About Acellerated Courses for Private

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