons for becoming CFI's have to do with airline career aspirations, and while most do try to do a good job, they have neither the background nor the talent for teaching. In soaring the situation is much better - most CFIG's actually want to teach, and that's half the battle. 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 reality, every syllabus in general aviation instruction (outside the Part 141 environment) is individually tailored. However, it's a mistake to believe that an additional rating CFI has an instructional baseline to add to. He may or he may not, just as an initial CFI may or may not. What the additional rating CFI really has is experience with taking CFI checkrides. There is certainly a skill involved in taking and passing a CFI checkride, but that skill is not teaching. 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. Of course. Clearly the last thing we want to do is to teach our students the behaviors that work for the most skilled and capable soaring pilots out there. In my experience, the most skilled and capable pilot on the field is never an instructor. I always wondered why that was, but I'm beginning to understand it now. Michael |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
First, I want to apologize for my earlier statement making a sweeping
generalization about contest pilots. This was a stupid attempt to turn an observation of a small number of local legends in my area and project that onto the entire class. Dumb on my part. The same problem exists when a statement such as: "the most skilled and capable pilot on the field is never an instructor" is made. That statement implies at least one of the following: the FAA's test for CFIG (or any other rating, by inference) is not valid, individual CFI's are not properly exercising their responsibilities after certification, or FAA Inspectors and/or Designees are not properly administering the Practical Test. Obviously, I do not agree with that statement. The FAA actively solicits input from anyone willing to send a letter about the content and conduct of the practical tests. The address is listed on the second page of every test booklet. If anyone believes that something should be included on a flight test, make your case. In Arizona, the Designated Pilot Examiner Advisory Group did just that when changes to the CASEL test dropped the power-off accuracy landing and the steep spiral. The case was made, and these items are again included on the CASEL test. Certainly the examiners in Arizona were not solely responsible for the change, but we did act together. Practical Tests do test an applicant's ability in test taking. For that matter so does every test any of us has taken from grade school to the SAT/College Boards. Such is the nature of any test. Pilot Examiners are initially chosen and re-appointed annually for their judgement in the evaluation of applicants for pilot certificates. By nature, this evaluation is a subjective one despite the PTS claim of objective measures. What I have found is that the measure provided only serves to quantify my own "gut feeling" that already exists. After some time in the air, we all become very adept at assessing a pilot's skill level within several minutes. Ask any examiner-from any level including airline-and all will answer the same, "I knew this was a bust before we took off." That old joke has much truth within it. If a problem does exist we should take it to the individual. Explain our concerns and hopefully correct any misunderstandings. When a CFI does not teach we should address it immediately to the instructor, school/club management, or elevate it to your local FAA Office if necessary. The same is true for complaints about examiners. Every DPE has a Principal Operations Inspector, the individual within the FAA charged with ensuring standards within the examiner group. I guarantee that a complaint call about an examiner will get a response. Michael, I am sorry for whatever bad experiences you may have had from CFI's or examiners. If you want to discuss this further, I will be at Estrella this Saturday afternoon, unless I am out flying with a student. Better yet, come out and fly with me. If you need to renew/reinstate your CFIG, I will gladly conduct the flight test, without the normal fee. Terry Claussen Estrella, AZ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The same problem
exists when a statement such as: "the most skilled and capable pilot on the field is never an instructor" is made. That statement implies at least one of the following: the FAA's test for CFIG (or any other rating, by inference) is not valid, individual CFI's are not properly exercising their responsibilities after certification, or FAA Inspectors and/or Designees are not properly administering the Practical Test. I agree that my statement does indeed imply at least one of these. Further, I think that while there are elements of truth to the latter two, the first is overwhelmingly true - the CFIG test is not valid. While that certainly doesn't mean the other tests are very good, I would say the CFI tests are the worst of all. From reasing the rest of your letter, I can only come to the conclusion that you're one of the people who really believes the FAA is "here to help." I believe the FAA is the problem, not the solution. You believe in an honest, responsible, and responsive FAA. I believe in the one the Inspector General of the DOT saw (in the present rather than the hopeful future - check it out here at http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf). We really have no common ground. Michael |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Terry 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. Yes! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
jonnyboy wrote:
Terry 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. Yes! No! I have enjoyed a couple of hours flying with contest pilots far more than my whole instruction with dumb people. Sorry to say that, but a *lot* of instructors are extremely dull, and do more to deter people from gliding than anything else. Fortunately there are some good ones (usually young and diamond badge themselves). -- Michel TALON |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Become a CFIG - from the Safety Foundation | [email protected] | Soaring | 6 | January 23rd 05 04:31 AM |
USA / CFIG Recertification Clininc / Anchorage / January 15-16 2005 | SoarBooks | Soaring | 0 | January 2nd 05 10:52 PM |
USA / CFIG Recertification Clinic / Washington DC / January 29-30 2005 | SoarBooks | Soaring | 0 | January 2nd 05 10:48 PM |
USA: SSF CFIG Renewal Clinic Denver April 17-18, 2004 / Wander | SoarBooks | Soaring | 0 | March 10th 04 05:44 PM |
Endorsement required for CFIG written? | Gregg Ballou | Soaring | 14 | January 17th 04 09:06 PM |