CFI Checkride & Lesson Plans
Andrew Sarangan
As I start my CFI training, I am starting to look into creating lesson
plans. After a bit of researching, I can see two different types of
lesson plans. The first kind is a lesson plan that involves only one
flight maneuver. For example, this could be a lesson plan for
slow-flight, or soft field landings etc... The other kind is the lesson
plan shown on the FAA Aviation Instructor's Handbook (AIH). This lesson
plan is part of a sequence of lessons and contains several flight
maneuvers in one. For example, dual lesson #3 might contain slow-flight,
stalls, landings as well as a few instrument maneuvers.
My question is, what do they normally ask in the checkride ? Do they ask
the candidate to teach 'slow flight' or do they ask the candidate to
teach the '3rd dual flight' from a typical syllabus ?
--
Andrew Sarangan
CP-ASEL-IA
http://lights.chtm.unm.edu/~sarangan/aviation
john price
I'll be able to answer in better in a week or two when I finally get to
take my CFI ride... But, my instructor, who has done a number of
instructors in the past few months, seems to like my plans which do
describe, in some cases, more than one maneuver... But in some cases
it makes sense... For example slow flight teaches the student to
handle the plane at low airspeeds and helps make the sensation of
the stall a little less intimidating... Or ground reference maneuvers
all build neatly from one another...
If you're interested, you can get my lesson plans from my homepage
http://home.att.net/~jm.price
Good luck!
John
Roy Smith
> My question is, what do they normally ask in the checkride? Do they ask
> the candidate to teach 'slow flight' or do they ask the candidate to
> teach the '3rd dual flight' from a typical syllabus ?
I havn't taken enough initial CFI rides to know what's normal, but on
mine, I was asked to teach chandelles (ground and flight). From what I
understand from talking to others, teaching a commercial maneuver seems to
be pretty standard.
john price
I did a mock exam this week and had to do turns around a point and
chandelles... A friend who took his ride at Allentown a few months
ago got TAPs and commercial steep turn... he hates steep turns...
he got away with pulling the throttle on the examiner and making
him do an emergency landing setup instead... never had to do the
turns!
John
less...@aol.com
Andrew Sarangan <sara...@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> As I start my CFI training, I am starting to look into creating lesson
> plans. After a bit of researching, I can see two different types of
> lesson plans. The first kind is a lesson plan that involves only one
> flight maneuver. For example, this could be a lesson plan for
> slow-flight, or soft field landings etc... The other kind is the
lesson
> plan shown on the FAA Aviation Instructor's Handbook (AIH). This
lesson
> plan is part of a sequence of lessons and contains several flight
> maneuvers in one. For example, dual lesson #3 might contain slow-
flight,
> stalls, landings as well as a few instrument maneuvers.
>
ask
> the candidate to teach 'slow flight' or do they ask the candidate to
> teach the '3rd dual flight' from a typical syllabus ?
>
In my area, the ground lesson is a well defined single item. I taught
emergency maneuvers during my oral. The DE's and Inspectors in my area
seem to like the lesson plans to be single items. They also expect to
see a syllabus that combines one or more of the individual lesson plans
into lessons. During the checkride I had to teach just about
everything in the PTS.
--
Les Sparks
less...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/woodglider/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Larry Fransson
In article <378A697D...@unm.edu>, Andrew wrote:
>Do they ask
>the candidate to teach 'slow flight' or do they ask the candidate to
>teach the '3rd dual flight' from a typical syllabus ?
You will be asked to create a lesson plan for a particular maneuver. Note that
it's generally a good thing if your lesson plan conforms to the format in the
Aviation Instructor's Handbook. I think the multiple maneuever lessons you're
referring to are part of a sample syllabus in that book.
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA
"Pilots are just plane people with a different air about them."
Sam Black
> I havn't taken enough initial CFI rides to know what's normal, but on
> mine, I was asked to teach chandelles (ground and flight). From what I
> understand from talking to others, teaching a commercial maneuver seems to
> be pretty standard.
It really depends a lot on the examiner. For example, I was asked to do
ground and flight lessons on spins. (I took most of my checkride in a fully
aerobatic Grob.) Pretty much everyone who takes the initial CFI with this
examiner is asked the same thing. I guess he just doesn't get enough thrills
at his deck job...
Your best bet is to ask your CFI - he/she probably knows just what the
examiner will expect from you.
--------------
- sam black If we don't take care of the customer,
maybe they'll stop bugging us.
// Penguin Flight, Inc. "Who says penguins can't fly?"
// pen...@world.std.com <http://www.mahasamatman.com/>
// Citabria 7ECA N5067C Commercial Pilot ASELS/AMEL/G/IA/PP-RH
\\ Cessna 170B N4590C Flight Instructor ASE
\\ Aviation Safety Counselor, NORCAL
Andrew Sarangan
On the "Integrated Method of Flight Instruction" the FAA Instructor's
handbook recommends teaching simulated instruments and visual techniques
simultaneously right off the bat. Accordingly, on the Jeppesen's Private
syllabus instrument maneuvers are taught from lesson one. However,
talking to other students, it seems that they were introduced to
instruments only at the very end of their training. In fact, that is
what we did when I was learning to fly. So, what is the realy story
behind this "integrated flight instruction" ?
john price
Don't mix up integrated instruction with basic attitude (instrument)
training... THe idea of integrated instruction is not so much to
put the student under the hood, but to show them what the outside
picture looks like and what the corresponding instrument picture
looks like... The Jepp sylabus does call for puting the student
under the hood starting at lesson 3... but only for 0.2 hours...
I guess that's one way to do it, but I personally (and I think a
lot of other instructors might agree) that this approach might
tend to get the student's head inside the cockpit too much at
first...
Just my 2 cents worth
John
Dudley Henriques
I've been teaching since 1959 and have as well been an examiner.
Lesson plans are fine. By all means make them up and use them. I suggest
a formal approach from the manual for the check ride. After you get your
CFI and begin teaching, I believe you will find that the secret in being
a good instructor is not in the formal approach so much as it is in your
ability to be flexible while at the same time proceeding along a defined
path. What this means basically is that although you might start out on
a formal plan, you must be prepared to deviate as needed to work ahead
and behind the plan as you go. This means you MUST know the student.
They will be different in many ways. Your worth as an instructor will be
measured by your ability to both raise and lower the level of the
instruction to suit the individual student's needs. Over a period of
time you will learn how to use different examples to reach different
people with the same message. The bottom line here is flexibility.
You want to be thorough but not rigid and formal. These things have
worked for me through my career. I'm sure you will develop your own way
of doing things.
I wish you the best!
DH
--
Dudley Henriques, Past President [1971-1985]
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Roy Smith
> Over a period of time you will learn how to use different examples
> to reach different people with the same message.
I've only been instructing a relatively short time, but the above was
obvious from the start. I've got a math/science/engineering background.
Many of my students have similar technical backgrounds, and I often take
advantage of a student's background to help explain a concept.
The more interesting ones are those who have no such technical training.
I find it an (interesting) challange to find ways to explain highly
technical concepts to people with no technical background in a way which
is simultaneously 1) understandable, 2) useful, 3) correct, and 4) not
demeaning.