About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

I believe the real issue with accelerated
training isn't the pass/fail ratio itself, but
that a comprehension gap exists at the point
of testing (call it cram factor).
[snip]
It's this "gap" in comprehension that is the
entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
presented it here.

How many pilots fly once- or twice-a-month after being licensed at one
of those
accelerated courses? If they were too busy for traditional training,
how much
time do they have to fly? How many fill in that "comprehension gap"
you
describe? and how much of that rote knowledge that they crammed in 10
days do
they retain if they're only flying even 3x/month?

Rote answers don't, or shouldn't, get you through the test, unless the
oral
exam is proportionate to the 10-day accelerated course--15 minutes
long. A
competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine
the
comprehension level behind them. Even with traditional training, it's
difficult
to remember all the answers and explanations for every area and have
full
comprehension of them, let alone being able to do so *WHILE* learning
to fly,
putting those rote-learned procedures into actual practice, and
filling all the
flight requirements **in 10 days**! Possible? apparently. Would you
recommend
it to one of your family members? I wouldn't.

If you're getting from what I've been saying all through this thread
that I favor accelerated flight training, then I've truly found that
"comprehension gap" we've been discussing :-)
I absolutely do NOT favor accelerated training.

Your following comment,
" A competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine
the comprehension level behind them." is inconsistent with my
experience, and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal requirement to
pass or fail on a minimum standard demonstrated by the examinee.
This being said, there most surely are DE's out here who do as you
suggest, but they are in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for certification.
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:

Your following comment, "A competent,
conscientious examiner digs on rote answers
to determine the comprehension level behind
them." is inconsistent with my experience,
and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal
requirement to pass or fail on a minimum
standard demonstrated by the examinee.
This being said, there most surely are DE's
out here who do as you suggest, but they are
in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for
certification.

If a DE is not legally required to get anything beyond a rote answer from an
applicant: (a) why require an oral exam? If all that is required is an accurate
rote answer, the knowledge (written) test satisfies that; and (b) why would it
be necessary for someone with the qualifications of a *DE* conduct the oral
exam? Nearly ANYONE is capable of asking questions that merely require only a
rote answer. What would be the point of that kind of oral exam?

I understand what you're saying about meeting the "minimum standard" ... but
there's obviously some discretion and responsibility within the "standards"
framework given to the DE to satisfy him/herself that rote answers are backed
up with some degree of understanding to meet that standard.

That said, has an applicant ever failed an oral exam after giving the correct
rote answer if he couldn't explain it further if he were questioned in more
depth? Would this be legal? Sounds to me like you're saying (above) that in
your experience, examiners don't generally go beyond just hearing the "right"
answer.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Your following comment, "A competent,
conscientious examiner digs on rote answers
to determine the comprehension level behind
them." is inconsistent with my experience,
and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal
requirement to pass or fail on a minimum
standard demonstrated by the examinee.
This being said, there most surely are DE's
out here who do as you suggest, but they are
in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for
certification.

If a DE is not legally required to get anything beyond a rote answer
from an
applicant: (a) why require an oral exam? If all that is required is an
accurate
rote answer, the knowledge (written) test satisfies that; and (b) why
would it
be necessary for someone with the qualifications of a *DE* conduct the
oral
exam? Nearly ANYONE is capable of asking questions that merely require
only a
rote answer. What would be the point of that kind of oral exam?

I understand what you're saying about meeting the "minimum standard"
.... but
there's obviously some discretion and responsibility within the
"standards"
framework given to the DE to satisfy him/herself that rote answers are
backed
up with some degree of understanding to meet that standard.

That said, has an applicant ever failed an oral exam after giving the
correct
rote answer if he couldn't explain it further if he were questioned in
more
depth? Would this be legal? Sounds to me like you're saying (above)
that in
your experience, examiners don't generally go beyond just hearing the
"right"
answer.

You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.
What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with a
verbal answer to a question. Neither does it relate to what takes place
in the written exam. It has EVERYTHING to do with a mechanical recall
that allows an examinee to perform as requested by an examiner in the
air during a flight test without actually having as much comprehensive
understanding of what is being performed and why as could be the
situation if comprehension was causing the performance by the examinee.
It is the entire premise of this thread that an examinee can perform in
this manner and pass a flight test to a minimum standard.

May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a bit more
from the beginning .
Thank you.

Dudley Henriques wrote:



You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.

Where did this occur? We have been discussing the ability to perform the
flight test tasks, true. But we've also been discussing the performance on
the oral part of the test (and the depth of comprehension demonstrated by
said performance).

You yourself wrote in et:

I was finding pilots coming through the
accelerated path who knew the answers mechanically, and could perform in
the airplane mechanically, which met the minimum test standards and made
them safe enough in the air.
I simply wasn't fining the comprehension levels in these pilots that I
was finding in other pilots coming through training paths that allowed a
more relaxed curriculum.

This makes it clear that we - that you - are speaking of both the oral test
and the flight test on this thread.

What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with a
verbal answer to a question.

But "a verbal answer to a question" is the fundamental component of the oral
part of the "checkride".

- Andrew

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



You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be
used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way
something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.

Where did this occur? We have been discussing the ability to perform
the
flight test tasks, true. But we've also been discussing the
performance on
the oral part of the test (and the depth of comprehension demonstrated
by
said performance).

You yourself wrote in
et:

I was finding pilots coming through the
accelerated path who knew the answers mechanically, and could
perform in
the airplane mechanically, which met the minimum test
standards and made
them safe enough in the air.
I simply wasn't fining the comprehension levels in these
pilots that I
was finding in other pilots coming through training paths that
allowed a
more relaxed curriculum.

This makes it clear that we - that you - are speaking of both the oral
test
and the flight test on this thread.

What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with
a
verbal answer to a question.

But "a verbal answer to a question" is the fundamental component of
the oral
part of the "checkride".

- Andrew
Apparently there is absolutely nothing I can say or do that will get the
few of you who just aren't following this in context away from the
flight test as the focus of this discussion.
My findings have little to do with the flight test per se. They were
made on flight checks given to pilots AFTER the flight test had been
passed and are only relevant to that scenario.
I think I'll just move on from you two and allow you simply to continue
questioning the validity of my comments as you wish. I can see at this
point that both of you questioning me on this constantly are completely
convinced that I'm in some kind of error. I will achieve nothing further
by trying to sort all of it out for you again. Perhaps it's something I
didn't explain for you properly. In any case, we are not in the same
boat and I'm fairly certain we won't ever actually get in the same boat
on this.
Thank you both for your input.
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:

Apparently there is absolutely nothing I can say or do that will get the
few of you who just aren't following this in context away from the
flight test as the focus of this discussion.

Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest with the post to which
you've just replied. You claimed that Shirley had not followed the thread
when you wrote:

May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a bit more
from the beginning .

because she was discussing issues related to the oral exam. You also wrote:

You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.
What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with a
verbal answer to a question.

Which seems a little odd since we are not only discussing the oral test, but
your finding these pilots to have insufficient comprehension. How did you
discover this w/o conversation with the pilots in question?

My findings have little to do with the flight test per se.

But you've been mentioning the flight test (and oral) too! You appear to be
[trying to] shift the thread around in a way I don't grasp.

They were
made on flight checks given to pilots AFTER the flight test had been
passed and are only relevant to that scenario.

Right. I think we all understand this. These were pilots that had passed
the PPL checkride, but whom you [at some point after their checkride] found
lacking in comprehension. You believed "remedial" action required. That's
very clear.

But you've been steadfastly avoiding the issue of why you considered
"remedial" action necessary if the pilots you found lacking were already
sufficiently safe. I can imagine all sorts of perfectly reasonable
answers, but I've yet to see yours.

I will achieve nothing further
by trying to sort all of it out for you again.

You could try answering the question once: why would you feel "remedial"
action necessary if the pilots you found lacking in comprehension were
already sufficiently safe?

I know you've no problem expressing your opinions, but just to make things a
little more clear for you, I'll provide some of the possible answers that I
see:

o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be
more safe.

o They were safe at the time of the PPL checkride, but were no
longer so.

o Comprehension doesn't impact safety, but I [you] believe it necessary
for other reasons.

But I really do want to know *your* answer.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest
with the post to which you've just replied. You
claimed that Shirley had not followed the thread

I admit I didn't read *every* post, I read the majority of them, and I wasn't
going to argue, but the oral exam certainly WAS discussed. I realize, Dudley,
that you were addressing the competency and comprehension levels of
already-licensed private pilots. My point was simply that even BEFORE a person
gets there, an examiner, during the oral exam, makes an evaluation of
comprehension. Whether or not a "rote answer" by itself is acceptable is, as
you said, left to the discretion of the examiner. One would HOPE that rote
answers for areas where the examiner can clearly perceive little or no
comprehension would not fit into the category of having met minimum standards.
I am sure, depending on the DE, that sometimes they unfortunately do.

I don't see, though, how you can evaluate "comprehension" and NOT be talking
about how a person responds verbally, whether still an applicant OR an already
licensed private pilot. Like it or not, comprehension (on the ground) and
mechanical skill (in the air) do overlap each other or go hand-in-hand, if you
will.

Dudley:
My findings have little to do with the flight test per se.

Andrew:
But you've been mentioning the flight test (and oral)
too! You appear to be [trying to] shift the thread
around in a way I don't grasp.

I agree. The oral exam was part of this discussion. Again, how can it not be if
you're talking about "comprehension"?

Dudley:
I will achieve nothing further by trying to sort all of
it out for you again.

I don't think we need you to sort anything out. Insufficient comprehension
can't be dealt with without at least *some* discussion, regardless of what a
person's flight test looks like. It's just common sense that flying well on a
particular day isn't *necessarily* an indication of comprehension -- gee, maybe
that's why an oral exam is part of the PPL test and a minimum of one hour of
ground part of a BFR.

--Shirley

I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here.
See my inserts;

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

Apparently there is absolutely nothing I can say or do that will get
the
few of you who just aren't following this in context away from the
flight test as the focus of this discussion.

Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest with the post to
which
you've just replied. You claimed that Shirley had not followed the
thread
when you wrote:


May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a
bit more
from the beginning .

Part of the problem here is that YOU are reading what you want to see
into someone else's comments and projecting them back in a different
context. Take the above;
I didn't "CLAIM" that Shirley didn't read the thread. I respectfully
suggested that she perhaps read it again from the beginning. There is
one hell of a HUGE difference between these two interpretations and the
whole crux of your continued posts to me can be centered on this
interpretative difference.



because she was discussing issues related to the oral exam. You also
wrote:

You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can
be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way
something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this
thread.
What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to
do with a
verbal answer to a question.

Which seems a little odd since we are not only discussing the oral
test, but
your finding these pilots to have insufficient comprehension. How did
you
discover this w/o conversation with the pilots in question?

In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient." In my
context, insufficient means "could be better".

My findings have little to do with the flight test per se.

But you've been mentioning the flight test (and oral) too! You appear
to be
[trying to] shift the thread around in a way I don't grasp.

The ONLY reason I've even mentioned the flight test OR the oral is in
answer to the horrific thread creep that you two are forcing.

They were
made on flight checks given to pilots AFTER the flight test had been
passed and are only relevant to that scenario.

Right. I think we all understand this. These were pilots that had
passed
the PPL checkride, but whom you [at some point after their checkride]
found
lacking in comprehension. You believed "remedial" action required.
That's
very clear.

Believe it or not, you have this in context....almost!
I didn't find these pilots lacking in comprehension that would indicate
a lower than required to pass the flight test. I DID however, find these
pilots lacking in the comprehension that I was seeing from pilots who
hadn't come through the accelerated training path.
Can you POSSIBLY understand this in context? I'll reduce it even further
for you.
I found the pilots I was checking could have been even BETTER pilots
based on the methods I was using to check them out. The "remedial
training" I gave them simply brought them up to where I considered their
comprehensive levels should be.
Again....I DON'T use a DE syllabus to check out pilots. I use an
entirely different method. There is NO comparison between the two
methods.

But you've been steadfastly avoiding the issue of why you considered
"remedial" action necessary if the pilots you found lacking were
already
sufficiently safe. I can imagine all sorts of perfectly reasonable
answers, but I've yet to see yours.

Is it HUMANLY POSSIBLE that anyone could misunderstand what I have said
above? They could have been BETTER. Where they were was sufficient!!!
Are you getting it YET?????

I will achieve nothing further
by trying to sort all of it out for you again.

You could try answering the question once: why would you feel
"remedial"
action necessary if the pilots you found lacking in comprehension were
already sufficiently safe?

Believe me, THIS is the last time I'll dealing with this. Anything
further I'll consider a troll post.

I know you've no problem expressing your opinions, but just to make
things a
little more clear for you, I'll provide some of the possible answers
that I
see:

o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be
more safe.

BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand?

o They were safe at the time of the PPL checkride, but were no
longer so.

o Comprehension doesn't impact safety, but I [you] believe it
necessary
for other reasons.

But I really do want to know *your* answer.

- Andrew

Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

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