About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

Exactly how "safe" and how "educated" an individual pilot is at the
time that pilot took the flight test is a wide open issue subject to
much deeper interpretation than the simple fact that the flight test has
been passed.
The issue of exactly how safe an individual pilot is at the point of
his/her flight test can be considered to be TOTALLY the summation of the
QUALITY of the pilot's flight training coupled with the pilot's
retention of that training and the insertion of that training into
his/her performance with an airplane.

In other words, you can pass the flight test meeting the minimum
standard and be safe, or you can pass it with a standard FAR in excess
of the minimum requirements and be a hell of a lot safer.


After passing my PPL ride, the DE and I had a discussion over lunch about
the checkride in general. I asked him how in that short time he could
determine I was a Pilot. His answer contained much of what Barry and Dudley
say, but he went on to say "How many times have you gotten into a car with
someone, and by the time they had backed out of the driveway, you wished you
were somewhere else?"

A year later I was invited to ride along with a guy on a short flight to get
parts for another plane. By the time we had taxied to the runway I had that
feeling of "let me out". The entire trip there and back I was wanting to
take the controls but resisted the urge figuring it was a sure fire way to
die. This jerk seemed to love taking-off,climbing, and flying the pattern on
the edge of a stall with the horn going off 60% of the time.
He was the new operator of the FBO and as I soon found out, "a 10 day
wonder".
I never went up with him again and couldn't tell you if he is still alive or
not.

Marty

"Marty" pyromarty wrote:

he went on to say "How many times have you
gotten into a car with someone, and by the
time they had backed out of the driveway, you
wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".

That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to fly,
would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in *10 days*
or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the majority of
10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a period of
several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools have a
specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has tested
students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety, and
confidence. How do the majority compare?

Dudley Henriques wrote:

You could classify it as
something I felt the pilot should know more about than I was getting
from him. Nothing critical, just something I wasn't getting from a lot
of the pilots who were coming through the program taking a little more
time BETWEEN FLIGHTS!!!!

You indicate that the comprehension under discussion is "nothing critical".
In that case, why do you seek it out at all?

Elsewhere in this thread, you implied[1] that the additional comprehension
translates to additional safety. I believe that!

But doesn't this imply that the less comprehending pilots are less safe?
And when does that become "not safe enough"?

- Andrew

[1] In et:

I HAVE suggested however that in my opinion, the pilots I have flight
checked who have come through the accelerated path, although safe
enough, could have in my opinion been even better pilots had they been
given the time for their comprehension levels to catch up to their
performance levels.

I'm taking "better pilots" to imply "safer pilots".

Shirley wrote:

That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to fly,
would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in *10 days*
or in a couple of months?

I can only give you one and a half answers, and neither of them is what
you specifically asked for:

1.0) as someone who does have a clue about how to fly, I'd pick the
one who'd had a couple of months to think about what he was
learning;

1.5) I wouldn't send a loved one up with either one of them.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
"Marty" pyromarty wrote:

he went on to say "How many times have you
gotten into a car with someone, and by the
time they had backed out of the driveway, you
wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".

That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to
fly,
would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in
*10 days*
or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the
majority of
10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a
period of
several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools
have a
specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has
tested
students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
confidence. How do the majority compare?

This is a valid question, and difficult to answer statistically, because
part of the answer is subject to individual interpretation by a specific
examiner. You can get a figure on a pass/fail rate based on the
accelerated program vs other methods, but that's going to be inclusive.
The problem is that the test standard is a minimum standard. You will
find that the pass/fail ratio only gives you a number for the fail side
of the equation. The other side of the equation is much more difficult
to ascertain since it deals directly with an unknown variable on the
pass side only; that being the ACTUAL QUALITY of the pilot who has
passed the test.
The DE is looking for a minimum criteria. If they find it, you have
passed. The ACTUAL quality of your performance and comprehension at the
time of testing is something else altogether.
The reason this data is inconclusive is this;
Assume a scenario with one individual pilot taking a flight test with 10
different examiners; one right after the other. Also assume that the
pilot's performance will be good enough to pass the minimum standard as
determined by the flight test directive. The pilot will pass by all 10
examiners (if the examiners are following the guidelines), but if you
ask all 10 examiners to sit down and write their opinion on exactly how
good this pilot ACTUALLY is in the air, the data recovered from this
exercise will be all over the board as far as determining a constant
data point is concerned.
The pilot may possess a quality of performance and comprehension WAY
beyond the minimum standard, but the exact point where that quality can
be firmly established is extremely difficult to determine.
To determine where the pilot's actual performance level is, you need the
services of an extremely good check pilot who is NOT looking for the
minimum standard but rather the upper end of the pilots actual
knowledge, comprehension, and performance levels.
Doing this is a highly specialized skill. It requires pushing a pilot to
his/her absolute limits and discovering what they are. There are very
few check pilots who work in this environment.

It just happens that this exact type of check flight was a specialty for
me, and the pilots who worked for me; as much of the checkout work we
did involved checking pilots out in extremely high performance
airplanes.

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

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

You could classify it as
something I felt the pilot should know more about than I was getting
from him. Nothing critical, just something I wasn't getting from a
lot
of the pilots who were coming through the program taking a little
more
time BETWEEN FLIGHTS!!!!

You indicate that the comprehension under discussion is "nothing
critical".
In that case, why do you seek it out at all?

Elsewhere in this thread, you implied[1] that the additional
comprehension
translates to additional safety. I believe that!

But doesn't this imply that the less comprehending pilots are less
safe?
And when does that become "not safe enough"?

- Andrew

No. The less comprehending pilots have met minimum standards are have
been deemed safe enough to be certificated.
All we're discussing here is a HIGHER degree of comprehension than that
required by those minimum standards.
It's not black and white.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
"Marty" pyromarty wrote:

he went on to say "How many times have you
gotten into a car with someone, and by the
time they had backed out of the driveway, you
wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".

That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to
fly,
would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in
*10 days*
or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the
majority of
10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a
period of
several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools
have a
specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has
tested
students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
confidence. How do the majority compare?

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
"Marty" pyromarty wrote:

he went on to say "How many times have you
gotten into a car with someone, and by the
time they had backed out of the driveway, you
wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".

That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to
fly,
would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in
*10 days*
or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the
majority of
10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a
period of
several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools
have a
specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has
tested
students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
confidence. How do the majority compare?

This is a valid question, and difficult to answer statistically, because
part of the answer is subject to individual interpretation by a specific
examiner. You can get a figure on a pass/fail rate based on the
accelerated program vs other methods, but that's going to be conclusive
enough for a complete quality check.
The problem is that the test standard is a minimum standard. You will
find that the pass/fail ratio only gives you a number for the fail side
of the equation. The other side of the equation is much more difficult
to ascertain since it deals directly with an unknown variable on the
pass side only; that being the ACTUAL QUALITY of the pilot who has
passed the test.
The DE is looking for a minimum criteria. If they find it, you have
passed. The ACTUAL quality of your performance and comprehension at the
time of testing is something else altogether.
The reason this data is inconclusive is this;
Assume a scenario with one individual pilot taking a flight test with 10
different examiners; one right after the other. Also assume that the
pilot's performance will be good enough to pass the minimum standard as
determined by the flight test directive. The pilot will pass by all 10
examiners (if the examiners are following the guidelines), but if you
ask all 10 examiners to sit down and write their opinion on exactly how
good this pilot ACTUALLY is in the air, the data recovered from this
exercise will be all over the board as far as determining a constant
data point is concerned.
The pilot may possess a quality of performance and comprehension WAY
beyond the minimum standard, but the exact point where that quality can
be firmly established is extremely difficult to determine.
To determine where the pilot's actual performance level is, you need the
services of an extremely good check pilot who is NOT looking for the
minimum standard but rather the upper end of the pilots actual
knowledge, comprehension, and performance levels.
Doing this is a highly specialized skill. It requires pushing a pilot to
his/her absolute limits and discovering what they are. There are very
few check pilots who work in this environment.

It just happens that this exact type of check flight was a specialty for
me, and the pilots who worked for me; as much of the checkout work we
did involved checking pilots out in extremely high performance
airplanes.

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

"Shirley" wrote in message
...

I'd like to hear from a DE that has tested
students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
confidence. How do the majority compare?

It's difficult to get rock solid scientific data on how REALLY GOOD a
specific pilot is when taking the flight test for several reasons, the
least of which is the fact that for flight test purposes, the DE is
testing for a known and published MINIMUM STANDARD. If that minimum
standard is met, the pilot is passed. It's important to recognize that
the minimum standard has been determined to be a demonstration of safe
operating practices.
This establishes a sort of paradox in a way. You can establish data for
a pass/fail ratio according to training method used, but it's extremely
difficult to establish how much better above the minimum standard a
specific pilot might have performed during a flight test, since the
upper limits of the tested pilot's performance by test definition are
not tested!
There are pilots who specialize in operating as check pilots who DO
operate in the area of exploring a specific pilot's maximum limits of
comprehension and performance. This is a highly specialized skill and
requires an extremely well qualified check pilot.
The reason I mention this is because the process of evaluation involved
in checking a pilot for a minimum standard and the process involved in
checking a pilot for a maximum competence level are entirely different
procedures. For the minimum standard, if the pilot can perform to that
standard, the procedure doesn't require additional exploration above the
standard point to establish additional data on the pilot being tested.
On the other hand, a pilot being tested for maximum performance levels
will be asked to perform at the highest level possible and within the
closest tolerances possible for the pilot/airplane combination being
used for the test.
Since most of the check flights I performed were involved with extremely
high performance airplanes, I adopted early on, a check flight procedure
that truly tested the upper limits of the pilots I was flight testing.
Keep in mind this wasn't the DE scenario, so I had much greater latitude
in which to operate.
We discovered however, through the use of our procedures in flight
checks, that using the same method we were using for high performance
airplanes for check outs in light GA airplanes; produced an extremely
desirable result; that being a solid look at the ACTUAL performance
levels of the pilots we were checking out in our airplanes. By testing
for a maximum level instead of a minimum level, we discovered that many
pilots who were "safe" could be made a hell of a lot "safer".
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Suppose that the flight test were conducted three weeks after the last flight
the student actually took. Comparing the accelerated students with the
standard curriculum students, which do you think would be more likely to pass
this delayed flight test?

My feeling (just that) is that the standard curriculum students would be in a
better position, since their knowledge, gained over a long time, will probably
remain a long time. The accelerated students, it would seem to me, would be
more likely to have forgotten stuff over the three weeks they were not flying.

OTOH, it might be that those three ("inactive") weeks would provide enough time
for the information to gell, and the accelerated students would do better than
they would have earlier. (whether this would be better than the normal
curriculum students with a delayed flight test I don't know)

Anybody with actual datapoints here?

Jose


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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
Suppose that the flight test were conducted three weeks after the last
flight
the student actually took. Comparing the accelerated students with
the
standard curriculum students, which do you think would be more likely
to pass
this delayed flight test?

My feeling (just that) is that the standard curriculum students would
be in a
better position, since their knowledge, gained over a long time, will
probably
remain a long time. The accelerated students, it would seem to me,
would be
more likely to have forgotten stuff over the three weeks they were not
flying.

OTOH, it might be that those three ("inactive") weeks would provide
enough time
for the information to gell, and the accelerated students would do
better than
they would have earlier. (whether this would be better than the
normal
curriculum students with a delayed flight test I don't know)

Anybody with actual datapoints here?

Jose

The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is that
zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish that
the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.
You can get a pass/fail ratio for accelerated training opposed to other
forms of training at the test point, but getting a handle on the ACTUAL
QUALITY or the high end comprehension and performance levels of a
specific pilot at that moment in time is another matter; much more
difficult to determine, since the upper levels of a pilot's performance
capabilities are by definition, NOT required, nor are they even tested
by the examiner giving the flight test.
To establish these parameters, an entirely different type of flight
check is necessary; an actual limiting parameter flight check. This is a
highly specialized flight check.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt