Looking for a CFIG

[Roger Kelly]

Our CFIG has become unavailable and our (small) club near Kansas City is
looking for a CFIG. If anyone knows of one that lives close please send me
an email or post to this group.
Thanks

--
Roger Kelly
to reply replace the IP address above with ceressenior.com

[BTIZ]

Do you have a Commercial Glider pilot in the club that wants to get his
CFIG?
Perhaps your club could sponsor a week somewhere like Minden, Cal City or
Tehachapi for him to complete the rating. Sort of an indentured servant
thing to the club. Have the writtens complete before he goes.

Just an idea.

BT

"Roger Kelly" ]> wrote in message
9.51...
> Our CFIG has become unavailable and our (small) club near Kansas City is
> looking for a CFIG. If anyone knows of one that lives close please send
> me
> an email or post to this group.
> Thanks
>
> --
> Roger Kelly
> to reply replace the IP address above with ceressenior.com
>

[[email protected]]

Roger Kelly wrote:
> Our CFIG has become unavailable and our (small) club near Kansas City is
> looking for a CFIG.

Some USA clubs have sponsored potential instructors by paying $500.
towards their Commercial rating, then contributing another $500.
towards the cost of earning their CFI Certificate. Sending them to a
commercial soaring operation for this training may be a very good
investment when considering the future of a soaring club.

But training expense is not always the problem. The instructor
candidate must commit time and effort to earn the CFI Certificate.

Most SSA Commercial soaring operations and some clubs with active
training programs can help pilots reach the COM-Glider / CFIG level,
usually on a one-on-one basis. Your instructor cannot spoon-feed all
the knowledge, but if the applicant arrives having read the recommended
texts, done their homework, passed the "written" tests, they can meet
the challenge and accomplish their goals.

Look for a US soaring site that offers training and practical tests at
www.ssa.org Click on the new interactive map to learn about the
services offered by dozens of capable flight instructors and examiners
across the USA.

Cultivate new instructors. Mentor them. Sponsor them if necessary,
for the future of soaring.

Burt Compton
Master CFI, FAA Designated Examiner
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

[Roger Kelly]

wrote in
oups.com:

>
>
> Roger Kelly wrote:
>> Our CFIG has become unavailable and our (small) club near Kansas City is
>> looking for a CFIG.
>
> Some USA clubs have sponsored potential instructors by paying $500.
> towards their Commercial rating, then contributing another $500.
> towards the cost of earning their CFI Certificate. Sending them to a
> commercial soaring operation for this training may be a very good
> investment when considering the future of a soaring club.
>
> But training expense is not always the problem. The instructor
> candidate must commit time and effort to earn the CFI Certificate.
>
> Most SSA Commercial soaring operations and some clubs with active
> training programs can help pilots reach the COM-Glider / CFIG level,
> usually on a one-on-one basis. Your instructor cannot spoon-feed all
> the knowledge, but if the applicant arrives having read the recommended
> texts, done their homework, passed the "written" tests, they can meet
> the challenge and accomplish their goals.
>
> Look for a US soaring site that offers training and practical tests at
> www.ssa.org Click on the new interactive map to learn about the
> services offered by dozens of capable flight instructors and examiners
> across the USA.
>
> Cultivate new instructors. Mentor them. Sponsor them if necessary,
> for the future of soaring.
>
> Burt Compton
> Master CFI, FAA Designated Examiner
> Marfa Gliders, west Texas
> www.flygliders.com
>



Thanks for your input. We only have about 10 members - not all active.
Can't afford to sponsor someone. No commercial pilots in the club at this
time, but we're working on that. What we need is a short-term solution.
In the long term you are right that we need to get one or more of our
present members up to CFIG level.

--
Roger Kelly
to reply replace the IP address above with ceressenior.com

[M B]

My way of doing this has been to teach the FOI and
get potential CFIs to take the Advanced Ground Instructor
license before continuing on to be a CFI.

So far, all of those who have shown the energy and
desire to finish the AGI have all gone on to become
CFIs, and benefitted from giving ground school
in the meantime. All of those who have balked at the

AGI have also not continued with CFI (generally not
because of money or lack of skill, but time constraints).

At least where I live, personal/family time constraints
are more of an issue than lack of money or skill...

Beyond that, some people like to teach, and judge their
success on the progress of their students. If you
find
someone with this attitude, that is a biggie also.

It may be worthwhile to find someone who is already
a
teacher in another field...but good teachers are harder
to find
at the gliderport than good pilots.

Good luck!

At 02:00 03 June 2005, wrote:
>
>
>Roger Kelly wrote:
>> Our CFIG has become unavailable and our (small) club
>>near Kansas City is
>> looking for a CFIG.
>
>Some USA clubs have sponsored potential instructors
>by paying $500.
>towards their Commercial rating, then contributing
>another $500.
>towards the cost of earning their CFI Certificate.
> Sending them to a
>commercial soaring operation for this training may
>be a very good
>investment when considering the future of a soaring
>club.
>
>But training expense is not always the problem. The
>instructor
>candidate must commit time and effort to earn the CFI
>Certificate.
>
>Most SSA Commercial soaring operations and some clubs
>with active
>training programs can help pilots reach the COM-Glider
>/ CFIG level,
>usually on a one-on-one basis. Your instructor cannot
>spoon-feed all
>the knowledge, but if the applicant arrives having
>read the recommended
>texts, done their homework, passed the 'written' tests,
>they can meet
>the challenge and accomplish their goals.
>
>Look for a US soaring site that offers training and
>practical tests at
>www.ssa.org Click on the new interactive map to
>learn about the
>services offered by dozens of capable flight instructors
>and examiners
>across the USA.
>
>Cultivate new instructors. Mentor them. Sponsor them
>if necessary,
>for the future of soaring.
>
>Burt Compton
>Master CFI, FAA Designated Examiner
>Marfa Gliders, west Texas
>www.flygliders.com
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark Lenox]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Some USA clubs have sponsored potential instructors


Sponsorship is a nice concept, but I doubt that it can significantly help
the underlying issues about the club's needs versus what it is getting in
terms of instructor time. This is not really specific to Kansas City, but
really inherent throughout the soaring community. I don't mean to pick on
them in particular, as I believe this is a much broader issues than that.
Instructors form the backbone of most clubs. As the KC folks are seeing,
it is a bit more difficult to operate a soaring club without an active
instructor. Here in Knoxville, we once had an active club. We even
sponsored the national soaring convention one year. Four ships, and about
30 members. On most any given weekend it was not unusual to see all four
in the air over the city. What we really had was one very active
instructor. Through the usual issues, politics, overwork, and personal
conflict, he eventually left. Now, just very few years later, the club is
gone. Nobody stood up to take his place and voluntarily throw away most of
their free time to be at somebody elses beck and call. Fancy that.

At Chilhowee, about an hour drive south of Knoxville, we have a significant
number of instructors, and commercial pilots studying to be instructors.
It is, in fact, quite pleasant to teach there. The owner/operator, Sarah
Kelly, does a very nice job of making it so.

I think if there is a shortage of CFIG's, there is a reason. I offer the
following:

1) Your instructors should not be the one getting the ships out in the
morning, or putting them away at night.
2) Your instructors should not be continuously running the launch line all
day.
3) Your instructors should not be the ones operating the club, acting as
officers, and otherwise administering mundane duties.
4) Your instructors should not be the ones running down the maintenance on
your aircraft, or even worse, mowing the grass, and painting the hangar.
5) Your instructors should have only one duty, teaching. That's what
they love to do, so let them do it and help to get everything else out of
the way so they can concentrate on that.

It takes far more than money to become an instructor. This is why I feel
that although sponsorship like Burt Compton has identified will probably
create more CFIG's, I don't think it will create more active CFIG's. Too
many sites put demands on their instructors that are beyond what they really
should be asking, and it is no wonder that people get burned out and/or find
something else to do with their time. That is what happened in Knoxville,
and I suspect it isn't the only place.

Regards,



Mark Lenox, CFIG
Chilhowee Gliderport
Benton, TN
www.chilhowee.com

[[email protected]]

Also consider looking to the airplane instructors in your area. They
would need to add the Commercial - Glider and then after 15 hours PIC
in gliders, add Glider to their CFI Certificate.

The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) publishes a list
of active CFI's at www.nafinet.org
Click on "Find An Instructor" then the state.

The listings include their CFI ratings such as Glider and their
telephone numbers. I looked and found a few glider CFI's in your
state.

Burt Compton, Master NAFI CFI, FAA DPE
Marfa, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

[Bill Daniels]

"Mark Lenox" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Some USA clubs have sponsored potential instructors
>
>
> Sponsorship is a nice concept, but I doubt that it can significantly help
> the underlying issues about the club's needs versus what it is getting in
> terms of instructor time. This is not really specific to Kansas City,
but
> really inherent throughout the soaring community. I don't mean to pick
on
> them in particular, as I believe this is a much broader issues than that.
> Instructors form the backbone of most clubs. As the KC folks are
seeing,
> it is a bit more difficult to operate a soaring club without an active
> instructor. Here in Knoxville, we once had an active club. We even
> sponsored the national soaring convention one year. Four ships, and
about
> 30 members. On most any given weekend it was not unusual to see all
four
> in the air over the city. What we really had was one very active
> instructor. Through the usual issues, politics, overwork, and personal
> conflict, he eventually left. Now, just very few years later, the club
is
> gone. Nobody stood up to take his place and voluntarily throw away most
of
> their free time to be at somebody elses beck and call. Fancy that.
>
> At Chilhowee, about an hour drive south of Knoxville, we have a
significant
> number of instructors, and commercial pilots studying to be instructors.
> It is, in fact, quite pleasant to teach there. The owner/operator,
Sarah
> Kelly, does a very nice job of making it so.
>
> I think if there is a shortage of CFIG's, there is a reason. I offer
the
> following:
>
> 1) Your instructors should not be the one getting the ships out in the
> morning, or putting them away at night.
> 2) Your instructors should not be continuously running the launch line
all
> day.
> 3) Your instructors should not be the ones operating the club, acting as
> officers, and otherwise administering mundane duties.
> 4) Your instructors should not be the ones running down the maintenance
on
> your aircraft, or even worse, mowing the grass, and painting the hangar.
> 5) Your instructors should have only one duty, teaching. That's what
> they love to do, so let them do it and help to get everything else out of
> the way so they can concentrate on that.
>
> It takes far more than money to become an instructor. This is why I
feel
> that although sponsorship like Burt Compton has identified will probably
> create more CFIG's, I don't think it will create more active CFIG's. Too
> many sites put demands on their instructors that are beyond what they
really
> should be asking, and it is no wonder that people get burned out and/or
find
> something else to do with their time. That is what happened in
Knoxville,
> and I suspect it isn't the only place.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Mark Lenox, CFIG
> Chilhowee Gliderport
> Benton, TN
> www.chilhowee.com
>
>

Perfect! Mark, you hit the nail right on the head.

Bill Daniels

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Also consider looking to the airplane instructors in your area. They
> would need to add the Commercial - Glider and then after 15 hours PIC
> in gliders, add Glider to their CFI Certificate.
>
> The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) publishes a list
> of active CFI's at www.nafinet.org
> Click on "Find An Instructor" then the state.
>
> The listings include their CFI ratings such as Glider and their
> telephone numbers. I looked and found a few glider CFI's in your
> state.
>
> Burt Compton, Master NAFI CFI, FAA DPE
> Marfa, west Texas
> www.flygliders.com
>

Burt, I understand the sentiment, but what we need is more Diamond Badge
pilots as instructors. Many, if not most, power instructors are so steeped
in power flying attitudes that it is hard for them to teach anything beyond
the basics in gliders. We need glider pilots as instructors who may also be
power pilots, not the other way around.

I think there are plenty of good glider instructors and glider pilots who
could easily become instructors if they wished. The problem is what Mark
Lennox stated in his post. Club managements need to stop treating
instructors as hired help or worse, political rivals.

This is the reason that I suggested on this forum last year that club
by-laws be changed to require that all officers and board members be current
glider pilots who would be less likely to feel politically threatened by a
knowledgeable flight instructor.

Bill Daniels

[Bill Hoadley]

Speaking of Diamond badges, congrats on getting yours, Bill.
Bill H.

[[email protected]]

What the heck. I was simply offering two solutions to the original
poster in Kansas City: 1.) Sponsor the CFI training of a motivated
club member or 2.) seek out an Airplane CFI willing to add-on the
glider category.

Whether Diamond Badge pilots make better pre-solo instructors than
Airplane CFI's adding the glider rating would be a long and interesting
debate. I won't join that debate, because I am willing to help anyone
become a glider pilot / instructor.

What I find very interesting is that most of our top racing / record
pilots in the USA are not active instructors. Overseas, most racing
pilots are instructors, possibly because of their strong club systems.

Anyone who desires to become a glider instructor should be encouraged
and mentored. It is challenging and rewarding, perhaps more than
earning a badge.

Let's elevate the CFI to a level as high as "Diamond Pilot". Our CFI's
deserve to be acknowledged and admired for their ability to share
knowledge.

Burt Compton
Master CFI / FAA DPE
Marfa, west Texas

[Terry]

wrote:>
> Let's elevate the CFI to a level as high as "Diamond Pilot". Our CFI's
> deserve to be acknowledged and admired for their ability to share
> knowledge.
>
> Burt Compton
> Master CFI / FAA DPE
> Marfa, west Texas
================================================== ========================
BRAVO BURT!! and dead on along with Mark Lennox's remarks.

A few years back, I joined a club as that was the only option in the
new area after having only commercial operation experiences. The club
routinely protested about not having enough instructors. I lost
interest (and later moved away) after months of delay in completing my
club instructor qualification. No one could ever produce what the
syllabus or standards for that check was though.

At that time, I had been selected to become a DPE prior to my move to
the new location, and had years of experience in gliders and airplanes.
I can only guess it was not enough. They probably still have trouble
keeping CFI's.

Terry Claussen
Same stuff as Burt
Estrella, AZ

[None]

Terry wrote:
> wrote:>
> > Let's elevate the CFI to a level as high as "Diamond Pilot". Our CFI's
> > deserve to be acknowledged and admired for their ability to share
> > knowledge.
> >
> > Burt Compton
> > Master CFI / FAA DPE
> > Marfa, west Texas
> ================================================== ========================
> BRAVO BURT!! and dead on along with Mark Lennox's remarks.
>
> A few years back, I joined a club as that was the only option in the
> new area after having only commercial operation experiences. The club
> routinely protested about not having enough instructors. I lost
> interest (and later moved away) after months of delay in completing my
> club instructor qualification. No one could ever produce what the
> syllabus or standards for that check was though.
>
> At that time, I had been selected to become a DPE prior to my move to
> the new location, and had years of experience in gliders and airplanes.
> I can only guess it was not enough. They probably still have trouble
> keeping CFI's.
>
> Terry Claussen
> Same stuff as Burt
> Estrella, AZ

Roger Kelly,

I am a CFI-G visiting in town for a couple of days. I have tried to
find you in the phone book and in the SSA membership file. No luck.
Send me a private email.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> What the heck. I was simply offering two solutions to the original
> poster in Kansas City: 1.) Sponsor the CFI training of a motivated
> club member or 2.) seek out an Airplane CFI willing to add-on the
> glider category.
>
> Whether Diamond Badge pilots make better pre-solo instructors than
> Airplane CFI's adding the glider rating would be a long and interesting
> debate. I won't join that debate, because I am willing to help anyone
> become a glider pilot / instructor.
>
> What I find very interesting is that most of our top racing / record
> pilots in the USA are not active instructors. Overseas, most racing
> pilots are instructors, possibly because of their strong club systems.
>
> Anyone who desires to become a glider instructor should be encouraged
> and mentored. It is challenging and rewarding, perhaps more than
> earning a badge.
>
> Let's elevate the CFI to a level as high as "Diamond Pilot". Our CFI's
> deserve to be acknowledged and admired for their ability to share
> knowledge.
>
> Burt Compton
> Master CFI / FAA DPE
> Marfa, west Texas



Burt is very much on point.
Original poster points out a real problem. In their situation, if the
did have an egg(potential instructor candidate), they have no one to
hatch it(experienced CFI/mentor/etc). There is a world of difference
between the normal primary/advanced instuction most CFIG's do and
preparing a candidate for CFIG.
I agree it is much easier to teach a good instructor soaring than it is
to teach a good soaring pilot instructing.
It is true that the best glider instructors have a great depth in
soaring.
All this said, In my experience, the very best way is to have the CFIG
candidate spend the required time with a person like Burt, or Terry, or
other who does many CFIG ratings and has a good syllabus for this
program. It will be accomplished in a fraction of the time, to a high
standard, with no unneeded aggravation.
Sadly, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of places
where this can be done here in the US.

Hank Nixon UH
32 year CFIG
100% candidate pass rate
US national champion
World team member

[Michael]

> There is a world of difference
> between the normal primary/advanced instuction most CFIG's do and
> preparing a candidate for CFIG.

That's awfully self-congratulatory. Also not true.

Preparing a candidate for the CFIG is really quite easy. I know at
least a couple of CFIG's who prepared students for the CFIG in just a
few flights and had the students breeze right through the checkride -
when in every case both student and instructor had less than 100 hours
in gliders and minimal (in one case NO) XC experience. And in one case
I was the student, and in another the instructor. The CFIG is a very
easy ticket to get. Don't pretend it's some major achievement - it's
not. It's significantly less of an achievement (in terms of required
effort, preparation, and skill) than the silver distance.

Of course there is a big difference between simply being a CFIG and
being a good teacher of soaring. The latter requires you to be both a
good soaring pilot and a good teacher. Such individuals are very rare.
I have no idea how you would go about creating one intentionally. I
am quite certain you're not going to do it quickly. It takes years to
become a good teacher. It also takes years to become a good soaring
pilot. Neither process can be effectively rushed.

But if you just need a CFIG, all you need is another CFIG, a tow plane
and tow pilot, a two seat glider, and a pilot with a couple hundred
hours (of which only a couple dozen need be in gliders). It will take
a couple of weekends at most, and that's if your glider pilot lacks a
commercial glider ticket. The most difficult and time-consuming part
will be getting a glider-qualified FAA inspector to fly with the guy if
he isn't already a power CFI.

> I agree it is much easier to teach a good instructor soaring than it is
> to teach a good soaring pilot instructing.

I think that's a fairly meaningless statement. The skill sets required
of a good instructor are very different from those required of a good
soaring pilot, and different people learn different things at different
rates. Everything depends on what you consider an adequate minimum
standard. If you decide that a glider instructor needs to be a
spectacular teacher but can be an indifferent soaring pilot, then of
course you are right. On the other hand, if you consider the FAA
standard (passing the required tests) an adequate test of teaching
ability, but would expect the instructor to have demonstrated at least
the minimum competence in soaring that the silver distance represents,
you are certainly wrong. It would take a lot less time and effort to
teach an experienced glider pilot to effortlessly pass a CFIG ride than
it would take to teach an experienced power CFI to safely fly his
silver distance.

> All this said, In my experience, the very best way is to have the CFIG
> candidate spend the required time with a person like Burt, or Terry, or
> other who does many CFIG ratings and has a good syllabus for this
> program. It will be accomplished in a fraction of the time

Compared to what? If you're comparing to what typically happens at a
club, I agree with you. I worked on my commercial (never mind CFIG)
for months at my club. Never really made any progress. Some of the
instructors were excellent, some were marginal, but the worst part was
no two were in agreement on what I needed to do and there was no
continuity to my training. Eventually I gave up, went to a commercial
operation - and in one day I was ready. After I took my commercial, I
went straight to my CFIG - and that was also done in one day. This was
at a local commercial operation, with an instructor who had less than
50 hours in gliders and had never flown XC.

> to a high standard

A high standard of what? Instructional ability? You're not going to
develop that in days or even weeks.
Soaring ability? Same problem. The truth is, any sort of offsite,
intensive course can only be effective at teaching maneuvers - not the
'soft' skills that separate a good teacher from someone going through
the motions or the air awareness that allows a seasoned XC pilot to do
200km while the novice counts himself lucky to have done 50.

> Sadly, you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of places
> where this can be done here in the US.

I don't see why it's sad. I don't really see the demand either. Most
people have very limited vacation time in the US - such a course would
need to be fairly short (no more than two weeks at the very, very most
- and really it needs to be one week for broad appeal) and with that
limitation, it's not really possible to do anything more than
preparation for the test. Since the test is very easy, there's no
great reason to prepare with a specialist.

The shortage of CFIG's that all clubs seem to experience has nothing to
do with the difficulty of becoming one, and everything to do with the
fact that it's just not an attractive proposition. Everyone always
points to the huge numbers of CFI's in power, but that's not at all the
same thing. If it were not for the kids who need to build time to go
to the airlines, there would be a shortage of power CFI's as well.
It's hard work, takes a lot of time, pays little, and is a liability
headache. Only those of us who truly love to teach will do it all.
There's precious little a club can offer as incentive, and thus it
never ceases to amaze me how many clubs actually offer huge
disincentives (more duty days than others, requirement to fly with
anyone who asks, etc.).

Michael

[[email protected]]

I'd be interested to have Terry or Burt, or other long time instructors
weigh in on your opinions.
Having done this many times, I can not imagine how you can properly
prepare a candidate for instructing( notice I did not say passing the
practical test) in the time you describe.
The difference, in my view, is the experience needed to evaluate the
candidate and tailor the training program to the candidate's situation.

As to the attractivness of the instructing situation, those that do it
get rewards that might mean little to some folks but are big to some of
us.
Examples- the look on a 14 year olds face after first solo, the call
that your student just won his or her first race, the call that "I just
made captain at my airline, I just got my CFIG, I just got into the Air
Force, I just did my Silver, Gold, Diamond.
I thought it was abig deal 32 years ago and still think it is today.
Sorry to be excessively self congratulatory, intent was to provide
background of experience to support my opinions.
UH

[[email protected]]

Jun 10, 8:57 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Jun 2005 05:57:35 -0700
Local: Fri,Jun 10 2005 8:57 am
Subject: Re: Looking for a CFIG
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

I'd be interested to have Terry or Burt, or other long time instructors
weigh in on your opinions.
Having done this many times, I can not imagine how you can properly
prepare a candidate for instructing( notice I did not say passing the
practical test) in the time you describe.

Hank, I'd weigh in once here, except I'm not sure what point Michael is
trying to make - or if just wants to start a lengthy debate how long it
takes to help a CFIG candidate meet the challenge. I'm just too busy
at Marfa, training CFIG's, to write many long replies. Takes time to
mentor a CFIG, but I can help most candidates reach their goal, if they
are willing to make the commitment. And then there is the CFI renewal
evey 24 months. If they attend a glider-specific course such as the
Soaring Safety Foundation Flight Instructor Renewal Clinics (FIRC) or
actually fly with a glider examiner, then they are way ahead.
Renewing with the FSDO based on familiarity is less than ideal.

You can check the schedule of SSF glider-specific FIRC's at
www.soaringsafety.org

A kid I soloed at age 14 will report to the USAF Academy this month.
Yep, I'm proud.

As far as asking CFI's to do some extra work around the hangar, I've
noticed that those CFI's that who have been owners of other businesses
don't have a problem with helping out with the meet & greet, cleaning a
canopy, wiping the bugs off the leading edge of the glider wings, etc.
It's the self-employed attitude. If it needs to be done, then the
self-employed folks get to it. They see the big picture.

I also pay my CFI's $30./hour (ground & flight instruction) to prepare
a candidate for my checkride. I'll make some money from the tows and
glider rentals. When I put the word out on the internet for "guest
instructors" at Marfa on certain dates, I get a lot of replies.

'Nuff talkin'. Gotta go fly now.

Y'all come visit west Texas to soar, and maybe learn something new.

Burt Compton
Marfa Gliders, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

[Michael]

> Having done this many times, I can not imagine how you can properly
> prepare a candidate for instructing( notice I did not say passing the
> practical test) in the time you describe.

I can't. It can't be done in a weekend. Or a week. Or a month.
Takes much longer - takes consistent development and mentoring over the
course of years. And that's my point - you're either turning out a
credible instructor, or you're just preparing somoene to take the test.
If your involvement is measured in anything less than years, it's the
latter. So why worry about quality? It's either there to begin with
(meaning the candidate is already a credible teacher when you get him)
or it's not. He'll pass the test either way.

> The difference, in my view, is the experience needed to evaluate the
> candidate and tailor the training program to the candidate's situation.

Evaluating a candidate's teaching ability is easy. Primary students
can do that effectively - they just can't evaluate the subject matter
expertise (since they don't know the subject matter). Some people are
good teachers, some are not. You can't take someone who is not and
make him into someone who is in a a few weeks time.

I know people who have gone off to two week CFI schools taught by
people who churn out many CFI's - both glider and power. The result is
always the same. They all come back with a ticket. Those who could
teach before still can, and those who couldn't still can't.

I've also known some people who learned to instruct - but that was
always in the local area, by long term mentoring.

Michael

[Terry]

Michael wrote:
And that's my point - you're either turning out a
> credible instructor, or you're just preparing somoene to take the test.
> If your involvement is measured in anything less than years, it's the
> latter. So why worry about quality? It's either there to begin with
> (meaning the candidate is already a credible teacher when you get him)
> or it's not. He'll pass the test either way.
> UH wrote:
> > The difference, in my view, is the experience needed to evaluate the
> > candidate and tailor the training program to the candidate's situation.
================================================== ==================
Since I am not authorized to administer initial CFI checkrides, I
cannot speak directly to how to conduct that test. I have given a lot
of thought as to the conduct of a CFI who wishes to add the Glider to
his certificate. As always, the answer is in plain sight in the
PTS--the examiner is charged with evaluating whether the applicant can
do all of the selected manuevers and give EFFECTIVE instruction,
otherwise it is a fail.

The syllabus I use in conducting CFI training is individually tailored.
I expect that an additional rating CFI would have a baseline to add to
while an initial instructor would not. In either case I spend much,
much more time on the ground discussing teaching, mentoring, evaluating
and the absolute necessity of being a positive example AT ALL TIMES.
After all, one cannot teach an intricate pre-flight inspection to a
student, then hop into a waiting ship a moment later without causing a
disconnect in the student's mind about the importance of what was just
taught.

The assertion earlier that contest or diamond badge pilots are the best
instructors would not stand the scrutiny of a visit to the local field
on a race day. In many cases the behaviors exhibited in judgement,
knowledge and temperment are polar opposites to the requirements of
good flight instruction.

Terry

[Michael]

> As always, the answer is in plain sight in the
> PTS--the examiner is charged with evaluating whether the applicant can
> do all of the selected manuevers and give EFFECTIVE instruction,
> otherwise it is a fail.

I think the assertion that a CFI checkride (initial or add-on)
effectively evaluates the ability to instruct will not withstand close
scrutiny. Further, anyone who has flown with a variety of instructors
will know this is true - many of them can't really teach. In power,
the overwhelming majority can't teach - their reasons for becoming
CFI's have to do with airline career aspirations, and while most do try
to do a good job, they have neither the background nor the talent for
teaching. In soaring the situation is much better - most CFIG's
actually want to teach, and that's half the battle.

> The syllabus I use in conducting CFI training is individually tailored.
> I expect that an additional rating CFI would have a baseline to add to
> while an initial instructor would not.

In reality, every syllabus in general aviation instruction (outside the
Part 141 environment) is individually tailored. However, it's a
mistake to believe that an additional rating CFI has an instructional
baseline to add to. He may or he may not, just as an initial CFI may
or may not. What the additional rating CFI really has is experience
with taking CFI checkrides. There is certainly a skill involved in
taking and passing a CFI checkride, but that skill is not teaching.

> The assertion earlier that contest or diamond badge pilots are the best
> instructors would not stand the scrutiny of a visit to the local field
> on a race day. In many cases the behaviors exhibited in judgement,
> knowledge and temperment are polar opposites to the requirements of
> good flight instruction.

Of course. Clearly the last thing we want to do is to teach our
students the behaviors that work for the most skilled and capable
soaring pilots out there. In my experience, the most skilled and
capable pilot on the field is never an instructor. I always wondered
why that was, but I'm beginning to understand it now.

Michael

[[email protected]]

Discussion of the attributes of a prototypical CFIG aside, you might
contact the SSA by phone to see if they can search their database. I
tried the member locator on the website, but its search capability is
limited.

Seems like a reasonable request, and much faster than placing a
classified in Soaring.

Roger Kelly wrote:
> Our CFIG has become unavailable and our (small) club near Kansas City is
> looking for a CFIG. If anyone knows of one that lives close please send me
> an email or post to this group.
> Thanks
>
> --
> Roger Kelly
> to reply replace the IP address above with ceressenior.com

[Papa3]

Michael wrote:
>>
> But if you just need a CFIG, all you need is another CFIG, a tow plane
> and tow pilot, a two seat glider, and a pilot with a couple hundred
> hours (of which only a couple dozen need be in gliders). It will take
> a couple of weekends at most, and that's if your glider pilot lacks a
> commercial glider ticket. The most difficult and time-consuming part
> will be getting a glider-qualified FAA inspector to fly with the guy if
> he isn't already a power CFI.

>
> Michael

Been lurking on this one, but I just couldn't resist coming back to
this point. If you REALLY believe this, then please let me know where
you fly, so I can make sure never to let anybody I care about fly
there.

Although all of the points you make in this paragraph may be
technically true, they're hard to reconcile with your later points
about the importance of truly teaching soaring. I'm hoping that I'm
just taking your comments out of context.

In our club's experience over the past 30 years (I've been a member for
20), I would say that the typical CFIG candidate comes to the table
with about 300-400 hours (ie. not a ton of time). But, our CFIGs who
do the training and sign-off for the rating will typically require
dozens of flights and lengthy one-on-one ground school to ensure that
the candidate is able to handle the decision making and emergency
situations that come along with the territory. In my 12 year CFIG
career so far, I've only recommended two candidates for CFIG (both
passed first time), and each one probably consumed about 40-60 hours of
my time when all was said and done. That's not a lot when you consider
how much time we spend in the office or on much less worthy pursuits
:-)) In retrospect, I'm sure we could have shaved off some prep time
here and there and (maybe) still had candidates pass the practical, but
I also have faith in most Examiners to recognize where too many corners
have been cut.

Being a CFIG is not some superhuman power available only to an elite
few, but it's not something to be entered into lightly.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

[Papa3]

Papa3 wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> I'm hoping that I'm
> just taking your comments out of context.
> > Erik Mann
> LS8-18 (P3)

Apologies - looks like after reading the thread in reverse order you
and I are on the same team (at least I think so).

P3

[jonnyboy]

Terry> The assertion earlier that contest or diamond badge pilots are
the best
instructors would not stand the scrutiny of a visit to the local field
on a race day. In many cases the behaviors exhibited in judgement,
knowledge and temperment are polar opposites to the requirements of
good flight instruction.


Yes!

[Michel Talon]

jonnyboy > wrote:
> Terry> The assertion earlier that contest or diamond badge pilots are
> the best
> instructors would not stand the scrutiny of a visit to the local field
> on a race day. In many cases the behaviors exhibited in judgement,
> knowledge and temperment are polar opposites to the requirements of
> good flight instruction.
>
>
> Yes!
>

No!

I have enjoyed a couple of hours flying with contest pilots far more
than my whole instruction with dumb people. Sorry to say that, but
a *lot* of instructors are extremely dull, and do more to deter people
from gliding than anything else. Fortunately there are some good ones
(usually young and diamond badge themselves).


--

Michel TALON

[Michael]

> Apologies - looks like after reading the thread in reverse order you
> and I are on the same team (at least I think so).

Mostly. I don't have your faith in examiners or inspectors to
determine that too many corners have been cut. I've seen too many
substandard instructors breeze right through the checkride. I really
don't think the right things are being tested. That's why I don't
think much of off-site one-week or two-week CFI training programs.
They're quite effective at getting people the certificate, but not so
effective at producing a quality instructor. That requires extensive,
one-on-one training and mentoring (here we're very much on the same
page). It also requires that you start with pretty good material -
meaning someone who is already a competent soaring pilot and has some
aptitude for instructing. I'm not saying every instructor has to have
flown the diamond distance, but surely flying the silver distance ought
to be considered a (very) minimum standard.

300-400 hours is actually quite a bit in gliders, in most cases,
whereas in airplanes it's actually not much experience. That's not
really so much a function of the aircraft as it is a function of how it
is used by most pilots. For a power pilot, 200 hours of XC usually
means 180+ hours of droning along, straight and level, in good weather,
with little effort or thinking required. Maybe there will be 20 hours
in there of flying challenging weather, terrain, etc - and maybe not.
It's not because it has to be that way - even a power VFR XC can be
challenging if you're, say, crossing the Rockies in a low powered
airplane (and it actually requires some soaring skills) - but few power
pilots do that kind of flight. Most power pilots don't even launch on
a XC flight unless they are reasonably assured that they will complete
the flight to the destination effortlessly. Soaring is different -
making destination is never really certain (even if you don't land out,
you often have to scale back the task to fit the conditions - and we
all accept that you may land out anyway) and you're constantly working,
looking for lift, working lift, replanning what you're going to do.
200 hours of that makes a pilot. That has certainly been my experience
when I have taught glider pilots in power.

Can you realistically make a glider instructor out of someone who has
400 hours of nothing but flying circles around the home field (if you
could find such a one)? Of course not, but you could easily get him to
pass a CFIG checkride.

Michael

[Andy]

A competent glider CFI is one who has the ability to instruct to PTS
private and commercial standards. If you want to learn advanced cross
country and racing skill then seek out a qualified mentor. There are
few instructors that have XC and racing skills that would rather spend
the weekend in the back of a trainer than go XC in their own ship.

I had 150 hours in gliders, a gold, and 2 diamonds when I applied for
my instructor certificate. I instructed at 2 US clubs, 1 UK club, and
also at a US commercial operator. I long ago gave it up for the
pleasures of racing my own ship. I satisfy my instructor needs by
giving instrument instruction, wings training, and flight reviews in
airplanes. I give tail wheel instruction if I need some excitement. I
can do all that before or after work on weekdays. That leaves the
weekends free for soaring.

Andy

[Michael]

> A competent glider CFI is one who has the ability to instruct to PTS
> private and commercial standards.

If you believe that, you have some mighty low standards of competence.

If that's all you're looking for from an instructor, I can take any
halfway competent glider pilot (meaning one who can safely fly circles
around the home field - no XC competence necessary) and make him into a
CFIG in a weekend.

Michael

[Terry]

First, I want to apologize for my earlier statement making a sweeping
generalization about contest pilots. This was a stupid attempt to turn
an observation of a small number of local legends in my area and
project that onto the entire class. Dumb on my part. The same problem
exists when a statement such as: "the most skilled and capable pilot
on the field is never an instructor" is made. That statement implies
at least one of the following: the FAA's test for CFIG (or any other
rating, by inference) is not valid, individual CFI's are not properly
exercising their responsibilities after certification, or FAA
Inspectors and/or Designees are not properly administering the
Practical Test. Obviously, I do not agree with that statement.

The FAA actively solicits input from anyone willing to send a letter
about the content and conduct of the practical tests. The address is
listed on the second page of every test booklet. If anyone believes
that something should be included on a flight test, make your case. In
Arizona, the Designated Pilot Examiner Advisory Group did just that
when changes to the CASEL test dropped the power-off accuracy landing
and the steep spiral. The case was made, and these items are again
included on the CASEL test. Certainly the examiners in Arizona were
not solely responsible for the change, but we did act together.

Practical Tests do test an applicant's ability in test taking. For
that matter so does every test any of us has taken from grade school to
the SAT/College Boards. Such is the nature of any test. Pilot
Examiners are initially chosen and re-appointed annually for their
judgement in the evaluation of applicants for pilot certificates. By
nature, this evaluation is a subjective one despite the PTS claim of
objective measures. What I have found is that the measure provided
only serves to quantify my own "gut feeling" that already exists.
After some time in the air, we all become very adept at assessing a
pilot's skill level within several minutes. Ask any examiner-from any
level including airline-and all will answer the same, "I knew this was
a bust before we took off." That old joke has much truth within it.

If a problem does exist we should take it to the individual. Explain
our concerns and hopefully correct any misunderstandings. When a CFI
does not teach we should address it immediately to the instructor,
school/club management, or elevate it to your local FAA Office if
necessary. The same is true for complaints about examiners. Every DPE
has a Principal Operations Inspector, the individual within the FAA
charged with ensuring standards within the examiner group. I guarantee
that a complaint call about an examiner will get a response.

Michael, I am sorry for whatever bad experiences you may have had from
CFI's or examiners. If you want to discuss this further, I will be at
Estrella this Saturday afternoon, unless I am out flying with a
student. Better yet, come out and fly with me. If you need to
renew/reinstate your CFIG, I will gladly conduct the flight test,
without the normal fee.

Terry Claussen
Estrella, AZ

[Michael]

> The same problem
> exists when a statement such as: "the most skilled and capable pilot
> on the field is never an instructor" is made. That statement implies
> at least one of the following: the FAA's test for CFIG (or any other
> rating, by inference) is not valid, individual CFI's are not properly
> exercising their responsibilities after certification, or FAA
> Inspectors and/or Designees are not properly administering the
> Practical Test.

I agree that my statement does indeed imply at least one of these.
Further, I think that while there are elements of truth to the latter
two, the first is overwhelmingly true - the CFIG test is not valid.
While that certainly doesn't mean the other tests are very good, I
would say the CFI tests are the worst of all. From reasing the rest of
your letter, I can only come to the conclusion that you're one of the
people who really believes the FAA is "here to help." I believe the
FAA is the problem, not the solution. You believe in an honest,
responsible, and responsive FAA. I believe in the one the Inspector
General of the DOT saw (in the present rather than the hopeful future -
check it out here at http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf).

We really have no common ground.

Michael

[Terry]

Michael wrote:
I believe the
> FAA is the problem, not the solution. You believe in an honest,
> responsible, and responsive FAA. I believe in the one the Inspector
> General of the DOT saw (in the present rather than the hopeful future -
> check it out here at http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf).
>
> We really have no common ground.
================================================== =====================
There are literally thousands of FAA inspectors in the US. While this
story is sad, to imply that the totality of the FAA is the problem is
as bad a generalization as the one I made earlier. Some of my friends
that read this will not beleive me, as they know I am as harsh a critic
of the FAA as can be. The difference is, I have decided to work to
change it.

Unless we overthrow the government, the FAA is here to stay. If you
want to change it, you must engage it on its terms and push the rock up
the hill, even after it rolls back down. If you don't like the
qualifications of your examiner, take the test and work to get
appointed. If you think the PTS should test something that is not
currently tested, submit a well described change proposal. If you do
not like the current regulations, submit a change as detailed in Part
11. If you do not like the performance of your operations inspector as
detailed in that report, go up the chain--all the way to your
congressman, senator or president.

You are correct, we have no common ground. I try to be a better pilot
each day and use that to improve the instruction or examinations given.
If you really believe as you state, perhaps you should surrender and
turn in your certificates. After all, it is none too safe up there
with those I have trained or evaluated whether in a glider or a Boeing.

Terry

[Michael]

> There are literally thousands of FAA inspectors in the US. While this
> story is sad, to imply that the totality of the FAA is the problem is
> as bad a generalization as the one I made earlier.

I do not concur. This story reflects the cases where the affected
parties had the clout to have the Inspector General investigate. It is
revealing that in EVERY case the allegations against the FAA were fully
substantiated. Each stands proxy for hundreds where the victims had no
such clout. I once knew an honest and responsible FAA inspector. He
believed he could change the FAA as well. He didn't last. He also
didn't change it. It can't be done.

The FAA is indeed here to stay. Its airworthiness branch may yet
manage to wreck all of GA, but that's not part of this discussion. The
ops branch (which covers pilot and instructor testing and
certification) is not a major obstruction to flying. It's simply not
of any benefit. The certificate requirements may not be useful or
effective, but they're not onerous either. As long as we all
understand that just because someone is FAA certified to perform a
certain pilot or instructor operation doesn't mean he has the first
clue about it (something the insurance insdustry figured out a long
time ago), we can all use our best judgment and do whatever we feel is
necessary and proper in addition to the (meaningless but trivial) FAA
requirements. You can't fight city hall, but you can go on with your
business and largely ignore it.

> You are correct, we have no common ground. I try to be a better pilot
> each day and use that to improve the instruction or examinations given.

I too try to be a better pilot and instructor every day, and to
continuously improve the instruction I give. I simply know that the
FAA is no help in this regard, and never will be. Fortunately it's not
much of a hindrance either.

> If you really believe as you state, perhaps you should surrender and
> turn in your certificates. After all, it is none too safe up there
> with those I have trained or evaluated whether in a glider or a Boeing.

Indeed no one is safe up there. Flying is not safe. Never has been,
and never will be. But the risk is worth the reward.

Michael