CFII Practical test gotchas?

[flyer172r]

I should clarify my earlier comment. What I really meant to say is that with all the IFR rules and procedures and stuff you have to know, sometimes being able to describe in simple terms how the instruments work can get relegated to the back of the mind. When I did my training describing the instruments was done on one of the early lessons then never thought about again, until the checkride. I kinda fumbled through describing an airspeed indicator, which I would like to see everyone reading this not do.

The examiner also mentioned that he had someone on a CFII ride fail because the were doing a full ILS, hit the outer marker outbound and started descending towards DA, while still going outbound. I would suggest not doing that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have to agree with ya a little.

My pet peeve is memorizing how to draw the electrical system just like shown in the POH.

If I really wanted that detailed of a design, wouldn't I just turn to the systems section and look at the picture Cessna/Piper/Beech/whoever has already prepared for me?

Sure, I should know what happens if this fails or what if that fails, etc...but designing...its like reinventing the wheel.

-mini

IMO, being able to draw the electrical (or other) system isn't a "memorization" issue, it relates more to levels of learning at the "understanding" level or higher. Since the thread is originally about CFII checkrides, I'd say it's very appropriate to require that level of knowlege of an instructor applicant.

I've also found that being able to draw an isolated section or component of a system at will aids tremendously in teaching certain students efficiently. It better allows teaching specific concepts without the distraction or, in some cases intimidation, of having the whole system in front of the student.

Fly safe!

David

 

[minitour]

IMO, being able to draw the electrical (or other) system isn't a "memorization" issue, it relates more to levels of learning at the "understanding" level or higher. Since the thread is originally about CFII checkrides, I'd say it's very appropriate to require that level of knowlege of an instructor applicant.

Thank God you didn't do my CFI rides (notice the smileys - I'm trying to make my sarcasm easier to detect 'round here)

I think getting into the understanding and higher levels of learning is great...but memorizing where stuff is laid out on the paper is rediculous.

Now...I can draw the system, how everything is connected, what sequence, etc...but exactly like the book? I think that's overkill.

My goal was to learn is and make life easier on myself...not become an artist for Cessna...

I guess that's my beef...I saw plenty-o CFI applicants come out of the oral with a pinky because they couldn't draw exactly like the book showed. I'm sure something sparked the examiner to require such detail...but still.

That's what I mean about knowing "if this fails, it effects ___". Yes you should have to know it, but not know it exactly like it says in the book...in this case.

Would I be wrong if I said a C172P had a "carburetor equipped, normally aspirated, bla bla bla engine"? The POH says "normally aspirated, carburetor equipped, bla bla bla bla engine". I've seen people busted for such things...I just think it's rediculous.

ooh...the other one was the examiner that wanted my buddy to recite exactly what the Airworthiness certificate says. "Unless surrendered suspended revoked or otherwise...." something like that. Yikes, eh?

...anywho...long post longer...I think we're agreeing...the Understanding, Application and Coorelation levels are the important stuff...not memorizing what's written in some book.

-mini

 

[MauleSkinner]

Thank God you didn't do my CFI rides (notice the smileys - I'm trying to make my sarcasm easier to detect 'round here)

No need for obviosity of sarcasm there...I've got copilots and students who would call me "the bastard stepchild of an illegitimate line" if they didn't know my parents

Now...I can draw the system, how everything is connected, what sequence, etc...but exactly like the book? I think that's overkill.

Yup...I see what you're saying now.

...anywho...long post longer...I think we're agreeing...the Understanding, Application and Coorelation levels are the important stuff...not memorizing what's written in some book.

Agreed.

Fly safe!

David

 

[minitour]

No need for obviosity of sarcasm there...I've got copilots and students who would call me "the bastard stepchild of an illegitimate line" if they didn't know my parents

mwahaha "bastard stepchild of an illegitimate line"...I'm so gonna remember that!

-mini

 

[Catbert]

Thanks all. I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[LavMan]

I have never been asked in any ride to draw a system out? Granted I did my CFI,II, MEI a few years back, but have never been asked to do that? Currently flying at the 121 level, no one asks that even on a PIC oral. Crazy, find a different examiner.

 

[Catbert]

Well, I passed.

Not exactly the best instrument flight I ever made, but met the standards. Emphasis in this one was teaching, CFII limitations, endorsements, and privilages. Never did have to draw that d@mn electrical system.

Thanks for all the suggestions everyone!

 

[pgcfii2002]

I took mine at Sheble's and there were absolutely no gotchas...very easy ride. I think the oral was 3 questions and the flight was an approach and hold.

 

[RichardRambone]

Congrats. I passed too on Wedsneday. Not my best flying but my examiner was pretty easy. He was more pilot to pilot and offered suggestions on teaching an instrument student. Now that dang MEI and ATP in some more hours and we'll be set.