CFII common mistakes
CFII · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to teach attitude instrument flying, the candidate demonstrates a correct scan but cannot diagnose a simulated student error such as fixation or omission; instead, the candidate simply repeats the correct scan.
Candidates memorize a scan pattern for their own flying but have not practiced the instructor task of observing and correcting another pilot's instrument cross-check.
What to do instead
Practice teaching from the right seat with a confederate who deliberately fixates or omits an instrument; use a whiteboard or simulator to show the error, its instrument indication, and the specific correction.
Writes a flight review or instrument proficiency check endorsement using outdated wording or omits required elements such as the instructor's certificate number, expiration date, or the specific regulation reference.
Candidates copy endorsements from memory or an old template rather than verifying the current advisory circular and the applicable regulation.
What to do instead
Build a personal endorsement template directly from the current AC 61-65 and check each element against the regulation before signing; explain to the examiner why each element is required.
Cannot reconcile a sample logbook entry with instrument currency requirements; for example, accepts an entry that logs an approach but does not record the holding procedure or the type of approach required by the instrument currency rule.
Candidates study currency as a general concept but do not practice applying the logbook and currency regulations to actual logbook entries.
What to do instead
Use a sample logbook with several entries and walk through the instrument currency requirement line by line: six approaches, holding, and the required logging details; then have the candidate explain how to fix each deficient entry.
Briefs a cross-country flight using only an abbreviated weather product and does not identify a specific go/no-go decision point, alternate minimums, or icing risk along the route.
Candidates treat the weather briefing as a box to check rather than a decision tool; they may rely on a single source and skip cross-checking.
What to do instead
Teach a structured weather decision matrix: gather METAR, TAF, winds aloft, icing, and radar information; compare to personal and regulatory minimums; and state a decision point with alternates before flight.
Reads back an ATC clearance but omits an altitude restriction or the 'expect further clearance' time, and does not teach the student to compare the readback to the clearance strip.
Candidates rely on short-term memory and do not use a structured clearance shorthand or a verification step.
What to do instead
Use the CRAFT or similar format to copy clearances, then read back and compare each element; practice with recorded clearances and have the candidate identify omissions.
During a partial-panel demonstration, fixates on the failed attitude indicator and loses altitude or heading control instead of transitioning immediately to the remaining instruments.
Candidates have not practiced partial-panel flying enough and revert to a primary instrument that is no longer reliable.
What to do instead
Practice partial-panel under the hood with instrument covers and a defined scan; teach the student to announce the failure, cover the instrument, and establish a new scan using the turn coordinator, altimeter, and airspeed.
When teaching a GPS or RNAV approach, does not check the database currency or explain RAIM or WAAS integrity, and incorrectly states that LNAV/VNAV minima are always available.
Candidates treat GPS approaches like ground-based approaches and skip the integrity and database checks unique to RNAV.
What to do instead
Use a GPS approach checklist that includes database currency, RAIM prediction or WAAS integrity, and the applicable minima; demonstrate the checks in the aircraft or simulator.
Gives an approach briefing that omits the missed approach procedure, final approach course, and minimum safe altitude, then flies the approach without establishing a stabilized descent.
Candidates brief the approach as a sequence of steps rather than a complete plan, and they rush to fly rather than chair-fly the procedure.
What to do instead
Adopt a standardized approach briefing format that covers setup, course, altitude, minima, missed approach, and go-around decision; chair-fly the approach before flight.
When given a simulated vacuum failure, troubleshoots by cycling the failed instrument instead of identifying the failure, maintaining control, and selecting partial-panel instruments.
Candidates default to troubleshooting the equipment rather than flying the aircraft; they have not practiced the emergency decision-making sequence.
What to do instead
Practice emergency scenarios with a decision model: maintain control, identify the failure, select the appropriate instruments, and then troubleshoot; use a checklist and debrief each scenario.
Ends the lesson without a structured debrief or written record; the candidate cannot state what was accomplished, what remains deficient, and what the next lesson should cover.
Candidates focus on the flight portion and treat the debrief as informal conversation rather than an instructional requirement.
What to do instead
Use a debrief template: review the lesson objectives, identify specific strengths and errors, assign remediation, and document the session and next steps in the training record.