usmc-sgt

I am doing my MEI initial ride with the San Diego FSDO (oral the 19th, flight the 21st) and I was curious if anyone here has had any experience with the examiners that work there.

My examiners name is Art and I have asked all three of the flight schools at my home airport if anyone has used him and I have gotten nothing. Most have heard of him but none have actual useful factual information.

All I know is he is a former army helo pilot and he is very thorough on the rides. None of that really helps me with gouge though since every FSDO I have heard of is thorough.

I plan on studying everything regardless to be prepared whether my flight is with my CFI or Chuck Yeager but it is nice to know the special emphasis areas that your particular examiner likes to see.

Laxrox43

Dang USMC...you are really pluggin' along! I'm sorry I don't have any info for you. All I wanted to say is KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! --- Let us know if you need any help.

Lax

usmc-sgt

thanks Lax...it is really kicking my butt especially working full time. But you know what they say about if its worth having it shouldnt come easy. After my MEI I am doing my CFI, and CFII on the 28th to make it 5 checkrides and two writtens in one month...i cant WAIT to take a slight break.....

but...I start working as a CFI back in Mass. on the 4th of April after I get out of the Marines on the 2nd. I love it!


what kind of questions have you all been asked on the FOI? I am not nervous about the other questions so much, just the FOI.

I can relate it to practical real life scenarios, however, should I memorize it verbatim? Will I just be asked "state the characteristics of learning" or will it be slipped into a real life scenario?

I just plan on learning it all verbatim but any input you all have would be helpful.

Thanks!

desertdog71

Just know everything cold and then it won't matter.

usmc-sgt

actually great advice...I have found it has worked for the other 5 checkrides

172capt

On my Initial withe the FAA, the guy I had hated the FOI called it a bunch of junk and only asked me one question from it because he said he had to. From the impression I got the FOI came from the higher ups and most of the examiners dont like it. Not saying you shouldn't know it because you should just don't take time away from something else to study the FOI. The thing I got most from the checkride is don't try to bull******* any answers, if you dont know admit it, but tell them you know where to find it. I think alot of what they are looking for is that if a student asks you a question and you don't know, you will look it up and make sure rather then telling your student something wrong.

Pilotpip

The FOI is written based on beliefs and rules that the educational community threw out 30 year ago.

USMC, With my initial I found that I couldn't possibly know everything like I could for past ratings. Rather than spending time learning everything, learn where to find it. Become intimate with the FARs, your aircraft, and don't stop talking about things (using proper phraseology of course) and you'll do fine.

FDXLAG

You mean like 3 + 3 = 6, spelling counts, and it doesn't blame white males for everything. No offense but anything the educational establishment has come up with in the last 30 years isn't an improvement.

usmc-sgt

Thanks everyone...
what I am doing now is pilotpip said, I am just studying a little of everything and putting special emphasis on the required tasks in the PTS that I know HAVE to be asked. I am sure it will be fine and it is kind of nice that the oral is seperate from the flight so I can concentrate on one a day and have a day in between.

I am just trying to learn the obscure stuff now for ex: if a pilot is CSEL helo and he wants to do his CMEL fixed wing, what endorsements does he need? I believe there is still a written for fixed wing since it is diff. from the helo and I know he would need flight profficiency and prereq 61.39(a)(6) but I need to know where to find it.....as they say...its one thing to know it but a complete other to show it.

Cubdriver

I am on the fence as far as the real value of FOI. My father was an experimental learning psychologist by profession, and I recogize the things in FOI that stem from his group (people like Abraham Maslow, B.F. Skinner, more recently Daryl Bem). A major portion of FOI comes directly from experimental psychology, a pure science that adheres rigidly to scientific method. Experimental psychologists pride themselves on this and do not make claims unsupported by experimentation lest they be shunned by their peers.

Educational academics on the other hand adheres to less rigid standards and is not as scientific. Things stemming from educational academics are often open to dispute in my view. It's not that I see rules or advice in the FOI without any merit, it's that I see a considerable amount of dogma being proposed as fact. Much of it does not seem supported by methodical research and shows up as the elevation of one ideal over another.

An example:
6025. Which is generally the more effective way for an instructor to properly motivate students?
A-Maintain pleasant personal relationships with students.
B-Provide positive motivations by the promise or achievement of rewards.
C-Reinforce their self-confidence by requiring no tasks beyond their ability to perform.

The right answer is supposedly the second, but I would never answer that over the first. It's a matter of values. I would find enticement by specific rewards patronizing. On the other hand, if I felt I had a nice instructor then I would look forward to working with and for their satisfaction. I would want their affection and approval, which is far more satisfying than a specific reward. Examples like this make me think experimental psychology was not used to generate it, rather some dogmatic motive is in play.

On the other hand, whether it is dogma or fact the contents FOI is fairly easy to memorize to pass the test, and I doubt any of it is actually harmful. I asked my father to look through it, let's see what he says; I anticipate he will think it's mostly silly.