UND CFI's cant land.

[CATIV]

I am not even going to try to defend myself.
I just think it is stupid how u talk down on University CFIs.
I guess not all of us can fly a 172 as well as you.

[wrxpilot]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

so youre genuinely telling me that at 250 hours, you have ALL THE EXPERIENCE YOU NEED to really give someone a quality education about flying an aircraft in all situations?

damn, must have been a really action packed first 250 hours you had!!

i mean hell, since at 250 hours you obviously already knew EVERYTHING and could convey that IMMENSE and VAST KNOWLEDGE to a brand new student, why didnt you just go jump in the space shuttle and take us to mars??

i could ONLY be so LUCKY as to have you sign my logbook!!!

I'm late on this thread, but I really felt the need to comment here...

I had about 290 hrs when I taught my first student. I still remember when I was walking up to the plane with her, I almost walked up to the left side door (C172) but caught myself. It was certainly a little (ok, very) intimidated during those first few weeks, but I was also very motivated and excited. I knew I had a lot to learn, but I was thrilled at being able to pass along what little knowledge I had to students. Prior to teaching, I read everything I could, talked to every CFI I knew about what to do (I even got Rod Machado to talk to me about it), and I sat in the backseat for a few lessons while experienced CFIs went about their business as I observed. I know a lot of other CFIs at my school that were equally motivated.

Looking back at all that, I realize I had so much to learn, which fortunately I did. But I still think I did a great job, with a few small, rather trivial, exceptions. My motivation and excitement made up for my lack of experience. When my students asked me something I didn't know (which was often), I admitted it and promised to find out, and did. All of my students knew well in advance what we would be covering each day, and I always gave a very thorough pre and post flight briefing which included lots of handwritten notes, diagrams, visual aids, and homework assignments.

So yeah, you bet a low time CFI can do a great job. I've seen it many, many times. Sure, there were some slackers as well. But the problem with the ones that I remember was due to laziness, lack of character, or just being inept. The slacker guys I remember were just crappy pilots in general, and likely still are outside of the teaching environment.

[TXaviator]

wrx - i think its great that you approached the job with humility and enthusiasm. my issue with 250 hour CFI's (in general) is that theres simply no way that a 250 hour pilot has the experience library to draw on that a 2500 hour pilot has, or a 25000 hour pilot, etc etc.

yes you know the basics, the books, the regs, and probably studied damn hard and take it seriously.

i just cant understand why the aviation field thinks its ok for basically a brand new pilot to teach other new pilots.

you dont see kids fresh off medical school teaching other med students.. you have the crusty old docs who have seen every imaginable situation and have the experience to evaluate the progress of a fledgling new doctor...

you dont see lawyers who have just come out of law school and never taken a case, jumping right back in to teach new law students...

you dont see construction foreman who have never worked on a crew before...

you dont see call center managers who have never taken a call before...

thats my point.

[wrxpilot]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

thats my point.

Understood. My point is that looking back now, several years later and having a lot more experience, I think I did just fine as a new CFI. As I said, I had a lot to learn, but I also had a lot to offer with my enthusiasm and structured approach to teaching. I can't argue that a CFI with 2500 hours has more experience, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're better teachers.

[ml_wd]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

wrx - i think its great that you approached the job with humility and enthusiasm. my issue with 250 hour CFI's (in general) is that theres simply no way that a 250 hour pilot has the experience library to draw on that a 2500 hour pilot has, or a 25000 hour pilot, etc etc.

yes you know the basics, the books, the regs, and probably studied damn hard and take it seriously.

i just cant understand why the aviation field thinks its ok for basically a brand new pilot to teach other new pilots.

you dont see kids fresh off medical school teaching other med students.. you have the crusty old docs who have seen every imaginable situation and have the experience to evaluate the progress of a fledgling new doctor...

you dont see lawyers who have just come out of law school and never taken a case, jumping right back in to teach new law students...

you dont see construction foreman who have never worked on a crew before...

you dont see call center managers who have never taken a call before...

thats my point.

No doubt the more prior experience an individual has to draw on is going to make them a more well rounded instructor but as an instructor is not your job to teach a student about every possible situation. Your job is to try to to instill the decision making ability and the knowledge that will help guide that peson to a successful outcome. Im sure you have successfully solved many problems in your aviation career that you were never directly taught about, but you drew on things you were taught and experience you have had along the way and everything probably worked out, giving you another experience to draw on for a future problem. Now I dont disagree with you that it would be beneficial to have instructors with more hours but just because they have low hours doesn't mean that cant be a very good, very effective instructor.

[Blip16]

Originally Posted by ml_wd

No doubt the more prior experience an individual has to draw on is going to make them a more well rounded instructor but as an instructor is not your job to teach a student about every possible situation. Your job is to try to to instill the decision making ability and the knowledge that will help guide that peson to a successful outcome. Im sure you have successfully solved many problems in your aviation career that you were never directly taught about, but you drew on things you were taught and experience you have had along the way and everything probably worked out, giving you another experience to draw on for a future problem. Now I dont disagree with you that it would be beneficial to have instructors with more hours but just because they have low hours doesn't mean that cant be a very good, very effective instructor.

sometimes lower time pilots are better at teaching. I feel i am really good at teaching advanced operations, but for the basics, i am not very good any more. I am slightly disconnected and just don't quite have that book knowledge anymore.

[Roger, Roger]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

i just cant understand why the aviation field thinks its ok for basically a brand new pilot to teach other new pilots.

It's not a question of what the aviation industry thinks.

It has all been shaped by the federal regulations.

By law, low-timers are limited in what they can do.

It just so happens that the thing they can do that has the most positions open is...flight instruct.

Don't like it?

Talk to the FAA.

[poser765]

Originally Posted by Roger, Roger

It's not a question of what the aviation industry thinks.

It has all been shaped by the federal regulations.

By law, low-timers are limited in what they can do.

It just so happens that the thing they can do that has the most positions open is...flight instruct.

Don't like it?

Talk to the FAA.

The industry at large is to blame as well. Granted low timers are limited to what they can do, but flight schools are limited to who they can hire based on what they can/are willing to pay. how many mainline guys are going to be wooed away from their "big metal" to go instruct for 11k a year. Thems desperate for job wages. Who be desperate for jobs? n00bz.

[wrxpilot]

Originally Posted by Blip16

sometimes lower time pilots are better at teaching. I feel i am really good at teaching advanced operations, but for the basics, i am not very good any more. I am slightly disconnected and just don't quite have that book knowledge anymore.

That's very true... At this point I would be far more comfortable and effective as a CFII, or teaching students how to transition into advanced avionics, high performance a/c, etc. But teaching chandelles and lazy eights? I would have to recommend somebody else, even if that was a fresh CFI.

[Blip16]

Originally Posted by wrxpilot

That's very true... At this point I would be far more comfortable and effective as a CFII, or teaching students how to transition into advanced avionics, high performance a/c, etc. But teaching chandelles and lazy eights? I would have to recommend somebody else, even if that was a fresh CFI.

i rock the commercial maneuvers but only because i have taught initial CFI for over 2yrs now. lazy 8's are the best maneuver ever

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by Blip16

i rock the commercial maneuvers but only because i have taught initial CFI for over 2yrs now. lazy 8's are the best maneuver ever

the 8-point roll is pretty awesome. cuban 8's are good too. lazy 8's made me angry.

[Blip16]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

the 8-point roll is pretty awesome. cuban 8's are good too. lazy 8's made me angry.

for commercial maneuvers, lazy 8s are awesome.

i like the 8pt roll and hammerheads best. snap rolls are fun too.

[AngelFuree]

Originally Posted by Roger, Roger

It's not a question of what the aviation industry thinks.

It has all been shaped by the federal regulations.

By law, low-timers are limited in what they can do.

It just so happens that the thing they can do that has the most positions open is...flight instruct.

Don't like it?

Talk to the FAA.

Sorry for calling you out directly, though I've seen many posts like this before, but if you really talked to the FAA about it, they'll laugh at you. Your suggestion is ridiculous. The FAA has nothing to do with what type of job a low-time pilot obtains in his/her search for flight time. You ARE right, however, in that low-time pilots are very limited in the type of jobs they can obtain, and the job that so happens to be the most abundant is flight instructing. Why? ...because, in general, high-timers don't want to deal with the pay and BS of instructing. That's why it's typically a low-timer job. It's the equivalent of why you and I wouldn't work the jobs that an illegal immigrant works at the plantations.

[Dj To Rule]

LARVA

These guys (they know who they are) are supposed to be partying in Istanbul, not posting right now, excuse them.

[TheShocker]

Originally Posted by AngelFuree

Sorry for calling you out directly, though I've seen many posts like this before, but if you really talked to the FAA about it, they'll laugh at you. Your suggestion is ridiculous. The FAA has nothing to do with what type of job a low-time pilot obtains in his/her search for flight time. You ARE right, however, in that low-time pilots are very limited in the type of jobs they can obtain, and the job that so happens to be the most abundant is flight instructing. Why? ...because, in general, high-timers don't want to deal with the pay and BS of instructing. That's why it's typically a low-timer job. It's the equivalent of why you and I wouldn't work the jobs that an illegal immigrant works at the plantations.

That is true, the low time pilot is very limited in what he/she can do, and one of those option is flight instructing. The merits of those with low time instructing those with no time can be debated and it is quite a valid debate. This whole talking to the FAA thing, they definitely don't give a f%ck about who instructs and who does not. You have an instructor rating, as long as you are not bending metal, they don't care about you.

[Dj To Rule]

Originally Posted by TheShocker

That is true, the low time pilot is very limited in what he/she can do, and one of those option is flight instructing. The merits of those with low time instructing those with no time can be debated and it is quite a valid debate. This whole talking to the FAA thing, they definitely don't give a f%ck about who instructs and who does not. You have an instructor rating, as long as you are not bending metal, they don't care about you.

They sure do care about me over here in a JAA country.. They provide free videos and publications that are readily duplicatible without copyright issue.. God bless the FAA for that. silly JAA doesn't give you ..

[rpfeif]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

i just cant understand why the aviation field thinks its ok for basically a brand new pilot to teach other new pilots.

Cause people are willing to pay for a low time pilot. And if you don't want to fly with one that just don't do it. It sounds like someone has an axe to grind more than anything else.

Granted a low time CFI is going to have few of skills or tools that a high time are going to have. But I have flown with enough high time CFIs that didn't know how fly GPS approachs, knew little about the autopilot in the aircraft, hell even did a gear up landing (University CFI who was giving a checkride). A low timer will most likely be open to criticism, while a higher time CFI maybe more likelyto be less open or less likely to recieve any criticism. Hours matter, but so does attitude, I just wouldn't write off all low time CFIs. If this was such an earth shattering issue I am sure insurance companies, FBOs, and universities would crack down more and the whole industry would rasie hiring minimums.

I wouldn't start to pass judgement until you done something yourself. Its alot different when you have some experiences to draw upon.

[Dj To Rule]

Low time kamikaze training, whos in? press +1 :P

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by Blip16

for commercial maneuvers, lazy 8s are awesome.

i like the 8pt roll and hammerheads best. snap rolls are fun too.

i was just thinking of things that come in 8's...

hammers are super fun.

[AngelFuree]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

i was just thinking of things that come in 8's...

hammers are super fun.

...so says the great aviator from texas.

[TXaviator]

Originally Posted by AngelFuree

...so says the great aviator from texas.

im probably just mad that im not a CFI.

[sog]

I agree 250 hours isn't a whole lot to go start teaching people how to fly, but by the same token, I've flown with 500 and 1,500 hour instructors who were far worse than some 300 and 350 hour instructors I've had, if only because of their enthusiasm and dedication.

There is no magical number of hours after which everyone becomes a great instructor. Some people can turn around and teach something like a pro, just 5 seconds after they themselves learn the material. Other people can spend a lifetime teaching without ever doing as good of a job. I think it largely comes down to the individual, their enthusiasm, the training that they had when they were learning, and their dedication to their work.

[Maurus]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

im probably just mad that im not a CFI.

Nah, I would just say your lack of the experience of being a new CFI that skews your perspective. (yes I know your quote was sarcasm).

By the time you have your commercial license you have the skill and knowledge to become a CFI. It is just a matter of reversing the flow of information being exchanged. I don't care how many hours you have flown an aircraft, that first 100-200 hours of dual given will be the same quality as a new commercial pilot and until you experience that, you really can't make a valid argument.

[poser765]

Here's a question. Would a 5k hour airline pilot really have more to bring instructing in a 172 than a 300 CFI? How much of 121 flying is relevant to general aviation flying?

[esa17]

Originally Posted by Maurus

Nah, I would just say your lack of the experience of being a new CFI that skews your perspective. (yes I know your quote was sarcasm).

By the time you have your commercial license you have the skill and knowledge to become a CFI. It is just a matter of reversing the flow of information being exchanged. I don't care how many hours you have flown an aircraft, that first 100-200 hours of dual given will be the same quality as a new commercial pilot and until you experience that, you really can't make a valid argument.

No, you don't. That's why the instructor is an additional certificate. Just because you can fly the plane to commercial standards doesn't mean you're ready to teach. I would argue that there are lots of 20,000hr pilots who will never be ready to teach.

I haven't met a CFI yet who felt as if they hadn't learned more in their first 100hrs of dual given then they did in their entire training period prior to earning their CFI.