In February, I completed my CFI practical exam with Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) Mike DeRuggiero. It was a thorough and complete check ride. The oral was nearly 6 hours and then a 2 hour flight. At the end, Mike said that my performance was above average and he thought I’d make an excellent instructor. It was nice to hear, particularly considering I’m not nearly as proficient as I once was. Getting back to a decent level of proficiency after a gap of many years is a challenge. In fact, I will likely never reach the proficiency I had in 2007, but I digress.

Immediately following the CFI, I put my sights on the CFI-I. Unfortunately, I was very tied up with work, and running out of GI Bill funds to allocate to the process. Between the February CFI Practical, and the July 30th CFI-I Practical – I only logged 4 flights in an actual plane. Three of these were in the Piper Archer. Originally, I was scheduled to take the CFI-I Practical in early June, but then the Archer went down for maintenance. I rescheduled for later in June only to find out the Archer would still be out of service. My back up plane, the Piper Arrow, was also down for maintenance. I rescheduled for July 30th. Surely, one of these two planes would be back up after two months? Regrettably, neither were. I was left with a choice, either cancel the check ride for the third time, or take the check ride in a plane I hadn’t flown recently. I opted for the latter. They had a 2002 C172S available for the day of the check ride, and I was able to log one preparatory flight the day before the practical exam. I was quite worried about this. Sure, I’ve flown a Cessna, and yes they fly at the speed of smell, but going into a check ride of any type with unfamiliar equipment is not a recipe for success. Further compounding this was the GPS, a KLN 94. I had never flown behind a KLN 94. The Garmin 430 is frustrating enough from time to time, and I wasn’t eager to learn a new system.

Luckily, the KLN 94 is fairly straight forward. In fact, I would say that its user interface is more logical and straight forward than the 430, even if the unit as a whole is slightly less capable. In the end, I wound up doing the practical in with an airplane that I had flown twice in the past 12 months, and after a nearly 7 week break from flying. Because of this, I was more nervous about the check ride than I would normally be. In the end, the nerves were unfounded. The check ride went smoothly.

The oral portion of the exam lasted between two and three hours. I lost track of exactly when we ended as I needed to get lunch, preflight, and have the plane fueled. As expected the oral exam with Mike was by the book. Many CFI’s avoid Mike DeRuggiero as a DPE. He has a reputation as giving very long and tough oral exams and being a generally tough and intimidating examiner. Mike is certainly by the book, and he should be. But he is by no means unfair or unpleasant, and he certainly doesn’t play games. Quite the opposite in fact. I find Mike to be polite and knowledgable. I have walked away from both check rides having learned, and that is an important point. Even during the exam, Mike is eager and willing to share his knowledge.

The oral exam followed the PTS rather dutifully. He quizzed me on endorsements and regulations including requirements for the instrument rating. He had me prepare for a student undergoing an Instrument Proficiency Check. As I knew this was a scenario ahead of the check ride, I created a course on my Moodle instance at cfi.papalimabravo.com that provided direction and materials for a pilot under going an IPC. Part of this material included a survey on the pilot’s aeronautical history. The week before the practical I sent Mike a note telling him I had created an account for his pretend IPC student, and that I would ask any pilot flying with me to complete the survey on their aeronautical history so that I could tailor the IPC accordingly. Mike followed suit. He logged in and completed the survey. With this information I designed a course of instruction that included preparatory work, ground work, and the route of flight. I made sure that the tasks outlined in this contained the minimum IPC requirements from the new ACS.

This is a good point to emphasis the obvious but seemingly often overlooked. The CFI and CFI-I practical exams are less about how well you can fly and much more about how well you can teach. Confidence, good instructional technique, well prepared materials, and a positive professional attitude will go a long way towards success. If you are a pilot preparing for your CFI practical – do not neglect the teaching part of training. It is by far the most important skill the examiner is assessing. Ultimately the examiner is determining if you can safely teach others.

Topics covered during the oral exam included, the vacuum system, pitot static systems, ATP instruction considerations for a CFI-I, and a detailed discussion of VOR tracking. The VOR tracking included discussions on holding entries and techniques as well as how to instruct brand new students on VOR tracking. It also touched on localizer tracking and localizer reverse sensing and how this compared to VOR tracking. The operation of VOR ground stations and aircraft VOR equipment were also examined. We covered GPS components, IFR approaches, and charts. Mike simulated that he was the pilot doing the IPC and demonstrated to me how he would plan for the flight I had assigned. Mike used Foreflight for this demonstration, and for the most part the pretend-IPC-pilot hit all the major planning considerations. However, his planning order was a bit convoluted. He started by charting his course, and then looking at weather and adjusting from there. My critique of this was that weather should be the first consideration, as it will affect your decision as to whether or not the flight and route is even viable. After weather, I would generally look at NOTAMs. NOTAMs could also greatly affect the route selection. Approach facilities could be out of service, or minimums could be temporarily raised (the second was true for the intended route of flight and naturally I had done my homework and knew this beforehand.) I left my critique there. Sure, I could go into every detail – but the simulated pilot clearly knew most of it, he just needed to re-cage his process. Mike seemed very happy with this response. You do not need to show the examiner you know everything – again he is testing your ability to teach as much, if not more, than your knowledge. A new student will be hindered by overly long or complex explanations.

When the oral exam was complete, I told Mike I would need to get lunch before we flew. I hadn’t had breakfast and with the early morning, I knew I’d need some calories. I ran out to grab a quick bite and then did the pre-flight. We discussed the flight portion in detail before going out to the plane. As the route we would fly was not what I had planned for the pretend IPC, I asked Mike for some time to study the charts and do my pre-flight planning. He gave me all the time for lunch and planning that I needed. The pretend IPC I had planned was based off a recommendation from Jason Cobb. It started with the ILS 26 at KMRB and proceeded to the VOR A at KOKV and ended with the RNAV RWY 5 at KFDK. However, Mike wanted to take off from KFDK, perform the unusual attitudes, and proceed to the RNAV RWY 16 at KDMW as a coupled approach. We’d then do a circle to land and proceed direct to EMI for the VOR RWY 34. This would likely be partial panel and end with a missed approach back to EMI and hold. Following the hold at EMI we’d return to KFDK for the ILS 23.

The actual flight was spot on to our flight plan. There were only a few changes. He flew the initial take off as an instrument take off under the goggles and had me critique him. No critique was necessary. He flew the instrument takeoff as well as most people perform a VFR takeoff. We then setup for unusual attitudes and he had me take the foggles and he put me in an unusual attitude. No sweat here. Then the coupled approach. I was a bit worried about this. After all, I had exactly one flight behind this GPS, and this autopilot. If it didn’t work the way I wanted, my ability to troubleshoot would be limited. The procedure turn entry to the RNAV 16 at KDMW is a holding entry. I set the GPS up for the approach as well as the autopilot, but neither the GPS nor the autopilot grabbed the holding entry leg. Shit! Just what I was afraid of. Well, there was nothing for it, so I pointed out that it hadn’t picked it up properly and switched to heading mode. I used the heading bug to enter the hold. When established on the proper final approach course I reselected the leg in the GPS and it finally armed with the autopilot and flew the approach. I was a bit sloppy with my power settings through the approach. Circle to land was easy and we broke off before even turning base. Then it was straight ahead to EMI for another holding entry for the VOR approach to KDMW. This was, as foretold, a partial panel approach. Again, easy day. In a slow stable platform like the Cessna, partial panel isn’t tough. I was, however, sloppy on my power settings again. Missed approach back to KFDK for the ILS. KFDK was busy. There was a lot of traffic and Mike was great at this point making sure we each knew what the other was doing and de-conflicting VFR traffic with tower. This is an area where things can get very messy, particularly in training, without clearly defined roles and good communication. The ILS approach I did was without a doubt my strongest procedure of the day. I had that localizer and the glide slope absolutely pinned dead center all the way down to minimums with a substantial crab for a 90 degree crosswind. It was a great note to end on. After landing, all that really remained was the paperwork. Mike did show me around his Grumman Cougar he flew out to the checkride. It was in great condition, and I’m excited that I’ll be doing my multi-engine add on in the same model starting next month.

Recently I decided to take the plunge and get my tailwheel endorsement. Normally it would make more sense to get this closer to my first flight, but as I am now a CFI and have been flying with some of my friends in the RV community – it makes sense for me to try and log as much tailwheel and RV PIC time as I can. Doing so will increase my proficiency for that first flight and reduce my insurance rates as a bonus!

Finding a tailwheel instructor isn’t as easy as you’d like it to be. I had to make many calls to find ones in my general, but not immediate area. Most were never returned, but the folks at Freeway Airport got back to me quickly. They had an instructor, Joe Gauvreau, who did instruction in a Super Decathalon. I touched base with Joe and we were off and running in no time. Joe has more than 13,000 tailwheel hours, and was an excellent instructor. If you’re in the Baltimore DC area, I highly recommend him. You can see his website here: http://www.aerosportlimited.com/index.php/about-joe

Before starting, he also recommended two books:

1. Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche (The rather famous quintessential tome on flying)
2. The Compleat Taildragger Pilot by Harvey S. Plourde (Some say compleat is misspelled – but its actually a nod to The Compleat Angler by Izaac Walton. Compleat has come to be synonymous with a “full set of skills”)

Flying a tailwheel for the first time is a humbling experience, to put it mildly. Takeoff and landing aren’t just new – your tricycle gear instincts will scream in defiance. After the first flight – in which I did nothing right even when I knew what I was supposed to do, I asked Joe “Is it easier to learn to fly a tailwheel airplane as a new student than with all the habits acquired in a tricycle aircraft?” Joe believed it absolutely is easier if you are starting fresh and don’t have to overcome your time honed instincts. As a singular data point, I have to agree with him. The reptile part of my brain simply didn’t not want to push the nose forward on take off. Conversely, stopping that same reptile from trying to flare was just as difficult.

By the end of the first day I felt like I had the takeoffs fairly well down, but landings were still a completely different matter. We did all wheel landings and for good reason. The reasons and opportunities for doing three point landings aren’t as strong as some would have you believe. Joe is a huge proponent of focusing on, and doing mostly wheel landings. Harvey Plourde would agree – and provides some excellent in-depth reasons why.

By the second session landings were starting to make sense even if I couldn’t really translate that into success. At this point we introduced some three point landings – which weren’t really more or less difficult just a little different attitude. What I will say is this – three point landings do give more opportunity to get in trouble. Joe never canceled our flights for high winds or high cross winds. In fact on half of the days we flew none of the other flight instructors, in tricycle gear airplanes no less, were flying. I was skeptical at first, but after the thorough work out this resulted in, I’m extremely glad I got that experience.

Finally, I was able to get both wheel and three point landings. I wouldn’t, by any measure, say I mastered these, but in ok conditions I can do ok landings. Joe also gave me some excellent instruction in basic VFR pattern work. In about 9 hours I got a tailwheel endorsement. Am I proficient? Well I can take off and land the plane – sure. I think it would take a hundred hours before I would call myself proficient. Like many ratings, the endorsement is really a license to learn.

Tailwheel! from Peter Barrett on Vimeo.

Oral Exam on Feb 2, 2017. Discontinuance after completing the oral exam due to DPE schedule conflict. Flight completed and certificate issued on Feb 19, 2017.

Summary: The DPE was decisively and repeatedly more interested in how things related to teaching than my knowledge of a subject. Basic guidance – consider every topic from that of a teacher and evaluator. He assumes you know the information. Can you convey it?

Ultimately he said I performed above average and seemed happiest not when I knew something, but rather when I was able to relate topics to a scenario, real world experience, or teachable moment. I cannot overemphasize the importance of teaching in every part of the oral exam. Further, in the flight portion I would also submit that he was more concerned with teaching than PTS performance. In fact, I would almost go as far to say as making mistakes is almost more forgivable during this practical than others provided that you; turn the mistake into a teachable moment (demonstrate why you made the error and how to correct it) and that the mistake is not a safety of flight issue.

Oral Exam:

(5.5 hours plus some time for paperwork)

General Notes:

• My Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) was Mike DeRuggiero. Mike is both a helicopter and airplane pilot, and a senior pilot with the Maryland State Troopers. If you Google him, you’ll see a couple disgruntled posts by students, who I can only guess, didn’t pass. Additionally, I have heard some bad rumors from some CFIs about Mike. However, I found Mike to be polite, enjoyable, insightful and positive. In short he was everything you should expect from a professional DPE. Other than being a nerve racking experience I thought he did an excellent job. No tricks. No games. When my nerves were calm it was even enjoyable conversation. I would also add that Mike did give me some pointers of how to do a few things better. In fact, his instructions on doing a lazy-eight were the simplest and best I’ve received.
• Starting off he asked me to describe my process for performing a BFR. I showed him my website (wiki.papalimabravo.com) that details my BFR process to include the aeronautical history and then walked through my concerns and how I would design the Flight Review. He had no questions and seemed very happy with my approach.
• Teaching and finding the information were far more important than knowing the answer.
• Speaking confidently, dressing appropriately, and presenting yourself well will, in my opinion, help with your DPEs.
• From some of the comments he made I do however suspect that the younger a CFI applicant is – the harder he may be on While I don’t think I experienced it, I could possibly see that he could pull a thread pretty hard and far if you are either 1) unprepared, or perhaps more importantly 2) prepared but not confident. My general feeling with Mike was that confidence and attitude will take you a long way.
• He is a fan of technology. You will not be dinged for showing videos, having homework assignments, or online lesson plans. Quite the contrary. I believe any DPE will appreciate all of this and I would recommend it. In total, you’ll probably score higher having a thorough understanding of how to use electronic media than you will with everything in a binder. The simple fact is that the world is moving towards digital media, and there are a variety of digital educational tools that are very effective.

Fundamentals of Instruction: No real surprises here. He asked about the laws of learning – with special repeated emphasis throughout on primacy. Specifically, that it’s not the first thing presented but rather the first thing learned / first thing remembered. He repeatedly tied this to the importance of teaching things properly the first time. The example he used is a CFI teaching students to push the nose down for stall recovery. He said they should be taught to reduce the angle of attack. We covered instructor responsibilities in detail. No surprises. He likes the 5 P model – so know that.

Runway Incursion Avoidance: He placed a fair amount of emphasis on the PHAK Appendix 1: Runway Incursion Avoidance. Specifically a table in there that details the various light configurations. Be sure to speak about Hotspots. What they are and why they exists. I started with a new pilot in the plane and described the challenges working my way out. Starting with the controls internal to the plane – outwards to the wings sticking out and eventually to airport configuration and communication. He was very happy with this approach. He did have me take an online runway marking quiz. A little googling found it to be the following quiz: https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/equiz/?fuseaction=start

I got 10 out of 10 correct and he was very happy.

Logbook Entries and Certificates: We spent a lot of time here. We talked about the requirements for each stage of training from student to solo to XC solo to private pilot and went through each endorsement. Then he presented me with the scenario “A Commercial Helicopter pilot with 0 hrs in an airplane comes to you to get an airplane add-on” What are the requirements. I didn’t know the answer rote, but I was able to reference the FAR and determine the answer in detail. He gave me time to do this and was happy that I did NOT give a cursory answer and that I fully detailed the requirements. He said afterwards that he would have no expectation for me to know that answer off hand but that I should be able to thoroughly determine the requirements.

Several topics combined into one: We also covered airworthiness requirements, certificates and documents, weather information, and operation of systems. These were interwoven among several other topics and were mostly teaching or scenario based. For the airworthiness requirements he was big on the MEL and the process associated with that. Definitely a weak area for me, but he was unconcerned. He said it is one of the areas most candidates are weak in. Operation of systems was straightforward. Talk to me about the engine (I just bought an engine… so there was nothing he could catch me on) We spent time on the constant speed prop. He liked analogies. Jason’s analogy about the transmission went over well. He wanted me to explain how and why the constant speed prop works. Then I had to explain how the hydraulic landing gear system on the arrow works. While on the topic of systems we bled into the POH. This was a hot topic for him You’ll definitely score points by knowing what each section has in it (without reference – but you won’t be dinged hard if you don’t) Specifically the relationship between limitations and other sections. For example if it has a GPS – that may require a Quick Reference guide per section 9. Thus the airplane is not airworthy without it. Regardless more emphasis than I expected on this book. Read the opening paragraph of section 2. Know section 9. Know what is a limitation and what is not (not rote just limitations in general). On the topic of airworthiness – this was somewhat unexpected. He had me not teach, but rather simply assess a student pilot who is ready for endorsement for his private pilot practical based on a task out of the ACS. I used the scenario of you have equipment out necessitating a special flight permit. He liked it – but in all honesty I could have done a better job shaping the scenario. I would practice doing a couple lessons that aren’t lessons, but pure assessment.

Maneuver Lesson: Finally we ended with teaching the lesson on the Power Off 180 Accuracy Landing. This was probably the strongest single event. I nailed the topic and he gave multiple compliments. Key things I did well: 1) I asked him, the student, tons of questions and made him explain things as I went along. 2) I wrote out checklists of standards and common errors, but I didn’t cover them as a list – I covered them throughout the course of the lesson and checked them off as I went. He really liked this as well. In fact I was able to check off half the errors based off of the answers he gave me to the scenarios I proposed to him as the student. Bottom line. The lesson was absolutely all about teaching. No need to be super complicated, but practice good teaching skills. I also added in some background on how and why we do the pattern differently in the military (box vs oval pattern) and the strengths and weaknesses of each. He also was very happy with this addition. I ended the lesson by laying out my expectations of the student in performing the maneuver.

Flight:

(1.8 hours Flight, 1 hour Ground)

Manuals: He was big on teaching students how to find the correct logs – not enabling via tabs. Teach students what they should find and how they should find it. Details like starting at the back of the log. Otherwise his review of performance, notams, weather, and weight and balance were cursory at best. Make sure you do full fuel and zero fuel calculations. Additionally, make sure your POH contains any ancillary documentation required such as that required for the GPS.

Pre-flight: He gave me the scenario of what would I expect to teach when instructing a new complex pilot. Also, was concerned with the safety of pre-flight. Should I pre-flight separately if teaching pre-flight for the first time? Yes.

What things should I always check even with a competent student (fuel, oil, general condition). When should pre-flight begin – when you are walking to the plane from far away. What lights should you have on? Again refer to the Appendix 1 – runway incursion table referenced earlier, however – all the lights is also a pretty acceptable answer. (Lets be honest – you’re not blinding anyone with the candle- powered landing lights in these aircraft) Primacy in relation to flight training came up yet again.

 Flight execution (in order):

• Taxi for takeoff – How to teach a new student to steer with the rudder
• Ground safety – Cursory review of hotspots and collision
• Short field T/O. He will call when clear of any (Basically when to transition from Vx to Vy)
• Enroute to practice area – explain VFR visual references for straight and level /
• Slow flight – demonstrate and relate to pattern work.
• Power off & power on stalls – No surprises.
• Demonstrate a secondary stall. Only to stall First indication.
• Steep turns demonstration. Talk through common
• Evaluate his steep turns. He performed his extremely There was very little to say or critique and so I did just that. He was happy that I didn’t try to make stuff up or over teach. iI it was a good maneuver – its a good maneuver – don’t over complicate it.
• Lazy eights – he doesn’t like the whole 45 90 135 180 He says trace the nose high and then low in a figure eight. Forget the checkpoint besides hitting your nose high and bank references outside the cockpit. I completely agree – and actually improved my own lazy eight considerably using his technique. The lazy eight is basically a very mild wingover. We’re probably overly emphasizing these checkpoints. Yes it’s in the manual – but there is a feel and pattern outside the cockpit that doesn’t correlate well to learners.
• Modified steep spiral to emergency landing. He’d prefer you do these to the student’s side (turn left). Otherwise he was happy with my approach and I was able to hit my
• Turns around a point immediately into eights on pylons. He mentioned over and over again – don’t get caught up on the perfect two Don’t worry about the second pylon until you find the first pylon. Much more important to find the wind – get altitude and speed correct. My eights on pylons were flawless – best I’ve done.
• Back to the field – enroute – describe magnetic compass variations and how to deal with them
• At the field short field landing followed by soft field takeoff to power off 180. I had to do a go-around on my first DO NOT press a bad or poor landing. DO NOT fear going around. They are free and he’ll be happy to see it as he was mine. All landings and takeoffs went well after that. I was a little right of centerline on the short field landing.
• Back to the ramp. One question about post-flight and inside to sign the