Then what were you attempting to imply?
It sounded like you took my statement to mean, "Being a Master CFI is the *only* way to market yourself." That's not what I said or what I meant to say. It's not an all-or-nothing deal.
What I tried to convey was, "If you don't want to use the Master CFI accreditation to promote yourself, that's ok, nobody is forcing you to."
I thought I made that pretty clear. I think it's a complete joke. It's akin to a paperwork rating like the glorious SIC Type. That and a quarter...
My problem really is with NAFI trying to sell this "glorification" to instructors across america.
Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
I think the requirements / review process needed to become a Master are much more than a "paperwork rating" but that's my personal opinion.
Also, I don't see this system as trying to sell glorification as much as it is trying to increase professionalism. What's wrong with trying to reward instructors who take their jobs seriously and have a long term commitment to teaching?
Have you heard the old saying that "if you have to tell people how good you are, you probably aren't"? I'm not saying or attempting to imply that you are or are not a good instructor. I'm just saying that there have to be a good percentage of "Master CFIs" that use the "title" to "enhance [their] image with prospective clients". I don't think a good flight instructor should need to go that route.
Fair enough. But just because you don't believe the title is necessary doesn't mean the title is worthless.
Look at it this way: You're Joe Schmoe who doesn't know anything about flying. You go to your local airport and talk to a few instructors. You ask them about their qualifications. One instructor mentions being a Master Instructor while the other one doesn't. Who is going to *look* better? It doesn't matter who *is* better, the bottom line is that the Master CFI will look better, especially to a lay person.
There are plenty of excellent instructors who are not Masters, but the thing is, a person with no knowledge of aviation has no way to determine who's who.
So...because an organization that was designed to promote excellent, talented and professional instructors says you're an excellent, talented, professional instructor it must be true?
No, it's not about the organization, it's about the application and review process.
I've met numerous Master CFIs and frankly, they're all really good teachers. I haven't met any Masters who are complete tools. Not saying there aren't a few out there, but as a whole, it's a very good group.
If the system is so flawed, why aren't there a bunch of lousy, low quality Masters in the mix?
Those programs are ridiculous too. That's my opinion on the matter. You are certainly free to believe what you want about the program, but to seem to imply that without being a "master" CFI, you are somehow a lesser instructor seems a bit absurd.
You can call them ridiculous all you want. The fact is, they work, and people pay attention to them.
I've tried to keep emphasizing that non-Master CFIs are *not* inferior in any way. The Master credential is simply a way of verifying and publicizing the work that a good teacher does.
Maybe I should start an organization similar to NAFI. I could charge $10 for annual re-certification and I could even send them a fancy certificate with a little gold seal on it. They could then use that to prove they are excellent, professional and talented instructors and use that qualification to prove it to prospective clients. What would make that new organization any less "correct" (for lack of a better term) than NAFI?
If all you're doing is taking money and sending out certificates, that would be a problem. There would be no quality control.
Having a set of eligibility requirements, an application process, and a board of review are what make the Master program worthwhile.
