About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

If you simply stay on the issue and away from the personal
stuff, no one should have a problem with me.
Nuff said I hope! :-)

You've lost it, man. I didn't say anything personal. Nothing. Nada. In
this debate forum, I simply take issue with your stance that accelerated
training just can't be as good as traditional training. That's it! Grow
up.

Sticking to the bubject (as I have been all along):

You that are against accelerated training have to answer the question I
originally posed: 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. It can't be both, can it?

In other words, the practical test that sends the accelerated students into
the wild blue yonder is either sufficient or it is not.

You and every single other individual who are so against it have absolutely
no quantifiable data to support your stance. All you have is opinions
which, thus far, are NOT supported by any amount of data. You've supported
it with anecdotal evidence which simply doesn't count for squat.

On the other hand, pilots are graduating from accelerated programs every
day. Some in as little as 10 days. Some in 30 days. They've been doing it
successfully for a hundred years. We have an FAA that oversees this stuff
and, to my knowledge, they have NEVER had to adjust training requirements or
issue any statement on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the thousands
of PP accelerated course graduates over these many years. None!

I can give you equally anecdotal evidence that says that traditional
training just plain sucks. I don't have to tell you how many times our
primary training was interrupted by life events, weather, mechanical
problems and so forth and so on. I can't count the number of times I've had
to re-learn something because I went for a week or more without cracking a
book or cranking a plane. Most of that would have gone away had I been in
an immersive environment making for a more effective training schedule.

I can give you concrete evidence that the average person, without
reinforcement, will retain about 95% of the information by the next day. By
the 7th day, this is down to 80% and by day 10 it is 70%. This is the case
with immersive (cramming) as well as traditional studies. Without
reinforcement, the knowledge goes away no matter what kind of program you
are in.

Hell, I know some government programs that can take a young, carefree,
innocent boy, to a secluded island off the coast of South Carolina , break
him down to his basic building blocks with brute force then rebuild him into
a lean, mean killing machine full of ****, vinegar, and lust for life! This
can be done in SIX WEEKS! I'm not making this up.

And you want to tell me a dedicated, intelligent individual cannot learn to
do such a simple thing as fly from point A to point B in less than six
months? Hogwash!

It would take a dedicated CFI who understands the physiological and
psychological needs of the human brain. He would also be willing to immerse
himself and even thrive in that kind of environment. I imagine it probably
isn't for everyone but, then again, I really have no idea. But neither do
you, Dudley.

Is it ideal? I dunno. Are there better ways? Probably. But does anyone
here have anything to offer other and unsubstantial opinions?

No.

--
Jimfisher
(my new accelerated signature)