About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Please Keep Your Word" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here.

If only that were true.

Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

Considering you don't trim your posts and usually run paragraphs
together without spaces I daresay you are not so smart yourself.

Maybe is you read the CONTEXT of his post (which is depreciated by snipping)
you'd realize he's quite brilliant.

Based on your stupid remark, I'd say you were downright dense.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

Dudley,

Andrew wasn't asking anything but honest questions and in a much calmer
manner than even I was. By Usenet standards, Andrew was darn close to being
Incredibly Nice, Indeed.

I used to have some respect for you. Even in this thread where you accused
me of bashing you(and I did not - no matter what you wish to believe) I
still held to some respect for some of your opinions.

For what it's worth (which ain't much, I'm sure), I have lost that respect.
You're just a run of the mill, high-on-himself, certificate-waiving, pompous
asshole who obviously thinks CFI-dom is the pinnacle of Enlightenment.

The reality is that you're probably a closet high-winger.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

Dudley,

Andrew wasn't asking anything but honest questions and in a much
calmer
manner than even I was. By Usenet standards, Andrew was darn close to
being
Incredibly Nice, Indeed.

I used to have some respect for you. Even in this thread where you
accused
me of bashing you(and I did not - no matter what you wish to believe)
I
still held to some respect for some of your opinions.

For what it's worth (which ain't much, I'm sure), I have lost that
respect.
You're just a run of the mill, high-on-himself, certificate-waiving,
pompous
asshole who obviously thinks CFI-dom is the pinnacle of Enlightenment.

The reality is that you're probably a closet high-winger.

--
Jim Fisher

Actually Fisher, I have never sought your respect nor anyone else's on
Usenet and can assure you I don't require it. Losing it therefore is a
non event for me. In fact, it's incredibly self serving of you to
believe that losing your respect would be a problem for me or anyone
else for that matter. Respect comes and goes on Usenet like flies on a
crap pile.
In making statements like this you're falling for the oldest Usenet
game out here; that someone actually cares what you really think about
them. Hell man, I would have thought you've been out here long enough to
have learned by now that Usenet isn't the place where you earn people's
respect. You do that in the real world.
That being said, I'll just have to settle for the respect I have managed
to earn from the real world and learn to live with not having yours I
guess.
I might be able to handle that I think! :-))
Actually, to be quite blunt with you, as far as Usenet is concerned, the
people whose respect I value are in my address book. Everything else
that comes and goes out here isn't important really.
Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that
high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on
Usenet :-))))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques wrote:


In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient." In my
context, insufficient means "could be better".

FYI:

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo...a=insufficient

You'll note that "not sufficient" is the definition of "insufficient".

[...]

o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be
more safe.

BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand?

I'm afraid that it is, given that you've made this statement as a comparison
between graduates of accelerated and "conventional" programs. Recall that
your original statement on this thread included:

To put it bluntly, I can't remember a situation where I have checked out
a new pilot coming out of an accelerated course for Private Pilots where
the performance level was such that I felt no remedial work was
required....not ONE case!!!!

If the graduate of an accelerated program is safe as defined by the PPL
exam, but could be more safe, then what is the difference between the
graduate of an accelerated program and the graduate of a "conventional"
program? Surely, the graduate of a "conventional" program could/should
also be more safe than he/she is. By this definition of "remedial work",
would you not find a need for "remedial work" with any recently
certificated pilot?

For that matter, can not *any* pilot be better than he/she is?

- Andrew

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...
Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that
high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on
Usenet :-))))


It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or
the other.

Teacherjh wrote:


If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our problem).

I have to completely agree with this.

My checkrides - and for that matter, my various check "outs" (ie. club, FBO,
etc.) - have all been pretty deep. Now, this may be because I don't take
that "say as little as possible" advice one gets, but I suspect that the
examiners are playing the major role in this. I think they are looking for
my limits.

Personally, I think this terrific. In fact, I'd expect it and I'd worry in
its absence.

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.


To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards
are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.


It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are standards
"too
high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?)

I suppose, in the abstract, standards can be too high. And if we made the
PPL standards as high as possible, we'd have no Commercial and no ATP.

Still, Dudley's statement that some pilots have insufficient comprehension
is worrisome. Someone else used here the expression "Santa Claus DE",
which bugs me even more.

- Andrew

Peter Gottlieb wrote:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...
Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that
high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on
Usenet :-))))


It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or
the other.

Or both!

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


In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient."
In my
context, insufficient means "could be better".

FYI:


http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo...a=insufficient

You'll note that "not sufficient" is the definition of "insufficient".

So? Context again...as it has been for the last ten or so posts with
you. You just can't seem to get it can you? The pilots I was checking
out of accelerated training were "not sufficient" to MY standards
Gideon, NOT the flight test standards. The dictionary definition is in
complete agreement both ways. The pilots were also "insufficient" to MY
standards. Dawning on you yet?



[...]

o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should
be
more safe.

BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand?

I'm afraid that it is, given that you've made this statement as a
comparison
between graduates of accelerated and "conventional" programs. Recall
that
your original statement on this thread included:

To put it bluntly, I can't remember a situation where I have
checked out
a new pilot coming out of an accelerated course for Private
Pilots where
the performance level was such that I felt no remedial work
was
required....not ONE case!!!!

If the graduate of an accelerated program is safe as defined by the
PPL
exam, but could be more safe, then what is the difference between the
graduate of an accelerated program and the graduate of a
"conventional"
program?

The difference is exactly as I stated it. I was getting what I
considered insufficient results from all the accelerated grads. I was
getting mixed results from the conventional grads; insufficient on one
side......mixed on the other side........This Gedion, is a difference!



Surely, the graduate of a "conventional" program could/should
also be more safe than he/she is.

Absolutely! That's why the Commercial PTS is basically an "upgraded"
Private PTS in a lot of respects. It requires an even deeper level of
comprehension and performance to a closer tolorance of the same subject
matter by the examinee in many cases.


By this definition of "remedial work",
would you not find a need for "remedial work" with any recently
certificated pilot?

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.

For that matter, can not *any* pilot be better than he/she is?

All pilots can be better than they are. Pilots like myself for example,
who lived and worked in a highly dangerous environment with high
performance airplanes were engaged in a daily regimem of self
improvement. Without it, I never would have survived to be here arguing
this ridiculas argument with you :-)

BTW, I apologize for losing my temper with you. I shouldn't have done
that. If you can, please forgive my personal remark in the last thread.
If you wish to engage in this discussion with me, please continue. I'll
try and keep my temper in check and deal with your questions as they are
thrown my way :-)
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...
Teacherjh wrote:


If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our
problem).

I have to completely agree with this.

My checkrides - and for that matter, my various check "outs" (ie.
club, FBO,
etc.) - have all been pretty deep. Now, this may be because I don't
take
that "say as little as possible" advice one gets, but I suspect that
the
examiners are playing the major role in this. I think they are
looking for
my limits.

Personally, I think this terrific. In fact, I'd expect it and I'd
worry in
its absence.

If your check pilots are probing your limits, they are performing check
flights as they REALLY should be performed. You should seek out and fly
with check pilots who use this method.

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.



To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
into an overall picture one has to realize that my training
standards
are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.


It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are
standards
"too
high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?)

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a
safe pilot. I believe the DE giving the flight test is the ultimate last
piece in the safety equation. If you get a good DE and or a good oral
and check flight, coming out of it you should be adaquate safety wise.
Most pilots are adaquate. Some DE's will dig deeper in the oral and
performance than others, but the average is a safe pilot if passed.
It's important to realize that no matter what the comprehension level is
at passing, that level can really range. In reality, what usually
happens on a flight test is that the examiner digs deep enough to
satisfy him/herself that the level of comprehension is adaquate for the
test standard. As Shirley said, sometimes a DE goes in deeper; but many
times, time restrictions and scheduling can be factors as to just how
deep a DE will go. So you get a safe pilot and then what happens?
There's a period of "adjustment" that all pilots go through after
getting the Private. What happens is a natural process where they "catch
up" on the comprehension they might have missed during the training
process. Oh, they're safe enough....but they could be better.....in some
cases, a whole lot better. Some of these pilots run into check pilots
like myself, who, simply because of the high performance environment we
live in, tend to look for that "deeper level" of comprehension I've been
talking about. True, we're not checking these pilots out in P51's, but
our check out methods tend to reflect the higher standard we have to
demand from the pilots we're dealing with in high performance airplanes.
When I say I'm not finding comprehension levels in accelerated program
trained pilots, all that means is that in my opinion, the accelerated
pilots had problems that I was picking up during check flights that
bothered me. It wasn't that the pilots weren't safe. They were safe.
I just felt I wasn't getting the level of understanding I was looking
for. In all cases, it was mostly a matter of bringing these pilots up to
speed on these things to where we were satisfied.




I suppose, in the abstract, standards can be too high. And if we made
the
PPL standards as high as possible, we'd have no Commercial and no ATP.

In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high. I had a sign over my desk for years
that read
" Perfection may be unattainable, but spend your entire career in
aviation trying to achieve it anyway"

Still, Dudley's statement that some pilots have insufficient
comprehension
is worrisome. Someone else used here the expression "Santa Claus DE",
which bugs me even more.

Rest easy. The DE's are for the most part doing a credible job. As I
said Andrew, my definition for "insufficient comprehension" equates only
to my standards. The flight test standards are sufficient as that
relates to general safety.

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

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or
the other.

I dunno -- some of those mid-wing aircraft look pretty neat!

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.