Should a CFI be allowed to teach CFII?

mscard88 said:
:mad2: But, IF the -II or CFII training, whatever, was "absorbed" into CFI training then all CFIs would be permitted to teach instrument students, and the -II, or CFII, would vanish.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. What I’m saying is that really CFI is what is vanishing, and you’re changing the name of CFII to CFI.

You aren’t taking away CFII because if you did, there would be no one to teach IR. You’re taking away CFI - there will be no one that can not teach IR.
 
To illustrate. You aren’t saying that all current CFIs should be allowed to teach IR, right? They have to complete the “II” part of their training. Meaning they arent really CFIs they are CFIIs, but you’re renaming them CFIs.
 
Salty said:
To illustrate. You aren’t saying that all current CFIs should be allowed to teach IR, right? They have to complete the “II” part of their training. Meaning they arent really CFIs they are CFIIs, but you’re renaming them CFIs.
Click to expand...
Why get wrapped around the axle about what they'd be called if you're not calling them what they are to start with?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why get wrapped around the axle about what they'd be called if you're not calling them what they are to start with?
Click to expand...

I was going to mention the same thing. There really is no such thing as a "CFII" in the first place, just a flight instructor certificate with an instrument airplane (or helicopter, or whatever) rating on it.

It's a minor thing I realize, but it bothers me when I see CFIs sign things off as a CFII or MEI since their flight instructor certificate number contains neither.
 
Again, only the airplane and powered lift categories and the rotorcraft-helicopter category-class combination have instrument ratings (either pilot or instructor). Are you intending that the instrument be bundled with these category ratings?
 
mondtster said:
It's a minor thing I realize, but it bothers me when I see CFIs sign things off as a CFII or MEI since their flight instructor certificate number contains neither.
Click to expand...
The "CFII" in the signature line doesn't bother me so much...it makes life easier for the examiner, which is always good. ;)
 
I just made a simple observation about a random idea. Not sure why it's such a big deal.
 
flyingron said:
Again, only the airplane and powered lift categories and the rotorcraft-helicopter category-class combination have instrument ratings (either pilot or instructor). Are you intending that the instrument be bundled with these category ratings?
Click to expand...

This is what Mark was suggesting. I can see where this might be acceptable for an airplane single engine or multiengine instructor rating as long as the applicant's instrument knowledge and ability to teach it was tested, but it may not transfer into other categories well. I'm not a helicopter guy but I don't believe having an instrument rating is a requirement to be a helicopter CFI, so bundling the helicopter CFI and CFII together might not be such a good idea.
 
How could it possibly help the examiner? The "certificate type" isn't a required entry in the log entry. The only reason CFI is obliged to be there is that it's part of the certificate NUMBER which is required to be there. Even the fact that someone is an MEI or a II doesn't guarantee they were properly authorized to give the instruction.
 
flyingron said:
How could it possibly help the examiner? The "certificate type" isn't a required entry in the log entry. The only reason CFI is obliged to be there is that it's part of the certificate NUMBER which is required to be there. Even the fact that someone is an MEI or a II doesn't guarantee they were properly authorized to give the instruction.
Click to expand...
So how does an examiner determine who's qualified to give the instruction and when they acquired that particular qualification? Or, for that matter, that somebody isn't giving instruction using a fake or stolen certificate number?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So how does an examiner determine who's qualified to give the instruction and when they acquired that particular qualification? Or, for that matter, that somebody isn't giving instruction using a fake or stolen certificate number?
Click to expand...

Isn't IACRA a gatekeeper in this sense? I'm pretty sure it won't allow an instructor to endorse an applicant for a checkride unless the instructor is qualified to do so. Of course, there are loopholes to work around that (paper 8710) but I assume someone manually checks the instructor's qualifications at some point, and their eligibility to endorse the applicant.

I've never signed off anyone for any instrument or multi rating with anything other than my official flight instructor certificate number, ending in CFI. No questions have ever been asked, but the examiners around here probably have a fairly good idea what my qualifications are too.
 
Another mental masturbation thread:)

P7yiNo5.jpg
 
MauleSkinner said:
So how does an examiner determine who's qualified to give the instruction and when they acquired that particular qualification? Or, for that matter, that somebody isn't giving instruction using a fake or stolen certificate number?
Click to expand...
If he cares to know, he'll have to look up the names and certificate numbers in the FAA's database. Just reinforces my point that putting a mischaracterization of the certificate type in the entry doesn't help things.
 
mondtster said:
Isn't IACRA a gatekeeper in this sense? I'm pretty sure it won't allow an instructor to endorse an applicant for a checkride unless the instructor is qualified to do so. Of course, there are loopholes to work around that (paper 8710) but I assume someone manually checks the instructor's qualifications at some point, and their eligibility to endorse the applicant.

I've never signed off anyone for any instrument or multi rating with anything other than my official flight instructor certificate number, ending in CFI. No questions have ever been asked, but the examiners around here probably have a fairly good idea what my qualifications are too.
Click to expand...
That would work if you're the only instructor who provided the required instruction, and you didn't become an "authorized" instructor just in time to do the IACRA signoff. But that's a pretty narrow area that IACRA protects.

Which, of course assumes that IACRA actually filters that...there are enough holes in IACRA that I wouldn't bet that heavily on it.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
If he cares to know, he'll have to look up the names and certificate numbers in the FAA's database. Just reinforces my point that putting a mischaracterization of the certificate type in the entry doesn't help things.
Click to expand...
So he'd see that my instructor certificate was issued in February of 2016 for instruction that I gave in, say, 2012 that the applicant is using for the rating?

I'd trust some egomaniac's "CFII" sig line first.
 
Ditch the CFI and CFII thing and just go IP (instructor pilot)like the military uses and all IP's can teach PPL, COM, IR. Done! haha And to answer the question from earlier, when a Military IP graduates PIT training they are certified to teach all, instrument is not an add one with the mil.
 
flyingron said:
How could it possibly help the examiner? The "certificate type" isn't a required entry in the log entry. The only reason CFI is obliged to be there is that it's part of the certificate NUMBER which is required to be there. Even the fact that someone is an MEI or a II doesn't guarantee they were properly authorized to give the instruction.
Click to expand...

One example that I can think of is when you're getting your instrument rating and you use the 3 hours of instrument flying you did for your private as part of the 15 hours required for that rating. If those 3 hours for your private were with an CFII, they count towards the 15 hours. If you got your private from a "vanilla" CFI, then you still need 15 hours of instruction. That way signing those 3 hours as "CFII" would make it easier, in a way.
 
Nope, just because you got it from a CFII for your private doesn't make it "instrument instruction." I'd be real reticent to count that time based solely on an extra I in your logbook.
 
I
flyingron said:
Nope, just because you got it from a CFII for your private doesn't make it "instrument instruction." I'd be real reticent to count that time based solely on an extra I in your logbook.
Click to expand...
I disagree...the requirements for Private Pilot are
(3) 3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight;
Click to expand...
The requirements for an instrument rating include
(c) Flight proficiency. A person who applies for an instrument rating must receive and log training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device, in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, that includes the following areas of operation:
....
(4) Flight by reference to instruments;
Click to expand...
Sounds like it counts toward the instrument rating to me, assuming it's properly documented in the logbook.
 
I have started signing instrument instruction like "1234567CFI (CFII)" so hopefully both sides are happy.

MauleSkinner said:
I

I disagree...the requirements for Private Pilot are
The requirements for an instrument rating include
Sounds like it counts toward the instrument rating to me, assuming it's properly documented in the logbook.
Click to expand...

You would think so, but I believe there is a chief counsel letter saying the three hours don't count towards the 15 no matter what.
 
dmspilot said:
I have started signing instrument instruction like "1234567CFI (CFII)" so hopefully both sides are happy.



You would think so, but I believe there is a chief counsel letter saying the three hours don't count towards the 15 no matter what.
Click to expand...

I've always used what's on the certificate, 123456789CFI. Don't see the harm doing what you suggest though.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Actually, I think "flight by reference to instruments" for Private Pilot training needs to be redefined such that what a CFIIs teach (and most CFIs...well, all of them, since the PTS requires it) wouldn't be appropriate.
Click to expand...

Especially considering a CFII might teach a CFI under the PTS, but would never teach a Private Pilot under the PTS, since that’s the ACS now. ;) ;) ;)

(I’m just being a smartass.)

And no, I don’t care about the thread topic at all.

Take the checkrides, jump through the hoops, it’s all the same stuff. DPE makes more money with two rides, so I doubt you’ll see FAA making any changes to it anytime soon. That or ride price will double and it’ll take more than a day.

Which puts it squarely in the “whatever” category for me. One ride, two rides, doesn’t matter.

There’s enough changes going on with the Private and Commercial ACS, that nobody really needs any more changes to track right now.

They’re too busy redefining slow flight into a hearing test, to be mucking around with the CFI stuff.

Can’t wait to see what a CFI ACS looks like. 200 pages, perhaps... having a committee build that document will result in utter insanity.
 
dmspilot said:
You guys are having a semantic argument.

Today we have what are colloquially known as CFIs and CFIIs. OP's proposal is like everyone being a CFII, thus, no single-eyes. In one sense, the CFI is eliminated, and we just have CFIIs, in another sense, CFII is eliminated, but combined with CFI. They are just two different ways of saying the same thing.
Click to expand...

DMS seems to be the only one that gets it.
 
The John Lynch FAQ is bull poop. It's so full of Lynch's own personal bias that has no bearing on reality. The FAA was quick to discredit the whole thing. You should not rely on it for any purpose whatsoever.
 
The idea kinda sounds like a solution in search of a problem imo.
 
oregonboy109 said:
The idea kinda sounds like a solution in search of a problem imo.
Click to expand...

No, not the intention at all. Just throwing it out there for discussion. It's not gonna happen, so relax. Been a CFII since '78, and I think it should just be a CFI period, capable and qualified to teach instrument students that's all I'm saying. Looks like you're a CFI, do you feel you could teach an instrument student right now? Be honest now.
 
flyingron said:
The John Lynch FAQ is bull poop. It's so full of Lynch's own personal bias that has no bearing on reality. The FAA was quick to discredit the whole thing. You should not rely on it for any purpose whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The sad part is, some percentage of the Chief Counsel letters could be described in the same way. And they’re less well organized and harder to find topics in. LOL. :)
 
denverpilot said:
The sad part is, some percentage of the Chief Counsel letters could be described in the same way. And they’re less well organized and harder to find topics in. LOL. :)
Click to expand...
The Chief Counsel letters have the force of law. Lynch was just loopy (I've had some professional interaction with him) and the FAA never ascribed any meaning to his self-distributed FAQ.
 
mscard88 said:
No, not the intention at all. Just throwing it out there for discussion. It's not gonna happen, so relax. Been a CFII since '78, and I think it should just be a CFI period, capable and qualified to teach instrument students that's all I'm saying. Looks like you're a CFI, do you feel you could teach an instrument student right now? Be honest now.
Click to expand...

I think it would add additional training for a CFI cert that many wouldn't use and may decrease the number of CFI applicants. I think I could probably do an ok job teaching an instrument student if I had to. Doing CFII in a few weeks anyway though. Point is, the way it is now allows people who want the CFII to do the extra training and get it but doesn't force people who only want to teach private/commercial courses to get CFII training they'll never use.
 
It used to be that the 1st CFI certificate one could obtain was CFI-I.

That is what I did, (And was only a private pilot) and got a CFI-A, years later.
 
flyingron said:
The Chief Counsel letters have the force of law. Lynch was just loopy (I've had some professional interaction with him) and the FAA never ascribed any meaning to his self-distributed FAQ.
Click to expand...

Understand completely. My point was that you’d think with those letters being “the force of law”, FAA might be able to hire someone in all of their people somewhere who could write a decent table of contents for the silly things, instead of just slapping them up on a website and saying “go fish”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top