CFII Before CFI

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Anyone care to chime in on this one? An applicant going for the CFII
before the CFI. Am in process of doing it right now with a student.
Odd as it may seem.......
Oh Yeh, its for helicopter......

[kevmor]

I thought a CFII was an add-on to CFI?

On Aug 17, 3:45 pm, Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> Anyone care to chime in on this one? An applicant going for the CFII
> before the CFI. Am in process of doing it right now with a student.
> Odd as it may seem.......
> Oh Yeh, its for helicopter......

[Bob Moore]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote
> Anyone care to chime in on this one? An applicant going for the CFII
> before the CFI. Am in process of doing it right now with a student.
> Oh Yeh, its for helicopter......

No such thing as CFI or CFII.....
It's all "Flight Instructor" with ratings...

(c) The following ratings are placed on a flight instructor certificate
when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and
certification requirements for the rating sought:

(1) Aircraft category ratings—

(i) Airplane.

(ii) Rotorcraft.

(iii) Glider.

(iv) Powered-lift.

(2) Airplane class ratings—

(i) Single-engine.

(ii) Multiengine.

(3) Rotorcraft class ratings—

(i) Helicopter.

(ii) Gyroplane.

(4) Instrument ratings—

(i) Instrument—Airplane.

(ii) Instrument—Helicopter.

(iii) Instrument—Powered-lift.

No reason that one cannot first become a Flight Instructor-Instrument-
Helicopter.

Bob Moore
Flight Instructor, Airplane Single Engine, Instrument Airplane

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 17, 3:45 pm, Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> Anyone care to chime in on this one? An applicant going for the CFII
> before the CFI. Am in process of doing it right now with a student.
> Odd as it may seem.......
> Oh Yeh, its for helicopter......

Its not common but its certainly possible. The benefit is that you
break your hardest checkride (the CFI) into two parts. During the CFII
you will cover all the FOI stuff during the oral so when you go for
the CFI checkride it will be about 1/2 as hard. Otherwise you take a
really hard checkride with the initial CFI and then the CFII is an
easy add-on.
The downside is that a CFII can do very little. The rating is so
limited that its not really marketable.

-Robert, CFII

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> During the CFII you will cover all the FOI stuff during the oral so when
> you go for
> the CFI checkride it will be about 1/2 as hard. Otherwise you take a
> really hard checkride with the initial CFI and then the CFII is an
> easy add-on. The downside is that a CFII can do very little. The rating is
> so
> limited that its not really marketable.

Fascinating. I called about a CFI job in Hillsboro and the chief recruiter
said they prefer CFIIs because their students don't like to switch
instructors after their PPL. I thought that was a little odd, so I talked
to a friend whose a rotorcraft student out there and he described the place
as a pilot mill where the instructors were paid very little under the
expectation that they would bolt to the airlines at the first opportunity.

I'm not sure I'm interested in a "Do you want fries with that?" style flying
job, but if so, there's a case for the extra 'I'.

-c

[Steven Barnes]

I think there a bit of confusion there. I believe Robert is describing a
"CFII" as someone with only an Instrument-Airplane rating. They cannot teach
Private, Commercial, BFRs, checkouts, etc. Pretty much all they can do is
IFR & IPCs (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The Hillsboro place wants CFIs who ALSO have the Instrument-Airplane.


"Gattman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> > During the CFII you will cover all the FOI stuff during the oral so when
> > you go for
> > the CFI checkride it will be about 1/2 as hard. Otherwise you take a
> > really hard checkride with the initial CFI and then the CFII is an
> > easy add-on. The downside is that a CFII can do very little. The rating
is
> > so
> > limited that its not really marketable.
>
> Fascinating. I called about a CFI job in Hillsboro and the chief
recruiter
> said they prefer CFIIs because their students don't like to switch
> instructors after their PPL. I thought that was a little odd, so I talked
> to a friend whose a rotorcraft student out there and he described the
place
> as a pilot mill where the instructors were paid very little under the
> expectation that they would bolt to the airlines at the first opportunity.
>
> I'm not sure I'm interested in a "Do you want fries with that?" style
flying
> job, but if so, there's a case for the extra 'I'.
>
> -c
>
>

[Jim Burns]

I've read that some part 141 schools will do the CFII before the CFI due to
lower time and PTS requirements for the CFII.
Jim

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Anyone care to chime in on this one? An applicant going for the CFII
> before the CFI. Am in process of doing it right now with a student.
> Odd as it may seem.......
> Oh Yeh, its for helicopter......
>

[Kobra]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Anyone care to chime in on this one? An applicant going for the CFII
> before the CFI. Am in process of doing it right now with a student.
> Odd as it may seem.......
> Oh Yeh, its for helicopter......

I believe I've heard of pilots getting their CFI-ME before the CFI and
double I.

Kobra
>

[buttman]

On Aug 17, 6:07 pm, "Steven Barnes" > wrote:
> I think there a bit of confusion there. I believe Robert is describing a
> "CFII" as someone with only an Instrument-Airplane rating. They cannot teach
> Private, Commercial, BFRs, checkouts, etc. Pretty much all they can do is
> IFR & IPCs (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> The Hillsboro place wants CFIs who ALSO have the Instrument-Airplane.
>
> "Gattman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> > > During the CFII you will cover all the FOI stuff during the oral so when
> > > you go for
> > > the CFI checkride it will be about 1/2 as hard. Otherwise you take a
> > > really hard checkride with the initial CFI and then the CFII is an
> > > easy add-on. The downside is that a CFII can do very little. The rating
> is
> > > so
> > > limited that its not really marketable.
>
> > Fascinating. I called about a CFI job in Hillsboro and the chief
> recruiter
> > said they prefer CFIIs because their students don't like to switch
> > instructors after their PPL. I thought that was a little odd, so I talked
> > to a friend whose a rotorcraft student out there and he described the
> place
> > as a pilot mill where the instructors were paid very little under the
> > expectation that they would bolt to the airlines at the first opportunity.
>
> > I'm not sure I'm interested in a "Do you want fries with that?" style
> flying
> > job, but if so, there's a case for the extra 'I'.
>
> > -c

CFII's can also teach instrument procedures in a flight simulator and
have it count as time with a "qualified instructor" even thought that
instructor isn't qualified to instruct in airplanes.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 17, 5:11 pm, "Gattman" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > During the CFII you will cover all the FOI stuff during the oral so when
> > you go for
> > the CFI checkride it will be about 1/2 as hard. Otherwise you take a
> > really hard checkride with the initial CFI and then the CFII is an
> > easy add-on. The downside is that a CFII can do very little. The rating is
> > so
> > limited that its not really marketable.
>
> Fascinating. I called about a CFI job in Hillsboro and the chief recruiter
> said they prefer CFIIs because their students don't like to switch
> instructors after their PPL.

That's because he's assuming the CFII is also a CFI (which 99% of
CFIIs are). However, if you hold a CFII and not a CFI rating then you
couldn't have had PPLs in the first place so the above wouldn't apply.
You would be very hard pressed to find a job as a CFII without being a
CFI-ASEL/AMEL/ or something as well.

-Robert, CFII (and CFI)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 17, 7:15 pm, "Jim Burns" > wrote:
> I've read that some part 141 schools will do the CFII before the CFI due to
> lower time and PTS requirements for the CFII.
> Jim

If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
(ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to medium
hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then just the
CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII and quite
w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost worthless
rating.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 17, 3:50 pm, kevmor > wrote:
> I thought a CFII was an add-on to CFI?

In the really old days (before me), the CFI was an add-on to the CP-
ASEL rating and the CFII was free if you were a CFI and instrument
rated. Actually, I believe a lot of countries don't offer a CFII
rating and just allow all CFIs to be CFIIs.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> Anyone care to chime in on this one? An applicant going for the CFII
> before the CFI. Am in process of doing it right now with a student.
> Odd as it may seem.......
> Oh Yeh, its for helicopter......
>
The only advantage I know is that you can do the briefer instrument
ride with the FAA examiner (most FSDO's require the initial ride
to be done with a real FAA employee) while hte longer category
ride can be done with a DE.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>>
> The only advantage I know is that you can do the briefer instrument
> ride with the FAA examiner (most FSDO's require the initial ride
> to be done with a real FAA employee) while hte longer category
> ride can be done with a DE.

A related strategy is to get a CFI-Glider first and then add airplanes
later. In that case, both of your rides are likely to be with a DE. There are
also some neat jobs out there for CFIGs and commercial tow pilots.

Vaughn

[Bob Moore]

Robert M. Gary wrote
> If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
> (ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
> idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
> and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to medium
> hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then just the
> CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII and quite
> w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost worthless
> rating.

It is indeed one of the problems in aviation today that we have
Flight Instructors who do not read and understand the regulations.
We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....The FAR defines our certificates as
FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. In fact, the remainder of the FARs refer to the
requirement for an AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR.

An obvious error in the quoted text above besides the use of CFI,
is the list of ratings that a Flight Instructor may have on his
Certificate. A Flight Instructor Certificate will not show LAND/SEA
as a class rating for the AIRPLANE category rating, only SINGLE
ENGINE/MULTI ENGINE.

If we can stop talking about CFI/CFII and understand the concept
of FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR with RATINGS, the answers are quite simple.

First, a FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE for aircraft must be issued
with a CATEGORY and CLASS rating.

Second, a FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE for instruments must be
issued with either an AIRPLANE, HELICOPTER, or POWERED-LIFT rating.

Nowhere in my 1977 copy of AC 60-14, Aviation Instructor's Handbook
nor the current CFRs, is there any reference to a CFI/CFII. Where
did you guys pick-up this terminology? Why can it not go the way
of the BFR? Oh...you guys still do BFRs instead of FLIGHT REVIEWS???

Following is the pertinent portion of CFR Title 14, Chapter 1, Part 61.

(c) The following ratings are placed on a flight instructor certificate
when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and
certification requirements for the rating sought:

(1) Aircraft category ratings—

(i) Airplane.

(ii) Rotorcraft.

(iii) Glider.

(iv) Powered-lift.

(2) Airplane class ratings—

(i) Single-engine.

(ii) Multiengine.

(3) Rotorcraft class ratings—

(i) Helicopter.

(ii) Gyroplane.

(4) Instrument ratings—

(i) Instrument—Airplane.

(ii) Instrument—Helicopter.

(iii) Instrument—Powered-lift.

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Aug 18, 8:32 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote
>
> > If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
> > (ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
> > idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
> > and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to medium
> > hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then just the
> > CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII and quite
> > w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost worthless
> > rating.
>
> It is indeed one of the problems in aviation today that we have
> Flight Instructors who do not read and understand the regulations.
> We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....The FAR defines our certificates as
> FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. In fact, the remainder of the FARs refer to the
> requirement for an AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR.
>
> An obvious error in the quoted text above besides the use of CFI,
> is the list of ratings that a Flight Instructor may have on his
> Certificate. A Flight Instructor Certificate will not show LAND/SEA
> as a class rating for the AIRPLANE category rating, only SINGLE
> ENGINE/MULTI ENGINE.
>
> If we can stop talking about CFI/CFII and understand the concept
> of FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR with RATINGS, the answers are quite simple.
>
> First, a FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE for aircraft must be issued
> with a CATEGORY and CLASS rating.
>
> Second, a FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE for instruments must be
> issued with either an AIRPLANE, HELICOPTER, or POWERED-LIFT rating.
>
> Nowhere in my 1977 copy of AC 60-14, Aviation Instructor's Handbook
> nor the current CFRs, is there any reference to a CFI/CFII. Where
> did you guys pick-up this terminology? Why can it not go the way
> of the BFR? Oh...you guys still do BFRs instead of FLIGHT REVIEWS???
>
> Following is the pertinent portion of CFR Title 14, Chapter 1, Part 61.
>
> (c) The following ratings are placed on a flight instructor certificate
> when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and
> certification requirements for the rating sought:
>
> (1) Aircraft category ratings-
>
> (i) Airplane.
>
> (ii) Rotorcraft.
>
> (iii) Glider.
>
> (iv) Powered-lift.
>
> (2) Airplane class ratings-
>
> (i) Single-engine.
>
> (ii) Multiengine.
>
> (3) Rotorcraft class ratings-
>
> (i) Helicopter.
>
> (ii) Gyroplane.
>
> (4) Instrument ratings-
>
> (i) Instrument-Airplane.
>
> (ii) Instrument-Helicopter.
>
> (iii) Instrument-Powered-lift.

Geez Bob
I admire your quest to change 50+ years of terminology! Yes you are
absolutely correct and I still hear Feds use the term BFR, and from
time to time I even hear someone say ATR (and I know you have been
around that long). If we were to use the full proper terms, we'd run
out of time before we ever got to the meat of the issue! <gg>
Best Personal Regards
Rocky ATP ASMELS Rotor IFR CFII/RAM AIGI (and I'll bet everyone knows
what all that means)

[Judah]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> It is indeed one of the problems in aviation today that we have
> Flight Instructors who do not read and understand the regulations.
> We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....The FAR defines our certificates as
> FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. In fact, the remainder of the FARs refer to the
> requirement for an AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR.

I'm confused. Doesn't CFI stand for certificated Flight Instructor? Doesn't
BFR stand for biennial Flight Review?

What is it exactly that you have against abbreviations? I use them for many
things - even important things from CRAFT all the way to GUMPS.


The problem with the paragraph you quoted was with the use of the terms.
Abbreviated or not is really irrelevant to the proper use of a technical
term.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

FARs??? Shouldn't we be using "Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 -
Aeronautics and Space, Volume (insert #) Chapter (insert #) Part (insert #)
as Regulated by the Federal Aviation Admiistration, Department of
Transportation, of the United States of America"? How on earth would we
know what someone is talking about if we just used "FAR's"?
Duh.
Jim

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 18, 8:32 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote
> >
> > > If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
> > > (ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
> > > idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
> > > and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to medium
> > > hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then just the
> > > CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII and quite
> > > w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost worthless
> > > rating.
> >
> > It is indeed one of the problems in aviation today that we have
> > Flight Instructors who do not read and understand the regulations.
> > We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....The FAR defines our certificates as
> > FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. In fact, the remainder of the FARs refer to the
> > requirement for an AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR.
> >
> > An obvious error in the quoted text above besides the use of CFI,
> > is the list of ratings that a Flight Instructor may have on his
> > Certificate. A Flight Instructor Certificate will not show LAND/SEA
> > as a class rating for the AIRPLANE category rating, only SINGLE
> > ENGINE/MULTI ENGINE.
> >
> > If we can stop talking about CFI/CFII and understand the concept
> > of FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR with RATINGS, the answers are quite simple.
> >
> > First, a FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE for aircraft must be issued
> > with a CATEGORY and CLASS rating.
> >
> > Second, a FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATE for instruments must be
> > issued with either an AIRPLANE, HELICOPTER, or POWERED-LIFT rating.
> >
> > Nowhere in my 1977 copy of AC 60-14, Aviation Instructor's Handbook
> > nor the current CFRs, is there any reference to a CFI/CFII. Where
> > did you guys pick-up this terminology? Why can it not go the way
> > of the BFR? Oh...you guys still do BFRs instead of FLIGHT REVIEWS???
> >
> > Following is the pertinent portion of CFR Title 14, Chapter 1, Part 61.
> >
> > (c) The following ratings are placed on a flight instructor certificate
> > when an applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and
> > certification requirements for the rating sought:
> >
> > (1) Aircraft category ratings-
> >
> > (i) Airplane.
> >
> > (ii) Rotorcraft.
> >
> > (iii) Glider.
> >
> > (iv) Powered-lift.
> >
> > (2) Airplane class ratings-
> >
> > (i) Single-engine.
> >
> > (ii) Multiengine.
> >
> > (3) Rotorcraft class ratings-
> >
> > (i) Helicopter.
> >
> > (ii) Gyroplane.
> >
> > (4) Instrument ratings-
> >
> > (i) Instrument-Airplane.
> >
> > (ii) Instrument-Helicopter.
> >
> > (iii) Instrument-Powered-lift.
>
> Geez Bob
> I admire your quest to change 50+ years of terminology! Yes you are
> absolutely correct and I still hear Feds use the term BFR, and from
> time to time I even hear someone say ATR (and I know you have been
> around that long). If we were to use the full proper terms, we'd run
> out of time before we ever got to the meat of the issue! <gg>
> Best Personal Regards
> Rocky ATP ASMELS Rotor IFR CFII/RAM AIGI (and I'll bet everyone knows
> what all that means)
>

[Bob Moore]

Jim Burns wrote
> FARs??? Shouldn't we be using "Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14
> - Aeronautics and Space, Volume (insert #) Chapter (insert #) Part
> (insert #) as Regulated by the Federal Aviation Admiistration,
> Department of Transportation, of the United States of America"?

From my post
>> > Following is the pertinent portion of CFR Title 14, Chapter 1, Part
>> > 61.

Bob

[Roy Smith]

Judah > wrote:

> I'm confused. Doesn't CFI stand for certificated Flight Instructor?

The problem with the terms "CFI" vs. "CFII" is that it leads to the common
confusion that a CFII is a "more advanced" rating/certificate/whatever than
a "just plain CFI". That's not true.

I hold two certificates from the FAA. One is my commercial pilot
certificate, the other is my flight instructor certificate. Each of those
certificates has ratings that go along with it. On my pilot certificate,
I've got "airplane single-engine land" and "instrument airplane". On my
instructor certificate, I've got "airplane single engine" and "instrument
airplane".

What makes this confusing is that on the pilot certificate, having the
airplane rating was a pre-requisite to getting the instrument rating. This
is NOT true for the instructor certificate. While it is common for an
instructor to get the airplane rating before the instrument rating, it
doesn't have to be that way, and in fact, it's not terribly uncommon for
people to get the instrument rating as their initial instructor rating.

If for example, I had done that, I would have been able to give instrument
instruction (i.e. towards an instrument rating or an IPC) in an Archer to a
pilot who already had a single-engine land rating on his pilot certificate,
but I would NOT have been able to give somebody primary training or a BFR
in that same airplane until I also went out and got an airplane rating.

Leave it to the FAA to invent such a bizarre and complex system.

[john hawkins]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> FARs??? Shouldn't we be using "Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 -
> Aeronautics and Space, Volume (insert #) Chapter (insert #) Part (insert
> #)
> as Regulated by the Federal Aviation Admiistration, Department of
> Transportation, of the United States of America"? How on earth would we
> know what someone is talking about if we just used "FAR's"?
> Duh.
snip
Gee that was my problem when I first went to work for the government. There
FAR means Federal Acquistion Regulations. I had a hell of a time unlearning
FAR= Fedral Aviatiobn Regulations.
Don't even begin to thibnk about NASA abreviations there many many ones that
we use in aviaiton that have a totally different meaning In the Huge N tiny
a Monstrous S and world size A (NASA)

guess duh is my first name

[tom418]

Roy, I was with a friend of mine who inquired about getting a CFII as his
intitial instructor certificate. He visited a school in Westfield, MA a few
years ago. The instructor there firmly said "It's an add-on; you can't do it
that way; you have to get he CFI first". I then advised my friend to find
another school. Their instructor didn't know too much about Part 61.


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Judah > wrote:
>
> > I'm confused. Doesn't CFI stand for certificated Flight Instructor?
>
> The problem with the terms "CFI" vs. "CFII" is that it leads to the common
> confusion that a CFII is a "more advanced" rating/certificate/whatever
than
> a "just plain CFI". That's not true.
>
> I hold two certificates from the FAA. One is my commercial pilot
> certificate, the other is my flight instructor certificate. Each of those
> certificates has ratings that go along with it. On my pilot certificate,
> I've got "airplane single-engine land" and "instrument airplane". On my
> instructor certificate, I've got "airplane single engine" and "instrument
> airplane".
>
> What makes this confusing is that on the pilot certificate, having the
> airplane rating was a pre-requisite to getting the instrument rating.
This
> is NOT true for the instructor certificate. While it is common for an
> instructor to get the airplane rating before the instrument rating, it
> doesn't have to be that way, and in fact, it's not terribly uncommon for
> people to get the instrument rating as their initial instructor rating.
>
> If for example, I had done that, I would have been able to give instrument
> instruction (i.e. towards an instrument rating or an IPC) in an Archer to
a
> pilot who already had a single-engine land rating on his pilot
certificate,
> but I would NOT have been able to give somebody primary training or a BFR
> in that same airplane until I also went out and got an airplane rating.
>
> Leave it to the FAA to invent such a bizarre and complex system.

[S Green]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Bob Moore > wrote in
> 46.128:
>
>> It is indeed one of the problems in aviation today that we have
>> Flight Instructors who do not read and understand the regulations.
>> We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....The FAR defines our certificates as
>> FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. In fact, the remainder of the FARs refer to the
>> requirement for an AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR.
>
> I'm confused. Doesn't CFI stand for certificated Flight Instructor?
> Doesn't
> BFR stand for biennial Flight Review?

In many places, CFI stands for Chief Flying Instructor (often a role
specified by the appropriate authority as part of the approvals process) and
flying instructors designated as FI(A) for aeroplanes for example.

Having the word certified is a bit redundant because someone who is not
certified cannot act as a flying instructor legally.

[Judah]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> The problem with the terms "CFI" vs. "CFII" is that it leads to the
> common confusion that a CFII is a "more advanced"
> rating/certificate/whatever than a "just plain CFI". That's not true.

Admittedly, before this thread started, I was not aware that ASEL rating on a
Flight Instructor certificate was not a prerequisite for the Instrument
rating, like on a Private Pilot certificate. That being said, I don't think
my lack of this particular knowledge was caused by the use of the term CFI
vs. CFII. However, it probably would have been clear if the typical
discussion included 3 distinct abbreviations: CFI-A, CFI-I, and CFI-AI.

[Bob Moore]

Judah wrote
> Admittedly, before this thread started, I was not aware that ASEL
> rating on a Flight Instructor certificate was not a prerequisite for
> the Instrument rating, like on a Private Pilot certificate. That being
> said, I don't think my lack of this particular knowledge was caused by
> the use of the term CFI vs. CFII. However, it probably would have been
> clear if the typical discussion included 3 distinct abbreviations:
> CFI-A, CFI-I, and CFI-AI.

One of my points exactly!
However, there is no Land/Sea (ASEL) rating on the Flight Instructor
Certificate, and it would be CFI-IA instead of CFI-AI. As a matter of
fact, it would have to be either CFI-IA, CFI-IH, or CFI-IP

Bob Moore

[Judah]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> One of my points exactly!
> However, there is no Land/Sea (ASEL) rating on the Flight Instructor
> Certificate, and it would be CFI-IA instead of CFI-AI. As a matter of
> fact, it would have to be either CFI-IA, CFI-IH, or CFI-IP

Hi Bob,

I was with you for that part. But in your second round, you got on quite the
soapbox. :)

I am still interested in understanding your objection to the use of the term
"biennial Flight Review" to describe a Flight Review that generally is taken
approximately every two years to satisfy a specific FAA requirement.

It's probably because of your concern that the term might imply that you
absolutely need to have one every two years. But I just don't think it's
practical to call it a

FRTMBCWITP2CMU1OTCLITCFRA

(for "Flight Review That Must Be Conducted With In The Previous 24 Calendar
Months Unless 1 Of The Conditions Listed In The CFRs Applies.")

BFR is so much easier to say...

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
> (ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
> idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
> and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to medium
> hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then just the
> CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII and quite
> w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost worthless
> rating.

Great information. Thanks for this thread, folks...

So, realistically a lot of CFIs are low-time commercial pilots trying to
build hours, which means they can't possibly have a whole lot of instrument
time. For a guy like me who got his instrument shortly before his
commercial, but--having been jamming on the commercial in VFR--hasn't logged
much actual IMC, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take the
CFII and then try to impart that wisdom on pilots who might conceivably have
two or three times more flight experience than I.

How much experience under IFR/IMC do you guys feel like a person should have
in order to effectively (not just legally) perform as a CFII?

-c

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message

> We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....

Weird. Virtually every instructor endorsement in my logbook includes either
"CFI" or "CFII"

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gattman wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>> If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
>> (ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
>> idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
>> and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to
>> medium hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then
>> just the CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII
>> and quite w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost
>> worthless rating.
>
> Great information. Thanks for this thread, folks...
>
> So, realistically a lot of CFIs are low-time commercial pilots trying
> to build hours, which means they can't possibly have a whole lot of
> instrument time. For a guy like me who got his instrument shortly
> before his commercial, but--having been jamming on the commercial in
> VFR--hasn't logged much actual IMC, I don't think it would be
> appropriate for me to take the CFII and then try to impart that
> wisdom on pilots who might conceivably have two or three times more
> flight experience than I.
> How much experience under IFR/IMC do you guys feel like a person
> should have in order to effectively (not just legally) perform as a
> CFII?
> -c

While great to have real world experience there are plenty of people
teaching plenty things with little or no real world experience in the
subject.

[Bob Moore]

Gattman wrote
> Weird. Virtually every instructor endorsement in my logbook includes
> either "CFI" or "CFII"

My Flight Instructor Certificate states that I have priveliges as a
FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. The letters CFI appear only as a part of the
certificate number and although one of my ratings is INSTRUMENT-
AIRPLANE, the letters CFII appear nowhere on the certificate.

When indorsing a student's logbook and am asked for my certificate
number, I too place the letters CFI after 1450645 because that is my
certificate number.

As a practicing flight instructor for the past 37 years in addition
to being a Naval Aviator and Pan American pilot, I find that in general,
flight instructors aren't the brightest bulbs on the planet.

Bob Moore
FI ASE-IA
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
> Gattman wrote
>> Weird. Virtually every instructor endorsement in my logbook includes
>> either "CFI" or "CFII"
>
> My Flight Instructor Certificate states that I have priveliges as a
> FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. The letters CFI appear only as a part of the
> certificate number and although one of my ratings is INSTRUMENT-
> AIRPLANE, the letters CFII appear nowhere on the certificate.

Fascinating. So, is signing "CFII [number and exp date]" incorrect?

> As a practicing flight instructor for the past 37 years in addition
> to being a Naval Aviator and Pan American pilot, I find that in general,
> flight instructors aren't the brightest bulbs on the planet.

LOL!

-c

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> How much experience under IFR/IMC do you guys feel like a person
>> should have in order to effectively (not just legally) perform as a
>> CFII?

> While great to have real world experience there are plenty of people
> teaching plenty things with little or no real world experience in the
> subject.

Right. I took guitar lessons from guys like that when I was a teenager.
So my question stands, or, to rephrase:

If you were sponsoring a student or family member's instrument rating and I
was a candidate for the instructor role, how many hours of IFR/IMC do you
think would be a worthy minimum?

-c

[Bob Moore]

Gattman wrote
> If you were sponsoring a student or family member's instrument rating
> and I was a candidate for the instructor role, how many hours of
> IFR/IMC do you think would be a worthy minimum?

My first instrument instructor in the Navy's Link Trainer (1958) was a
"white hat" enlisted sailor who had never been in an airplane.
Never-the-less, he did an entirely adequate job of teaching me
how to maneuver an airplane solely by reference to flight instruments.

Bob Moore

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gattman wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> How much experience under IFR/IMC do you guys feel like a person
>>> should have in order to effectively (not just legally) perform as a
>>> CFII?
>
>> While great to have real world experience there are plenty of people
>> teaching plenty things with little or no real world experience in the
>> subject.
>
> Right. I took guitar lessons from guys like that when I was a
> teenager. So my question stands, or, to rephrase:
>
> If you were sponsoring a student or family member's instrument rating
> and I was a candidate for the instructor role, how many hours of IFR/IMC
> do you think would be a worthy minimum?
>
> -c

The point I was getting at was a good instructor is a good instructor. There
are a lot of guys out there with 1000+ hours in the muck that couldn't teach
you how to tune the radio if you held a gun to their head. Likewise there
are instructors coming up throught the system that with very little real
world IFR/IMC expereince could teach those 1000+ hour guys a thing or two.

I'm not saying that having an instructor with both isn't better but in my
opinion being a good instuctor is the critical skill.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 18, 6:32 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote
>
> > If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
> > (ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
> > idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
> > and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to medium
> > hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then just the
> > CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII and quite
> > w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost worthless
> > rating.
>
> It is indeed one of the problems in aviation today that we have
> Flight Instructors who do not read and understand the regulations.
> We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....The FAR defines our certificates as
> FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. In fact, the remainder of the FARs refer to the
> requirement for an AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR.
>

Oh, Bob I don't believe you are that dense. You know what the term
CFII means, trying to be a wanna-be lawyer doesn't do anyone any good.
Everyone else understood what I meant because I used normal
terminology. If you dreem of arguing cases before the NTSB you can
keep that to yourself, it doesn't help anyone here understand anything
better.


> An obvious error in the quoted text above besides the use of CFI,
> is the list of ratings that a Flight Instructor may have on his
> Certificate.

An obvious error to the above statement is that no one ever quoted any
list of ratings that a Flight Instructor may have on his Certificate.

BTW: If you send me a private email I can explain to you what the term
"BFR" means when hard at the airport. You'll find that an
understanding of common terminology will help you if you ever encouter
another pilot and need to talk of things aviation.

-Robert, CFII (teaches in LAND AND SEA)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 18, 7:45 am, Judah > wrote:
> Bob Moore > wrote .146.128:
>
> > It is indeed one of the problems in aviation today that we have
> > Flight Instructors who do not read and understand the regulations.
> > We are NOT CFIs nor CFIIs....The FAR defines our certificates as
> > FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. In fact, the remainder of the FARs refer to the
> > requirement for an AUTHORIZED INSTRUCTOR.
>
> I'm confused. Doesn't CFI stand for certificated Flight Instructor? Doesn't
> BFR stand for biennial Flight Review?
>
> What is it exactly that you have against abbreviations? I use them for many
> things - even important things from CRAFT all the way to GUMPS.

Bob is upset that he didn't get accepted into law school so he's
taking it out on everyone else. You are correct that a CFI would not
make it very well if he didn't know common terminology.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 20, 8:01 am, "Gattman" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > If you know that you want to end up with both the CFII and the CFI
> > (ASEL for instance) then getting the CFII first is probably not a bad
> > idea because instead of one really hard checkride (the initial CFI)
> > and then a really easy checkride (the CFII add-on), you have to medium
> > hard checkrides (CFII initial (including all the FOI), then just the
> > CFI(ASEL for instance) add on. However, if you get the CFII and quite
> > w/o getting the CFI-ASEL/AMEL/etc then you have an almost worthless
> > rating.
>
> Great information. Thanks for this thread, folks...
>
> So, realistically a lot of CFIs are low-time commercial pilots trying to
> build hours, which means they can't possibly have a whole lot of instrument
> time. For a guy like me who got his instrument shortly before his
> commercial, but--having been jamming on the commercial in VFR--hasn't logged
> much actual IMC, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take the
> CFII and then try to impart that wisdom on pilots who might conceivably have
> two or three times more flight experience than I.

I think you are assuming that all a CFII does is tell stores of
previous experiences. In fact you'll find that most of the really high
time CFIIs have either very little time flying spam cans in the soup
or never left the safety of the training environment.
In truth CFII's impart much more than stores. Even a very high time
instrument pilot can get very good instruction from a lower time CFII.
How long since that high time pilot shot a non-precision approach, how
long since he's done a hold with on nav radio not working, etc.

-Robert, CFII

[Gattman[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> The point I was getting at was a good instructor is a good instructor.
> There are a lot of guys out there with 1000+ hours in the muck that
> couldn't teach you how to tune the radio if you held a gun to their head.
> Likewise there are instructors coming up throught the system that with
> very little real world IFR/IMC expereince could teach those 1000+ hour
> guys a thing or two.


Well, as a student CFI who was just told to expect a 30% salary cut in my
current telecom job, this is all very encouraging.
(It's not the money, but the fact I'm unhappy with the job and company at
the -current- rate.)

Thanks, everybody.

-c

[Judah]

"S Green" > wrote in
:

> Having the word certified is a bit redundant because someone who is not
> certified cannot act as a flying instructor legally.

Then it would seem to be not redundant at all...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Judah wrote:
> "S Green" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Having the word certified is a bit redundant because someone who is
>> not certified cannot act as a flying instructor legally.
>
> Then it would seem to be not redundant at all...

Its not redundant at all. I'm not a CFI and there is nothing that says I
can't teach someone how to fly. They can't log it as instruction or count
the hours towards the requirement but I can still teach them.

If it were against the law this would be a VERY quite newsgroup.

[S Green]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "S Green" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Having the word certified is a bit redundant because someone who is not
>> certified cannot act as a flying instructor legally.
>
> Then it would seem to be not redundant at all...

certified can also mean insane - perhaps you do have to be insane to
instruct.

I find the idea of a certified flight instructor as amusing -out on a
workplacement from the mental hospital.

[Judah]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> If it were against the law this would be a VERY quite newsgroup.

All we would be left with would be the arguing and trolling.

Oh wait, I'm too late.

;)