CFI Military Competency

[Razor_B]

Huggy, you crack me up. Thanks for the update. Cheers.

Off on a 3 day to Dublin tomorrow. Guinness, yum.

 

[Andy Neill]

For example: since the military flying physical will count in lieu of a Class II medical (maybe it's Class I, but I can't remember), what will those pilots carry to prove they have the military physical?

When I got military flight physicals, I would ask the flight surgeon for and receive an FAA CLass II at the same time. What's wrong with that?

 

[nosehair]

When I got military flight physicals, I would ask the flight surgeon for and receive an FAA CLass II at the same time. What's wrong with that?

That military flight surgeon was also a designated FAA AME. He was also authorized to sign FAA physicals. Not all military flight surgeons are. It is an individual additional authority/responsibility that is taken on by the individual person.

 

[Andy Neill]

That military flight surgeon was also a designated FAA AME. He was also authorized to sign FAA physicals. Not all military flight surgeons are. It is an individual additional authority/responsibility that is taken on by the individual person.

Granted, but they were readily available in my day. Are they not now?

 

[nosehair]

I suppose a lot of folks think that military pilots are just going to quit their day jobs, run down to the local FBO, and sign up to be 172 instructors, en masse, and they will all think they are "ready to go" in the piston single world with their CFI in hand.

No, not 'en masse', but some will.

There will be the few innocent naive types who think that flying a jet or big complex airplane means that flying a 172 is 'simple and easy', and won't require any traininmg, and the "checkout" is routine and needed only for insurance and paper purposes.

I know, because I used to be a young flight instructor near an Air Force Base, and young jet fighter pilots would come out to rent out 172.

Some would balk at even having to demonstrate a trip around the pattern, but almost all had to have several hours of stalls, slow flight, civilian non-tower traffic patterns, etc., to become proficient enough to solo.

Some...could not do it at all. Well, they gave up after 5 or so hours and couls not take-off or keep the airplane straight.

They don't use the rudder in a jet. Not like us prop guys do. It's a completely different animal...in the primary stage.

....HOWEVER...as we all know, the regulations are VERY MINIMAL, and just because it is legal does not mean it is safe.

The up side is that most military instructors are VERY GOOD at instructing. They are not time builders like us. They are actually experienced pilots who become instructors, and I think the GA instructor force, overall, will be enhanced with the experience.

It was with the military that I got most of my 'atypical' experience, such as:

Spin proficient before solo. Spins were on the pre-solo checkride.

Simulated SE forced landings by pulling the mixture or fuel valve off.

Real dirt-road forced or short-field landings.

Instrument checkrides that require no more than 1/4 needle deflection on partial panel.

Multi-engine engine cuts at:
1) just immediately prior to reaching Vmc
2) just after lift-off with landing runway remaining
3) just after lift off just after no available ruway remaining, but less than 50 feet.
One of these would be on the primary checkride.

Multi-Engine instrument approaches on one engine partial panel fixed card ADF....yes, that's right.

'Course, that was a lifetime ago...don't know what it is now.

 

[Andy Neill]

...and uphill both ways in a snow storm!

 

[nosehair]

...and uphill both ways in a snow storm!

Oh, you were there too?:beer:

 

[nosehair]

Granted, but they were readily available in my day. Are they not now?

I don't really know, but I suspect it is a different world now. What with everybody being so 'sensitive', and 'liability' cautious.

Back in our day, an instructor or doctor didn't have to worry about being sued because his advice or treatment didn't work out. I suspect today's doctor doesn't want to sign anything he does not have to.

 

[AC560]

All I want is a high altitude endorsement from Huggyu2

 

[Huggyu2]

All I want is a high altitude endorsement from Huggyu2

The beauty of this is that you'll also get your jet-powererd taildragger endorsement too! :beer:

Andy N,
Yes, there's a shortage of flight docs qualified to give the FAA Class II. They have to get time off to attend training in Ok City.

Razor,
Good to hear from you Bro!!!! Guinness,... yum!

 

[Huggyu2]

Yet another update: although the new rule will be releasedon 10 Nov 08, it won't be "implemented" for an additional 60 days. The FAA told me it was some sort of legal requirement. I don't quite understand why, but there you have it.

 

[jimpilot]

I am an ex military instructor that went through the GI bill training (am I dating myself?) and earned a CFI, CFII and MEI and now am a Gold Seal Instructor. I am also an execitive with a major part 142 training company.

Having "been there" I feel that the military comp test for pilot rating concept should carry over.A CFI test should cover things that are not taught in military IP school. Questions should also be developed for single engine and multi engine CFI and they should be passed for that qualification.

Eveyone agrees (I think) that the flight training received in the military is top notch, it's the cililian unique areas that need to be understood by the applicant.

 

[Huggyu2]

No argument there, jimpilot.

 

[Razor_B]

I couldn't copy and paste the text, but you can check out the latest on the latest on the CFI Mil Competency on the Sheppard Air website.

http://www.sheppardair.com/milip2.htm

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I will say that experienced military instructor pilots are all the best trained and most qualified to teach military pilots to fly. As for teaching civilians to fly in a Cessna 172 or any other typical trainer, that will be safe enough but I would expect the students to be signed off for solo, solo X-C and for certification with many glaring omissions in their training record.

You might say no, or so what, unfortunately for these young military CFI’s who are so well intended, the end result may be certificate action or law suits for the omissions in the case of an accident.

Military CFI's: For you own good beware of the FAA and the Lawyers unless you have mastered the rules of FAA pilot certification from first flight to certification and beyond.

 

[Mud Eagle]

I would expect the students to be signed off for solo, solo X-C and for certification with many glaring omissions in their training record.

I have to wonder if you have any knowledge of what a military instructor is responsible for on any given flight?

Pre-sortie preparation -- e.g. knowing what required prerequisite training is, verifying accomplishment of that training in the student's gradebook, knowing what the syllabus requires on the current sortie, and tailoring the profile/instruction to meet those requirements -- is the cornerstone of how a military IP performs his business.

There is no reason to believe that an instructor who is "brought up" in the military knowing that this is part of his charge will look at doing the job as a CFI any differently.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Pre-sortie preparation -- e.g. knowing what required prerequisite training is, verifying accomplishment of that training in the student's gradebook, knowing what the syllabus requires on the current sortie, and tailoring the profile/instruction to meet those requirements -- is the cornerstone of how a military IP performs his business.

I have given nothing but praise for military flight instructors and the work they do. I am quite sure they know full well how to do that job.

My comments about Part 61 training are based on 40-years of experience working with the FAA in the Part 61 training environment as well as expert witness work dealing with defense of CFI's who missed a small point here and there in a training record due to either carelessness or a lack of knowledge regarding Part 61 as well as the many AC's that deal with training. I also have had many conversations with military pilots who were FAA CFI's too, and they also agree with me that the typical military CFI is in no way prepared to jump into the Part 61 world by just self training for a Part 61 CFI written test. Plus, of course, many of the maneuvers and the training philosophy is quite different for FAA certification.

My advice, quite simply is to watch out for your career if you do FAA CFI work when you really don’t know all about the job. Ask yourself how it would be for a typical FAA CFI to pass a military IP written test and then come to Moody to start teaching in the T-6 Texan without supervison. How would their student do on their 1st progress check? And what kind of a chance would that student have of completing their training with his/her classs?

 

[JAFI]

For those Military IP's that were taught the FAA system and civilan aircraft will have a much better transition as a "civilian" CFI than those who are just "granted" a CFI with out additional training and exams.

My example: A Dentist and a Proctologist are both doctors who look into human orifices, but they have very different points of view.......... But, I would not want them to trade jobs (and work on me) with out some additional training and certification (and I would hope some OJT).....

I do not know many CFI's that think they can just jump into the Military IP position. It seems that (at least here) are Military IP's that think they can just jump into being a CFI with knowing the "Civilian" world of flying. IMHO it will just be trouble for the student and the "CFI".

IMHO the present system of certification works, and not just for primary training but for any "civilian" training. There is more to the system than just flying the aircraft.

Again my objection is in the "granting" a CFI with out the civilian system knowledge and certification exams.

 

[milky]

For those Military IP's that were taught the FAA system and civilan aircraft will have a much better transition as a "civilian" CFI than those who are just "granted" a CFI with out additional training and exams.

My example: A Dentist and a Proctologist are both doctors who look into human orifices, but they have very different points of view.......... But, I would not want them to trade jobs (and work on me) with out some additional training and certification (and I would hope some OJT).....

I do not know many CFI's that think they can just jump into the Military IP position. It seems that (at least here) are Military IP's that think they can just jump into being a CFI with knowing the "Civilian" world of flying. IMHO it will just be trouble for the student and the "CFI".

IMHO the present system of certification works, and not just for primary training but for any "civilian" training. There is more to the system than just flying the aircraft.

Again my objection is in the "granting" a CFI with out the civilian system knowledge and certification exams.

I doubt I'm going to change your mind, but I believe there is going to be a competency exam in order to get the certification. The military follows the same FAR that the rest of the country uses to fly. I think that a military instructor who will be at least 27 years old before he would get to a point in his career (minus a few sergrads or faips who may be a couple years younger) to have done an instructor tour would be mature enough to study and understand the requirements for instructing. There is a big difference between a civilian IP becoming a military IP and the opposite. If we can learn the regulations enough to take the tests and get our ATPs without ever having a day of civilian instruction, I think we are capable of doing the job that a pilot with 300-500 hours of civilian time can do. We're big boys.

 

[Be 23]

Anybody know when they'll post the rule?

I don't think they're going to make it by September '08. Doesn't appear that it will be today either.