PA 28 Down in Kentucky, Fatalities

SebIp said:
Absolutely you can tell a CFI to go pound sand. Who’s paying the CFI?
Click to expand...
While that's true, most PPL students don't usually have the knowledge base to know when to do that. I know that during my training, there were a bunch of days where I showed up and said "guess we aren't flying today because of weather?" CFI, said "No, we're good." And he was right. I just wasn't that good yet at knowing what weather conditions were good enough to fly in.
 
CFI is (was) both inexperienced and a jackass.

And hey, who would have guessed that flying the pattern endlessly in VFR conditions wouldn't prepare you for good wx ADM on a night XC? *raises hand*

They really gotta raise the bar for CFI.
 
BMan said:
As a student pilot myself, can anyone surmise ANY logical reason a CFI would have them make this flight given what they knew?
Click to expand...
No.
BMan said:
… This is so far outside of what I've learned thus far.…
Click to expand...
Wait; your CFI does not review and discuss the current and forecast weather with you to determine Go/No-Go for your lesson?

BMan said:
…I'd assume a student could reject a CFI's decision/directive to go in a case like this, correct?
Click to expand...
You can hire and fire your CFI whenever you feel like it; YOU are the pilot in command. That starts everyday as soon as you wake up. You make decisions.
 
TCABM said:
Wait; your CFI does not review and discuss the current and forecast weather with you to determine Go/No-Go for your lesson?
Click to expand...
That was a ref to this accident CFI's poor decisions/actions. I'm only a few hours of flight time at the moment but, yes, my CFIs (one for the 170 and one for the 172) are thorough, thankfully. The concern I had was if it would look bad for me if I'd disagree with a CFI's opinion/order to go/not-go.
 
My CFI started each flight lesson the same way, in the pilots briefing room, we checked Notams, TFRs, and weather..kinda think those things are in the rules...
 
BMan said:
I'd assume a student could reject a CFI's decision/directive to go in a case like this, correct?
Click to expand...
You call the shots. If your cfi is pressuring you into a thunderstorm (or anything you're uncomfortable with) you tell him...then probably the flight school. I actually remember almost telling my cfi steep turns were too much on flight 2. That is until we realized we were banking 60.

Your cfi should (in theory) stop you from flying into a thunderstorm.

The true victim here was 18 and probably didn't have the ADM or the stones yet to tell the cfi no. It's hard telling someone with more experience that they're wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the student was trusting the CFIs judgement. Believe I heard the CFI had 300 hours total time. Certainly enough time to know you don't fly near, much less into a thunderstorm.
 
I have to agree that the bar needs to be raised for CFIs. I know guys who went from PPL to instrument to commercial to CFI to CFII to MEI in 5 weeks. No way in hell you can pack that much knowledge in the brain in 5 weeks then go out to teach people.
 
ahmad said:
I have to agree that the bar needs to be raised for CFIs. I know guys who went from PPL to instrument to commercial to CFI to CFII to MEI in 5 weeks. No way in hell you can pack that much knowledge in the brain in 5 weeks then go out to teach people.
Click to expand...
So true, and more than just knowledge it's the level of experience. No way one can gain a seasoned pilot's experience in 5 weeks although as a student our choices for time/location when selecting a CFI can be limiting factors. I'm fortunate to be in the Chicago area in that regard.
 
Agreed. Thought a private or commercial cert pilot may gain some experience over time before getting the CFI, there isn’t much real world experience going from zero to hero CFI.
 
TrueCourse said:
Agreed. Thought a private or commercial cert pilot may gain some experience over time before getting the CFI, there isn’t much real world experience going from zero to hero CFI.
Click to expand...

I've had a few experiences with low time, young CFI's who are really pattern-work instructors. yes they do training xc's but some of them have no real world, "non standard" experiences to share. now none of the ones I've encountered have been dbags, they mean well, they just haven't been "out there" and other than puking up basic instruction 101, didn't really have much to offer.
 
Racerx said:
You call the shots. If your cfi is pressuring you into a thunderstorm (or anything you're uncomfortable with) you tell him...then probably the flight school. I actually remember almost telling my cfi steep turns were too much on flight 2. That is until we realized we were banking 60.

Your cfi should (in theory) stop you from flying into a thunderstorm.

The true victim here was 18 and probably didn't have the ADM or the stones yet to tell the cfi no. It's hard telling someone with more experience that they're wrong.
Click to expand...
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
@BMan where are you training.

I agree with much of the above. You can totally 100% day no.

18 years old and relatively low hours - he likely was trusting the CFI and had no idea how completely unqualified and terrible the CFI was.
Click to expand...
That’s just it. There’s a command/experience/confidence gradient in play, and when you’re young and lack not only flying, but life experience, it’s easy to just resign yourself to a “this person must know what they’re doing” attitude. I wouldn’t expect many 18 year olds to know how or when to fire a CFI.

I was in a similar situation many many years ago when I was a young, low-time PP flying with a CFI friend. There was a line of severe thunderstorms that were blocking our route. I strongly objected and suggested we divert, but he was invulnerable, had get-there-itis, and maybe a little macho, pulled rank and although we made it, we got way too close.

It was one of the very few times in my flying career that I feared for my life, but a healthy heap of outcome bias reinforced his bad ADM and made me feel wrong to question.
 
eman1200 said:
I've had a few experiences with low time, young CFI's who are really pattern-work instructors. yes they do training xc's but some of them have no real world, "non standard" experiences to share. now none of the ones I've encountered have been dbags, they mean well, they just haven't been "out there" and other than puking up basic instruction 101, didn't really have much to offer.
Click to expand...
Mirrors my exact thoughts 100%.

I'm not one for additional rules/regs, but I almost want to see CFI broken into 2 categories:
(1) CFI-Basic Maneuvers
(2) CFI-Has Real Experience Doing Real Flying Things
The former can teach you how to land centerline with a 172 and not kill yourself in controlling the aircraft under normal conditions; this is nearly all your 20 something fresh CFIs. In my experience after the PPL your basic CFI doesn't provide much value, whereas the latter could actually teach you how to go places, do planning and teach you about some unknown-unknowns. I think there should be a very high bar for a rating like that. These are the people who actually enjoy flying and do more than cruise the pattern on VFR days and go to the same 3 airports for XC training.

Then break CFII into 2 categories:
(1) CFII-Glorified Safety Pilot
(2) CFII-Who has actual IMC time and has experienced adverse weather conditions
The first CFII I hired had like 8 hours in IMC, the rest was hood time. It felt like the blind leading the blind and sealed the deal when it was winter and he couldn't identify airframe icing. The second one flew for a living and could impart a bit more wisdom.
 
Last edited:
I've long thought that, if you have to be a CFI for two years to train others to be CFIs, you should have to be pilot for two years to train others to be pilots. I also think that a written test with 100 questions and a passing score of 70% is a pretty damn low bar for someone who wants to teach. Finally there is a bit of a disconnect between the CFI practical test and instructing in real life. The CFI checkride is known to be one of the most difficult yet people manage to pass and then go on to be terrible instructors.
 
dmspilot said:
I've long thought that, if you have to be a CFI for two years to train others to be CFIs, you should have to be pilot for two years to train others to be pilots. I also think that a written test with 100 questions and a passing score of 70% is a pretty damn low bar for someone who wants to teach. Finally there is a bit of a disconnect between the CFI practical test and instructing in real life. The CFI checkride is known to be one of the most difficult yet people manage to pass and then go on to be terrible instructors.
Click to expand...

Back when the FAA made all CFI initial applicants take the checkride with an ASI, the pass rate dropped and the quality of CFI's increased. Then the typical crying started "That's not fair!" from CFI applicants, and then the DPE's jumped in and complained about their lost income.

So now we are back to DPE's controlling the checkrides, pass rates increased and overall CFI quality has gone down.
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Mirrors my exact thoughts 100%.

I'm not one for additional rules/regs, but I almost want to see CFI broken into 2 categories:
(1) CFI-Basic Maneuvers
(2) CFI-Has Real Experience Doing Real Flying Things
The former can teach you how to land centerline with a 172 and not kill yourself in controlling the aircraft under normal conditions; this is nearly all your 20 something fresh CFIs. In my experience after the PPL your basic CFI doesn't provide much value, whereas the latter could actually teach you how to go places, do planning and teach you about some unknown-unknowns. I think there should be a very high bar for a rating like that. These are the people who actually enjoy flying and do more than cruise the pattern on VFR days and go to the same 3 airports for XC training.

Then break CFII into 2 categories:
(1) CFII-Glorified Safety Pilot
(2) CFII-Who has actual IMC time and has experienced adverse weather conditions
The first CFII I hired had like 8 hours in IMC, the rest was hood time. It felt like the blind leading the blind and sealed the deal when it was winter and he couldn't identify airframe icing. The second one flew for a living and could impart a bit more wisdom.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You want to add even more layers of regulations? Why not just up the training and require a more rigid checking procedure?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Back when the FAA made all CFI initial applicants take the checkride with an ASI, the pass rate dropped and the quality of CFI's increased. Then the typical crying started "That's not fair!" from CFI applicants, and then the DPE's jumped in and complained about their lost income.

So now we are back to DPE's controlling the checkrides, pass rates increased and overall CFI quality has gone down.


Seriously? You want to add even more layers of regulations? Why not just up the training and require a more rigid checking procedure?
Click to expand...
Well, I started my thread with: "I'm not one for additional rules/regs, but...".
I'm not usually a big fan of layering on more rules, especially in aviation where it's already bogged down in so many other rules. But the current system is broken and needs fixing.

I don't like the idea that the average part 141 CFI I get out of the local shop will talk like a GPT-esque automaton trained on the ACS and PHAK. They can regurgitate stuff that doesn't matter straight out of the book and carry a false sense of confidence about their ability to both fly and train the next gen to fly. Moreover, many of these people are on these boards talking about why they're not paid more for the infinite well of skill and knowledge. It indicates a lack of awareness about their current skill level.

I shot from the hip on my suggestion -- I don't know what the optimal answer is. Maybe it's the ASI approach with more rigid standards. That could be the ticket. But they really gotta make sure that the CFI title means something more than "congrats, you reached 251h and did spin training so here's your prize".
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Mirrors my exact thoughts 100%.

I'm not one for additional rules/regs, but I almost want to see CFI broken into 2 categories:
(1) CFI-Basic Maneuvers
(2) CFI-Has Real Experience Doing Real Flying Things
Click to expand...
Countepoint:
1. That’s essentially what a CFI does
2. Same for CFII

Having said that, what you’re picking at is both experience AND proficiency. Something everyone new to a qualification lacks.

One could take existing CFI experience requirements and beef them up. One could also require a person hold an instructor for two years, with a minimum of 10 candidates sent to a check ride and a 70% first time pass rate before they could apply for another instructor certificate. That has it’s own set of challenges, though.

It’s been a while since I looked at the AFIs that govern IP upgrades, but generally there’s a seasoning requirement of a couple years’ worth of flying hours, having passed a recurring checkride (and no checkride failures), and squadron sponsorship.

Thinking differently, one could change the ATP/R-ATP experience requirements as well such that 1500 of the same hour isn’t weighted the same as 1500 different hours.

There’s ways to get there, but we also have to recognize .mil utilizes First Assignment IPs. Pin your wings on yesterday, start teaching tomorrow…works in a structured environment.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Back when the FAA made all CFI initial applicants take the checkride with an ASI, the pass rate dropped and the quality of CFI's increased. Then the typical crying started "That's not fair!" from CFI applicants, and then the DPE's jumped in and complained about their lost income.

So now we are back to DPE's controlling the checkrides, pass rates increased and overall CFI quality has gone down.


Seriously? You want to add even more layers of regulations? Why not just up the training and require a more rigid checking procedure?
Click to expand...
The problem is if the designee program isn’t properly evaluating CFI what else are they letting pass.

Should ASI do all rides? Perhaps DPE’s need more oversight.

I have done two CFI rides with an ASI. I didn’t know dpe could do cfi.

There’s not an easy answer, in my opinion.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The problem is if the designee program isn’t properly evaluating CFI what else are they letting pass.

Should ASI do all rides? Perhaps DPE’s need more oversight.

I have done two CFI rides with an ASI. I didn’t know dpe could do cfi.

There’s not an easy answer, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Oversight is languishing because of complaints from DPE's. The DPE community wants to run the program their way without the FAA interfering. And when deficiencies are noted, DPE's start crying they are being discriminated against or being harassed.

Add in the shortage of FAA Ops ASI's, FSDO Managers who refuse to allow oversight of DPE's and a national program that is undermanned, and here we are.
 
My CFI wasn't at the airport when he wasn't actually instructing, so the SOP was (at least after I had a few hours logged) that at the end of a lesson, he'd tell me what we'd be doing in the next lesson. Day of the next lesson, I'd get a briefing, then call him with my go/no-go decision and explain why. I don't think I ever recommended 'go' when he overruled me, but occasionally he'd suggest modifying the plan for the day based on the conditions, and he'd explain why. That was a valuable part of the learning experience. Early on, I was making PIC weather decisions, but with the training wheels on, because he'd also gotten the briefing--he just didn't share his opinions till after I'd explained mine.
 
GaryM said:
My CFI wasn't at the airport when he wasn't actually instructing, so the SOP was (at least after I had a few hours logged) that at the end of a lesson, he'd tell me what we'd be doing in the next lesson. Day of the next lesson, I'd get a briefing, then call him with my go/no-go decision and explain why. I don't think I ever recommended 'go' when he overruled me, but occasionally he'd suggest modifying the plan for the day based on the conditions, and he'd explain why. That was a valuable part of the learning experience. Early on, I was making PIC weather decisions, but with the training wheels on, because he'd also gotten the briefing--he just didn't share his opinions till after I'd explained mine.
Click to expand...

I had a very similar experience with training and making PIC weather decisions. We'd schedule lessons at 7am on Saturdays a lot to avoid the heat and excessive thermals, or I'd have to drive down after work. Considering that I didn't want to wake up at 5am or leave work and drive an hour and a half one way only to discover when I got there that the weather sucked, I asked my instructor what the "weather minimums" were after our second flight together. All go/no-go decisions were made jointly and either of us could veto going if we were uncomfortable with the weather forecast. I just thought that was how everyone did it, but maybe it's not that common?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Oversight is languishing because of complaints from DPE's. The DPE community wants to run the program their way without the FAA interfering. And when deficiencies are noted, DPE's start crying they are being discriminated against or being harassed.

Add in the shortage of FAA Ops ASI's, FSDO Managers who refuse to allow oversight of DPE's and a national program that is undermanned, and here we are.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the wrong people are getting promoted, a trend in our society today.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Sounds like the wrong people are getting promoted, a trend in our society today.
Click to expand...

Within the FAA the trend is to promote airworthiness ASI's to supervisors and management. It's very difficult for Ops Inspectors to get these positions, and Flight Standards today it's rare to find any Ops Inspectors in management.

The airworthiness types are managing Ops, and in their mindset all certification needs to be handled by DPE's. Ops Inspectors are at an all time low in manning, meaning Ops functions are handled by very few, to the point of burnout.

When you look at training for an Ops Inspector (OJT) versus an Airworthiness Inspector, the Ops guy has over 200 job task to be trained in, while the Airworthiness has about 50. Avionics Inspectors have even less. So it's fairly easy to see the Ops Inspector has the most to do while the Airworthiness/Avionics types have minimal. But since management is predominately Airworthiness, fewer Ops are hired while Airworthiness Inspectors are over populated.

So management would rather have what few Ops Inspectors they have in the office working rather than be out in the field. So the DPE program lacks oversight, and the Airworthiness Managers don't have a problem with that as they aren't concerned.

It's a mess.
 
Albany Tom said:
I know it's not this generation, or all kids. We just hired 4 new people, all 25 or under, and they're just solid employees. Good work ethic, balanced outlook on things, not hot heads, they'd fit right into the world in the 40's. But the old guy in me reads threads like this and thinks "kids these days are all screwed up". Well, some of them are, but not all.

I feel lousy for the student and their family. It sucks for them, and it's not fair.
Click to expand...
Its kids Teaching kids sometimes. Although as you said many are responsible young adults, the probability your Young CFI has low hours and low experience is high. I was fortunate to have a 4000+ CFII and it was awesome experience. The most valuable skills were not flying the plane… a monkey can probably learn(ok maybe not) but rather ADM and flight planning, Loading, DA, Mixture, pattern safety/danger points. So the personality of your CFI makes a big difference in your likelihood of surviving GA. Cocky show off CFI i can beat this attitudes will end up costing someone a hole in the ground at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top