Hi Mark;
See my inserts please;


"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
news:waDIc.59547$JR4.1000@attbi_s54...
Todd Pattist wrote:

My view of accelerated training mirrrors Dudley's.

First, let me say that I have nothing but respect for both Dudley and
Todd - I rarely disagree with either of them (which, of course, means
that they're both right most of the time :-) ).

Thank you, but my wife is beginning to doubt your sanity already!!
:-))


... I heard long ago that most of the students in the
AF Academy solo from ab initio in only 12 flights....
...Finally, they do a very rigorous intensive program aimed at
the solo with a very limited solo of around the pattern and
down.

I learned to fly gliders at the age of 16 at a soaring "camp" in
Franconia, NH, near Cannon Mountain. There were about 8 - 10 of us,
with three or four instructors. We each got ONE flight each day for
21
days (if we were very lucky, two, but that only happened a couple of
times) in the morning, before the tourists showed up for glider rides.
Each ride averaged about 10-20 minutes, depending upon tow altitude
and
lift conditions.

I soloed on my 11th flight - I had 10 landings TOTAL before my solo.
Before anyone says "well, you must be above average in skills", there
were one or two out of the 10 folks that soloed on their 9th or 10th
flight, and the rest all soloed before their 15th flight. I hardly
think that ALL of us could have been above average in pure flying
skill.

This type of instruction is what I would refer to as
"semi-accelerated" - one flight per day, but EVERY day.

It's important you put what we're discussing here in the right context.
It's very easy to misinterpret the issue if one isn't extremely careful.
No one is saying, or even implying that this scenario can't be done. It
indeed can be done, and is done all the time.

The issue context in your specific scenario simply would be stating that
at the point of your solo in that glider, you were at a level where you
could demonstrate performance, but not necessarily at a corresponding
level of comprehension that you might have had had you been exposed for
a longer period. You were safe enough. What I've been saying is that
given a different learning situation, where periods of time were allowed
between flight lessons, you would simply have had a much higher level of
comprehension.
You can fly either way. Rote will allow you to handle the glider.
Comprehension allows you to handle it better...that's all! In your case,
as in the case of thousands of people exposed to accellerated training,
the comprehension usually follows and cathes up at a later time. It's
just not the optimum way to learn to fly. There are dangers in not
having a certain level of comprehension.
Bottom line; acellerated training will work. A bit slower training with
time to absorb and comprehend is better.

I guess I just don't see why flight instruction is any different than
any other type of instruction. If someone want to learn to be a
doctor
or a lawyer, they go to school all day, every day, and practice the
crap
out of it. They don't go to one class per week, or maybe two, and
think
that they're getting the same education. It's the same with sports -
intensive sports camps/training facilities produce much more highly
skilled athletes than those that practice on their own every once in a
while. No one would suggest that college should be an 10 year rather
than 4 year ordeal to allow folks to "absorb and digest" the
material -
that's why you study in the evenings.

The difference is in the force of impact on your body if something you
didn't quite understand catches up to you :-))
In a classroom; you make a mistake; you try it agin. Make a mistake in
an airplane; you might not get a second chance!
Comparing flying to a classroom only learned profession is a bad
analogy.


Personally, I wouldn't have any reservations about doing the 7-10 day
IFR training (and might, in the near future), and if I had had the $$
to
do an intensive PP class back in 1974-1980 when I trained for my
glider
and SEL ratings, I would have jumped at it.

Again, we're not discussing advanced acellerated training; only
beginning training from Student through Private Pilot.

I guess all the defense of the "traditional" system of flight training
just sounds like the classic "that's the way we've always done it
around
here" defense, and that's rarely, if ever, a good reason to do
anything.

Try to think out of the box, and compare flight training to every
other
form of training out there.

Flight training, or any type of training that occurs in a dynamic
environment that can kill you is NOT like any form of training out
there!!


People learn best (and retain more, IF THEY
CONTINUE TO USE THE SKILLS) in an intensive environment.

People RETAIN best in a non intensive environment. They then must
continue to use the skills they have LEARNED in an intensive
environment.

Flight
training, whether advanced or basic, is no different, IMO.

Advanced flight training is VERY different from basic flight training.
The difference is in the experience level insertion point. Advanced
training can be accelerated because it assumes a certain level of
performance. That level of performance is totally absent in basic flight
training. It's the development of the basic skills required for advanced
flight training that makes basic flight training in my opinion, MUCH
more time consuming than the advanced format.
In other words, when a new pilot arrives to fly a position on the
Thunderbirds, he DAMN well better already know one hell of a lot about
close formation flying!!! :-))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt