I've got to admit that I am very confused with this brouhaha over the Master Instructor program. Although I'm a fairly active part-time instructor and a full time aviation educator, I don't think that either side of the argument has been successful in communicating the issues with the instuctor community as a whole. Putting that aside, though, I see that NAFI's Master Instructor Program was extended by the FAA on April 1st (according to the NAFI web site). Now we have Master Instructors LLC announcing via the SAFE web site on April 24th that they have an FAA-approved Master Instructor Continuing Education Program. If I was interested in pursing credentials, I now have no idea which way to turn. If the FAA has in fact approved both programs, we now have diluted the credibility of both programs. Although I've been procrastinating for quite some time over submitting an application, I really don't know what to believe. The Master Instructor web site lacks any information to make me feel confortable that it will be a viable organization at this time. Yet the consternation with NAFI raised by many over undisclosed Board actions makes me question that organization too. I just wish someone, maybe the Hills for example, would tell us what started this all in the first place. What happened to cause some of the NAFI Board to not want to "elect" the Hills again? I have yet to see that explained anywhere. It seems everything in the forums about this issue centers around the election process, the Bylaws and questionable actions of some of the NAFI Board. Granted, I too, believe that is an issue, but it still doesn't give me any insight into what started all of this in the first place. I think we all deserve to know what was the disagreement between the Hills and the NAFI Board members that caused all of this.

Mark,

Thanks for this post. I have been wondering the exact same things. I recently got the Master CFI designation from NAFI and am seriously concerned about the dilution of the credibility of the program. I look forward to hearing responses from SAFE's leadership.

Although the issue between a few of the (largely invisible) members on the NAFI Board and the Hills had been brewing for many, many years, the catalyst for the rest of us began back in October. The best source of information on that is on the SAFE website, under "SAFE History/About Us" -- http://safepilots.org/aboutus.aspx

As for dilution, bear in mind that the Hills have simply taken their Master Instructor program -- the program they created, authored, maintained, and allowed NAFI to use on a non-exclusive, royalty-free basis -- back and are now fully autonomous under their own company, Master Instructors LLC. From that standpoint, there is only one Master Instructor program. The other is being misappropriated, without the consent of the Hills.

NAFI can of course create their own "brand" of instructor program, complete with its own unique name. But the "Master Instructor Program" that we are all familiar with is the Hills' work product and is available only through Master Instructors LLC. My understanding is that the Hills are receiving and reviewing portfolios as "business as usual." The Hills recently processed my own MCFI-A renewal, for example.

Rich

Rich,

thanks for the reply. I've already read all that stuff though. Read it last fall too. All I can take away from it is that for *some* magical reason, not available to the general public, the Hills were asked to leave the board. Also, I will be very interested in seeing how the intellectual property dispute works out between the Hills and NAFI. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Hills. In fact, I think, and have always thought, that they provide a great service to the CFI community. The only thing that I've been able to determine from this entire situation is that now the CFI "house" is divided against itself. Considering that NAFI's membership is under 10,000, of some 90,000 CFI's in the country (right?), I really don't see how there are enough of us to support two organizations that are at odds.

Rich,
I have to agree with Tony. I've read through the posts, but none of that gets to the heart of the original issue between the Hills and the NAFI Board. I hope you can understand I'm having a hard time making a choice, which has been forced upon me and other instructors by this ruckus, without knowledge of ALL of the issues. All I've heard and read about is the election issue and the actions of the NAFI Board. But what started all of this??????

Hi Mark, Tony,

Probably the best thing is for you to contact the Hills directly to get their side; maybe even former NAFI Director Bob Wright as well. Then perhaps you should contact NAFI and request their side. That way there are no intermediaries in this and you can ask whatever questions come to mind.

Also see the current issue of Flying magazine with the article by Tom Benenson about the Hills, SAFE, and NAFI.

NAFI has repeatedly and publicly extolled the tremendous contributions of the Hills to the organization in the time since not re-electing them to the Board and firing them as the administrators of their own program. So you might want to ask NAFI that, if the Hills were such a valuable asset, why on earth would they not be re-elected to the Board? That's a burning question many of us have wanted to know the answer to. Benenson asks the same question in the recent Flying magazine article, too.

Rich

The way I see it, there is no dilution of credibility. Now that the FAA has approved both programs, you can choose. So the FAA has given the CFI community an opening to move forward to a more stable situation. Now SAFE and NAFI are in competition to attract CFIs to each of their programs.

I think that both SAFE and NAFI can score points with CFIs by continuing efforts to make their own program work. And they can lose points with CFIs by continuing public sniping at their competitor.

My time as a CFI is not yet enough to apply for either of the Master Instructor/Master CFI programs. So I'll be watching how this situation stabilizes and make my choice when the time comes. I joined SAFE as a charter member and renewed my membership with NAFI. As a member of both groups I'll ask them both to make an effort to take the high road going forward. (Yes, I know we're all human and that can be a tough request after words have been taken personally on both sides.) The one which does better at that going forward from here will earn my participation in their program. And I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing it this way.

In the long run, I think the best we can hope for is the competition between SAFE and NAFI will be pressure to each other to keep on their toes. It can become a stable situation. And if that happens, SAFE actually will have accomplished a major goal of what it set out to do.

Sorry Ian, but I can't agree with that logic. In business, competition is usually good - including the flight training industry. But there should only be one set of standards for the professionals in that industry. Now we've got two. How can you improve upon your professional standing if some employers put more credence in one standard over the other? Or, do I actually have to become a Master Instructor to the second power? When applying for a job do you say I'm a NAFI Master and a Master LLC Master, so obviously I must be better than someone with only one Master rating? Sounds ridiculous, but that's about where were at in this current environment.
Mark

I'm rather confused by all of it too. I am due to renew my Master status in July. I hope things get settled by then. The last time I went to renew my CFI ticket using the Master CFI designation I spent 3 hours in the Seattle FSDO educating two aviation inspectors who didn't know about the NAFI renewal. One of them had never even heard of NAFI. I really don't want to have to educate them again about a new organization, but at the same time I don't want to be part of an organization that has lost credibility and cheapened the Master designation.

Hi Meg,
I see the NAFI Board has voted to change the Board structure to include at least 51% elected members. That apparently solves part of the issues between the two groups. I've worked with nonprofit groups for many years and it is difficult and time consuming to institute changes, but at least they've taken the first steps. Granted, it's taken some severe measures to get that to happen.
Having standards for the CFI community is important, as it is for any profession. Implementing the standards is only the first step, since you have to get the community (and the regulators) to embrace those standards. That's not easy, as you discovered with the FAA. Unfortunately we now have confusion. I hope that they can settle this soon. As I see it, it's an intellectual property issue. Those are never easy. My concern is that I don't feel that the "standards" should be the property of individuals, but should belong to the overarching organization representing the CFIs. Right or wrong, that's not what we have right now, and it's going to take time and legal fees to get it sorted out. My opinion is that in the end only one of the (now) 3 organizations can be be the administrator of the standards. If both NAFI and SAFE continue to exist concurrently, then neither should not be involved with the standards. That should be left to an independent group, such as Master Instructors LLC. Both NAFI and SAFE should embrace that. Just my opinion. Thanks for posting.
Mark

Mark, unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter what any individual CFI wants to happen or thinks would be good. There are now two Master programs. It seems very unlikely that either would cease to exist, and next to impossible that they could merge. So we have to accept the reality that has been given to us. We can't undo it. So our only options are how to try to make the best of this situation.

While I am concerned like everyone about the divisions in our already-too-small professional community, I personally do not perceive any significant dilution in the MCFI "brand."

Although recent events have been fractious and traumatic for those at the top levels of our profession, most of our prospects and students don't know (or don't care) about these issues. (I'm just glad that all the attempts at publicity didn't "take" in any meaningful way in the more widely-read aviation media.) And after all, each of us earned (or will earn) the designation through personal accomplishment, not solely by virtue of affiliation. For that same reason it's hard to imagine that there would ever be any action to "take away" anyone's MCFI once it is earned from either entity.

Master CFI is still a widely respected title and credential among our clients and employers, and in my opinion still well worth pursuing via either organization.