Looking for a CFIG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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