CHECKING INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT

Objective

The CFII candidate will demonstrate the ability to teach a helicopter instrument student the importance, procedures, and documentation requirements for postflight instrument and equipment checks. Upon completion, the CFII candidate will explain the critical safety and regulatory reasons for identifying discrepancies before the next IFR flight, demonstrate proper postflight inspection techniques specific to helicopter IFR equipment, and show how to create appropriate maintenance documentation. The candidate must meet the teaching standards outlined in PTS CFII.X.A and demonstrate mastery of FOI principles when presenting this essential IFR housekeeping task.

Content

Introduction to Postflight Instrument and Equipment Checks

The postflight period represents the last opportunity to identify equipment anomalies before they become safety hazards on a subsequent IFR flight. Unlike VFR operations where equipment failures may be nuisances, IFR flight in a single-pilot helicopter depends absolutely on proper instrument and navigation equipment function. The CFII candidate must teach students that postflight checks are not optional administrative tasks—they are the final safety gate protecting future flights.

Importance of Noting Improper Operation

Why Postflight Documentation Matters

During flight, particularly in single-pilot IFR operations, the pilot’s attention is divided among aircraft control, navigation, communication, and systems monitoring. Subtle equipment anomalies may be noticed but not fully processed during high-workload phases. The postflight period provides the opportunity to:

• Record observations made during flight while memory is fresh
• Correlate multiple symptoms that might indicate system problems
• Prevent launching into IMC with compromised equipment
• Establish a maintenance history that helps technicians diagnose intermittent problems
• Fulfill regulatory obligations under 14 CFR 91.405(a) regarding equipment discrepancies

Helicopter-Specific IFR Equipment Vulnerabilities

Helicopters present unique challenges for instrument system integrity:

• Vibration effects: Continuous vibration can cause instruments to drift, connections to loosen, and components to fail prematurely. An attitude indicator that performed normally at flight start may show bearing drift after two hours of operation.

• Electrical system limitations: Many training helicopters operate with minimal electrical capacity. Voltage fluctuations during high-power operations can cause avionics resets, GPS errors, or NAV/COMM anomalies that must be documented.

• Environmental exposure: Helicopter instrument panels in older aircraft may lack environmental sealing. Moisture intrusion, particularly after operations near coastal areas or in rain, can cause corrosion and intermittent failures.

• Installation quality: Many helicopters have instrument systems installed via supplemental type certificates. Field modifications may create unique failure modes not covered in standard troubleshooting guides.

Common Discrepancies Requiring Documentation

The CFII candidate must teach students to recognize and document:

• Navigation Equipment: GPS position errors, NAV receiver frequency drift, sluggish CDI response, intermittent glideslope indications, DME range errors, ADF needle wander
• Communication Equipment: Audio panel failures, stuck microphones, intercom feedback, frequency display errors, transmit/receive degradation
• Flight Instruments: Attitude indicator tumbling or erection errors, HSI precession, altimeter lag during altitude changes, VSI stiction, airspeed indicator blockage symptoms
• Autopilot/Stability Systems: Trim anomalies, uncommanded disconnects, erratic servo behavior, mode confusion, altitude capture failures
• Electrical Systems: Low voltage warnings, alternator/generator fluctuations, circuit breaker trips, battery discharge rates
• Lighting Systems: Navigation light failures, panel lighting irregularities, strobes or beacon malfunctions affecting anti-collision light requirements

Regulatory Framework for Documentation

14 CFR 91.405(a) — Owner/Operator Responsibilities

The regulation states: “Each owner or operator of an aircraft shall ensure that maintenance personnel make appropriate entries in the aircraft maintenance records indicating the aircraft has been approved for return to service.”

This regulation establishes the legal requirement for documentation. When a pilot discovers a discrepancy, failure to record it violates the spirit of this regulation and creates liability. The entry need not be technical—a clear description in the aircraft journey log or squawk sheet suffices: “GPS displayed ‘Loss of Navigation’ message at 1435Z during approach to KABC. Message cleared after cycling master switch. Equipment unreliable for IFR.”

14 CFR 91.213 — Inoperative Instruments and Equipment

Before the next IFR flight, the pilot must determine whether:

• The equipment is required for the specific IFR operation (91.205, equipment list, MEL if applicable)
• The discrepancy has been addressed by maintenance
• The item can be legally deferred using procedures appropriate to the aircraft’s certification

Without proper documentation, the next pilot cannot make this determination. A CFII candidate must emphasize that failing to document an autopilot disconnect during an approach could result in the next pilot launching into IMC, coupling the autopilot, and experiencing an unexpected failure at a critical phase—potentially catastrophic in single-pilot IFR.

14 CFR 91.205 — Required Instruments and Equipment

For IFR operations, paragraph (d) establishes minimum equipment. Any discrepancy affecting these systems grounds the aircraft for IFR until corrected:

• Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route
• Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator
• Slip-skid indicator
• Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure
• Clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with sweep-second pointer or digital presentation
• Generator or alternator of adequate capacity
• Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (attitude indicator)
• Gyroscopic direction indicator (heading indicator or HSI)
• Helicopters: If VFR-on-top operations are planned, compliance with VFR equipment requirements

The CFII candidate must teach students to cross-reference observed discrepancies against 91.205 requirements immediately postflight.

14 CFR 91.417 — Maintenance Records

Discrepancies must ultimately be recorded in maintenance records. The pilot’s squawk initiates this process. Teaching students proper phraseology improves maintenance response:

• Poor: “GPS bad”
• Better: “GPS unreliable—intermittent loss of position during approach”
• Best: “Garmin GNS430 displayed ‘LOST SATELLITE RECEPTION’ at 1520Z during ILS RWY 36 approach KBED, IMC conditions, 3500’ MSL. Message persisted for approximately 45 seconds before reception restored. Equipment cannot be depended upon for IFR navigation.”

Creating Effective Written Records

What to Document

A complete postflight discrepancy report includes:

1. Equipment identification: Specific nomenclature (not just “GPS” but “Garmin GTN750”)
2. Symptom description: What abnormality was observed
3. Conditions when observed: Flight phase, altitude, environmental conditions, electrical load
4. Duration and frequency: Continuous, intermittent, one-time occurrence
5. Flight impact: Whether the issue affected safety, workload, or decision-making
6. Corrective actions attempted: What the pilot tried (cycling power, switching frequencies, etc.) and results
7. Date, time, location: Establishes correlation with other environmental factors
8. Pilot name and certificate number: Accountability and follow-up contact

Where to Document

Recording locations vary by operation:

• Journey log/squawk sheet: Most common for training and rental aircraft. Immediate, accessible to all pilots.
• Aircraft maintenance logbook: Permanent record; pilot may make entry if no journey log exists
• Electronic maintenance tracking: Many operators use tablets or SMS (Safety Management System) software
• Flight school/operator discrepancy forms: Standardized templates ensuring completeness

The CFII candidate must teach students to use whatever system the operator provides, emphasizing that verbal reports alone are insufficient. “I told the desk person” does not constitute proper documentation.

Documentation Timing

Record discrepancies immediately postflight while details are fresh. Waiting until the drive home results in forgotten specifics. The student should develop a habit:

1. Secure the helicopter (rotor brake, tie-downs)
2. Complete shutdown checklist
3. Before leaving the aircraft, review the flight mentally for any anomalies
4. Write discrepancy reports before closing flight log
5. Ensure reports are submitted to operations/maintenance before leaving facility

Teaching the Habit Pattern

The CFII candidate must demonstrate how to instill postflight discipline:

Method 1: Structured Debrief Questions

After every training flight, ask:

• “Did any instrument behave unexpectedly?”
• “Did you notice any avionics display anything unusual?”
• “Were there any moments where you questioned whether equipment was working correctly?”
• “Did you have to compensate for any instrument behavior?”

These questions prompt reflection and catch marginal issues students might dismiss.

Method 2: Red Flag List

Teach students to immediately document these observations:

• Any autopilot disconnect not commanded by the pilot
• GPS messages or warnings, even if brief
• NAV/COMM frequency changes not initiated by pilot
• Instrument indications that disagreed with each other (altimeter vs. GPS altitude by >100’)
• Circuit breakers requiring reset
• Unusual noises from avionics (cooling fan failures, relay chatter)
• Dimming panel lights or voltage fluctuations
• Any “glitch” that caused momentary confusion

Method 3: Post-Approach Equipment Review

After every instrument approach, brief students to check:

• Did the approach-approved GPS provide continuous guidance?
• Did glideslope/localizer remain centered with appropriate corrections?
• Did navigation radios maintain frequency lock?
• Did marker beacon indicators activate at charted positions?
• Did ADF (if installed) track reliably without hunting?

This systematic review catches approach-specific equipment problems before the next IFR flight.

Consequences of Inadequate Documentation

Safety Implications

The CFII candidate must convey real-world consequences:

• Scenario 1: A student notices attitude indicator sluggishness during unusual attitudes but doesn’t document it. The next pilot launches into IMC, enters inadvertent flight into icing, and experiences attitude indicator failure during recovery maneuvers—spatial disorientation results.

• Scenario 2: GPS shows momentary “RAIM unavailable” during cruise but restores quickly. Pilot doesn’t document. Next pilot files GPS approach as primary means of navigation to an airport with no alternative approach. GPS fails in IMC with insufficient RAIM, leading to emergency diversion.

• Scenario 3: Autopilot disconnects unexpectedly during coupled approach but pilot doesn’t document. Next pilot uses autopilot in actual IMC during high-workload segment. Autopilot fails, pilot is slow to recognize disconnect, altitude deviation occurs near terrain.

Regulatory and Liability Issues

• Enforcement action: If an accident investigation reveals a pilot flew IFR with known equipment deficiencies that weren’t documented, FAA enforcement for careless or reckless operation (14 CFR 91.13) may result
• Insurance denial: Failure to follow proper maintenance reporting procedures may provide grounds for insurance companies to deny claims
• Certificate action: NTSB case law establishes that knowing operation of aircraft with undocumented discrepancies can support license suspension

Operational Impact

• Intermittent problems become chronic when maintenance cannot establish patterns due to lack of documentation
• Aircraft remains out of service longer when mechanics must troubleshoot from scratch without pilot observations
• Training schedules disrupted when aircraft are unexpectedly grounded after problems escalate
• Loss of institutional knowledge about aircraft quirks and failure modes

Maintenance Follow-Up Procedures

The CFII candidate must teach students what happens after documentation:

Maintenance Response

Depending on severity:

• Grounding discrepancies (required IFR equipment under 91.205): Aircraft immediately removed from service for IFR. Maintenance must inspect, repair/replace, and make logbook entry clearing discrepancy.

• Advisory discrepancies (convenience items, minor issues): Maintenance evaluates priority. May be deferred if not required equipment or if MEL procedures allow.

• Intermittent problems: Most challenging for maintenance. Pilot documentation of conditions, duration, and frequency helps technicians replicate the issue.

Pilot Verification After Maintenance

After maintenance signs off a discrepancy, the pilot must:

1. Review logbook entry to understand corrective action
2. Verify during preflight that work was completed (new components installed, connectors reseated, etc.)
3. Conduct extra attention during flight to confirm repair effectiveness
4. Be prepared to document recurrence with specific details comparing pre- and post-maintenance behavior

Teach students that signing off on “aircraft returned to service” implies accepting responsibility for verifying the repair addressed the documented problem.

Special Considerations for IFR Operations

Single-Pilot IFR Workload

Helicopters flown single-pilot IFR present unique challenges:

• Higher workload than fixed-wing due to helicopter handling characteristics
• Less time available to troubleshoot equipment problems in flight
• Equipment anomalies create significant workload increase

These factors make postflight documentation critical—equipment must be 100% reliable because there’s no copilot to assist when problems occur.

Helicopter Vibration Environment

Teach students that helicopters’ vibration environment causes accelerated wear:

• Panel-mounted instruments experience constant stress
• Electrical connections work loose over time
• Vibration-induced failures often manifest as intermittent problems

This reality means even minor anomalies deserve documentation—today’s sluggish gyro becomes tomorrow’s tumbled attitude indicator.

GPS Dependency

Modern helicopter IFR operations depend heavily on GPS:

• Many helicopters lack VOR/ILS capability
• GPS approaches may be the only instrument option at destination
• WAAS GPS enables LPV approaches with vertical guidance

Any GPS anomaly must be documented immediately. Loss of GPS capability grounds many helicopters for IFR operations.

Completion Actions

The CFII candidate must teach this postflight flow:

1. Secure aircraft — Complete shutdown, rotor brake, tie-downs
2. Review flight mentally — Scan for any equipment anomalies noticed during flight
3. Check circuit breakers — Document any that opened during flight
4. Inspect instruments — Look for physical damage, unusual residue, loose mounting
5. Document discrepancies — Write complete reports in appropriate location
6. Notify operations/maintenance — Ensure responsible party receives squawk sheets
7. Determine IFR status — Based on discrepancies, is aircraft legal for next IFR flight?
8. Complete logbook entries — Personal logbook includes any equipment issues for student’s record

Teaching Methodology for This Task

The CFII candidate demonstrates effective instruction by:

Method 1: Case Study Analysis

Present real accident scenarios where inadequate postflight documentation contributed to subsequent accidents. Discuss what proper documentation might have prevented.

Method 2: Squawk Sheet Practice

Provide scenarios with equipment anomalies. Have students write complete discrepancy reports. Critique for completeness and clarity.

Method 3: Maintenance Perspective

If possible, invite maintenance personnel to describe how pilot reports help (or hinder) troubleshooting. This reinforces the importance of specific, detailed documentation.

Method 4: Build-a-Checklist

Have students create their own postflight equipment review checklist tailored to their training aircraft. Personalized checklists improve compliance.

Schedule

Equipment

Required References:

• FAA-S-8081-9E: Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards (Helicopter)
• FAA-H-8083-15B: Instrument Flying Handbook
• FAA-H-8083-21B: Rotorcraft Flying Handbook
• FAA-H-8083-9: Aviation Instructor’s Handbook
• 14 CFR Part 91, Subpart E: Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations (particularly 91.405, 91.213, 91.417)
• 14 CFR 91.205: Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates; instrument and equipment requirements

Training Aircraft:

• Representative helicopter configured for IFR operations (with full panel, GPS, NAV/COMM)
• Aircraft journey log or squawk sheet forms
• Aircraft maintenance logbook (for demonstration purposes only)

Visual Aids and Materials:

• Sample completed discrepancy reports (both good and poor examples)
• Whiteboard or flip chart for diagramming postflight flow
• Sample scenarios printed on cards for practice exercises
• Checklist template for postflight equipment review
• Photos or diagrams showing common instrument discrepancies
• Handout summarizing 91.205 required IFR equipment for helicopters

Technology:

• Projector/screen for presenting accident case studies
• Tablet or laptop with electronic copies of FARs and handbooks
• Sample electronic maintenance tracking screenshots (if used by flight school)

Props:

• Circuit breaker panel (if removable trainer available)
• Sample avionics display error messages (screenshots or photos)
• Example maintenance logbook entries showing discrepancy resolution

Instructor Actions

The CFII candidate will:

1. Begin with scenario motivation: Present a brief case study where inadequate postflight documentation led to a subsequent incident. Ask the evaluator (as student) what might have prevented the incident, leading into the lesson objective.

2. Present regulatory framework: Using whiteboard or visual aid, diagram the relationship between 91.405 (documentation requirement), 91.213 (inoperative equipment), 91.205 (required equipment), and 91.417 (maintenance records). Explain how pilot postflight actions trigger the regulatory chain.

3. Teach helicopter-specific vulnerabilities: Explain through demonstration and analogy how helicopter vibration environment, electrical limitations, and installation variations create unique failure modes. Use specific examples from common training helicopters (Robinson, Schweizer, Enstrom, Bell).

4. Demonstrate postflight inspection technique: Using the training aircraft, physically walk through a postflight equipment inspection, verbalizing what to look for:

   • Circuit breaker panel check
   • Instrument panel visual inspection
   • Avionics display check for latent messages
   • Physical inspection of antennas and external equipment

5. Model proper documentation: Using actual squawk sheets or journey log, write out complete discrepancy reports for simulated equipment problems. Contrast with incomplete examples, explaining why specificity matters.

6. Teach through scenarios: Present 3-4 equipment anomaly scenarios verbally. Have evaluator (as student) determine:

   • Whether this requires documentation
   • What specific information to include in squawk
   • Whether aircraft is legal for next IFR flight
   • What maintenance action is likely required

7. Demonstrate teaching effectiveness: Show how to instill documentation habits by presenting the structured debrief questions, red flag list, and post-approach equipment review checklist. Explain implementation in real training flights.

8. Address consequences systematically: Present safety, regulatory, and operational consequences of inadequate documentation using specific examples. Connect each consequence to real-world outcomes.

9. Teach maintenance perspective: Explain from maintenance viewpoint how pilot reports enable or hinder troubleshooting. If possible, share actual examples of helpful vs. unhelpful squawks.

10. Demonstrate completion standard verification: Show how to verify after maintenance that:

    • Logbook entry properly addresses documented squawk
    • Corrective action appears appropriate to reported symptom
    • Aircraft can be returned to IFR service legally
    • Extra vigilance required during next flight to confirm repair

11. Apply FOI principles throughout:

    • Primacy: Establish from the outset that postflight documentation is non-negotiable safety habit
    • Exercise: Require evaluator to write actual discrepancy reports during lesson
    • Effect: Connect proper documentation to prevented accidents and improved aircraft reliability
    • Intensity: Use realistic scenarios and emotional connection to emphasize importance
    • Recency: End with recent case studies to ensure retention

12. Check understanding: Throughout lesson, use targeted questions:

    • “What makes this discrepancy reportable vs. normal operation?”
    • “If you were the maintenance technician, would this report give you enough information?”
    • “Under 91.205, is this aircraft still legal for IFR with this discrepancy?”
    • “What would you tell your student if they said, ‘The GPS glitched but it’s fine now’?”

13. Summarize with action items: Conclude by reviewing the postflight flow checklist, emphasizing that this becomes an automatic habit with consistent practice. Provide the evaluator with the handout checklist and sample reports.

14. Assess teaching effectiveness: Ask the evaluator (as student) to teach back the key points, demonstrating that the CFII candidate’s instruction achieved the learning objective.

Student Actions

The evaluator (acting as instrument student) will:

1. Engage with opening scenario: Analyze the presented case study and discuss what documentation might have prevented the incident, demonstrating critical thinking about the lesson’s importance.

2. Take notes: Record key regulatory references, documentation requirements, and checklist flows as the CFII candidate presents material.

3. Ask clarifying questions: Throughout the lesson, pose realistic questions an instrument student would ask:

   • “How do I know if something is normal vs. reportable?”
   • “What if I’m not sure of the exact equipment nomenclature?”
   • “What happens if I document something and maintenance says they can’t find the problem?”
   • “Can I get in trouble for reporting too many minor issues?”
   • “What if the discrepancy only happened once very briefly?”

4. Participate in scenario exercises: When presented with equipment anomaly scenarios, verbally work through the decision process:

   • Identify whether documentation is required
   • Determine what information to include
   • Assess aircraft IFR legality
   • Predict maintenance response

5. Practice documentation: Write at least two complete discrepancy reports using squawk sheets or journey log, incorporating the elements the CFII candidate taught (equipment ID, symptoms, conditions, duration, impact, etc.).

6. Provide feedback on written reports: Review sample reports presented by CFII candidate and identify which elements make them effective or ineffective.

7. Follow along during physical demonstration: Accompany CFII candidate during postflight inspection walk-around, observing specific inspection points and asking follow-up questions about what constitutes an abnormality.

8. Demonstrate understanding: When asked targeted questions, provide answers that show comprehension of:

   • Regulatory requirements
   • Documentation elements
   • Safety implications
   • Teaching methodology for future students

9. Complete teach-back exercise: Near lesson end, summarize key points to demonstrate retention:

   • Why postflight documentation matters
   • What must be documented
   • How to write effective reports
   • When aircraft becomes illegal for IFR
   • How to verify maintenance addressed the issue

10. Apply learning to personal experience: If evaluator has helicopter IFR experience, relate lesson content to actual equipment issues encountered and discuss how proper documentation would have helped.

11. Request practical application: Ask how to handle edge cases:

    • Equipment that works normally on ground but failed in flight
    • Intermittent problems that can’t be replicated
    • Student-pilot differences in what’s considered “abnormal”
    • Documentation when renting aircraft at unfamiliar FBO

12. Review handout materials: Examine provided checklist, sample reports, and regulatory summaries, confirming understanding of how to use these tools independently.

Completion Standards

The CFII candidate’s lesson is complete when the evaluator can assess the following standards have been met per PTS CFII.X.A:

Knowledge Standards

The CFII candidate correctly teaches and the evaluator demonstrates understanding of:

1. Importance of documentation: Articulates at least three specific reasons why postflight documentation of equipment anomalies is critical to IFR safety, including prevention of subsequent accidents, regulatory compliance, and maintenance efficiency.

2. Regulatory requirements: Accurately explains the relationship between 14 CFR 91.405, 91.213, 91.205, and 91.417, and correctly identifies which equipment discrepancies ground the aircraft for IFR operations per 91.205(d).

3. Helicopter-specific considerations: Identifies at least four equipment vulnerabilities unique to helicopters (vibration effects, electrical capacity, installation variations, single-pilot workload impact) and explains why these increase the importance of postflight checks.

4. Documentation elements: Lists the seven essential elements of an effective discrepancy report (equipment identification, symptom description, conditions, duration, impact, corrective actions attempted, date/time/location) and explains why each matters to maintenance troubleshooting.

5. Documentation locations: Correctly identifies where to record discrepancies (journey log, squawk sheet, maintenance logbook, electronic tracking) and explains the distinction between pilot reporting and maintenance logbook entries.

6. Common discrepancies: Recognizes at least six categories of IFR equipment problems requiring documentation (navigation, communication, flight instruments, autopilot, electrical, lighting) and provides helicopter-specific examples of each.

7. Consequences of inadequate documentation: Explains safety, regulatory, liability, and operational consequences of failing to document equipment anomalies, using specific scenario examples.

8. Post-maintenance verification: Describes the pilot’s responsibility after maintenance signs off a discrepancy, including logbook review, physical verification, and heightened monitoring during subsequent flight.

Teaching Standards

The CFII candidate demonstrates effective instruction by:

1. Clear presentation structure: Lesson follows logical progression from motivation through regulatory basis, procedures, consequences, and practical application. Student can follow reasoning throughout.

2. Appropriate use of FOI principles: Demonstrates application of primacy (establishing non-negotiable habit), exercise (hands-on practice writing reports), effect (connecting to real outcomes), intensity (realistic scenarios with emotional connection), and recency (current examples).

3. Effective questioning: Uses targeted questions throughout lesson to check understanding, promote critical thinking, and ensure student engagement. Questions are open-ended and require analysis, not just recall.

4. Scenario-based teaching: Presents realistic equipment anomaly scenarios requiring student analysis and decision-making. Scenarios are helicopter-specific and appropriate to IFR operations.

5. Physical demonstration: Conducts actual postflight equipment inspection on training aircraft, verbalizing inspection points clearly and answering student questions during walk-around.

6. Practical application: Requires student to write actual discrepancy reports during lesson and provides specific, constructive feedback on quality and completeness.

7. Resource provision: Provides student with take-away materials (checklist, sample reports, regulatory summary) that enable independent application of learned skills.

8. Assessment of learning: Verifies student understanding through teach-back exercise or scenario application demonstrating student can perform postflight checks independently and teach this task to their future students.

Performance Standards

The CFII candidate demonstrates instructor-level competence by:

1. Accurate regulatory interpretation: All references to 14 CFR Part 91 are accurate and correctly applied to helicopter IFR operations. No misinformation or misinterpretation of requirements.

2. Helicopter-specific content: All examples, scenarios, and procedures are appropriate to helicopter IFR operations. No fixed-wing-only content or inappropriate analogies.

3. Complete discrepancy reports: Sample reports written during demonstration include all seven essential elements and provide sufficient detail for maintenance action.

4. Proper postflight sequence: Physical demonstration follows logical flow: secure aircraft, review flight, inspect equipment, document discrepancies, notify maintenance, determine IFR legality.

5. Appropriate emphasis: Conveys proper level of importance without creating excessive anxiety. Students understand this is serious safety task but not overwhelming administrative burden.

6. Time management: Completes lesson within allotted 150-minute timeframe while covering all required knowledge elements and allowing for student questions and practice.

7. Professional communication: Uses correct aviation terminology, clear explanations, and appropriate instructor tone. Avoids jargon without explanation, maintains approachable demeanor.

Evaluation Criteria (DPE Assessment)

The evaluator determines satisfactory performance when:

1. Student can independently perform task: After instruction, evaluator (as student) can conduct postflight equipment check, identify discrepancies requiring documentation, and write complete reports without CFII candidate prompting.

2. Student understands “why” not just “what”: Evaluator articulates safety and regulatory reasoning behind postflight documentation, not just procedure memorization.

3. Teaching would produce safe instrument pilots: CFII candidate’s instructional approach would instill proper habits in actual instrument students, creating pilots who consistently document equipment anomalies.

4. CFII candidate corrects errors: If evaluator (as student) makes incorrect statements or writes incomplete reports during practice, CFII candidate immediately provides specific correction with explanation.

5. Lesson meets practical test standards: All elements of PTS CFII.X.A are addressed, knowledge items are thoroughly taught, and CFII candidate demonstrates ability to teach this task effectively.

6. No safety-critical omissions: CFII candidate does not omit or minimize any regulatory requirement, safety implication, or documentation element that could lead to unsafe IFR operations.

Unsatisfactory performance includes: inability to explain regulatory basis for documentation, failure to teach all seven elements of complete discrepancy reports, omission of helicopter-specific equipment vulnerabilities, inadequate teaching methodology demonstration, or inability to assess whether student achieved learning objective.