Recommendations for accelerated instrument training NYC area

I'm combining stuff from both replies, bear with me.

Add 20 hours of aircraft time (minimum, in my estimation, because of
all the rehash, and startup overhead) and you've added $2000 right
out
of the shoot.

First, I don't agree with your cost asessment. Around here, an
instrument trainer rents for $60-$80/hr. Between airline tickets and
10 days of hotels and meals, you're looking at $1500, easy. So even at
20 hours, the costs there are a wash and my original asessment holds.
In areas where the rentals cost more, hotels and meals do too.

Second, I don't agree that 20 hours is a minimum - more like a maximum.
I completed my rating (in the non-accelerated mode, stretched out over
half a year) in 43 hours, and my FIRST student (I would like to think
I've gotten better since then) that I took from zero was done in under
55 - despite major equipment problems, the inefficiencies of
structuring the training to get what actual we could, and having the
process stretch out over more than a year. Had I been willing to
ignore opportunities to get actual, and had we not had several sessions
where the glideslope had problems (how would THAT have affected an
accelerated course?) we would have been done in well under 50 hours.
Also, his direct operating costs were about $25/hr (Pacers are cheap to
fly).

Third, I would go so far as to suggest that most pilots who need 20+
hours more to complete the rating flying once or twice a week rather
than on an accelerated basis probably won't be safe once they get the
rating. If they forget so much week to week, how much will they forget
when they go weeks between approaches?

You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training
device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I've
done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool.

That's true if the training we're focusing on is scan and procedures.
Of course everyone is different, but I found that even in the airplane,
I was proficient at scan and procedures prior to the 20-hour mark. Of
course scan and procedures are essential for safe and capable IFR
flying, but they are far from sufficient. The real issues are ATC and
weather, and those can't be learned on the simulator at all.

Non-accelerated, you have a rating in 8-12 months.
Accelerated, you have the rating in 10 days, and spend those same 8-12

months flying in the system and gaining experience.
Who's thebetter instrument pilot at the end of those 8-12 months,
would you suppose?

That depends - did the student who did the accelerated course learn
enough to be capable of flying weather and learning further on his own?
I'm seeing an awful lot of students who seem to need an instructor
when the weather goes bad. To me that indicates a problem. Because
weather is what it is in Houston, I am generally only able to get my
student about 5 hours of actual in the course of training (and believe
me we make it a point ot get it if it is available, even if it's not
the most efficient way to get to the checkride) but they're all able to
go out and fly weather on their own.

If the accelerate training employs good instructors, I don't see why
those students should be any different - and thus you are right, of
course they will be the better instrument pilots. But if choosing the
accelerated program means settling for inferior instructors (and unless
you pay the premium for an outfit like PIC, it certainly will) then I
don't agree. The student who got inferiour training will not have been
progressing in those 8-12 months unless he was carrying an instructor
around in weather - in which case, what was the point of having the
rating?

Like I said - I'm not saying a program like PIC isn't worthwhile,
merely that you will pay a premium for it. And if you replace their
multi-thousand-hour instructors with standard FBO timebuilders, then I
would say it's not worthwhile at any price.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ps.com...
I'm combining stuff from both replies, bear with me.

Ditto.

You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training
device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I've
done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool.

That's true if the training we're focusing on is scan and procedures.
Of course everyone is different, but I found that even in the airplane,
I was proficient at scan and procedures prior to the 20-hour mark. Of
course scan and procedures are essential for safe and capable IFR
flying, but they are far from sufficient. The real issues are ATC and
weather, and those can't be learned on the simulator at all.

I don't think the Frasca is worth a damn for learning anything but scan &
procedures, at least it wasn't for me. There's simply none of the "sweat
factor" you get in the airplane, particularly in actual and when you can't
quite recall the last thing ATC told you. You just can't get that in a sim.
Scan and procedures are important, no question, and learning them on the sim
makes sense. I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you
want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I'm not saying
accelerated courses can't go beyond teaching to the test, but when you make
achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is at
least a little moral hazard there.

To be fair, all of my objections are predicated on your ability to locate a
*good* local CFII. This is in some cases not possible and you are then faced
with choosing between an accelerated course taught by a good out-of-towner
or a haphazard program by the local timebuilder. The choice is pretty
obvious there.

I'm seeing an awful lot of students who seem to need an instructor
when the weather goes bad. To me that indicates a problem. Because
weather is what it is in Houston, I am generally only able to get my
student about 5 hours of actual in the course of training (and believe
me we make it a point ot get it if it is available, even if it's not
the most efficient way to get to the checkride) but they're all able to
go out and fly weather on their own.

Do you mean "are not willing to fly weather alone" or "are not capable of
flying weather alone?" As a new instrument pilot, I think part of this is
the "fear of clouds" that is now being fairly successfully inculcated during
primary instruction. Fear is good when it keeps you from doing something
stupid, but what constitutes stupid is much harder to judge with an IR than
without. I have about 25 hours of actual, a good bit of it in nice thick New
England muck, but I still hesitate to go up on my own, knowing that the
price of small mistakes is much higher than in VFR.

best,
-cwk.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:47:44 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you
want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I'm not saying
accelerated courses can't go beyond teaching to the test, but when you make
achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is at
least a little moral hazard there.




I teach on an accelerated basis only. I use a simulator extensively
in this training.

I do this because, in my experience over 17 or so years with both
methods, I have concluded that the simulator/accelerated method turns
out better qualified, more knowledgeable, and better trained pilots,
more quickly, and at a reduced cost.

If you also have extensive experience using both methods, I might be
willling to accept your moral prejudgments.

If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of the
commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the
uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious
wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation
industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your
implication of moral superiority.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:47:44 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you
want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I'm not saying
accelerated courses can't go beyond teaching to the test, but when you
make
achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is
at
least a little moral hazard there.

I teach on an accelerated basis only. I use a simulator extensively
in this training.

snip

If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of the
commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the
uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious
wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation
industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your
implication of moral superiority.

cfeyeeye, I'm not accusing *you* of anything. We're talking about
"accelerated training" versus "traditional training" in general, so put the
knife down, K?

When I asked the guy I chose for my CFII, "how long will this take," he
basically said, "as long as it takes and not a day more." I took 55 hours to
get there over 18 months and would say I lost maybe 5-10 hours in the
process due to delays. He said he actually preferred to take at least 6-9
months working on it so we could go up in different weather conditions, and
it is a point of pride for him that most of his students take the test with
15-20 hours of actual, most of it doing approaches. It's good experience and
in my mind worth every nickel.

With an accelerated course, the instructor has an innate incentive to do one
thing only, and that is to get this guy through the test. With a traditional
course, there is an incentive to train ad infinitum and never quite finish.
Each course has its unique moral hazards. It's simply a term of art. I'm not
imputing that accelerated training is like abortion or gay marriage or the
death penalty or whatever.

Best,
-cwk.

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
Do you mean "are not willing to fly weather alone" or "are not
capable of
flying weather alone?"

I think the distinction you are making is an imaginary one. Those who
are unwilling, are unwilling because deep down they know they are
incapable. That's a fairly harsh statement, but the more I fly with
other pilots, the more I realize it's true. It's very comforting to
say "I'm just as capable as that guy launching into the clag solo, I'm
just more concerned with safety" but based on my experience it's simply
not true.

Michael