"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is
that
zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish
that
the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.


Correct as stated, but it is not unreasonable to make statistical
inferences.
For example, assuming any reasonable (such as gaussian) distribution
of pilot
abilities at flight check time, a higher =average= pilot quality will
translate
into more passes and fewer fails. Assuming a similar distribution
among pilots
who take accelerated vs standard training, the set of pilots with the
highest
level of fails is likely to have a lower mean than the set of pilots
with the
lowest level of fails.

I do grant that (and this is what I think you are getting at) one can
correctly
infer nothing about the shape of the pilot distribution from the
pass/fail
ratio, and even that given a distribution (such as gaussian) one can
correctly
infer nothing about the sharpness of the peak from the pass/fail
ratio, nor
about the ability of any individual pilot from his pass/fail result.
But that
is not necessary to address the underlying issue.

Jose

All this is applicable and pertinent to the overall pass/fail ratio it's
true.
It still remains however, that anytime a test is based on a minimum
standard and the examiner giving that test is lock in legally to pass
based only on that standard, although an overall higher quality of
training will effect the pass/fail ratio as that applies to total, you
are still left with the underlying issues of varying quality on the pass
side of the equation.
What I was finding in the pilots that I was testing was that accelerated
training was getting them through the test with no problem. In fact, you
can make an argument that supports an actual increase on the pass side
for accelerated training. This however, isn't the real issue.
The problem that I was finding was much more subtle than a pure
statistic would reveal. I was finding pilots coming through the
accelerated path who knew the answers mechanically, and could perform in
the airplane mechanically, which met the minimum test standards and made
them safe enough in the air.
I simply wasn't fining the comprehension levels in these pilots that I
was finding in other pilots coming through training paths that allowed a
more relaxed curriculum.
I believe the real issue with accelerated training isn't the pass/fail
ratio itself, but that a comprehension gap exists at the point of
testing (call it cram factor). This "cram factor" allows rote
performance that passes the test, and in almost all cases allows as well
that rote is sufficient to satisfy the flight safety issue. As
experience is gained, the comprehension factors increase until they
reach the normal level already existing in pilots who have not gone
through accelerated training.
In other words, both systems work. Accelerated training will get you to
the test and through it faster. but in my opinion, accelerated training
leaves a comprehension gap that could be a problem for some pilots as
experience past the test fills that gap. It's this "gap" in
comprehension that is the entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
presented it here.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt