How many hours at CFI?

[Ireallywannafly]

Just wondering how many hours most of you out there have logged by the time you finish your CFI? I guess I'm making the assumption that most people combine their Instrument rating with the other required hours.

 

Seems like 200 hours is the magic numer for being able to teach, do some site seeing tours, etc. Is this right?

 

Thanks!!

[brettjeepski]

Just wondering how many hours most of you out there have logged by the time you finish your CFI? I guess I'm making the assumption that most people combine their Instrument rating with the other required hours.

 

Seems like 200 hours is the magic numer for being able to teach, do some site seeing tours, etc. Is this right?

 

Thanks!!

I was at 210 hours when I received my CFII. And just my two cents I would highly recommend seeking out a teaching job after. You will be soooo much better of a pilot if you are able to become an instructor and teach others. You will learn everything so much better and be a safer pilot.

 

Good Luck! It's an awesome adventure!

[WolftalonID]

I was at 208 at my CFI and still working on the CFII. If all goes well then that should be done this week! The 200 hours is a requirement if your teaching in Robinson Helicopters. Read SFAR 73 in the first few pages of part 61 in e FAR/AIM book.

 

Some of the guys at my school finished much earlier than the 200, but they had to fly off the hours to start teaching. Some did it with some spring agriculture work, others paid for the time. So if you are a gifted pilot and learn fast, the hour requirements to teach in a Robinson are still there.

 

Now if you want to teach in a different make and model like the S300 it is not required to have 200 hours. Just your CFI.

[Flying Pig]

I had about 1,800hrs when I got my CFI. Learning to talk in detail while I was flying was probably the hardest thing. Second hardest was teaching the PTS vs. teaching "tricks of the trade" that I had learned from actually working as a pilot.

[Velocity173]

I had about 1,800hrs when I got my CFI. Learning to talk in detail while I was flying was probably the hardest thing. Second hardest was teaching the PTS vs. teaching "tricks of the trade" that I had learned from actually working as a pilot.

Yeah that was the hardest for me in UH-60s as well. At first I was just blurting out stuff so it wouldn't affect my flying. After awhile when you get the standards down and you're able to compartmentalize, instructing while flying (MOI) became more rhythmic.

[rotornut67]

I was at 209. Like one of the other posts said, teach for a year or so and build some time. JMO but it makes you a better pilot, but it's not everyone's cup of tea either.

[pilot#476398]

...You will be soooo much better of a pilot if you are able to become an instructor and teach others. You will learn everything so much better and be a safer pilot.

 

 

 

 

...Like one of the other posts said, teach for a year or so and build some time. JMO but it makes you a better pilot, but it's not everyone's cup of tea either.

 

 

How do you guys know that teaching makes you a better pilot than someone who say, does tours in a 44, or photos in a 22? Not a CFI, which is why I ask.

[WolftalonID]

Because it applies to anything in life. You can only successfully teach another person something if you truly understand the subject. If you try to teach before you understand the subject, the student only learns the misinformation you spue out. Goes back to the law of primacy.

So, as you teach, the progress of your students is a direct reflection of how well you knew what you taught them.

 

As an instructor you need to first truely know the subject, and second as an instructor, your still the student. You will continue to hone your skills as you experience how other pilots and students do the things that you do. There is a saying, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Some students may over achieve and go beyond you, and end up teaching you back, another way to expand your experience and knowledge.

 

As pilots we are always the student our entire careers, so starting with a solid foundation as a CFI has always helped those willing to impart into others.

[WolftalonID]

Edit, double posted

[pilot#476398]

I was just wondering if they had perhaps interviewed or done flight checks with 1000hr non-CFI pilots, and noticed that they really didn't measure up to those applicants who were CFIs?

[Ireallywannafly]

I was at 208 at my CFI and still working on the CFII. If all goes well then that should be done this week! The 200 hours is a requirement if your teaching in Robinson Helicopters. Read SFAR 73 in the first few pages of part 61 in e FAR/AIM book.

 

Some of the guys at my school finished much earlier than the 200, but they had to fly off the hours to start teaching. Some did it with some spring agriculture work, others paid for the time. So if you are a gifted pilot and learn fast, the hour requirements to teach in a Robinson are still there.

 

Now if you want to teach in a different make and model like the S300 it is not required to have 200 hours. Just your CFI.

 

Oh, got it, thanks for the clarification on that, I just thought the 200 hrs was standard no matter what you're flying. Congrats on finishing up CFII, hope you've got a job waiting for you!

[Flying Pig]

I was just wondering if they had perhaps interviewed or done flight checks with 1000hr non-CFI pilots, and noticed that they really didn't measure up to those applicants who were CFIs?

I think it would all depend on what the non-CFI was doing for those 1000hrs.

[Mikemv]

 

 

 

 

How do you guys know that teaching makes you a better pilot than someone who say, does tours in a 44, or photos in a 22? Not a CFI, which is why I ask.

 

This is an interesting question.

 

In our turn over CFI environment, we have CFIs (causing a high percentage of our accidents)that do not understand the basics, teaching pilot applicants and CFI applicants. How much time as a sole manipulator of the controls do they have when they reach 1,000 hrs. PIC logged?

 

How does that pilot compare to one that started flying tours/photo/private and has logged 1,000hrs?

 

In out USHST workshop at Flight Safety last month, we addressed this instructional accident causal factor with some recommendations about future requirements to become a helicopter CFI and the qualifications of the CFI teaching that CFI applicant.

 

I do agree that someone teaching a subject better learns the subject material if the experience flows in both directions, outward/inward. I find so many CFIs that "know it all" but can not explain or do not understand many elements of helicopter flying. It is the industry's fault and it is being addressed.

 

Mike

[pilot#476398]

 

This is an interesting question.

 

In our turn over CFI environment, we have CFIs (causing a high percentage of our accidents)that do not understand the basics, teaching pilot applicants and CFI applicants. How much time as a sole manipulator of the controls do they have when they reach 1,000 hrs. PIC logged?

 

How does that pilot compare to one that started flying tours/photo/private and has logged 1,000hrs?

 

In out USHST workshop at Flight Safety last month, we addressed this instructional accident causal factor with some recommendations about future requirements to become a helicopter CFI and the qualifications of the CFI teaching that CFI applicant.

 

I do agree that someone teaching a subject better learns the subject material if the experience flows in both directions, outward/inward. I find so many CFIs that "know it all" but can not explain or do not understand many elements of helicopter flying. It is the industry's fault and it is being addressed.

 

Mike

 

Well of my 700 hours 200 is dual recieved and the other 500 is as "sole manipulator of the controls" mainly just giving rides/photos/ferry flights. So if you need a test subject for an experiment, I'm available.

 

I'm one of those guys who isn't really good at explaining things, plus I just don't have the personality to be a "good" teacher!

[DieselBoy]

 

 

 

 

How do you guys know that teaching makes you a better pilot than someone who say, does tours in a 44, or photos in a 22? Not a CFI, which is why I ask.

 

 

How exactly does a posi-trac rear end on a Plymouth work? It just does.

 

It sure made ME a better pilot, but so has every other job. Along with what has already been stated, a CFI is also teaching/demonstrating EP's over and over and over and over again every single day for 1-2 years. The "Being a CFI made them a better pilot" usually comes directly from the CFI's mouth. Some people just aren't cut out to be CFI's and will make great pilots, as long as they keep learning and making themselves "better pilots."

 

I finished my CFI training before 200, but thanks to Robinson I had to buy more hours and took the checkride right at 200.

[WolftalonID]

Mike you bring up a very valid point. As a CFI I am expected to "embrace my CFIness" as I have heard said more than once. I take this to mean, acknowledge that I DO know and have confidence to express that knowledge to the students. We get to practice with both instructors as well as other CFI students and on occasion teach PVT level students while a CFI observes.

Its nerve racking hoping I didnt mix anything up and really confuse a poor guy!

 

That being said, I do see the know it all types come through the school often. I have yet to see one hired at my school.

 

I myself have been on a crash course of grilling this week finding my weaknesses prior to my practical with the DPE.

I have discovered DPE's are gifted people that can read your thoughts, and see the missing gaps in anything, then somehow specifically ask you questions on what you dont know, leaving you squirming like a worm, haha.

I like to find my weak spots, it hurts but its worth it.

 

So as a CFI, I should work to always learn so as not to be the next contestant on the who died list. As well, I want my students to be solid, not just barely making it.

 

My own primary instructor has been a solid example of tough love when it comes to expectations. I have successfully passed every practical, but not every internal progress stage check.

 

I dont have other schools to compare my education to, but I am sure there are some not so good.

 

I would guess that also applies to the DPE passing the applicant?

[Mikemv]

New CFIs need mentoring. It is the responsibility of the school to mentor and develop CFIs. This is something that our USHST, JHSIT trng. work group has been addressing.

 

We are changing/updating/revising the PTS for CFI-RH, the Comm. PTS (06/01/2013)as the newer SRM elements were overlooked and the Private for standardized revisions as in the Airplane PTS (06/01/2012) and to match IFR & CFII PTS.

 

Many want to bring Safety Management Systems (SMS) into the PTS at the Private level. My feedback was "What CFI is going to teach SMS to a Private applicant?" It is our job to provide SMS training handbooks, AC's, etc. to ramp everyone up to SMS mentality. It will come to the CFI-RH PTS along with expanded ADM, SRM areas.

 

CFI requirements may be changing (200 hrs. helicopter + + ) along with additional minimum requirements and an endorsement requirement for CFIs to teach CFI applicants. All of this is only being proposed at this time. It will create a better class of initial flight instructor.

 

As a member of the IHST Safety & SMS committee, and my efforts revolve around SMS Education & Outreach (project 3).

 

The coming Integrated Airman Certification Standards which will replace the PTSs around 2017 are SMS based. We have a sub committee to get the Helicopter ACS's correct.

 

As an industry we (I) have a lot to do to improve training for pilot applicants, better train our trainers and reduce accidents.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

[aussiecop]

I had about 1,800hrs when I got my CFI. Learning to talk in detail while I was flying was probably the hardest thing. Second hardest was teaching the PTS vs. teaching "tricks of the trade" that I had learned from actually working as a pilot.

 

Interesting take, I had an education and law enforcement background when I started flying and my instructor (well the first of 4) was teaching me to announce everything I did as I did it, it became second nature to be speaking out loud when I was flying, that in itself helps you as you teach a practical skill I think.

[Spike]

 

 

We are changing/updating/revising the PTS for CFI-RH, the Comm. PTS (06/01/2013)as the newer SRM elements were overlooked and the Private for standardized revisions as in the Airplane PTS (06/01/2012) and to match IFR & CFII PTS.

 

Many want to bring Safety Management Systems (SMS) into the PTS at the Private level. My feedback was "What CFI is going to teach SMS to a Private applicant?" It is our job to provide SMS training handbooks, AC's, etc. to ramp everyone up to SMS mentality. It will come to the CFI-RH PTS along with expanded ADM, SRM areas.

 

CFI requirements may be changing (200 hrs. helicopter + + ) along with additional minimum requirements and an endorsement requirement for CFIs to teach CFI applicants. All of this is only being proposed at this time. It will create a better class of initial flight instructor.

 

 

 

Respectfully, I do not agree with this….

 

Over the years, has any changes in the PTS benefited the applicant? The proverbial word on the street is a resounding no. Furthermore, how is increasing the required hours for CFI’s going to benefit the pool of upcoming CFI’s? IMO, flight instruction is about quality, not quantity, and requiring the applicants throw their money at the problem won’t fix it……..

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by Spike

[pilot#476398]

No amount of training would make me a "good" teacher!

[Mikemv]

Spike,

 

You stated "Over the years, has any changes in the PTS benefited the applicant? The proverbial word on the street is a resounding no. Furthermore, how is increasing the required hours for CFI’s going to benefit the pool of upcoming CFI’s? IMO, flight instruction is about quality, not quantity, and requiring the applicants throw their money at the problem won’t fix it…….."

 

If the changes in the PTS did not benefit the applicant it was because the quality of instruction was not up to par. I have seen many benefits in PTS changes to pilots.

 

As far as "word on the street", ---not a good representation of what will make improvements in the future and not supported by valid data. IHST has a group that does analysis in addressing accidents, causal factors, etc. Professional entities do not make recommendations based on "street word".

 

Increasing the hours to 200 helicopter will prevent the additional category Commercial with 50 hrs. helo becoming a CFI-RH. SFAR 73 requirements will be met so no additional "money must be thrown at a problem". There is more to the proposal that includes an approved ground training course for CFI applicants (may be available on line or through other venues) and specifics about time in make/model. All of our efforts are not listed here as they are going through AFS-800, AFS-600 and other FAA areas.

 

These proposals were developed after much research of valid data, not "street word". They still need to be "kicked around" and you are welcome to your opinion of course and it is good that you posted your thoughts on this here on VR. Maybe we can get some useful input from the "street" or from your experience or anyone here on VR.

 

I ask how much of the "street word" is valid and documented? "Street word" is part of the problem in that it is not valid in its totality and can not be backed up across the board. It is easy to agree with something that we read, heard or want to believe without actual validation.

 

We do have a web conference on Sept. 18th and I/we/USHST would welcome valid input to bettering flight instruction that addresses the training accident causal factors and Private certificate holders. These two groups make up much of our helicopter accidents, much more than HEMS.

 

I would take responses/input forward to the group.

 

Input can be posted here, PM'd to me or e-mailed to mikefranz@embarqmail.com (edit-to correct e-mail addy)

 

Please be sincere in all responses with workable suggestions. USHST is listening.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

Edited September 5, 2013 by Mikemv

[pilot#476398]

 

 

We do have a web conference on Sept. 18th and I/we/USHST would welcome valid input to bettering flight instruction that addresses the training accident causal factors and Private certificate holders. These two groups make up much of our helicopter accidents, much more than HEMS.

 

 

 

Although I am Commercially rated, the bulk of my experience is in the GA environment. So I'm curious,; what type of accidents are my fellow "joy riders" getting in to?

[Spike]

Spike,

 

You stated "Over the years, has any changes in the PTS benefited the applicant? The proverbial word on the street is a resounding no. Furthermore, how is increasing the required hours for CFI’s going to benefit the pool of upcoming CFI’s? IMO, flight instruction is about quality, not quantity, and requiring the applicants throw their money at the problem won’t fix it…….."

 

If the changes in the PTS did not benefit the applicant it was because the quality of instruction was not up to par. I have seen many benefits in PTS changes to pilots.

 

As far as "word on the street", ---not a good representation of what will make improvements in the future and not supported by valid data. IHST has a group that does analysis in addressing accidents, causal factors, etc. Professional entities do not make recommendations based on "street word".

 

Increasing the hours to 200 helicopter will prevent the additional category Commercial with 50 hrs. helo becoming a CFI-RH. SFAR 73 requirements will be met so no additional "money must be thrown at a problem". There is more to the proposal that includes an approved ground training course for CFI applicants (may be available on line or through other venues) and specifics about time in make/model. All of our efforts are not listed here as they are going through AFS-800, AFS-600 and other FAA areas.

 

These proposals were developed after much research of valid data, not "street word". They still need to be "kicked around" and you are welcome to your opinion of course and it is good that you posted your thoughts on this here on VR. Maybe we can get some useful input from the "street" or from your experience or anyone here on VR.

 

I ask how much of the "street word" is valid and documented? "Street word" is part of the problem in that it is not valid in its totality and can not be backed up across the board. It is easy to agree with something that we read, heard or want to believe without actual validation.

 

We do have a web conference on Sept. 18th and I/we/USHST would welcome valid input to bettering flight instruction that addresses the training accident causal factors and Private certificate holders. These two groups make up much of our helicopter accidents, much more than HEMS.

 

I would take responses/input forward to the group.

 

Input can be posted here, PM'd to me or e-mailed to mikefranz@embarq.mail.com

 

Please be sincere in all responses with workable suggestions. USHST is listening.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike

 

Mike,

 

Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate your efforts to improve this industry.

 

I agree the “word on the street” isn’t the best term and on the surface, not supported by data. However, that would depend on where you research……

 

Recently, a fire pilot buddy of mine was telling me how his company is having trouble with “newer” pilots. That is, on paper they seem qualified and can obviously pass a check-ride but once in the field, they fold like a wet paper towel eventually leading to issued SAFECOMS and the threat of lost contracts....

 

Additionally, this discussion is also reminiscent of a past thread about the “quality” of the upcoming pilot pool and how some employers were experiencing issues with new(er) applicants. If I’m not mistaken, the discussion was approximately 2 years ago…..

 

With that said, the “word” would theoretically come from the operators. Ask them what is lacking in today’s applicants and you may have an indicator which is directly related to the real world…..

 

Lastly, the 200+ requirement would hurt the CFI’s who don’t fly the Robinson products. If the minimums are increased, these are the pilots who will be forced to pay for additional training they probably don’t need……

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by Spike

[Mikemv]

Spike,

 

Much of your wording above is about shortcomings in the pilot pool for operators. My input was about accident reduction in the training environment.

 

The IHST/USHST has members in our work groups from the industry, including OEMS and operators (tours, HEMS, utility, LEA, simulation, SMS, DPEs, EASA) plus the FAA.

 

I reread the above posts and only one CFI had to get additional hours to meet the SFAR reqs. Many only had the CFI and not CFII at 200 hours. Much of this was taken into account during our workshop and in recommendations for better training our trainers and addressing the causal factors of accidents in the training environment.

 

CFIs that want to be competitive for that first job need to be CFII and meet the SFAR for R22/44. If they train in another airframe there opportunity is limited. Granted it may cost them more, but they may have to pay more for Robinson time to get a job as it is. In reality there is no increase in financial burden. We took that into account and actual numbers from applicant logbooks.

 

Your input is always valued by me, reflected in the amount of "likes" I have given you.

 

These proposals still have to pass through all the appropriate channels and may be changed or negated. The IACS is for real, is coming and will help.

 

Mike

[apiaguy]

I hope none of it makes it to regulation. I agree w spikes points. I also believe extra hours in the training environment will only increase training accidents not decrease commercial flying accidents. If anything the use of Robinson products and their "tricky" flight habits have decreased the knowledge and experience of entry level pilots. Sure the sfar has reduced accidents but made a pilot who doesn't get to experience many limits of his machine... No throttle control, limited attitude flight due to mast bumping risk, little to no experience with full touchdown autos due to low inertia and "stiff legs". Take a look at the new video posted on YouTube. "Pov helicopter crash original" not a training accident but a foolish demonstration of high da and a tailwind... Screaming a need for a more experienced pilot in his machine