Originally Posted by
Duchess_Driver
I accept that there are exceptions to every rule - however, in the case of GTE and TOO, two gentlemen I know, there is/was/would be a case for a reduced course and consideration of experience already gained.
In the case of GTE when he did his CRI he had, IIRC, significantly more varied experience as a pilot across different disciplines than I did and, as you can guess from his contributions to these pages, vast knowledge across those same subject areas. Certainly in my opinion, no need for him to do the “full course”. I believe he now holds a FAA CFI cert now so that point may be moot.
But you are talking about the exceptions. I, too have had the pleasure of flying with GtE and can vouch for his professionalism. The problem with making exceptions is who is to judge and how can it be kept objective? Does experience as a pilot across different disciplines make for a good instructor without going through the full course? For the exception perhaps but not the norm. My experience as an FIC is that even the most experienced pilots find the FI course challenging in parts because it is about being a good instructor; being a good pilot should go without saying.
What about other fast tracks - should experienced instructors automatically become examiners? Should the 2000 hrs PPL with an IR or IR(R) be given a CPL? I'm sure we can all name some for whom that would be perfectly reasonable but others where it would be a disater