Should a CFI be allowed to teach CFII?

mscard88

mscard88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
23,216
Location
Alabama
Display Name
Display name:
Mark
IMO yes. Why not just have a CFI w/ additional requirements (of the CFII) added to allow a CFI to function as a CFII, and eliminate the CFII completely.

IOW when one earns a CFI under this scenario they would also be able to instruct instrument students.

MEI should remain as is.

Opinions?
 
Last edited:
What "problem" does this change solve? Seems the system, in that regard, isn't broken; why are we trying to fix it?
 
bradg33 said:
What "problem" does this change solve? Seems the system, in that regard, isn't broken; why are we trying to fix it?
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was broken and that it needed fixed. Just a topic for discussion.
 
I’d support it. Teaching is teaching. You just need to teach the curriculum, right?

Anything that makes rating collection easier and flight instruction cheaper I’m in favor of.
 
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.
 
Considering how easy the instrument instructor add on is, I see no reason to change things. Further, I don't see the screening of an instrument instructor's knowledge about instrument flying and their ability to fly instruments as a bad thing.
 
mondtster said:
Considering how easy the instrument instructor add on is, I see no reason to change things. Further, I don't see the screening of an instrument instructor's knowledge about instrument flying and their ability to fly instruments as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

You'd still have all that though if it were combined right?
 
Can you imagine the stress on the average applicant if they combined them?
 
What about military Instructor Pilots, don't they teach basic flying, acro, and instrument flying, and probably a lot more all as an IP? Sure, they have instructor school and better training to get them to that point, but still.
 
mscard88 said:
You'd still have all that though if it were combined right?
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell if that's what you were thinking or not in your proposal. As long as the applicant is screened on the instrument flying areas I don't think it would matter much if it was done in one or two checkrides.

But, doing it all in one checkride would give a lot more room for applicant stress, failures, and an even longer checkride. None of those things are favorable in my mind.
 
mscard88 said:
What about military Instructor Pilots, don't they teach basic flying, acro, and instrument flying, and probably a lot more all as an IP? Sure, they have instructor school and better training to get them to that point, but still.
Click to expand...
Do they have a single qualification event, or do they add qualifications over time?
 
mondtster said:
I couldn't tell if that's what you were thinking or not in your proposal. As long as the applicant is screened on the instrument flying areas I don't think it would matter much if it was done in one or two checkrides.

But, doing it all in one checkride would give a lot more room for applicant stress, failures, and an even longer checkride. None of those things are favorable in my mind.
Click to expand...

Good points for sure.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Do they have a single qualification event, or do they add qualifications over time?
Click to expand...

Not positive, but I think they get selected at the end of pilot training, and then attend an instructor school, at least I think it's that way in the Air Force.
 
SkyHog said:
I’d support it. Teaching is teaching. You just need to teach the curriculum, right?

Anything that makes rating collection easier and flight instruction cheaper I’m in favor of.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how "additional requirements" for obtaining a CFI certificate would make it easier? Can you explain how these additional requirements would increase the supply of instructors and make flight instruction cheaper?

The harder it is to be a CFI, the more people will do it? I don't get it.
 
dmspilot said:
Can you explain how "additional requirements" for obtaining a CFI certificate would make it easier? Can you explain how these additional requirements would increase the supply of instructors and make flight instruction cheaper?

The harder it is to be a CFI, the more people will do it? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t envision any additional requirements being needed. It’s just like how a CFI can teach private, commercial, and any number of endorsements without “additional requirements.” In this world, you’d just add the ability to teach the IR to a CFI.

After all, the CFI has his instrument rating, right?
 
SkyHog said:
I wouldn’t envision any additional requirements being needed. It’s just like how a CFI can teach private, commercial, and any number of endorsements without “additional requirements.” In this world, you’d just add the ability to teach the IR to a CFI.
Click to expand...

When you said "I'd support it," I thought that the "it" meant the OP's proposal:

"Why not just have a CFI w/ additional requirements of the CFII added".

However, I could see why there was confusion, because the subject line is incongruent with the body (and, actually, doesn't really make sense at all).
 
I think you would find a lot of instructors who are grossly underprepared to teach instrument flying. The issue is not the experienced instructor who simply didn't have time/money/desire/need to had the II onto his certificate. In a perfect world this perfect person would have good instrument flying experience and teaching experience. That kind of person would be a perfect candidate for an "automatic" CFII. Unfortunately in practice you would get a fresh minted CFI who has never seen a cloud, flown a real IR approach and hasn't flown more than 1 IFR XC (the single required one for the rating), and on top of it probably hasn't taught anything yet. In my opinion it takes more work to teach an instrument student because of the attention to detail and the very tight specs. That being said I prefer it more.

That's my opinion from the outside looking in. Now from the opinion of someone who quite a bit of dual given, but does not hold an MEI.... I wish I didn't have to take a checkride for the MEI... and I'm dragging my feet on it too o_O
 
Z06_Mir said:
I think you would find a lot of instructors who are grossly underprepared to teach instrument flying. The issue is not the experienced instructor who simply didn't have time/money/desire/need to had the II onto his certificate. In a perfect world this perfect person would have good instrument flying experience and teaching experience. That kind of person would be a perfect candidate for an "automatic" CFII. Unfortunately in practice you would get a fresh minted CFI who has never seen a cloud, flown a real IR approach and hasn't flown more than 1 IFR XC (the single required one for the rating), and on top of it probably hasn't taught anything yet. In my opinion it takes more work to teach an instrument student because of the attention to detail and the very tight specs. That being said I prefer it more.

That's my opinion from the outside looking in. Now from the opinion of someone who quite a bit of dual given, but does not hold an MEI.... I wish I didn't have to take a checkride for the MEI... and I'm dragging my feet on it too o_O
Click to expand...
I’d put the MEI in the same boat, personally.
 
The tasks on the instrument flight instructor PTS (and eventually the ACS as well) are there for a reason. If the OP proposes moving those tasks to the single engine and multi-engine flight instructor PTS, you're going to create an even more unwieldy practical test that is already at least a full day. Allowing the instrument rating to be a separate rating allows those who are not interested (or don't have the instrument skill or experience necessary to teach) the opportunity to teach what they are prepared to teach. I disagree that just holding an instrument rating makes you qualified to teach instrument flying.
 
It seems like what you are really saying is to get rid of CFI rating.
 
mscard88 said:
What about military Instructor Pilots, don't they teach basic flying, acro, and instrument flying, and probably a lot more all as an IP? Sure, they have instructor school and better training to get them to that point, but still.
Click to expand...

Army sends their IPs to a separate 6 week instrument examiner course. Once qualified, they can then officially instruct / evaluate instruments and log time as an IE. Not sure if all branches do that.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
No, he's suggesting combining CFI-A with CFI-IA (and possibly the same for other categories).
Click to expand...
Which, practically speaking means there would be no such thing as what we today call CFI
 
MauleSkinner said:
Depends on how far from FAA terminology you choose to be, I guess.
Click to expand...
If there is only one instructor and it’s what we today call a CFII then there would be no such thing as what we today call a cfi
 
Salty said:
If there is only one instructor and it’s what we today call a CFII then there would be no such thing as what we today call a cfi
Click to expand...
What "we" call a CFI is apparently limited to "our" experience.
 
This whole thread has lost me. CFII is not a certificate. A CFII is a CFI who has an Instrument Rating on his certificate.
It is already the case that a student who is going for an Instrument Rating (be it on a pilot certificate or an instructor certificate) be instructed/signed off by a CFI with an Instrument rating.
As far as any other instruction goes, any instructor who meets the requirements for that instruction (category and class and in some cases experience in type) may teach it regardless of what ratings the student has.

A CFII isn't some elevated version of a CFI. I wouldn't let a CFII (without a helicopter rating) teach me to fly helicopters. You need the appropriate ratings for the training being conducted.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Ok...apparently your definition of "CFI" is limited to your experience. Don't limit the rest of us to your experience.
Click to expand...
Ok. Now you could educate as well as insult and explain what I don’t understand.
 
Salty said:
Ok. Now you could educate as well as insult and explain what I don’t understand.
Click to expand...
There are lots of ratings available for the instructor certificate, most of which don't allow airplane privileges. Many of them can't get instrument instructor privileges for the category. Youre lumping them in with CFI-Airplane, which is clearly not the OP's intent, nor is it common usage.
 
flyingron said:
This whole thread has lost me. CFII is not a certificate. A CFII is a CFI who has an Instrument Rating on his certificate.
It is already the case that a student who is going for an Instrument Rating (be it on a pilot certificate or an instructor certificate) be instructed/signed off by a CFI with an Instrument rating.
As far as any other instruction goes, any instructor who meets the requirements for that instruction (category and class and in some cases experience in type) may teach it regardless of what ratings the student has.

A CFII isn't some elevated version of a CFI. I wouldn't let a CFII (without a helicopter rating) teach me to fly helicopters. You need the appropriate ratings for the training being conducted.
Click to expand...

No one said a CFII was a certificate. All I said was instead of having CFI & CFII why not combine them so that a CFI certificate becomes a CFI who can also teach instrument students. Simple concept, obviously not too popular which is fine, just threw it out there for discussion.
 
The subject line was a little misleading. Now I get it. You could ask why you can get a CFI with an instrument rating and no category rating as well.
Of course, not all categories on the flight instructor certificate have complementary instrument ratings.
 
Salty said:
If there is only one instructor and it’s what we today call a CFII then there would be no such thing as what we today call a cfi
Click to expand...
Other way around. You’ve misconstrued the idea that Mark has proposed. The CFI rating would still exist, it would just include the -II privileges. So he’s not at all saying to eliminate the CFI certificate.
 
Ryanb said:
Other way around. You’ve misconstrued the idea that Mark has proposed. The CFI rating would still exist, it would just include the -II privileges. So he’s not at all saying to eliminate the CFI certificate.
Click to expand...
The point I tried to raise is that it’s not actually the CFII that would be missing it would be the CFI. He’s changing the name of CFII to CFI but there would be nobody without the second I so no CFI as it exists today (today CFI does not have instrument)
 
Salty said:
The point I tried to raise is that it’s not actually the CFII that would be missing it would be the CFI. He’s changing the name of CFII to CFI but there would be nobody without the second I so no CFI as it exists today (today CFI does not have instrument)
Click to expand...
:dunno: I must be dull, but the dots still aren’t connecting with me as to what you’re trying to prove.
 
Ryanb said:
:dunno: I must be dull, but the dots still aren’t connecting with me as to what you’re trying to prove.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Correct.

There is currently a thing we call CFI which cannot train people for IR. That thing (CFI) would no longer exist with the OPs proposal.
 
Salty said:
Correct.

There is currently a thing we call CFI which cannot train people for IR. That thing (CFI) would no longer exist with the OPs proposal.
Click to expand...

: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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top