Accelerated Instrument Rating

"Michael" wrote:
OK. Just a couple of questions:

Dude, I counted no less than NINE direct questions and a rather long list of
statements. What happened to the good old USENET where one would call
another a name and the whole ball would start rollin'?

It was a good training, very good training, with very experienced
instructors, old enough to be our grandpa's and quite demanding at that. I
think I've said enough, if you wanna find out more, stop by Mac Dan at
Caldwell and give my regards to the gentlemen.

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

HECTOP wrote:

Dude, I counted no less than NINE direct questions and a rather long list of
statements. What happened to the good old USENET where one would call
another a name and the whole ball would start rollin'?

Well, Yuri, you've been gone for a while and we just got into bad habits. :-)

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
Cite?

How about you cite me a reference that they are inherantly unsafe?

Nevertheless, a Google on ""accelerated IFR"
(http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...lerated+IFR%22)
turns up waaaay too much to sort through and you just aren't that important
to me.

My belief comes from my own very thorough research of the subject and an
AOPA article I simply cannot locate in electronic form anywhere.

AOPA tested "normal" versus accelerated students just after and then one
year after the course. Both scored about the same. The gist of the article
was that it wasn't for everyone but for those who can handle it, it is, in
fact, effective training. See the post in this thread from someone who has
actually been through the course.

I was once considering A-IFR and exchanged emails with roughly a dozen
individuals from all over the country who used either PIC or one individual
who used to frequent this group (who once worked for PIC and went
independent). I got the references from both PIC and the individual who
turned over the list of references in very short order.

Those detailed exchanges absolutely convinced me that accelerated courses
were just as effective as "normal" training. I was about to go when life
got in the way.

Yeah, yeah, they were "references" and for all I know there is a vast
conspiracy to fool people like me into killing myself in a crash course.
But I did have long discussions with some of the respondents and, well, I'm
convinced.

I'll let you all know when I do it one of these days.

So there.

--
Jim Fisher

Hectop,

My post was to express my opinion,


Nope, you made a factual statement to SUPPORT your opinion. And I
called your bluff.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

This isn't to say
that accelerated students are necessarily unsafe or that I wouldn't fly with
them.


And to add one point that hasn't yet been made: If "accelerated" were so bad,
all airline and military pilots would be unsafe.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
Nope, you made a factual statement to SUPPORT your opinion. And I

Actually, you've made a pest of yourself without contributing any relevant
opinions on the subject of this thread, whether correct or erroneous, but
yet an opionion. All you did, was flooded it with 7 messages simply trying
to bark up my tree. Way to go Thomas, you're an honorable and useful member
of this community. Where should I send you a complimentary bag of Purina
Chow?

With best regards

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

Hectop,

All you did, was flooded it with 7 messages simply trying
to bark up my tree.


Not so. Pointing out that the key reason you give to support your very
strong opinion that (in my words) accelerated courses make unsafe
pilots is not valid, is a quite valuable contribution to the topic,
IMHO. At least as valuable as giving unsupportable statements of fact
and then later claiming it was just opinion.

BTW, I also posted an answer directly to the OP.

I would suggest we let the matter rest.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

If "accelerated" were so bad,
all airline and military pilots would be unsafe.


It's not (only) the training, it's what you do with it afterwards. Airline and
military pilots fly a lot, in lots of kinds of weather. At the end of a year,
the training is minor.

Jose

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

Teacherjh,

It's not (only) the training, it's what you do with it afterwards.


I agree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"HECTOP" wrote
Dude, I counted no less than NINE direct questions and a rather long list of
statements.

Yeah, well, I just started listing the stuff that really needs to be
covered in instrument training in order for the pilot to be reasonably
safe and capable but is usually skipped, and the next thing I knew I
was halfway down the page. Those are not all the things I can think
of - just the first few that occurred to me.

It was a good training, very good training

So the answer is that all those things were done and covered, and
there were no surprises there for you. Right?

You know, difficult does not equal good. I know a lot of CFII's whose
idea of good training is making the student do partial panel NDB holds
in 20+ kts of crosswind, over and over until he can make good looking
racetracks. Is it difficult? Sure it is. But is it good training?
Not really - it's mostly a waste of time. In real life, the only time
it matters is when the hold is there in lieu of PT, and then the only
part that matters is the entry. If you can fly your entry such that
you are reasonably stabilized on the FAC before you cross the fix
inbound, you're good. As for other holds - all that matters is that
you stay inside the protected airspace. You can fly figure-eights
there for all ATC cares.

After you go out there and actually us your instrument rating to
travel for a few years (and no, flying in the local area doesn't
count), you get a real good feeling for what makes good instrument
training. Until then, you really have no idea.

Michael