Accelerated Instrument Rating

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message


He originally said:
"NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots."

He said that the "reports _scream_ of such pilots"

I quoted his original post. You're quoting his amended post after I
raised
the issue.

Okay...pardon.

Yet..."NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots." is
undoubtedly true.

Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?

1) A 10 days wonder?
2) A 30 day wonder
3) A 90 day wonder? (No, not OCS)
4) A six month "malingerer"?

:~)

Like I mentioned before, a cram session prepares you to take a test; it
doesn't teach (long term) competence, with the possible exception of those
who are doing it as a career at a school like FlightSafety.

POR - I got my IR in 1979; it took 37 days (Ground School from mid March to
mid April, and flying from April 8th to May 15th) and 51.5 hours. That was
while working a full time job (swing shifts).

Tom,

Yet..."NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots." is
undoubtedly true.


Prove it! For starters, point out just one accident record that mentions
an instrument pilot's training background as being an accelerated course.
Just one. We'll go from there, if we have to, which I do in fact doubt.
Next step of course would be to prove that these pilots comprise a
significant majority in IR-related accidents (whatever that may be),
considering the ratio of instrument rated pilots educated traditionally
versus those from accelerated courses. Good luck in finding those numbers
- but since you made the above statement about it being "undoubtedly
true", I guess you have them readily at hand.

Come on: I've seen your posts here. No offense meant, but you KNOW your
above statement is BS.

Jeeze, this newsgroup is really going downhill...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
:

Snip

Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?

1) A 10 days wonder?
2) A 30 day wonder
3) A 90 day wonder? (No, not OCS)
4) A six month "malingerer"?


Which one has the most actual time since getting their rating?

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
Prove it!

My post was to express my opinion, as I also mentioned in it, opionions may
differ. If you think that I owe you my time proving it or anyhow otherwise,
you're mistaken and should get off yer righteous horse. It is you who are
challening my opinion, and it is your job to disprove it with facts. Don't
make me do your homework for you.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Yet..."NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots."
is undoubtedly true.

"Undoubtedly," huh? Can you point me to a single such report in the NTSB?
Not one that appears to be such a trainee, but a report where the NTSB
actually mentions an accelerated IR training program (not necessarily as a
contributing factor)?

Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?
...
Like I mentioned before, a cram session prepares you to take a test;
it doesn't teach (long term) competence...

Read my posts carefully and you'll see that I'm not advocating accelerated
programs. "Teaching to the test," as it were, is more likely to impart
"knowledge without understanding" - a point we agree on. This isn't to say
that accelerated students are necessarily unsafe or that I wouldn't fly with
them. All it means is that *I* prefer a more traditional training program.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

HECTOP wrote:

My post was to express my opinion, as I also mentioned in it,
opionions may differ. If you think that I owe you my time proving it
or anyhow otherwise, you're mistaken and should get off yer righteous
horse.

Your opinion was the part of your post about your impressions of accelerated
IR training programs. The "fact" you presented to support your opinion was
the reference to the NTSB database and that's the part that you've been
asked to demonstrate.

There's no "righteousness" about the request. If the NTSB has actually
commented on the safety of these accelerated programs in any of their crash
investigations, that information should be publicized.

If you can find such a reference, that is.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
There's no "righteousness" about the request. If the NTSB has actually

I said from the start of the message that it was MY opinion and did not
insinuate anything about opinion of the NTSB. When you asked again, I
answered that my opinion was formed based on a discussion at a FSDO safety
seminar, one of those you get yellow postcard invitations in the mail for.
Would you like to continue further questioning, or shall the Court take a
recess, Sir?

"Would be a better laboratory is there were more labor and less oratory"
(C)Elizabeth Haley


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

Ok. So, let's say I want to get the rating and want decent quality
instruction. What's the best way?

In my case, I've been getting there (slowly) by doing it a little here, a
little there. I want to go someplace and just get it done with.

I am *not* going to the local FBO where the 172 is $135 and hour and the
CFII is $45 (both plus tax, naturally) and they have a reputation for
milking their students.

What are my best options?

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

Ok. So, let's say I want to get the rating and want decent quality
instruction. What's the best way?

In my case, I've been getting there (slowly) by doing it a little
here, a little there. I want to go someplace and just get it done
with.

What are my best options?

What do you want do: Learn how to fly IFR or pass the practical to get your
rating? Accelerated courses generally expect you to have already passed the
written and focus purely on getting you proficient enough to pass the IR
PTS. If you think that style of training is good enough for you, then find
a school with a curriculum/location/price that you find comfortable and go
for it.

If you're more interested in learning to fly IFR, find another nearby FBO
with rates you find more to your tastes and work with your CFII there.

My opinion remains that the IR shouldn't be rushed. However, if one has a
significant amount of experience, is proficient with their airwork, has a
Good Attitude regarding flight, and perhaps has a number of hours if IR
training, then an accelerated program may be a good fit.

I don't like the idea of these programs being used to take a relatively
freshly minted PP to an instrument rated pilot from scratch, though.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Troy Towner" wrote in message
...
I attended the Sheble aviation advanced IFR program... I have nothing but
great things to say about it. I am now 6 months later, and still current.
The key to an acceleration program is study hard when your getting it, and
touch up on it every know and then. I would highly recommend the Sheble
school, the price is moderate at around $3200 in 10 days. This program
works
you till your tired everyday. Personally I got done in 9 days and relaxed
the 10 day... yes and on the 10 day he rested... The residents locations
they have are very nice, and cheap for what your receiving. The coarse can
be taken in Kingman Arizona, or Henderson Nevada.
http://www.shebleaviation.com/aboutus.html

I'll be damned.

This question has been posted quite frequently over the years. All the
nay-sayers say it just can't be as good as your standard training. Not once
has a graduate of one of these programs ever posted to say what you said.

I had been getting quite tired of defending the accelerated programs who,
quite obviously, have merit and value for those who are man (or woman)
enough to go through such a program.

Thanks for the refreshing point of view form someone who's actually been
there, done that as opposed to a bunch of know it alls who wouldn't know
their accelerated ass from a hole in the sky.

-
Jim Fisher