About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Teacherjh wrote:


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

I have to completely agree with this.

My checkrides - and for that matter, my various check "outs" (ie.
club, FBO,
etc.) - have all been pretty deep. Now, this may be because I don't
take
that "say as little as possible" advice one gets, but I suspect that
the
examiners are playing the major role in this. I think they are
looking for
my limits.

Personally, I think this terrific. In fact, I'd expect it and I'd
worry in
its absence.

If your check pilots are probing your limits, they are performing check
flights as they REALLY should be performed. You should seek out and fly
with check pilots who use this method.

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.



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?)

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a
safe pilot. I believe the DE giving the flight test is the ultimate last
piece in the safety equation. If you get a good DE and or a good oral
and check flight, coming out of it you should be adaquate safety wise.
Most pilots are adaquate. Some DE's will dig deeper in the oral and
performance than others, but the average is a safe pilot if passed.
It's important to realize that no matter what the comprehension level is
at passing, that level can really range. In reality, what usually
happens on a flight test is that the examiner digs deep enough to
satisfy him/herself that the level of comprehension is adaquate for the
test standard. As Shirley said, sometimes a DE goes in deeper; but many
times, time restrictions and scheduling can be factors as to just how
deep a DE will go. So you get a safe pilot and then what happens?
There's a period of "adjustment" that all pilots go through after
getting the Private. What happens is a natural process where they "catch
up" on the comprehension they might have missed during the training
process. Oh, they're safe enough....but they could be better.....in some
cases, a whole lot better. Some of these pilots run into check pilots
like myself, who, simply because of the high performance environment we
live in, tend to look for that "deeper level" of comprehension I've been
talking about. True, we're not checking these pilots out in P51's, but
our check out methods tend to reflect the higher standard we have to
demand from the pilots we're dealing with in high performance airplanes.
When I say I'm not finding comprehension levels in accelerated program
trained pilots, all that means is that in my opinion, the accelerated
pilots had problems that I was picking up during check flights that
bothered me. It wasn't that the pilots weren't safe. They were safe.
I just felt I wasn't getting the level of understanding I was looking
for. In all cases, it was mostly a matter of bringing these pilots up to
speed on these things to where we were satisfied.




I suppose, in the abstract, standards can be too high. And if we made
the
PPL standards as high as possible, we'd have no Commercial and no ATP.

In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high. I had a sign over my desk for years
that read
" Perfection may be unattainable, but spend your entire career in
aviation trying to achieve it anyway"

Still, Dudley's statement that some pilots have insufficient
comprehension
is worrisome. Someone else used here the expression "Santa Claus DE",
which bugs me even more.

Rest easy. The DE's are for the most part doing a credible job. As I
said Andrew, my definition for "insufficient comprehension" equates only
to my standards. The flight test standards are sufficient as that
relates to general safety.

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

In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high.


There are two ways to read this.

1: You should always strive to be better.

2: You always should not fly unless you are better.

I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems to be
proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are not safe
enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after all a
license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough to fly (2)
but not safe enough to stop learning (1).

Jose




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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high.


There are two ways to read this.

1: You should always strive to be better.

2: You always should not fly unless you are better.

I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems
to be
proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are
not safe
enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after
all a
license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough
to fly (2)
but not safe enough to stop learning (1).

Jose

I see it this way.
You can pass the test with varying degrees of competence as long as all
of those degrees of competence are above the minimum test standard. Any
of these varying degrees can be correctly stated as being safe enough to
fly. Some pilots going through the test process will naturally be better
than others. Are they more safe? Probably.....at least I think so
anyway. It's all a study in relativity. There are no absolutes in this
equation; no single identifiable level of competence. The only common
denominator in the equation is the minimum test standard having been met
at a specific point in time.
For my purposes as a check pilot, I can have two pilots to check out who
have come through the system using varying methods. Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check
pilot.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check
pilot.


.... and that's the way it should be.

Jose



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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their
check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good
check
pilot.


... and that's the way it should be.

Jose

To review your initial post to me about the comparison between
accelerated and conventional training methods, I can only restate the
gist of the initial comments I made on this subject in my first post.
I have long believed that accelerated training at the Private level is
not the optimum method to use in learning to fly. I base this on my
experience as a check pilot dealing with the various training systems in
use.

My opinion of the optimum method of training at the Private level is a
training program that allows a period of time for reflection and review
between actual time spent in the cockpit. This period doesn't have to be
prolonged, but it has to be PRESENT. In other words, an accelerated
program that included this factor would satisfy my requirement for
optimum.

An accelerated program that concentrates heavily on cockpit time at the
expense of time between lessons for review and reflection in my opinion
is not an optimum training method and I would never recommend it.
You can flight test both methods and get a safe result, but in my
opinion you get a BETTER level of comprehension at the flight test by
NOT using a training method that denies review and reflection between
flights.

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:

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.

Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several different ways
to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I suspect I
see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a
safe pilot.

You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I don't
believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure about
death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something towards
which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.

Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on a
different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being flying.
We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of flight.

That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to maximize
safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.

If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require that
comprehension from pilots? I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that this
knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and comprehensively
understood.

If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited time
involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based upon
Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.

- Andrew

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

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension
yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I
probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.

Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several
different ways
to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I
suspect I
see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face
of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adequate to produce
a
safe pilot.

It is adequate to produce a safe pilot. If the Private minimums were
higher, you might just as well get the Commercial :-)

You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I
don't
believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure
about
death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something
towards
which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.

I can't figure out where you're getting this from. The only "absolute" I
recognize as that word pertains to flight safety is that if a pilot can
meet the "absolute" test standard in the PTS, that pilot can be
considered safe. Absolute in this case simply means the pre-determined
test standard for establishing a demonstration of safe procedures.
After the test has been passed, safety in an airplane is a completely
relative term. It relates directly to continued education and currency
that translates into a continuing gaining of experience that insures a
safe standard will be maintained. Take anything out of this equation and
safety can become an issue fairly fast.


Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on
a
different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being
flying.
We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of
flight.

This is a REAL stretch of how a pilot should be viewing flight safety,
and completely in opposition to anything I have ever taught to pilots
about flight safety. You are taking the obvious, which is that flying by
definition might be an unsafe endeavor and we as pilots accept that when
we choose to fly.....and projecting that into the context of how a pilot
has to view flight safety. This is totally out of line with my thinking
on this subject.
Don't EVER take up low altitude aerobatic demonstration flying with this
attitude or you will be dead in fifteen seconds or less.
If you said this to me during a check flight, I would send you back for
"remedial work"
:-)


That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to
maximize
safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.

If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require
that
comprehension from pilots?

We DO require that comprehension. We just don't require it all at once
at flight test time.
All we require at the test is a demonstrated POINT that defines enough
comprehension for certain privileges to be put on a piece of paper. If
you've heard in once, you've heard it a thousand times from almost every
competent pilot you'll meet in aviation. "The certificate is nothing but
a license to learn".
All flying really is, is an honor system. There is no top end to
competence or comprehension. It's a never ending process. You can
demonstrate continued competence at higher levels if you like. All THAT
does is confirm that you have made the right choices and continued this
never-ending process of learning and gaining experience. Interestingly
enough you can also take no active steps to gain better comprehension
and competency.
Fortunately, just gaining experience alone without this active
involvement will in most cases add up to some increased level of
competence and comprehension.
It's all up to the individual pilot which path to take, but one way or
the other, flying safely demands a constant maintaining of at least the
competency you had exiting the flight test.




I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that
this
knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and
comprehensively
understood.

Remember Andrew, the flight test is only a demonstrated safe competency
level that assumes you will go on gaining what you need to know continue
to be safe over time. Actually, I can think of no greater example of
allocating personal responsibility than when a DE signs you off as a
Private Pilot. The DE is literally entrusting you to continue your
learning process after the door closes behind you and you have left the
examiner's office.


If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited
time
involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based
upon
Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.

There are some bad DE's. Most fortunately are quite good.
The system isn't perfect but it works!

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