Although not completely familiar with the MCFI program I have always been a bit concerned it was a bit too 'academic' in it's requirements and focus. I can say unequivically the best instructors (and examiners) I have had were both active professional pilots AND instructors. Anybody have any thoughts on bringing some of the value of professional flying experience to this accreditation?

Can you provide an example of "too academic"?

There are a lot of good things I see on the requirements list but there is an obvious lack of real-world flying experience there from my perspective. i.e. those credentials do not ensure the MCFI has actually been there, done that. I suspect that many MCFI's have a lot of great experience to share and that the MCFI program keeps them moving forward. By 'too academic' I suggest that one could maintain their MCFI in spades and yet be unfit for many professional flying/teaching jobs due to lack of meaningful actual experience. (Why would you want to learn from someone who was unfit themselves for the very thing they were preparing you for) With regard to the aerobatic MCFI my arguement here is less so-- but that tends to make my point that aviation credentials need to be specific to be of value. From a consumer/student perspective, I couldn't use the MCFI designation any more than the color of their hair to determine if they were uniquely qualified to teach in a specific area. For example, when I got my initial training in the C340 I got it from a guy that had thousands of hours in 300/400 series airplanes (91 & 135 flying). Another instructor with a MCFI credential would mean little to nothing to me in this case without the equivalent experience.

What do you consider an acceptable leve of "real world experience"?

That is a good question. The FAA 'Aeronautical Experience' requirements (as in Parts 61/135/121) make some attempt at this with catagories of time. But we all know the old adage-- There is having a thousand hours of experience and there is having the same hour a thousand times over and over again. Any thoughts on how one might give credit for mastery demonstrated by real-world experience from your point of view?

There's an awful lot of flying as in instruction given involved in the MCFI.
You need to show dedication to the task as well as proficiency. You have to "re-certify" every two years if you want to keep the designation.
It's designed to keep your skills sharp because you keep having to "re prove" yourself.
New tickets. sign off more students. create ground schools and teach them. Do insurance check outs.
You need to garner experience from a variety of aviation disciplines.
In short, you have to be more than a "time builder".

I'm not saying it is easy or quick to maintain the MCFI standards, only that they fail to recognize the uniquely valuable experience professional flying instills.

For example; flight instructors (particularly giving instruction) don't have the best safety record in aviation, professional crews do. So simply from a safety perspective it seems odd the MCFI criteria does not embrace more experience from that aspect of the aviation spectrum. You mention being renewed every two years, compare that with every 6 months for professional pilots (and failing means you don't fly and don't eat).

My arguement is, as I began, the best teachers 'Do' (almost)as much as they 'Teach'.

Are you suggesting that being a CFI isn't professional flying?

it's my understanding that if you have had a "incident" or "accident" within 24 calendar months you don't qualify for MCFI. and if the locals at the FSDO say you're unsafe you won't get it.