5-8 hr. Exams, rational?

[Ticket puncher]

Just curious, but I have noticed a couple of threads regarding the long exam times for the CFI. Is this something that has been a gradual increasing trend over the past several years or did the FAA announce that their testing standards were insufficient and decided to turn the process into an ordeal?

I took all but 2 of my rides with the Feds (granted that was some years ago but the overall "flying environment" has not changed all that much) and they certainly didn't last 5-8 hours and I never considered the process to be an inquisition. To be sure they were not easy and they definitely tested my instructional/flying skills but I learned something from each examiner (even those you were supposed to avoid like the plague) and each ride was more of a learning experience than an exam. At the completion of my CFI and ATP ride we pulled up in front of the FSDO and the examiner spent an hour or so talking about instructional techniques and just plane good advice on flying in general. The nature of those rides and the "after action" discussions did more to make me a better instructor/pilot than any 5-8 hr. grilling would ever have done, and the making of a good & safe instructor/pilot should be the goal!

If part of the rational for a more rigorous oral is a perceived weakness in the written exam process then the Feds need to fix that aspect. Maybe they need to do away with the written and just do a knowledge evaluation with the oral!! A good examiner should be a able to tell in short order if an applicant knows his/her stuff and it doesn't take 5-8 hours to do that!!

 

[dmccormack]

Just curious, but I have noticed a couple of threads regarding the long exam times for the CFI. Is this something that has been a gradual increasing trend over the past several years or did the FAA announce that their testing standards were insufficient and decided to turn the process into an ordeal?

Apparently some FSDOs are known for a 90% failure rate.

A nearby FSDO is known to sending 50% of the a/c flown there back on a ferry permit after a CFI applicant shows up for his/her initial.

(I had my own issues with that and it was a different FSDO)

If part of the rational for a more rigorous oral is a perceived weakness in the written exam process then the Feds need to fix that aspect. Maybe they need to do away with the written and just do a knowledge evaluation with the oral!! A good examiner should be a able to tell in short order if an applicant knows his/her stuff and it doesn't take 5-8 hours to do that!!

Bureaucracies don't do "individual skill and ability." They need to turn everything into a procedure and a matching form to ensure conformance to the ruleset.

That said, there's still enough leeway in the FAA's handling of the CFI initial to allow a sharp examiner to recognize when he/she has a dud or a stud.

I think any examiner worth his notepad will know by the time you taxi to the hold short line whether he has a pass or fail applicant.

 

[Tristar]

I've heard every since the beginning of my private that CFI is the hardest. I was warned to not be surprised on full day examinations and high failure rates. One or two have even suggested not flying to your first attempt at CFI. But...you know how rumors go.

 

[KennyFlys]

The only thing I'd suggest is find a DPE who would let you do the oral portion on one day and the flight portion on the next. That's highly recommended by a DPE I dealt with. Although you're not doing an initial, the changes you've encountered may make questioning nearly as difficult as one.

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA concluded some years ago that they needed more time than "normal" to determine with sufficient certainty that applicants for a certificate which allowed them unilateral authority to turn pilots loose in the system and to allow them to keep flying year after year were worthy of that authority.

 

[tonycondon]

The only thing I'd suggest is find a DPE who would let you do the oral portion on one day and the flight portion on the next. That's highly recommended by a DPE I dealt with. Although you're not doing an initial, the changes you've encountered may make questioning nearly as difficult as one.

i think that extra time for a CFI checkride is just fine, but if it takes two days that is just ridiculous. I finished mine in 7 hrs and that included a break for coffee and a break for lunch. Theres no reason if you are well prepared for the test that it cant be completed in under 8 hrs.

 

[poadeleted20]

i think that extra time for a CFI checkride is just fine, but if it takes two days that is just ridiculous. I finished mine in 7 hrs and that included a break for coffee and a break for lunch. Theres no reason if you are well prepared for the test that it cant be completed in under 8 hrs.

Concur -- 5-8 hours should be enough. But that's what the original question involved -- comparing the modern 5-8 hour initial CFI tests to the 3-hour test I got in 1973.

 

[tonycondon]

3-hour test I got in 1973.

jeez are you sure you're qualified to act as a CFI after such inadequate testing??

 

[KennyFlys]

i think that extra time for a CFI checkride is just fine, but if it takes two days that is just ridiculous. I finished mine in 7 hrs and that included a break for coffee and a break for lunch. Theres no reason if you are well prepared for the test that it cant be completed in under 8 hrs.

It's not that it will take a long time or beyond eight hours. I'd expect orals to be between four and six hours followed by a flight portion between 1.7 and 2.5 hours depending on the demands of the inspector. You're just more likely to be quite tired after a five-hour oral exam. If it could be arranged, doing the flight portion after some rest would be a better idea.

With the FSDOs taking over the initial rides all over, I suspect they will become even more grueling.

 

[tonycondon]

It's not that it will take a long time or beyond eight hours. I'd expect orals to be between four and six hours followed by a flight portion between 1.7 and 2.5 hours depending on the demands of the inspector. You're just more likely to be quite tired after a five-hour oral exam. If it could be arranged, doing the flight portion after some rest would be a better idea.

With the FSDOs taking over the initial rides all over, I suspect they will become even more grueling.

and once again, if you are well prepared, as you should be, the oral will not be grueling. yes it may be long but it shouldnt wear you down. and in talking with fellow CFIs in my state, the FSDO rides are a lot less grueling than going to a DPE.

 

[dmccormack]

and once again, if you are well prepared, as you should be, the oral will not be grueling. yes it may be long but it shouldnt wear you down. and in talking with fellow CFIs in my state, the FSDO rides are a lot less grueling than going to a DPE.

DPEs are not an option here (PA, WV).

My CFI checkride was spread over two days because day one the FAA Inspector declared the a/c "un-airworthy" due to 2 minor gigs. As I mentioned on the earlier post, I think it had more to do with the winds 22G37 that day and his lack of familiarity with Bonanzas.

The oral lasted 2 hours -- 20 minutes of it consumed with A/D conformance checks (it was and had all).

The flight lasted 2 hours, with 30 minutes enroute to the airport where the C172 was parked.

I was more than prepared and I'm sure it showed, because my checkride was far, far from "grueling."

 

[KennyFlys]

and once again, if you are well prepared, as you should be, the oral will not be grueling. yes it may be long but it shouldnt wear you down. and in talking with fellow CFIs in my state, the FSDO rides are a lot less grueling than going to a DPE.

I'm probably misusing the word "grueling." I agree, if prepared, it shouldn't be extremely difficult unless hit with areas you'd never think of going. In my case, that was reference to TCDS and CARs. The mental stress can be up there even if you are prepared with the information. It also depends on how much you're allowed to reference the information. I had the lesson plan book there but never referred to it. He wanted it off the top. The only book I actually had open was the PTS; nothing more.

Every DPE and inspector is different but as far as Inspectors go, I've not heard the most favorable news out of Atlanta. The last few in front of the Atlanta FSDO were not horrible experiences but definitely not short. Time adds to the stress level.

If someone wants to knock them both out in one day, more power to them. But, I'd recommend otherwise.

 

[Ticket puncher]

Not sure at this point if I even want to instruct again. Right now I'm mostly concerned with the IPC and just getting my own overall proficieny up to a standard I can accept.

But, if I correctly understand the FAA rational on the inordinate amount of time taken to evaluate CFI canditates then I would have to conclude that their "evaluation system" is failing big time. I don't think that it would be a great leap in logic to expect that, on average, high quality CFI's would in turn produce high quality CFI's. But given the high CFI failure rates, some have mentioned, that doesn't seem to be the happening. Sounds more like a knee jerk reaction by an agency to someone's perception of a problem or an attempt to justify existence and budgets.

I apologize if I am off going on this. But I was a senior Fed. Mgr (not FAA) in the safety area for almost 32 years. Myself and collegues fought a continuing battle to put reasonable and effective policies and programs in place that actually solved real problem(s). Unless the countryside is littered with the wreckage of aircraft ne and two day evaluations for a CFI don't even come close to passing the "HO HO" test.

I'll get off my soapbox now and go back to my Instrument Flying Handbook and try to keep from taking years off of my instructors life.

 

[Ticket puncher]

I would appear that my inability to fly is exceeded only by my inability to SPELL!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The FAA concluded some years ago that they needed more time than "normal" to determine with sufficient certainty that applicants for a certificate which allowed them unilateral authority to turn pilots loose in the system and to allow them to keep flying year after year were worthy of that authority.

Must have had too many CFI's turning out pilots who couldn't handle 10 knots of wind!

Badump bump.

 

[Areeda]

Where does this 90% fail rate number come from?

I've met plenty of CFIs and my sample, which may not be statistically significant, says it's no where near that high.

I had an 8 hr oral for the initial that had enough discussion on how do you teach this stuff, that I'd like to do it again knowing what I know now. The other 3 cfi checkride oral were more like 2-4 hrs.

Flight was well under 2 hrs, and very appropriate for all of them.

My first CFI candidate goes up before the end of May. I put his odds at 8 or 9 to 1 to pass. We'll see how delusional I really am.

Joe

 

[tonycondon]

Where does this 90% fail rate number come from?

I've met plenty of CFIs and my sample, which may not be statistically significant, says it's no where near that high.

agreed

I had an 8 hr oral for the initial that had enough discussion on how do you teach this stuff, that I'd like to do it again knowing what I know now. The other 3 cfi checkride oral were more like 2-4 hrs.

Flight was well under 2 hrs, and very appropriate for all of them.

My first CFI candidate goes up before the end of May. I put his odds at 8 or 9 to 1 to pass. We'll see how delusional I really am.

agreed

I guess it really depends on what state you're in.

 

[Baron 55]

There is a ton of stuff to go over for the CFI. My own ride was in 1987, so roughly two decades ago. I cannot speak for longer back than that, but my practical took around 5 hr., including the oral. So it's been going on at least that long. [I was told, back then, and cruelly just before I took the test, that the failure rate in our area was over 90%]. So, that hasn't changed much, if it is still that high.

However, I, too, feel that one can be examined in far less time, in spite of the volume of material to be assessed. Someone who knows what they are doing can do this easily, if they want to. I do not get a say in it, however. I had one student who had her CFI practical done in about an hour and a half, total, but that was the only time it went that quickly. And, yes, she passed.

 

[Baron 55]

There is a ton of stuff to go over for the CFI. My own ride was in 1987, so roughly two decades ago. I cannot speak for longer back than that, but my practical took around 5 hr., including the oral. So it's been going on at least that long. [I was told, back then, and cruelly just before I took the test, that the failure rate in our area was over 90%. So, that hasn't changed much.]

However, I, too, feel that one can be examined in far less time, in spite of the volume of material to be assessed. Someone who knows what they are doing can do this easily, if they want to. I do not get a say in it, however. I had one student who had her CFI practical done in about an hour and a half, total, but that was the only time it went that quickly. And, yes, she passed.

 

[poadeleted20]

jeez are you sure you're qualified to act as a CFI after such inadequate testing??

I wasn't then, but I am now.

 

[poadeleted20]

But, if I correctly understand the FAA rational on the inordinate amount of time taken to evaluate CFI canditates

I would like to emphasize that we're talking strictly about initial issuance of CFI tickets, not additional ratings on them or renewal/reinstatement rides, which are much shorter.

 

[dmccormack]

I wasn't then, but I am now.

It's a bit of a paradox that we learn most when we teach, but we can't teach until we've proven we "know it all."

At worst the oral and practical is a hurdle, at best it's a wide enough sampling to ensure that the applicant is tracking.

I doubt anyone walking away with a temp CFI certificate in hand knows all she/he needs to know.

 

[KennyFlys]

I doubt anyone walking away with a temp CFI certificate in hand knows all she/he needs to know.

That night I flew home, I was right seat with my new CFI temp ticket. In the left seat was a new Comm pilot with his temp ticket.

Neither one of us felt like we were qualified to do more than we had been. But, we certainly had the tool to keep on learning and actually accomplish something.

 

[dmccormack]

Neither one of us felt like we were qualified to do more than we had been. But, we certainly had the tool to keep on learning and actually accomplish something.

Precisely.

I think the one missing element in all of General Aviation is the mentor/master-apprentice model (that seems to work for Military and Air Transport).

We need to get away from the mentality that a CFI is "just required" for getting the time and ticket, but after that "I'm on my own."

I know time and money impact this, but I'm sure most pilots can find another who would fly along in the right seat for free.

Every pilot should either be mentoring or work with a mentor or even a group. Iron sharpens iron and nothing improves your flying better than having a knowledgeable audience.

 

[Ticket puncher]

I guess the length issue depends a great deal on how the oral is conducted. If it's a straight Q&A I would still have an issue the the time element. But, if the questioning is conducted in a semi-discussion format around some situation(s) that's another story. It allows the examiner to cover a lot of ground in determining the depth of your knowledge, your strengths and weaknesses and how you would to apply your knowledge to potential real word situations. My CFI examiner used this technique and when it was over I had a great amount of respect for the guy and a lot more confidence in my own abilities. I think this approach can actually be fun, it's non adversarial and it's a technique I used successfully with my students. I imagine that many of you use the same technique(s). I also had an examiner that wanted me to puke back info for him, sort of a "got ya" approach. Not nearly as much fun!

Like I said it's in the approach, but long orals and high failure rates smack of the sharp shooter/gunslinger approach. If in fact that's the situation then GA and the organizations that supposedly support GA need to be raising the issue to those that can do something about it.

 

[KennyFlys]

I guess the length issue depends a great deal on how the oral is conducted. If it's a straight Q&A I would still have an issue the the time element. But, if the questioning is conducted in a semi-discussion format around some situation(s) that's another story. It allows the examiner to cover a lot of ground in determining the depth of your knowledge, your strengths and weaknesses and how you would to apply your knowledge to potential real word situations.

During my oral exam, there was dang little we didn't cover. I'd probably be hard pressed to pick a task in the PTS we didn't touch on in some fashion short of the SEL tasks.

In fact, there were areas we skipped around in. While there are only a couple tasks required in each area of operation, either he would take one item and link it to a task in another area or I'd dig my own hole and allow an opportunity for him to ask more. I became quite proficient at the latter.

It was in fact more discussion but with me providing a LOT of answers without even realizing it. A DPE as experienced as this guy was (former college professor in aviation management and 8,000+ hours as a DPE) has learned well how to figure out your knowledge level in different areas. But, it takes time to do this. My IR oral was 2.5 hours and the Comm was 3 hours. I can't picture the CFI being less than five hours if it's to be done correctly and for the DPE to make an honest and sufficient determination of your knowledge.

My CFI examiner used this technique and when it was over I had a great amount of respect for the guy and a lot more confidence in my own abilities. I think this approach can actually be fun, it's non adversarial and it's a technique I used successfully with my students. I imagine that many of you use the same technique(s). I also had an examiner that wanted me to puke back info for him, sort of a "got ya" approach. Not nearly as much fun!

It's a good tactic I walked away with. And yes, there is the "puke" as you put it or allowing the student to explain something to see what they really know. Then, go back and review where there are inaccuracies in their understanding. It's not fun for the student but then neither is it for the CFI candidate trying to teach something to an examiner who knows the subject matter better than you can dream of doing someday. That goes back to the number of times I opened mouth, inserted foot, allowing an opportunity for him to link to another task past by earlier.

Like I said it's in the approach, but long orals and high failure rates smack of the sharp shooter/gunslinger approach. If in fact that's the situation then GA and the organizations that supposedly support GA need to be raising the issue to those that can do something about it.

I have to disagree there. Aviation safety is not running high enough as it is. As much as I look things over, I constantly wonder what I may have missed with regard to safety issues. It's making choices or using ADM that preempts the beginning of that chain. There are too many pilots who do not make those observations. They keep making it through flight reviews and are allowed to continue on, far too often without sufficient questioning.

The CFI needs that knowledge level as well as the vigilance over safety and proper training. Allowing a lesser skill level enter this area of aviation could and probably would cause a drastic decrease in safety levels. Given the most recent Nall Report, we can't afford that.

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess the length issue depends a great deal on how the oral is conducted. If it's a straight Q&A I would still have an issue the the time element. But, if the questioning is conducted in a semi-discussion format around some situation(s) that's another story.

That is exactly how the oral portion is supposed to be done these days.

It allows the examiner to cover a lot of ground in determining the depth of your knowledge, your strengths and weaknesses and how you would to apply your knowledge to potential real word [sic] situations.

And that is exactly why it's done that way. It's no longer a "talking parrot" test, but rather is intended to find out if you not only know the material, but can teach it effectively, including being able to tell how the student is doing and fixing problems that arise.

 

[gprellwitz]

Precisely.

I think the one missing element in all of General Aviation is the mentor/master-apprentice model (that seems to work for Military and Air Transport).

We need to get away from the mentality that a CFI is "just required" for getting the time and ticket, but after that "I'm on my own."

I know time and money impact this, but I'm sure most pilots can find another who would fly along in the right seat for free.

Every pilot should either be mentoring or work with a mentor or even a group. Iron sharpens iron and nothing improves your flying better than having a knowledgeable audience.

That's one thing I really like about being married to a pilot. I know that I'm always learning, but sometimes (okay, frequently) she'll ask a question or points something out that makes me say "duh, I should have thought about that!" Now, my ego kicks in and I act all nonchalant, but I'm definitely paying attention. The only problem is that we're at comparable skill levels, so there isn't a true mentor/mentee relationship (though I frequently feel quite mental ).

 

[Ticket puncher]

"I have to disagree there. Aviation safety is not running high enough as it is. As much as I look things over, I constantly wonder what I may have missed with regard to safety issues. It's making choices or using ADM that preempts the beginning of that chain. There are too many pilots who do not make those observations. They keep making it through flight reviews and are allowed to continue on, far too often without sufficient questioning.

The CFI needs that knowledge level as well as the vigilance over safety and proper training. Allowing a lesser skill level enter this area of aviation could and probably would cause a drastic decrease in safety levels. Given the most recent Nall Report, we can't afford that."

Nobody is suggesting that we lighten up on the CFI knowledge levels nor that we lower the bar nor that we do not conduct a through evaluation of the CFI candidates The issue is the manner in which the evaluation is conducted and the time required to perform the evaluation and is that process really effective. You would expect that a system that produced a higher qualified CFI would over time produce other highly qualified candidates. It's not unreasonable to expect that one indicator of a successful training/evaluation program would be a decrease in the failure rate. Is that happening?? If not then some other factor is in play or the system isn't effective. From what I've read so far about failure rates it isn't happening.

Just because we do an intensive knowledge/application evaluation of a CFI does not mean he/she will in fact be "good" instructor that is a poster boy for safety over time. I can understand a tough evaluation of CFI's since their at the apex of the pyramid from which flows down attitudes and skills. But I would be more in favor of appropriate evaluations over time. That might do more to keep standards high in the long run.

Just what exactly is the necessary running level of aviation safety? In the nuclear world one chance in a million is a credible event and mandates some form of control (depending upon the consequences of the event) to be put in place to mitigate the event. What are the rules in the GA world? Are accidents caused by poorly imparted knowledge or by bad judgement? Would the accident caused by a 100 hour pilot out scud running have been prevented by a CFI oral of 10 hours?

As I stated the issue is not wether we need highly qualified CFI's but is the evaluation process effective and is it producing the intended result?

 

[dmccormack]

Just because we do an intensive knowledge/application evaluation of a CFI does not mean he/she will in fact be "good" instructor that is a poster boy for safety over time. I can understand a tough evaluation of CFI's since their at the apex of the pyramid from which flows down attitudes and skills. But I would be more in favor of appropriate evaluations over time. That might do more to keep standards high in the long run.

I can't agree more.

In every other high risk/high damage endeavor I've been involved in (Armor, Explosives, Nuclear Weapons, Infantry) a repeated qualiification cycle is planned and expected.

Tankers had to pass a regular Tank Gunnery Crew Skills Test. It was tough sometimes watching a guy with 15 years on tank recert because he couldn't make the cut on the .50 cal teardown and rebuild, but he retrained until he got it right, otherwise he'd get reassigned to some other support position (no Tanker wants that!).

The CFI recert doesn't require actual flying. Why not spread the net by deputizing senior CFIs as CFI-only DPEs? Require so many hours ground and flight to PTS standards, and up the frequency until a CFI has so many hours, or some other indirect measure of experience.

Sure there will be buddy sign-offs, but I think on balance pilots want to do the right thing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You would expect that a system that produced a higher qualified CFI would over time produce other highly qualified candidates.

I disagree. Given a small, closed system (such as an aviation university), the quality will continually go down *unless* some of the CFI's care enough about teaching to go elsewhere and learn new things. It's basically like inbreeding - A CFI's weaknesses will be passed on to their students, but their students will have other weaknesses, and before too many generations there are big holes.

That's why I try to fly with many CFI's, and so far I've been using a different CFI for every rating. I've been lucky to have some really good ones, but even the really good ones have their weaknesses. By training in this manner, I've picked up several different perspectives, and also a lot of useful tricks.

If every CFI (heck, every pilot) trained like this, the good stuff would be spread widely and the bad habits and OWT's would be killed quickly. Obviously, that's not the case.

 

[Ticket puncher]

"I disagree. Given a small, closed system (such as an aviation university), the quality will continually go down *unless* some of the CFI's care enough about teaching to go elsewhere and learn new things. It's basically like inbreeding - A CFI's weaknesses will be passed on to their students, but their students will have other weaknesses, and before too many generations there are big holes."

So, I guess what your inferring is that in the long run the rigor of the current CFI exam process may not have as much to do with increasing the overall quality and competence of instructors/pilots as had been thought. If that in fact is the truth then lets have a system with a more balanced approach. One that has a beefed up written, a reasonably rigorous initial evaluation (1 - 2 days isn't it) followed by meaningful periodic evaluations after the initial qual.

As McCormack indicated is his post this is not a new approach and has worked well in other areas.

 

[dmccormack]

That's why I try to fly with many CFI's, and so far I've been using a different CFI for every rating. I've been lucky to have some really good ones, but even the really good ones have their weaknesses. By training in this manner, I've picked up several different perspectives, and also a lot of useful tricks.

Agreed. Take in all the good, and learn how to filter the bad, or let your reaction to the bad frame your own approach.

I have this weird bias that people want to do well, want to strive for excellence, and want to be safe and enjoy life for a long time.

Yet some human frailty drifts in -- "It's OK -- just this once..."

This isn't just a piloting issue, as broken marriages, alcoholism, and drug abuse will evidence.

Getting away with that once, twice, or many times eventually leads to disaster.

In the Army we called it "Dropping out of a run." If you dropped out of a formation run once, it made it far easier to drop out a second or third time. The soldier accommodated an attitude that "It's OK to quit -- it's only a formation run..."

"Sucking it up" wasn't just macho-talk, it was a way to avoid that slippery slope.

I would bet that few if any pilot has ever augured in the first time he/she flew VFR into IMC, or ran the tanks dry, or took off overloaded...

 

[jesse]

I disagree. Given a small, closed system (such as an aviation university), the quality will continually go down *unless* some of the CFI's care enough about teaching to go elsewhere and learn new things. It's basically like inbreeding - A CFI's weaknesses will be passed on to their students, but their students will have other weaknesses, and before too many generations there are big holes.

I am 100% with you on this. To make this even worse--a lot of these schools have a specific DPE that is on their payroll generally as the chief pilot. They also have all kinds of ridiculous rules. For example--as a commercial pilot--you have to have a CFI approve your flight planning to the airport 15 miles away *for each flight*.

 

[KennyFlys]

I am 100% with you on this. To make this even worse--a lot of these schools have a specific DPE that is on their payroll generally as the chief pilot. They also have all kinds of ridiculous rules. For example--as a commercial pilot--you have to have a CFI approve your flight planning to the airport 15 miles away *for each flight*.

My last school did this and were it not for the worse than poor ground school given, I'd be opposed to it. But, a good ground school process would have the students doing several dry run practices without making a flight. The latter would be my choice for teaching.

Unfortunately, many of the "rules" I saw were for liability rather than safety. Obviously, liability should be minimized but if you teach for safety first, the former falls into place right behind it.

 

[tonycondon]

My last school did this and were it not for the worse than poor ground school given, I'd be opposed to it. But, a good ground school process would have the students doing several dry run practices without making a flight. The latter would be my choice for teaching.

Unfortunately, many of the "rules" I saw were for liability rather than safety. Obviously, liability should be minimized but if you teach for safety first, the former falls into place right behind it.

yea the big schools probably get a big break on their insurance rates by requiring all flights to get a CFI approval. It sucks for those of us who look for a little independence after getting the private but its the way it is at most medium and large schools.

 

[jesse]

yea the big schools probably get a big break on their insurance rates by requiring all flights to get a CFI approval. It sucks for those of us who look for a little independence after getting the private but its the way it is at most medium and large schools.

Probably but the same insurance company is the one who is going to have to pay the price when they bite it with 10 passengers on board a couple years later.

You only can make training so safe. Try to make flight training completely safe and you end up with pilots that weren't adequately trained and consider 10 knots of wind too much. Is training in a 10 knot crosswind more risky than training on a calm day? Sure. But do we want a pilot that can't handle 10 knots later on? No.

 

[ScottM]

I am 100% with you on this. To make this even worse--a lot of these schools have a specific DPE that is on their payroll generally as the chief pilot. They also have all kinds of ridiculous rules. For example--as a commercial pilot--you have to have a CFI approve your flight planning to the airport 15 miles away *for each flight*.

The only reason that they have stupid rules like that is that the poor quality of their CFIs have produced a poor population of pilots that rent from them. Therefore there is further evidence of Kent's Theory of unnatural selection.

What I see in the pilot world is also comparable to the scuba world. The average diver now needs more hand holding that I have ever seen. The accident rates are going down, but the level of competence has also decreased. What is holding it all together are the old time dive leaders and instructors.

 

[dmccormack]

What is holding it all together are the old time dive leaders and instructors.

If you mean by "old time" guys who have "been there/done that" -- isn't that always the case in any endeavor where experience trumps youth?

I doubt learning "the old way" was demonstrably superior -- in fact the accident rate doesn't point to any golden age of GA flight training.

I think when we talk about the "old time" guys we're really talking about those with experience -- and enough smarts to make it to the point where they can talk about the good old days.

 

[ScottM]

If you mean by "old time" guys who have "been there/done that" -- isn't that always the case in any endeavor where experience trumps youth?

Yes I do mean that. Which is good for scuba. In flight instructing 'old timers' are few and far between. There are far to many whipper snappers out there just building time. Because the CFI is no longer primarily a teaching path. It is a path to get hours to then move on and get a real job.