Check Gear!

[jaylw314]

18 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Now what fun would that be? There wouldn't be someone else to blame for forgetting to lower your gear! This is the first I have heard of this unprecedented crisis, however. While aware there are some instructors that lack the ability to teach, I am also convinced the FAA does a pretty good job at screening out the applicants during the 6+ hr oral exam. Mr. Market also tends to eliminate those less than qualified to teach. We have more of a crisis of people who are not of authority and lacking expertise trying to teach on forums such as this and are in error. No you dont have to be a certificated flight instructor to opine, but one should know what they are talking about when giving advice.

The FAA certainly seems to require a lot more systematic teaching skills to CFI's than medical boards require of physicians.  I've had some pretty god-awful teaching.

[m20kmooney]

24 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Mr. Market also tends to eliminate those less than qualified to teach.

We have a CFI crisis. Not all CFI's are created equal. Unfortunately sometimes it's too late to wait for your Mr. Market. What I'd like to see is the FAA crack down and revamp the entire certification process. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by m20kmooney

[mike_elliott]

1 minute ago, m20kmooney said:

What I'd like to see is the FAA crack down and revamp the entire certification process

More government involvement is the answer, heh? Kind of like the "no child left behind" educational system? Good luck with that. When you say CFI crisis, just what are you saying? Too many? Too Few? FAA's certification process is the problem why there are too many or too few? Too many who don't live up to your standards of quality, which is defined as what and by whom? There will always be some CFI's that are better than others, with or without revamping the certification process, or do you disagree?  Im not trying to be confrontational, but trying to figure out what you are trying to pontificate needs changing and for what reasons along with those reasons supporting data.

If you want simply better CFI's, then I refer you to the Master instructor program and the FAA's gold seal program  

 

[xcrmckenna]

More government involvement is the answer, heh? Kind of like the "no child left behind" educational system? Good luck with that. When you say CFI crisis, just what are you saying? Too many? Too Few? FAA's certification process is the problem why there are too many or too few? Too many who don't live up to your standards of quality, which is defined as what and by whom? There will always be some CFI's that are better than others, with or without revamping the certification process, or do you disagree?  Im not trying to be confrontational, but trying to figure out what you are trying to pontificate needs changing and for what reasons along with those reasons supporting data.
If you want simply better CFI's, then I refer you to the Master instructor program and the FAA's gold seal program  
 

What would be wrong with making the Master instructor program or the FAA gold seal program the standard of the CFI? That would create a shortage at first of instructors but could be better for pilot safely in the long run.

All I know if M20kmooney ever lands gear up we will never let him/she live it down. And there are plenty of situations he/she could end up in that raises our insurance premiums that isn’t a gear up as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

It's one of my pet peeves... CFI's who take themselves too seriously. When I went looking for a CFI to teach me to fly, I was specifically looking to avoid anyone who would try to turn me into a top gun, astronaut, or even 747 Captain. I just wanted someone to show me how to fly a Cherokee 140 without killing myself in the first few hours. If you ask me, the problem isn't with the Instructor, it's with students. And that can't be fixed by any type of regulations or laws. Everyone brings their own level of seriousness, perfection, diligence, etc. to the task. And no matter who, there will always be someone better and someone else not as good. But that's life, and I'd much prefer to be allowed to live it.

The one thing I'd change is just to make learning to fly more accessible to more kids and specifically underprivileged kids. Flying is the most amazing experience and more should have the opportunity.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, m20kmooney said:

We have a CFI crisis. Not all CFI's are created equal. Unfortunately sometimes it's too late to wait for your Mr. Market. What I'd like to see is the FAA crack down and revamp the entire certification process. 

Sounds like a golden opportunity to get your commercial license, followed by your CFI rating.  You can fill the void.

Clarence

[HRM]

2 hours ago, m20kmooney said:

I think the FAA is doing a great job addressing GA safety. One area they could do better is to re-examine how they certify their so called CFI's. We have "instructors" who lack basic aerodynamic concepts teaching other pilots. This is an unprecedented crisis and the FAA is aware of it.

Oh good grief, don't get me started on this topic. 

That said, can you point to the documentation showing that "the FAA is aware of it"? I am genuinely interested. Especially since I just completed my FR with a 20-something CFI--yay, two more years, two more years, two more....

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, xcrmckenna said:

What would be wrong with making the Master instructor program or the FAA gold seal program the standard of the CFI

A lot of pilots' do make this their standard for selecting a CFI. Some still think the CFI should be a 20 Year old that is "honored" to be able to build time instead of paid a liveable wage also. There is a wide range of competency in CFI ranks, as there is in all professions. If it were easy, everyone would be a CFI. If it were only about money, there would be fewer still CFI's. If the FAA made it as difficult as passing the PE or BAR exam, then you would have to expect to pay PE salaries for your CFI.   

[m20kmooney]

38 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

A lot of pilots' do make this their standard for selecting a CFI. Some still think the CFI should be a 20 Year old that is "honored" to be able to build time instead of paid a liveable wage also. There is a wide range of competency in CFI ranks, as there is in all professions. If it were easy, everyone would be a CFI. If it were only about money, there would be fewer still CFI's. If the FAA made it as difficult as passing the PE or BAR exam, then you would have to expect to pay PE salaries for your CFI.   

BS! I never said they should not be paid well. What I said is they need to be competent. There are incompetent CFI’s “teaching” pilots. They need to be professional and be held responsible.

Edited December 28, 2018 by m20kmooney

[PT20J]

3 hours ago, m20kmooney said:

We have "instructors" who lack basic aerodynamic concepts teaching other pilots. 

Just curious... what incorrect basic aerodynamic concept did an instructor teach you?

[mike_elliott]

43 minutes ago, m20kmooney said:

BS! I never said they should not be paid well. What I said is they need to be competent. There are incompetent CFI’s “teaching” pilots. They need to be professional and be held responsible.

Lucas,

I don't believe I said you said they should not be paid well. I wasn't even referring to your posts when I wrote

 "A lot of pilots' do make this their standard for selecting a CFI. Some still think the CFI should be a 20 Year old that is "honored" to be able to build time instead of paid a liveable wage also." but replying to xcrmckenna's comment that Master CFI's and Gold seal CFI's should be the standard.

Specifically, I asked you to elaborate on your assertion that the FAA should revamp the whole CFI credentialing process, which you have chosen to ignore so far. You have made disgruntled statements about the quality of the CFIs, to which I can only surmise are the one's you have experience with.

"More government involvement is the answer, heh? Kind of like the "no child left behind" educational system? Good luck with that. When you say CFI crisis, just what are you saying? Too many? Too Few? FAA's certification process is the problem why there are too many or too few? Too many who don't live up to your standards of quality, which is defined as what and by whom? There will always be some CFI's that are better than others, with or without revamping the certification process, or do you disagree?

One way to assert change you feel is necessary is to become a CFI yourself and set a high standard, Lucas. Paul Steen is going to do just that, as have a number of others. We would welcome any quality improvement you could bring. Change begins within, but you know this.

Mike Elliott

Master CFII, FAAsteam lead rep. Mooney Pros, Inc. CEO. Mooney Summit CEO

[m20kmooney]

12 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

When you say CFI crisis, just what are you saying? Too many? Too Few? FAA's certification process is the problem why there are too many or too few? Too many who don't live up to your standards of quality, which is defined as what and by whom?

I'm saying there are too many incompetent ones who should'nt be teaching and too few who are competent. I was fortunate to have been taught by a very competent one. I'm also saying this is largely due to the FAA certification process. If a CFI hasn't grasped the difference between a slip and a skid as it pertains to a spin for example how will his student? Every year we have pilots lost to the classic base to final stall/spin because they were erroneously "taught" to not bank the airplane. Change does begins within. Assume your responsibility. What do you think we should do about it besides the usual rip stuff? I'm also saying that I will never forget to put my gear down!

Edited December 28, 2018 by m20kmooney

[m20kmooney]

11 hours ago, PT20J said:

Just curious... what incorrect basic aerodynamic concept did an instructor teach you?

I was very fortunate to have been taught by a very competent CFI. 

[midlifeflyer]

I guess I'm biased because I never had the time or inclination to do it, but IMO, special CFI designations are a nice marketing tool earned by jumping through a series of hoops,. They are neither the sole determinant nor a guarantee of instructional ability. 

I had a long-standing habit of going flying or getting checked out on vacations, so I've probably flown with 30 or more CFIs (I'm probably being conservative). By far, most, young or old, time builder or permanent, have been interested in teaching and competent, and I have learned something on each flight.

[midlifeflyer]

17 minutes ago, m20kmooney said:

I was very fortunate to have been taught by a very competent CFI. 

So is there a basis for your comments? Or just "belief"?

[m20kmooney]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

So is there a basis for your comments? Or just "belief"?

My CFII taught fully developed spins and recovery and instruments in “actual” conditions. 

[mike_elliott]

6 minutes ago, m20kmooney said:

My CFII taught fully developed spins and recovery and instruments in “actual” conditions. 

probably out of need. Surely he didnt risk his ticket doing this deliberately. I hope he filled out a NASA form for busting altitude. So in your opinion, CFI's should be aerobatic instructors and that will make them "qualified".

[steingar]

If you need a CFI to teach you basic aerodynamics you don't belong in the cockpit.  We do have these things called books.

[Andy95W]

So, all of this shit started yesterday when Lucas made comments about how bad CFIs were these days.  He had no specific examples of a bad instructor, all he really had to say about the issue was why his instructor was so great.  When he was asked about specific documentation to prove his statement that "this is an unprecedented crisis and the FAA is aware of it", he ignored the question.

So perhaps this "unprecedented crisis" is all in his head.

Coupled with his idiotic "I will never" statement, I'm finding it easier to pity him than waste the effort disagreeing with him.

[ilovecornfields]

[m20kmooney]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

probably out of need. Surely he didnt risk his ticket doing this deliberately. I hope he filled out a NASA form for busting altitude. So in your opinion, CFI's should be aerobatic instructors and that will make them "qualified".

 

1 hour ago, steingar said:

If you need a CFI to teach you basic aerodynamics you don't belong in the cockpit.  We do have these things called books.

Well, in my world we have surgeons teaching student surgeons in an "actual" OR and on an "actual" patient with "actual" conditions and complications. This is professionals teaching other professionals in an "actual" setting called a residency. This is beyond the books in "actual" conditions. Why should we teach pilots any differently? To put it bluntly, some so called CFI's teach pilots as a high school Bio teacher would teach doctors. 

Edited December 28, 2018 by m20kmooney

[GLJA]

23 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

So, all of this shit started yesterday when Lucas made comments about how bad CFIs were these days.  He had no specific examples of a bad instructor, all he really had to say about the issue was why his instructor was so great.  When he was asked about specific documentation to prove his statement that "this is an unprecedented crisis and the FAA is aware of it", he ignored the question.

So perhaps this "unprecedented crisis" is all in his head.

Coupled with his idiotic "I will never" statement, I'm finding it easier to pity him than waste the effort disagreeing with him.

At the end of the day, there’s bad Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Cashiers, Teachers, Pilots....(insert whatever career here). 

I believe it’s called a Bell Curve. Everyone isn’t going to be perfect. More so, all people learn and conduct themselves differently. What works for you (“I have a great CFI”), May not worknfor someone else (“this CFI is garbage”). 

Show me one “gold seal” course, Masters degree of doctorate that will ensure that this individual will make a great teacher, and I’ll eat my tires at Oshkosh. 

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, m20kmooney said:

 

Well, in my world we have surgeons teaching student surgeons in an "actual" OR and on an "actual" patient with "actual" conditions and complications. This is professionals teaching other professionals in an "actual" setting called a residency. This is beyond the books in "actual" conditions. Why should we teach pilots any differently? To put it bluntly, some so called CFI's teach pilots as a high school Bio teacher would teach doctors. 

Interesting how those "actual" surgeons keep making "actual" errors that kill "actual" patients, because we don't teach effective communication skills to those surgeons.  CRM training has made a profound difference in eliminating communication errors in commercial aviation, but efforts to employ CRM for surgeons (Lifewings)  has never gained traction in med education because "actual" surgeons don't teach it..  Heck, even the stuff pilots are taught about radio communication (readback of critical information, standard phraseology, verbal disambiguation) would benefit most surgery training programs.  Likewise, critical decision-making and self-assessment are formal parts of FAA performance requirements, but you won't find a class about those in medical school or residency, and no attending physician ever taught those to me--they just demonstrated by example and then waved their hands a lot.  My understanding is that the CFI requirements include formally demonstrating different teaching techniques to different learner's, whereas there is no such curriculum in medical education--as a resident, you're simply told to teach the medical students because you've graduated.

No, I think the FAA has a much better formal approach to training.  The standards and curriculum appear to give CFIs every chance of being good teachers, and pilots good learner's.  Hell, almost all of us think of our ticket as a "license to learn," right?  Why is that?  It's what all our CFI's drilled into our heads, and the fact they all do says something about their common training.  On the other hand, if you have a good doctor, he is so DESPITE his or her training, not BECAUSE of it.  

 

[steingar]

2 hours ago, m20kmooney said:

Well, in my world we have surgeons teaching student surgeons in an "actual" OR and on an "actual" patient with "actual" conditions and complications. This is professionals teaching other professionals in an "actual" setting called a residency. This is beyond the books in "actual" conditions. Why should we teach pilots any differently? To put it bluntly, some so called CFI's teach pilots as a high school Bio teacher would teach doctors. 

How's this, most of my Introductory Biology students could easily pass my tests from just picking up stuff on their own from books and the internet.  I bet lots of them do, and its cool by me.  My Graduate Genetics students are a little different, and of course MD's in training different still.  That's the difference between basic aerodynamics and the vagaries of handling an engine out scenario embedded in IMC in a turbine twin.  

By the way, how's the implementation of checklists coming along?  MD's need them way, way more than pilots, and I've never seen them in use by MDs even once.

[jaylw314]

38 minutes ago, steingar said:

How's this, most of my Introductory Biology students could easily pass my tests from just picking up stuff on their own from books and the internet.  I bet lots of them do, and its cool by me.  My Graduate Genetics students are a little different, and of course MD's in training different still.  That's the difference between basic aerodynamics and the vagaries of handling an engine out scenario embedded in IMC in a turbine twin.  

By the way, how's the implementation of checklists coming along?  MD's need them way, way more than pilots, and I've never seen them in use by MDs even once.

Nope.  Lifewings is a voluntary CRM program that many hospitals have implemented and many state boards encourage participation.  It is not required, and the hospitals I've seen have simply given incoming physician staff a training DVD which they promptly throw away.  In fact, the impetus is typically not from lawyers as you'd expect, but nurses and nursing administration. When I have attended such trainings, the majority of the attendees are nursing staff and there tends to be little participation from physicans.

While I accept that most day-to-day activities in medicine aren't very amenable to checklists (too diverse and unpredictable), critical and predictable activities (such as pre- and post-surgical activities) should be.  Unless or until the ACS (the national board that accredits surgeons) or ALL the various state medical boards require Lifewings or similar programs to be attended and adhered to (like the FAA expects from pilots and airline companies), you probably won't see many checklists.

As to students nowadays, I think the way younger people are learning nowadays, we need to change the current focus from "practical" experience and academic knowledge, to procedural training, communication skills and critical decision-making.  The rubric in medical education has always been "see one, do one, teach one," which gives you some idea of the culture.  I think that is completely moronic.

Aaaaaaand, I'm getting way off topic, sorry guys.  Ranting over