CFI Renewal

[TMetzinger]

Today, a CFI can renew in a number of ways:

• Taking a CFI checkride for a new rating
• Sending a minimum number of students with an 80% first time pass rate
• Taking an in-person or on-line Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic
• Participating in a full 2-year series of FAASTeam CFI workshops (though this program will go away at the end of the current cycle).

In the last two examples, a flight instructor could not be teaching or flying at all and keep his instructor privileges by going through 15-16 hours of ground instruction.

I'm wondering if a requirement for a biennial review and endorsement by a current CFI (similar to what is done for Ground Instructors) that would require a minimum of ground and flight evaluation wouldn't make more sense than the FIRC option, since it requires an actual evaluation of the the instructor's flying and teaching skills.

Does anybody know the logic behind making the CFI certificate the only one that expires instead of requiring periodic instruction and evaluation?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Does anybody know the logic behind making the CFI certificate the only one that expires instead of requiring periodic instruction and evaluation?

Inspection Authorizations (IA) expire every two years also unless the holder renews. So does Check Airman Authority (135,121) as well as Designee (DPE, DME).

As far as your other question it would take some research since it goes back many,many years.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Does anybody know the logic behind making the CFI certificate the only one that expires instead of requiring periodic instruction and evaluation?

Nope and I know dozens of current CFI's that haven't given a single hour of dual in the past decade, but they keep their CFI certificate current so it doesn't expire. Just how it goes, I guess...

 

[TMetzinger]

Inspection Authorizations (IA) expire every two years also unless the holder renews. So does Check Airman Authority (135,121) as well as Designee (DPE, DME).

As far as your other question it would take some research since it goes back many,many years.

Thanks - I hadn't considered those.

Don't get me wrong - I want flight instructors to be proficient and a two year "term" before a re-evaluation seems reasonable to me. I just don't know if the FIRC path is sufficient. If I were King, I'd require some sort of requirement for actually giving instruction in the last 24 months OR an endorsement from a current CFI in addition to the FIRC.

 

[Ted]

Thanks - I hadn't considered those.

Don't get me wrong - I want flight instructors to be proficient and a two year "term" before a re-evaluation seems reasonable to me. I just don't know if the FIRC path is sufficient. If I were King, I'd require some sort of requirement for actually giving instruction in the last 24 months OR an endorsement from a current CFI in addition to the FIRC.

I have to respectfully disagree. I am a CFI who does a minimal amount of instruction. In past 15 months I've not even done 50 hours of dual, and only one person was towards a rating. The people who I do instruct seem to think I'm pretty good in spite of all of this, primarily because I fly. I should not have to prove to the FAA once again that I am capable of instructing. I about went bald and had my hair turn gray as a result of it. The CFI checkride outright sucks.

The FAA regulations are written in such a way that you can keep your privileges fairly easy, but you as the bearer of said privileges needs to determine whether or not you are capable of doing the required instruction. For example, I'll teach you how to fly a twin any day, do a flight review, add on a commercial rating, or provide other areas of more advanced instruction. I'm a bit more wary of taking on primary students for the simple fact that I'm not really as current as I feel I ought to be on the things a private pilot student needs from an instructor.

I do not believe that this should change, nor do I believe that students are at a disadvantage as a result. More things should be this way.

 

[dmccormack]

Thanks - I hadn't considered those.

Don't get me wrong - I want flight instructors to be proficient and a two year "term" before a re-evaluation seems reasonable to me. I just don't know if the FIRC path is sufficient. If I were King, I'd require some sort of requirement for actually giving instruction in the last 24 months OR an endorsement from a current CFI in addition to the FIRC.

This would be an undue burden with no evidence of improvement.

This sorta sounds like the stuff about "Actively involved" A&P-IAs.

 

[ntbjounin]

ok question... i'll need to renew my CFI in June. By then, I will have my requirements done for renewal... My question is, do I have to send in any paperwork or anything to the FAA for renewal? Or what? Is it just valid again because I've done it? Or what?
Is there an Iacra thing for that?

 

[poadeleted20]

ok question... i'll need to renew my CFI in June. By then, I will have my requirements done for renewal... My question is, do I have to send in any paperwork or anything to the FAA for renewal? Or what? Is it just valid again because I've done it? Or what?
Is there an Iacra thing for that?

Exactly what you do depends on which requirements you met, but they all involve an 8710-1 either on paper or via IACRA.

If you did a FIRC, the course provider would have given you explicit instructions on how to do it, so I guess you didn't do it that way. If you were taking a practical test, you would have done the 8710-1 as part of the test application, and received your new ticket already, so I guess you didn't do it that way, either. That leaves only "activity" or the Wings seminar program, and I'm guessing it's the former.

In that case, you have to go see either the FSDO or a designated flight instructor renewal/reinstatement examiner (FIRE) with documentation of the folks you've signed off for a practical test (and the results), and an 8710-1 (almost certainly on IACRA). Check with your FSDO to see if they require this at their office, or if not, who the FIRE's are in your area. The FSDO or FIRE will tell you what documentation is required on your signoffs.

BTW, if you want to keep your existing expiration date (plus two years, i.e., to have the new one expire 6//30/2013), don't submit your paperwork until within three calendar months of your current expiration month (i.e., not before 3/1/11).

 

[dillardrg]

I am a moderately active CFI (125 hours of instruction hours last year).

I do tailwheel endorsements, spin endorsements, and FRs. I probably did a dozen or so endorsements and several FRs last year. I have 100% positive feedback from my clients.
I don't do primary instruction for the same reasons as Ted.

There is no provision in the regs for me to renew because of activity, I must go the same route as inactive istructors. I don't have a problem with that but I would have a problem with having to do a "biennial review and endorsement by a current CFI".

I know of no local CFI who would be qualified to evaluate the type instruction that I do.

 

[TMetzinger]

Thanks for the discussion - it's enlightening. I do note that neither Ted nor Ron would have a problem doing the FIRC and qualifying under my suggestion (with no evaluation needed) as they've all given dual during the validity of their certificate.

 

[dmccormack]

Thanks for the discussion - it's enlightening. I do note that neither Ted nor Ron would have a problem doing the FIRC and qualifying under my suggestion (with no evaluation needed) as they've all given dual during the validity of their certificate.

I've given dual but CFI is not a F/T job for me. Most of the other CFIs I know have real jobs as well.

We already have a flight review requirement -- why add another?

 

[poadeleted20]

We already have a flight review requirement -- why add another?

How about if the CFI review counted as a 61.56 flight review, too. Would that "two birds/one stone" deal be OK with you?

BTW, that's not a statement of support for the concept (I'll keep my own opinions on CFI renewal requirements to myself for now), just a question of clarification of Dan's position on the matter.

 

[dmccormack]

How about if the CFI review counted as a 61.56 flight review, too. Would that be OK with you?

Then what's the difference?

I'm OK with the current FIR process. I dropped $200 on American Flyers and have access to the online program as long as they stay in business. It's a good review of various topics, etc.

IMHO the CFI renewal process isn't about stick and rudder, and shouldn't be. That's what the FR is for.

 

[poadeleted20]

Then what's the difference?

The difference is you do one review every two years, and it updates both your 61.56 flight review and your instructor renewal, as opposed to doing a 61.56 flight review plus an instructor renewal event.

I'm OK with the current FIR process. I dropped $200 on American Flyers and have access to the online program as long as they stay in business. It's a good review of various topics, etc.

But it still means taking 16 hours of training every two years plus a 61.56 flight review. If you could kill both those birds with one ground/flight review session with a CFI, wouldn't that be easier?

IMHO the CFI renewal process isn't about stick and rudder, and shouldn't be. That's what the FR is for.

Ahhh...now we've got it -- the CFI renewal should be about teaching, and the 61.56 review should be about flying. But what if the instructor giving the flight review had the power to make that review more like a CFI pratical test, with you flying and teaching from the right seat, and you got both a CFI renewal and a flight review out of that deal? Is there something you think you get from the 16 hours of on-line training that is essential to being a CFI for another two years?

 

[TMetzinger]

Ahhh...now we've got it -- the CFI renewal should be about teaching, and the 61.56 review should be about flying. But what if the instructor giving the flight review had the power to make that review more like a CFI pratical test, with you flying and teaching from the right seat, and you got both a CFI renewal and a flight review out of that deal? Is there something you think you get from the 16 hours of on-line training that is essential to being a CFI for another two years?

And that's kind of where I was going...

 

[dmccormack]

Ahhh...now we've got it -- the CFI renewal should be about teaching, and the 61.56 review should be about flying. But what if the instructor giving the flight review had the power to make that review more like a CFI pratical test, with you flying and teaching from the right seat, and you got both a CFI renewal and a flight review out of that deal? Is there something you think you get from the 16 hours of on-line training that is essential to being a CFI for another two years?

I think the current FIRC requirement helps enforce some regular update of knowledge.

The FR is already abused.

While it would seem more efficient to get them both done at the same time, I think too often it would be a one hour flight to/from a burger place with Ole George.

Add to that the complexity of who gets to do the FR? Does the CFI providing the review need a minimum # of hours? Min # of passed students?

And so on...

 

[RotorAndWing]

But what if the instructor giving the flight review had the power to make that review more like a CFI pratical test, with you flying and teaching from the right seat, and you got both a CFI renewal and a flight review out of that deal?

The problem with that concept is you are essentially giving an Instructor examining authority by having the renewing CFI give a "practical test".

By doing that you are essentially having CFI's retest every two years.

Personally I don't see a problem with our present system.

 

[ClimbnSink]

And you would end up with less instructors, less pilots, more expensive instruction with no quantifiable safety increase. Lots of paper/electronic renewed CFIs out there they ain't harming anyone. If they get back in the right seat chances are that an employer or insurance company will require remedial training. For the handful that might have an opportunity where they can go from uncurrent to teaching, meh, whatever it isn't a problem requiring a larger burden on everyone else.

Thanks - I hadn't considered those.

Don't get me wrong - I want flight instructors to be proficient and a two year "term" before a re-evaluation seems reasonable to me. I just don't know if the FIRC path is sufficient. If I were King, I'd require some sort of requirement for actually giving instruction in the last 24 months OR an endorsement from a current CFI in addition to the FIRC.

 

[Everskyward]

If the CFI is about teaching and not flying I don't see why that ability would need to be retested every two years. I don't see teaching skills as being as perishable as stick and rudder skills. Many people teach other people things in the course of their normal lives which may not have anything to do with flying, but is still imparting knowledge. I think the FIRC or weekend ground schools are a good idea if they keep instructors abreast of new regulations and changes to ratings requirements which have occurred in the preceding two years.

 

[Dave Theisen]

This is what I ran up against this year. You need five or more recommendations with an 80% pass rate to renew on activity. I had only four recommendations but all four passed. (which is 80% of five) I could have sent my 7 year old daughter for a check ride knowing it would be an immediate failure, but then could have renewed with an 80% pass rate. However, I was required to complete a FIRQ in order to renew because I didn't have five.

Glad the regs make sense to Washington/Oklahoma City.

 

[denverpilot]

Remember also that technically it's not possible to "flunk" a BFR. Technically it's review. Not a check ride.

Similar to the reminder that an Annual Inspection is just that. People who save up maintenance for "the Annual" might or might not be saving money... But maintenance is done when maintenance is required and inspections are done when inspections are required.

It's just that the Inspection might turn up something that makes the aircraft un-airworthy, thus maintenance *or* a Ferry Permit -- that last part being the one people forget -- becomes necessary.

Here's a question for you CFIs... How would you "flunk" someone on a BFR? Would you withhold your signature that you'd spent the appropriate time in ground/flight review from their logbook? Write in the logbook that you thought they weren't performing to PTS standards?

Business/Legal: If you withheld your signature, would they have a case against you for non-provision of paid services? From a liability standpoint would it be safer not to accept payment for a unsatisfactory BFR performance, until you either worked with the person to be safe, or they never came back?

If it got that ugly would you report 'em to the FSDO as potentially needing a 509 ride?

Just curious. Sorry to hijack thread. I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious here. I'm always curious about "worst case scenarios".

Personally I treat BFRs as a mixture of check ride and learning. And have never had a CFI who didn't. But it's really not a check ride.

For the record: I'm really not all that opposed in theory to true re-currency check rides for all ratings as our pilot population ages.

A few pilots I know are starting to worry me. I've seen all the threads about how to properly approach them, get their attention, etc. But a check ride system with standards of performance administered equally and fairly, seems better... for all involved.

Thoughts?

 

[jesse]

Remember also that technically it's not possible to "flunk" a BFR. Technically it's review. Not a check ride.

Similar to the reminder that an Annual Inspection is just that. People who save up maintenance for "the Annual" might or might not be saving money... But maintenance is done when maintenance is required and inspections are done when inspections are required.

It's just that the Inspection might turn up something that makes the aircraft un-airworthy, thus maintenance *or* a Ferry Permit -- that last part being the one people forget -- becomes necessary.

Here's a question for you CFIs... How would you "flunk" someone on a BFR? Would you withhold your signature that you'd spent the appropriate time in ground/flight review from their logbook? Write in the logbook that you thought they weren't performing to PTS standards?

Business/Legal: If you withheld your signature, would they have a case against you for non-provision of paid services? From a liability standpoint would it be safer not to accept payment for a unsatisfactory BFR performance, until you either worked with the person to be safe, or they never came back?

If it got that ugly would you report 'em to the FSDO as potentially needing a 509 ride?

Just curious. Sorry to hijack thread. I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious here. I'm always curious about "worst case scenarios".

Personally I treat BFRs as a mixture of check ride and learning. And have never had a CFI who didn't. But it's really not a check ride.

For the record: I'm really not all that opposed in theory to true re-currency check rides for all ratings as our pilot population ages.

A few pilots I know are starting to worry me. I've seen all the threads about how to properly approach them, get their attention, etc. But a check ride system with standards of performance administered equally and fairly, seems better... for all involved.

Thoughts?

You sign their logbook as dual given. If they successfully complete the flight review then you sign that they completed a flight preview as per 61.56.

 

[denverpilot]

Ahh, makes perfect sense. Thanks Tim.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

You sign their logbook as dual given. If they successfully complete the flight review then you sign that they completed a flight preview as per 61.56.

Correct, if they do not meet PTS for the certificate held then you don't sign their logbook to show a completed flight review per 61.56.

If they give you a real hard time, refer them to the local FSDO. This was a CFI initial checkride question at the BDL FSDO in July. The inspector I took my checkride with had this happen before as a young CFI with an ex-airline captain taking a BFR in a light single having not flown a piston powered aircraft in a decade. Tolerances were grossly exceeded and he made the decision not to sign the guy off which really got the ex-airline captain upset. A call to the local FSDO made it go away pretty quick.

It's your certificate and thus responsibility to ensure an applicant meets PTS on every BFR and IPC you conduct. Signing someone off that does not meet these standards can really come back to bite you.

 

[denverpilot]

Absolutely. I just couldn't figure out the mechanism a "fail" was done under when there's no such thing as a fail. There's such a thing as "not complete" I guess.

Not a CFI here, so... Not up to speed on it. And not planning to ever show up for a BFR not prepared to fly it to PTS standards or better.

Thanks for the info.

 

[dmccormack]

Here's a question for you CFIs... How would you "flunk" someone on a BFR? Would you withhold your signature that you'd spent the appropriate time in ground/flight review from their logbook? Write in the logbook that you thought they weren't performing to PTS standards?

If they cannot fly to the level of their certificate, then there's nothing written in the pilot's logbook, though I will put a note in mine.

It's a delicate situation -- you really don't want a reputation as a hard a$$ if you want to fly with anyone within a 200nm range. The pilot population is small and word gets out quick.

On the other hand, some CFI's are well known for the "easy test" and so certain folks return to them like clockwork.

I've flown with pilots who have never stalled or recovered from a stall since their PP checkride, haven't done steep turns in decades, have no idea what the rudder is for, and only know DIRECT on the Garmin 430.

So you try to help, mentor, assist, and challenge, but you cannot treat it like a checkride because it's not.

 

[ebetancourt]

You can also renew with an examiner. (I have done that in the past). Which in a way is what you are asking for. Costs about the same as a FIRC and takes a lot less time. I don't know what happens if you flunk though, you may have killed all your other options.

Ernie

Today, a CFI can renew in a number of ways:

• Taking a CFI checkride for a new rating
• Sending a minimum number of students with an 80% first time pass rate
• Taking an in-person or on-line Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic
• Participating in a full 2-year series of FAASTeam CFI workshops (though this program will go away at the end of the current cycle).

In the last two examples, a flight instructor could not be teaching or flying at all and keep his instructor privileges by going through 15-16 hours of ground instruction.

I'm wondering if a requirement for a biennial review and endorsement by a current CFI (similar to what is done for Ground Instructors) that would require a minimum of ground and flight evaluation wouldn't make more sense than the FIRC option, since it requires an actual evaluation of the the instructor's flying and teaching skills.

Does anybody know the logic behind making the CFI certificate the only one that expires instead of requiring periodic instruction and evaluation?

 

[TMetzinger]

Here's a question for you CFIs... How would you "flunk" someone on a BFR? Would you withhold your signature that you'd spent the appropriate time in ground/flight review from their logbook? Write in the logbook that you thought they weren't performing to PTS standards?

The CFI has some options
At the very least, you withold the endorsement, and just log the time as dual instruction.

If the pilot really scared you, you could further give him a written debriefing listing the areas in which you find him deficient. Keep a copy for yourself, and in an extreme case ship a copy with a cover letter to the FSDO. (You'd probably do a similar thing if you ever "fired" a student because you felt they were completely unsuited for crew duties).

 

[Jeanie]

I have heard of CFIs saying in effect : in order for me to sign off your flight review these are the things that I have to see you do proficiently... list follows.... and once I know that the rust is knocked off and you are a safe pilot again then I will sign your log book. That may take several hours not just the minimum required one.

 

[Everskyward]

Here's a question for you CFIs... How would you "flunk" someone on a BFR? Would you withhold your signature that you'd spent the appropriate time in ground/flight review from their logbook? Write in the logbook that you thought they weren't performing to PTS standards?

I have withheld an endorsement for an instrument proficiency check. This was the case of an older gentleman flying his own Cessna 210. I thought he could fly VFR well enough that I signed off his BFR but his cognitive skills had declined enough that I didn't think he was safe on instruments. We made a number of different flights but he could not even get past being able to intercept radials to a VOR or do vectors to the ILS at his home airport with me working the radios. I think he knew on some level what was wrong and was embarrassed about it. This happened about 20 years ago when I had not had any personal experience with cognitive decline in older people. Now I know that it is quite common, sad, but a reality of life for many people.

 

[poadeleted20]

Remember also that technically it's not possible to "flunk" a BFR. Technically it's review. ...
Here's a question for you CFIs... How would you "flunk" someone on a BFR? Would you withhold your signature that you'd spent the appropriate time in ground/flight review from their logbook? Write in the logbook that you thought they weren't performing to PTS standards?

CFI's do not put negative comments in anyone's logbook. No particular rule, just legal self-protection on the civil side. If someone comes for a flight review but fails to perform to a level which allows the instructor to give a flight Review endorsement, the appropriate thing for the instructor to do is to give a routine "training received" entry and sign it as required by the regs on Instructors.

If it got that ugly would you report 'em to the FSDO as potentially needing a 509 ride?

I would have to be pretty scared by that person's flying before I did that.

 

[TMetzinger]

CFI's do not put negative comments in anyone's logbook. No particular rule, just legal self-protection on the civil side. If someone comes for a flight review but fails to perform to a level which allows the instructor to give a flight Review endorsement, the appropriate thing for the instructor to do is to give a routine "training received" entry and sign it as required by the regs on Instructors.

I would have to be pretty scared by that person's flying before I did that.

I don't understand - what's the civil liability to making a negative comment?

I mean, we give poor "grades" in the student syllabus records all the time (giving a 1 on a scale of 1 to 5 in the Jepp syllabus).

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't understand - what's the civil liability to making a negative comment?

A civil suit for libel.

I mean, we give poor "grades" in the student syllabus records all the time (giving a 1 on a scale of 1 to 5 in the Jepp syllabus).

Those are, at least in theory, objective grades based on a written standard, and they don't follow the pilot forever like a logbook entry. Putting "pilot isn't up to FAA standards" or something like that in a logbook is just an invitation for legal trouble. Even examiners and inspectors don't put "failed practical test" or anything like that in a pilot's log when issuing a Notice of Disapproval.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Here's a question for you CFIs... How would you "flunk" someone on a BFR? Would you withhold your signature that you'd spent the appropriate time in ground/flight review from their logbook? Write in the logbook that you thought they weren't performing to PTS standards?

From 8900.2 "General Aviation Airman Designee Handbook"

52. Logbook Endorsements.

a. Logbook Endorsement When Satisfactory. When a pilot has satisfactorily
accomplished a flight review or competency check, the pilot’s logbook or personal record must
be endorsed by the person who gave the review. That endorsement should read substantively as
follows: MR./MS. [insert name of airman as it appears on airman certificate], HOLDER OF
PILOT CERTIFICATE NO. [insert number as it appears on the airman certificate], HAS
SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED A [insert type of review or competency check] ON [insert
date] IN A [insert type of aircraft].

b. Logbook Endorsement When Unsatisfactory. If, in the opinion of the person
conducting the flight, the pilot has not accomplished a flight review satisfactorily, that person
shall endorse the pilot’s logbook only to indicate the training received. There is no provision in
the regulation for the failure of a flight review; therefore, there should be no logbook
endorsement reflecting a failure.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If it got that ugly would you report 'em to the FSDO as potentially needing a 509 ride?

A technical note, but that would be a "44709" ride (Reevaluation of an Airman Certificate).

 

[denverpilot]

A technical note, but that would be a "44709" ride (Reevaluation of an Airman Certificate).

Yeah, I realized that mistake later. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Ted]

Thanks for the discussion - it's enlightening. I do note that neither Ted nor Ron would have a problem doing the FIRC and qualifying under my suggestion (with no evaluation needed) as they've all given dual during the validity of their certificate.

Right, but what's the quality of the dual? The only person I signed off for a rating was ready when he came to me. I've done a couple of flight reviews, and the rest has been more transitioning to a different aircraft or other more advanced stuff. I could just as easily have not actually given any dual. And to that point, there will be years when I don't give any most likely.

The current system may not be ideal (what current system is?), but the current one I think is where it should be. The rest of society places too many limitations, unnecessary ones, on what we do. Why would we want the FAA to do the same when it doesn't actually contribute any to safety?

 

[RotorAndWing]

The current system may not be ideal (what current system is?), but the current one I think is where it should be. The rest of society places too many limitations, unnecessary ones, on what we do. Why would we want the FAA to do the same when it doesn't actually contribute any to safety?

Well said.

 

[TMetzinger]

Well said.

I agree.

What brought this up was a recent meeting held by HQ on the whole FIRC and renewal process.

I was wondering if there were any feelings on the subject. Like Ted, I think that while there are changes that COULD be made, I'm not sure they would make things any better or safer.

The last word from FAA at the meeting was that they weren't anticipating making changes.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks for the discussion - it's enlightening. I do note that neither Ted nor Ron would have a problem doing the FIRC and qualifying under my suggestion (with no evaluation needed) as they've all given dual during the validity of their certificate.

I don't think I said that, nor do I think I expressed an opinion either way on this issue.