About Acellerated Courses for Private

I think the same question could be asked of any test.

There are clearly two distinct opinions on how to pass a test.

1) There's the "accellerated" camp. The way these couses work is to
teach the student how to pass the test. A typical example is revising
the question bank. Come the day of the test, the student knows whats
required and without much thought or understanding just rattles off the
answers.

and then;

2) There's the "normal" camp. These courses teach true understanding of
the material the test covers such that the student is able to draw his
own conclusions on the material presented to him. Come the day of the
test, each part of the examination presents a problem that requires
solving. A student who understands the material covered by the test can
then solve the problem.

When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.

Clearly, when you couple 2) with experience gained after the test, the
student is able to build confidently upon that experience because when a
new problem comes along, this experience serves to reenforce his ability
to solve the new problem.

With that in mind, we return to the original question,
and I'm not sure that there's an easy black and white answer to it.

Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to
gauge pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't.

Given that graduates of both 1) and 2) can fly the plane to the required
standard at a point in time, it is a sound measure. It's what happens
afterwards that worries me.

You only have to look at car drivers to see this - they all passed the
driving test, but clearly not all of them should be on the road.

A responsible pilot/driver will take additional training and advice as
nescessary. The sad truth is, there will always be irresponsible ones
that dont.

Paul B
4 Hours so far!


Cecil Chapman wrote:

"Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test & Ride
are
effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
drawing board.


Sounds like a sensible and direct question to me,,,, I too, would like to
hear a simple straight-forward answer to that question.

Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to gauge
pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't..

.. So far the 'answers' to your post, sound more like the 'non-answers'
from political candidates when asked a direct question.

P.S. as a fellow IT nerd, I am rather fond of 'words' like 'jillions'...
g

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul Banks
wrote:

When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.

If this "problem" is something necessary for safe flight, why would it
be something not memorized by the student taking the accelerated
course, but IS memorized by the student taking the traditional course?

Corky Scott

If this "problem" is something necessary for safe flight, why would it
be something not memorized by the student taking the accelerated
course, but IS memorized by the student taking the traditional course?

It all has to do with the theory on the way we humans memorise
information - and I agree it's subjective at the worst of times but many
parts are generally understood.

The student in the accelerated model (1) has learned how to recall the
information under a certain set of circumstances - i.e. when being
examined. He doesnt understand the material (yet) as he can't possibly
have had the time to comprehend it - but he does memorise it. In his
memory there is a direct link between the requirements of the test and
the answers (be they written or practical) but, the links between the
chunks of information are not present as the glue (comprehension) is not
present to allow them to be forged. Over time, unless rehearsed
regularly, the unlinked information is easily forgotton.

The student in the normal model (2) has learned the information through
understanding. With comprehension, the student does not have to remember
every peice of information required to pass the test as separate
unrelated items, but only has to retain an understanding of the topic.
Because all the information is linked through comprehension, he will not
forget it so easily. With a true understanding of a given system, he is
able to answer specific questions about it and even prove his answer. As
such his confidence builds and through experience, he is able to
instantly recall things when nescessary, backed up with true
understanding. A student in (1) would have to rely on recall alone and
thus would be left wondering if he remembered it correctly.

Now I'm not saying that graduates of (1) never reach a true
understanding eventually. With regular use and the discipline to
question information constantly, this would not be a problem. Some
information would undoubetdly have to be relearned. But given the way
human memory is understood to work, the chances are much higher that he
will not.

Put a graduate of (1) in an emergency situation and he might just
remember what to do. He might forget though and not have an
understanding of the relevant system required to work out what to do. He
will panic as a result.

Put a graduate of (2) in the same situation and he may still not
remember what to do. BUT the key is that he will understand the relevant
system and will be able to work out what to do. Sure he may be stressed,
but he has a much higher chance of doing the correct action and a much
lower chance of panicing and doing the wrong thing.

When the situation is over, the graduate of (2) is able to link the
newly learned solution with the rest of his understanding of the system
in general. The chances of him being able to confidently recall the
information are greatly increased and are substantially better than
those of graduate (1) who may not even remember what he did!

Paul B



wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul Banks
wrote:


When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.


Corky Scott

Hello All!

I am Cliff Manley of Perfect Planes, Inc.
I have trained many pilots in 10 days. I expect them to have done a home
study course for the written exam before they come. If they need further
help on any areas they are lacking in, I will give them ground schooling for
that. I also give them ground schooling for the oral exam.

I do not guarantee a 10 day course, as matter of fact everyone is different.
I would say that most people do not finish in 10 days, and I assure you that
I am not so ignorant that I would try to push someone through that is not
"safe" If someone needs 80 hours, that's what they get!

We do fly every day and I do believe that is the best way to learn anything.
You can't learn to play an instrument with a one hour a week lesson and no
daily practice. I don't believe that unless someone is learning disabled
they need many days to comprehend what I tell them. Ask any elementary
teacher if they teach reading comprehension that way? Do they ask a student
to read something and them tell them what it meant next week after they
comprehend it? Get real! I can tell right then if someone understands
through questions, if they don't I will reword it until they do! It's called
teaching!

The DE's examine my students probably more closely than others, and would
not pass them if they where not satisfied with their competency. My pass
rate is about 90% on the first try. The ones that fail are usually in the
45-60 year old group and get nervous.

I don't have time to answer all of the foolishness I have seen here, but be
sure of one thing, the students that I teach can fly better and safer than
most. If you do anything everyday you WILL be better! I do not offer a 10
day course, I claim only that it can be done in as little as 10 days. I have
had some students that I think I could have finished in half that. They were
gifted and did everything right the first time! VERY RARE! But as much as
some of you would like to believe, flying an airplane is not rocket science,
it is not really very difficult or FAA would require more than the average
work week of time to learn it. some of the slow learners take two weeks
worth of time. The fact is that most people cannot afford the time off of
work, so they don't have any other choice than to take a lesson a week and
have to re-learn each time stretching out the process. Some instructors and
schools actually like that, since they make more money if someone takes 80
hours instead of 50. Helps pay the light bill so to speak. I just love to
teach, am not a time builder, but a teacher. I love to see others enjoy the
gift of flight! I have also flown over 100 young eagles! Kids love it too!

Anyway have fun guys! I do. If someone learns in 40 or 100 hours, they are
just as excited to fly!

Cliff

"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
"Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of
"pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test &
Ride
are
effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to
the
drawing board.

Sounds like a sensible and direct question to me,,,, I too, would like
to
hear a simple straight-forward answer to that question.

Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to
gauge
pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't..

.. So far the 'answers' to your post, sound more like the
'non-answers'
from political candidates when asked a direct question.

The written and the check ride are adequate to produce safe pilots.
You can get to these "tests" by taking several training paths. You can
get there through an accelerated path, and on the other hand you can
take days....weeks.....even years to get there. Regardless of the path
taken, if you can pass the written and the flight test, you can
certainly be considered to be a safe pilot. No one is disputing this
fact.
The system obviously works, and has worked well for many years.
The issue as I have presented it in no way suggests that pilots going
through accelerated programs are not safe. That seems to be Fisher's
assumption. I would in fact disagree with that assumption. They ARE
safe. That's not the issue being discussed.....not by me anyway!!! :-))
I HAVE suggested however that in my opinion, the pilots I have flight
checked who have come through the accelerated path, although safe
enough, could have in my opinion been even better pilots had they been
given the time for their comprehension levels to catch up to their
performance levels.
What's with all the ...YOU CAN'T PROVE THIS!!!!!! business?
That's been my experience.....period!! That's all that's been stated. If
someone else has experienced this issue differently, that's fine with
me. I have no problem at all with that.
All this seems plain enough to me. What I REALLY can't figure out is why
a few seemingly intelligent people out here can't post an opposing
opinion on something without resorting to phrases like "Grow Up", and
"your opinion doesn't mean squat"
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an
accelerated
basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be
appropriate
comprehension standards.
This shouldn't be read to imply that these pilots were unsafe. It
should
however be interpreted to mean that in my opinion, these pilots
might
have had better comprehension had they not taken the accelerated
route.

Why is the PPL exam set permitting people to become pilots with a
level of
comprehension you find inappropriate?

- Andrew

Just because I found the comprehension levels "inappropriate" shouldn't
be misconstrued into meaning that I believe the flight test standards
were lax. This wasn't the case at all. I would consider the standards to
be an established MINIMUM for defining a safe pilot. What I am saying is
that in my experience, the comprehensive levels of the accelerated
trainees could have been BETTER!!!!
My standards are fairly high it's true, especially for my airplanes, but
they are not so high that I wouldn't check out a safe pilot who I felt
simply needed remedial work on his comprehension.

My usual method was to simply spend the time necessary with the pilot
and bring them up to speed on anything I found during the check flight
that I thought was out of line with that pilot's experience level.
The rub on all this is that many of the things that I discovered needing
some work were not critical things necessarily, but rather things that I
felt a pilot at the level of experience I was checking should know. A
lot of it had to do with the depth of the understanding, rather than the
total absence of comprehension.
Being safe is one thing. Being evaluated by a check pilot looking for a
specific depth of comprehension to match your hours of experience is
quite a different thing. All of us, including me, can use more
comprehension. What I was finding was a pilot who I felt should be
understanding what was happening at a deeper depth than I was getting
for the rating held and the hours flown. You could classify it as
something I felt the pilot should know more about than I was getting
from him. Nothing critical, just something I wasn't getting from a lot
of the pilots who were coming through the program taking a little more
time BETWEEN FLIGHTS!!!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

After viewing this person's website cover to cover and reading what he
has posted here I will only say that even if I were to choose an
accelerated training program, it wouldn't be THIS particular one with
THIS specific instructor! Again, only an opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Cliff" wrote in message
nk.net...
Hello All!

I am Cliff Manley of Perfect Planes, Inc.
I have trained many pilots in 10 days. I expect them to have done a
home
study course for the written exam before they come. If they need
further
help on any areas they are lacking in, I will give them ground
schooling for
that. I also give them ground schooling for the oral exam.

I do not guarantee a 10 day course, as matter of fact everyone is
different.
I would say that most people do not finish in 10 days, and I assure
you that
I am not so ignorant that I would try to push someone through that is
not
"safe" If someone needs 80 hours, that's what they get!

We do fly every day and I do believe that is the best way to learn
anything.
You can't learn to play an instrument with a one hour a week lesson
and no
daily practice. I don't believe that unless someone is learning
disabled
they need many days to comprehend what I tell them. Ask any elementary
teacher if they teach reading comprehension that way? Do they ask a
student
to read something and them tell them what it meant next week after
they
comprehend it? Get real! I can tell right then if someone understands
through questions, if they don't I will reword it until they do! It's
called
teaching!

The DE's examine my students probably more closely than others, and
would
not pass them if they where not satisfied with their competency. My
pass
rate is about 90% on the first try. The ones that fail are usually in
the
45-60 year old group and get nervous.

I don't have time to answer all of the foolishness I have seen here,
but be
sure of one thing, the students that I teach can fly better and safer
than
most. If you do anything everyday you WILL be better! I do not offer
a 10
day course, I claim only that it can be done in as little as 10 days.
I have
had some students that I think I could have finished in half that.
They were
gifted and did everything right the first time! VERY RARE! But as
much as
some of you would like to believe, flying an airplane is not rocket
science,
it is not really very difficult or FAA would require more than the
average
work week of time to learn it. some of the slow learners take two
weeks
worth of time. The fact is that most people cannot afford the time off
of
work, so they don't have any other choice than to take a lesson a week
and
have to re-learn each time stretching out the process. Some
instructors and
schools actually like that, since they make more money if someone
takes 80
hours instead of 50. Helps pay the light bill so to speak. I just love
to
teach, am not a time builder, but a teacher. I love to see others
enjoy the
gift of flight! I have also flown over 100 young eagles! Kids love it
too!

Anyway have fun guys! I do. If someone learns in 40 or 100 hours, they
are
just as excited to fly!

Cliff

On that theme, I have to admit that I'm towards the "test & checkride is a
joke" side of your argument. It is too easy for someone that I'd not want
to see flying to pass. The two sets of aviation tests I've taken - IR and
PPL - tested some, but not all, of what was required.

Pilots and CFIs should keep in mind that the checkride (even when performed in
strict compliance with the PTS) is not a comprehensive evaluation of
everything that a pilot should know or be able to do. It's just a spot check
after the CFI has certified that the applicant is proficient.

"Barry" wrote in message
...
On that theme, I have to admit that I'm towards the "test &
checkride is a
joke" side of your argument. It is too easy for someone that I'd
not want
to see flying to pass. The two sets of aviation tests I've taken -
IR and
PPL - tested some, but not all, of what was required.

Pilots and CFIs should keep in mind that the checkride (even when
performed in
strict compliance with the PTS) is not a comprehensive evaluation of
everything that a pilot should know or be able to do. It's just a spot
check
after the CFI has certified that the applicant is proficient.

Exactly! By definition, the flight test is a minimum legal standard to
be met; simply a legal obstacle to be passed. This minimum standard
assumes a certain level of performance.
The interpretation of the QUALITY
of that performance exiting the passed flight test should never be
construed to mean
anything other than the fact that a specific pilot has met these minimum
standards.

Exactly how "safe" and how "educated" an individual pilot is at the
time that pilot took the flight test is a wide open issue subject to
much deeper interpretation than the simple fact that the flight test has
been passed.
The issue of exactly how safe an individual pilot is at the point of
his/her flight test can be considered to be TOTALLY the summation of the
QUALITY of the pilot's flight training coupled with the pilot's
retention of that training and the insertion of that training into
his/her performance with an airplane.

In other words, you can pass the flight test meeting the minimum
standard and be safe, or you can pass it with a standard FAR in excess
of the minimum requirements and be a hell of a lot safer.

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

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 at 13:24:18 in message
, Jim Fisher
wrote:

Answer: There is no answer. Accelerated is probably good for some,
probably not for others. That's for me to decide and not some old school
CFI who knows only one way to teach.

I have watched this discussion without comment so far - partly because I
am not qualified to give very strong opinions about learning to fly.

I have met many people in my career who have no idea why they annoy
people so much. They are insensitive to how other people react. That is
probably a disadvantage in any instructional situation. Some of them are
trying to assert their credentials by deliberate rudeness. Some just get
their kicks from it. It is hard to assess this from usenet discussions.

The second sentence in the paragraph that I have quoted above comes
across to me as incredibly arrogant and insulting. I am affronted by
that insult to my friend Dudley. I don't know you so perhaps you don't
mean it to be that way. But right or wrong, Dudley deserves respect. He
certainly has mine. From what I know of Dudley I feel sure that his
instruction was subtly adjusted to meet the characteristics of every
pupil he ever taught.
--
David CL Francis