Notice of Public Meeting: Updating the Flight Instructor Renewal Process

Everskyward

Everskyward

Experimenter
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
33,448
Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-29921.htm

Background

The FAA has been reviewing safety of flight data in the general
aviation (GA) community over the last ten years. Even with the advent
of new technologies to assist the GA pilot, there has been little
improvement in the accident/incident rate among that community of
aviators.
CFIs are responsible for ensuring that pilots are properly educated
to operate safely within the National Airspace System (NAS). For CFIs
to accomplish that mission effectively they must be provided the means
and knowledge to do so, and there must be some objective method of
measuring that information transfer and retention. The FAA has been
reviewing indicators that suggest that the processes currently in place
may lack sufficient effectiveness in ensuring that CFIs are being
provided the best information in the most useful manner. This meeting
will elicit input from the community of authorized flight instructor
renewal program operators so that the FAA can better analyze how to
improve the process.
Click to expand...
 
They keep talking about the accident rate and how things aren't changing it. I've been doing FAASTeam stuff for two years and what I've seen is that all of the outreach, all of the new technology, only helps people who show up and make the effort.

And I think the accident rate (at least the pilot error portion of it) is pretty much among the folks who never show up for the safety meetings, or try and get a good flight review, or otherwise don't make safety part of their pilot culture.

And it's not something that technology will change - or that flight instructors may be able to change, since folks never go see the instructors in the first place.

I think that flight instructors CAN be effective in instilling the proper attitude in their students in primary training and when they get them for other ratings or reviews, and that maybe they (soon to be we - checkride in January) need to perhaps be more outspoken when we see students with poor attitudes that could compromise safety.

At the end of the day, I guess I'm not sure that efforts like this will reduce the accident rate further quickly, though it may make a difference at the same slow generational rate we've seen with things like racism or smoking or...
 
Tim's point is well taken. For some people, the only interaction they have with a flight instructor after getting their ticket is the Flight Review, and in some cases not even that. As we've noted in other threads, there are people (mainly owners or very close friends of owners, since most rental places have other checks and balances in place) who never even bother with the FAA.

Unfortunately, even for those who do follow the rules, there is no check that they are still anywhere near competent, much less proficient. As long as we still instructors willing to do pencil-whipped FRs, we won't be able to solve the problem. I hate to suggest new regulation, but perhaps requiring people to go the Wings program route, which does (now) require training to PTS levels, would be the way to go?
 
I did my last FIRC online with American Flyers. They sent a survey around last month about this. They said they were headed to DC for a meeting on Instructor Renewal process.

I'll agree with what Tim said. Most FAASTeam meetings are "talking to the choir". You see the same attendees every time. It's those that don't attend and get a "pencil" 61.56 Flight Review are the ones with accidents.

The FAA looks to the CFI to solve the problem. The CFI has once every 2 years access to the "pilots" and the FAA has access to the CFI through Referesher requirements every two years.
 
I can't see more regulations solving the problem, it's a cultural thing. So, figure out ways to change the culture.

The problem is that culture changes are difficult whereas regulation changes are easy.
 
gprellwitz said:
I hate to suggest new regulation, but perhaps requiring people to go the Wings program route, which does (now) require training to PTS levels, would be the way to go?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that performance of maneuvers and tasks during BFRs and IPCs are to be completed to the respective PTS level.

I think the Wings program is definitely a great way to educate and keep pilots involved but at the same time it would be more of a logistical hassle to require all pilots to participate in the program. Most of the pilots that get themselves in trouble don't participate in programs like Wings or stay in tune with current issues on forums like this one so finding a balance between Wings program participation and associated logistical challenges would definitely be key.

I think the ground portion of the BFR required by 61.57 could be expanded quite a bit into a required online FAA training course which does not relieve the CFI from providing proper ground instruction, but standardizes what each pilot is exposed to and taught every 24 calendar months in addition to recurrent training. Leveling the playing field in some sense. In such a course, various special emphasis areas (TFRs, Airspace, etc.) could be exposed in an interactive format. I feel an interactive online course would be far more beneficial and easier for the FAA to track exactly what is covered by each pilot during a BFR. This is exactly how airlines and fractional operators target recurrent ground training between formal sessions.

I'm not so sure that changing the CFI renewal process is going to make a significant difference in safety and the quality of training received by pilots, but it doesn't hurt to evaluate various options. Of the CFIs I interact with on a daily basis most of them are very sharp and have an excellent understanding of the knowledge base. There are of course, a few CFIs out there who I am convinced never could have passed a private pilot checkride and allow their extraordinary egos and experience to convince all that the current literature and information we're teaching is wrong and their way of flying is correct. Perhaps a new focus aimed at those types of individuals would help in providing quality instruction to pilots and students.

I also agree with Ted. A change in culture, particularly safety culture would be extremely beneficial.
 
scottd said:
It's interesting that the membership to my website has less than 1% flight instructors. In that bunch, I do have one DPE that has faithfully stuck with me for the last 7 years. Although, I have had a dozen or two members join based on their instructor's recommendation - although their instructors are not members of my site. Go figure.

When I was doing my in-person two-day workshops on a regular basis I often invited some instructors to attend free of charge or for a really low fee. Nearly all of them turned it down. So they had the opportunity to expand their knowledge for a discipline (weather) that was likely in need of some help and chose income over training. That is, they didn't want to miss the opportunity to make a few bucks over the weekend instead of spending a few bucks on some advanced training.
Click to expand...

Given what most CFI's make, can you blame them? In many cases, it may be the difference whether they EAT that weekend. :frown2:

Reminds me of a humorous, but sad quote from my primary CFI: "Ooooh, today's payday? I can finally buy that box of Ramen I've had my eye on..."
 
I will say there are certainly alot of instructors out there who really do it for the fun of it, because they really like teaching.

But, Sadly, I think alot of them are simply doing it ONLY for cheap time building for airlines and don't really "care". This is shown by them turning down free workshops..... Alot of them might see instructing as a boring chore they have to do, not something they want to do that could actually help them.
 
Some instructors are just filling space, but there are quite a few airline-bound CFIs who work hard to provide good instruction. But aside from the part-timers and retirees who teach for the love of it, it's asking a lot for them to give up income. I try hard to schedule on "off" hours if possible.

I thought for a short time there might be a value in making it harder to renew the CFI - to require a CFI to be actively instructing the way IA's are supposed to be "actively participating" in maintenance. But I don't think it would be right to require a CFI to take a whole new checkride to renew. There are lots of reasons someone may take a break from instructing for while and take the FIRC route to keep his instructor certificate active.

So far the best idea I've come up with would be to make the CFI NOT expire, and require a "returning" CFI to get an endorsement from an "active" CFI before returning to teaching if he hasn't provided flight instruction in the last twelve months. It's similar to the rules for ground instructors.
 
TMetzinger said:
I thought for a short time there might be a value in making it harder to renew the CFI - to require a CFI to be actively instructing the way IA's are supposed to be "actively participating" in maintenance. But I don't think it would be right to require a CFI to take a whole new checkride to renew. There are lots of reasons someone may take a break from instructing for while and take the FIRC route to keep his instructor certificate active.
Click to expand...
I think these are the people the rule is aimed at. I know quite a number of people who keep their CFIs active but don't actively instruct. Me for one. I know that I would need to relearn many things to effectively instruct someone in a small airplane. In fact I would need to learn how to fly a small airplane again myself...
 
Everskyward said:
I think these are the people the rule is aimed at. I know quite a number of people who keep their CFIs active but don't actively instruct. Me for one. I know that I would need to relearn many things to effectively instruct someone in a small airplane. In fact I would need to learn how to fly a small airplane again myself...
Click to expand...
But you could do that with my suggestion - just like a flight review- you go spend time with an active CFI until you're ready again.
 
TMetzinger said:
But you could do that with my suggestion - just like a flight review- you go spend time with an active CFI until you're ready again.
Click to expand...
Ready for what, though? I'm ready to instruct someone in the airplane I fly currently just not in some others.
 
Everskyward said:
Ready for what, though? I'm ready to instruct someone in the airplane I fly currently just not in some others.
Click to expand...

As Ron always says being a CFI isn't as much about flying as it is about teaching and I'd bet that even if you've been flying every day if you haven't been teaching those skills grow rusty. The "endorsement" I mention should really focus on the teaching skills - and of course make sure you can safely fly while teaching.
 
Like FAAST there seems to be some preaching to the choir here.

I agree with Tim. FAAST seems to pre-select people who want to be safe. They are the same people who learn from Scott. BTW I let my membership drop to save money in tough times.

Like Jason, I ask people to do an AOPA or FAAST safety course or two to help with the ground portion of a FR.

I'd like to learn more about teaching judgment to people. It sure seems like experience is the only way, and to complete an old joke, experience comes from lack of judgment.

We can discuss it, try to teach by example but that only works with people who want to learn it and therefore probably need it the least, sort of like manners.

Joe
 
TMetzinger said:
As Ron always says being a CFI isn't as much about flying as it is about teaching and I'd bet that even if you've been flying every day if you haven't been teaching those skills grow rusty. The "endorsement" I mention should really focus on the teaching skills - and of course make sure you can safely fly while teaching.
Click to expand...
Actually, flying with a new FO requires quite a bit of "teaching" and especially "monitoring".
 
Everskyward said:
Actually, flying with a new FO requires quite a bit of "teaching" and especially "monitoring".
Click to expand...
I believe it, and you should log it as instruction given - in which case you're still "current" as a CFI. And if you can't log it that way for some reason, you'd still have no trouble getting the endorsement under my idea, just like a proficient pilot can accomplish the FR in minimum time.
 
TMetzinger said:
So far the best idea I've come up with would be to make the CFI NOT expire, and require a "returning" CFI to get an endorsement from an "active" CFI before returning to teaching if he hasn't provided flight instruction in the last twelve months. It's similar to the rules for ground instructors.
Click to expand...

And like BFR's just go find a buddy to sign you off. :nonod:

I don't have a problem with the 2 year renewal process. Will be interesting to see how this progresses.
 
I'm not doing primary instruction because I don't have a plane to rent to someone - and not a lot of people buy their plane, and then get an instructor. So what I am doing is flight reviews and endorsements for people. How that isn't "active" just because I am not sending people for check rides, I don't know.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
And like BFR's just go find a buddy to sign you off. :nonod:

I don't have a problem with the 2 year renewal process. Will be interesting to see how this progresses.
Click to expand...

That's true. Again, I can't think of any ways to address the accident rate other than a gradual cultural shift - and there will always be a minority of folks who will remain outside the mainstream culture, like the "cheaters" you describe. I also don't have any problem with the two-year process as currently practiced - I'm just worried that folks are trying to fix a problem that may not be fixable (or at least not quickly), and if changing how renewals are done is even a worthwhile change (meaning that the changes would make a reasonable person think they'll have an affect on the accident rate).

I'd really love it if the accident statistics were such that we could find out the accident rate among WINGS participants compared to the general population, for instance. Or see if there's any sort of correlation between the accident rate and the amount of flight instruction received in the previous twelve months.

This is probably the same sort of heresy as euthanasia is in the medical profession, but I wonder if we haven't gotten the accident rate down as low as possible without taking much of the risk management out of the pilot's hands a la 135/121.
 
TMetzinger said:
I believe it, and you should log it as instruction given - in which case you're still "current" as a CFI.
Click to expand...
You can't technically give instruction on Part 135 flights. I don't see this as a problem for myself since I renew with a letter from the CP but I can see some problems with trying to tinker with the process to make it more complicated.
 
scottd said:
Flight instructors can certainly play a role as you suggest. There are some very good ones out there doing just what you are suggesting every day. And there are some that desparately need help.

It's interesting that the membership to my website has less than 1% flight instructors. In that bunch, I do have one DPE that has faithfully stuck with me for the last 7 years. Although, I have had a dozen or two members join based on their instructor's recommendation - although their instructors are not members of my site. Go figure.

When I was doing my in-person two-day workshops on a regular basis I often invited some instructors to attend free of charge or for a really low fee. Nearly all of them turned it down. So they had the opportunity to expand their knowledge for a discipline (weather) that was likely in need of some help and chose income over training. That is, they didn't want to miss the opportunity to make a few bucks over the weekend instead of spending a few bucks on some advanced training.
Click to expand...
I for one would be very interested in something like this, and would even pay the fee, but I'd want to schedule it at least a month in advance. That's the only way I could really put it on the schedule. It WOULD hurt financially, but it would be worth it. I would suggest that if they are good instructors, it's most likely not the few bucks they are saving if they turn down something like that last minute, but a desire to maintain a good reputation customer service related. That's what I would be dealing with. Also, sometimes you have a large gap in one part of the day, and then get REALLY busy and miss something you'd have like to do, like the recent webinars on maintenance that I missed.

I'm of the opinion that the FAAST stuff is good, but like others have said, the people going to it, are less likely to be the problem anyway, and might get as much out of the reading they do, and discussions with other active instructors, as at the seminar.

Ryan
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I didn't know you could still do that.
Click to expand...

As long as you're a current and qualified check airman, chief flight instructor, or an individual "in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots" in a part 121 or 135 operation within the preceding 24 calendar months you can renew your CFI with those qualifications. (61.197(2)(ii))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top