Can the New CFI-S rules be used to (help) alleviate a Flying Club's CFI shortage?

James331 said:
A CFI with mkre experience is always better, full stop.

A CPL or ATP CFI will 9.9 times out of 10 have more experience to pass on.

Wanting to lower the bar is always a bad idea.
Click to expand...


You don’t understand. The bar is ALREADY set for sport CFIs to teach daytime VFR skills, has been set there for 14 years, and has worked fine. No lowering has been suggested.

In fact, if you’ll compare the standards for slow flight, you’ll see that sport has a higher standard than private.
 
When I think back to my 100-hour self, I was still in the "license to learn" phase. If someone had suggested I be put in charge of someone else's education and safety in an airplane, I'd have said "you're crazy, I'm still trying to educate myself in this thing!"
But that's just me.
I don't know any CFI-S's. I'd be curious to know how many of them are out there... How many new SP's are trained by CFI-S's, and how many by regular CFI's? Important to know this before declaring "success" or not.
 
kath said:
When I think back to my 100-hour self, I was still in the "license to learn" phase. If someone had suggested I be put in charge of someone else's education and safety in an airplane, I'd have said "you're crazy, I'm still trying to educate myself in this thing!"
But that's just me.
I don't know any CFI-S's. I'd be curious to know how many of them are out there... How many new SP's are trained by CFI-S's, and how many by regular CFI's? Important to know this before declaring "success" or not.
Click to expand...


I had 4 instructors, 3 full CFIs and 1 sport. The 3 full CFIs were hellbent on airline jobs, simply building hours, and quit instructing as soon as they could. The sport CFI was far and away the best of the four. Had a good and effective teaching style, was patient and professional.

An instructor can have 1000 hours and be a lousy teacher. The 300 hour guy, who has a talent for teaching and gives a damn about doing it well, will turn out better pilots. Experience is not the ultimate criteria.
 
Last edited:
Experience seems to be pretty important to the FAA, employers, the insurance Co.s, etc.
 
Half Fast said:
It’s easy to measure. That doesn’t make it definitive.
Click to expand...

No, but experience is highly valued in almost every profession I’ve ever heard of.

I’d still wonder what thabout club is paying the CFIs and what fees or hoops they have to deal with. I think that’s likely the crux of their problem.
 
James331 said:
No, but experience is highly valued in almost every profession I’ve ever heard of.
Click to expand...


Didn’t say it wasn’t.

What I did say was that the established qualifications to be a sport CFI have been in place for a long time and seem to be working well. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.
 
Do 100hr fair weather sport CFIs work, yeah

Do higher time and experience CFIs work better, yup
 
James331 said:
Do 100hr fair weather sport CFIs work, yeah

Do higher time and experience CFIs work better, yup
Click to expand...


Prove it. SPL and PPL are tested by the same DPEs to the same standards regardless of the type of instructor.
 
How about the 8000 hour CFI-S. Former 135 guy who was afraid he couldn’t renew his medical and decided to instruct in sport. Never held a CFIA. Is he ok to instruct.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Nsconductor said:
How about the 8000 hour CFI-S. Former 135 guy who was afraid he couldn’t renew his medical and decided to instruct in sport. Never held a CFIA. Is he ok to instruct.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Ofcourse, read what I wrote, my issue was with experience.

And in that case why not go basic med?
 
James331 said:
Ofcourse, read what I wrote, my issue was with experience.

And in that case why not go basic med?
Click to expand...

So it’s the difference between 109 hours and 250 hours that makes a great instructor.....got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Nsconductor said:
So it’s the difference between 109 hours and 250 hours that makes a great instructor.....got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

It’s the difference between how those hours were built, and I think you know this.

Having a IFR and spending a good bit of time instrument as well as night etc that’s required for a normal CPL/CFI makes a good difference.
 
Half Fast said:
That’s not the point. (And yes, I can fly through a bravo, and yes, I have had the same hood training as PPL.)

The point is that sport pilots, and sport pilot CFIs, are equally capable for day VFR, and no one is suggesting having sport CFIs teach anything else.

The OP’sidea is to use sport CFIs to teach the daytime VFR portions and then have a full CFI finish up the rest. I see no problem with that and, so far, you have not offered a fact-based opinion in opposition.
Click to expand...

Your opinion that less training and less experiance results in the quality of day CFI is unfounded. More training and experiance results in more experienced and better trained CFIs as well as pilots.
 
Clip4 said:
Your opinion that less training and less experiance results in the quality of day CFI is unfounded. More training and experiance results in more experienced and better trained CFIs as well as pilots.
Click to expand...


But what is sufficient? Should we require 10,000 hours of would-be instructors? Sport CFIs have been around for many years and there’s no evidence of a problem. To the contrary, the FAA has now realized that sport instruction for day VFR is the same as PPL instruction.
 
Half Fast said:
But what is sufficient? Should we require 10,000 hours of would-be instructors? Sport CFIs have been around for many years and there’s no evidence of a problem. To the contrary, the FAA has now realized that sport instruction for day VFR is the same as PPL instruction.
Click to expand...

Where do you find that sport instruction for day VFR is the same for the PPL? Look at the training standards before you make baseless claims.

Sports pilots are trained and restricted to operate less capable aircraft under a narrower range of conditions. How you believe that is equal is a bit strange.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Where do you find that sport instruction for day VFR is the same for the PPL? Look at the training standards before you make baseless claims.
Click to expand...


I did. Did you?

Actually, sport is more demanding for slow flight, requiring minimum controllable airspeed. PPL no longer does.

PPL requires longer xc and more hours, but the skills are the same and are tested to the same criteria, except for slow flight.
 
Alright, listen up. The person makes the instructor, be it Sport CFI or regular CFI. Hours irrelevant. It’s the person. Carry on (cause I know you’re gonna).

0D8F5691-901C-446F-9150-185EF6277ECA.gif
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
I did. Did you?

Actually, sport is more demanding for slow flight, requiring minimum controllable airspeed. PPL no longer does.

PPL requires longer xc and more hours, but the skills are the same and are tested to the same criteria, except for slow flight.
Click to expand...

The reason the standard is higher in the LS is because the task is easier. Not as much propeller force and not as much mass to manage. Same thing with any of the performance take offs and landings. Heck it is a total non event do a short field in a LS by a student. The lighter aircraft with a lower wing loading decelerate very quickly.
 
I'd say the reason flying clubs have a shortage is theres hoops to jump through to CFI with most. When I hopefully leave my CFI job for something different i'd probably like to do it part time but I don't want to join a club pay dues or jump through hoops to become a approved CFI. Clubs seem to want to be run like a flight school with approved cfis(employees) and set pay (35$ an hour) and work rules etc.
 
BLUF...Teaching is an independent skill. If you have that skill (teaching), then you can teach someone any body of knowledge that you know well. If you can't teach, then you shouldn't try...everyone probably has a teach in some venue that really sucked at it. I think the use of a CFI-S would be a good springboard for aspiring pilots on the beginners rung of the ladder. The medical issues aside, all you need to exercise instructor privileges now is a third class medical or basic med (driver's license medical). A CFI-S has to pass the FOI and CFI-S exams and complete a CFI-S check-ride, which is appropriate for what they are teaching, that's why these hours are permitted to count towards the PPL in the first place. I have no issues with a CFI-S teaching these basics (a subset of the PP skills)...after all, they have demonstrated the knowledge and ability to do so. They're not teaching private, commercial or instruments or training instructors. They're qualified pilots and certificated instructors teaching someone to fly in good day VFR weather in airplanes of modest performance and that's OK if they stay within their envelope.
 
Clip4 said:
The reason the standard is higher in the LS is because the task is easier. Not as much propeller force and not as much mass to manage. Same thing with any of the performance take offs and landings. Heck it is a total non event do a short field in a LS by a student. The lighter aircraft with a lower wing loading decelerate very quickly.
Click to expand...


So what?

Students have been earning their PPLs in LSAs for decades before the designation even existed (Cubs, Champs, etc.)

Look, when a student is in a Cub learning take offs, landings, basic air work, etc., it makes zero difference whether the guy teaching him is a sport CFI or a full CFI. The skills and performance standards are the same.
 
SbestCFII said:
BLUF...Teaching is an independent skill. If you have that skill (teaching), then you can teach someone any body of knowledge that you know well. If you can't teach, then you shouldn't try...everyone probably has a teach in some venue that really sucked at it. I think the use of a CFI-S would be a good springboard for aspiring pilots on the beginners rung of the ladder. The medical issues aside, all you need to exercise instructor privileges now is a third class medical or basic med (driver's license medical). A CFI-S has to pass the FOI and CFI-S exams and complete a CFI-S check-ride, which is appropriate for what they are teaching, that's why these hours are permitted to count towards the PPL in the first place. I have no issues with a CFI-S teaching these basics (a subset of the PP skills)...after all, they have demonstrated the knowledge and ability to do so. They're not teaching private, commercial or instruments or training instructors. They're qualified pilots and certificated instructors teaching someone to fly in good day VFR weather in airplanes of modest performance and that's OK if they stay within their envelope.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat: :cheers:
 
Looks like the thread has turned into another version of "You're not a real pilot unless.."

family-feud-podium-618.jpg
 
Half Fast said:
So what?

Students have been earning their PPLs in LSAs for decades before the designation even existed (Cubs, Champs, etc.)

Look, when a student is in a Cub learning take offs, landings, basic air work, etc., it makes zero difference whether the guy teaching him is a sport CFI or a full CFI. The skills and performance standards are the same.
Click to expand...

Let’s be quite frank, a sport pilot CFI what you do when you cant ever qualify for a Class 3 because of health issues and you can’t have the FAA checking your drivers record for basic Med.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The reason the standard is higher in the LS is because the task is easier. Not as much propeller force and not as much mass to manage. Same thing with any of the performance take offs and landings. Heck it is a total non event do a short field in a LS by a student. The lighter aircraft with a lower wing loading decelerate very quickly.
Click to expand...
The low stall speed and low wing loading are a freakin' curse in a crosswind. Paul Bertorelli did an AvWeb bit on it.
 
The fundamental skills might be the same but a 250 hour CFI is going to have a large experience bucket to pull from than a 100hr CFI-S, that's just common sense. A CFI-S has also never flown at night, much less had to demonstrate proficiency at night (the commercial requires some night solo work) or any instrument skills. If you instruct long enough you'll be called upon to demonstrate those skills even if your plans were to be day/VFR 100% of the time.

The CFI-S shouldn't exist as is. They should have to have the same requirements minus the IR and night work that one does for single-engine commercial. 250 hours, some longer cross-countries and more solo work.. Anyone who thinks a 100hr pilot is cut out to teach doesn't remember themselves at 100 hours.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
The low stall speed and low wing loading are a freakin' curse in a crosswind. Paul Bertorelli did an AvWeb bit on it.
Click to expand...

Very true, except there is zero requirement to do a flight test in anything but calm wind.
 
Z06_Mir said:
The fundamental skills might be the same but a 250 hour CFI is going to have a large experience bucket to pull from than a 100hr CFI-S, that's just common sense. A CFI-S has also never flown at night, much less had to demonstrate proficiency at night (the commercial requires some night solo work) or any instrument skills. If you instruct long enough you'll be called upon to demonstrate those skills even if your plans were to be day/VFR 100% of the time.

The CFI-S shouldn't exist as is. They should have to have the same requirements minus the IR and night work that one does for single-engine commercial. 250 hours, some longer cross-countries and more solo work.. Anyone who thinks a 100hr pilot is cut out to teach doesn't remember themselves at 100 hours.
Click to expand...

^That

Though I’d say they should have the exact same requirements, night and instrument too.

Frankly with all the stuff a CFI needs to teach, and with VFR into IMC being the killer it is, CFI-S should just go away.
Change the medical requirements, that’s fine, but the CFI should be a CFI.
 
Z06_Mir said:
The fundamental skills might be the same but a 250 hour CFI is going to have a large experience bucket to pull from than a 100hr CFI-S, that's just common sense. A CFI-S has also never flown at night, much less had to demonstrate proficiency at night (the commercial requires some night solo work) or any instrument skills. If you instruct long enough you'll be called upon to demonstrate those skills even if your plans were to be day/VFR 100% of the time.

The CFI-S shouldn't exist as is. They should have to have the same requirements minus the IR and night work that one does for single-engine commercial. 250 hours, some longer cross-countries and more solo work.. Anyone who thinks a 100hr pilot is cut out to teach doesn't remember themselves at 100 hours.
Click to expand...
Half Fast said:
I had 4 instructors, 3 full CFIs and 1 sport. The 3 full CFIs were hellbent on airline jobs, simply building hours, and quit instructing as soon as they could. The sport CFI was far and away the best of the four. Had a good and effective teaching style, was patient and professional.

An instructor can have 1000 hours and be a lousy teacher. The 300 hour guy, who has a talent for teaching and gives a damn about doing it well, will turn out better pilots. Experience is not the ultimate criteria.
Click to expand...

As a CFI I always ask newly minted 400 CFIs what they are going to teach. They all answer they are going to teach people to fly. I point out to them they have little experiance and all they can really teach is what their instructor told them. With a CFI-S, there even lower experiance and a lower level of information taught.

Now, you say that doesn’t matter, but if I want someone giving me an effective lesson on windshear, I don’t want a 100 hour CFI-a.
 
Can we drop the presumption that all CFI Sport instructors will be bottom of the barrel? You are forgetting the whole passing a checkride deal. If a 100-hour private pilot’s going to pass the CFI-S oral and checkride that individual is likely a cut above the average 250-hour CFI on the way to the airlines or is willing to work hard to get to that level. Not sure if I’d want to get a flight review from either rookie, but everyone has to start somewhere.

A buddy of mine mentioned a decade ago that he thinks that the whole system is flawed and we should have instructor mentorships where all rookie CFIs are under the supervision of another experienced instructor for some time period before being allowed to do certain things.

Also, I don’t think that all students need a 10,000 hour ATP with a big airline mindset teaching them during their initial training. I’ve seen airline pilots instructors who were training 40-year-old pilots with no intention of going to the airlines in procedural and flying stuff as if they were going to be flying a 777 and there are differences between how you fly that and a Cub.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
One more thought - all checkrides have information filled out about the applicant’s current hours and such. I’d be very shocked to find a significant number of CFI-S applicants with less than 200 hours. Someone should find out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There are those who will never be convinced that any pilot with less experience or fewer ratings and endorsements than they have could ever possibly be competent or safe. There is really nothing that will ever convince them otherwise. Fortunately for the rest of us, they don't always get to make the rules.
 
Clip4 said:
As a CFI I always ask newly minted 400 CFIs what they are going to teach. They all answer they are going to teach people to fly. I point out to them they have little experiance and all they can really teach is what their instructor told them. With a CFI-S, there even lower experiance and a lower level of information taught.

Now, you say that doesn’t matter, but if I want someone giving me an effective lesson on windshear, I don’t want a 100 hour CFI-a.
Click to expand...
I'll wait for the CFI-S to get up to 300 hours, so he's got way more experience than ANY "real" CFI 'cause they're all stuck at 250, apparently.

Honestly, the Instrument rating is a detriment for primary instruction IMO...way too many instructors treat private pilots like mini instrument pilots. They should be treated as visual pilots with emergency instrument training.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I'll wait for the CFI-S to get up to 300 hours, so he's got way more experience than ANY "real" CFI 'cause they're all stuck at 250, apparently.

Honestly, the Instrument rating is a detriment for primary instruction IMO...way too many instructors treat private pilots like mini instrument pilots. They should be treated as visual pilots with emergency instrument training.
Click to expand...


With the outcome and prevalence of VFR to IMC, more instrument training and experience is better.
 
MarkH said:
In my area smaller, independent clubs have a hard time maintaining access to CFIs. The large flight schools around are sucking up all of the dedicated CFIs, and regional airlines are hiring anyone with the hours. As a result, most of the clubs in my area are using CFIs who are regional airline pilots (often low seniority), which makes consistent scheduling difficult. Personally, I'm glad for the CFIs, but this environment is making recreational flying a difficult hobby to enter into.

Since reading this a couple months ago on the EAA website:
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news...sport-pilot-commercial-and-simulator-training

I have begun to wonder if CFI-S is a solution for flying clubs who have at least one LSA eligible aircraft.

My logic here is:
CFI-S certificate is easier to obtain by non-professional pilots, due to lower time requirements (100h TT) and medical requirements (does not require a CPL to obtain CFI-S, therefore never needs a Class 2).
CFI-S time can be credited to PPL time, allowing part-time CFI-S to work with a part-time CFI for a student working toward PPL.
Give students an option of pursuing a Sport Pilot Certificate, which many clubs do not currently offer.

(This all goes double if new LSA rules give Cessna 150s LSA eligibility)

I don't know if this is the intent of the rules, but it seems like a good solution to a serious CFI shortage that many clubs seem to be facing. Would this work? Would this be legal? What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Just as a note, a 2nd Class medical is NOT required to act as a CFI.
 
davidgfern said:
Just as a note, a 2nd Class medical is NOT required to act as a CFI.
Click to expand...

But a CPL is required to obtain a CFI, thereby requiring a 2nd class medical to obtain a CFI.

My initial thought when I read this rule was to reach out to older pilots who have flown recreationally for decades (but don't want to risk Basic Med or Sport Pilot privileges by applying for a 2nd Class medical) or to team a limited availability CFI, with a lower time CFI-S for coordinated instruction.
 
MarkH said:
But a CPL is required to obtain a CFI, thereby requiring a 2nd class medical to obtain a CFI.
Click to expand...

No it's not. All you need in order to take the commercial checkride is to be able to act as PIC. You can do that with a third class or basic med.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top