CFII renewal for Military IP?

[AlbieF15]

Does anyone know an examiner or FSDO rep that might be able to renew my CFII?

I am current/qualified F15 IP that has trained several F15 students during the last 2 years...including initial solo and prep for their instrument qual checkride.

Any of you military/civilian types have a recommendation? Any FAA types scanning the boards able to help me out? I'd like to skip the weekend seminar and/or computer course if I can...I've got until end of March and I've got a full plate until then.

Thanks in advance!

Albie

 

[Blasted]

Hey Albie, good to see ya again. Here's what I recommend. If you can produce a logbook showing that you've signed off some folks for solo and also have given instruction to others, then you should be okay. I would recommend going into the FSDO (first you need to make an appointment post 9/11), and tell them what your intent is and advise them that you will bring in the documentation. You may want to specifically ask them how many students that you need to have "soloed" to get a recharge on your ticket though. I believe the number might be 10. I have friends that had their CFI's renewed since they were Part 121 Captains and it was part of their "job" to teach F/O's on the line. I don't believe that you'll have too much trouble, BUT I would make sure well in advance in case you have to go to a back up and sign up with one of those computer courses.

Best of luck.

 

[Mud Eagle]

Is there any "military equivalency" program for getting a CFI/CFII if you're a military instructor but don't have the FAA rating?

 

[zulua320]

Mud Eagle,
There's no equivalency from AF IP to CFI, you have to take both written tests and a checkride. That being said, they're all a piece of cake -- I got the Gleim CD rom to study for both tests, then took about 5 rides in a C172 to prep for the checkride -- I was waaay operprepped for both. Since you've been through IPUG, your instructional skills are well above what is expected, you just have to spend a few hours learning the "correct" way to do a chanelle, lazy-8, etc in a bug smasher.

Zulu

 

[Mud Eagle]

"Since you've been through IPUG, your instructional skills are well above what is expected"

Well, *I* haven't been through IPUG *yet*, but that'll hopefully be going on within the next year or two...

I'm just expecting to have to head over to the FTU or back to a UPT base on my next tour and I woudn't mind picking up a CFI while I'm at it.

 

[zulua320]

Albie,
This is straight from 61.197:
(2) Presenting to an authorized FAA Flight Standards Inspector --

(i) A record of training students showing that, during the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has endorsed at least five students for a practical test for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt;

(ii) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has served as a company check pilot, chief flight instructor, company check airman, or flight instructor in a part 121 or part 135 operation, or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots; or

Looks to me like under para ii that if you've been a SEFE then the "evaluation" part is a slam dunk -- otherwise I'd do like Blasted said and call the FSDO -- common sense says they should count what you do on a daily basis, but you never know.

If you do have to do one of the computer courses, it's not painful. I just did one, and it took about 5 hours total.

Z

 

[AlbieF15]

Success...perhaps...

Gentleman at Birmingham FSDO says bring my logbooks and someone in operations will review and likely re-issue the certificate. I have done plenty of instruction and have names and dates in logbook (another reason...Mud Eagle....to keep that civilian log updated!)

FYI...2 other FSDO reps said "no mil equivelency", but I followed BlueDev8tor's advice to keep asking until I found an office that seemed incline to cooperate. There may be a lesson here.

Anyway....pressing to test next Tuesday. I'll let everyone know what happens.

Albie.

 

[rcb]

That is not the intent....

I suggest you visit the following link:

http://afs600.faa.gov/search.asp?myFolder=640OtherFAQ&Query=&sub=640&lev=Sem&lev2=DPE&title=FAQ

You should get the FAQ anyway, but for our lazier friends, here's the part you want:

QUESTION: Here's a question related to the (in)famous phrase in 61.197(2)(ii), “or in a position involving the
regular evaluation of pilots.”
A CFI, happens to be in the military, is an instructor pilot in his unit and regularly evaluates those pilots. He's
requesting that we renew his CFI based on his military activity since he does very little civil instructing. He argues
the point that he can use his military comp check in lieu of a BFR, so why can't he use his military instruction
experience to renew his CFI?.
Should we renew him or not based on his military experience of being in a position involving the regular evaluation
of pilots?
ANSWER: Ref. §61.197(a)(2)(ii); No you would not renew this military IP’s FAA flight instructor
certificate without some semblance of the training involving the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the certification
standards set forth in Parts 61 or 141.
The intent of “. . . or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots . . .” of §61.197(a)(2)(ii) involved
training in the environment of the requirements and standards of Part 61. The rule was never intended to permit a
military IP who flight instructs another military aviator on how to fire a heating seeking missile or evaluating
military aviators on military mission operations to equate to training pilots via Part 61 standards.
However, there are situations where the military IP’s duties and responsibilities may equate to training in the
environment of the requirements and standards of Part 61. For example, if an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector has
“first-hand, direct knowledge of a military IP's instructing duties and responsibilities and the military IP's duties and
responsibilities involve teaching military pilots on instrument ratings, qualifications, and skills in the ATC
environment and further this FAA inspector orally tests the military IP on Part 61 standards then there would be a
case for arguing for the military IP’s position. Another example could be when an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector
has “first-hand, direct knowledge of a military IP's instructing duties and responsibilities and the military IP's duties
and responsibilities involve teaching military aviators on basic piloting skills that equate to private pilot training
under Part 61. Again, if the FAA inspector orally tests the military IP on Part 61 standards, then there would be a
case for arguing for the military IP’s position.

So, probably no to renewing just because you are a military IP. And calling around until you find someone willing to do it because they misunderstand the intent, is in my opinion, wrong. You, sir, as a military officer, should be ashamed if you use that technique to gain your objective, IMHO. Just take an FIRC. Heck, you can do it online, and actually brush up on your Part 61, 91 etc knowledge. You can even mail it all in! (Read the FAQ on how to do that.)

https://www.gleim.com/Aviation/firc/

You can also get the new Far / AIM for $4 with the course among other book specials. The course is only $99. They will even give you the first lesson for free to try it.

Do the right thing.

 

[AlbieF15]

RCB,

Not every E-3 Nav is a geek, but it is a safe bet that you probably are.

Teaching students the ins and outs of flying the F15 for the first time involves almost all the same skills that a CFI routinely uses. The instrument and navigation work dovetails nicely with the work I used to do as a CFII. What I'm looking for is an examiner who is aware of the type of training we do in an FTU. I'm not cheating the system or compromising my integrity.

Go back to the aero club where you can feel like a big shot.

Albie

 

[Mud Eagle]

RCB:

While the part about "how to fire a heating seeking missile or evaluating military aviators on military mission operations" is valid, that's *not* all a military instructor or flight examiner does.

Annually we, as military pilots (fighter or otherwise), take an instrument checkride *in addition* to our mission qualification checkride (which would fall under the quote you highlighted).

If you look at the standards for that instrument checkride, you'd see that it exceeds the standards you would have to meet on a FAA commercial/instrument checkride. There is no tactical employment or weapon system usage -- it is purely basic instument flying and operations within the US airspace system, to include a ground evaluation.

Every initially-upgrading student like Albie teaches takes one of these on about the 6th or 7th flight in the course. Every flight leading up to that is instruction in those basic part 61-type areas.

What Albie does for a living far exceeds the knowledge and practical experience of the average line CFII. Him shopping around the FSDOs to find an examiner who is familiar enough with what he does to sign off his currency neither violates the spirit and intent or letter of the law for the FAR in question.

It surprises me that someone who used to wear a green bag and ride around in the tube of pain with guys wearing radiator-grille wings doesn't understand that.

Then again, maybe it's different over there in the AWACS.

 

[rcb]

Pretty much what I expected

This is pretty much the reaction I expected. I said 'probably not _just because_you are a military IP'. READ THAT AGAIN. Notice it says "PROBABLY NOT" and "JUST BECAUSE". If you read the material , it says "However, there are situations where the military IP’s duties and responsibilities may equate to training in the environment of the requirements and standards of Part 61. For example, if an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector has “first-hand, direct knowledge of a military IP's instructing duties and responsibilities and the military IP's duties and responsibilities involve teaching military pilots on instrument ratings, qualifications, and skills in the ATC environment and further this FAA inspector orally tests the military IP on Part 61 standards then there would be a case for arguing for the military IP’s position."

So what did I say? Did I say you shouldn't get it? No, becuase that is what the material says, there are situations where you will.

If you really do "training in the environment of the requirements and standards of Part 61." then it may be renewed, and you should probably demonstrate Part 61 knowledge. The military guys I know blow off 61 and 91 regularly, for example some requirements for heavy jets, but I digress.

And I stand by my statement that you should not call around until you find someone who misunderstands the requirements. Now if you do instruct in an environment similar to Part 61 and demonstrate that knowledge to an examiner then you should probably get a renewal, as the material I posted suggests. However, if you just talk to some FSDO guy who thinks "Oh, military, IP, ...scribble scribble 'Here you go sir.'" Then I think that's wrong, and unfair to people who have to do FIRC's, etc. And if you are not familiar with part 91/61, would that be fair for example, to instruct a primary student for a Private Pilot's license? Be honest with yourself here.

Now I don't suppose any sort of apology is forthcoming for comments like "Not every E-3 Nav is a geek, but it is a safe bet that you probably are. " and "Go back to the aero club where you can feel like a big shot. " And "It surprises me that someone who used to wear a green bag and ride around in the tube of pain with guys wearing radiator-grille wings doesn't understand that.

Then again, maybe it's different over there in the AWACS." isn't exactly what I would call constructive discourse either.

The closest thing to an insult I put in mine is "but for our lazier friends" (which is an unnamed third party and not particularly venemous) and "You, sir, as a military officer, should be ashamed if you use that technique to gain your objective". Notice that says "IF". I did not say that you were. You did clarify your position Albie, and now I've clarified mine. However, I did it with a lot less venom than you Mud Eagle used.

Again, I pretty much expected to be blasted anyway.

And I still think an FIRC is a good idea. We both know that the regs and the FAR's are similar, but I know even if I knew the military regs like the back of my hand (I don't), part 61 and 91 often have very different things to say. I still don't know 61 and 91 well enough to say that I also would not benefit from an FIRC.

 

[rcb]

"While the part about "how to fire a heating seeking missile or evaluating military aviators on military mission operations" is valid, that's *not* all a military instructor or flight examiner does. "

I didn't say it was. Again, read the material.

"What Albie does for a living far exceeds the knowledge and practical experience of the average line CFII. " Well, that's a generalization, and perhaps and even I grant you, probably true, it is not totally relevent to our case study.

And just to prove I'm a big boy, apologize, I did miss the part about it being a CFII renewal. I thought it was also a CFI renewal, but since it is just a CFII renewal, then the material I posted and what he does even MORESO supports his case based on what you and he say he does. Still, I as a FSDO (If I were one) would probably want him to demonstrate part 61/91 knowledge in some fashion.

I am not holy enough to say, either, that some preference might not be given to the military guys. I think I have gotten the benefit of the doubt as a Nav on some things. I for example, was not made to plan a X-C trip on my Commcercial checkride. It would be trivial. But I also feel some guilt for having recieved preferential treatment even though it made sense. I certainly would feel far worse if my military status were used to pencil whip my civilian aviation ratings. I work harder trying to live up to the percieved high standard expected of military aviators in my civilian flying. It's hard to do as a Nav, since I don't get to fly civilian NEARLY as often as military. I can do two flights in the AWACS and build as many hours as I do in months of civilian flying. And I sure don't learn as much as a Nav as I do as a CFI/II.

Good day to you sirs, and may we further post in the spirit of shared learning. I will try to avoid anything that smacks of insults, but I think if you re-read my original post, does it really read as insulting as you and Albie apparently made it out to be?

 

[AlbieF15]

OK, here's the line that torqued me off--"Do the right thing". Dude, I've been trying to do the RIGHT thing since I started flying at 15. I don't need a 350 hour CFI pontificating on morals or my lack of flying expertise ref: Part 61 and 91.

Your apology is accepted, and I offer mine as well. It was a cold rainy day yesteday, and I spent too much time time in front of the computer instead of doing some overdue yard work. I wasn't in the best frame of mind when I wrote "geek", and I will avoid such personal comments in the future. Please accept my apology.

As for part 61 issues...even when I was a CFI at a University, I refered to my notebook before making logbook endorsements, etc. I could't write a solo endorsement at the moment off the top of my head, but how hard is it really to copy the endorsement from one of the CFI lesson plan books or directly from the FARs? Again...dude...it ain't that hard. Common sense dictates that before I sign off someone to solo, a BFR etc., I will ref the regs to make sure all the requirements have been met. We have the same thing in the military world--a syllabus that dictates required training items. Different than part 141? Not much...

Part 91...military guys follow these rules unless they are superceded or waived by military regulations or an LOA. The 300 knot below 10k recovery and 350 departure for fighters is one example of where have a legal deviation from the FARs. All military pilots are expected to know and understand these rules. IPs are required to have an instructor-level understanding of same. We do high and low altitude approaches, hold, etc. etc. The only thing I haven't done as a military IP ithan I used to do as a civilia was an ADF approach, and quite frankly...if the weather is DS and all I've got is an ADF to get me down....I'm staying on the ground.


"Taking advantage of the system"? If you regularly demonstrate your knowledge of the FARs and are training students to do the same, how is that hurting anyone? Do you really think sending Gleim 100 bucks to review hypoxia, Class B airspace, transponder requirements, etc. makes ANY difference in my ability to instruct? Flight instruction isn't something I do as a hobby--it is my profession. Granted--I'm teaching the employment of an F15, but military IPs don't live a separate universe.

Finally... I've flown tons of GA planes....tomahawks, every type of cherokee including the arrow, and the entire Cessna line from 150 up to the 210. I've flown champs, a cub, and a tailorcraft, and did it before a tailwheel endorsement was required. I've flown jumpers and done CFI/II work. I understand many of the issues facing GA. I don't think the world will stop spiining off its axis if some highly qualified military IPs got credit for the instruction we provide to our students and the success they have acheived.

 

[rcb]

Apology accepted

I do think 'pontificating' is a bit strong. Do the right thing isn't exactly an insult. If you are doing the wrong thing, it is just good advice, and if you are, then you have no worries.

Note in my original post that you could also save money by taking Gleim's FIRC. They gave an offer for about $63 of books for about $23. Whether you need them is another thing. They looked useful to a conventional CFI/CFII.

So, it kind of doesn't make sense that I'd want to insult and or accuse you AND try and save you money and trouble, the FIRC is time-consuming, but it's a sure thing vs. searching every FSDO for the right examiner. That's an interesting contradiction to have in a single post. I must be more schizo than I thought.

I'd never try to pontificate to any of the military guys I know, at best, they just ignore you. I've pretty much given up on pointing anything to do with aviation out to them. What could I possibly know as a Navigator anyway?

For what it's worth, at least now I know to keep outta this forum. I imagine that everything I post from now on will either be ignored or dumped on. I got a real sour taste in my mouth at the moment.

My experience here has been typical of the same sort of reaction I get at work, just more 'violent'.

I was working up treatises on how the inoperative lighting equipment and the table work in the new approach plate format, Vmc myths in twins, and other tidbits, and placing them and copies of the Jeppesen chart clinic among other things in a big binder for pilots both military and civil to read. I think it was summarily ignored.

I think it was useful stuff. For example we have co-pilots that don't know the difference between a SIGMET and an AIRMET, but they can tell you which stage of the engine that bleed air comes off of.

 

[Caveman]

RCB,

Unfortunately you have broken the 1st and most important Commandment of Aviation:

Thou shalt never ever question a military pilot about anything involving flying.

This is particularly true if they are current or former fighter pilots. It is doubly true if you are only a "crewmember" and not actually a pilot. God forbid you should be only a mere civilian aviator.

Repent now while you still have time.

 

[xhercdriver]

I'd say if you are an FTU instructor pilot, you are probably doing the kind of instructing that would satisfy the feds. Certainly if you are a UPT instructor, you meet "the intent" of the reg.

If you're in Stan-Eval, and routinely give instrument/qual checkrides, you could probably make a case as well.

If you're "just" a line instructor pilot in the squadron, even if that squadron is the Weapons School, it'd probably be hard to make a case that you're doing "basic" flight instruction, since everyone you're training is already qualified in the plane you're flying.

P.S. rcb's post read to me like "scolding," or "finger pointing" too. "Communication" is a two-sided phenomenon, and when you are "taken the wrong way," especially in print, it's almost never a case of that being solely due to the READER's "oversensitivity." (The little blue frowny guy at the bottom by itself is enough to make you come off as "lecturing an unruly schoolboy") My technique: any time I write something that's "combative" or "accusatory," I always read it through a couple times before I hit "submit." I end up deleting more of those messages than I actually post...

 

[AlbieF15]

FSDO gave me a 5 minute oral on currency requirements for private pilots, medical requirements, pre-solo test, etc. Very friendly and helpful.

Reviewed my medical and my certificates, then asked a couple F15 questions about our training program at Tyndall.

CFI/CFII reissued...no problems.

If I can help any other military IPs send me a PM.

Fly safe,

Albie