Looking for a CFIG

Discussion of the attributes of a prototypical CFIG aside, you might
contact the SSA by phone to see if they can search their database. I
tried the member locator on the website, but its search capability is
limited.

Seems like a reasonable request, and much faster than placing a
classified in Soaring.

Roger Kelly wrote:
Our CFIG has become unavailable and our (small) club near Kansas City is
looking for a CFIG. If anyone knows of one that lives close please send me
an email or post to this group.
Thanks

--
Roger Kelly
to reply replace the IP address above with ceressenior.com

Michael wrote:

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.


Michael

Been lurking on this one, but I just couldn't resist coming back to
this point. If you REALLY believe this, then please let me know where
you fly, so I can make sure never to let anybody I care about fly
there.

Although all of the points you make in this paragraph may be
technically true, they're hard to reconcile with your later points
about the importance of truly teaching soaring. I'm hoping that I'm
just taking your comments out of context.

In our club's experience over the past 30 years (I've been a member for
20), I would say that the typical CFIG candidate comes to the table
with about 300-400 hours (ie. not a ton of time). But, our CFIGs who
do the training and sign-off for the rating will typically require
dozens of flights and lengthy one-on-one ground school to ensure that
the candidate is able to handle the decision making and emergency
situations that come along with the territory. In my 12 year CFIG
career so far, I've only recommended two candidates for CFIG (both
passed first time), and each one probably consumed about 40-60 hours of
my time when all was said and done. That's not a lot when you consider
how much time we spend in the office or on much less worthy pursuits
:-)) In retrospect, I'm sure we could have shaved off some prep time
here and there and (maybe) still had candidates pass the practical, but
I also have faith in most Examiners to recognize where too many corners
have been cut.

Being a CFIG is not some superhuman power available only to an elite
few, but it's not something to be entered into lightly.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

Papa3 wrote:
Michael wrote:
I'm hoping that I'm
just taking your comments out of context.
Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

Apologies - looks like after reading the thread in reverse order you
and I are on the same team (at least I think so).

P3

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

Apologies - looks like after reading the thread in reverse order you
and I are on the same team (at least I think so).

Mostly. I don't have your faith in examiners or inspectors to
determine that too many corners have been cut. I've seen too many
substandard instructors breeze right through the checkride. I really
don't think the right things are being tested. That's why I don't
think much of off-site one-week or two-week CFI training programs.
They're quite effective at getting people the certificate, but not so
effective at producing a quality instructor. That requires extensive,
one-on-one training and mentoring (here we're very much on the same
page). It also requires that you start with pretty good material -
meaning someone who is already a competent soaring pilot and has some
aptitude for instructing. I'm not saying every instructor has to have
flown the diamond distance, but surely flying the silver distance ought
to be considered a (very) minimum standard.

300-400 hours is actually quite a bit in gliders, in most cases,
whereas in airplanes it's actually not much experience. That's not
really so much a function of the aircraft as it is a function of how it
is used by most pilots. For a power pilot, 200 hours of XC usually
means 180+ hours of droning along, straight and level, in good weather,
with little effort or thinking required. Maybe there will be 20 hours
in there of flying challenging weather, terrain, etc - and maybe not.
It's not because it has to be that way - even a power VFR XC can be
challenging if you're, say, crossing the Rockies in a low powered
airplane (and it actually requires some soaring skills) - but few power
pilots do that kind of flight. Most power pilots don't even launch on
a XC flight unless they are reasonably assured that they will complete
the flight to the destination effortlessly. Soaring is different -
making destination is never really certain (even if you don't land out,
you often have to scale back the task to fit the conditions - and we
all accept that you may land out anyway) and you're constantly working,
looking for lift, working lift, replanning what you're going to do.
200 hours of that makes a pilot. That has certainly been my experience
when I have taught glider pilots in power.

Can you realistically make a glider instructor out of someone who has
400 hours of nothing but flying circles around the home field (if you
could find such a one)? Of course not, but you could easily get him to
pass a CFIG checkride.

Michael

A competent glider CFI is one who has the ability to instruct to PTS
private and commercial standards. If you want to learn advanced cross
country and racing skill then seek out a qualified mentor. There are
few instructors that have XC and racing skills that would rather spend
the weekend in the back of a trainer than go XC in their own ship.

I had 150 hours in gliders, a gold, and 2 diamonds when I applied for
my instructor certificate. I instructed at 2 US clubs, 1 UK club, and
also at a US commercial operator. I long ago gave it up for the
pleasures of racing my own ship. I satisfy my instructor needs by
giving instrument instruction, wings training, and flight reviews in
airplanes. I give tail wheel instruction if I need some excitement. I
can do all that before or after work on weekdays. That leaves the
weekends free for soaring.

Andy

A competent glider CFI is one who has the ability to instruct to PTS
private and commercial standards.

If you believe that, you have some mighty low standards of competence.

If that's all you're looking for from an instructor, I can take any
halfway competent glider pilot (meaning one who can safely fly circles
around the home field - no XC competence necessary) and make him into a
CFIG in a weekend.

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