Failure

JEP said:
Answer with the least amount of words. If they ask what does 'X' help determine, you say it determines 'Y'. Nothing more, nothing less. You start asnwering the original question with mroe than what the examiner wants and you may open up another set of questions that were not intended and get tripped up on.
Click to expand...

In the airline business, there are two levels of answering a question. Answer the question that's being asked and answer on a level where you start taking the little forks in the road and getting yourself lost.

I was in a company oral one day and I started "over answering" and the check airman said, "You know, if you want to walk down that road, I'll let you, but you may not like what's at the end of it".

Thus, keep it simple, concise, and know when to put a period at the end of the sentence.
 
That was back in the day. We don't even have orals anymore. Just a written test from a known question bank. I hate to say it but I think the Feds have let it slide too far.
 
DE727UPS said:
That was back in the day. We don't even have orals anymore. Just a written test from a known question bank. I hate to say it but I think the Feds have let it slide too far.
Click to expand...

Agree.

If you saw our recurrent you would laugh. If you spend more than 15 minutes studying for it, you've sadly wasted 10 minutes.
 
rframe said:
"What pressure does the hydraulic gear operate at in the Cutless?".... .
Click to expand...

it's "Cutlass" as in Pirate's sword

418EFYK5W8L._SL500_AA300_.jpg


Now I'm doing it [/facepalm]
 
seagull said:
Interesting. I was putting together my recollection of flying the Continentals and 80 octane with the change to 100 octane.
Click to expand...

My dads 1976 Cessna 182P has a factory Continental O-470 which the POH specifically calls for 80/87 red stuff.
 
Well, now I remember flying those also, and them swapping to 100 later on, but I would be curious to confirm when the changes really happened.
 
seagull said:
Well, now I remember flying those also, and them swapping to 100 later on, but I would be curious to confirm when the changes really happened.
Click to expand...

I don't remember specifically. I remember using 80/87 all the time back when, as well as 100/130 green before 100LL blue came out. Heck, I even remember some airports having 91/98 brown fuel. And of course 115/145 purple stuff was around for the heavier recips and radials.
 
seagull said:
Well, now I remember flying those also, and them swapping to 100 later on, but I would be curious to confirm when the changes really happened.
Click to expand...

The '77 is when they introduced the Lycoming O-320-H2AD, that engine had 9:1 compression which is why it required 100 octane fuel. The older O-320's and the O-470 all had 7:1 compression, so low 80 octane is fine. There were also a lot of O-320's that had 8.5:1 compression, and they required 91 octane minimum.
 
DE727UPS said:
H2AD needed 100 octane, among other things. That started in 77 with the N model. 68 to 76 had the 150ph Lyc. Look....we are doing 172 trivia....
Click to expand...

The H2AD did indeed have the infamous dual mag, but that in and of itself is not a show stopper. Lots of Lycs used versions of them, including the O360s in the 177B, and the O-540 in the Piper Dakota, and they have proven to be pretty darn reliable (once they worked out the kinks). The failure mode (the drive gear failing) that some suggest doesn't seem to have a huge impact in the operation of those engines.

The real show stopper for the H2AD was the switch to "automotive style" lifters. They came apart readily, especially in cold weather, trashed the cam, and showered the oil system with metal bits, with all the happy fun that usually entails. There were also issues with the external oil pump.

That said, with the proper application of service bulletins, mods and the infamous Lycoming "snake oil" lubricant (which most oils now incorporate), H2ADs can be darn reliable engines.

To the OP: You shouldn't have been flying 10-12 airplanes. You should have had it boiled down to 1 or 2 prepping for your ride (the 172 and whatever you were going to demo your complex competency in). The CFI is a tough ride...it requires signficiant focus on the material at hand.

Just out of curiosity....what was your mechanical background before you started flying? Not that it's required, but did you have any "techie" type hobbies? Cars? RC Planes (NOT the ARF variety)? Rockets? Electronics? Ham Radio?

The reason I ask is that kids these days don't seem to have a good grasp of basic mechanics or electronics. Ask one to change the oil in their car, and they drive it to Jiffy Lube. G1000s aside, most GA airplanes are pretty old school mechanically, and it helps to have a basic grasp on what's going on with simple IC engines.

Lots (if not the majority) of people have busted their CFI ride. It's not a show stopper. But I think your DE was correct, but expressed in the wrong terms. You need to change your "big bubble" approach and realize that these airplanes are not your dad's Toyota, where you hop in, press the button, and go 100,000 miles between scheduled service stops. That O-320 has more in common with a lawnmower than a modern auto engine.

Richman
 
Perhaps the examiners were trying to tell you that you're still a bit too young and too inexperienced to be a CFI. Taking your next ride with the feds may be even rougher. In our neck of the woods the feds are really cracking down on initial CFI rides. That is, even if a non-fed is doing the ride, they want to sit in and observe the process. Many are failing.
Perhaps the feds feel that the CFI is the first line of defense when it comes to safety, or perhaps they feel there are too many incompetent CFIs out there (or maybe they're just justifying their existence). Either way, it seems to be getting more difficult to pass those rides.
And if you don't know how many cylinders a 172 has, you're not ready to be a CFI.
What's the rush? Wait another year or two and then look back--you'll almost certainly see why you didn't pass.
 
gliderboy said:
And if you don't know how many cylinders a 172 has, you're not ready to be a CFI.
What's the rush? Wait another year or two and then look back--you'll almost certainly see why you didn't pass.
Click to expand...

... assuming that he can afford to keep flying, I'm inclined to agree. I'm still of the opinion that one needs to -learn- before one can effectively teach. Granted, a good teacher (And it sounds like you intend to be) can do a whole lot without having a comprehensive grasp of the subject matter ... but I'm inclined to think that there's an experiential component to flying that's impossible to replicate with book learning.

However, if he can't afford to keep flying without getting his CFI then I understand his insistence on pushing straight to it. Not too much to be helped there.

~Fox
 
However, if he can't afford to keep flying without getting his CFI then I understand his insistence on pushing straight to it. Not too much to be helped there.
Click to expand...

And that is the thing. Do I plan on teaching right away? No, but I DO want my CFI now as I have the time and money for it.
 
Beech90 said:
You mean you can't use Jet fuel?:cool:
Click to expand...

Back in 2005, I was working on my CFII at this neat little flight school in Arlington Texas called Skymates. Some students building time in a Seminole actually put Jet A in it. They didn't make it far due to detonation in both engines but did manage to get down safely at an airport. One thing you'll learn about being a CFI being detailed is very important. The students that you're teaching will take the knowledge that you have given on to them and build off of it. If the base isn't strong the entire building could fall.
 
gliderboy said:
That is, even if a non-fed is doing the ride, they want to sit in and observe the process. Many are failing.
Click to expand...

You do realize that DPE's are required to be evaluated by the FSDO once a year right? That's likely what they're doing in the observation.

Perhaps the feds feel that the CFI is the first line of defense when it comes to safety, or perhaps they feel there are too many incompetent CFIs out there (or maybe they're just justifying their existence). Either way, it seems to be getting more difficult to pass those rides..
Click to expand...

While there is still a persistent minority in the system whose attitude is that "nobody should pass their initial CFI on the first try", they're becoming fewer, not more numerous. And pass rates bear that out. CFI applicants who pass on the first try has held steady at 72 to 75% for the last dozen years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top