Proposed Rule Changes for Flight Instructors (CFI's please read)

This appears to be a private organization that is hoping to gain more members (increased revenue) by using the FAA as a means to drive membership.

For those who wish to have fancy titles awarded them on a wall certificate for a fee, go for it. Looks like more of a club than anything else.
 
Dudley Henriques said:
Something I feel is extremely important for all Certified Flight Instructors working in the United States.
There is a proposed change in the FAA rules concerning CFI's that should be of concern to all of us in the community.
Currently there isn't a provision to include the highly successful MASTER INSTRUCTOR PROGRAM in these changes.
I and others in the industry such as SAFE consider the Master Instructor Program of tremendous value to the betterment of the CFI profession.
I have included in this post the links to information a CFI can use to become familiar with the situation. Concerned CFI's should read the material and seriously consider supporting the effort to have the Master Instructor Program included by the FAA into the proposed rule changes.
I will add here that these proposed rule changes will affect the CFI community for years to come. It's critical that FLight Instructors take an active part in these changes and make their voices heard.
If, after reading the information contained on the two links I have provided you wish to have your voice heard concerning this important issue, please write to the following source with your opinion and suggestions. This should be done by June 22nd.
allan.g.kash@faa.gov
Thank you very much for your interest in this critical issue so important to the CFI community.
Dudley Henriques
CFI Retired
https://safeblog.org/2023/06/10/what-the-faa-missed-in-cfi-nprm/
https://masterinstructors.org/
Click to expand...
Do not send your comments to Allan, follow the instructions in the NPRM and post your comment here and view submitted comments in the docket here. You can read the proposed rule here.

If you do submit a comment, please read the rule (or at least the executive summary) before commenting. It's amazing how many comments were a result of the commenter reading nothing beyond the title of the rule.
 
Last edited:
I clicked the link, and discovered an ad for an assortment of SAFE-brand self-aggrandizements.
 
Doc Holliday said:
This appears to be a private organization that is hoping to gain more members (increased revenue) by using the FAA as a means to drive membership.

For those who wish to have fancy titles awarded them on a wall certificate for a fee, go for it. Looks like more of a club than anything else.
Click to expand...

I believe many belong for their CFI insurance.
 
Doc Holliday said:
This appears to be a private organization that is hoping to gain more members (increased revenue) by using the FAA as a means to drive membership.

For those who wish to have fancy titles awarded them on a wall certificate for a fee, go for it. Looks like more of a club than anything else.
Click to expand...
SAFE is one of the two major national instructor organizations. Both do some good work and have some benefits, such as decent insurance rates and vendor discounts including a 1/3 Foreflight discount. Both SAFE and NAFI have master instructor recognition programs, as does the FAA itself. Sounds like SAFE is arguing that receiving the organizational designation should be sufficient for a renewal.

But, as usual, the best way to generate interest is fake news. Make it sound like the proposal is taking something away from CFIs. So, instead of a description of the changes (which add to renewal options and take nothing away), we get the call how

these proposed rule changes will affect the CFI community for years to come. It's critical that flight Instructors take an active part in these changes and make their voices heard
Click to expand...
suggesting exactly the opposite.

Brad Z said:
If you do submit a comment, please read the rule (or at least the executive summary) before commenting. It's amazing how many comments were a result of the commenter reading nothing beyond the title of the rule.
Click to expand...
I hope you are not surprised by that.
 
midlifeflyer said:
SAFE is one of the two major national instructor organizations. Both do some good work and have some benefits, such as decent insurance rates and vendor discounts including a 1/3 Foreflight discount. Both SAFE and NAFI have master instructor recognition programs, as does the FAA itself. Sounds like SAFE is arguing that receiving the organizational designation should be sufficient for a renewal.

But, as usual, the best way to generate interest is fake news. Make it sound like the proposal is taking something away from CFIs. So, instead of a description of the changes (which add to renewal options and take nothing away), we get the call how


suggesting exactly the opposite.


I hope you are not surprised by that.
Click to expand...


I'm starting the "Highest Order of Aviators". By simply joining ($1000/yr) I will review your pilot certificates and if you qualify (you will), I'll issue a certificate on parchment (framing additional) that states this pilot meets our ultra highest standards and has the title "Exalted Master Pilot".

Included is a gold plated card the member can carry with his FAA certificates.

Remember, we're promoting safety!
 
Doc Holliday said:
I'm starting the "Highest Order of Aviators". By simply joining ($1000/yr) I will review your pilot certificates and if you qualify (you will), I'll issue a certificate on parchment (framing additional) that states this pilot meets our ultra highest standards and has the title "Exalted Master Pilot".

Included is a gold plated card the member can carry with his FAA certificates.

Remember, we're promoting safety!
Click to expand...
As you might tell from my comment, I don't like the way they are positioning this. I actually quit SAFE a few years ago over the same kind of catastrophizing (and told people I know in the organization exactly why).

But before I join your organization, I guess I'll ask you a few questions.
  • What are your and your team's credentials? Are there any names I would recognize?
  • How long has your organization been operating?
  • What seminars and webinars have you sponsored? Are they recognized by the FAA?
  • What known aviation organizations support you?
  • What are the qualifications for obtaining your special certification? (wait. We know that one - put $1000 in your pocket).
 
I have to say it has saddened me to read some of the comments concerning this issue. I understand that opinion can vary on subjects like this and I accept that there are some fine aviation people on this forum. I respect their opinion. I however don't agree with it.
Both SAFE and the Master Instructor Program have been around for a long time. They are both highly respected organizations both in the community and by the FAA.
Some of the finest instructors in the country are on the staff of these organizations. I know them personally. They are highly respected professional people working at the top level of their trade.
Yes........as these organizations represent continuing education there is naturally a financial aspect involved with each. That's not to say that their position on the proposed rule changes by the FAA is nothing but a ploy to get people to view their respective websites so as to sign them up for a fee.
Many of us in professional flight training work extremely hard in an effort to improve flight safety.
I for one write many articles that are distributed internationally on flight safety for both the training community and for the professional airshow display community. I have never charged a single penny for my work in this field.
As for SAFE and the Master Instructor Program, Naturally there is some fee involved with membership.
There are expenses involved, material involved, and a LOT of time devoted to their continuing education programs.
In the case concerning this present issue, all SAFE and the Master Instructor Program is asking is a hand in getting the FAA to take a deeper look at something they actually approved long ago then pulled the approval after the FAA lawyers got involved advising of possible legal issues associated with approval of outside organizations.
SAFE and the Master Instructor Program merely wish the FAA to revisit the situation and possibly include outside continuing education as part of the CFI certification regulations.
That's all it is. It's not a money grab. Flight safety and good training should never be a money grab by ANYONE.
You are good aviation people here on this forum. That's why I came here to offer comment. If you don't wish to aid us in our effort concerning these new rules I can understand that.
But please don't do that by denigrating two fine organizations that I know personally to be first rate, honest, and well intended.........not to mention effective....which they are.
I hope I haven't stepped on any tail feathers by asking for your help. If so I apologize.
I wish all of you the very best and safe flying.
Dudley Henriques
 
Dudley Henriques said:
SAFE and the Master Instructor Program merely wish the FAA to revisit the situation and possibly include outside continuing education as part of the CFI certification regulations
Click to expand...
FIRCs are done by outside organizations, under FAA guidelines. But I can definitely understand the FAA's concerns with placing CFI renewal in the hands of private organizations without it.

Both NAFI and SAFE provide a great service to CFIs and the aviation community. I've been a member of one or the other or both for most of the 24 years I've been a CFI (I became a member of neither for a few years in the aftermath of the split). Absolutely not a money grab. Heck, the 33% Foreflight discount alone is worth the membership fee. But I really don't like what amounts to clickbait by making it sound like the proposed rule is taking something away. It's the kind of thing that led me to leave SAFE (I'm still a member if NAFI) a year or so ago. I corresponded directly with David about my reasons for that.

But let me ask... what is the case for waiver of renewal for NAFI and SAFE master instructors?
 
midlifeflyer said:
FIRCs are done by outside organizations, under FAA guidelines. But I can definitely understand the FAA's concerns with placing CFI renewal in the hands of private organizations without it.

Both NAFI and SAFE provide a great service to CFIs and the aviation community. I've been a member of one or the other or both for most of the 24 years I've been a CFI (I became a member of neither for a few years in the aftermath of the split). Absolutely not a money grab. Heck, the 33% Foreflight discount alone is worth the membership fee. But I really don't like what amounts to clickbait by making it sound like the proposed rule is taking something away. It's the kind of thing that led me to leave SAFE (I'm still a member if NAFI) a year or so ago. I corresponded directly with David about my reasons for that.

But let me ask... what is the case for waiver of renewal for NAFI and SAFE master instructors?
Click to expand...

David explains it better than I can on the current blog. I've included a link.
https://safeblog.org/2023/06/10/what-the-faa-missed-in-cfi-nprm/
The way I'm reading it is that it isn't the SAFE position that the proposal is bad the way it is. I believe the SAFE position is that the proposal could be better.
David and I are friends, along with other friends Rich Stowell, and Rob Machado so I might be a bit bias.
But in all the years I have known these people I have never once known them to be anything but straight shooters.
I hope David's blog post serves to add some clarity to these issues.
Dudley Henriques
 
How is removing the expiration date from the certificate, but still requiring the CFI to maintain currency, any different than it being that way with our pilot certificates? It’s 100% on the CFI to know what his expiration date is, just as it is for a pilot to know if he’s within currency for a flight review/Wings, carrying passengers, night, IFR, and so forth. Is there something about being a CFI that renders one incapable of knowing one expiration date but keeping everything else straight?

The alternate ways to be eligible to instruct CFI candidates make sense. They both require the same, or approximately the same, amount of experience and eliminate the 24 months, which for a fulltime CFI will give several times over the hour requirement.

Common sense rule changes, and overdue for an update.
 
Dudley Henriques said:
I have to say it has saddened me to read some of the comments concerning this issue. I understand that opinion can vary on subjects like this and I accept that there are some fine aviation people on this forum. I respect their opinion. I however don't agree with it.
Both SAFE and the Master Instructor Program have been around for a long time. They are both highly respected organizations both in the community and by the FAA.
Some of the finest instructors in the country are on the staff of these organizations. I know them personally. They are highly respected professional people working at the top level of their trade.
Yes........as these organizations represent continuing education there is naturally a financial aspect involved with each. That's not to say that their position on the proposed rule changes by the FAA is nothing but a ploy to get people to view their respective websites so as to sign them up for a fee.
Many of us in professional flight training work extremely hard in an effort to improve flight safety.
I for one write many articles that are distributed internationally on flight safety for both the training community and for the professional airshow display community. I have never charged a single penny for my work in this field.
As for SAFE and the Master Instructor Program, Naturally there is some fee involved with membership.
There are expenses involved, material involved, and a LOT of time devoted to their continuing education programs.
In the case concerning this present issue, all SAFE and the Master Instructor Program is asking is a hand in getting the FAA to take a deeper look at something they actually approved long ago then pulled the approval after the FAA lawyers got involved advising of possible legal issues associated with approval of outside organizations.
SAFE and the Master Instructor Program merely wish the FAA to revisit the situation and possibly include outside continuing education as part of the CFI certification regulations.
That's all it is. It's not a money grab. Flight safety and good training should never be a money grab by ANYONE.
You are good aviation people here on this forum. That's why I came here to offer comment. If you don't wish to aid us in our effort concerning these new rules I can understand that.
But please don't do that by denigrating two fine organizations that I know personally to be first rate, honest, and well intended.........not to mention effective....which they are.
I hope I haven't stepped on any tail feathers by asking for your help. If so I apologize.
I wish all of you the very best and safe flying.
Dudley Henriques
Click to expand...

I have all the qualifications for SAFE’s Master Instructor Program. The primary advantage of the SAFE Master program is recognition and credential for the instructor to market themselves.

Today SAFE has adopted the position we are highly qualified and want privilege for our members in the FAA’s CFI recurrent training/experience proposal, which also provides an additional advantage to the master program. That position is self serving and is contrary to the safety the organization claims to support.
 
I really don't see what the fuss is about. The blog post seems to imply that SAFE's Master Instructor Program was previously included in the regs and now it is being excluded. That is not the case. There are many excellent programs out there, some of them cost nothing to join. It is not practical for the FAA to codify different programs that have different requirements and are run by different organizations. FIRC is a broad category for which anyone can become a provider. Admittedly, FIRC is weak because it only requires an online study and test, but there is nothing preventing a more ambitious organization to go above and beyond the minimum by requiring 500 hrs of experience plus the 16 hr FIRC to simultaneously satisfy their requirements and the FAA's requirements.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I have all the qualifications for SAFE’s Master Instructor Program. The primary advantage of the SAFE Master program is recognition and credential for the instructor to market themselves.

Today SAFE has adopted the position we are highly qualified and want privilege for our members in the FAA’s CFI recurrent training/experience proposal, which also provides an additional advantage to the master program. That position is self serving and is contrary to the safety the organization claims to support.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the Master Instructor Program although recommended by SAFE is a stand alone program not directly connected to SAFE.
And in the interest of fairness, it isn't the instructor who decides they have the qualifications for recognition by the Master Instructor Program but the program itself that makes that decision.
Not to say you are not qualified..............just clearing the air a bit here. :))))
Dudley Henriques
 
ateamer said:
How is removing the expiration date from the certificate, but still requiring the CFI to maintain currency, any different than it being that way with our pilot certificates? It’s 100% on the CFI to know what his expiration date is, just as it is for a pilot to know if he’s within currency for a flight review/Wings, carrying passengers, night, IFR, and so forth. Is there something about being a CFI that renders one incapable of knowing one expiration date but keeping everything else straight?

The alternate ways to be eligible to instruct CFI candidates make sense. They both require the same, or approximately the same, amount of experience and eliminate the 24 months, which for a fulltime CFI will give several times over the hour requirement.

Common sense rule changes, and overdue for an update.
Click to expand...

IMHO, the purpose of this new rule is about eliminating the processing of 8710 forms for CFI renewals. In 2022 there were about 125,000 flight instructors. That means an average of about thirty five 8710 forms are being processed every hour (or, one every two minutes). Even if the FAA was super-efficient, that would require at least three full time people. But it is probably more like 10, earning about $1M in salary and benefits from tax payer funds. With the proposed plan, only those who let their recency lapse by more than 3 months will need to take a checkride and file the 8710. I don't know what % of instructors fall in that category, but my guess is that it is pretty small.
 
sarangan said:
IMHO, the purpose of this new rule is about eliminating the processing of 8710 forms for CFI renewals. In 2022 there were about 125,000 flight instructors. That means an average of about thirty five 8710 forms are being processed every hour (or, one every two minutes). Even if the FAA was super-efficient, that would require at least three full time people. But it is probably more like 10, earning about $1M in salary and benefits from tax payer funds. With the proposed plan, only those who let their recency lapse by more than 3 months will need to take a checkride and file the 8710. I don't know what % of instructors fall in that category, but my guess is that it is pretty small.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. We don’t need to do an 8710 for any other currency, and it doesn’t fit with that to require it for CFI currency.
 
sarangan said:
IMHO, the purpose of this new rule is about eliminating the processing of 8710 forms for CFI renewals. In 2022 there were about 125,000 flight instructors. That means an average of about thirty five 8710 forms are being processed every hour (or, one every two minutes). Even if the FAA was super-efficient, that would require at least three full time people. But it is probably more like 10, earning about $1M in salary and benefits from tax payer funds. With the proposed plan, only those who let their recency lapse by more than 3 months will need to take a checkride and file the 8710. I don't know what % of instructors fall in that category, but my guess is that it is pretty small.
Click to expand...
The new rule still requires the 8710, the only real change is that they won’t issue a new card every 2 years.
 
sarangan said:
I really don't see what the fuss is about. The blog post seems to imply that SAFE's Master Instructor Program was previously included in the regs and now it is being excluded. That is not the case.
Click to expand...

1. The Master Instructor Program isn't a SAFE program. It stands alone and separate.
2. Actually that IS the case. The FAA initially approved the Master Instructor Program and was highly in favor of it. The FAA lawyers then got involved and the question of FAA endorsement of ANY outside program with its legal ramifications came into question.
3. All SAFE has asked on its blog posting simply involves asking the FAA to revisit the issue and consider any possible benefit for inclusion of the Master Instructor Program into the new proposed regulations.
That's all it is.
Personally, after reading the proposal and what amounts to writing by the FAA that rivals the length of Tolstoy's War and Peace and Homer's Odyssey, I find it almost hard to believe that ANYONE in their right mind would want to become a CFI in today's aviation world and under today's "conditions".
I've been teaching flight instructors now for over 60 years. I've never seen a more hostile and complicated environment for instructors than that existing today in our aviation community.
I keep on "truck'in hoping to be of at least some small use in making it better but some days it's like batting my head against a brick wall.
Dudley Henriques
 
Dudley Henriques said:
1. The Master Instructor Program isn't a SAFE program. It stands alone and separate.
2. Actually that IS the case. The FAA initially approved the Master Instructor Program and was highly in favor of it. The FAA lawyers then got involved and the question of FAA endorsement of ANY outside program with its legal ramifications came into question.
3. All SAFE has asked on its blog posting simply involves asking the FAA to revisit the issue and consider any possible benefit for inclusion of the Master Instructor Program into the new proposed regulations.
That's all it is.
Personally, after reading the proposal and what amounts to writing by the FAA that rivals the length of Tolstoy's War and Peace and Homer's Odyssey, I find it almost hard to believe that ANYONE in their right mind would want to become a CFI in today's aviation world and under today's "conditions".
I've been teaching flight instructors now for over 60 years. I've never seen a more hostile and complicated environment for instructors than that existing today in our aviation community.
I keep on "truck'in hoping to be of at least some small use in making it better but some days it's like batting my head against a brick wall.
Dudley Henriques
Click to expand...

Dudley,

In all due respect, that’s a load of crap.

The “Master Instructor Program” was removed for more than what you and your fellow program guys want to admit. Like most things, there’s always more to the story.

Not sure what you see is a complicated and hostile environment for Instructors. Sure, regulations evolve over time, but there’s nothing onerous in becoming a CFI or maintaining the rating.

The NPRM is out there for comment. Sorry there’s not a cliff notes version. Make your comments and move on.
 
Dudley Henriques said:
1. The Master Instructor Program isn't a SAFE program.
Click to expand...
Sure it is.

The program was created by Sandy and JoAnn Hill years ago (great people, btw). It was the big deal in the NAFI internal squabble that resulted in the creation of SAFE (the two organizations still compete over it). In addition to the creation of SAFE, the Hills ended up spinning off Master Instructors LLC. After Sandy passed away, the program became - and is still - part of SAFE.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Dudley,

In all due respect, that’s a load of crap.

The “Master Instructor Program” was removed for more than what you and your fellow program guys want to admit. Like most things, there’s always more to the story.

Not sure what you see is a complicated and hostile environment for Instructors. Sure, regulations evolve over time, but there’s nothing onerous in becoming a CFI or maintaining the rating.

The NPRM is out there for comment. Sorry there’s not a cliff notes version. Make your comments and move on.
Click to expand...

Small correction; In your opinion............"it's a load of crap". BIG difference !
But that's all right. Hell, everyone has an opinion. I'm not demanding people agree with mine.
I actually have zero experience with the Master Instructor Program, but I've known David St George and the staff at Safe for a long time. I know all of these people to be first rate. Conversely I don't know "crap" as you like to say........about you. :)
I understand you and I seem to have differing opinions on this issue. Hell....that's ok. If differing opinion causes others to drill down into the issue and garner facts that's fine with me, and should be with you as well.
Sorry we seem to be on opposite sides of this thing. As they say...........s**t happens ! LOL
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sure it is.

The program was created by Sandy and JoAnn Hill years ago (great people, btw). It was the big deal in the NAFI internal squabble that resulted in the creation of SAFE (the two organizations still compete over it). In addition to the creation of SAFE, the Hills ended up spinning off Master Instructors LLC. After Sandy passed away, the program became - and is still - part of SAFE.
Click to expand...

Fine point really. SAFE works closely with the MIP but they are actually separate. You can be a member of one and not the other.
But I'll give you it's a close call.
 
Dudley Henriques said:
Fine point really. SAFE works closely with the MIP but they are actually separate. You can be a member of one and not the other.
But I'll give you it's a close call.
Click to expand...
I'll give you what SAFE says in return. Of course you don't have to buy into both. But that doesn't mean it's not a SAFE program.


upload_2023-6-17_14-38-51.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'll give you what SAFE says in return. Of course you don't have to buy into both. But that doesn't mean it's not a SAFE program.


View attachment 118125
Click to expand...

They simply support each other........that's all. No other connection than that.
What I really don't understand is all the negativity I'm seeing here on this forum.
BOTH SAFE and the MIP have been around for a long time. They have good reputations and simply perform a service. Yes, there are fees involved as is the case with any continuing educational program. They are good people simply doing a good job.
On the other hand here I come on this forum simply asking that people look into the new FAA rules proposal and walla..........I get one guy who demands I answer questions about my qualifications to fly certain aircraft and no end of comment negative about SAFE and the MIP.
Look..........I have no axe to grind here and I really don't wish to **** people off. So unless I am posted to directly I'll go do something useful like feeding my cat. LOL
 
Last edited:
Dudley Henriques said:
What I really don't understand is all the negativity I'm seeing here on this forum.
Click to expand...
I guess we can quibble whether the Lincoln-Mercury Division has a connection to Ford.

I don't understand most of the negativity either. I think they are good organizations and a good program. All sorts of professional programs have special designations. My only gripe is the presentation of the response to the proposed rule in a misleading "us vs them" way intended to rally the troops. Sure...saving big bucks on printing plastic cards is only thing the proposed increase renewal options for CFIs is designed to do.

upload_2023-6-17_15-19-13.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
I guess we can quibble whether the Lincoln-Mercury Division has a connection to Ford.

I don't understand most of the negativity either. I think they are good organizations and a good program. All sorts of professional programs have special designations. My only gripe is the presentation of the response to the proposed rule in a misleading "us vs them" way intended to rally the troops. Sure...saving big bucks on printing plastic cards is only thing the proposed increase renewal options for CFIs is designed to do.

View attachment 118127
Click to expand...

I have to admit my only connection to the issue is through David St George of SAFE. I've known him a long time and I have never doubted his honesty and good intention.
The way I read the blog post from SAFE was that SAFE believes the FAA is "missing the boat" if they don't revisit the old ruling concerning the endorsement (or in this instance the non-endorsement) of the Master Instructor Program.
What I know about the MIP is all good. I know Rich Stowell endorses it as does Rod Machado. Both are long time friends and trusted associates of mine in the training industry.
If I thought for one second that the MIP was simply "going for the bucks" I would never have asked the pilot community for their support on the SAFE request.
Contrary to what others have written here concerning the state of flight instruction in our modern times I have to go with what I'm told every day by instructors working in the field. I can tell you in all honesty that the instructors who converse with me find the present environment "a bit difficult" considering the environment as a whole, ESPECIALLY for the part time instructors who get caught in the middle between the currency and ongoing educational requirements and their part time employment situation.
I realize there isn't any magic bullet that will cure all the ills in the training community. But I do believe that programs like SAFE and the MIP are good and serve the issue of continuing education well. I also understand there were legal issues that arose within the FAA a while back concerning possible litigation involving any "Official" FAA endorsement of a private program such as the MIP. Conversely the Wings program within the FAA is alive and well.
I just believe the MIP might deserve another look by the FAA and this I believe is the only goal stated by the latest SAFE blog posting.
My bottom line read on all this is that all SAFE is asking is that the FAA consider inclusion of the Master Instructor Program on an equal par with the FAA sponsored Wings Program.
 
Dudley Henriques said:
the old ruling concerning the endorsement (or in this instance the non-endorsement) of the Master Instructor Program.
Click to expand...

Dudley Henriques said:
I also understand there were legal issues that arose within the FAA a while back concerning possible litigation involving any "Official" FAA endorsement of a private program such as the MIP.
Click to expand...
So do you have any links to the “old ruling” and/or more detailed reasoning behind it for those of us who aren’t familiar?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'll give you what SAFE says in return. Of course you don't have to buy into both. But that doesn't mean it's not a SAFE program.


View attachment 118125
Click to expand...

I owe you an apology. You were absolutely right. The Master Instructor Program is NOW a part of SAFE.

I should also attempt to clear up something else.
My association with this issue simply stems from my personal association with the people at SAFE. They are people I respect highly and we share many issues concerned with flight training.
My work in training and flight safety is completely independent of both SAFE and the Master Instructor Program. Actually I am not a member of either organization as I am no longer active as a flight instructor.
I understand that the Master Instructor Program is a private organization and that SAFE would like to see the FAA revisit the possibility for inclusion on these rule changes.
I'm backing SAFE on their quest simply as a friend of the organization. I hope they are successful and the MIP finds its way into a better position than it now holds with the FAA.
I hope this post serves to clear the air a bit.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Sure it is.

The program was created by Sandy and JoAnn Hill years ago (great people, btw). It was the big deal in the NAFI internal squabble that resulted in the creation of SAFE (the two organizations still compete over it). In addition to the creation of SAFE, the Hills ended up spinning off Master Instructors LLC. After Sandy passed away, the program became - and is still - part of SAFE.
Click to expand...

All correct.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So do you have any links to the “old ruling” and/or more detailed reasoning behind it for those of us who aren’t familiar?
Click to expand...

I wish I had more information on that but I don't. My understanding is that there were issues going on between the FAA and the Hills that led to the situation as it exists today.
Wish I could be of more help.
 
So the NPRM is over a rule change for CFI certificates. Fine, no problem.

If SAFE wants to participate in a FIRC program, then why not just put the package together and submit like all of the other vendors who do FIRC?

It appears the issue here is that SAFE wants their program approved outside of what an established FIRC guideline is. If the FAA does this, then what about the other organizations? Do they get extended the same privilege?
 
Doc Holliday said:
So the NPRM is over a rule change for CFI certificates. Fine, no problem.

If SAFE wants to participate in a FIRC program, then why not just put the package together and submit like all of the other vendors who do FIRC?
Click to expand...

I'm not certain but I believe those steps have been taken. My understanding is that all SAFE was asking in their blog post was for additional input to the FAA by those who might favor their position.
It appears the issue here is that SAFE wants their program approved outside of what an established FIRC guideline is. If the FAA does this, then what about the other organizations? Do they get extended the same privilege?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that to be the case. My understanding is that all SAFE desires is for the FAA to take another look at the Master Instructor Program.
The other organizations? SAFE is understandably interested in the MIP. I would imagine other organizations would be expected to present their own proposals to the FAA on this issue.
As an adder knowing the people at SAFE I would also surmise that SAFE would have no objection to seeing other organizations recognized and included. Admittedly SAFE has a vested interest in the MIP but they also have a very serious general interest in anything that improves flight safety and the flight training community.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So the NPRM is over a rule change for CFI certificates. Fine, no problem.

If SAFE wants to participate in a FIRC program, then why not just put the package together and submit like all of the other vendors who do FIRC?

It appears the issue here is that SAFE wants their program approved outside of what an established FIRC guideline is. If the FAA does this, then what about the other organizations? Do they get extended the same privilege?
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point as well. There are all sorts of proficiency programs, and pilots earn credit for them by working through an established FAA channel, such as WINGS or FIRC.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So the NPRM is over a rule change for CFI certificates. Fine, no problem.

If SAFE wants to participate in a FIRC program, then why not just put the package together and submit like all of the other vendors who do FIRC?

It appears the issue here is that SAFE wants their program approved outside of what an established FIRC guideline is. If the FAA does this, then what about the other organizations? Do they get extended the same privilege?
Click to expand...
That was going to be my next question…how does the Master Instructor program meet the FAA’s guidelines for renewal/currency guidelines? (depending on whether we’re talking before or after the change proposed by the NPRM.) I see some stuff in the MIP requirements that would already provide a basis for renewal. But there’s also a lot of stuff in there that doesn’t and/or IMO shouldn’t provide that basis, and I believe one could become a Master Instructor without doing the things that currently qualify.

maybe they’d get more traction if the Powers That Be at SAFE would create a proposal and publish it for rank-and-file instructors and pilots to support in comments to the NPRM rather than just giving the impression that the reason it was removed in the first place was just “FAA lawyers” and some kind of ****ing contest between the FAA and the Hills.
 
Dudley Henriques said:
I'm not certain but I believe those steps have been taken. My understanding is that all SAFE was asking in their blog post was for additional input to the FAA by those who might favor their position.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the NPRM is the place to campaign for the FAA to accept their program. Again, this is a change in the CFR. FIRC is already addressed.



Dudley Henriques said:
I don't believe that to be the case. My understanding is that all SAFE desires is for the FAA to take another look at the Master Instructor Program.
The other organizations? SAFE is understandably interested in the MIP. I would imagine other organizations would be expected to present their own proposals to the FAA on this issue.
As an adder knowing the people at SAFE I would also surmise that SAFE would have no objection to seeing other organizations recognized and included. Admittedly SAFE has a vested interest in the MIP but they also have a very serious general interest in anything that improves flight safety and the flight training community.
Click to expand...

If SAFE wants the FAA to reconsider their program, I don't believe the NPRM is the avenue. From what I'm gathering here is SAFE wants their own version of the FIRC, and here lies the issue. I can't see the FAA giving one organization a carve out while ignoring other established vendors.
 
Doc Holliday said:
If SAFE wants the FAA to reconsider their program, I don't believe the NPRM is the avenue. From what I'm gathering here is SAFE wants their own version of the FIRC, and here lies the issue. I can't see the FAA giving one organization a carve out while ignoring other established vendors.
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth.
But I can see you and I will never agree on this issue. No problem.
Take care and all the best,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top