Any tips or suggestions? Thinking about getting the Dauntless app again, though for $40 for just one test its seems pretty expensive. It made sense for the CFI and I really liked it. Anyone have any better suggestions?
Anyone taken the CFII written lately?
- Thread starter Z06_Mir
- Start date
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Whatever you use, make sure it's current. Don't buy or borrow the training materials someone else bought four years ago, because the FAA has changed and added a lot of questions in the IR-A question bank (essentially the same bank as FI-I) from 2010 onward.
That is one of the reasons I was using the Dauntless app. It would update the questions almost weekly. I remember seeing a lot of new questions on the IR written and I only took that a year ago.
ja_user
Pattern Altitude
Sheppard air is current, I can't speak to Dauntless, but the mainstream apps suck by comparison. If you can find a question/answer they didn't prep you for, then you get a refund. But you probably won't. They also delete the stale ones.
NineThreeKilo
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,196
- Location
- Hard to keep up
- Display Name
Display name:
NineThreeKilo
Did the IGI for some reason 6-7 months ago, Dauntless is good, so is Shepard, just be sure to update at the others said.
SinkorSwim
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 165
- Location
- St. Charles MO or WDW Fla
- Display Name
Display name:
HFC1969
Took it 4 weeks ago. Used Sheppard Air. Great people and products! 
ja_user
Pattern Altitude
Why would you need that? Shouldnt take more thsan a couple of days to study. But no, their interface has no bells/whistles.
I just liked it. It broke it down into different areas, so you could isolate that problems you were having easily. They also had these "stacks" where if you got a question wrong it went in the wrong once pilot or the wrong 2+ times pile, you could then choose to only pick questions from certain piles, if you wanted.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
Sheppard air. I'm getting ready to take mine as well.
ja_user
Pattern Altitude
You'll get that functionality, you will study by section topic.
dell30rb
Final Approach
As usual Z06 I'm right behind you...
I have a great (current) app that I used to study for the instrument written. It was two years ago but the updates are free. The app is sporty's instrument written prep.
Any issues if I use this for the CFII written? If the question banks are the same, I can't see an issue here.
I have a great (current) app that I used to study for the instrument written. It was two years ago but the updates are free. The app is sporty's instrument written prep.
Any issues if I use this for the CFII written? If the question banks are the same, I can't see an issue here.
Another question since I'm taking it in the next two weeks. I've been studying "Flight instructor instrument airplane" and seeing some questions that seem like regular flight instructor questions. Should I be studying "Flight instructor instrument airplane (added rating)" instead? I thought that would be adding a CFII for airplanes to someone who already has it for helicopters, but now I'm not sure. Thanks!
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
No, you should take the Flight Instructor Insrument airplane (FII). You're correct about the added rating being for existing IIs adding on a different Instrument instructor catagory.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Not to be snarky, but if you're going to be instructing this stuff, you shouldn't have to brush up or study anything; You should know it cold.
Edit: No, on second thought, I did mean to be snarky. Instructors of anything shouldn't have to study to pass any tests. This is the problem with instructors of all professions today. Most don't know their ****, and then they pass on their not knowing of **** to the next generation of non-**** knowers.
Edit: No, on second thought, I did mean to be snarky. Instructors of anything shouldn't have to study to pass any tests. This is the problem with instructors of all professions today. Most don't know their ****, and then they pass on their not knowing of **** to the next generation of non-**** knowers.
Last edited:
ja_user
Pattern Altitude
So he should automatically know it, or we should teach the II knowledge at the IFR level?
I know what you are trying to say, but a person does have to initially learn the material at some point... And depending in use, some of it may need a refresher.
I'm sorry that I didn't keep all that idiotic rote knowledge from my instrument written a year ago
- My CFI said I fly IFR better than he does, more smoothly and fluently in the system, can answer REAL WORLD questions, because I fly IFR. I don't think he's judging me because I'm brushing up on my written questions. 
So does that's theory apply to all professions? Law students shouldn't need to study for the bar exam? CPAs should just "know" everything about tax, auditing, etc. upon graduation (even if their tax class was a year or more before graduation?) And medical school grads should just walk into their boards cold and know it all?
Have you ever passed a professional licensure exam?
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
None of those examples have anything to do with my comment.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I'm sorry that I didn't keep all that idiotic rote knowledge from my instrument written a year ago
I am. I guess I have higher standards than most.
Good for you. I hope your students really benefit! I clearly teach in a different manner, If I don't know an answer I happily look it up with my student and we both learn. Perfection shouldn't be demanded safety and proficiency should be.
Last edited:
moonshine
Line Up and Wait
For crying out loud, there might be lack of sun where EdFred is, ignore him
Use Sheppard for written, brush up on the knowledge for the II oral - take a solid good look at the PTS, you are supposed to know the difference between turn indicator and turn coordinator (i.e. what the angle of the gyro gives you etc), actual magic behind VOR station, same for localizer and glideslope, same for pitot-static instruments (namely VSI - "calibrated orifice through which the air escapes at the predetermined rate...", might want to look up IVSI insides too, I got that one on the oral), what makes the attitude indicator stabilize straight and level on the initial spin-up (there was a picture in the old book, nothing on it in the new, but they still ask) - those types of things
And have fun. It's an add-on, so it'll only take as much time as a regular checkride, not a CFI nightmare. I had fun on mine Dunno whether EdFred did
Use Sheppard for written, brush up on the knowledge for the II oral - take a solid good look at the PTS, you are supposed to know the difference between turn indicator and turn coordinator (i.e. what the angle of the gyro gives you etc), actual magic behind VOR station, same for localizer and glideslope, same for pitot-static instruments (namely VSI - "calibrated orifice through which the air escapes at the predetermined rate...", might want to look up IVSI insides too, I got that one on the oral), what makes the attitude indicator stabilize straight and level on the initial spin-up (there was a picture in the old book, nothing on it in the new, but they still ask) - those types of things
And have fun. It's an add-on, so it'll only take as much time as a regular checkride, not a CFI nightmare. I had fun on mine
Dunno whether EdFred did Pilot Nick
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 20
- Display Name
Display name:
Nick
Does anyone use the Radar Summary charts with funky lines or even NDB approaches? Can you identify a microwave approach frequency by its 4 letter morse identifier?
Even instructors need to brush up on those elements the FAA of the bygone days has decided is important to know to fly in the clouds. I hope my CFII is not afraid to hit the books to ensure what he is telling me is the right stuff.
Even instructors need to brush up on those elements the FAA of the bygone days has decided is important to know to fly in the clouds. I hope my CFII is not afraid to hit the books to ensure what he is telling me is the right stuff.
ja_user
Pattern Altitude
Apparently for Written information, you do. But the written isn't exactly like actually flying IFR. It has a lot of information that may be interesting, but no necessarily the most important these days in the clouds...
I tend to focus on the stuff that won't get me or the student killed in the clouds, and go from there.
The FAA would do everyone a favor to update their questions, but they can't exactly ask product specific questions (430W for instance), and so there will always be a gap in the questions versus what is shown as proficency on the flight exam. Of course a lot of the basic information is best to know, but a lot of it is just outdated these days..
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
75% isn't perfection. Anyone IFR current should be able to hit 75% at any time.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
You must be a real joy to fly/work with.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
Good for you. I hope your students really bene
You have the right attitude to do a fine job instructing. Ignore him-like you, I'm not afraid to look something up for a student. It's much more professional than Bs'ing your way through it.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I'd fly with or work for Ed any day, over boobs who don't know what they're doing. I've made that choice a number of times in my career actually.
Given this choice:
A) Happy doofus who is PC and knows 75% or less of what they're supposed to in their job. They get by and slow everyone around them down but everyone goes home feeling warm and fuzzy. Right up until the layoffs.
B) Cranky person who's truly done and seen it all in the job/career who doesn't like being wrong and actively fixes it when they are.
I've chosen B multiple times for who I wanted to work for, or with. I wasn't scared of customers who acted cranky all the time either.
Want to know why? You got to learn from the best that way.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
On the other hand, someone can be old and cranky and not know what they are talking about. Or they can know what they are doing but not be able to convey it in an effective manner.
Not saying this about Ed, but in general...
I feel like I've had wonderful experiences from pilots of all different backgrounds and experiences. Some of the best I know, people who are outstanding pilots, probably couldn't pass an IFR written exam despite having thousands of hours of actual IMC, in ice, thunderstorms and fog. But they can certainly fly it and fly it well. I want to be one of those people eventually, not someone who is a walking encyclopedia of IFR written knowledge. Until I fly an airplane with an ADF in it (which I haven't) I can't get the concept of how they work, I'm sorry. I can MH+MB=RB all day, but I don't get the concept and that shows in my written scores. I haven't failed a written or a checkride yet, but I know I can at anytime that's why I want to study further.
I'm not perfect, EdFred and I don't pretend to be. I am safe and proficient though, and that's how I want my students to see me, that's how I let my students see me now. In the IFR environment I will be the same way and I'm not embarrassed or ashamed that I don't know every answer to every question. But I'm not too proud to make up an answer to pretend like I'm perfect. I'm in this business to teach the tiny amount of knowledge I have and to gain more, not to be a perfect pilot. I hope you understand that, and I hope you can see me as a safe pilot and a capable instructor. I'll report back within the next week with my written results.
I'm not perfect, EdFred and I don't pretend to be. I am safe and proficient though, and that's how I want my students to see me, that's how I let my students see me now. In the IFR environment I will be the same way and I'm not embarrassed or ashamed that I don't know every answer to every question. But I'm not too proud to make up an answer to pretend like I'm perfect. I'm in this business to teach the tiny amount of knowledge I have and to gain more, not to be a perfect pilot. I hope you understand that, and I hope you can see me as a safe pilot and a capable instructor. I'll report back within the next week with my written results.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Agreed. Those people typically weren't anywhere near the top two when choosing who to work with.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Then how do you (or anyone else) expect to teach it? That's what I'm getting at. One shouldn't be studying or cramming to be an instructor - it should come naturally. Yes, MH+MB=RB is a stupid way to go about saying "Oh, the station is 30 degrees to the right of my current heading, my relative bearing to the station is 30 degrees," but if you (or anyone else) don't understand the concept of it then how can you teach the concept to other people?
Someone can be a hell of a pilot, but it doesn't mean they can teach for ****. And by the same token, someone might be so-so with their skills, but be able to pass the concept on spectacularly to their students - golf instructors are a perfect example of this. But someone who doesn't understand concepts shouldn't be teaching. That's the whole point of teaching, one has to understand what one doing in order to pass the information along correctly. If that person is cramming to pass a test because they need to memorize the answers, how well do they know the information? And if they don't know the information and concept behind it, they will just become another idiot instructor that shorts their students.
I had both kinds of instructors, guess which ones I learned more from.
The question is, are you becoming a CFII for you, or for your students?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,187
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Well you have to start somewhere. We aren't born knowing it all. We have to study it. And if you don't continually study it, the knowledge fades away. One has to continually use it to retain it.
Case in point, I am a CFII but I have not actively instructed instruments in years. If I want to teach it, I have to go brush up on it. A lot of times it would take me more prep time for a lesson than it would for the student.
I don't automatically retain EVERYTHING I need to know to teach a student something if I don't do it all the time. But I make darned sure (to the best of my ability) to brush up on my knowledge of a subject before I try to teach it to someone else.
Case in point, I am a CFII but I have not actively instructed instruments in years. If I want to teach it, I have to go brush up on it. A lot of times it would take me more prep time for a lesson than it would for the student.
I don't automatically retain EVERYTHING I need to know to teach a student something if I don't do it all the time. But I make darned sure (to the best of my ability) to brush up on my knowledge of a subject before I try to teach it to someone else.
RussR
En-Route
Nitpick, both of you. It's RB+MH=MB unless your abbreviations mean something different than mine. Or, turned around, MB-MH=RB.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Noted. I didn't bother to look up the exact equation, because frankly I think, along with REEPIR, is a stupid way to approach teaching it. The FAA makes things way too complicated.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
So you're saying the many hours of studying and practice teaching I spent working towards my CFI initial were not appropriate? Additionally, after 2 years of teaching primary (but plenty of real world IFR in a corperate setting), I had to pull out the books and refresh myself on some of the more trivial instrument stuff that doesn't come up on every flight to adequately prepare for my CFII? Does that make me a bad CFII?
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
Yep. People mix it up all the time. The way I explain it is that you are given a heading and a relative bearing, so therefore they have to be on one side of the equal sign while you are looking for the magnetic bearing so therefore it has to be on the other side of the equal sign.I don't do the flipped around equation since most written prepware used by students preaches rb+mh=mh.