Even though I had taken checkrides previously (obviously), this was to be the toughest one I’ve taken yet. The certified flight instructor checkride is one of the most difficult checkrides there are with a first-time pass rate of just under 70% as of 2017. Although many of the topics are not new to applicants, the level of knowledge required to pass the checkride is beyond the level required of any other pilot certificate. Another factor that makes this particular ride difficult is that the examiner is designated by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional office. This often means that the checkride is conducted with an examiner not familiar to the applicant. This was the case for my checkride. The preparation for the CFI checkride is different as well. For the oral portion, the examiner expected me to bring all of my lesson plans and references as the PTS requires a lesson to be taught on one of the maneuvers. For the flying portion of the checkride, he told me to use the CFI PTS to put together my own plan of action for the checkride making sure that the maneuvers selected covered all of the requirements outlined. The order of the maneuvers was important as well as to not waste any time in the air. Unlike all of the other checkrides I had taken previously, there wasn’t a requirement to plan a cross-country flight.
The Oral Exam
As any other checkride I’ve taken in the past, the first task was to complete IACRA and review all of the documents required for the checkride. Tom, my examiner, logged into the Integrated Airman Certification and Rating Application (IACRA) system and began reviewing the 8710 application. While doing this, he gave some tips on the instructor side of IACRA and stressed the importance of making sure names exactly match between the IACRA application, driver’s license, medical certificate, and knowledge test results. Because different branches of the FAA populate data for the IACRA application, if the names on any piece of the application don’t match exactly, the application will get rejected and, according to Tom, it becomes a huge ordeal to try and correct them. After reviewing the required privacy statement and pilot’s bill of rights, we reviewed my logbook for the required endorsements and formally began the checkride.
Tom’s first task for me was to teach a lesson on chandelles. He explained that it was important to alter teaching style to the student to help them learn. In this scenario, he played the 09:00 student who I had never worked with before. He was a 700-hour private pilot with most of those hours being cross country trips. The reason for him wanting a commercial certificate was to be able to fly his employer’s Piper Arrow for work-related trips. Although the regulations do not require him to have a commercial certificate in this scenario, the insurance company was requiring him to have one. He emphasized that he really wasn’t interested in earning his commercial certificate but still wanted to fly for work. To make things even more difficult, he had not done any ground training in the previous seven years and has had a friend (who is a CFI) do all of his biannual flight reviews. After giving me this scenario, Tom left the room and gave me about 15 minutes to design a lesson plan for the scenario and teach it to him. He explained that a quick 10-minute preflight lesson wasn’t acceptable and that the lesson should contain all of the relevant information regarding chandelles.
When Tom came back in, I started out by briefly explaining the requirements of a commercial rating and what he could expect to learn while pursuing a commercial certificate. I then proceeded to explain what a chandelle is and the purpose of it being a “maximum performance turn”. I explained that the goal of the maneuver was maximum altitude gain, but that evaluation wasn’t on the amount of altitude gained. The “rubric” evaluated the quality of the maneuver. I used a model aircraft to demonstrate the maneuver and broke it down into two segments: the first 90 degrees of the turn where bank is constant and pitch is changing, and the second 90 degrees of the turn where pitch is constant and bank is changing. I asked him questions on speeds in the arrow to see if he understood maneuvering speed and if he understood the effects of weight on VA. He answered that weight did not affect maneuvering speed so I explained the VG diagram and effects of weight along with the effects of bank and load factor on stall speed. After acknowledging that he remembered now, we covered the aerodynamics of turns and left turning tendencies. I used a toy propeller as an aid to explain P-factor and torque. Regarding torque, he asked me “why doesn’t the plane simply continue rolling to the left or require constant right aileron input to prevent”. I did not know why so I looked it up in my tabbed Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK) and explained how aircraft design (specifically a larger angle of incidence on the left wing) helps prevent that. I covered the importance of coordination in the maneuver and monitoring airspeed as to not get into a stalled condition in the last bit of the turn. In an attempt to try and evaluate his understanding of the lesson, I asked him to walk me through the steps required to fly a chandelle and if he could tell me where he would need the most rudder input. He answered incorrectly so we covered how speed affects left-turning tendencies again to which he then understood. Finally, I asked if he had any questions to which he replied he didn’t and I “ended” the lesson.
Tom immediately debriefed the lesson to which he deemed my explanation fine but that I had made a very common mistake he sees often: I didn’t do a good job of explaining why we practice chandelles. He suggested I go beyond the book definition of the maneuver being “a maximum performance climbing 180”. He explained that students often find the history of chandelles being a WWI maneuver interesting and puts it into perspective. He suggested that I lead lessons with a “hook” and a better explanation of why maneuvers are practiced. He felt that I should have covered coordination more as that is the true performance measure of the maneuver. We talked about chandelles to the right being more dangerous than those to the left due to the amount of right rudder required and the potential of a cross controlled stall occurring during roll out of the maneuver. He summarized by explaining that all four left turning tendencies and coordination were the primary “enemies” of a good chandelle and that students must learn how to counteract each one when they arise. The lesson portion of the checkride took about an hour and a half from prep time to debrief.
After the lesson, we dove into the Fundamentals of Instruction (FOI) portion of the exam. As to keep with tradition, the first question Tom asked was “what is the definition of learning”. Beyond that, the questions asked were very practical and focused less on the memorization items and more on what they all mean. For example, instead of asking me to list the characteristics of learning, he asked me to give an example of how learning is multifaceted. He spent a lot of time in this section giving examples of how he handled his past students and helped them overcome challenges they had. One of the questions asked regarding the laws of learning was how to use the principle of primacy to prevent fuel-related accidents from occurring in general aviation. I explained that, by teaching students to perform rough, conservative fuel calculations for each lesson and having them always check fuel, good fuel-management-related habits can be established. He thought this was a great answer.
Instructor responsibility and professionalism was another topic we covered in depth on the FOI portion of the checkride. Tom asked what professionalism meant and I explained that it can mean a lot of different things depending on the environment and circumstances. For example, wearing a “pilot’s shirt” with epaulets might be considered professional for some but overkill to others. The most important thing is to stay current on information, participate in the community, and strive to give each student the best service for their dollar. Tom liked this answer and we talked for a bit about examples of bad instructors and the lasting impression it leaves on students. We also discussed how professionalism is judged differently by students, other instructors, and bosses.
We spent about an hour talking about instructor risk and common circumstances where instructors expose themselves more than they should. He stressed the importance of checking logbooks for student-owned aircraft and making sure that their (or the flight school’s) insurance covers you for the instruction. Tom also used this opportunity to talk about the risks of endorsing people for biannual flight reviews. He shared that he does not do biannual flight reviews anymore but will work with them on Wings Program activities to help them complete a phase of wings.
One of the recommendations Tom had that I really like was to keep a binder full of “rainy day” lessons that could be taught when the weather is bad. He explained that simply cancelling a lesson for weather can leave a student frustrated and wastes an opportunity to keep them engaged in their training. He suggested to have lessons on aircraft logbooks, runway incursion avoidance, and avionics usage as a start.
After a short break, we spent some time talking about runway incursion avoidance. Tom showed me a YouTube video of United 1448 and used is as a positive example of runway incursion avoidance techniques that show the student it’s okay to simply stop and take a timeout while things get sorted out. We also talked about the importance of briefing taxiway diagrams, hotspots, and not performing checklists while taxiing. Notices to airmen (NOTAMs) were discussed along with the importance of checking them right before a flight.
Another big topic covered on the checkride was logbook endorsements as it is a required task in the CFI PTS. Tom had me explain the endorsements required for a student pilot from the beginning of their training to taking their checkride. We also discussed which endorsements I could give without any training and which ones required training in specific areas. The topic of limitations on solo endorsements came up and I was asked what kind of limitations I would place on a solo endorsement. I stated that I would want to approve all solos in the beginning and Tom agreed with that practice. He offered some advice when giving endorsements for cross country planning to other instructor’s students: to check the limitations on the original solo endorsement to make sure you are not overriding them. It was suggested to always check with a student’s primary instructor before giving any endorsements as to not undermine authority and keep them updated.
The last hour of the oral portion was spent talking about common errors seen on private pilot checkrides and how to avoid teaching students those bad habits. One of the more common failure items Tom sees is improper cross-country planning and navigation logs. He has a library of navigation logs with errors such as missing fuel calculations, times incorrect by hours, and misspellings in fixes and airport identifiers. Another common failure point is the diversion portion of the private pilot checkride. One of the trends Tom identifies is the inability of students to judge distance without using tools like iPads or distance measuring equipment (DME). He, again, has examples of students getting lost during the diversion portion of the checkride or flying right over the airport and not recognizing it. Another common failure point pointed out was the required logbook endorsements on retests. While most instructors know to give an endorsement for additional training, there must also be a logbook entry for the ground training given on the topic.
Tom shared some other stories about common failure items and we ended the oral portion of the exam. After looking at the weather, I elected to discontinue the checkride due to high crosswinds and we filled out the required paperwork for a letter of discontinuance.
The Practical Exam
Tom and I rescheduled the flight portion of the checkride for the following Monday. Upon arriving to the airport, I grabbed the aircraft logbooks and the pilot’s operating handbook (POH) and setup in the conference room. Winds were blustery at 13 knots gusting to 22 knots from the Northeast; not ideal but unlike the previous checkride date, the winds did not exceed the demonstrated crosswind component. Upon Tom’s arrival, we discussed my plan of action for the checkride and verified that it included all of the items required in the CFI PTS. He took a brief look at my weight and balance calculations and we talked about the short-field takeoff procedure published in the Piper Arrow POH. We both came to the conclusion that performing the maneuver as published in the POH with a rotation speed of 56 knots and an over-obstacle speed of 59 knots would be an unnecessary risk. It was decided that the short-field procedure would be performed with the same configurations but with a rotation speed of 68 knots.
The next thing we looked at was the logbooks for the plane. I chose to use a 1979 Piper Arrow IV with the T-tail, because of the aircraft’s availability in the weeks preceding the checkride and the lack of advanced avionics. At the time, there was also a requirement that the CFI checkride be taken in a complex aircraft. Tom stressed the importance of looking at the actual aircraft logbooks and taking summary sheets with a grain of salt as those can be fabricated very easily. He had me show him the required inspections in the logbooks which I had tabbed on a previous day to make finding them easier. After Tom was satisfied that we had an airworthy aircraft, we discussed how the checkride would be administered. Tom stated that he would play the role of a student on the checkride and that, for any maneuver demonstrated, I could assume we had covered a preflight briefing on that maneuver. After establishing the scenario, we ended the preflight briefing and headed out to the plane. All in all, the preflight briefing took about 20 minutes.
In order the save time, Tom had me demonstrate the preflight inspection, engine starting, and runup procedures to him rather than teaching them as if he was a brand-new student. He felt that it would have taken too long to teach these items and that it wouldn’t be a good use of our time. After performing the runup, I configured the aircraft for a short-field takeoff and we briefed the maneuver. Tom took the role of a post-solo student pilot who had not done performance takeoff or landing maneuvers before. We elected to save some time and perform an intersection departure. Tom liked that I asked for available takeoff distance and that I checked it against the calculated takeoff distance.
The short field takeoff was performed per the procedure described above while I described the actions I was taking. Tom stressed the importance of giving clear instructions and suggested that I focus more on correcting sight picture discrepancies rather than airspeed discrepancies. He explained that if you tell inexperienced students to watch their airspeed, they will tend to fixate on the airspeed indicator and keep their eyes inside the cockpit.
Upon climbing out of the class C airspace, I demonstrated a power-on stall to first indication followed by a steep turn to the left. During all of the demonstrations, I made sure to complete the pre-maneuver checklist and perform clearing turns. I focused my discussions during the maneuvers towards the psychomotor actions and the sight pictures experienced during each phase of the maneuvers. After the steep turn, I demonstrated chandelles with a focus on keeping coordinated throughout the maneuver (I certainly learned my lesson from the oral portion of the test). I discontinued my first chandelle part way through because I did not reach the appropriate max-pitch-up- attitude at the 90-degree point of the maneuver. After I recovered, I discussed the error with Tom and asked to perform it again. The second chandelle to the left was satisfactory.
The next maneuver I performed was an accelerated stall. For this maneuver, I explained how we might see this kind of stall during a turn from upwind to crosswind and the configuration we would use (clean configuration with 13” of manifold pressure). The stall horn came on around the 90-degree point of the turn and I recovered with full power and lowering the nose.
Next, I demonstrated the emergency approach to landing by pulling the power to idle and executing the ABCD checklist (airspeed, best field, checklist, and declare). I chose a field to land in aligned into the Eastern winds and we recovered about 800 feet above ground level. Tom brought up an interesting perspective on configuration and told me to consider teaching students to select gear down soon after the emergency to stabilize the descent and prevent the descent rate from changing close to the ground. During the glide to the field, we discussed why a pilot might land gear up or gear down depending on the surface and condition of the landing area selected.
After recovering from the emergency approach to landing, I demonstrated eights on pylons and S-turns across a road. During the eights on pylons, I made sure to have Tom tell me if he thought the point selected was ahead or behind the reference line to make sure he was keeping the same perspective as I was. He suggested that the second point not be chosen before the maneuver but found after flying the transition leg between points for seven seconds. The S-turns across a road were uneventful and Tom did not comment much on that maneuver. I made sure to explain the purpose of S-Turns as practicing wind correction skills which Tom appreciated as well.
On the way back to the airport, I instructed Tom on straight and level flight which focused on establishing a proper sight picture and trying to associate the “seat-of-your-pants” sensations with what the aircraft is doing.
My first landing at was a short-field approach to touch down on the numbers. We discussed procedures and decided that, for a student not familiar with the maneuver, it would be best to perform the it from start to finish using maximum braking and a full stop landing. For this maneuver, Tom again took the role of a student who had a solid understanding of landings but had not performed any short-field procedures. Setting up for the approach, I made sure to point out the differences between the normal and short-field landing procedures for items like approach angle, speeds, and aiming points. The winds had luckily died down from 090 @ 18 knots and shifted to 040 @ 13 and greatly aided in my ability to put it down on the numbers. After coming to a full stop and retracting the flaps, we were offered the option to takeoff from present position rather than taxiing back for takeoff. I performed the after landing checklist and Tom informed me he was going to fly the takeoff and landing and I was to instruct and critique him.
The normal takeoff Tom performed went about as well as I was expecting. Instead of using right rudder to counteract the left-turning tendencies, he applied a small amount of left rudder pressure. After correcting him and shadowing his corrections, he lifted off at the correct speed and neglected to put the gear up. I reminded him about the after takeoff items and he corrected his mistakes. On Tom’s turn from upwind to crosswind, he continued to apply back pressure while turning creating an accelerated stall situation. I instructed him to lower the nose and take some bank out and when he did not, I took control to reduce the bank and lower the nose to the horizon. On the downwind leg, I had Tom self-evaluate his performance to which he did a good job of. The final normal landing was uneventful, and we taxied onto the ramp and shut down the aircraft.
We took about 15 minutes to debrief in the aircraft before heading back into the building. Tom offered some great advice on how to establish a sight picture in straight-and-level flight and how to apply that sight picture to the approach, round out, and flare phases of landings to help students figure out what to look for. After a firm handshake, Tom welcomed me to the CFI club. The flight portion of the checkride took 1.3 hours to complete.
Summary
Overall, the oral portion of the checkride took about five hours where I felt I talked for 75% of it and he talked the other 25%. Tom is a very relaxed individual and I very much enjoyed the experience. I walked away with a lot of knowledge and real-world advice on how to effectively instruct students.
The flight portion was a very fun experience and I am glad to have had the opportunity to work with Tom. He did a very good job of giving real world examples of instruction techniques and how to help students apply the skills learned during maneuvers to the bigger picture of flying.
Be First to Comment