CFI Military Competency

[UndauntedFlyer]

I'll follow up UndauntedFlyer's comments with some emphasis on this point.

You would think that the written tests would cover this more since a large percentage of instructor and student violations are on endorsements and insufficient knowledge of requisite paperwork regarding civilian pilot and maintenance records,...but, it ain't so. Unless they devise a special test exclusively focused on Part 61 certification knowledge.

The average civilian trained flight instructor is sadly uninformed as to the depth of knowledge required to properly navigate the cesspool of certification regulations. Unfortunately, a lot of civilian trained pilots think that passing the written tests demonstrates sufficient knowledge. It is not. It is only a small "snapshot" of the required depth of knowledge in each area. The oral portion of the flight test actually is supposed to determine the proficiency of the knowledge.

And methinks the military IP will not be required to "demonstrate" practical knowledge of Part 61 and 91. He/She will probably only do a written test.
So we are only concerned that you guys not get caught with your pants down when first dealing with "the FAA".

Nosehair: Your advice is right on.

Surprisingly the CFI writtens will only address subject like Psychology of Teaching and then something about how various certification maneuvers are done, VFR and IFR. However, as Nosehair has said, this will not be anywhere near enough information.

There is an FAA way and a military way of doing most everything from stalls to lazy eights and a CFI must be an expert on how the FAA wants these things done as well as the areas of special emphasis to be taught. An airplane instructor must be intimately familiar with the Airplane Flying Handbook, the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, many FAA Advisory Circulars, the AIM, the FAR's, especially part 61, the Practical Test Standards along with acceptable standards for Private Pilot ASEL, Private Pilot AMEL, Commercial Pilot ASEL, Commercial Pilot AMEL, and the Instrument Rating-Airplane.

The Flight Instructor test, when it is administered by an FAA inspector or a DPE, is the most difficult test given by the FAA because of all the FAA certification knowledge that an applicant must have and be able to demonstrate. Again, it’s not the facts of flying that will be hard to learn, it will be all the administrative and certification information.

Good luck and I'm pleased that you want to be a CFI.

 

[Huggyu2]

Update: I spoke to FAA HQ on Friday, and they said the implementation has slipped to November. He didn't elaborate, but just said it was a staffing/bureaucrating delay.

 

[Huggyu2]

10 Nov 08 is the date. Apparently, their still trying to figure out how to implement certain parts of the changes. 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?

A lot of strong opinions on whether this should take place, but like it or not, it will be here in about 10 weeks.

 

[JAFI]

I have some real bad feelings about this subject. When an average CFI candidate gets into CFI training he/she has been in the "system" for many months to years. By the system I mean the type of (non military) aircraft and their non military systems, student aircraft operations, non military certification standards, etc. The military primary training environment has basically the same kind of student. Same age, college level, experience level and go into a standard environment. In non military training your student can be from 15 to 80 years old, from no education or aviation background to Doctors/Lawyers/ heads of corporations, Moms or Dads who always wanted to fly, junior or Sis who is there because Mom or Dad is making them be there. The standard "military" training way of doing things has a tough time working with many non military students. To just issue a CFI certificate because of military background is in IMHO a "Political" hand out.

If you think this should be done then the opposite should be true, I should be able to just go fly a military aircraft that I am rated for (how many Military IP’s have operated a Cessna 150 or a light piston twin?). Can they operate one – with aircraft specific training, no doubt in my mind. Can they just be certified to teach in one based on military experience, God help us.

I will give you an example: I was in a standardization meeting where a Chief pilot (CP) was briefing new hired CFI’s. The Chief Pilot was a retired Fighter pilot. The subject of teaching spin recovery was discussed. One of the new CFI’s asked how to best determine the direction of spin to give the proper rudder input. The Chief Pilot said:” Just look at the Artificial Horizon (AH), it will show you the rotation of the aircraft in any situation”. The new CFI’s all bought the answer, after all, he was the Chief Pilot and a retired Fighter pilot. I commented that (in the flight schools aircraft) the AH was a vacuum instrument (not electric like military fighters) that would tumble if a weak vacuum source was present plus it was not able to follow the aircraft through all roll and pitch maneuvers. In civilian training aircraft the AH was a Secondary Instrument. The CP argued with me even after we pulled out several manuals that backed up what I had to say.

The CP went back to his military training to answer a question. It worked for military aircraft but not the Cessna 152 he was now working in. And you could not tell him anything, after all, he was a retired military IP. I was just a civilian CFI with dozens of years “in the system”.

Are Military IP’s able to teach? – Yes. Should they get a CFI based on teaching only in a C5A/F16/or what ever? I say not with out some aircraft specific and non military “training system” practical exam.

 

[Huggyu2]

I'm going to waste a little more typing on this,... but just a little.
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.
Military "pilots" are still "pilots",... just like everyone on this forum. And as a group, they are not stupid enough to think they can just overnight become a 172 instructor.

Now, that said, many can. Why? Because they already own a piston single, and they fly it pretty well.

And, BTW, will the 200-hour-total-time CFI be ready to jump into a Cirrus, or an AT-6 warbird and start teaching? No. But I don't expect that they will do that. Despite their "youth", they are not dumb either. They will know their limits, and respect them.

Addtionally, it's fairly myopic if you think that a CFI/MEI/CFII rating is only good for teaching new pilots in a 172.

To summarize: when the military pilots get their instructor certificates, their skull will not jettison, followed by their brain ejecting.

And like it or not, it's going to happen in 10 weeks.

 

[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!