About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash courses
for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall abilities of
pilots who had gone through a normal process

I'm not a CFI so I don't really know what I am talking about but this is
usenet so here goes anyway(!!!)...It is my impression that, right or wrong,
most students are trained to proficiency in each task and then they are
moved on to the next task. When they have adequate proficiency to pass the
checkride they are signed off to take it. Most students (guessing here
again) are mature enough to recognize their limitations and use their PP
certificate to expand their capabilities and continue to expand their
knowledge as well so the fact that they are not meteorologists or FAR
lawyers doesn't put them at undue risk.

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash
courses
for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall
abilities of
pilots who had gone through a normal process

I'm not a CFI so I don't really know what I am talking about but this
is
usenet so here goes anyway(!!!)...It is my impression that, right or
wrong,
most students are trained to proficiency in each task and then they
are
moved on to the next task. When they have adequate proficiency to
pass the
checkride they are signed off to take it. Most students (guessing
here
again) are mature enough to recognize their limitations and use their
PP
certificate to expand their capabilities and continue to expand their
knowledge as well so the fact that they are not meteorologists or FAR
lawyers doesn't put them at undue risk.

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Mike
MU-2

Both will do the job; there's no question about that. You can rote a
pilot right through a program and 9 times out of 10, the comprehension
will catch up through a natural evolutional process as comprehension is
gained through experience .
The only issue I see with the accelerated program (only at the basic
level) is that I believe it's not the optimum method to use to learn to
fly. There are better ways available.....not faster....but better!!
There is a danger area there for a pilot who knows the answers to the
questions without fully understanding the questions themselves. This
danger area will naturally decrease as experience is gained, but it's
still there and could be a safety factor. What happens in the ideal
situation is that the pilot self motivates toward the comprehension
needed. But sometimes this doesn't happen, and the pilot enters into a
flying situation without that motivation toward self learning the much
needed comprehension.
Bottom line for me at least is this;
The accelerated program at the basic level can do the job, but doing the
job more slowly, allowing the comprehension to advance parallel with the
performance, is a better method for turning out a more finished and more
safe pilot exiting the flight test and entering the self educating phase
of a pilot's career.
Keep in mind, that these comments are only my opinion based on personal
experience. Whether or not they can be proven right or wrong is
statistical analysis, and that's another matter entirely.

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:


The accelerated program at the basic level can do the job, but doing the
job more slowly, allowing the comprehension to advance parallel with the
performance, is a better method for turning out a more finished and more
safe pilot exiting the flight test and entering the self educating phase
of a pilot's career.

I misread this sentence at first, but in an interesting way. These
accelerated courses do not, I fear, actually "do the job" more quickly...
depending upon what the job is.

Sure, perhaps they get one past the checkride more quickly. But do they
actually build a safe pilot more quickly? Given the assumption being made
here by Dudley - and I share it - that there's less depth acquired over the
shorter period, then the missing depth is going to be acquired - if at all
- outside the training environment. That's inefficient, slower, and likely
less safe.

So if the job is to build safe pilots, I think that an accelerated course
might be precisely the wrong approach...again, given the assumption.

There's another aspect: why take an accelerated course? After I finished my
PPL, there was a collection of skills I knew I lacked. I went out and
worked on them (ie. spin/unusual attitude training). I'd have been just as
happy to see these part of a PPL program, but such is not the case around
here.

If someone is in a rush, will they be filling in these missing areas?
Perhaps...perhaps the rush is to get past the "basic" into more advanced
work. But perhaps not.

- Andrew

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


The accelerated program at the basic level can do the job, but doing
the
job more slowly, allowing the comprehension to advance parallel with
the
performance, is a better method for turning out a more finished and
more
safe pilot exiting the flight test and entering the self educating
phase
of a pilot's career.

I misread this sentence at first, but in an interesting way. These
accelerated courses do not, I fear, actually "do the job" more
quickly...
depending upon what the job is.

Exactly! The unwritten purpose, and indeed in many cases the written
purpose of the accelerated program, is to get you through the rating and
into the general community in a minimum time frame. Whether or not this
produces a safe pilot is a matter of individual standards.

My position on this issue is simply that the accelerated program at the
basic level through Private, graduates a rated pilot, and that this
pilot can be safe enough, but the comprehension issues lagging behind
the performance level at graduation by using a " minimum time spent in
the program" method produce a less than optimum condition at graduation,
which in my opinion again, has been proven to me at least, through my
personal experience checking out pilots coming through different
learning paths, to be not as effective a method of training as a method
that contains a time span between lessons that allows a more
comprehensive graduate, which under my personal definition, equates into
a better rounded and safer all around pilot entering the general
community.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to learn and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft is any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you simply do not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to learn to
fly in the same?

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between
the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to
learn and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short
term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest
material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last
minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft is
any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you simply
do not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to
learn to
fly in the same?

-c

This is exactly correct.

It's the period BETWEEN flight lessons where the REAL learning in flying
takes place. It's here, with the pressure off, and the student relaxed
and MENTALLY ENGAGED back into what he/she did in the airplane with the
instructor, that the student has the chance to think back (I call it the
re-run syndrome :-) and put together what he/she did in the airplane
as a rote function,then couple that rote function with the thought
process that produces the much needed comprehension factor that is an
absolute MUST if long term result is the goal, which of course it is.
:-)
The result of this type of learning is " Ah HA!!!!!!!!!!! So THAT'S
why it works that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
A MUCH safer and more informed pilot!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane. I agree that knowledge is best built up over a
period of time but, from my own experience, I believe that the ability to
learn new muscle-based activities is accelerated in an immersion
enviornment. If you wanted to learn to juggle would you practice every day
for seven days or once a week for seven weeks?

Mike
MU-2


"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to learn
and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest
material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft is any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you simply do
not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to learn to
fly in the same?

-c

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane.

I would add a third element: developing good judgement.

Mike;
Unless I'm misreading something, you two are almost together on this.
Dudley
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane. I agree that knowledge is best built up
over a
period of time but, from my own experience, I believe that the ability
to
learn new muscle-based activities is accelerated in an immersion
enviornment. If you wanted to learn to juggle would you practice
every day
for seven days or once a week for seven weeks?

Mike
MU-2


"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between
the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to
learn
and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short
term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest
material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last
minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft
is any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you
simply do
not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and
develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to
learn to
fly in the same?

-c

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:eiVIc.1281

There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane. I agree that knowledge is best built up over a
period of time but, from my own experience, I believe that the ability to
learn new muscle-based activities is accelerated in an immersion
enviornment. If you wanted to learn to juggle would you practice every
day
for seven days or once a week for seven weeks?

This is a good point. I'm not sure to what extent, because while motor and
sensory skills can be taught by immersion, I think it's the other issues
such as knowledge, practice and procedure that are left behind. A great
stick and rudder pilot is still going to have trouble if he forgets VFR
minimums or cruises into Class B and can't understand the instructions being
given to him.

I'm sure that the more you fly, the better you fly but I think if it takes
12, or 20, or 100 days to learn then that's what a student pilot and
instructor should allow.

-c