About Acellerated Courses for Private

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

[...]
Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial
work. I
did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots
need
remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the
level
of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training
methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else.

Okay. As long as you're using "insufficient" to mean "not
sufficient", I
understand. I even understand that the benchmark against which you're
measuring is your own and not the PTS. This is what I thought you
were
claiming at first, before all the confusion about whether questions
were
being asked and answered or how "insufficient" was defined were
raised.

Unfortunately on Usenet, this happens quite often. It usually results in
a huge thread creep which is what has happened with this thread.


But this takes us right back to my original question about your
opinion. If
you've a definition of "sufficient" for a private pilot that is higher
than
the PTS, what does this say about the PTS? Or if this is not a matter
so
much of the PTS, but of how exams are given...or how DEs "drill" down
into
comprehension...

My question really is: is there a flaw in the testing system?

There are many flaws in the system, but someone somewhere with
competence had to come up with a test standard they considered to be
safe for certification. This is exactly what they did. The PTS is the
result of this competent opinion. How this standard relates to an
overall competency level at the passing point of the flight test is up
for grabs really, as I have stated before many times. There are huge
variances present in the equation. What the student actually brings into
and takes out of the training program; the caliber of the instructors;
the caliber of the examiner; There are many factors that will determine
an overall compentency level. The main thing is that the basic test
standard be a safe standard, and I believe that through time, this has
been proven to be the fact. But this by no means should be construed to
define that all pilots passing through the test standard pass with the
same degree of competence. I think we can assume that all things
considered, all who pass are safe.
The way I view the PTS; it represents a BEGINNING point where a new
pilot has shown competent authority that he/she is safe enough to be
allowed certain privileges while continuing forward with the absolutely
necessary education and practical experience that will insure a state of
CONTINUED safety as that pilot travels through their tenure in aviation.
Where that pilot is existing on the safe side of the comprehension scale
exiting the flight test can only be determined by a highly experienced
check pilot trained in probing for a maximum competency level not tied
to any pre-determined test standard. The actual determination of this
maximum competency level is in actuality the individual opinion of that
specific check pilot.



One could argue that your standards are higher than those of the PPL
checkride, and that doesn't by itself denigrate the PPL checkride.
However, you obviously think pilots should have that additional
comprehension.

You are absolutely correct on all counts here.

Does that comprehension (or lack thereof) reflect upon a pilot's
safety?
And, if so, why are we accepting the lower standard?

No to the first question, as I have again stated in this post.
The test standard, as I have also stated , is considered a safe standard
as the starting point toward further education and experience to
maintain that safe level.

After all, we're not speaking of having more knowledge, or having
more/better skills. We do need to leave room for the Commercial and
ATP,
after all laugh.

The Commercial TS is simply one more means of demonstrating to competent
authority that the ever present necessary education and experience path
is being followed.

But is it so unreasonable to require that pilots understand the
knowledge
that's already required of them?

I basically understand Fermat's last theorem............but I'm still
working on it!!!!! :-)))))

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