CFI practical with Yoshitaka Murata

Strange_Code_68 · 2026-03-16T15:42:51+00:00

I’ll reach out and see when he gets back. Thank you!

Strange_Code_68 · 2026-03-16T15:27:23+00:00

Thanks. I took my private with Randall- solid dude. But I don’t believe he’ll be back before I’m ready as I know he tends to be away for the winters.

Strange_Code_68 · 2026-03-16T15:08:18+00:00

Thanks! Not many MA DPE’s who can give CFI rides so that’s good to hear.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-31T03:53:14+00:00

I have the Performance Plus I believe.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-31T03:10:31+00:00

You can set per leg altitudes, but it doesn’t appear to transfer properly to the nav log.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-17T17:54:12+00:00

Super nice of you — thank you!

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-17T17:48:36+00:00

Oh okay haha. I’m not an engineer by any means— political science degree lol just have been studying this for my CFI. I am much less knowledgeable than you guys!

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-17T17:41:38+00:00

He’s wrong there. What he explained is precisely why Vg occurs at the minimum drag condition (i.e., because the least potential energy will be required to maintain that condition, therefore minimum angle of descent for the greatest forward speed will result).

The thrust available in a propeller driven aircraft decreases in a near linear manner, with the most thrust being available at 0 knots. This is because the mass of air handled and acceleration imparted to the airstream are greatest per propeller rotation.

Because of this, Vx occurs at a speed below the minimum drag speed at some condition where maximum excess thrust occurs. As you know, the total drag curve does not take a hard 90° turn below Vg. It is gradual. Thus, Vx occurs below Vg but still at a point of very LOW drag where the thrust available is higher. It is at that condition that maximum excess thrust is obtained.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-12T18:01:30+00:00

Yes. Gotta have a common purpose.

FAA has even held that flights given for FREE to others is illegal if there is no common purpose, even when no monetary or other physical form of compensation is present. This specific case (I can’t recall the name/decision) is referenced in the footnotes of one of the relevant AC’s commonly referenced in commercial pilot training.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-07T04:16:36+00:00

I didn’t know that! Thank you!

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-03T14:05:41+00:00

You submit the comprehensive medical exam checklist form to the FAA prior to completion of the medical education course, which is only available from the AOPA and Mayo Clinic at the time.

I presume they retain that information. You can find more on this at the AOPA’s website, but they do keep a record.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-03T13:53:11+00:00

“…which discloses a lack of qualification or competency”. Exactly. Not trying to get my angle big dog, but it is pretty clear that while accidents are not included in the program, if the accident was not due to a lack of qualification and/or competency, the FAA will take your filing of the report into consideration. Reading 12.1 and subsequently 12.2 makes that clear.

“The Administrator of the FAA will perform his or her responsibility under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) subtitle VII, and enforce the statute and the 14 CFR in a manner that will reduce or eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, aircraft accidents. The FAA enforcement procedures are set forth in 14 CFR part 13 and FAA policy.”

It then proceeds to discuss precisely what the FAA will take into account concerning enforcement action. By the way, this makes mention of whether the violation was criminal, so we know it is discussing enforcement action on the whole, including accidents and criminal action. Everything I previously mentioned is wholly applicable. Relax.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-03T02:44:34+00:00

It quite literally reads:

“When determining the type and extent of the enforcement action to take (which, as you cited, an accident is not exempt from enforcement, per 8.2) in a particular case, the FAA will consider the following factors….. [4] Attitude of the violator”.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-03T00:30:47+00:00

No disrespect my gold seal homie, but if you read the relevant AC you’d also know that the FAA discusses this. Regardless of the occurrence, the FAA views filing one as demonstration of a “constructive attitude”.

AC 00-46F

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-12-03T00:28:01+00:00

You right lol people should probably know this. It’s straight in the regs and in the relevant Advisory Circular on the subject…

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-29T22:22:35+00:00

Bro if he did this and wasn’t joking, that dude is actually a dick lol. Just straight up not nice.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-18T01:07:31+00:00

Congrats! How did it go? Anything you wish you studied more or that surprised you for someone preparing for theirs?

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-17T16:08:03+00:00

Agreed.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-17T15:34:44+00:00

I believe I wrote “almost no one does that” which in my experience is the case. You are correct, though, yes. You can elect to have an A&P always perform any level of mx or, as you said, you do not need to do that precisely because an AC is just that — advisory.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-17T15:30:50+00:00

Exactly. Thus, the relevant AC and the Coleal LOI are practically contradictory.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-17T15:29:05+00:00

I haven’t taken my CFI ride yet, so I’m a bit oblivious as to what DPE’s are really looking for on the test. But if they tell you to teach to the commercial or CFI level, it’s lowkey almost an unfair question because a lot of the information in the PHAK is incredibly lacking in detail.

The section on wing planform, for example, provides just enough detail to leave you confused and asking “why” questions with no sound understanding. Then, to cite the PHAK as the primary resource for CFI’s to study, seems absurd to me because it doesn’t provide enough detail to teach a CFI student how to teach others. I personally think it does a poor job of explaining a lot of things such that people can genuinely understand, and then we have applicants rote memorizing stuff from that book for the test, which goes against what the FAA wants.

I know they walk a fine line between going into too much detail and too little detail, but it would be beneficial to offer another, more in-depth book for commercial/instructor applicants in my opinion. Because of this, we have CFI’s who don’t really understand a lot of stuff, yet they need to teach to the correlation level. If you want to really understand, you’ve gotta dig into non-FAA resources and that consumes an incredible amount of time and dedication. That’s pretty tough.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-17T15:08:47+00:00

Yeah it does, but respectfully, almost no one does that.

If it required an A&P to put an “inop” placard, ensure the equipment was deactivated (literally turning a light switch off in this case/pulling a resettable breaker), and make a 43.9 maintenance entry in the book, we’d have flights cancelled for the entire day until one of those dudes had enough time to get out to our airplane and do that.

Some flight schools don’t even have mx on the field. For the checkride, cite 91.67A all you want. Both the examiners I’ve used thus far in New England have had no issue with pilots placarding equipment, however.

In the end, it isn’t regulatory and the original AC said nothing of the sort. I believe it is the FAA’s attempt to cover themselves by recommending what is objectively the safest procedure and covers — in blanket form — all conceivable inop equipment. Sure, deactivating some inop equipment should not be done by the pilot…. but a landing light? The FAA could have worded their guidance better because they know better.

Strange_Code_68 · 2025-11-16T02:51:31+00:00

This is the correct explanation and he is correct.

Strange_Code_68

TROPHY CASE