Looking for a CFIG

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

Michael wrote:
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.
================================================== =====================
There are literally thousands of FAA inspectors in the US. While this
story is sad, to imply that the totality of the FAA is the problem is
as bad a generalization as the one I made earlier. Some of my friends
that read this will not beleive me, as they know I am as harsh a critic
of the FAA as can be. The difference is, I have decided to work to
change it.

Unless we overthrow the government, the FAA is here to stay. If you
want to change it, you must engage it on its terms and push the rock up
the hill, even after it rolls back down. If you don't like the
qualifications of your examiner, take the test and work to get
appointed. If you think the PTS should test something that is not
currently tested, submit a well described change proposal. If you do
not like the current regulations, submit a change as detailed in Part
11. If you do not like the performance of your operations inspector as
detailed in that report, go up the chain--all the way to your
congressman, senator or president.

You are correct, we have no common ground. I try to be a better pilot
each day and use that to improve the instruction or examinations given.
If you really believe as you state, perhaps you should surrender and
turn in your certificates. After all, it is none too safe up there
with those I have trained or evaluated whether in a glider or a Boeing.

Terry

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