wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:47:44 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you
want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I'm not saying
accelerated courses can't go beyond teaching to the test, but when you
make
achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is
at
least a little moral hazard there.

I teach on an accelerated basis only. I use a simulator extensively
in this training.

snip

If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of the
commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the
uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious
wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation
industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your
implication of moral superiority.

cfeyeeye, I'm not accusing *you* of anything. We're talking about
"accelerated training" versus "traditional training" in general, so put the
knife down, K?

When I asked the guy I chose for my CFII, "how long will this take," he
basically said, "as long as it takes and not a day more." I took 55 hours to
get there over 18 months and would say I lost maybe 5-10 hours in the
process due to delays. He said he actually preferred to take at least 6-9
months working on it so we could go up in different weather conditions, and
it is a point of pride for him that most of his students take the test with
15-20 hours of actual, most of it doing approaches. It's good experience and
in my mind worth every nickel.

With an accelerated course, the instructor has an innate incentive to do one
thing only, and that is to get this guy through the test. With a traditional
course, there is an incentive to train ad infinitum and never quite finish.
Each course has its unique moral hazards. It's simply a term of art. I'm not
imputing that accelerated training is like abortion or gay marriage or the
death penalty or whatever.

Best,
-cwk.