Here's my full write up, I'm tired, it will surely be incomplete and probably a bit disorganized, but whatever...take what you can get from it, I'm sure your experiences will vary anyway.
I was assigned an FAA inspector, called him up and was given a test date 6 days out which was great. The inspector was very good to talk to and gave me some idea of what to expect which helped make me comfortable with him right away. The day before the test the weather forecast showed it unlikely that we'd fly. I called him up and asked if we could do the oral anyway and he said that was no problem and if the weather improved he'd just drive out to the airport and we'd pick up the plane together...which I thought was very cool of him. The next day I showed up on time, got shown around, everyone is friendly and joking and smiling (I'd been in the FSDO a couple times before and this is the normal atmosphere there). I'm given a conference room to spread out all my stuff and when comfortable we get to the paperwork. I explain what qualifies me to be there, showing all endorsements, and explaining from the FAR where it shows they are required. Basically working through 61.39, .185, .187,etc. He wanted to know what the spin endorsement means. I explained that it gives him (the inspector) the option of accepting that as evidence, or he still has the option to have me demonstrate instructional proficiency in spins... so then he wanted to know what that would require, so I explained I'd need to provide an aircraft certified in the utility category with approval for spins in the POH/AFM. He said, "do you realize that there is nothing in the regs that actually requires you to ever spin an airplane to get this endorsement?". I had never considered it but he said it just says that you have demonstrated instructional knowledge, it doesn't say you have to do that in an actual spin. I found that interesting. He's of the opinion that everyone including private pilots should spin, but the regs are the regs.
We worked our way through the different knowledge areas, but it became clear that he was not too interested in my technical knowledge, that technical knowledge is already implied by holding the private, com, instrument, and passing the knowledge tests.... but this was to be a test about the application of FOI principles while explaining that knowledge. My inspector was very very practical, he wanted me to teach to the lowest common denominator and work up from there, never work down. He also really wanted me to be interesting and attention getting. He said most of this stuff is taught in really dull ways, but it's important stuff and people should be excited to learn it, so if it's boring that's instructors failing. Keep it interesting and exciting to engage all the ADD, dyslexic, impatient students and make the 'dull' relevant and meaningful: dont bring some tiny little toy airplane, get one of those big models that are fun and interesting... build computer presentations, use video clips, etc. We worked through some basic weather, performance, weight and balance... etc. This was all very conversational and after I'd present information he'd share a lot of wisdom he'd gained over the years and that he's frustrated that instructors dont share: things like teaching students/bfr's to calculate worst case Go-Stop numbers for all the simple singles they fly then they have a very easy reference for any strips they'll operate from and only need to dig into performance charts if the strip comes up short (and alarms should go off in the pilots head at that point); simplifying weather theory to things as simple as frontal recognition; etc. He really emphasized the responsibility and privilege it is to be a CFI, that the general public has the expectation the the FAA is protecting them, and that the FAA is trusting us to hold on to that responsibility. He repeatedly stated that our internal moto should be "NOBODY DIES ON MY WATCH"... and that watch is a big one. I really sensed his sincerity in wanting me to succeed as an instructor and wanting me to fully understand the weight. He sees many younger CFI's come through that he feels really dont "get it" they're still young and invulnerable and moving on to "bigger things". I understand his perspective, when you're the one who gets called everytime someone kills themself and other people and it could have been prevented...
I tought a lessons on go arounds, then a combined lesson on engine failures, power off 180's, and forced landings. I liked this and it again highlighted his focus on the practical, and this was obviously a real-life scenario anybody in a single can find themselves in. He really emphasized that we need to teach students to think, not just follow checklists and fly numbers. He sees more and more now that people are taught procedures and not thinking skills. Yes checklists are important, but they come after flying the airplane and judgement. Always guide the student through the thought process. If something is in a checklist, why is it there... when would it make sense not to do that? Best glide speed, why? What does it accomplish? When should I NOT use it in an engine failure? If you're full flaps in a power off 180 when does it make sense to throw in the full slip despite the placard recommending against it (if there is one), and when and why are you foolish to do so and better off to let the airplane land long? Why does he see students doing engine troubleshooting (fuel/mixture/ignition/boost) on an engine out simulation when he told them the oil pressure was dead and the oil temp was high? Hint: they shouldn't, they should think that all the fuel in the world is not going to fix that problem and they should get on with their forced landing. Think think think... that was his thing, and it's our job to teach them how.
We finished up and it was still bad weather so we scheduled the flight for the next morning.
Woke up early to perfect weather, light winds and just a low scattered layer. Preflighted and had everything ready when he showed up. I gave a full cockpit briefing as PIC and told him what I expected from him regarding keeping his seat belt on, not touching anything unless asked, and announcing any simulated emergencies clearly, explained our exchange of control protocol, and my expectation that he was on traffic watch as much as possible. He liked all of that. We were testing out of a class Charlie so I explained how I like to setup the radios. He said that was fine, then he showed me how airline crews often do it, using com2 for guard monitoring and ATIS, I really liked this flow and adopted it myself. I explained everything as I went as if he were a brand new student from startup, clearance, run-up, taxi... emphasizing airport diagrams and SA on the surface. Normal takeoff, stayed in the pattern for a few landings and go-arounds, headed out to practice area. We had some low cumulus scattered to broken building, we had to maneuver around those which brought in cloud clearance requirements. He wanted to know the definition of a cloud. I said "if you cannot see through it, it's a cloud"... he said "WRONG, if you can see it, it's a cloud it doesn't matter if you can see through it"... he stated that youtube makes the FAA's job much easier now days, people fly through clouds with a video showing their N number right on the panel.... yeah, dont do that. Proceeded with maneuvers, under the hood, chandelles, steep turns, combination stall with demonstration of secondary stall, engine failure to a farm field, go around at 500', he picked a pylon and told me to start eights and pick the second pylon while flying the first...interesting but ok, discussing various in flight emergencies from engine failures to electrical fires....again this was about teaching the student to think about the problem, not just follow a checklist with no brain involvement...back to the main airport for a landing which he snuck in a popped gear pump circuit breaker so I did a manual extension, to a power off 180. Everything overall felt very good. His complaint was in smoothness vs sloppiness, at the CFI level you are setting the example for the student, everything you do is establishing habits and standards for the students... your maneuvers should be impeccable most of the time (everyone makes mistakes, so explain those) but the point was, dont just fly maneuvers to commercial standards, make them outstanding examples of airmanship. The student will look to you as an example of how to behave, and that includes preparations, attitude, what's considered acceptable skill level, SA and safety considerations, etc... If the private pilot and commercial pilot are "rough carpenters" the CFI should be the "cabinet maker" at an airmanship level. He also criticized me for being a little weak on the Garmin 430, he told me to setup some navigation with it and use the CDI, no problem, then one of the display fields on the face of the 430 was showing bearing, he wanted it to show track... I had no clue how to do that. The only plane I fly that has one is the Cutless I've got a few hours in, but that's no excuse, if you're going to instruct in an airplane you need to know it's equipment inside and out... you're the expert and if the student sees that you dont know/care how to do some things they figure that's normal. Valid criticism both on my airmanship as the manuevers were ok from a Commercial PTS standard but I did feel they were a little sloppy in areas, and I definitely could use more training on the radio.
Done, and certificate issued. His congratulations and the sincere "I hope I never see you again" on the way out.
Great experience.
Again, things he liked: lots of organization, having a binder with AC's printed and tabbed and knowing what's in them, having log books pulled and organized and marked up, my FAR AIM book has about one entire stack of small post it notes stuck in it as tabbed markers, he liked that. As I said before, knowledge is assumed, there shouldn't be much they can trip you up on, but this test is about teaching not knowing. Emphasizing safety first. Teaching students to think think think. Keeping things fun.
We also talked about enforcement. He said at least in their office they are normally not going to violate someone if it's clear that they operated with diligence and were trying to do the right thing, but that's rarely the case. He said their job is becoming increasingly easier thanks to precision radar, video cameras everywhere, web sites that log requests (yeah right you gathered all weather and airport data). He said they can usually see through a lie very quickly and know if someone had intentions to short cut or get away with something... but these guys are mostly very experienced pilots and aviation enthusiasts and there is a lot we can learn from them and they really are on our side most of the time if we are desiring to do the right things. He pointed out again the weight on a CFI to protect the public, even if someone is a good stick if they are of questionable moral character and you do not trust them to do the right thing in aircraft, dont be the one to solo them or sign them off... have a frank conversation with them about why and either give them the chance to mature or let someone else put their certificate on the line for that person... you are not obligated to endorse anyone for anything, only do it if you feel the person has proven themselves capable, safe, and mature enough to handle the responsibilities you are giving them. He made it clear that the FAA is there to help, to call for advice or clarification whenever it's needed, get answers now not after you get violated.
