If you are talking primary instructors, I agree that this would probably work. But from what I can tell, this applies to all IPs. The F-18 RAG IP does not have the backgound to teach the average Joe off the street how to fly. Neither does the P-3 IP.
As I mentioned, they would not be
as qualified, but this new method offers a very good alternative to getting the CFI. Again, everyone is different.
But being a good stick doesn't equate to being a good CFI.
No argument there. But having 2000 hours of flight time and no "hard core" instructional background usually trumps 275 hours and no instructional background.
I almost flunked my private pilot checkride because my CFI was a Navy pilot that taught me to fly the Navy way.
Exactly! How was this CFI trained? He went through the full CFI training! And it
still didn't help, according to your story. This is
certainly not an indictment of the proposed mil competency CFI test. If anything, you've shown that this CFI, like some, didn't have much in his "bag of tricks".
I was demonstrating a crosswind landing and crabbed all the way to the flare, kicked the crab out and landed. The FAA examiner went ballistic because I didn't use wing down/opposite rudder.
Just a clarification: You failed to point out that if you "kick the crab", even as late in the game as the flare, you still have to use some "wing down", otherwise you'll begin to drift. The drift might not develop as much as if you kicked it out at 1/2 nm final with no wing low, but you can't just "kick it out" and do nothing with the bank angle.
This military CFI should have known better because he did the CFI checkride...
Exactly! This military CFI of yours went through the current FAA method for getting the CFI, and according to you, the CFI training failed in a very basic area. Going through the current CFI syllabus guarantees nothing. It's what a CFI puts into his instructional abililties
after the checkride that determines what kind of CFI they will be.
...but a military IP who got his CFI based on a written test probably would not know the FAA's preference.
How do you infer that? I know the FAA's preference, and how to land a G.A. aircraft. And so do everyone of the military pilots that I fly G.A. with.
Just reviewing part 61 doesn't teach a military how to proficiently fly the maneuvers required by the FAA. For example, did you fly 8s on pylons in primary?
Correct: when I got checked out in the Beale Aero Club's C-172, we did 8's on pylons, turns about a point, etc...
I read up on them before I did them, went and flew them. Done. It's not rocket science. Even my 23 year old civilian CFI agreed that I had them down just fine.
There are no hour limits or training hour requirements for the CFI. If a military IP has the appropriate back ground and experience, he theoretically could take the 2 written exams, do a single training flight with a CFI for the endorsement, and take a checkride with the FAA or DE. It could be knocked out in 2 or 3 days. It ensures the military IP knows the civilian manuevers and techniques.
My CFI buds disagree. They say the CFI checkride is ALL about the ground eval: review of part 61, logbook endorsements, aircraft systes, etc... They really expect you'll do fine on the flying portion. The ground eval is where folks bust.
BTW - you don't need a CFI to teach under 121, 135, 91K or 142. You just need the ATP. So if you were an UAL pilot who lost his medical, you can still teach at TK.
I don't believe this is true, but I don't have the knowledge to prove it. I was told this by the FAA guy assigned to UAL's 727 fleet. I'm
guessing that once you lose your medical, you can no longer exercise the privledges of the ATP. But that is not the case with the CFI. Also, to get the CFI, you
must have the medical, but losing the medical later does not invalidate the CFI certificate. Hence, you could continue to instruct in the sim.
There is nothing in parts 61 or 91 that says you need a CFI to teach formation or aerobatics either.
True. But the place that wants to hire me to teach this wants me to have the CFI. I would think it unlikely that a school would give any kind of "instruction" using an "instructor" that hasn't been blessed by the FAA with a CFI certificate. Additionally, I'm trying to break into warbirds. The owners of the AT-6/SNJ I'm trying to fly want me to have a CFI. I've found that to be the case with some P-51 owners, too.
They quickly adapt but if they had tried flying alone the first time, they probably would have wrecked the plane or killed themselves. It is an easy transition but a transition that needs to be made.
Yes, they do quickly adapt. No one expects a military pilot to take this test, and start teaching the next day at the local FBO. If said military pilot decides in a year, five years, or ten years to use the CFI certificate, they'll go out their FBO, get a checkout, flight review if necessary, and all the other "necessary" things to "fly" the aircraft.
Anticipating your rebuttal about currency, I've known plenty of pilots with CFI cert's that keep renewing them, but haven't used them in years and years. Many haven't even flown G.A. in years either. What about them?
Finally, military pilots are taught to fly the military way. Civilian pilots are taught to fly the civilian way. There are many differences and each works in its proper place. The military guy that wants to teach civilian needs to train civilian. You are doing the civilian student an injustice by teaching the military method when he needs to be taught the civilian method. Making the military IP do the civilian CFI training is a good thing. When you went back for your 3rd IP tour, did you just walk in and start teaching again, or did you do an IUT syllabus first?
To answer your last question, I went through a very abbreviated version of the syllabus, based on my
"previous experience". Basically, I proficiency advanced. Sounds sort of like,... a "previous military competency"!
I often cringe when I see folks comparing military flight training to civilian training. We are training pilots for very involved, detailed, warfighting skills (or the building blocks for those skills): low level, formation flight, aerobatics, even radio discipline. They are flying multi-million $$ aircraft,... some of which are national assets. Comparing that t oa recreational flyer learning to takeoff, land, do stalls, and basic maneuvers is apples and oranges. I'm not trying to diminish the "skills" necessary for Cessna flying. In many cases, being a civ CFI is potentially very frustrating, and even dangerous. But the level of intensity, and the level of competence required in military flying is, as we all know, a whole different level.
One of the big takeaways in all of this -- no matter whether you believe it is good or bad -- is that the pilots that will actually use this CFI certificate to teach in a Cessna new-pilot environment are going to be guys that have a passion for flying G.A. aircraft already. We all know plenty of military aviators that, when they leave work, couldn't care a bit about spending the weekend at the airport. These are not the folks that this FAA rule is targeting. Sure, they'll have the CFI certificate, but won't use it.
G.A.
needs CFI's. The pilot numbers in this country are dropping. If we're going to reverse this trend, we need to make it easier for highly qualified pilots to able to get the CFI cert so they can start sharing their passion with others. As an example, when I get mine, I plan on teaching one teenager a year for free. They just pay for the aircraft. I don't plan on making a living off of this, and neither do any other military pilots that I know. We just want to be able to share and teach. I think we'll do it quite well at it, too.
