CFI lesson plans for purchase

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So I learned painfully today that I need to obtain some lesson plans for teaching recreational, private, commercial, and add-on CFIs that adhere much more tightly to the ACS and PTS topics. (My lesson plans based on how to actually teach the student will not cut it.)

So what purchasable sets of lesson plans do people recommend?

I assume these will be sure to cover each item in each task designated in the CFI SEL & SES PTS, roughly in order given.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Purchasing someone else's lesson plans is a bad idea. They should be made by each CFI to match their own teaching style.

I agree, but apparently the examiners these days want a pretty much exact regurgitation of what is in the PTS for a given task. So, for example, for Part II, Task B, of the CFI PTS you must mention all 17 points when you teach about runway incursion avoidance. Or at least the person examining me stated that was a requirement. A failure to mention any of them is an unsat.

I don't agree that is good teaching or wise, but I am told that is what the FAA wants the examiners to do these days.

"[they won't] cut it"

Why? Is this for CFI check ride? employer?

I also am not clear on who won't accept these and why not.

Yes, CFI SEL add-on. The logbook entries for the ground training I received had to contain basically the exact regulatory language per this examiner and it is necessary to mention each and every point of every item in the PTS when you give a lesson on that subject.

I actually have a full set of syllabi and lesson plans which I developed and something like runway incursion avoidance would be integrated to the entire course of instruction.

But this examiner was evidently disturbed that he couldn't check off a set of boxes. So I am interested in obtaining a set of lesson plans that will make sure all the boxes can be checked.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Thanks for the suggestions so far. I am interested to hear more what people think about the requirement to mention each item specifically in the PTS in a given lesson as well as the requirement for regulatory language in the ground log entries. Is that common? Wise to teach that way?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

From the other thread.

Newtons laws apply equally to both sides of the wing and explain the velocity differences. Bernoulli, while useful in some cases, is more of a red herring when it comes to explaining lift.

[/MEDIA]

A longer version, but by an actual expert

I have recently been reading "An Introduction to Flight" by Anderson, which is a sophomore level college textbook in aerodynamics.

What the Capt. says here is fundamentally true. Lift is generated by the different pressure distributions on the top and bottom of the wing, which are explained by and can be derived from Newton's laws applied to a fluid. Bernoulli's law can be derived from those underlying physical laws. It is also true that fluids flow faster in areas of lower pressure.

In aviation training, I have noticed that instructors use a number of rough approximations of these ideas to explain the generation of lift, induced drag, ground effect, etc. That is not necessarily a bad thing per se given that many students may not have had calculus, or if they did, it was a long time ago. But I think these simplifications give rise to troubles in teaching for 2 reasons:

1. They are often not qualified appropriately as such and with proper reference to the true underlying physical principles. For example, one can say "The lift on the wing is generated by a difference in the pressure distributions between the top and the bottom of the wing which are created by the air flowing over the wing. While these are complicated to compute in exact form, here is a simplified way to think about it...". Then the student understands that the little cartoon is not a full physical explanation, but rather a cartoon to help understanding.

2. Many instructors and examiners have their preferred cartoon way of dealing with this and seem to forget that these are just rough approximations and also are convinced that all other approximations and cartoons are just flat out wrong. Of course, in many cases, they are probably just inaccurate approximations in a different way.

Personally I think the cartoons can be useful, so long as they are used as such. Our flight students are not often going to want or need an aeronautical engineering level of understanding. What they will need is some sort of mnemonic device to help them remember the main effects, such as AoA and stalls, DA, etc. and the ability to pass the FAA exams.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

And quite readable. The only calculus is in the derivation of Bernoulli's equation. The biggest problem is that current editions command text book prices. With luck you can find an older edition for a reasonable price.

Agreed, very readable. The presentation has clearly been nicely refined over the years and editions.

If anyone wants a copy at a reasonable price, I can sell them one of mine. I bought a used one recently when I became interested in this again and forgot that a friend had given me a copy decades ago.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You are correct the examiner needs to check off all the boxes in the PTS.

This is what threw me initially. I thought I should be prepared to teach students, like private or commercial students.

But the DPEs now sort of want a weird meta-exercise. As though you are teaching a CFI candidate how to teach another CFI candidate. Admittedly that could happen, but is a far less common case. I don't think I would ever sit down and teach a private or commercial student a separate lesson plan on runway incursion avoidance. It is integrated into a curriculum which actually flows and makes sense in the proper order.

But that is the way they want it, so best to do it that way for the CFI exam!

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In theory when we endorse their log book that says we provided training per CFR § 61.87 should be good enough. But the FAA/examiners are want to see more, and it is a good idea to have each topic logged in their logbook.

Seems to be the trend. Best to explicitly log pretty much the exact regulatory language for each requirement stated in the appropriate FARs.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I showed up for all 4 of mine with no written lesson plans, was given a lesson to teach, wrote up a lesson plan, and taught it.

I am curious, when did you do that?

It seems like nowadays if you are going to make up a lesson plan for a task from the PTS, better have the PTS there and be sure each of the items in the PTS is explicitly in the lesson. At least some DPEs want to check their boxes.

And I agree with those who have posted above. This is not a particularly good way to assess someone's teaching ability or whether they will be able to put together meaningful customized lessons in the future.

I suppose it may explain some of the complaints we hear occasionally on PoA of younger CFIs from the big schools not really knowing how to teach.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

This was 30 years ago.

did the examiner say that the method in post #16 was invalid?

No, it seemed that anything would be valid as long as all items were explicitly mentioned in a single continuous lesson, without any questions by the examiner. He stated this was an FAA requirement.

I have subsequently confirmed that that that is not an actual FAA requirement. I don’t think most examiners make that claim and as long as all items are included should be fine. The requirement is that the applicant demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability in all areas.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So how is that a bad way to determine whether an applicant can put a lesson together?

The method in #16? Or requiring that the applicant present a single continuous lesson which covers all the areas?

I think the latter is bad because it is not an FAA requirement and imposing requirements only known to the examiner is a form of not administering the exam per FAA regulation and standards. There is literally no way an applicant can know what is in the DPE’s head and contrary to the regulations. Fairly serious error in my view and a violation of FAA regulations.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So in the context of your original postings, a lesson plan that falls short of teaching all of the ACS or PTS required topics is “per FAA regulations and standards” and not “contrary to regulations”?

No, I would not say that. I would say that the DPE can’t determine whether the applicant has met the standards or not based on requesting a lesson on a task and then after the lesson is given, falsely claiming that there is an FAA requirement that all the items must be presented in a single continuous lesson, and making no further assessment.

The simple fact is, there is no such requirement for a single continuous lesson in this manner. Claiming such is the case is a falsehood by the DPE.

The DPE is supposed to objectively assess whether the applicant meets the standards. Those are to demonstrate teaching knowledge in all the required areas.

Now, is it more convenient for the DPE if the applicant presents everything in one long list, better yet, in the same order as the PTS. Most certainly. But failing to make life convenient for the DPE is not the same as failing to meet the standards.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Did the applicant or the lesson plan in any way, shape, or form prior to the notification of failure indicate that there were additional lessons before the applicant met the standards set forth in the PTS?

Not in this case.

But I think the biggest problem arose because of the false claim by the DPE. The DPE is the professional being paid to make an objective assessment. To introduce rules after the fact, known only to the DPE, and falsely claim they are FAA regulations is a pretty serious problem.

Otherwise, I think the applicant reasonably assumes that the sort of examination procedures applied by other DPEs, namely a discussion oriented exam will take place.

I suppose a “must be only one continuous lesson” style of examination could be considered within the DPEs discretion of examination style if disclosed in advance and not stated falsely as being an FAA requirement.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So the problem isn’t that the applicant failed because he didn’t meet standard, the problem is that the examiner improperly explained the failure.

We crossed there. As I edited in, the biggest problem was the false claim of an FAA regulation and introduction of a rule known only to the examiner, at variance with normal testing, after the fact.

Yes, long discussion about exactly which items were missing and which regulation exactly required presentation in a single continuous lesson. Despite the DPE’s claim this was an FAA regulation, no regulation was ever cited.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well, without knowing the exact question that resulted in the incomplete lesson plan, I’d say there was no “variance with normal testing”. The lesson plan did not ensure teaching all of the required areas, and neither the plan nor the applicant indicated this was known. Sounds like a righteous bust to me.

So you think it is “normal testing” to insist that the applicant present all elements of the task in one single continuous lesson and make no further assessment?

I assume you would agree that it is not per FAA regulations to administer an exam making false claims about the regulations governing those exams - or do you think it is acceptable for DPEs to make such false claims about regulations during the course of the exam?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think it is “normal testing” to either insist that the applicant present either all elements in one lesson, or insist that the applicant specifically indicate, either within the lesson plan or orally when it is presented, that it is one of multiple lessons, the combination of which will meet all of the requirements in the PTS. According to your description and responses to my questions, the applicant did neither.

Thanks. I would be curious to hear what other people think about this also.

I am also curious to hear if you think it is normal for the DPE to tell the applicant “give me a lesson on task X”, listen to the lesson plan, and then perform no further assessment?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I would defer to the PTS, which indicates that it is acceptable.

If you din’t mind my asking further ...

what parts of the PTS are you thinking of?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I’d like to know more about this service. Sounds like it’s a bit more than just lesson plans. What exactly do you like about it? Are you actually teaching with them or just prepping for a CFI ride?

I think I might give them a try. My problem is that I do a lot more than teach primary students these days. Mostly give type specific instruction, etc. Every once in a while I take on an instrument student, multi, or some other primary rating. It would be nice to have a well organized plan that is constantly updated with references and such as they claim.

I don’t see how you would generally teach from them. They are organized as the tasks in the CFI PTS. So if looking to pass the CFI checkride, worked well for me.

OTOH, I think it makes sense to teach private and commercial I’m a different order which flows more with the pace of training.