CFII Before CFI

"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

"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

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

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.

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)

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

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

"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

"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...

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.