Pinecone
En-Route
Different world.
You had lesson plans and a syllabus that was developed for you. Then you were taught those lesson plans.
Military flying doesn't free form like civilian does.
Working on CFI - Advice?
- Thread starter RyanB
- Start date
You had lesson plans and a syllabus that was developed for you. Then you were taught those lesson plans.
Military flying doesn't free form like civilian does.
Clip4
Final Approach
What bunk. The us military is considered the best pilot training in the world. Each IP is highly trained.
Every training sortie you flew had an IP who strictly followed the training tasks provided to him and there were standards to progress in the program that you were required to meet. If the IP didn’t follow those plans, they would be relieved of duty.
Pinecone
En-Route
His point was not if they used them, but if at any point they actually wrote one.
And the answer is, for most instructors, no, they did not. Only if the worked in the training command and were revising the training program.
But their training is much more structured.
Clip4
Final Approach
The reason they don’t have to write them is because they never will have need to use them vs the civilian world where a CFI cannot anticipate the requirements of every lesson and will need to write and use their own lesson plans.
If they are an independent CFI, they also need to know how to write a syllabus.
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,723
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
Even guys in the administrative offices didn’t write syllabus, that was left to professional syllabus writers. We may help validate them at some point…
As an independent CFI myself I find it very easy to find syllabi to use rather than develop my own. My efforts are better spent analyzing my student than reinventing the wheel.
As a guy who set up a 141 from scratch, I found it a better use of my time to use predeveloped materials for my maneuver guide, syllabus, TCO and SOP.
I still contend it is not necessary to develop a plan from scratch to be a really good instructor. Unless you consider tailoring making one from scratch.
As an independent CFI myself I find it very easy to find syllabi to use rather than develop my own. My efforts are better spent analyzing my student than reinventing the wheel.
As a guy who set up a 141 from scratch, I found it a better use of my time to use predeveloped materials for my maneuver guide, syllabus, TCO and SOP.
I still contend it is not necessary to develop a plan from scratch to be a really good instructor. Unless you consider tailoring making one from scratch.
My complex/HP transition, flight review, IPC, and avionics transition training lesson plans were all written from scratch. (They also don’t look like the formal FAA ones because they are meant for use by me and no one else). I haven’t seen too many out there to cover all the variations and levels of prior pilot experience.
Not everything is for initial certificate/rating certification.
RussR
En-Route
@Tools, this is exactly my point. You set up a 141 school, and using a Jepp/etc. syllabus makes sense there. But here's a real world example of mine from a few years ago.
Former F-15 pilot (retired 20 years ago) buying into a Cessna 340 partnership. Has not flown much GA. Has not flown much pistons. Has not flown a glass panel. Has not flown GPS approaches. I think he said the F-15 didn't even have ILS at the time, it was all TACAN and PAR in his flying. I don't think he'd ever flown a turbocharged engine. He's Commercial Multi rated, of course, so we're not training for a checkride. But he does need a good thorough checkout over several flights.
You won't find a ready-made syllabus or lesson plans for something like that. How are you going to structure the training? What are you going to focus on first? How will you know he's ready for the next step? Those are things that a CFI really needs to think through, and come up with a plan.
There is no question you need a plan for someone like that. But, I think there's a distinction between having a well thought out plan and having a formal FAA lesson plan like you see in the Instructor's Handbook. I don't think anyone is advocating not having a plan of action for a
When I think of a FAA lesson plan, this is what I think of, which is complete overkill IMO. I don't think you need to write a complete set of these plans for a CFI checkride either.
Last edited:
Clip4
Final Approach
Ok, what syllabus are you using for a 65 year old instrument rated private pilot who has been inactive for 10 years?
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,723
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
That would be Bob. Only he’s in his 80s and was inactive for 48 years.
Didn’t write a syllabus, but somehow got him soloed successfully. He was happy, I was happy, we’ve become the very best of friends.
Wasn’t real fond of a couple other instructors… so wasn’t a slam dunk thing. So besides me, there’s at least one other person on this planet that doesn’t think it’s NECESSARY to write a syllabus from scratch for every possible situation, and STILL be a decent instructor.
Clip4
Final Approach
The average Part 141 instructor applicant today is 21 years old, about 300 hours total time, no real life flying ot life experience and no teaching experience. They were taught by a 23 year old CFI with not much more experience than they have.
They need the exercise of preparing lesson plans for all the private and commercial maneuvers.
Gilbert Buettner
Line Up and Wait
One day I was talking to my T-37 IP and told him maybe I would like to become an instructor. He said, "Are you crazy?! Every day I let you guys take me up there and try to kill me! My job is to let it go as far as possible before I save our asses."
...and yet the FAA has determined they are fit to instruct.
You're describing the business model at major universities. They offer courses taught by 23 year olds and younger with no teaching or life experience. I can almost guarantee anyone who has taken freshman calculus, chemistry, or physics had a teaching assistant who has had absolutely no training whatsoever. I doubt the professors lecturing have had any instructional training either.
That makes CFIs light years ahead.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
When I think of FAA lesson plans, that would be at least 3 separate ones.
Except the “don’t need” comments in this thread have been referring to “lesson plans,” and “knowing how to write a lesson plan,” not, “fitting exactly into the FAA‘s template for lesson plans.”
So, if y’all want to change those comments, we can probably all agree.
OTOH, sorry, but if you are not thinking in terms of objectives, content, and standards for a lesson, you are just riding along.
Pinecone
En-Route
I disagree that they don't use them.
No, they do not check them every time after some experience, but each lesson has a plan of what is taught and how it is taught.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,045
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
I’ll just add my two cents on the .mil IP/ lesson plans because I think a lot of stuff has been missed.
What a primary CFI and a primary .mil IP have in common is producing a student capable of passing an FAA oral and practical exam. How each of them get there students there is largely formulaic, given the existence of the PTS and ACS for however long that regime has been around. Likely 3/4s of the history of manned flight.
There’s literally nothing new under the sun in that arena.
What the independent, non-primary CFI and the IPs in the line squadrons have in common is the variety of things they have to do. Everything from executing a syllabus-driven upgrade to bringing somebody back to proficient after a period of time out of the cockpit, to remedial instruction for a busted check ride or other observed deficiency.
That variety means either has to have the skills to identify the gaps that need to be closed, designing a plan to do that, and then execute it. How each gets there and the level of corporate support available to each is a matter of structure, not ability. But when it comes to executing the plan, both should be designing a mission profile that when executed enables the underlying objectives to be accomplished and I’d hazard the line squadron .mil IP is as proficient, if not more so in doing that than the average FAA CFI.
What a primary CFI and a primary .mil IP have in common is producing a student capable of passing an FAA oral and practical exam. How each of them get there students there is largely formulaic, given the existence of the PTS and ACS for however long that regime has been around. Likely 3/4s of the history of manned flight.
There’s literally nothing new under the sun in that arena.
What the independent, non-primary CFI and the IPs in the line squadrons have in common is the variety of things they have to do. Everything from executing a syllabus-driven upgrade to bringing somebody back to proficient after a period of time out of the cockpit, to remedial instruction for a busted check ride or other observed deficiency.
That variety means either has to have the skills to identify the gaps that need to be closed, designing a plan to do that, and then execute it. How each gets there and the level of corporate support available to each is a matter of structure, not ability. But when it comes to executing the plan, both should be designing a mission profile that when executed enables the underlying objectives to be accomplished and I’d hazard the line squadron .mil IP is as proficient, if not more so in doing that than the average FAA CFI.
Clip4
Final Approach
I suppose the bottom line is the FAA provides guidance the CFI applicant write their own lesson plans. Like many topics published by the FAA, you are not required to follow their guidance. If you aren’t going to follow their guidance on becoming arguably the most influential certificate the FAA issues, what other guidance are you willing to discard because it is difficult?
When a CFI applicant asks me to work with them for the CFI, I advise them I require completion of a notebook. The notebook includes complete lesson plans for all the private, commercial tasks, flight review and ground training tasks such as aerodynamics, W&B, XC planning. Altimetry, aircraft performance and VORs. I also require them to compile a library of handbooks, ACs and other study materials. I require the applicant to develop a private pilot syllabus from their lesson plans. They will probably never use the syllabus, but it makes the applicant consider the order and the building blocks of the process.
This is the tried and true old school way of producing high quality instructors because it forces the applicant to get to the correlation level of learning. It is also how ALL the instructors I respect today did it. The rest are just CFI certificate holders with rather narrow knowledge and not very good instructors IMO.
If you want to be a professional, train like one and take the high road. Last post in this thread for me,
When a CFI applicant asks me to work with them for the CFI, I advise them I require completion of a notebook. The notebook includes complete lesson plans for all the private, commercial tasks, flight review and ground training tasks such as aerodynamics, W&B, XC planning. Altimetry, aircraft performance and VORs. I also require them to compile a library of handbooks, ACs and other study materials. I require the applicant to develop a private pilot syllabus from their lesson plans. They will probably never use the syllabus, but it makes the applicant consider the order and the building blocks of the process.
This is the tried and true old school way of producing high quality instructors because it forces the applicant to get to the correlation level of learning. It is also how ALL the instructors I respect today did it. The rest are just CFI certificate holders with rather narrow knowledge and not very good instructors IMO.
If you want to be a professional, train like one and take the high road. Last post in this thread for me,
Last edited: