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)

I'm just gonna pipe up here because I think that Dudley is quite right
to bring up how you respond to posts in a personal manner. For example,
you attack not the credibility of the topic under discussion, but rather
you make a personal attack by saying things like;

"What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here in the
group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really doesn't
mean squat."

and

" But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley."

It would be hard not to see that as personal whether you "typed it that
way" or not. Posters would do well to remember that the internet doesnt
record your emotions whilst typing. Your post quite clearly conveys a
personal reply rather than an objective reply to the subject in hand.

Telling someone their opinion "doesnt mean squat" is not constructive
criticism, is inflamatory, shows lack of respect and demonstrates
aggressive assertiveness which is not a quality of good leadership; with
obvious implications for the captains of aircraft.

I only have 4 hours flying experience total but I hope you will consider
and respect my opinion.

Many thanks,

Paul

Jim Fisher wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.


Naw, not really. Your stance on accelerated anything is about as
supportable and demonstrable as my stance on high versus low wing.


I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
personal stuff and assumptions please.


Read it again, Dudley. There was no "veiled" anything in my post. Anything
"personal" was interpreted that way by you and not typed that way by me.
You've gone off the deep end misinterpreting posts before here in these
groups. You've done it again with mine.


Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
mean squat".......


I was never in the military so pulling rank won't get anything but a smirk
on a good day and a big, hairy moon on a bad one.

You were wrong on the acellerated IFR subject and you might be (but probably
are not) wrong about this acellerated Private thing. Until somebody pipes
up with some quantifyable data, you're opinion means squat. Sad but true.

I am of the opinion that accelerated courses, when done properly, have merit
and can produce good results. That opinion is supported by the successful
accelerated IFR programs. I don't know (and neither do you) if that is the
case with Private programs.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim,

I'm just gonna pipe up here because I think that Dudley is quite right
to bring up how you respond to posts in a personal manner. For example,
you attack not the credibility of the topic under discussion, but rather
you make a personal attack by saying things like;

"What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here in the
group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really doesn't
mean squat."

and

" But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley."

It would be hard not to see that as personal whether you "typed it that
way" or not. Posters would do well to remember that the internet doesnt
record your emotions whilst typing. Your post quite clearly conveys a
personal reply rather than an objective reply to the subject in hand.

Telling someone their opinion "doesnt mean squat" is not constructive
criticism, is inflamatory, shows lack of respect and demonstrates
aggressive assertiveness which is not a quality of good leadership; with
obvious implications for the captains of aircraft.

I only have 4 hours flying experience total but I hope you will consider
and respect my opinion.

Many thanks,

Paul

Jim Fisher wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.



Naw, not really. Your stance on accelerated anything is about as
supportable and demonstrable as my stance on high versus low wing.


I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
personal stuff and assumptions please.



Read it again, Dudley. There was no "veiled" anything in my post.
Anything
"personal" was interpreted that way by you and not typed that way by me.
You've gone off the deep end misinterpreting posts before here in these
groups. You've done it again with mine.


Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
mean squat".......



I was never in the military so pulling rank won't get anything but a
smirk
on a good day and a big, hairy moon on a bad one.

You were wrong on the acellerated IFR subject and you might be (but
probably
are not) wrong about this acellerated Private thing. Until somebody
pipes
up with some quantifyable data, you're opinion means squat. Sad but
true.

I am of the opinion that accelerated courses, when done properly,
have merit
and can produce good results. That opinion is supported by the
successful
accelerated IFR programs. I don't know (and neither do you) if that
is the
case with Private programs.

--
Jim Fisher

Paul Banks wrote:

"What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here in
the group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really
doesn't mean squat."

Out of context, this looks a little nasty. In context, however, it reads to
me that Jim is pointing out that Dudley is drawing a conclusion based upon
very limited data. You've left out the text:

Your experience is not anywhere close to a
scientific sampling.

It didn't read as nasty at all in context.

and

" But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley."

This doesn't even seem particularly nasty out of context. It's true: Dudley
is claiming that having passed the exam isn't sufficient for graduates of
accelerated programs. They're still not sufficiently "deep".

The fact is: Jim is asking a perfectly reasonable question of Dudley: do you
believe or not that passing the PPL exams is sufficient to guarantee a safe
pilot.

As I've already noted, I believe the answer can be "no" too easily.

But what does "safe pilot" mean? As has been mentioned here frequently,
learning to fly is continuous. It doesn't - or shouldn't - end at the PPL
checkride. This is just one benchmark, like the first solo or the
intrument rating or the first engine failure.

It's a benchmark at which certain rights are accrued, but so are many other
benchmarks. This doesn't signify the end of the process.

[Well, the engine failure might.]

- Andrew

Jim Fisher wrote:


Many CFIs here in the group have stated over and over again "Don't worry
about the checkride or your written grade. What matters is that you
passed." But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley.

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

It can't be either, can it?

Dudley has some good opinions, but he also has a tendency to draw
conclusions from limited data and then assume them to be true.
Unfortunately, most people untrained in statistics are guilty of this type
of error in one form or another.

What he didn't write - and may not even have considered - is how many pilots
out of a unaccelerated program would pass his test. He'd not be the only
one here to point out the flaws in much flight training.

Lack of depth of understanding is something I find all too frequency, in
many different areas. Yes, I believe that a rushed education is biased
towards this. However, I've seen plenty of people with conventional
educations in a subject that still lack real depth.

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.

During my PPL, for example, the DE asked some question about flying into
weather where the obvious answer was "don't go". Asking that question is
fine, in that it would be Very Bad if a pilot didn't know the answer. But
having the candidate state "I'd not go" on a test is quite different from
seeing how he or she would react in the get-there-itis world.

No, the checkride isn't really a joke per se. But it does leave untested
too much of what I think a pilot needs to carry. Having said that, though,
I don't know how so short a test can test for handling pressure, judgement,
and such.

Someone on this thread mentioned physicians. One difference - among many -
is that a physician operates (pun mostly unintended {8^) under supervision
for an extensive period of time. In the case of a checkride, it's one test
and then *zoom*.

I'd opine that the CFI's role should be more than just instructor. A CFI
should act as a filter for those characteristics different to spot in a
single test. Someone that is too willing to fly beyond his or her envelope
should, in my perfect world, never be sent to a DE.

But, real world, I doubt that many are willing to do this. I'd guess that
the more exprienced CFIs - those that recognize the cost of failing to
filter in this way - do. But the time-builders have their attention
elsewhere too often, I believe.

Back to Dudley's message, and your question about flight tests: This depth
of which he speaks is *not* one of these difficult-to-test qualities. I
specifically recall the weather part of my IR oral, as it was a very
in-depth conversation (and damned interesting!). If a pilot cannot discuss
a required topic in depth, the DE should catch this.

Someone used the phrase "Santa Claus DE" here recently. I hate to think
that these exist...but perhaps they do.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Dudley has some good opinions, but he also has a tendency to draw
conclusions from limited data and then assume them to be true.

You obviously don't know me :-)

There are no conclusions here; just a fairly high experience level
coupled with a simple opinion based on that experience. That's why I
wrote,

"Is this a good way to do things in flying? Who knows!"

Are you telling me that fifty years of checking pilots out in all kinds
of airplanes; pilots who have come to me from all forms of prior
training are nothing but "limited data?" I don't think so! :-)

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message news:NmEIc.4603

Are you telling me that fifty years of checking pilots out in all kinds
of airplanes; pilots who have come to me from all forms of prior
training are nothing but "limited data?" I don't think so! :-)

I wish my logbook and experience demonstrated that much limited data!

-c

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

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.


After passing my PPL ride, the DE and I had a discussion over lunch about
the checkride in general. I asked him how in that short time he could
determine I was a Pilot. His answer contained much of what Barry and Dudley
say, but he went on to say "How many times have you gotten into a car with
someone, and by the time they had backed out of the driveway, you wished you
were somewhere else?"

A year later I was invited to ride along with a guy on a short flight to get
parts for another plane. By the time we had taxied to the runway I had that
feeling of "let me out". The entire trip there and back I was wanting to
take the controls but resisted the urge figuring it was a sure fire way to
die. This jerk seemed to love taking-off,climbing, and flying the pattern on
the edge of a stall with the horn going off 60% of the time.
He was the new operator of the FBO and as I soon found out, "a 10 day
wonder".
I never went up with him again and couldn't tell you if he is still alive or
not.

Marty