GOUGE Military Competency Route to CFI/CFII - advice

[Jim123]

I actually had to learn some of the academics and theory of becoming an educator...something nobody in the Navy has to do in order to instruct...including the “best” instructors of patchwearers.

There's a lot of truth in this.

A lot of military flight training is "figure it out yourself/why are you fucked up when the others aren't." We do need fleet pilots who can figure shit out for themselves and we also need to wash out the ones who can't, so yeah, that's how it is sometimes. At least compared to Part 61 flight training (aka you have money so let's keep trying).

 

[RobLyman]

I instructed at both HSL-40 and HSL-41 before leaving the Navy. I did my CFI/CFII via part 141 in 2005, before the regs changed allowing for a CFI milcomp. My check rides for CFI/CFII were the toughest check rides I had ever taken or have taken since. After the regs changed I walked into a FSDO, paid $40 and walked out with a helicopter CFI/CFII add on. The only time civilian check rides are "easy" is when the DE is on the payrole of the part 141 school (not my case). If you are not a student at the school but get checked by another school's DE, your checkride may or may not involve lubrication, but you're getting the screw job one way or another.

I have been doing military flight instruction since 1989 and civilian instruction since 2005. In my experience, civilian instructors for the most part have a significant edge over their military counterparts in knowledge of the FARs and instructional technique. But I would take a military IP any day for NVG flight, ship ops, etc..

 

[ChuckMK23]

Just finished up at the local FSDO here in Cincinnati. Was fortune to connect with one of the local FAA inspectors who is also a former USAF C-130 guy. I have to say I like this 'new' FAA, he made it painless for me like @huggyu2 mentioned. I brought the kitchen sink for paperwork, but all he needed was my NATOPS jacket with my CNATRA Flight Instructor designation letter.

The FAA inspector also coached me on process to get my Airplane CFI/CFII add-on - again painless - basically demonstrating commercial manuevers from the right seat in a Cessna 172 to a DPE. Ditto for MEI in a light twin that I have 5 or more hours in (Aztec). Having a mil-comp CFI/CFII in any category/class avoids the hassle factor of 6 hour oral, multiple knowledge tests, etc - and add ons for additional category/class easier and more direct only requiring a simple checkride.

Thumbs up again to the folks at Sheppard.

 

[BACONATOR]

That's ridiculous and dangerous IMHO. If you've never been an actual primary helo instructor in the Navy you shouldn't get a CFI rating. The fact that they do that does a disservice to the flying public who don't know any better. A NATOPS O is not teaching someone to fly, evaluating someone on a similar skill level is completely different. I have a feeling that a student who knows nothing will find much more inventive ways to kill you than a winged aviator.

I instructed at both HSL-40 and HSL-41 before leaving the Navy. I did my CFI/CFII via part 141 in 2005, before the regs changed allowing for a CFI milcomp. My check rides for CFI/CFII were the toughest check rides I had ever taken or have taken since. After the regs changed I walked into a FSDO, paid $40 and walked out with a helicopter CFI/CFII add on. The only time civilian check rides are "easy" is when the DE is on the payrole of the part 141 school (not my case). If you are not a student at the school but get checked by another school's DE, your checkride may or may not involve lubrication, but you're getting the screw job one way or another.

I have been doing military flight instruction since 1989 and civilian instruction since 2005. In my experience, civilian instructors for the most part have a significant edge over their military counterparts in knowledge of the FARs and instructional technique. But I would take a military IP any day for NVG flight, ship ops, etc..

I'm not debating what it is or isn't. It's the letter of the law and that law is open to a lot of interpretation. The difference is, unlike the Navy which is a glorified NATOPS check, a "here's how they can kill you", and a vote of confidence, the Air Force training I went through is probably as difficult as a civilian prepping for CFI/I. It was 5 months and 6 checkrides in all categories and 2 Form 8 (read: NATOPS ) checkrides. So while I may not have been formally trained in primary helicopter "instruction", much of the syllabus for CFI is in fundamentals of instruction, which I was well-trained in, and I have over a thousand hours of instructional experienced in airplanes, so the stick and rudder instruction in helicopters may be a bit rusty, but probably no more than a new CFI who has never had to "teach" that stuff for real. And I'm aware of how hard CFI checkrides are. I did do my MEI the FAA way. That being said, I'm not hubristic enough to assume I can take out a brand new PPL student and teach him how to hover on my first instructional flight, so I would be doing a lot of prep, flying on my own and seeking mentorship from seasoned CFIs if I ever chose to pursue a helicopter CFI gig.

If the law is stupid, change the law. I won't argue that. But nothing about what I did was devious or against the regs. I am all about pursuing benefits that are given to the military and if my choices are: show them my paperwork and get 2 free ratings that would cost me 10K to get the hard way, or not.... guess which path I'm going to choose?

 

[Gatordev]

I’d say a military pilot giving NATOPS checks is probably better prepared than a brand new CFI, at least they were in my P-3 days having gone through the squadron IP training syllabus.

I don't disagree with the overall point of your post, but from what I've heard in talking with VP guys and what I've seen on the helo side, the VP IP track (which isn't even a thing until the FRS/TRACOM for helo guys) appears to be more structured than anything in helo-land (fleet-wise).

I understand what Bac-Otto did is perfectly legal and understandable, I do tend to agree that going out and teaching someone how to hover on the civilian side is nowhere near giving someone a NATOPS check in a -60.

A lot of military flight training is "figure it out yourself/why are you fucked up when the others aren't." We do need fleet pilots who can figure shit out for themselves and we also need to wash out the ones who can't, so yeah, that's how it is sometimes.

At least at TW-5, I found there to be a decent amount of instructional technique taught on the FITU side. Maybe that wasn't the case when you went through with the T-6 because it was new. It sure seemed like it was a thing on the HITU side, when talking to HT bubbas.

I didn't see quite as much of that on the FRS side. There's certainly some of it, but not as much of the "when Junior does x he fails, let's try to teach him a different way by doing y and hopefully get a different result for the same maneuver." But then again, that comes easier after doing 4 IP tours and having 2K+ in model, so that's not necessarily the fault of of the FRS syllabus. Again, this goes back to what I saw at the FITU...you had guys with 3-5K in model, all IP time, so you would see lots of varied technique to store away in your bag of tricks for later.

 

[Jim123]

At least at TW-5, I found there to be a decent amount of instructional technique taught on the FITU side. Maybe that wasn't the case when you went through with the T-6 because it was new. It sure seemed like it was a thing on the HITU side, when talking to HT bubbas.

Oh yes, was and still is, although advanced instruction is more teaching oriented than primary. Primary, notwithstanding a great deal of helpful IPs, will always have that air about it that if a student doesn't "get it" within the time and resources allotted, then they have to "pursue success elsewhere."

I meant the "figure it out yourself" in the sense that the SNAs learn a foundation of stuff while studying on their own time, the learning curve per flight hour is quite steep, and most of the hours the students spend learning stuff are not during a scheduled event. The time spent with an IP is used quite effectively though, and a great IP and a poor IP can both make a key difference.

 

[Gatordev]

Gotcha.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Cheapest and easiest way is the "Military Competency" app. 10 bucks. Go through the question banks and take practice tests until you're consistently in the 80s. Took me a couple days to be ready. Not sure on Shephard air, but I'm guessing it's a bit more than 10 bucks. Also, the FSDO will write you up for basically any rating you can justify. In my career, I've managed to sea-lawyer two FSDOs into writing me an airplane instrument rating, and a CFI-H and CFII-H certificates... all about what paperwork you have and what it says. If they buy it, you get the rating.

Sheppard is $50 buck-ish per exam

 

[ChuckMK23]

In my day we didn’t get much instructional technique in the HITU - I thought it was unfortunate. And as a new IP you were flying BI’s and RI’s and the occasional HTAC’s or AN /ON.

As a CAT I Stan pilot and eventually as the stage manager, I really took seriously the passing on of instructional technique to my fellow IP’s. And that’s where the learning took place - both in the CAT I transition and in annual NATOPS checks. You as an IP had a great deal of impact in the quality of a student in early stages of syllabus. I saw it all the time.

 

[ChuckMK23]

@BACONATOR wasn’t kidding - “there’s an app for that”

 

[sevenhelmet]

I just took my military competency a few weeks ago. Sheppard Air was a 100% shack.

 

[HuggyU2]

There is Sheppard Air.
And there's everyone else.

 

[BACONATOR]

There is Sheppard Air.
And there's everyone else.

For ATP, in particular. It's the toughest test, as it had over 1,000 question bank. I still did it the tough way with the $10 app option through rote memorization of much of the bank and learning some of the calcs and/or not worrying about the few left over when I knew I got enough right to pass on the test itself.

Although I think the shephard air for ATP was like over 100 bucks. Worth it for a sure thing, with a money-back guarantee.

 

[ChuckMK23]

So just an update - with the following in hand I have been trying to get the local FSDO to help me understand path to CFI/CFII Airplane add-on...

Was hoping a practical test in the airplane would do - but the FAA would never make it that easy. After consulting 2 DPE's (who did not know) and 3 FSDO FAA examiners, I finally got word that I need

1. The Flight Instructor Airplane and Flight Instructor Instrument Airplane knowledge exams. These each require a logbook endorsement from a CFI/CFII on knowledge test readiness.

2. Practical test in the airplane (2 logbook endorsements on having received preparation) - practical test in airplane requires retractable gear and constant speed prop.

Thankfully, the question bank for the FIA and FII knowledge exams is exactly the same as the Military Competency Instructor exam ! So back to Sheppard for the FIA and FII prep.

Will keep you all posted.

 

[Gatordev]

Asking for my own education (and it was a long day, so too lazy to look it up)...

How do you get a type rating in a -206? Are helos exempt from the weight limitation/categorization?