How do you know when you're ready for the CFII?

PHXAvi8tor

PHXAvi8tor

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
160
Location
KPHX
Display Name
Display name:
PHXAvi8tor
Been in training for the Double I for what seems like an eternity. Have completed all the lessons in the syllabus (there aren't that many), and appear to have met all PTS requirements.

However, some knowledge areas always could use a little extra polish up. And, that's what I've been doing for the last few weeks. The old instructor keeps dragging in various "victims," and I either student teach on them in ground sessions, toss them into the sim, or take them up and go shoot some approaches. It's economical -- we usually split the cost.

This polishing-up phase could go on forever. And, I'd probably be happy to do so: The areas of knowledge in Instrument flying just seem to be getting more vast. The more I read and study, the less I feel that I know. It's endless.

The question is:

How did you know, when you were training for the CFII, that you truly were ready?

Was it just a gut feeling?

Some personal experience?

Or, was a complete surprise with the instructor slapping the endorsements in your logbook before you felt you were ready?
 
Mine was pretty much a gut feeling. I had some doubts but it's hard not to going into any practical test. Same as the CFI-A, the flight was a lot easier than the oral portion. As long as you fly them to PTS, it's a breeze.

Get quizzed and study the oral portions of the PTS up until the night before. Then, just relax and be fresh for the next day.
 
The first step is becoming comfortable flying IFR in real instrument conditions in serious airspace. The second step is becoming comfortable as an instructor in visual flight operations. Then you're ready to start training for the Instrument rating on your CFI.
 
Ron Levy said:
The first step is becoming comfortable flying IFR in real instrument conditions in serious airspace. The second step is becoming comfortable as an instructor in visual flight operations. Then you're ready to start training for the Instrument rating on your CFI.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought about mentioning this. I'm probably wrongly assuming a good instructor would prepare the candidate with sufficient instrument time, preferably actual.

In the weeks before my II ride, we had no actual. I thought I was the one living in Phoenix. So, this may be a problem for Ben.
 
KennyFlys said:
I hadn't thought about mentioning this. I'm probably wrongly assuming a good instructor would prepare the candidate with sufficient instrument time, preferably actual.

In the weeks before my II ride, we had no actual. I thought I was the one living in Phoenix. So, this may be a problem for Ben.
Click to expand...

It is hard to get actual IMC out here.

But, at least we have some serious airspace, and one of the busiest GA airports in the country! Have had a lot of IFR fun with that. ATC peppered me with three clearances in 15 minutes the other day on an IFR X-C, and that was before I got to the hold-short line. :D

I do agree with Ron's progression. And, I am grateful to have taught VFR students for the last 2 years. Having gained a little bit of teaching experience has made the training for the Double I more meaningful.
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
I hadn't thought about mentioning this. I'm probably wrongly assuming a good instructor would prepare the candidate with sufficient instrument time, preferably actual.
Click to expand...
I've seen CFI's with only 50 hours of logged instrument time, virtually none actual, and zero experience outside the training environment. While they can get trainees through the practical test, they usually aren't particularly effective in preparing their trainees for real-world IFR operations. That's one reason PIC gets as many clients as we do despite our high price compared to the local FBO/flight school instructors -- our clients want to be able to fly safely in the system on their own as soon as they pass their checkride, not just get the rating.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've seen CFI's with only 50 hours of logged instrument time, virtually none actual, and zero experience outside the training environment. While they can get trainees through the practical test, they usually aren't particularly effective in preparing their trainees for real-world IFR operations. That's one reason PIC gets as many clients as we do despite our high price compared to the local FBO/flight school instructors -- our clients want to be able to fly safely in the system on their own as soon as they pass their checkride, not just get the rating.
Click to expand...
After I received my CFI and was interviewing with schools by phone, I spoke with a guy in charge of Pan Am at the time, the location across the parking lot from Westwind where Ben's located.

He stated he had 1700 total time. His total actual instrument time was 0.7. Even that was not in the clouds but rather lost ground lighting and no stars. Otherwise, the sky was clear.

Central Texas makes for a great location for getting a lot of actual since we rarely have worries about a freezing level.
 
I don't have the II yet -- been too busy with new job and flight hours have been few and far between.

But that'll change over the next few weeks. I have the written knocked out and will plan on the practical in May -- June the latest.

I waited until I was comfortable flying actual IMC over extended distances into various airspace (DC area included) in a wide range of conditions before even contemplating teaching someone else.

I didn't want to merely pass the test - I wanted to be able to instruct from experience -- and that's only gained flying actual on real trips.

The fact that you're asking implies you're not just punching the tickets, but want to be a mentor and provide more than bare-bones service to your students.

Sounds like now's the time!
 
KennyFlys said:
... His total actual instrument time was 0.7. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, the lack of actual experience in IMC for CFIIs is a true concern for me, as well.

In fact, one night I tossed and turned over this issue: How in the world could I teach others the Instrument Rating when I, myself, would have so little actual time?

It just doesn't feel right.

I'm doing my total best to gain as much experience as possible with actual IMC and the Instrument environment, so I can pass that on to my students.

In the meantime, here is what I also have reasoned: Along with the Instrument Rating comes a strong need for some enhanced Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) skills. It is imperative that instructors teach new Instrument pilots how to assess risk, manage risk, evaluate, and so on. For example, it would not be wise for a brand new Instrument-rated pilot to fly solo into actual IMC, even though they are now rated for it. Assess the risk, manage the risk by taking along a fellow pilot who actually has some IMC experience the first few times, for example.

So, ADM won't replace real-world experience, but it is something I think should become a much greater priority for new CFIIs (any CFI, actually) teaching a new rating for the first time. (Actually, at any time!)
 
PHXAvi8tor said:
For example, it would not be wise for a brand new Instrument-rated pilot to fly solo into actual IMC, even though they are now rated for it. Assess the risk, manage the risk by taking along a fellow pilot who actually has some IMC experience the first few times, for example.
Click to expand...

While I agree it's wise for a newly rated instrument pilot to dip his/her toe in and get some gradually more difficult experience, the artificial divide between "hard" IFR and (what? "soft IFR?") is distracting.

Either you can fly by reference to instruments or you can't -- whether you're newly rated or not.

If you have 500 actual but haven't flown on the guages for a few years, then you're probably not able to competently fly IMC until you get some practice. If you have 5 actual but just spent the last 50 hours under the hood, you probably are good to go.

An objective self-assessment defines ADM.
 
PHXAvi8tor said:
Yes, the lack of actual experience in IMC for CFIIs is a true concern for me, as well.

In fact, one night I tossed and turned over this issue: How in the world could I teach others the Instrument Rating when I, myself, would have so little actual time?

It just doesn't feel right.

I'm doing my total best to gain as much experience as possible with actual IMC and the Instrument environment, so I can pass that on to my students.

In the meantime, here is what I also have reasoned: Along with the Instrument Rating comes a strong need for some enhanced Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) skills. It is imperative that instructors teach new Instrument pilots how to assess risk, manage risk, evaluate, and so on. For example, it would not be wise for a brand new Instrument-rated pilot to fly solo into actual IMC, even though they are now rated for it. Assess the risk, manage the risk by taking along a fellow pilot who actually has some IMC experience the first few times, for example.

So, ADM won't replace real-world experience, but it is something I think should become a much greater priority for new CFIIs (any CFI, actually) teaching a new rating for the first time. (Actually, at any time!)
Click to expand...
Come to Florida for a week of flying, no problem finding actual around here.
 
dmccormack said:
While I agree it's wise for a newly rated instrument pilot to dip his/her toe in and get some gradually more difficult experience, the artificial divide between "hard" IFR and (what? "soft IFR?") is distracting.

Either you can fly by reference to instruments or you can't -- whether you're newly rated or not.

If you have 500 actual but haven't flown on the guages for a few years, then you're probably not able to competently fly IMC until you get some practice. If you have 5 actual but just spent the last 50 hours under the hood, you probably are good to go.

An objective self-assessment defines ADM.
Click to expand...

Quite true, the limitations on what "actual" conditions we fly in are for a large part psychological, ie 600'ceilings=go 200'ceilings=nogo when all other conditions = go. Most of it is fear of the unknown and the reduction in margin of error. "I've never cut it so close or shot a missed for real, and if I f- this up, I'm much closer to death than ever before." Your point is valid though, if you've been doing it under the hood without cheating, you can do it for real. Doubt can be a nagging thing though, and powerful, like a wife.... Even if you don't cheat under the hood, just knowing that full VFR is just a split second away is very reassuring when shooting an approach to minimums, especially CATII minimums.
 
Henning said:
Quite true, the limitations on what "actual" conditions we fly in are for a large part psychological, ie 600'ceilings=go 200'ceilings=nogo when all other conditions = go. Most of it is fear of the unknown and the reduction in margin of error. "I've never cut it so close or shot a missed for real, and if I f- this up, I'm much closer to death than ever before." Your point is valid though, if you've been doing it under the hood without cheating, you can do it for real. Doubt can be a nagging thing though, and powerful, like a wife.... Even if you don't cheat under the hood, just knowing that full VFR is just a split second away is very reassuring when shooting an approach to minimums, especially CATII minimums.
Click to expand...
I don't entirely agree with that. A good example would be the difference of being in the middle of a very solid layer with no outside change versus being in the ragged edges at the top or bottom of a layer with constant, outside distractions in your peripheral vision. For some, that's hard to ignore and remain focused on a scan.
 
Henning said:
About when you pass your ATP ride...:smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...

that was about it for me. of course i had signed off about 3 or 4 instrument ratings by then. But by the time I got my ATP I really felt highly proficient in the system
 
3 out of 4 of my CFI rides, my instructor was ready to sign me off before I was, so I know what you're going through.

For me the hold up was comfort and confidence in the lesson plans well more the overall lesson progression and building blocks. It took me a long time to have confidence that I had a clear path for a student coming in with minimum experience and progressing to completion.

I was never really hung up on having all the knowledge, too much experience saying I don't know I guess. I wasn't hung up the perfect technique to teach this or that.

While I was confident I could do it safely, I needed work to convince myself I could do it somewhat efficiently.

Joe
 
tonycondon said:
that was about it for me. of course i had signed off about 3 or 4 instrument ratings by then. But by the time I got my ATP I really felt highly proficient in the system
Click to expand...
I'm not sure a good pilot will ever "feel" truly proficient even though they will be doing everything right. I'm always asking myself what I can do to improve, reduce my workload and make that flight safer. The bottom line answer is constant practice and experience. It's a lot easier to learn this skill than it is to keep it.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm not sure a good pilot will ever "feel" truly proficient even though they will be doing everything right. I'm always asking myself what I can do to improve, reduce my workload and make that flight safer. The bottom line answer is constant practice and experience. It's a lot easier to learn this skill than it is to keep it.
Click to expand...

Let's define terms: "Proficient" is the ability to confidently and capably execute a task or series of tasks to a standard.

I sure hope I'm "proficient" (which is not the same as "all knowing").
 
dmccormack said:
Let's define terms: "Proficient" is the ability to confidently and capably execute a task or series of tasks to a standard.

I sure hope I'm "proficient" (which is not the same as "all knowing").
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
KennyFlys said:
I don't entirely agree with that. A good example would be the difference of being in the middle of a very solid layer with no outside change versus being in the ragged edges at the top or bottom of a layer with constant, outside distractions in your peripheral vision. For some, that's hard to ignore and remain focused on a scan.
Click to expand...

Hard to ignore? Yes... Impossible? Not at all. I can actively ignore the outside picture even without a view limiting device. It's about mental discipline. It's probably tougher because the outside is a distracting blur. If you focus, you focus, it can be done. When I am done practice flying instruments, I am positive in my mind that I can do the same in actual, because I did do it strictly by instruments. Once you accept "My actions here directly may contribute to or prevent my death", and really accept that full responsibility, that level of focus actually becomes rather easy to find.
 
Henning said:
Hard to ignore? Yes... Impossible? Not at all.
Click to expand...

I drop the visor in IMC -- and lower the seat (if that's an option) to reduce the distractions.

The most distracting situation is flying in severe clear and heading directly towards a wall of cloud.

It takes some focus not to look.
 
dmccormack said:
Let's define terms: "Proficient" is the ability to confidently and capably execute a task or series of tasks to a standard.

I sure hope I'm "proficient" (which is not the same as "all knowing").
Click to expand...

Would you consider it possible for a person who hadn't flown instruments in 10 years to climb into a 310 and be proficient to take off on a night IFR cross country (literally across the country including the Rocky's) using your definition?
 
Henning said:
Would you consider it possible for a person who hadn't flown instruments in 10 years to climb into a 310 and be proficient to take off on a night IFR cross country (literally across the country including the Rocky's) using your definition?
Click to expand...

The definition still applies. It's very unlikely the scenario person would be able to perform the requisite tasks capably, given the lapse.
 
dmccormack said:
The definition still applies. It's very unlikely the scenario person would be able to perform the requisite tasks capably, given the lapse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, surprised the crap out of me too, but that's what happened. I did have the owner, a current and proficient including recurrent at FSI in the right seat. I was amazed though, after 5 minutes I was solid. He did have the straightest best rigged and equipped 310 I've ever come across, and it's a T-310R, so that helped a lot.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, surprised the crap out of me too, but that's what happened. I did have the owner, a current and proficient including recurrent at FSI in the right seat. I was amazed though, after 5 minutes I was solid. He did have the straightest best rigged and equipped 310 I've ever come across, and it's a T-310R, so that helped a lot.
Click to expand...

Did you survive? Was the aircraft usable after the flight? Did you meet your mission? Was success never in doubt?

If "yes" to all, you were "proficient."

Would you have done that same flight solo?
 
dmccormack said:
Did you survive? Was the aircraft usable after the flight? Did you meet your mission? Was success never in doubt?

If "yes" to all, you were "proficient."

Would you have done that same flight solo?
Click to expand...

Yes to all but last, no to that, it would not have been legal.:nono: Truthfully though, no, I wouldn't have, it would not have been prudent either and that's my base standard. As I said, I did not expect that result, I thought it would be considerably more difficult.
 
KennyFlys said:
I don't entirely agree with that. A good example would be the difference of being in the middle of a very solid layer with no outside change versus being in the ragged edges at the top or bottom of a layer with constant, outside distractions in your peripheral vision. For some, that's hard to ignore and remain focused on a scan.
Click to expand...
Another example would be shooting an approach with low visibility as opposed to a low, but defined ceiling. The hood isn't good at simulating low visibility.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm curious... What is the typical freezing level in Texas in the winter? :dunno:
Click to expand...
The few days I've even had enough concern to look, I haven't seen it advertised below 8,000. Through the next couple days, it's showing 12,000 and barely south into central Texas, further south to the west. Tonight, it moves a tad further south then recedes tomorrow.
 
KennyFlys said:
The few days I've even had enough concern to look, I haven't seen it advertised below 8,000. Through the next couple days, it's showing 12,000 and barely south into central Texas, further south to the west. Tonight, it moves a tad further south then recedes tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I was asking because I've seen it a degree below freezing at 12,500 there in July. Kinda surprised me! Then, descending through about 4,000 it got really hot and really muggy, really fast. Blech.

Anyway... Looks like Austin's winter mean temp is 52.3ºF, or 11.3ºC, so standard lapse would put the average freezing level around 5,600 I guess. That's not too far above the OROCA's and MEA's in the area. I would assume you still have times where you can't fly in IMC due to ice in the winter? :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I was asking because I've seen it a degree below freezing at 12,500 there in July. Kinda surprised me! Then, descending through about 4,000 it got really hot and really muggy, really fast. Blech.

Anyway... Looks like Austin's winter mean temp is 52.3ºF, or 11.3ºC, so standard lapse would put the average freezing level around 5,600 I guess. That's not too far above the OROCA's and MEA's in the area. I would assume you still have times where you can't fly in IMC due to ice in the winter? :dunno:
Click to expand...
That was true a few days but those same days were also usually low clouds along with narrow temperature spreads limiting training options.

Today's storms worked out well on a couple days I did only ground and taking today off. Same for tomorrow. But Sunday... BBQ bound!
 
I would like to make clear that I am more concerned by CFI-I's who have no operational IFR experience than I am by those without actual instrument time. You can learn to fly the gauges without learning to fly in the system, and it is the issues arising from dealing with the system which distract pilots so they can't fly the gauges and that's when they become statistics. If you don't have the experience of flying in the system, you can't really teach folks how to do it.
 
Ron Levy said:
I would like to make clear that I am more concerned by CFI-I's who have no operational IFR experience than I am by those without actual instrument time. You can learn to fly the gauges without learning to fly in the system, and it is the issues arising from dealing with the system which distract pilots so they can't fly the gauges and that's when they become statistics. If you don't have the experience of flying in the system, you can't really teach folks how to do it.
Click to expand...
Interesting...

Are there such?
:dunno:

After 40+ hours of IFR training they should have serious time on the horn and figured out "the system."

Or maybe not?
 
dmccormack said:
Interesting...

Are there such?
:dunno:

After 40+ hours of IFR training they should have serious time on the horn and figured out "the system."

Or maybe not?
Click to expand...

There's that word again...... Yep, they should have. It takes about 10hrs to learn to fly on the gauges competently. The other 30 are required to learn how to proceed from runway to runway within the system. That should be enough....
 
dmccormack said:
After 40+ hours of IFR training they should have serious time on the horn and figured out "the system."

Or maybe not?
Click to expand...
The way the curriculum is set up, at least when I was learning, most of the emphasis was on learning how to do the various approaches. I think the requirement is for only one cross-country instrument flight. Sure you learn how to talk to ATC and ask for multiple approaches, but you don't get much experience transitioning to and from the enroute structure or getting unexpected routing changes. Then there's learning how to plan for weather, other than the local weather.
 
During the long cross-country, a primary student is required to use flight following and be on a VFR flight plan. During the diversion, the student must notify Center and Flight Watch of the diversion then make the diversion followed by the appropriate cancellations. Flying out of a busy Class C gives them a good taste of ATC work to build on.

For an instrument student, the only thing I'll handle are traffic alerts.
 
Henning said:
There's that word again...... Yep, they should have. It takes about 10hrs to learn to fly on the gauges competently. The other 30 are required to learn how to proceed from runway to runway within the system. That should be enough....
Click to expand...

Yep. Guess that minimal standard thing applies even in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top