About Acellerated Courses for Private

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

Dudley Henriques wrote:

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

If only that were true.

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

Considering you don't trim your posts and usually run paragraphs
together without spaces I daresay you are not so smart yourself.

See my inserts, and then I'm going to pass on further dialog with you on
this matter.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
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 claimed nothing of the kind.

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.

The depth to which an examiner takes an applicant taking a Private
flight test is strictly at the discretion of the examiner if the
applicant meets the minimum standards. It's important to realize that if
something comes up in the oral that produces the correct answer, it is
NOT...and I repeat NOT the responsibility of the examiner to go deeper
into the discussion until a discrepency is noted. In fact, a very strong
argument can be made for examiners not going very deep into a subject if
the right answer is showing up front.
A good DE will indeed go beyond the simple answer as you have correctly
stated, and at some point will make a decision on the comprehension. The
main thing to remember her Shirley, is that there is a specific minimum
requirement for comprehension, and if that minimum has been satisfied,
the examiner isn't duty bound to explore any deeper. This dosen't mean
the applicant isn't safe. In fact, if the applicant has met the minimum
standard, he/she IS safe, and the examiner is duty bound to pass the
applicant.
All I've been saying from the very beginning is that in my opinion,
based on my experience over time, the comprehension levels of pilots I
was checking out after having gone through this minimum standard process
after being trained in accelerated programs, could have been better. I
was also finding pilots coming through traditional training programs
that I felt could use some additional comprehension. The common factor
in all this was that I wasn't satisfied with ANY of the accelerated
trained pilots. To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards
are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.
None of what I found would indicate that these pilots were not safe
simply because I believed they needed remedial work. All that means is
that SOME of the pilots we were checking out of traditional training
were less than our desired levels, but ALL of the pilots we tested
coming out of accelerated training were less than our expected standard.
This thread is suffering greatly from thread creep. Most people,
especially competent CFI's answered immediately and knew exactly what I
was addressing. A few here, are innocently responding to the thread
creep as it wanders more and more away from the base issue and into
tangent mode :-)

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.

This is a valid way to deal with some forms of comprehension. I have no
problem with it.

One last thought about discussion having relevance to comprehension as
you have presented it to me as though I don't understand it :-)
I have no problem with this; it's 101........IF the issue is
discussion. Actually, I can make your point here even more relevant by
telling you that it was in part, discussion, coupled with performance,
that revealed to us as check pilots the necessity for an even HIGHER
comprehension level than we were finding in the pilots being checked.
Am I getting through here at last Shirley? I hope so.
The bottom line is that all of what you are saying is relevant. You're
just assuming all through this that my test standard was revealing a sub
safe level. That simply wasn't the case. We just found that these pilots
could have, in our opinion, and based on our flight check
methods.........a bit better, so we made them better. That's what good
instructors do.....make pilots better!!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Please Keep Your Word" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

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

If only that were true.

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

Considering you don't trim your posts and usually run paragraphs
together without spaces I daresay you are not so smart yourself.

Oh....you know how it goes on Usenet. Some people think you're
smart....some can't stand you and don't think you're so smart. As long
as those who think you're smart outnumber those who don't, you're WAY
ahead of the game. :-)
I'll just put you in the "you don't think I'm all that smart" column.
The world moves on....... :-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

The main thing to remember her Shirley, is that there is a specific minimum
requirement for comprehension, and if that minimum has been satisfied,
the examiner isn't duty bound to explore any deeper.


I"m not Shirley, but to my eyes, a correct answer does not imply comprehension.
Were I a DE (and I"m not), I would see it as my duty to establish, to my
satisfaction, that the comprehension is there, at least to minimum standards.
This does not mean "the right answer to a fixed set of questions". It means
the understanding behind these answers.

If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our problem).


To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards
are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.


It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are standards "too
high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?)

But this is all besides the point. It may be that the accelerated programs
produce acceptable pilots (to minimum standards) and we have become used to
superior pilots (trained the standard way to better standards). Is this what
you are saying?

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Dudley said:
there is a specific minimum requirement for
comprehension, and if that minimum has been
satisfied, the examiner isn't duty bound to
explore any deeper.

teacherjh wrote:
to my eyes, a correct answer does not imply
comprehension. Were I a DE (and I"m not), I
would see it as my duty to establish, to my
satisfaction, that the comprehension is there,
at least to minimum standards. This does not
mean "the right answer to a fixed set of questions".
It means the understanding behind these answers.

Precisely, Jose! From the PTS:

"Since there is no formal division between the 'oral' and 'skill' portions of
the practical test, this becomes an ongoing process throughout the test. Oral
questioning, to determine the applicant's knowledge of TASKs and related safety
factors, should be used judiciously at all times, especially during the flight
portion of the practical test. Examiner's shall test to the greatest extent
practicable the applicant's correlative abilities rather than mere rote
enumeration of facts throughout the practical test."

I don't think the above paragraph can be interpreted to mean that rote answers
c/would satisfy a minimum requirement for comprehension. It clearly states that
the examiner shall test for **CORRELATIVE** abilities rather than mere rote
answers. IMO, that *IS* "duty bound to explore deeper".

--Shirley