The factors that predict effective flight instruction — teaching experience, checkride pass rates, lesson structure, and industry engagement — and the questions to ask before committing to a CFI.
Student pilots often select a flight instructor based on availability and schedule fit — understandably, since most haven't logged enough time to recognize what good instruction looks like from the outside. But instructional quality affects how efficiently you progress, how well you perform on the checkride, and what habits you build in early training.
After more than a decade of instructing, here are the factors I'd evaluate before committing to a CFI.
Hours in a logbook measure flying proficiency. They don't measure teaching ability. The two are related but not the same — some of the finest pilots I know are mediocre teachers, and some of the most effective CFIs I've met have modest total times.
What matters for instruction is dual instruction given — how many hours has this person actually taught? And what's the range? A CFI who has taught PPL, instrument, and commercial students has a fundamentally different toolkit than one who's done 200 hours of pattern work with primary students.
Ask specifically:
A CFI with 500 hours of instruction given and a high checkride pass rate will teach you more effectively than one with 200 total hours who picked up instructing last year.
Checkride results are the most objective measure of instructional effectiveness. A DPE is evaluating whether the student meets the Airman Certification Standards — not whether they're likeable, not whether their instructor is likeable. If a CFI's students regularly fail, something is wrong with either how they're being prepared or how they're being evaluated before the checkride.
Ask point-blank: what is your first-attempt checkride pass rate? Any experienced CFI should know this. If they don't track it, that itself is informative.
Industry average first-attempt pass rates hover around 70–75%. A CFI who consistently gets 85–90%+ first-time passes is doing something right. They're either selecting students carefully for checkride readiness, preparing them more thoroughly, or both.
The clearest field indicator of instructional quality is whether the CFI briefs you before each flight and debriefs you after.
Pre-flight briefing sets the lesson's objectives. It tells you exactly what you'll practice, why it matters, and what success looks like. Without it, flights become sequences of maneuvers without context or explicit learning goals.
Post-flight debrief is where learning consolidates. A good debrief covers what went well (and why), what to work on, and specifically what you'll focus on next time. Without it, lessons are isolated events that don't build on each other systematically.
When I evaluate a CFI's instructional quality, I look at their briefings first. If they climb in and start the engine without discussing the lesson objectives, I already know a lot about how they teach.
Good instruction is systematic, not improvisational. Each lesson should build on the previous one in a deliberate sequence. A CFI with a clear lesson plan structure can tell you: "Last time you struggled with coordinated turns at slow speed. Today we're going to address that directly before we move to stalls."
A CFI who doesn't track student progress across lessons will repeat content unnecessarily and miss gaps. Some of this is intuition in a great instructor, but most of it is documentation.
Ask to see how the school or CFI tracks student progress. If the answer is "I remember it," be cautious. If the answer is a written lesson plan record with each session documented, that's what you want.
At our school, we track every student's training through Aloft360 — every maneuver trained, every endorsement logged, and a running picture of where each student stands against Part 61 requirements. A student can look at their record at any time and see exactly what's been completed and what's ahead.
Flying a lesson puts both student and instructor under pressure. The question is how the CFI handles it when you make a mistake.
An instructor who sighs, grabs the controls without explanation, or raises their voice is not teaching effectively — they're reacting. The better response to a student error is a calm verbal cue, followed by a demonstration if needed, followed by an explanation of what happened and why. The student who understands why they made an error is far less likely to repeat it than the student who just felt corrected.
The best way to evaluate this is to ask former students. What was it like when something went wrong? Did they feel supported or criticized?
A CFI who is engaged with the broader aviation community — pursuing advanced certifications, staying current with ACS revisions, attending safety seminars, reading NTSB reports — will bring that knowledge into their teaching.
The Gold Seal CFI designation requires at least 10 students endorsed for practical tests and an 80% or higher first-attempt pass rate. The Master CFI designation requires Gold Seal, advanced endorsements, ongoing professional development, and peer evaluation. These aren't vanity credentials — they represent a documented commitment to instructional quality.
When you're evaluating a CFI, ask what they're doing to develop as an instructor. "I've been doing this for ten years" is not the same answer as "I attended the NAFI symposium last fall and just finished a course on teaching risk management." Experience matters; ongoing development matters more.
Does this instructor teach what you want to learn? A CFI who primarily does primary VFR training may not be the right choice if you're a low-time instrument student looking for a CFII who understands IFR system complexity. A sport pilot instructor isn't the right fit for someone who wants to end up flying complex aircraft.
This seems obvious, but it's often overlooked. Be specific about your aviation goals and ask directly whether the CFI has experience preparing students for those goals.
Taking the time to evaluate a prospective instructor before committing is straightforward with these criteria. The questions above give you a practical framework for doing that before you've logged a single dual hour.
References
Grayson Bertaina is a Master CFI, Gold Seal CFII/MEI, and ATP based in the Eastern Region. He was named AOPA's 2026 Regional CFI of the Year.
About the author
Grayson Bertaina
ATP, CFII/MEI · Gold Seal & Master CFI
Grayson Bertaina is an ATP and CFII/MEI with Gold Seal and Master CFI designations. He was named AOPA's 2026 Regional CFI of the Year for the Eastern Region, and has trained pilots across primary, instrument, multi-engine, and commercial certificates.