wingnutC-17

I'm going to go against the crowd on this one. Prior to the USAF I flew commercially, earned my CFI, CFII & MEI. I worked as a flight instructor and Part 135 Pilot. In the USAF I was an instructor on two airframes. From my experience, the USAF would not prepare someone to take on the roles/responsibilities of a civil CFI. While my knowledge of the type/quality of training is limited to the USAF I suspect all the branches are the same.

How many USAF pilots know what FAR Part 61 or 91 is? From my 10+ years in, I can attest to the fact that not many do. Unless they have prior civil time, I would venture to say that almost none could tell you what they were. Heck, most have not even read the AIM.

Do you really think the average USAF instructor knows what a student pilot must accomplish prior to solo? What the limitations on that student pilot are? As a CFI, how do you sign off a person to solo anyway? How do you endorse a logbook for repeated solo X-C flight? What does a person that has never flown a prop airplane know about the finer points of the aerodynamics behind a lazy-8 or chandelle in a piston airplane. How many USAF pilots have been into a good old fashion uncontrolled airport. 99% of the guys I flew with didn't even know the difference between CTAF and UNICOM. For the multi-engine guys out there, how many USAF pilots know what the blue line on the airspeed indicator is for? When was the last time the average USAF pilot gave a Vmca demo in a piston twin? How many guys know what the PTS is? How many people that have only flown turbine planes, know what color 100LL is? or what water looks like in it? What are the civil istrument currency requirments? How long is a CFi ticket good for? How do you keep it current? What is an 8710? How do you fill one out properly? How much PIC time do you need in a specific model of twin before you can instruct in it?

Don't even get me started on the "Fundementals Of Instruction". My first airframe taught nothing about HOW TO TEACH, and in C-17 IP school, you get a 30 min CBT lesson on something similar to FOI, but nobody takes it seriously and most fast forward through it. I suspect other airframes are similar.


There are so many problems and questions would come up. Would the military guy get a CFI, CFII, or MEI? All of them?

Now, I know a lot of you have a Private license since the USAF went to the program of paying guys to get that ticket, but there are loads of guys that joined prior to that that. I had a bunch of guys in my pilot training class that had zero flight time, and went to fly fighters. What do you think they know about carb ice?

This has nothing to do with who is a better pilot or what type of training is best. It has everything to do with the fact that there is so much more that a person that has been through a civil CFI course knows about CIVIL flying. To give every military IP a civil CFI ticket is asking for trouble, both for the IP and the student.

A lot of people will say that they never intend to use the ticket to teach private pilots, or people other than their friends...that's great, but the fact is, if you are going to get issued a ticket you need to have all the skills/knowledge associated with that ticket. Your ticket does not come with a limitation on it that says "Holder of certificate can only give Biennial Flight Reviews to his best friend". Oh, by the way, how many USAF guys know what the requirments of a BFR are?...next to none, I would say.

Those of you that think you are deserve a CFI ticket because you were a military IP are blindly arrogant as to your skills and knowledge. The phrase, you don't know what you don't know, sums it up perfectly. There is so much more to being a civil CFI than just teaching someone how to take off and land, or fly a engine out ILS. heck, that's the easy part. The devil is in the details, the paperwork, the regulations, of which, the average USAF IP has never been trained in.

SaltyDog

Wingnut C-17,
Don't really disagree with you, but, there is precedence for military IP leading to a civil instructor certificate. The old Letter of Operational Authority (LOOA, old FAA "CFI/designee" for military warbirds, like a type rating+) was a two year letter that was issued based on your experience, in most cases, military IP time like my case. I believe that most anyone who really wants to go out and use the CFI will take it seriously and do more study. If not, they will not likely renew in 24 months anyway. If they do, an opportunity to go to a real course (even online ones give them exposure) I presently have no CFI, but am a 121 type rated instructor on the DC-8, had the LOOA civil conversion to Authorized Instructor that expires just like a CFI, and maintained in the same fashion. It forced me to get into the regs and paperwork. I would like the "full" CFI from my military IP experience and the fact that my AI is a seperate certificate and maintained just like the CFI certificate.

wingnutC-17

SaltyDog,

That's interesting. I've never heard of the LOOA before.

In the past, I had tried to get the FAA to not issue but, RENEW my CFI based on that fact that I had graduated from military IP school and was an active IP. One would think that would be good enough to keep the ticket alive, but they refused citing the regulations that lists very specific items one must do to renew the CFI. Graduating from a military school was not one of them. However, this past year, I was able to renew my CFI based on being an Evaluator. That fell under the rule of "Being in a position to regularly evaluate pilots". That the FARs state is one one of the options to renew the CFI. I'm not really sure why they would not renew it based on being an mil IP, but they would based on being an mil EP. As I'm sure you know, the interpretation of the regs can vary greatly based on the FSDO that is making the ruling.

I would like to see the regs modified to allow someone that has a civil CFI to keep it current based on mil IP activity.

I too, would hope that if the FAA did approve the mil IP conversion thing, that if someone did want to "use" it for some type of instruction they would go do more research/study before they gave the instruction, but I hate to think that they FAA would give someone a ticket with the HOPES that they would "take it seriously and do more study" before they exercised the privilages of that certificate.

Wingnut

Hacker15e

Remember one of the happenings that started the ball rolling on this issue -- there is a group that is starting up a contract schoolhouse to teach fighter lead-in training to foreign air forces in F-5s.

As part of the deal, the IPs were going to have to go get CFIs so they could legally teach in civilian aircraft (the privately owned F-5s).

Nobody understood the opposite part of what you mention above -- why would someone teaching dogfighting in a jet need to know how to teach about carb ice?? They wanted to have their current military IP qual be good enough to teach at the F-5 school without the requirement to go learn to teach someone to putt around the pattern in a piston GA aircraft.

So, with some important connections with people at the FAA, the proprietor of this outfit lobbied to get CFI equivelency for current military instructors.

There is obviously a lot more that has gone into this argument, but that is what started the ball rolling.

MoosePileit

Avoiding thread creep from both a mil and civ IP/CFI that could prove either side of the arguement....


In the NPRM and other reviews I saw no negative replies to the idea. EAA/NAFI says it's not yet up for release, to answer the question. I had happened to ask them about it a few weeks back as the rule should have been able to release if anyone had pushed or pulled it.

hjs1971

The latest from AFFSA is that the FAA is reviewing it in accordance with the NPRM standards and is leaning towards having you take the writtens but then giving you credit for the checkrides by virtue of your mil. comp. but nothing is set in stone. I agree with wingnut, having done the CFII/MEI before joining the mil and becoming a mil. IP, it is much different teaching someone with 0 hours how to fly a C-152 than teaching a UPT grad with 200+ hours the intricacies of the mighty KC-135 after they've gone through the school house...now people that have done a tour in T-37, T-34, T-6 types at initial UPT, that's a different story...

ficone

The CFI thing would be well and good - but I'd much rather see a conversion for the ATP. Any reason why the following couldn't happen?

ATPw + Instrument Check that includes OEI procedures = ATP

41DS

Having started out flying civilian and now a Hornet instructor, I think we should be able to get the CFI rating but our knowledge needs to be tested. They need to test FAR's and some basics in civilian flying. Perhaps another comp test specifically for the CFI. As for the MEI, I don't think multiengine centerline thrust pilots should get that one unless we demonstrate proficiency in a non centerline twin. Just my 2 cents.

reCALcitrant

I agree with most of the posts about the practical knowledge part of the CFI needing to be tested. I have been a CFI,II, MEI. I am an instructor in the B-52. I don't find that much difference in teaching either skill. If I can teach a guy to air refuel, land, takeoff, low-level, and bomb, what makes anybody think I am lacking the skills to teach and engine out landing in a 152? A similar argument, though false, could be said for a guy with an MEI who learned in a Seminole. Well he would have no time in a twin otter but would be perfectly legal to teach in it. You have to draw the line on thinking somewhere. Hopefully, most of us have enough brains not to teach in something we are not experts in ourselves.

41DS

Ok, I called the FAA number on that link and the guy said as of right now it looks like it will be approved. The wording should say that if you are or ever were a military instructor then you are qualified to take a knowledge test and then be designated a CFI. I didn't ask him if you would be a CFI, CFII or MEI. He said right now the rule is scheduled to come out in Sept 08.