About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
.. .
"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 more with you than again' you on this one, Dudley. However, I had
the
same thought about accelerated courses for the IFR that I was once
considering until I researched the subject and was convinced
otherwise.

I wonder if I would again be swayed if I were to look into the
accelerated
Private programs? I doubt it. I don't see how anyone could gain the
experience they need within 40 to 50 hours and a few weeks. Some do,
of
course, but speaking as one who got their wings at about 70 hours, it
still
wasn't really enough. Had I known what I know now, I would have
stayed
under the tutelage of my CFI for a dozen or two more hours . . . Okay,
that's a damn lie. I wanted my wings just as bad as anyone else and
wanted
the NOW, by golly. I still coulda' used a few more hours, though.

I, Jim Fisher, Internationally Famous Former Airplane Owner, probably
would
have been one of those that "cracked" under your probing questions and
you
would have equated my knowledge with the Accelerated dudes. We will
never
know, I guess.

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. Just because you've had a few students from Accelerated
Courses
("AC") who didn't quite meet your standards doesn't mean most, some,
all or
none of them will not. Your experience is not anywhere close to a
scientific sampling.

All that said, perhaps you've illuminated a problem that does not rest
with
the AC courses but with the Private Pilot written and checkride.

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?

--
Jim Fisher

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

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.

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"....... and simply ask logical, pertinent questions if
that's at all possible. I'll be glad to discuss the issue with you.
Appreciate it! :-)
Thank you
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
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 Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

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.

Nonesense! Your post reads like the script from the Shining!! :-)))
It's no big deal Jim, and I think it's quite humorous really, but if any
re-reading should be done, you do it. You start out neutral enough with
your answer, but in the middle for some ungodly reason, you must
suddenly remember that you don't REALLY like my deodorant or something,
because you change from the issue over to me and get nastier and nastier
until at the last sentence, I get a picture of you coming through the
door with an ax holler'in "Here's Jimieeeeee" !!!!" :-)))))))
As I said JF, no big deal at all, and you're right. I do get testy with
posts that change the subject from the issue to the messenger. No need
for that. 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 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.

About your reference to IFR accelerated training and my opinion on it; I
seem to remember on another thread about accelerated courses, some
thread creep as people posted on down the line. If my comments on that
thread led you to believe that I was opposed specifically to FIR
accelerated training, either I miss-spoke or you read something I didn't
mean to convey.
Anyway, if you go back and read my initial comments in THIS thread, you
will note the following statement by me dealing directly with this
subject;

"I should state that I consider the subject of accelerated courses for
advanced tests and ratings such as multi, instrument, and ATP to be a
separate issue. In my opinion, an argument can be made for accelerated
courses dealing with higher ratings and written test prep when the
insertion point for these programs assumes a certain existing level of
experience and demonstrated performance".

I hope this clears up your "misunderstanding" on the IFR issue at least!
:-)

All the best,
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

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)

Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a day
shall we.
All the best,
DH

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"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)

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a day
shall we.
All the best,
DH

I am not a yes or no vote. I don't know.

I'd like you to answer the following question that I've asked thee times so
far with no repsonse:

"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?"

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a
day
shall we.
All the best,
DH

I am not a yes or no vote. I don't know.

I'd like you to answer the following question that I've asked thee
times so
far with no repsonse:

"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?"

--
Jim Fisher

Jim;

The reason I haven't answered your question isn't because I can't, or
don't want to. It's because I'm getting from the "tone" of your posts to
me that it wouldn't matter much what I answered.
You obviously have some VERY strong pro opinion on accelerated flight
training and this opinion is different from my own. I accept that.
You on the other hand, seem to think your point about flight tests will
prove me wrong, so you keep pushing that at me.
The problem with answering you is that the premise for your question is
flawed as it addresses what I have said, and that makes it extremely
difficult to deal with what you are requesting. In fact, a lot of what
you have posted fits the same category. The reference to IFR training
for example. I wouldn't mind you disagreeing with me about IFR
accelerated training. The problem is that I don't disagree on the IFR
position and have plainly stated as much to you several times now.
I simply have to assume in these circumstances that you and I just have
to agree to disagree and let it go at that, rather than spend a ton of
bandwidth trying to get together on something we'll not be agreeing on
anyway :-)
I'll give your "question" a try here and see what happens if you like,
but I don't see us getting anywhere. Just the tone of this post to me;
"I've asked you 3 times now to answer this" is unsatisfactory to me.
The plain simple truth of it is that we just don't seem to like each
other :-) No biggie at all really.
Now to your "question".
Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Your premise that by my
standards, the flight test must produce either an incompetent pilot or
send a failure back to the drawing boards is flawed. You have totally
misinterpreted what I have said.
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.
It's simply a matter of my believing that one system is more optimum
than the other. It's not a statistical analysis; it's an an opinion, and
as an opinion, doesn't have to be proved at all.
Now, apparently you disagree with this. That's fine. By all means, push
the accelerated program if you like. I think I've gone to great pains to
allow you an uncontested opinion.

There, now I've answered your question.

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

"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

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

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