Who thinks CFII requirements need to be raised?

[GCA319]

If the tim building was not allowed, the issue wouldn't be allowed to manifest itself.

Personally I'd like to see CFI PIC time go the way of the dodo. Reduce the ATP time to 1000 hours, withe XC, more actual. Commercial is fine at 250, and push the CFI hours to 500 and CFII to 700 with 50-100 hours of actual IMC.

With your rules, nobody would be able to become a CFII around here unless they were working as a professional pilot or had just retired. Actual IMC that can be safely done around here is pretty rare. Also, if CFIs can't log PIC, who woul act as PIC during primary instructon? I realize logging and acting are different, but generally speaking, if you're acting as PIC, you're logging it as such. jJust watch what would happen to the flight training industry if somebody at the FAA shared your logic...

 

[EdFred]

With your rules, nobody would be able to become a CFII around here unless they were working as a professional pilot or had just retired. Actual IMC that can be safely done around here is pretty rare. Also, if CFIs can't log PIC, who woul act as PIC during primary instructon? I realize logging and acting are different, but generally speaking, if you're acting as PIC, you're logging it as such. jJust watch what would happen to the flight training industry if somebody at the FAA shared your logic...

I'm nowhere near retirement (well, unless I expat to some 3rd world country) and I became a CFI without being a professional pilot. I would think with 750 hours and a bunch of XC in the scenario I would like to see, they could fly somewhere to get IMC that didn't contain cumulogranite. If a CFI/I has never been further from home that the commercial XC, is that the kind of person that should really be instructing?

Everyone talks about improving the safety of GA, how about we get some instructors that aren't just burning through hours to get somewhere else. Get some with real world experience. We don't get mountain flying lessons from someone who has never left Kansas. High altitude airport instruction isn't done by someone who has never left Florida. Why are we having people give out instruction on flying in IMC who have never been in IMC?

 

[wabower]

Furlough-proof job awaiting, assuming you ever get a firm class date?

One of my best friends was taking his final sim ride for Continental Express on the morning of 09-11-01. Guess how many total hours of airline time he has logged to date?

Multi Crew License, as has been perpetuated by the Europeans. Because face it, a big number of flight schools would go away if there was no need to train airline pilots. But, at this point, I don't really give a crap, I've got everything I need from GA.

 

[airdale]

With your rules, nobody would be able to become a CFII around here unless they were working as a professional pilot or had just retired. Actual IMC that can be safely done around here is pretty rare.

So essentially you're arguing that if required expertise is difficult to get, the requirement should be waived? How about someone training a long way from a towered airport? Should the PP requirement for towered airport experience be waived too? High Altitude Endorsement? Get it for free if you live more than 100 miles from a chamber?

If a CFI/I has never been further from home that the commercial XC, is that the kind of person that should really be instructing?

I was once talking to a sales manager at an FBO that also ran a 141 school about doing some ferry work. I asked why he wasn't using his CFIs. He said that none of them had really flown anywhere and when he asked, everyone stepped back -- afraid.

The current system, where knowledgeable people seek out experienced instruction and the clueless get the time-builders may be the best we can hope for given the economics of getting to the airline seats, but here is an example of what it produces:

"... I've sixteen hundred hours. all of that in Phoenix how much time do you think actual I had or any in in ice. I had more actual time on my first day of IOE than I did in the sixteen hundred hours I had when I came here." Colgan Flight 3407 CVR, time stamp 22:10:57.7, First Officer speaking. She died six minutes later.

 

[GCA319]

So essentially you're arguing that if required expertise is difficult to get, the requirement should be waived? How about someone training a long way from a towered airport? Should the PP requirement for towered airport experience be waived too? Hdon't Altitude Endorsement? Get it for free if you live more than 100 miles from a chamber?

I was once talking to a sales manager at an FBO that also ran a 141 school about doing some ferry work. I asked why he wasn't using his CFIs. He said that none of them had really flown anywhere and when he asked, everyone stepped back -- afraid.

The current system, where knowledgeable people seek out experienced instruction and the clueless get the time-builders may be the best we can hope for given the economics of getting to the airline seats, but here is an example of what it produces:

"... I've sixteen hundred hours. all of that in Phoenix how much time do you think actual I had or any in in ice. I had more actual time on my first day of IOE than I did in the sixteen hundred hours I had when I came here." Colgan Flight 3407 CVR, time stamp 22:10:57.7, First Officer speaking. She died six minutes later.

Her death had nothing to do with how much actual IMC she had.

And I'm not arguing for any of that, I just happen to think the current system is fine as is. I seek actual whenever I can find it and I do my currency approaches in an AATD, which is far closer to the real thing than flying under the hood on a sunny day. Unfortunately, I dont make enough as a CFI to be able to fly to the closest IMC on a whim, which is often in California.

 

[wabower]

So say the 20-somethings.

Her death had nothing to do with how much actual IMC she had.

 

[GCA319]

So say the 20-somethings.

her death had to do with a much bigger problem-a lack of basic stick and rudder skills of the captain, which exposes other CFI related issues, but has nothing to do with how much actual the FO had. And what does my opinion on this have to do with my age?

 

[GCA319]

I'm nowhere near retirement (well, unless I expat to some 3rd world country) and I became a CFI without being a professional pilot. I would think with 750 hours and a bunch of XC in the scenario I would like to see, they could fly somewhere to get IMC that didn't contain cumulogranite. If a CFI/I has never been further from home that the commercial XC, is that the kind of person that should really be instructing?

Everyone talks about improving the safety of GA, how about we get some instructors that aren't just burning through hours to get somewhere else. Get some with real world experience. We don't get mountain flying lessons from someone who has never left Kansas. High altitude airport instruction isn't done by someone who has never left Florida. Why are we having people give out instruction on flying in IMC who have never been in IMC?

Just because somebody is building time does not mean they don't have the obligation to be the best instructor they can be. I love instructing, but I do have other goals, because it's tough to make a good living as a career CFI unless it is your side job (I hold down another, non aviation job to make it work and Im still young with few responsibilities).

 

[airdale]

Her death had nothing to do with how much actual IMC she had.

True enough. But the quotation illustrates what the present system is putting onto flight decks, as did the captain's fatal mistake.

I do my currency approaches in an AATD, which is far closer to the real thing than flying under the hood on a sunny day.

I'm not sure I buy that, but at best it's like saying that riding a bicycle with training wheels is better experience than riding a tricycle. It begs the question "Can you ride a real bicycle?"

Sims are nice for lots of things. I like them. Familiarization (I just used one to learn the GFC-700), instrument and other failures, and, to a limited extent, approaches. But they don't simulate flying between sloping layers, forward visibility through a rain storm or ice, machine-gun TRACON controllers, controller mistakes like vectoring you through final, or a hundred other things that happen in the real world. I had all of those examples before I finished my instrument training, safely in the hands a CFII who really had been there and done that.

I don't even consider it to be "real" practice under the hood unless I have filed IFR and am working with ATC. And yes, I log the sim approaches but I don't consider them to be the same as real ones.

And what does my opinion on this have to do with my age?

Quite a bit, probably. Many of us have passed through the period where everything was crystal clear and we knew with absolute certainty that our opinions were the right ones. That is also the period where we knew we were going to live forever. Glorious in many ways, but frustrating because we could almost never convince the world to see things the right way --- our way. As time passes you will become less certain about many things. It's part of growing up.

It's sort of the like the old joke about the teenager who couldn't believe how stupid his father was, then when he got into his twenties he became amazed at how much his father had learned.

I'm not attacking you or putting you down; I'm just making a general observation on human nature.

 

[GCA319]

True enough. But the quotation illustrates wh the presubstituteystem is putting onto flight decks, as did the captain's fatal mistake.

I'm not sure I buy that, but at best it's like saying that riding a bicycle with training wheels is better experience than riding a tricycle. It begs the question "Can you ride a real bicycle?"

Sims are nice for lots of things. I like them. Familiarization (I just used one to learn the GFC-700), instrument and other failures, and, to a limited extent, approaches. But they don't simulate flying between sloping layers, forward visibility through a rain storm or ice, machine-gun TRACON controllers, controller mistakes like vectoring you through final, or a hundred other things that happen in the real world. I had all of those examples before I finished my instrument training, safely in the hands a CFII who really had been there and done that.

I don't even consider it to be "real" practice under the hood unless I have filed IFR and am working with ATC. And yes, I log the sim approaches but I don't consider them to be the same as real ones.

Quite a bit, probably. Many of us have passed through the period where everything was crystal clear and we knew with absolute certainty that our opinions were the right ones. That is also the period where we knew we were going to live forever. Glorious in many ways, but frustrating because we could almost never convince the world to see things the right way --- our way. As time passes you will become less certain about many things. It's part of growing up.

It's sort of the like the old joke about the teenager who couldn't believe how stupid his father was, then when he got into his twenties he became amazed at how much his father had learned.

I'm not attacking you or putting you down; I'm just making a general observation on human nature.

I'm not saying my opinion is crystal clear and absolutely correct.

The Aatd simulates the weather- you're 100% correct when you say there is no substitute for flying in the system. I think you'd be suprised in what the sim I use is capable of. It's a full motion sim and you can set the weather to do just about anything.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Furlough-proof job awaiting, assuming you ever get a firm class date?

One of my best friends was taking his final sim ride for Continental Express on the morning of 09-11-01. Guess how many total hours of airline time he has logged to date?

Now I remember why I've got you on my ignore list. Snarky comments that mean nothing in context to the discussion. But yes, I have a firm class date.