What I took was an intensive 10-day instrument rating course at
one of the schools that advertises in aviation publications.

I do not want to publicly name the school for a few reasons:

1. The owners and key personnel are really nice. I like them as
individuals. They work hard to accommodate students' schedules
and individual preferences.

2. I've no reason at all (quite the contrary) to think the other
ones are any different. Publicly steering students away from
this school and implicitly to another, which would be no better,
would be a petulant and foolish thing to do.

3. They are reasonably up-front about the syllabus and what they
don't do.

4. What they provide is a rating course. Again, they are open and
honest about this. A true instrument course takes a lot longer and
costs a lot more.

5. Their price is good, even considering how they cut corners.
Others seem to provide no more training but charge more for what
they do.


Greg Farris wrote:
In article ,
says...


Xxx,

well, since you're the first to really come down hard on these courses
from personal experience, I'd be very interested in WHICH you took.
Could you post this or at least e-mail me the information? Thanks!

--


Also - you took one of "what" - accelerated or X-country.
As Thomas Borchert points out above, the two are far from synonymous -
and perhaps contradictory. The most famous accelerated course
advertises that the instructor comes to you (some actually put him up in
their homes) and they make it sound like you almost don't leave your
living room!Yet most graduates of this course do seem to fel they got
adequate training.

G Faris