CFII renewal for Military IP?

[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