Public Message Forum
When the FAA passed this rule, I don't believe that it was ever the intention to dumb down the private instruction given or to inflate the sport instructor status.
As I recall, the discussion about sport pilot began during 9/11 and the fact that we had all those ultralight pilots who were not certificated flying in aircraft that were not certificated. They also had ultralight instructors teaching these pilots who were not certificated, but who were on a list by an organization.
The FAA had no way of knowing who was flying in our skies. It was a national security issue - that's why we have consensus standards - because this all started in the Justice Department. The sport pilot was a means to get those pilots and instructors certificated so that they were on public record.
Did you ever wonder why these rules passed so fast? National security more so than wanting to save or promote general aviation.
Now suddenly there are folks who want to say that a sport pilot is the equivalent to a mini private and a sport instructor is as good as a regular instructor. I hate to burst your bubble, but in case you don't know it, there are several sport instructors out there who were "grandfathered" meaning that they took NO FAA practical exam. The FAA had to start somewhere and that's how they did it.
Read over Paul Hamilton's Sport Pilot Guide to the Oral or better still, watch his first flight video. This is a guy who pumping information out to others as a sport instructor and examiner. Any instructor who has given 10 hours of dual can find 100 (that's no exageration, I started a list and counted them) mistakes and points of poor performance/technique in that video.
This is one example of what I am talking about. Any pilot coming from that background will require 20 hours of instruction from a regular instructor just to correct all the bad habits taught by that sport instructor. That other respondent who referred to our paying customers got it right. Our students deserve better.
I agree our students deserve better. Who says that a CFI-SP can't deliver that? Not all of us are grandfathered from the ultralight world. I took a checkride with a regular designated examiner, and I'll stack my test up against anyone's, CFI-SP or CFI-A.
There are lousy instructors at all levels of certification. You have to look past the ticket.
“Let he who hath not sinned throw the first stone.”
For every subpart K instructor real or imagined mentioned in this discussion who doesn’t “know an aileron from an elevator” I can name a subpart H instructor of equal caliber who actually interviewed with me for a job. The most recent one, an ERU grad, had worked at two flight schools, including a 141 academy before taking several charter gigs and eventually finding his way to my doorstep. He was not an AOPA member, had never heard of NAFI, could not tell me what EAA stood for, and best of all, had held all of the aforementioned jobs while operating on an invalid pilot certificate as he had never changed his address with the FAA. When he asked me why this mattered, and explained it mattered primarily for the sake of insurance to which he exclaimed, “Oh that’s not a problem since I don’t have any insurance!”
There will always be both good and bad instructors on both sides of the alphabet. How does the FAA deal with this and ensure that we only graduate students of appropriate skill and knowledge levels? Through the PTS and a controlled system of examination. If a student is examined by an FAA DPE and can meet the test standards set forth, how can we say that his training was inadequate because of the pedigree of his first instructor?
Helen
To the "real" CFI's out there, let's end this discussion thread. There's no use in trying to communicate with this SFI group.
Just by the debate that is blooming here, one can see their "poor me, life is so unfair" mindset. It's obvious to me that they will be passing this along to their students and anyone else who will sympathize with them. Get over it. Life IS unfair. And the weather forecasts are wrong 50% of the time and ATC doesn't always give the clearance I need. Deal with it.
I don't know if the rest of the SFI industry is represented by those posting on this forum, but I sure hope not.
Previous to reading these posts, I would have said that we are all equal as professional instructors - however, after reading here, I can see that there is a big difference between these SFIs and CFIs. I am shaking my head with dissappointment.
I'm not talking about hours, or experience, or teaching methods or credentials - it's a simple mindset that one earns with additional training. It's a businesslike attitude regarding the privilege of flying and it appears to be lacking here in the postings from SFIs.
If I was on your side before - I am no longer. I hope the FAA does not change the interepretation.
After reading through this thread it seems to me this goes back to the age old debate - sailboats or powerboats - Fords or Chevys.
Primary training is just that - primary training. The canidate will have to pass a PTS. The people that will suffer the outcome of this are the students. The ones that have and are now being trained by the CFI-SP. To my knowledge, all those Sport CFI's out there had to take and pass a PTS for Sport CFI.
At Sun N Fun I stopped in the SAFE booth to check out what they are about. My checkbook ready, I was pitched why I should join. I was told they didn't have any Sport Pilot instructors join yet. I put my checkbook away and decided I would reserve judgement and joining for a later date. I felt a definite air of elitism. I have always supported those that support me. Don't feel any support here. This group (SAFE) may be suitable for 'real' CFI's and other 'gods of flight'.
I certainly did, and from my discussions with the CFIs around my home field and from the conversations I had with my examiner, I'm totally convinced that I was held to the same standard as an applicant for CFI-A.
I certainly didn't get that vibe from the folks I talked to at Oshkosh. In addition to a couple of SAFE officers, I spent quite a bit of time talking with the Hills about the events leading up to the formation of SAFE. I'm a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, and the issues involved were ones I'd dealt with many times before. Not once during that whole series of conversations did I feel like I was thought of any less as a freshly minted CFI-SP than if I had been an experienced Master CFI.
I believe the naysayers here do not represent the thinking of the officers and board of SAFE. I think it's incumbent on SAFE to represent the interests of the entire aviation education community, of whatever rating - or none at all. From what I heard at Oshkosh, that's what SAFE thinks, too.
"We must all hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately." Those words of wisdom apply in today's aviation world just as much as they did in 1776.
Uhm. Huh? I have no idea where you got this from. My focus as an instructor is on providing the best training I possibly can in order to give my students the tools they need to become safe pilots. What's yours?
Wow. All I can say is wow.
You don't have to make a living from something to be a professional, and you don't have to have a commercial ticket and an instrument rating to be a good teacher. Plenty of top-notch pilots out there are terrible teachers. It's about teaching, and that does not correlate directly with anything.
I wish I knew what it was that changed your mind, because nothing I saw in this discussion would lead me to the same place you've gone.
I will admit that I am not an instructor of any kind and that I found this website by accident during a routine google search. I took sport pilot training at Aero-Tech where Arlynn McMahon is chief instructor ans so I was curious to read the postings here. As there has been mention of customers and students, I thought I would drop a few thoughts from that perspective.
I am 68 years old. In January of this year, after about 3 weeks and 24 total hours, I joined the ranks of pilot-hood. In February I purchased a brand-new LSA and in July I flew to OSH (my longest x/c to date) to watch Arlynn receive her award. In October I hope to fly to the Grand Canyon with my grandson.
I have also continued with my training with WINGS, spin training, high altitude physiology and survival training. (Aero-Tech plans training opportunities.)
I now have 140 hours and have begun to entertain the possibility of adding a private pilot and a sport instructor certificate as a way to continue flying on a retirement income. I think adding a private pilot is important for my confidence and for my future students. I want to be the best I can be.
Thru my training activities I have flown with 6 different instructors - I liked getting different perspectives, they each bought me something new in addition to flight skills. I never knew exactly what credentials any of them had, I assumed that the school hired good talent. It never occured to me to ask, "Are you a sport instructor or a regular instructor." I didn't know there were different instructor credentials. I accepted them all on the basis of how well I liked and learned from them.
Each instructor seemed to have his "specialty." One was a LSA specialist, one was a TAA specialist, one was especially talented in scenario-based training. One was a weather specialist. This "specializing" seemed to work very well for students in training and the instructors liked it as they were not forced to become specialists in all areas of a broad general aviation set of skills.
As I look forward to the possibility of adding a private pilot, I will look for that portion of aviation that I MOST enjoy and (even though I must be good at everything) I will strive to become a specialist in one aspect of aviation.
I don't see doctors arguing that the brain specialist is any better than the foot specialist. I see that Doug (the president of SAFE) specializes in training in the NY corridor. I might pop up for some instrction from you, Doug. I think it's good to learn from each other. As Arlynn says, "He who dares to teach, must never cease to learn." I am glad I found Aero-Tech before I found this debate. It would have confused me beyond hope.
A paying customer and a student.
Joe (et al),
VERY well said, Joe, and hopefully read by all. I (WE) are glad you found the site, and thank you for your very well stated thoughts and information about your training and goals. We are all very proud of Arlynn, and you got your start in a great place. Keep going with your training and welcome to Aviation!
As you can tell, we are passionate about what we do, and it sounds like you are as well - but your comments are also well reasoned and sound. Thanks for helping to bring this back down to a well grounded discussion.
Best Regards - and have a SAFE day!
Alan
On July 24th, 2009, the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel issued a letter of interpretation stating that the flight training provided by subpart K instructors (those with only a sport pilot instructor certificate) cannot apply toward the flight training time required for the private pilot certificate (normally, this training is provided by a subpart H certified flight instructor).
From the four-page letter of interpretation written by FAA attorney Paul Greer, the FAA’s rationale for this ruling can be distilled down to a single argument supporting the agency’s position:
“Permitting a sport pilot to use flight training provided by a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating…to meet the aeronautical experience requirements for the issuance of a private pilot certificate however, would be the functional equivalent of permitting that instructor to provide flight training for the issuance of a private pilot certificate…. It [the FAA] did not intend to decrease the minimum experience requirements for flight instructors who provide training for the issuance of private pilot certificates….”
My position relates only to flight training in the light sport airplane category, although I believe the following argument holds true for other categories and classes of aircraft. In my opinion, the flight training provided by sport pilot instructors is sufficiently similar in both the quality and quantity (with the exceptions listed below) to that provided by certified flight instructors that some or all of this flight training time should be applicable toward meeting the private pilot flight training requirements. My reasoning follows.
It’s true that sport pilot instructors are not required to provide training in basic instrument maneuvers, night flying and electronic navigation to the sport pilot, nor are these instructors required to possess this knowledge themselves. Knowledge in these three areas, however, represents only about 15% of the total flight training knowledge required by a private pilot applicant. This means that 85% of the flight training provided by a sport pilot instructor to sport pilot applicants is identical to that provided by certified flight instructors to private pilot applicants. In fact, Paul Greer writes, “The FAA recognizes that many of the areas of operation on which an applicant for a sport pilot certificate is required to receive training are identical to those on which an applicant for a private pilot certificate is also required to receive training….” The areas in which the received training is identical is based on an examination of the FAA’s own Practical Test Standards. (The PTS identifies the minimum standards of competency that the FAA requires of all pilot applicants.)
Comparing the sport and private pilot Practical Test Standards reveals that every single flight maneuver required of a sport pilot applicant (less basic instrument maneuvering and electronic navigation) is also required of the private pilot applicant. The Practical Test Standards also make it clear that the areas of operation, tasks, objectives and minimum proficiency levels for both sport and private pilot applicants are fundamentally the same, with no practical difference between the two. It’s clear from the Practical Test Standards that the FAA requires sport pilots to demonstrate levels of performance similar to that of a private pilot applicant on the practical flight test.
It thus becomes difficult to argue that sport pilot instructors, despite having less experience, can’t or don’t provide training comparable to that provided by certified flight instructors. While it’s true that a sport pilot instructor may have less experience than his or her certified flight instructor counterpart, the FAA’s Practical Test Standards also makes it clear that this produces no practical difference in the quality of flight training provided by either instructor.
Please keep in mind here that the training a sport pilot receives isn’t somehow deficient when compared to a private pilot’s flight training. Instead, the sport pilot’s training is simply appropriate to the limitations of the airplane and regulated limits under which he or she flies (i.e., two-place, day only, at/below 10,000 feet MSL, etc.). Clearly the PTS’s completion standards indicate that in those areas where the sport and private pilot applicants receive training by their appropriately rated instructors, there is no difference in either applicant’s proficiency, skills, or competence.
Let’s also remember that sport pilots wishing to apply their flight training time toward the flight training time required for the private pilot certificate will not be deficient in knowledge or flight proficiency when becoming private pilots. The regulations require that all private pilot applicants receive a certain minimum amount of ground and flight training in very specific skill areas. Where the sport pilot regulations don’t require this training, the private pilot applicant would be required to receive that training from a certified flight instructor. In other words, the regulations ensure that sport pilots seeking a private pilot certificate will meet the minimum standards required for that rating by the FAA.
On the other hand, to be intellectually honest in this endeavor, it is important to acknowledge the FAA’s position on not lowering the experience level of flight instructors who provide training for the private pilot certificate. An instructor’s experience must, after all, count for something. It’s reasonable to assume that an instructor with more experience may have more to offer in terms of the intangibles of piloting, such as judgment and wisdom. The problem here is that these intangibles are difficult to qualify, much less quantify.
Given that sport pilots trained only by sport pilot instructors will have to spend some amount of training time with a CFI in preparation for their private pilot certificate, it’s reasonable to assume that some of these intangibles will be conveyed to this applicant. If, however, these “intangibles were not passed along to the sport pilot by sport pilot instructors, I doubt this ultimately matters in terms of safety. Why? Because there is a significant safety benefit derived from allowing sport pilots to apply their flight training time to meet the private pilot flight training requirement. This benefit consists of the economic incentive a qualified sport pilot now has to continue his or her training toward a private pilot certificate without having to worry about funding an additional 20 hours of dual instruction.
The FAA has many precedents for safely lowering the overall flight experience requirements as an incentive to attract more people to aviation (think about the reduced experience requirements for the recreational pilot certificate, sport pilot certificate, reduction in total time for instrument rating, etc.). Common sense suggests that incentives for pilots to attain a higher rating must have some positive effect on that student’s overall safety.
While I have the greatest respect for the work the FAA does, especially in the sport pilot area, I do believe that this ruling undervalued the capabilities of sport pilot instructors. I also believe that the FAA didn’t properly weigh the safety benefits of encouraging students to continue training as compared to the loss of those intangibles associated with an instructor’s lesser experience.
I hope that the FAA will reconsider allowing some or all of the flight training time provided by sport pilot instructors to sport pilots to apply toward the private pilot flight time requirement.
Sincerely,
Rod Machado
August 20, 2009
Rod
ON the money! As I state in my August 21st posting: "...So we should *unanimously* support sport pilot instruction conducted IAW the FARs as legal, valid, and acceptable training towards additional certification requirements."
Sincerely, Tim Collins
Why don't we all just unanimously support all CFI getting additional training (an instrument rating and commercial ticket) and raising the bar and not lowering it?
I still say 8th graders are not qualified to teach college classes.
Rod’s argument makes no sense. Unless, perhaps, he has a new comic book out for Sport Pilots and he does not want to upset his readers. Food for thought.
Oh, by the way, Scott, you still have not explained exactly what makes the training for those items common to sport and private pilots different between the two to the point that a sport pilot CFI's instruction on those items is not sufficient.
In the absence of such an explanation, it is you who comes off sounding like he's trying to protect his business, as opposed to Rod's detailed and exhaustive analysis.
Rod's also a well-known, recognized expert in flight training.
I suspect his opinion will sway more folks than yours will, especially if you continue to resort to simplistic sound bites without the same level of detailed analysis to back them up.
Jay
I have written extensively on this topic on this, and several other, forums and letters to the FAA, EAA, AOPA, and NAFI. My position and that of many other respected instructors that agree with me, that we need a higher standard, has been well documented.
I am told by these authorities, that more people are writing to them that supports my position than against. It is only here, on the forums, that a vocal minority is being pro-Sport Instructor being equivalent to a traditional CFI.
The main item is the learning curve a pilot goes through when he goes from Private, to Instrument, to Commercial to CFI. A pilot who goes from Private to “Instructor” is missing out on a ton of personal achievement, experience, and flight training that needs to be passed on to a student. The judgment and ADM abilities one gains in that time period is (for most people) immense.
I was at an FAA Safety meeting tonight (CFI and DPE), and the speaker said “You don’t know…what you don’t know. You need someone who knows, to teach you.”
Sound bites work best...for those who don't know, or don't want to know, all the facts.
Scott
I don’t think the Sport Pilot Instructor being ‘equivalent’ to a CFI is at issue. I thought we were all talking about credit for instruction for a sport pilot ‘upgrading’ to private pilot? I recently talked with a sport pilot who has logged over 275 hours flying time in just two years. He now is considering a Private ticket. Is it fair to him to repeat basic flying skills because his training didn’t count towards a private license or would it be reasonable to assess his skill to date and proceed with night, radio nav and hood training (or any other skills and requirements to pass the Private PTS)?
One note about the difference in training…a private pilot does not have to train in B, C or D airspace but yet is legal to enter such airspace, whereas a sport pilot must receive additional training and endorsement to be legal. Food for thought.
It comes down to the student. We have all seen instructors that can’t teach… some are here only as time builders. Unfortunate, but true. The Sport CFI’s I’ve encountered are here for the student, not the career path to the airlines. These Sport instructors offer quality instruction and pass their passion for flight to the student. I’m sure we can find examples of good and bad instructors at either level. Students will quickly discover which are good and the bad. I don’t think all Sport Pilot instructors are low time with little experience.
Rod said it best of all things written here.
There is this huge concern time and expense is lost when going from Sport to Private Pilot. As said, little is lost. Even so, I've yet to see someone moving forward who did not need a bit of recurrent training to bring back some lost skills.
SP instructors have a definite place. Are there some who don't quite have the experience level maybe they should have? Heck, that can be said of CFI-A or even the new 738 type rating when all they had flown before was a C441. There will always be a need to increase experience and improve skill. I'm sure the best among us such as Rod, Doug and Arlynn will feel the same. We never stop learning and neither do they.
For anyone to dump on another because their experience level is less only diminishes their value as a teacher and inflates apparent ego that gets in the way of being a good teacher. I tell my students to never be afraid to question me. I'm not infallible. Them seeing me correct my my mistakes will reinforce the need to also stay on top and verify their own actions. It's all part of ADM, something I very little of out of many instructors.
If someone comes to me inquiring of SP, I'll ask of their goal. If it's cost and a way to get started, I'm fine with that. If it's a means of cutting corners because they "don't have to do as much" then I'll be very concerned about their motivation as applied to safety. But, if I see any consideration of moving toward private pilot right away, I'll suggest doing so from the start.
I don't really agree with the FAA decision but I understand the logic applied. Either way, that's the rule. Now, we need to live within that rule and help each other out.
By the way, how many instructors seek training beyond what it took to achieve their current level of certificates? Is there a plan to improve their skill beyond what it is now? I plan to move toward aerobatics to make me more proficient in overall aircraft handling in upset attitudes. Just because one holds only a SP instructor certificate, they are not forbidden to acquire instrument skills. They can't teach them but it will certainly improve overall skills and add to their experience level. The CFI-A out there... what more have you done to improve your skill and experience level?
I don't think anyone on this forum has so much they can point fingers. Anyone who does would be due to retire from teaching.
Pardon my rambling,
Ken
Good Day!
I fully support the FAA revising the regulation. The SP CFI should be fully certified to provide PP credit for any pilot wishing to upgrade.
