About Acellerated Courses for Private

"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

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

Agreed but don't the accelerated courses require that you pass the written
before you start?

Mike
MU-2


"gatt" wrote in message
...

"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

In article et, Dudley Henriques wrote:

The difference is in the force of impact on your body if something you
didn't quite understand catches up to you :-))
In a classroom; you make a mistake; you try it agin. Make a mistake in
an airplane; you might not get a second chance!
Comparing flying to a classroom only learned profession is a bad
analogy.

Dudley, I completely agree with your basic point: downtime is essential
for really learning a subject. It takes time for the synapses to rewire
themselves.

But, as a matter of logic, I must take issue with your paragraph above.
If anything, flying is like writing a calculus exam while dribbling a
basketball. If cramming for academic exams doesn't work in the long
term, then neither will cramming for academic exam while dribbling the
basketball.

IOW, being on a desktop simplifies the problem. If the reduced problem
is still unsolvable, we can conclude the harder problem is probably
unsolvable too. This supports your position. OTOH, reversing it would
not work.

A 40-hour week-long academic course is not like a 13-week 3-hour course.
The former is like trying to drink from a firehose. A lot of the
information splatters all over the place. It can only be worse in the
real-time environment of an airplane.

(OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).


Morris

Mike Rapoport wrote:

There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane.

Three, actually. Experience is the glue that holds control and knowledge
together. Experience is what enables one to know not only what is
possible, but what is likely, before it happens and while something can
still be done about it.

It's not all in the book, and control that's adequate for solo, or even
a type rating, is just the beginning of becoming a pilot.


Jack

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...
I would encourage having the student study cross wind technique and it's
application in the landing equation, and be prepared for those
conditions by all means, but once in the airplane, all landings should
be considered as an event taking place in whatever wind conditions are
being encountered in real time during the approach.

I learnt to fly in Florida (intensive course! :-) But that's another
part of the thread...).

I didn't know what a non-crosswind landing was. When I joined the
club at Cardiff on returning to the UK, I couldn't understand why
they wouldn't let me fly if there was a wind greater than 10 knots
(not the crosswind component!). I did my GFT (general flight test)
in 25 gusting 35.

Paul

"Journeyman" wrote in message
(OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).

Thanks.

I'll state once again that I don't know if one is just as good as another.
Logic tell me that flying is better learned through log, thorough, studious
dedication. But there is no data supporting Dudley's stance. None.

There is a vast amount of data from graduates of these programs for many
decades. They pass the checkride. They get their wings. That should be
enough to convince anyone that the programs work for many people unless one
is willing to admit that the Checkride is a farce and there are people out
there wreaking havoc after graduating from the accelerated courses.

--
Jim Fisher

"Paul Sengupta" wrote:

I didn't know what a non-crosswind landing was.
When I joined the club at Cardiff on returning to
the UK, I couldn't understand why they wouldn't
let me fly if there was a wind greater than 10
knots (not the crosswind component!). I did my
GFT (general flight test) in 25 gusting 35.

They conduct the GFT in winds like that?
Where's the rest of the story?
;-)