About Acellerated Courses for Private

I think the same question could be asked of any test.

There are clearly two distinct opinions on how to pass a test.

1) There's the "accellerated" camp. The way these couses work is to
teach the student how to pass the test. A typical example is revising
the question bank. Come the day of the test, the student knows whats
required and without much thought or understanding just rattles off the
answers.

and then;

2) There's the "normal" camp. These courses teach true understanding of
the material the test covers such that the student is able to draw his
own conclusions on the material presented to him. Come the day of the
test, each part of the examination presents a problem that requires
solving. A student who understands the material covered by the test can
then solve the problem.

When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.

Clearly, when you couple 2) with experience gained after the test, the
student is able to build confidently upon that experience because when a
new problem comes along, this experience serves to reenforce his ability
to solve the new problem.

With that in mind, we return to the original question,
and I'm not sure that there's an easy black and white answer to it.

Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to
gauge pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't.

Given that graduates of both 1) and 2) can fly the plane to the required
standard at a point in time, it is a sound measure. It's what happens
afterwards that worries me.

You only have to look at car drivers to see this - they all passed the
driving test, but clearly not all of them should be on the road.

A responsible pilot/driver will take additional training and advice as
nescessary. The sad truth is, there will always be irresponsible ones
that dont.

Paul B
4 Hours so far!


Cecil Chapman wrote:

"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

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul Banks
wrote:

When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.

If this "problem" is something necessary for safe flight, why would it
be something not memorized by the student taking the accelerated
course, but IS memorized by the student taking the traditional course?

Corky Scott

If this "problem" is something necessary for safe flight, why would it
be something not memorized by the student taking the accelerated
course, but IS memorized by the student taking the traditional course?

It all has to do with the theory on the way we humans memorise
information - and I agree it's subjective at the worst of times but many
parts are generally understood.

The student in the accelerated model (1) has learned how to recall the
information under a certain set of circumstances - i.e. when being
examined. He doesnt understand the material (yet) as he can't possibly
have had the time to comprehend it - but he does memorise it. In his
memory there is a direct link between the requirements of the test and
the answers (be they written or practical) but, the links between the
chunks of information are not present as the glue (comprehension) is not
present to allow them to be forged. Over time, unless rehearsed
regularly, the unlinked information is easily forgotton.

The student in the normal model (2) has learned the information through
understanding. With comprehension, the student does not have to remember
every peice of information required to pass the test as separate
unrelated items, but only has to retain an understanding of the topic.
Because all the information is linked through comprehension, he will not
forget it so easily. With a true understanding of a given system, he is
able to answer specific questions about it and even prove his answer. As
such his confidence builds and through experience, he is able to
instantly recall things when nescessary, backed up with true
understanding. A student in (1) would have to rely on recall alone and
thus would be left wondering if he remembered it correctly.

Now I'm not saying that graduates of (1) never reach a true
understanding eventually. With regular use and the discipline to
question information constantly, this would not be a problem. Some
information would undoubetdly have to be relearned. But given the way
human memory is understood to work, the chances are much higher that he
will not.

Put a graduate of (1) in an emergency situation and he might just
remember what to do. He might forget though and not have an
understanding of the relevant system required to work out what to do. He
will panic as a result.

Put a graduate of (2) in the same situation and he may still not
remember what to do. BUT the key is that he will understand the relevant
system and will be able to work out what to do. Sure he may be stressed,
but he has a much higher chance of doing the correct action and a much
lower chance of panicing and doing the wrong thing.

When the situation is over, the graduate of (2) is able to link the
newly learned solution with the rest of his understanding of the system
in general. The chances of him being able to confidently recall the
information are greatly increased and are substantially better than
those of graduate (1) who may not even remember what he did!

Paul B



wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul Banks
wrote:


When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.


Corky Scott