Who thinks CFII requirements need to be raised?

[FORANE]

After reflecting on my experience (years ago) getting an instrument rating, I have come to the conclusion that the CFII rating requirements should be raised, ALOT.

Is it true that one can get a CFII rating with ZERO actual instrument time? That is crazy in my opinion.

I am naive. I tend to presume those licensed in their respective fields are competent but have witnessed time and time again (including in my own profession) cases where this just isn't the case. In 10 instructors I flew with for the instrument rating I doubt many of them (if any) had much of any experience in actual or on flights outside their local tomato patch. After flying myself on a weekly schedule for years, regardless of weather conditions, with each flight across multiple states I have come to the conclusion that CFII's should be required to have ALOT of actual cross country time.

Is it just me?

 

[LDJones]

Is it a benefit to have a lot more experience? You betcha. Should it be a requirement, I don't think so. You don't need a thousand hours of cross-country time in heavy weather to impart the knowledge and skills required to obtain an instrument rating. Didn't you think you CFI-I training and checkride were fairly rigorous?

 

[TMetzinger]

If you're gonna raise the requirements on a CFII to include significant actual experience, then you should impose similar requirements on the IA rating as well.

The system as is works quite well. If you WANT to get your rating with a grey-haired IMC vet in a lot of actual, you can find both the people and the places to do so, provided you're willing to pay the freight.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Whatever you havein mind in will definately increase cost, with a slight chance of increasing quality. Would also screw the sunny state fligjt schools, maybe that is ok, but it goes back to increasing cost. A world with readily available CFIIs might be safer then a world with scarce but expert CFIIs.

 

[FORANE]

Is it a benefit to have a lot more experience? You betcha. Should it be a requirement, I don't think so. You don't need a thousand hours of cross-country time in heavy weather to impart the knowledge and skills required to obtain an instrument rating. Didn't you think you CFI-I training and checkride were fairly rigorous?

Sorry if I did not make myself clear, I am not a CFI or CFII. I did feel the training and checkride for IR was rigorous, but looking back I do not believe I received the training I should have. My training was deficient in weather, but of course at that time most of the currently available weather resources were not available. My training had zero actual, which I believe would be beneficial. I had no idea what a contact approach was. I had little if any contingency reality training such as you just went missed and have to divert now with no advance planning type of thing. The only times I have experienced icing were on my own. Just feel that I did alot of self learning on my own after getting that rating.

 

[schmookeeg]

Sorry if I did not make myself clear, I am not a CFI or CFII. I did feel the training and checkride for IR was rigorous, but looking back I do not believe I received the training I should have. My training was deficient in weather, but of course at that time most of the currently available weather resources were not available. My training had zero actual, which I believe would be beneficial. I had no idea what a contact approach was. I had little if any contingency reality training such as you just went missed and have to divert now with no advance planning type of thing. The only times I have experienced icing were on my own. Just feel that I did alot of self learning on my own after getting that rating.

You mean it was a license to learn? Unlike your private pilot license, where you emerged prepared for every eventuality and with Yeager-like confidence already pre-instilled?

I agree with your desire for more experienced CFIIs, but I do not agree with raising of minimums to achieve it. I think that will cause dum-dums to go play in thunderstorms on snotty days in order to check an IACRA box... similar to when they did spins and low-altitude engine cuts on twins -- the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

I think if more people sought out the expereinced CFIIs and were willing to pay a higher rate for the training (possibly in the form of higher hourly OR higher number of training hours), then it might go a long way to incentivizing those types to stay in the game.

$0.02

 

[TMetzinger]

Sorry if I did not make myself clear, I am not a CFI or CFII. I did feel the training and checkride for IR was rigorous, but looking back I do not believe I received the training I should have. My training was deficient in weather, but of course at that time most of the currently available weather resources were not available. My training had zero actual, which I believe would be beneficial. I had no idea what a contact approach was. I had little if any contingency reality training such as you just went missed and have to divert now with no advance planning type of thing. The only times I have experienced icing were on my own. Just feel that I did alot of self learning on my own after getting that rating.

That's how our system works. You get trained enough so that you should (with a reasonable amount of judgement) be able to go out and safely teach yourself the finer points.

A similar topic came up once when I was training for my CFI - we were sitting around talking about all the stuff we learned post-private training, and why that should be part of the training. so my CFI-Sensei says "why don't you write up a syllabus for it by next week?"

I did - it would require approximately 120 hours of instruction (60 in TAA airplanes, 30 in serious simulators, 30 in a classroom) to complete my syllabus. At the end of that you'd be where I think I was as a 250-hour VFR private pilot.

If I were to do the same thing for the instrument rating I'd tack on at least another 30 hours in full motion simulators and kill you multiple times with weather and subtle and cascading failures.

 

[Ted]

The main issue I have with the CFII is that you can become a CFII with zero actual.

I don't have a problem with this for the instrument rating since many will work on theirs in areas or at times of year when this may not be feasible or safe. That's fine with me for a basic instrument rating, but to become an instructor, I believe one should actually have been required to have spent some amount of time in the soup.

 

[Z06_Mir]

My CFII wasn't so good. But I think it was because he'd never flown much in the system and didn't care to. If he had actually wanted to be a good instrument pilot I think he would have been a better instrument teacher. Hard to teach something you don't like yourself. Harder requirements wouldn't have made a difference in my situation.

 

[poadeleted21]

The could get rid of the loophole that lets aspiring bus drivers ride along right seat rent free. That's the only issue I've ever had with a CFI.

 

[TriGear28]

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli....cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22268

I am sorry you had a less experienced or, perhaps incompetent, instructor for the IR rating. I do; however think that IR, CFI, and CFII ratings are difficult to obtain and the standards are sufficiently high. More experience is always of benefit and, I admit I had a good one. In the air, that is. While everyone learns in different ways, I don't think it absolves a person to just say 'the instructor didn't instruct me' when it comes to many ground matters. Mine gave me sparse training on the ground. I also read everything I could, and took a 'crash course' on av weather.

"Mother Earth" doesn't change much over time. A lot of the 'advancements' I have seen only undermine our drive to have a better understanding of why weather acts the way it does. I think these docs give invaluable info to this day. If one understands these chapters fully, they can make use of weather from any trusted source. Is this AC from the 70's not still held in high confidence in flight training? The FAA still thinks so, and much of it is/was the basis for much of the written and oral exam. Sure, many books and resources are available but I don't think a person who studies this one alone, and understands it, should encounter icing conditions inadvertently.

 

[airdale]

Is it true that one can get a CFII rating with ZERO actual instrument time? That is crazy in my opinion.

I think it is the case that one can get a double-i without ever having flown in a cloud and having landed at only three airports.

Re increasing requirements I dunno. I sought out and used a double-i who regularly flew singles and light twins for hire, in the system, multi-thousand hours with only a small minority of hours "dual given." I learned a lot, including icing the airplane two or three times in training-wheels conditions. My goal for the checkride was to have 10 hours of actual IMC and I had 10.1.

Whenever I talk to someone who is considering CFIs I encourage them to find someone with major-league been-there, done-that qualifications. This is probably less important for the PP but there is a lot more to IFR flying than which instrument is primary and what all the dots and spots on the plates mean.

 

[MultiMediaWill]

The could get rid of the loophole that lets aspiring bus drivers ride along right seat rent free. That's the only issue I've ever had with a CFI.

What do you mean by that?

 

[TriGear28]

What do you mean by that?

I am assuming it has to do with the 'ability' of a CFI to claim some sort of 'instruction' just b/c they are on a plane. I've seen several people do this 'trick.' one even rode along on a multi inst. flight in the back seat of a light twin just so he could log it. I just shook my head. Screwing with the regs that much will catch up to most people.

 

[airheadpenguin]

Having used one of those grey haired CFIIs I think the standards are fine. Mind you I had a choice and picked someone with experience.

That said I think it has more to do with knowing how to teach and convey knowledge than 1000 hours in hard IMC and 5000 in an airplane

 

[poadeleted21]

What do you mean by that?

This:

A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.

 

[Captain]

After reflecting on my experience (years ago) getting an instrument rating, I have come to the conclusion that the CFII rating requirements should be raised, ALOT.

Is it true that one can get a CFII rating with ZERO actual instrument time? That is crazy in my opinion.

I am naive. I tend to presume those licensed in their respective fields are competent but have witnessed time and time again (including in my own profession) cases where this just isn't the case. In 10 instructors I flew with for the instrument rating I doubt many of them (if any) had much of any experience in actual or on flights outside their local tomato patch. After flying myself on a weekly schedule for years, regardless of weather conditions, with each flight across multiple states I have come to the conclusion that CFII's should be required to have ALOT of actual cross country time.

Is it just me?

Of your 10 instructors what tipped you off they didn't have any / much actual IMC experience or never flew far from some tomato patch?




On a side note;

Should people who use made up words like 'alot' a lot be allowed to post a lot?

 

[TommyG]

Just as you had no actual, how do you expect a cfi to get the required actual to get his CFII. The weather can't be controlled, and this logic would require a cfi from Florida to move to the northeast for a period of time just to gain enough actual time.

 

[wabower]

Nobody's fault but yours. You should have researched the issue and realized you might be trained by a CFII with no actual time. Upon gaining this information, you should have interviewed each instructor to determine his/her specific level of experience. If none, you should have moved to an area where IMC is frequent and completed your training there.

I'm in the same predicament. I obtained an ASEL rating in TX. Now I'm thinking I might want to fly in the Pacific Northwest and they're telling me I don't have the type of float experience they're looking for. I'm thinking about finding the CFI who provided my training and beating the crap out of him for not providing me with such experience.

After reflecting on my experience (years ago) getting an instrument rating, I have come to the conclusion that the CFII rating requirements should be raised, ALOT.

Is it true that one can get a CFII rating with ZERO actual instrument time? That is crazy in my opinion.

I am naive. I tend to presume those licensed in their respective fields are competent but have witnessed time and time again (including in my own profession) cases where this just isn't the case. In 10 instructors I flew with for the instrument rating I doubt many of them (if any) had much of any experience in actual or on flights outside their local tomato patch. After flying myself on a weekly schedule for years, regardless of weather conditions, with each flight across multiple states I have come to the conclusion that CFII's should be required to have ALOT of actual cross country time.

Is it just me?

 

[airdale]

Just as you had no actual, how do you expect a cfi to get the required actual to get his CFII. The weather can't be controlled, and this logic would require a cfi from Florida to move to the northeast for a period of time just to gain enough actual time

Life is not fair. No one who does not have significant time in IMC and flying in the system should hold themselves out as an instrument instrucor, no matter what the FARs permit.

 

[moonshine]

It's a free country, you get to pick and choose
I was flying with two CFIIs for my IA - and that was an arrangement I wanted.
One has 17k+ hrs flying himself around in all sorts of airplanes and conditions - 10+ hrs actual out of which 3.1 were night actual - that was my long xc and the weather was bad to the point of washing off the sealant around the com 1 antenna and making me switch to com 2 - fun. He'd call me up whenever he was in town and weather sucked bad enough to make a certain point. We shot approaches into Cecil and Fernandino Beach when those were 100vv in fog - just to make sure I log actual missed approaches before I'm "off into the wild". With G1000 logging it was interesting to superimpose your track on Google Earth and see yourself right on the centerline, at minimums, and knowing that you never even saw a hint of the runway.
We crossed the "FL-GA divider" line of TS learning to compare the nexrad picture to whatever the eyes see and picking our way through. Learned about circling approaches coming back home to KDED from southeast - winds were favouring 12, and I was intending to request just that, but then the enlightenment came from the right seat suggesting I check the AWOS and circling minima for 23, since RNAV 12 would have us "being vectored all over the damn place for 40 minutes". Same guy took me to X23 at night to practice landing with quartering tailwinds, because "plane can definitely do it, and sometime you may fly in at night and the windsock will not be lighted". Ahh.. fun times
Another CFII has 5k hours teaching at a certain aviation-minded academic institution. We barely logged any actual, but lots of holds, compass and timed turns and other such stuff. While not as much fun, it was still all needed, even though I gave him grief about things being "boring". Most fascinating part was coming back from a xc flight with inop fuel flow and fuel slowly seeping out of the left tank - still, got to check each other's ADM and came out happy and on the same page. (FF fixed, fuel tank replaced. That combined cost more than the whole IA )
Then before the very checkride flew with a CFII who knows the DE - and knows that a trip to Sanford is pretty much granted - so he took me there too. Besides the man's been doing this so long (30k dual given) that I personally think that before they invented aviation, he was throwing pterodactyls out of their nests teaching them how to fly. Flying the commercial hours with him found out there there are many more different flavours of lazy eights than the books presently says.
All in all, 51.3 hours total time, 11.6 actual, 29.9 hood, 31 approach in an area roughly defined by KEYW-KCKV-GE99-KVRB over 10 or so months.
And yet - this is more or less how I wanted to do it and how I did it. Could have been done in a month or so with a 250 hr CFII but I wanted more. If the family, schedule and funds permitted, I'd just go on a long trip with a CFII and get a taste of different regional things - for instance, I'm yet to shoot anything other than a visual (ok, night visual) in the mountains - even our East Coast variety - and the only time I flew in snow was years back during my private training days - coming back into KUGN on SVFR.
Point being, one way or another it's just a ticket to learn, like the one before it.
Voted "No" in the poll.

 

[FORANE]

I think it is the case that one can get a double-i without ever having flown in a cloud and having landed at only three airports.

Re increasing requirements I dunno. I sought out and used a double-i who regularly flew singles and light twins for hire, in the system, multi-thousand hours with only a small minority of hours "dual given." I learned a lot, including icing the airplane two or three times in training-wheels conditions. My goal for the checkride was to have 10 hours of actual IMC and I had 10.1.

Whenever I talk to someone who is considering CFIs I encourage them to find someone with major-league been-there, done-that qualifications. This is probably less important for the PP but there is a lot more to IFR flying than which instrument is primary and what all the dots and spots on the plates mean.

This is smart. I would recommend this approach to anyone pursuing the IR.

Of your 10 instructors what tipped you off they didn't have any / much actual IMC experience or never flew far from some tomato patch?




On a side note;

Should people who use made up words like 'alot' a lot be allowed to post a lot?

Each of them avoided getting an actual clearance and working in the system. I am not aware of any of them having any work outside instruction at their local base. I do not recall hearing any anecdotal stories of been there, done that. I do not recall hearing much if any "pearls" of what to expect in various situations or how to get the most out of the system.
When I got transition training in my Lancair, the instructors vast experience was obvious relative to all other instructors I have had.
Sorry if I stirred your grammatical demons; I cannot gripe though as my demons act up when I hear irregardless.

Nobody's fault but yours. You should have researched the issue and realized you might be trained by a CFII with no actual time. Upon gaining this information, you should have interviewed each instructor to determine his/her specific level of experience. If none, you should have moved to an area where IMC is frequent and completed your training there.

I'm in the same predicament. I obtained an ASEL rating in TX. Now I'm thinking I might want to fly in the Pacific Northwest and they're telling me I don't have the type of float experience they're looking for. I'm thinking about finding the CFI who provided my training and beating the crap out of him for not providing me with such experience.

True, I should have done more due diligence. I should have requested actual and in the system. I guess after the great experience I had getting my private feeling completely prepared (in the aircraft I trained in) I just expected the same in the IR.

 

[flyingmoose]

This:

And what do you expect to fix by not allowing flight instructors to log pic time?

 

[Captain]

My grammar side note was supposed to just be funny. No worries.


Yeah, a CFII who avoided the system could be a sign. Or maybe they are in SDL and you can do a ton more training VFR under the hood than IFR.

VFR you can shoot approach after approach, hold entries till you're blue. But if you have to file you have to coordinate every thing with ATC and it slows things down.

Don't get me wrong, as a CFII in Florida I had my students on lesson 1 plan a flight to the north and on lesson 2 plan one to the South. Now we have one both ways and if actual weather presented itself we'd go chase it down.

BUT, on clear days we got a lot done too for above stated reasons. F45 was one of my favorite IFR training airports. It has an ILS and it's untowered! That's as close as we were going to get to a Level D sim right there. Shoot an approach and I could just reposition us back to the marker and do it again...

Point is, VFR has its place in instrument training.

 

[W. Stewart]

I am OK with leaving the requirements as they are, but I still prefer to fly with more-experienced instructors, myself.

I am all for choice.

Wells

 

[EdFred]

And what do you expect to fix by not allowing flight instructors to log pic time?

Getting people who actually want to instruct to be a CFI/I, as opposed to people just wanting 1500 hours so they can get that dream job.

 

[TommyG]

Getting people who actually want to instruct to be a CFI/I, as opposed to people just wanting 1500 hours so they can get that dream job.

Well unfortunately 99% of the CFIs out there are logging hours to get a pilot job. Wheni was doing my training, my jobs instructing, I did not meet anyone that wanted together all that training, spend all that money just to be career instructors.

 

[poadeleted21]

Well unfortunately 99% of the CFIs out there are logging hours to get a pilot job. Wheni was doing my training, my jobs instructing, I did not meet anyone that wanted together all that training, spend all that money just to be career instructors.

The "good" instructors I know, do it as a side job or as a service they offer at their FBO. I've contemplated if I want to go through to CFI/CFII just to instruct on the side for fun. I have 0 aspirations of moving people or cargo from point A to point B for a paycheck.

How "good" are the hours anyway? I mean is staying around the patch sitting right seat in a Cessna 150 on cherry picked days repeating "watch your airspeed" really beneficial to someone wanting to press buttons in Boeing?

 

[EdFred]

Well unfortunately 99% of the CFIs out there are logging hours to get a pilot job. Wheni was doing my training, my jobs instructing, I did not meet anyone that wanted together all that training, spend all that money just to be career instructors.

If CFI time was not countable towards the 1500, you wouldn't have people spending money to be career instructors. Or if they did, they would REALLY want to instruct, and frankly that's usually who you want instruction from. If CFI time was not countable towards the 1500, we should see a vast improvement in instruction.

 

[Captain]

I know a lot of professional pilots (myself included) tend to shy away from instruction on the side due to liability.

If I had a student run out of gas and ball up the plane the FAA would come after me. They wouldn't be content taking away my CFI either. I'd likely lose my ATP privileges as well in any enforcement action. So a 100K plus career gets put in jeopardy because 'Johnny' didn't buy gas like I told him to.

It's a risk/reward issue. Too much of one and not enough of the other.

.02

 

[Captain]

If CFI time was not countable towards the 1500, you wouldn't have people spending money to be career instructors. Or if they did, they would REALLY want to instruct, and frankly that's usually who you want instruction from. If CFI time was not countable towards the 1500, we should see a vast improvement in instruction.

Sure, instruction quality would go up. But that's because there would only be a handful of instructors across the nation. Cost would obviously follow. So a PPL goes to $25K. Student starts would also drop by 99%. With so few pilots it'd be that much easier to get rid of GA altogether as an unecessary expense. FBOs close, airports too.

We're already on that road, but not allowing CFIs to log time would make it a much shorter trip.

 

[EdFred]

Sure, instruction quality would go up. But that's because there would only be a handful of instructors across the nation. Cost would obviously follow. So a PPL goes to $25K. Student starts would also drop by 99%. With so few pilots it'd be that much easier to get rid of GA altogether as an unecessary expense. FBOs close, airports too.

We're already on that road, but not allowing CFIs to log time would make it a much shorter trip.

Wrong. I charge $25/hr. A number of other freelance instructors that aren't about building time, are also in that range. My primary was also not a time builder - $25/hr. My SES and ME instructor was also not a time builder. Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

 

[Captain]

Wrong. I charge $25/hr. A number of other freelance instructors that aren't about building time, are also in that range. My primary was also not a time builder - $25/hr. My SES and ME instructor was also not a time builder. Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Snark aside your post did not discredit my point. MOST instructors (maybe not you) are in it for the time, not money. If they all go away that affects the supply and demand equation. When supply goes down price goes up.

 

[EdFred]

Snark aside your post did not discredit my point. MOST instructors (maybe not you) are in it for the time, not money. If they all go away that affects the supply and demand equation. When supply goes down price goes up.

Over 95% of the instructors I know are NOT building time - in fact off the top of my head, I can't think of a current instructor I know who is building time. Stay away from the puppy mills and you see that percentage swing vastly more my way. My price doesn't go up. I'm just charging enough to cover gas to and from the airport, and a bite to eat after each lesson since I'm not eating at home, and maybe a little extra.

 

[Captain]

My fault. I didn't mean MOST of the instructors 'you know' instruct to build time. I should have stated MOST of the instructors 'as a whole' instruct to build time.

Regardless, you have to concede that flight instruction is a classic way for people to build time. If that's true then a change to their ability to log that time would result in fewer instructors and fewer instructors would result in overall higher cost of training.

Are we really arguing this point? It really seems obvious to me.

 

[EdFred]

My fault. I didn't mean MOST of the instructors 'you know' instruct to build time. I should have stated MOST of the instructors 'as a whole' instruct to build time.

Regardless, you have to concede that flight instruction is a classic way for people to build time. If that's true then a change to their ability to log that time would result in fewer instructors and fewer instructors would result in overall higher cost of training.

Are we really arguing this point? It really seems obvious to me.

If that's what you want to believe, that's fine. But a belief doesn't make it fact. Plus the premise is flawed that the inability to log time would necessarily result in fewer instructors. What it would mostly result in is fewer crappy instructors. Even if we got rid of half the instructors, the price of instruction would not significantly increase.

 

[poadeleted21]

My fault. I didn't mean MOST of the instructors 'you know' instruct to build time. I should have stated MOST of the instructors 'as a whole' instruct to build time.

I don't have the numbers, but my money would be on that being a false statement.

Regardless, you have to concede that flight instruction is a classic way for people to build time.

It is, but didn't the industry invent an Aviation degree program or something that allows the obligatory CFI stop to be bypassed?

I didn't get a CS degree to teach CS, I'd be lousy at it, but I'd do if it were necessary to get my ultimate goal. Guess who suffers in that scenario?

If that's true then a change to their ability to log that time would result in fewer instructors and fewer instructors would result in overall higher cost of training.

Are we really arguing this point? It really seems obvious to me.

It does seem obvious, but the math we do know doesn't bear that out. i.e. the CFI to student pilot ratio is as sweet now as it has ever been and less CFIs "are just building time" than in the past.

I do think just striking down the regulation would put the ATP mills in a bind.

 

[Captain]

I don't have the numbers, but my money would be on that being a false statement.

It is, but didn't the industry invent an Aviation degree program or something that allows the obligatory CFI stop to be bypassed?

I didn't get a CS degree to teach CS, I'd be lousy at it, but I'd do if it were necessary to get my ultimate goal. Guess who suffers in that scenario?

It does seem obvious, but the math we do know doesn't bear that out. i.e. the CFI to student pilot ratio is as sweet now as it has ever been and less CFIs "are just building time" than in the past.

I do think just striking down the regulation would put the ATP mills in a bind.

I'm not aware of 'ATP mills'. I would think the ATP is a very small percentage of any 141 schools program. However,

If all those 'mills' were to close down or be forced to compete for professional instructors I think it stands to reason that the compensation for those instructors would go up.

I'm only speaking here of the idea of changing the regs to not allow the CFI to log the hours.

It's an academic discussion anyway. It's not going to happen. Even if it did airline interviewers would most likely just look at total time and add to it the hours of dual given and make a decision based on that. If the dual given were not allowed to be credited towards the 1500 then a problem arises where a pilot would have to decide how they wanted to get to the 1500.

Honestly, I'd rather have them instruct than go up and down 20 thousand times in a jump plane or tow banners over the same 10 mile stretch of beach or haul gliders.

CFI affords the greatest possibility of learning of all the ratings save maybe 'student pilot'. By that I mean the learning curve is the steepest for the CFI than all the others. Maybe Instrument comes close...

Whatever, opinions vary.

 

[TMetzinger]

If you're retired or otherwise financially set, then being a "for the joy of it" CFI at $25/hr works.

If you're aspiring for an airline career, then being a "for the time building" CFI (where you may gross $25/hr) works.

Very few folks can raise a family in a major metro area even if they were charging and keeping $50/hr for being a CFI. Weather and other factors get in the way.

 

[EdFred]

I'm not aware of 'ATP mills'. I would think the ATP is a very small percentage of any 141 schools program. However,

If all those 'mills' were to close down or be forced to compete for professional instructors I think it stands to reason that the compensation for those instructors would go up.

I'm only speaking here of the idea of changing the regs to not allow the CFI to log the hours.

It's an academic discussion anyway. It's not going to happen. Even if it did airline interviewers would most likely just look at total time and add to it the hours of dual given and make a decision based on that. If the dual given were not allowed to be credited towards the 1500 then a problem arises where a pilot would have to decide how they wanted to get to the 1500.

Honestly, I'd rather have them instruct than go up and down 20 thousand times in a jump plane or tow banners over the same 10 mile stretch of beach or haul gliders.

CFI affords the greatest possibility of learning of all the ratings save maybe 'student pilot'. By that I mean the learning curve is the steepest for the CFI than all the others. Maybe Instrument comes close...

Whatever, opinions vary.

If the Feds required 1500 hours of non-instruction time, the airlines couldn't just count instruction time because they felt like it. Personally I'd like to see CFI minimums bumped to 500 hours, with actual instrument conditions required. And more actual instrument for the CFII. Maybe later tonight, I'll write down what I would like to see for requirements for CFI, II, ATP.