Common CFI Checkride “Administrata” Errors

Posted on by

The CFI practical test is definitely known as one of the hardest, longest, most grueling practical tests pilots take. As I have been giving them over the last couple of years, there are a few things that are standing out in the area of CFI knowledge relating to what I generally call “administrata” related to the CFI’s ability to properly train and qualify their students.

These are critical knowledge areas that directly relate to the practical ability of the CFI to demonstrate their knowledge level of how they will actually do their jobs when they are certificated. In some cases, it may seem like these knowledge points are “way down in the weeds” or just part of the “nitty gritty minutiae” that seems trivial, but these items directly relate to whether the CFI will properly train and qualify their future customers (students) for certificates and ratings.

As a DPE, I find the ability of a CFI to answer these questions correctly directly relates to whether or not the students that the CFI will eventually train for things like their Private or Commercial certificates are actually qualified and have received training that is compliant. On more than one occasion, CFIs not knowing some of these administrative intricacies has resulted in their students being provided training that is ineligible for use toward a rating or certificate, representing significant wasted training time and cost, and in some cases, these oversights have resulted in the termination of the CFIs certificate privileges. There really is a reason we ask these questions.

With that said, here are a few common knowledge area deficiencies that might help a future CFI candidate have a better chance at passing that initial CFI practical test. If you are reading this and are already certificated, this might serve as a good refresher to remind you of a few quirks that can ensure you are providing proper training.

Cross-country experience toward a rating or certificate must include a landing greater than 50 nautical miles from the point of departure, not just a leg over 50 miles in length.

One thing an instructor needs to be able to do is properly apply cross-country flight requirements toward ratings or certificates. We commonly give an example of a cross-country and ask the CFI applicant if that will “count” or not. An example of one I might use is below. I would follow that example by asking, “So, does this cross-country flight meet the requirements for a solo-x-c to count toward the aeronautical experience for a private pilot?” Continue reading →

Data Highlights and Potential Industry Considerations from 2018 FAA Airman Certificate Data…

Posted on by

Ok, my wife says I am really a dork because I got excited when I saw that the 2018 FAA Airman Certificate Data was posted publicly. I told her that I couldn’t be the only person who thought it was fun to look at that data, there had to be at least three or four more people just like me somewhere in the industry. She didn’t disagree that it was probably limited to that few people.

But someone has to look at this data, and with a little contextualization, some of that data can be illustrative of trends in our aviation industry when it comes to the pilot community or our certification trends. The good news, I have been keeping a spreadsheet for this for years, update it with new data, and do it for you! So, with that said, here are a few highlights that I noted after a little data crunching.

When we look at the overall trend, I find it most broadly applicable to look at a few key metric points. These include overall numbers for things like the Private Pilot, Commercial Pilot, Instrument Rating, ATP Pilot, and CFI Certificates issued on a yearly basis. To help build a baseline for those numbers, the following graphics may be of interest.

Continue reading →

Charlie Checkrides (2018)…

Posted on by

Why drive when you can fly? Especially when you are going to an airport anyway!

I didn’t do it every time I could over the past year, but one of the reasons we bought Charlie was to make the travel between airport easier when I was conducting FAA practical tests.

Like any good pilot, I kept logs, and tracked what I did. Well, not only as a pilot, but so I could also give the data to my accountant at the end of the year to see if any of the costs associated with travel to and from practical tests could be leveraged for any taxiing benefits also. You can deduct mileage, why not flight time, right? Well, at least some of the costs can be he tells me. But I digress.

Curious what the total at the end of the year would be, I tallied it up, graphed it, and found that Charlie and I spent a little time together over the year!

Totaling over 34 hours and travelling over 1600 miles, Charlie spirited me across the Michigan, and even a little Indiana, countryside from above to where I provided my services as a FAA Designated Pilot Examiner.

The only drawback, when you fly to an airport it is hard to run out at lunch and get some food…I expect if I tried to taxi to a nearby deli or restaurant with Charlie it wouldn’t go unnoticed or be very successful.

I know that the use of the aircraft saved time over the travels of the year. In some cases, it was the catalyst that allowed more than one test to take place in the same day due to the reduced travel time between two airports that were a significant distance apart. Aircraft are truly time machines.

Oh, and they are just darn fun to fly also. So, with that said, and without getting too esoteric here, Charlie gave me a year with some rather enjoyable transits.

Flying the Approach in GPS Mode instead of VLOC – Why it may be better, as long as you do it correctly…

Posted on by

Flying a VOR approach? Asking yourself why you would do this instead of doing a GPS approach (assuming your aircraft is equipped with an IFR GPS system)?

Well, the answer might be because there isn’t a GPS approach to the runway or even the airport you are approaching, or, perhaps, some mean old examiner is just making you do a VOR approach on an instrument checkride. Yeah, we still do that when we can.

This doesn’t mean you can’t take advantage of your GPS system to fly the approach more accurately or in manner that integrates more fully with your avionics package and autopilot.

It is worth noting that there is an allowance in the FAA’s Airman’s Information Manual (AIM) that gives the pilot the ability to use the GPS system to “navigate” along a path when they are flying along the final approach segment of a VOR approach. Speficially, it notes:

AIM 1-2-3-c-5:
“Use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure based on a VOR, TACAN or NDB signal, is allowable. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and the NAVAID monitored for final segment course alignment”.

What this means practically is that a pilot may utilize their GPS RNAV system to actually fly along a VOR approach beyond the final approach fix as long as they can “monitor” the VOR (or TACAN or NDB) on a secondary radio and ensure that the GPS is navigating along the appropriate NAVAID course for the approach.

So, why might you want to do this you might be thinking right now. Continue reading →