Is This very Common?

MBDiagMan

MBDiagMan

Final Approach
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
5,219
Location
Mount Pleasant,Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Doc
I know several student pilots who share a CFI that seems to OFTEN show his misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the FAR's. In talking to the students it seems all too common where there are situations in which the instructor doesn't read or know the FAR's.

I don't want to go into names here of the students or the instructor either one. I'm no CFI although I am a "wanna be, but may never be, CFI." I bought a FAR/AIM book when I started my training and am enough of a nerd that I have read and studied some of it, at least the portions having to do with the various ratings and requirements.

My initial impression was that most any CFI would be a walking encyclopedia of the FAR's, but now I'm not so certain.

Don't get me wrong. This CFI is a good teacher and excellent pilot and seems to have integrity in spades.

Is this CFI an isolated case?
 
I don't think so.

There is no standard for Part 61 CFIs beyond the PTS. They can be completely clueless outside it and still call themselves CFIs. This includes getting facts wrong. And the PTS only guarantees they understood where to find ("instructional knowledge") regulations at the time the practical test was given. Not that the instructor will actually go review FARs ever again after the exam.

I've reported a few times about incorrect operational procedures taught by CFIs (particularly with regard to leaning, when compared to Lycoming circulars).

Particular Part 61 schools might or might not have their own standards.

CFIs sometimes seem to regurgitate their own training, rather than finding things from primary sources. This is a potential mechanism to perpetuate myths.
 
To renew CFI currency an instructor is required to conduct a specified amount of training and sign-offs for various ratings or complete 16 hours of training in an approved seminar every 24 months.

Only the guys who are full-time hammer-and-tongs typically qualify under the first category, all others attend the seminars. Many of the attendees have been CFI's since the war (of 1812) and can't hear or remember the material presented during the seminar, especially during the movies and video presentations during which they normally take short naps. Fill in the blanks to figure out why their knowledge of rules and regs might be slightly less than stellar.
 
My first instructor was a retread ultralight instructor with a new light sport instructor rating. Didn't know anything out of the FAR/AIM that wasn't on the light sport knowledge test. Didn't know how to do VFR flight following. Second instructor was a CFII and a Tracon supervisor. Third instructor was a CFII and a Southwest captain. Both knew the FAR/AIM inside out and taught it.
 
I have been accused of being a walking FAR/AIM book before, but I don't think many CFI's really are that. However, every CFI should know what s/he knows and what s/he doesn't know, and should never answer from memory without being both certain and correct (or at least say, "I think this is the answer, but let's look it up to be sure"). In addition, every CFI should know where to find the answers s/he doesn't know from memory, and then look it up if s/he doesn't know the answer to a question. My experience suggests the vast majority of CFI's meet that standard, but the exceptions tend to get all the publicity.
 
I've seen this from several instructors. I attribute part of it to the fact that the rules change somewhat frequently, and there are new interpretations of them from time to time as well.

I don't know many instructors who actively keep track of those changes as they are made.
 
That 24 month mandatory training isnt always true, I've gotten out of having to do the recurrent when I got my Gold Seal., but thats because I kick azz, not all CFIs do :wink2:

It's foolish to think any teacher/instructor/CFI knows everything, I'd recommend a CFI with good stick and rudder skills and common sense WAY before some robot that just regurgitates back regs, in the end of the day the regs will keep you out of court, but they wont keep you alive :dunno:

The issue I have with this CFI "X" that you speak of is simply, if you dont know the answer (ESPECIALLY when it comes to some random FAR), just say to your student "well lets look it up" and look it up WITH your student, that teaches your student MUCH more then just showboating by rattling off regs.

On that note, there are some regs that your CFI should know cold, VFR wx, mx times, tt needed for PPL & CPL, stuff like that.
 
The two instructors I worked with (more or less simultaneously--I had one main instructor, but worked wither another fairly regularly when my primary instructor was unavailable) both knew their stuff. If for some reason they didn't know, it was straight to the book.

The first DPE I had for my sport checkride was a walking talking encyclopedia of the regs. It was thoroughly impressive--he spat the section numbers and quoted verbatim right and left all through the oral.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
That 24 month mandatory training isnt always true, I've gotten out of having to do the recurrent when I got my Gold Seal., but thats because I kick azz, not all CFIs do :wink2:

It's foolish to think any teacher/instructor/CFI knows everything, I'd recommend a CFI with good stick and rudder skills and common sense WAY before some robot that just regurgitates back regs, in the end of the day the regs will keep you out of court, but they wont keep you alive :dunno:

The issue I have with this CFI "X" that you speak of is simply, if you dont know the answer (ESPECIALLY when it comes to some random FAR), just say to your student "well lets look it up" and look it up WITH your student, that teaches your student MUCH more then just showboating by rattling off regs.

On that note, there are some regs that your CFI should know cold, VFR wx, mx times, tt needed for PPL & CPL, stuff like that.
Click to expand...


Good point NineThree!

As I said, this guy is indeed a good stick & rudder instructor. He apparantly can produce a competent and safe pilot. The regs that it appears he is not up on are basic stuff, not obscure stuff that most anyone would have to look up.

There is a chance that both of the students that have been telling me things are wrong. Since both of them keep coming up with small things that either he is telling them wrong or he is agreeing with them on that are wrong, it doesn't seem likely.
 
I'd rather have an instructor who motivates and shows me where to find my own answers than a know-it-all. Just sayin'...
 
denverpilot said:
I'd rather have an instructor who motivates and shows me where to find my own answers than a know-it-all. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. You should have both.

The worst combination is an instructor who "has all the answers," but they're wrong or out of date.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Good point NineThree!

As I said, this guy is indeed a good stick & rudder instructor. He apparantly can produce a competent and safe pilot. The regs that it appears he is not up on are basic stuff, not obscure stuff that most anyone would have to look up.

There is a chance that both of the students that have been telling me things are wrong. Since both of them keep coming up with small things that either he is telling them wrong or he is agreeing with them on that are wrong, it doesn't seem likely.
Click to expand...

Just my .02 because I work with a lot of different people. Getting the info "third hand" about 99% of the time tends to not be accurate. There is a reason that an "eye witness" to a crime is about the most unreliable witness you can have.

If you get a chance, just in conversation, talk to the CFI yourself and see what you think. My GUESS is you will decide the students didn't quite understand what he/she was saying. Not that that they did it intentionally, but just didn't quite "get it right".
 
In medicine we talk about physicians who are book smart and physician who practice medicine. I would rather have a CFI(I) who can teach me what flying is all about, than one who can quote me chapter and verse, but could not teach me how to fly. If my CFI(I) cannot tell me the chapter and verse, I can look up the regs for myself, or find the answers on line or in forums as well.


Certainly, a having a CFI(I) who can do both is the best.

Doug
 
denverpilot said:
I'd rather have an instructor who motivates and shows me where to find my own answers than a know-it-all. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...


I agree, however if the guy is as you describe, but also has a know it all attitude, you could end up thinking some things are facts that really are not.:)
 
markb5900 said:
Just my .02 because I work with a lot of different people. Getting the info "third hand" about 99% of the time tends to not be accurate. There is a reason that an "eye witness" to a crime is about the most unreliable witness you can have.

If you get a chance, just in conversation, talk to the CFI yourself and see what you think. My GUESS is you will decide the students didn't quite understand what he/she was saying. Not that that they did it intentionally, but just didn't quite "get it right".
Click to expand...


Good point! I have indeed talked with the instructor numerous times and he has told me at least one thing that was incorrect. He told me that the 40 hour instrument training requirement is all with an instructor. The way I read the FAR's, the minimum requirement WITH an instructor is 15.
 
I had a CFI not know the class of airspace at his home field. Insisted it was Class C when I knew full well it's Class D. How does that happen? In fact, the day in question my flight was delayed about an hour because he had some paper work to do on an IR student he was putting up for a ride with the DPE.

Part of the problem is in our profession we use the least experienced to instruct. Obviously there are professional CFI's out there like Cap'n Ron and the like. But they are few and far between. Agree with above that I'd rather fly with the guy who was a good instructor, good stick and familiar with the FARs than the guy who blows as an instructor, not a good stick and knows FARs chapter and verse.

Drunks and Librarians...
 
My initial CFI was/is just such a person. He has been flying King Airs, Cheyennes, etc, for 35+ years, and used to do more instructing than he does anymore. He is an excellent person, a good stick-and-rudder sort, and has been able to teach me a lot. (I prefer the old graybeard sort to the wet-behind-the-ears CFI's, because I figure that he actually has some real world experience that would help me with actual travel, not just the "go around the pattern" type of instruction that the kids provide).

He merely left the book learning to me, which was fine with me. In my limited exposure to several CFI's, I found that they often miss-quoted the FAR's, anyway, examples being the logging of high-performance time or complex time before the sign-off, as well as the D-cell "requirement". I like to primary-source the info, anyway, unless I had ready access to someone like Ron Levy.

Wells
 
W. Stewart said:
.....I prefer the old graybeard sort to the wet-behind-the-ears CFI's, because I figure that he actually has some real world experience that would help me with actual travel, not just the "go around the pattern" type of instruction that the kids provide.....
Click to expand...


Oh how I've cleaned up that mess before.

We had a few old timers with 4k hours, 50s-70s, self proclaimed aviation gods, who didnt really know as much as their age and hours would proclaim, I've got some of their "reject' students and had them flying better then these old timers who were "teaching them"

Keep in mind some of these old guys who got their license 20 years ago and have 4000 hours...well thats only 200hrs a YEAR, I do more then that in 2 months. The other that would cause issues were the retired airline guys, their stick and rudder were normally a little off and they substituted by flying by the numbers (no feeling for the plane) and quoting regs.

Of-course this is anecdotal and does not apply to all, however these are two demographics to RUN from.


The type you want is the guy that lives for aviation, that is always working on a new rating or license, someone who gets excited when you ask a question they dont know the answer to and shows you were to find it.


“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”
 
Last edited:
This thread has been very interesting to me so far.

SOMEONE on this forum about a year or more ago, I believe a CFI, was commenting on some particular FAR or another and in the course of it said: "does anyone ever READ the FAR's?" This was right after I had started taking lessons again after 20 years. The first thing I did after reading that, I think even the same day, I ordered a FAR/AIM book.

Whoever it was that made the comment, I thank you! Having that book at hand all this time probably doesn't make me a better pilot, but it does keep me informed. Maybe it will keep me out of trouble somewhere along the way. It's hard to imagine that such knowledge is a bad thing.
 
Before I took my CFI checkride I did read the FARs... I tabbed everything that might have been applicable and have transferred the tabs to the newest FAR AIM that I get each year. I make a list of the regs the students should know/familiarize themselves with and make them look them up a few at a time and that's part of their homework. I don't care if they remember them, but I want them to know where to find answers when needed. I get some exasperated looks from the docs when I don't just tell them the answer and make them find it and read it themselves. Oh, well..... They want to solo, they prove they know the info.
Lots of the FARs I don't remember, but I know what I should know about and where to find it.
 
Could you give an example?

The last time I heard this complaint, the example was that students couldn't state that they were required to slow below 200 kts in a class-B airspace. There are precious few GA airplanes that even get to 200 kts, so I could understand if that wasn't highlighted by an instructor at this point.
 
The problems isn't young or old CFI's and pilots. It's those who don't keep with changes and flies with information they've heard and not verified.

I fly with pilots from different walks of life all the time. It's always starts out the same "I've heard or this guy Stevie told me you can or can't do that..." "Well, did you verify it before taking it for gospel?" "What does the book say about that?"
 
CFI AandP said:
The problems isn't young or old CFI's and pilots. It's those who don't keep with changes and flies with information they've heard and not verified.

I fly with pilots from different walks of life all the time. It's always starts out the same "I've heard or this guy Stevie told me you can or can't do that..." "Well, did you verify it before taking it for gospel?" "What does the book say about that?"
Click to expand...


Cory,

I think you might have summed it up!
 
CFI AandP said:
The problems isn't young or old CFI's and pilots. It's those who don't keep with changes and flies with information they've heard and not verified.

I fly with pilots from different walks of life all the time. It's always starts out the same "I've heard or this guy Stevie told me you can or can't do that..." "Well, did you verify it before taking it for gospel?" "What does the book say about that?"
Click to expand...

And then you go grab "the book" but it hasn't been updated with the most recent "decision du jour" of the stupid Chief Counsel at the FAA.

This is my number one complaint with that BS. There should be ONE rule book, not a rule book supplemented by random links to "letters from the Chief Counsel's office" buried somewhere on a website.

That or the rule book printers need to up their game a whole lot and start adding these "opinions" to their own versions of the rule book. And they won't do that and take on the liability of paraphrasing a Chief Counsel letter.

The current system of rule "opinions" is completely set up to hang you. It's seriously broken. And you're paying for the ineptitude and lack of foresight by FAA where they don't even acknowledge that it's a problem.

If you simply read the rule book without adding the "opinions", you're screwed.
 
Rules change, people (students as well as CFI's) forget or misunderstand, POI's in various FSDO's apply their own interpretations, stuff happens. Nothing posted here will change any of that.

CFI AandP said:
The problems isn't young or old CFI's and pilots. It's those who don't keep with changes and flies with information they've heard and not verified.

I fly with pilots from different walks of life all the time. It's always starts out the same "I've heard or this guy Stevie told me you can or can't do that..." "Well, did you verify it before taking it for gospel?" "What does the book say about that?"
Click to expand...
 
I could care less about FARS. Most people reciting them have hung on to one or two rules they can spring on unsuspecting pilots who venture into their spider wed of GOTCHA. These "pilots" are boring and are not aviators.
 
Geico266 said:
I could care less about FARS. Most people reciting them have hung on to one or two rules they can spring on unsuspecting pilots who venture into their spider wed of GOTCHA. These "pilots" are boring and are not aviators.
Click to expand...


So, are you saying that having a desire to not get caught breaking the law is a bad thing?
 
I've found that these younger guys who flew regionals for a while, and then went back to instructing to get the big bucks to be really good, especially for IFR recurrency training.

Because they were airline trained they are used to flying with strict regard to regulations. They know technology and understand the ATC system. They have good enough stick and rudder skills.

It is also good to find a CFI who has flown ag planes, or at least has a lot of tailwheel time if you want to polish your stick and rudder skills. This CFI may not know the fine points of your G1000. So what?

The very high time retired airline and military instructor pilots sometimes seem to have such a high opinion of themselves, and such a low opinion of general aviation that flying with one can be tiresome.
 
JimNtexas said:
I've found that these younger guys who flew regionals for a while, and then went back to instructing to get the big bucks to be really good, especially for IFR recurrency training.

Because they were airline trained they are used to flying with strict regard to regulations. They know technology and understand the ATC system. They have good enough stick and rudder skills.

It is also good to find a CFI who has flown ag planes, or at least has a lot of tailwheel time if you want to polish your stick and rudder skills. This CFI may not know the fine points of your G1000. So what?

The very high time retired airline and military instructor pilots sometimes seem to have such a high opinion of themselves, and such a low opinion of general aviation that flying with one can be tiresome.
Click to expand...
My primary/IRA instructor sorta meets this description (though, he never went to the regionals-he mostly did 135) and I still think he is the best instructor in my local area (myself included in that opinion :D). Especially for Instrument training thanks to all of his experience in professional flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top