Logging requirements for taking a CFI checkride?

PeterNSteinmetz

PeterNSteinmetz

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
2,653
Location
Tempe, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
PeterNSteinmetz
This is related to my other thread on lesson plans. But I am trying to figure out now exactly what is required to be logged to take a CFI checkride. 61.183 seems to list the eligibility requirements, which include the endorsements on training in specific knowledge areas and flight operations, but I don't see any requirement that you have to have logged specific ground instruction on these areas.

Is there an FAA circular, handbook, or order that requires this?

I have been dealing with an examiner who was quite insistent that this was required, but I can't find that authority right now.

Can any CFIs or DPEs comment on this?
 
OK, partially answered my own question. 61.185 (a)(2) states "
(a) A person who is applying for a flight instructor certificate must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor on:

(2) The aeronautical knowledge areas for a recreational, private, and commercial pilot certificate applicable to the aircraft category for which flight instructor privileges are sought; and"

But is there any guidance on how much? And whether such training must be logged specifically for each of those areas?

I am also curious if that is a typical requirement by an examiner?
 
If the reg doesn't specify time requirements, there are none.
If it isn't logged specifically for each of those areas, it didn't happen.
If it's in the regs, it's a typical requirement by an examiner.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If it isn't logged specifically for each of those areas, it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting. So for example, there needs to be a log entry stating that on a certain date, the applicant was given ground instruction on "Applicable Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that relate to recreational pilot privileges, limitations, and flight operations;" for 61.81 (b)(1). And another similar for 61.18 (b)(2), and so on through (b)(12)(ii).

It can't say, "provided ground instruction on applicable Federal Aviation regulations relating to Recreational pilot, Private pilot, and Commercial pilot certificates".

Is a requirement for this level of detail common from DPEs? And if so, is there an FAA advisory circular, handbook, or order that specifies this?
 
And IIRC, lack of ability to write proper endorsements is one of the big failure points for initial CFI checkrides.
 
MauleSkinner said:
ac 61.65H, appendix A, has sample endorsements.
Click to expand...

Right, for the endorsements they have to be fairly precise. But my question regards the logging of the ground instruction required by 61.185(a)(2). How specific does that need to be? In addition to the required endorsement.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Right, for the endorsements they have to be fairly precise. But my question regards the logging of the ground instruction required by 61.185(a)(2). How specific does that need to be? In addition to the required endorsement.
Click to expand...
Same.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Same.
Click to expand...

Thanks. And do you know if there is anyplace where such a requirement is spelled out officially. Like an advisory circular, handbook, order, or regulation? I did a quick search and didn't find that level of specificity in the Order 8900.2C, but may just be missing it.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Thanks. And do you know if there is anyplace where such a requirement is spelled out officially. Like an advisory circular, handbook, order, or regulation? I did a quick search and didn't find that level of specificity in the Order 8900.2C, but may just be missing it.
Click to expand...
Other than a long history of being trained on that in FIRCs, I can’t point to a document offhand.
 
When I took my ATP Airplane ME checkride, the DPE basically had me demonstrate and explain all the airwork maneuvers as I did them and six days later I returned for my MEI ride after a 1.3 hour flight with a CFI.

That's where having the same DPE can be a huge advantage. It was his suggestion that I get the MEI, so that we both profited from the evaluation!
 
IK04 said:
When I took my ATP Airplane ME checkride, the DPE basically had me demonstrate and explain all the airwork maneuvers as I did them and six days later I returned for my MEI ride after a 1.3 hour flight with a CFI.
Click to expand...

So in preparing for that checkride, did he require in review of your logbooks that each required knowledge was explicitly mentioned in an entry? So he could check them off on a checklist?
 
When I was training for the CFI, my instructor put an entry in my logbook every time we had a "ground session", and recorded the date and topics covered and the time of the session. It was essentially the first time ANYONE had used that part of my logbook (the "ground training" section in the back) for anything. My instructor explained that "the FAA is getting picker these days about wanting to see these records of ground instruction, not just an endorsement at the very end, but actual logging of ground time, like you would log flights."

Sure enough, when my ride came around, my DPE scrutinized this page of my logbook carefully. Wordlessly. Whatever was in there, I guess it was enough.

When I started instructing, I followed my CFI's example, and recorded ground sessions (with dates/topics/time) for my student. He went up in front of the same DPE, who I believe scrutinized that record for my student as well.

How important this is, how they interpret this reg, seems to vary from DPE to DPE, maybe region to region, I don't know. I'm guessing my instructor prepared me for my (and my students') ride, knowing what the DPE's are like around here and how they like to roll. He didn't point me to any particular document, he just said this is something the FAA is moving towards.

Hope that helps,
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
So in preparing for that checkride, did he require in review of your logbooks that each required knowledge was explicitly mentioned in an entry? So he could check them off on a checklist?
Click to expand...

They’ve seen the endorsements enough they know what they look like. Some will use a checklist some don’t. Doesn’t matter to you anyway, you need them and as a CFI candidate need to know how to write them as well. Your reference material you might be using to discuss endorsements and which ones are needed should include the AC. Nowadays it’ll be a scenario: You want to solo your student. What exact endorsements have you given already and what do you need to add?
 
denverpilot said:
They’ve seen the endorsements enough they know what they look like. Some will use a checklist some don’t. Doesn’t matter to you anyway, you need them and as a CFI candidate need to know how to write them as well. Your reference material you might be using to discuss endorsements and which ones are needed should include the AC. Nowadays it’ll be a scenario: You want to solo your student. What exact endorsements have you given already and what do you need to add?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that about the endorsements. What I am concerned about here is the level of logging required for each knowledge element required.

From what others say, it seems the DPEs are moving in this direction of more detailed logging, but where is this actually spelled out? And how would a new CFI applicant know this is the way it is supposed to be done?

It seems that the FAA should be examining to the written standards that any student can look at. So where are those?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
So in preparing for that checkride, did he require in review of your logbooks that each required knowledge was explicitly mentioned in an entry? So he could check them off on a checklist?
Click to expand...

Nope. I had two endorsements in my logbook and that's all he needed.

Had I walked in cold off the street, he may have looked deeper, but we had a good discussion of multi-engine subjects and endorsements during the (very brief) oral eval.
 
IK04 said:
Nope. I had two endorsements in my logbook and that's all he needed.

Had I walked in cold off the street, he may have looked deeper, but we had a good discussion of multi-engine subjects and endorsements during the (very brief) oral eval.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the report. And this was fairly recently, is that correct?
 
kath said:
When I was training for the CFI, my instructor put an entry in my logbook every time we had a "ground session", and recorded the date and topics covered and the time of the session. It was essentially the first time ANYONE had used that part of my logbook (the "ground training" section in the back) for anything. My instructor explained that "the FAA is getting picker these days about wanting to see these records of ground instruction, not just an endorsement at the very end, but actual logging of ground time, like you would log flights."

Sure enough, when my ride came around, my DPE scrutinized this page of my logbook carefully. Wordlessly. Whatever was in there, I guess it was enough.

When I started instructing, I followed my CFI's example, and recorded ground sessions (with dates/topics/time) for my student. He went up in front of the same DPE, who I believe scrutinized that record for my student as well.

How important this is, how they interpret this reg, seems to vary from DPE to DPE, maybe region to region, I don't know. I'm guessing my instructor prepared me for my (and my students') ride, knowing what the DPE's are like around here and how they like to roll. He didn't point me to any particular document, he just said this is something the FAA is moving towards.

Hope that helps,
Click to expand...

As a full-time flight instructor, I documented every bit of ground training in the back of each students' logbook. I also managed to cram all the flight maneuvers into the tiny remarks section of each flight entry in both the student's and my logbook. I kept one of those brown calendar pocket planners to keep track of everything, since I often had three students each day and they were all very different in their progress...

I still look at those old logbooks and wonder how I has so much energy... :cool:
 
The FAA in recent years has gotten more serious about making sure ground instruction is logged. I did not have anything in the back of my logbook in the ground instruction section until I was preparing for my CFI checkride.
 
dmspilot said:
The FAA in recent years has gotten more serious about making sure ground instruction is logged. I did not have anything in the back of my logbook in the ground instruction section until I was preparing for my CFI checkride.
Click to expand...

^^^ that’s a good way to put it. The trend has been toward “more detail”.

Basically if something says “must have” and a list, you’re better off showing the list in whatever you write.

Whereas, someone reviewing logs in the fairly distant past may have just seen a “all areas covered” single log entry and believed it.

Whether one can find anything written down that says to do that, is unlikely. It’s probably more of a push inside the DPE specific docs and meetings — if at all — could even just be people being more detail oriented because other areas have also gotten moreso.

There was an official big push a while back for example to quit missing unairworthy aircraft and DPEs started going over maintenance logs with a hairy eyeball more than I had seen in 20 years. But there were some accidents... and the airplanes weren’t airworthy when logs were checked later... and...

This stuff ebbs and flows but with the advent of ACS vs PTS and ten times the detail, I doubt the trend is reversing any time soon. Probably never.

Easier to just write it all.
 
Are people using electronic logbooks now and emailing the entries to each other?
 
IK04 said:
Are people using electronic logbooks now and emailing the entries to each other?
Click to expand...

I haven’t seen too many. Too many different electronic logbooks.

That said, @EricBe ‘s MyFlightBook has really nice features for that.

Quite a few people using the vendor and platform locked Foreflight logbook and as a computer guy who’s seen a lot of things come and go, both of those things are a bad idea ... even if it’s a decade from now when it bites them in the azz.

You don’t want your logbook tied to your EFB, nor a platform/single vendor. IMHO. It’ll just lead to future “transfer to something else” suffering.

They ALL have that problem to some extent. But I’ll take the nightly backup (available for a donation) from Eric’s system straight to a file system that I control — over getting say, Garmin’ed when their IT staff seriously screws the pooch.
 
denverpilot said:
I haven’t seen too many. Too many different electronic logbooks.

That said, @EricBe ‘s MyFlightBook has really nice features for that.

Quite a few people using the vendor and platform locked Foreflight logbook and as a computer guy who’s seen a lot of things come and go, both of those things are a bad idea ... even if it’s a decade from now when it bites them in the azz.

You don’t want your logbook tied to your EFB, nor a platform/single vendor. IMHO. It’ll just lead to future “transfer to something else” suffering.

They ALL have that problem to some extent. But I’ll take the nightly backup (available for a donation) from Eric’s system straight to a file system that I control — over getting say, Garmin’ed when their IT staff seriously screws the pooch.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with your comment - logbook is a book that stays regardless of whether the iPad is history and foreflight subscription price jumps to $1000!
 
Don’t have the FAR in front of me, don’t you also still need the generic 3hrs of training in prep for the check ride?
 
SneakyGrouse said:
Don’t have the FAR in front of me, don’t you also still need the generic 3hrs of training in prep for the check ride?
Click to expand...

This is not required. Only for private and commercial. CFI is an added rating like instrument tacked onto a commercial or ATP license. Of course it doesn't hurt to have those 3 hrs so any DPE won't be asking questions.
 
Ian Pilot said:
CFI is an added rating like instrument tacked onto a commercial or ATP license. Of course it doesn't hurt to have those 3 hrs so any DPE won't be asking questions.
Click to expand...
Untrue. The CFI is NOT a rating. The FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR is a certificate in it's own right, which can have ratings such as Category and Class and Instrument. It is true you ALSO need the commercial or ATP certificate to match, but the instructor is its own certificate.

There's no "three hour" requirement, but you do have to have sufficient instruction for the CFI rating being sought from an authorized instructor (there are constraints on which instructors can do this instruction) with no specific time requirements. You also need to have the spin endorsement. You also need 15 hours PIC time in the category and class (usually not a problem for your initial, but you might have gotten an add on pilot rating with fewer hours and never flew that category/class again).

Your assertion that the 3 hours only applies to certificates is thus specious. This is a certificate, and the instrument rating on a pilot certificate requires it as well, and that is NOT a certificate.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
Untrue. The CFI is NOT a rating. The FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR is a certificate in it's own right, which can have ratings such as Category and Class and Instrument. It is true you ALSO need the commercial or ATP certificate to match, but the instructor is its own certificate.

There's no "three hour" requirement, but you do have to have sufficient instruction for the CFI rating being sought from an authorized instructor (with no specific time requirements). You also need to have the spin endorsement. You also need 15 hours PIC time in the category and class (usually not a problem for your initial, but you might have gotten an add on pilot rating with fewer hours and never flew that category/class again).

Your assertion that the 3 hours only applies to certificates is thus specious. This is a certificate, and the instrument rating on a pilot certificate requires it as well, and that is NOT a certificate.
Click to expand...

A matter of nomenclature. Yes it is a certificate but like an instrument ticket only valid attached to an actual pilot certificate. Ground instructor is separate and by itself in comparison.
 
Ian Pilot said:
A matter of nomenclature. Yes it is a certificate but like an instrument ticket only valid attached to an actual pilot certificate. Ground instructor is separate and by itself in comparison.
Click to expand...
It is not "attached" to anything. You need the other certificate to get the CFI and to use it, but they are independent.

The INSTRUMENT RATING (whether it be for your pilot certificate or for your instructor certificate) is actually part of the respective certificate.

But your point was still wrong. The "three hour in prep" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are applying for a certificate versus a rating. Some ratings require it. Some certificates do. Some don't.
 
flyingron said:
It is not "attached" to anything. You need the other certificate to get the CFI and to use it, but they are independent.

The INSTRUMENT RATING (whether it be for your pilot certificate or for your instructor certificate) is actually part of the respective certificate.

But your point was still wrong. The "three hour in prep" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are applying for a certificate versus a rating. Some ratings require it. Some certificates do. Some don't.
Click to expand...

Faulty AI programming. Best to just let it go.
 
Ian Pilot said:
A matter of nomenclature. Yes it is a certificate but like an instrument ticket only valid attached to an actual pilot certificate. Ground instructor is separate and by itself in comparison.
Click to expand...

It's not nomenclature, it's certification structure. "Added rating" is a very specific term and you used it incorrectly. Using the correct terminology is of great benefit when teaching students.

And beyond terminology, your statement was simply incorrect. There is also high value in simply admitting errors when made and not attempting to "bluff" one's way through. You will make many errors as a flight instructor. Use the errors as an opportunity to a) teach the correct information, technique or skill and b) demonstrate professionalism as a CFI so that your students will model your behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top