About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Jim Fisher" wrote:

There is a vast amount of data from graduates
of these programs for many decades. They pass
the checkride. They get their wings. That should
be enough to convince anyone that the programs
work for many people unless one is willing to admit
that the Checkride is a farce and there are people
out there wreaking havoc after graduating from
the accelerated courses.

Approaching it from another standpoint: If you knew what the requirements were
and had a basic understanding of how MUCH material must not only be learned,
but also of the degree of competency and understanding SHOULD be involved, if
you didn't know how to fly yourself, would you be the first passenger of
someone who got their wings in 10 days?

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Your premise that by my
standards, the flight test must produce either an incompetent pilot or
send a failure back to the drawing boards is flawed. You have totally
misinterpreted what I have said.
What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an accelerated
basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be appropriate
comprehension standards.

So is that a product of the acellerated training itself or is it a product
of the typical acellerated student who "graduates" with only 40 to 50 hours
under his belt instead of the usual 70 or so? If that accelerated student
had the blazed through 70 to 100 hours would he be "as good as" the
traditional student? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Perhaps the typical accelerated student represents a particular mindset of
people who perhaps aren't as dedicated to learning to fly as traditional
students. Perhaps they just aren't as passionate about flying as "normal"
people. After all, these students probably tend to be doctors, busy
businessmen and folks with more money than time. They just need to get this
"training nonsense" behind them so they can be more productive in their
careers. If they had instead gone through traditional training, would they
tend to display the same kinds of weaknesses? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

That's my whole point, Dudley. Not one soul here - including you - has
provided any more than lightweight ancedotal evidence and baseless theories
that accelerated students tend to suck.

The reality and the body of evidence (consisting of thousands of successful
graduates of these programs going back 100 years) tends to indicate
otherwise.

--
Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher wrote:

The reality and the body of evidence (consisting of thousands of successful
graduates of these programs going back 100 years) tends to indicate
otherwise.

There is no "evidence" to show that these pilots would not have been
better if they had had a conventional course. Unless you come up with
some, I'll stick with logic and the expectations of highly experienced
instructors, whose anecdotal evidence runs counter to your pet theory.

The other side of the coin is the high proportion of private pilots who
spread their training out over too many months, and even years, and who
waste both time and money while failing to make much progress. Every CFI
can tell you stories about that kind of student, but I suppose their
"evidence" would be inadequate for you, too.


Jack

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net...
"Gene Whitt" wrote in message
nk.net...
Barry, et all,
We had not had the 25 knot crosswinds that he had on the day of his
checkride. I teach all landings as though they are crosswinds.
Same techniques apply, keep nose straight with rudder correct drift
with
wing low.

gene

et al;
(as Gene says for a general post picking up on something

I agree totally with this concept and wish all instructors did the same.
A landing is a landing.....and right from the gitgo, the student should
be aware that the airplane is flown at all times in existing conditions,
NOT in expected conditions that require different techniques. It's all
one big scenario up there, and it's a constantly changing scenario.
Treating crosswind landings as a separate and unique issue IN THE
AIRPLANE is counter productive to proper understanding.
I would encourage having the student study cross wind technique and it's
application in the landing equation, and be prepared for those
conditions by all means, but once in the airplane, all landings should
be considered as an event taking place in whatever wind conditions are
being encountered in real time during the approach.
The sooner students begin treating landings this way the sooner they
will understand the REAL world the airplane is in, and their
relationship to the airplane in this world.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

This is exactly how my instructor is teaching landings. He taught me
crosswind technique (wing low to stop the drift, rudder to line up
with the runway) and said "You'll use some amount of this technique on
every landing you do." In my limited experience I have to agree that
it's easier to view all landings as varying applications of these
techniques rather than "Oh! A crosswind, what do I do now?"

John S.

Jack wrote in message ...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane.

Three, actually. Experience is the glue that holds control and knowledge
together. Experience is what enables one to know not only what is
possible, but what is likely, before it happens and while something can
still be done about it.

It's not all in the book, and control that's adequate for solo, or even
a type rating, is just the beginning of becoming a pilot.


Jack

Jack
May I add......flying is a constant series of corrections. The major
difference between an old pro and the new pilot? The old pro sees the
need for the changes much more quickly so the resulting changes are
smaller. To the inexperienced it seems like the old pro hasn't done
anything at all.
Ol Shy & Bashful

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Your premise that by my
standards, the flight test must produce either an incompetent pilot
or
send a failure back to the drawing boards is flawed. You have
totally
misinterpreted what I have said.
What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an
accelerated
basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be
appropriate
comprehension standards.

So is that a product of the acellerated training itself or is it a
product
of the typical acellerated student who "graduates" with only 40 to 50
hours
under his belt instead of the usual 70 or so? If that accelerated
student
had the blazed through 70 to 100 hours would he be "as good as" the
traditional student? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Perhaps the typical accelerated student represents a particular
mindset of
people who perhaps aren't as dedicated to learning to fly as
traditional
students. Perhaps they just aren't as passionate about flying as
"normal"
people. After all, these students probably tend to be doctors, busy
businessmen and folks with more money than time. They just need to
get this
"training nonsense" behind them so they can be more productive in
their
careers. If they had instead gone through traditional training, would
they
tend to display the same kinds of weaknesses? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

That's my whole point, Dudley. Not one soul here - including you -
has
provided any more than lightweight ancedotal evidence and baseless
theories
that accelerated students tend to suck.

The reality and the body of evidence (consisting of thousands of
successful
graduates of these programs going back 100 years) tends to indicate
otherwise.

--
Jim Fisher

Let me try this worded more simply for you.

A flight instructor has simply posted an opinion on accelerated training
at the basic level based on his personal experience dealing with these
issues for fifty years. That opinion states he believes the best all
around way to learn to fly is taking a path that allows ample time
between lessons so that comprehension can keep pace with rote learning;
rather than a method that doesn't allow this time.
This is simply an opinion; not a statistical analysis.
No one has used the term "accelerated programs suck" except YOU!
No one has used the term "the check ride is a joke" except YOU!
No one has used the term "Jillions of pilots unworthy of the privilege
are flying over our heads" except YOU!

Is a picture beginning to form here for you? It sure is for me. In your
effort to defend your position on accelerated training, which is heavily
a pro position, you are grossly over reaching with glittering
generalizations describing scenarios that don't exist in the basic
premise.
The truth is that there is no argument, and nothing has to be proved.
It's my opinion that these accelerated programs are not optimum. That
doesn't in any way imply the things you are saying in your responses.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Dudley Henriques wrote:

The difference is in the force of impact on your body if something
you
didn't quite understand catches up to you :-))
In a classroom; you make a mistake; you try it agin. Make a mistake
in
an airplane; you might not get a second chance!
Comparing flying to a classroom only learned profession is a bad
analogy.

Dudley, I completely agree with your basic point: downtime is
essential
for really learning a subject. It takes time for the synapses to
rewire
themselves.

But, as a matter of logic, I must take issue with your paragraph
above.
If anything, flying is like writing a calculus exam while dribbling a
basketball. If cramming for academic exams doesn't work in the long
term, then neither will cramming for academic exam while dribbling the
basketball.

IOW, being on a desktop simplifies the problem. If the reduced
problem
is still unsolvable, we can conclude the harder problem is probably
unsolvable too. This supports your position. OTOH, reversing it
would
not work.

A 40-hour week-long academic course is not like a 13-week 3-hour
course.
The former is like trying to drink from a firehose. A lot of the
information splatters all over the place. It can only be worse in the
real-time environment of an airplane.

(OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).


Morris

I'm having trouble with your analogy.

The only point I was making was that in an airplane, sometimes you don't
get a second chance to do something which is true; as the 32 funerals I
have attended during my aviation career for pilots who didn't get that
second chance will clearly attest.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Journeyman" wrote in message
(OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).

Thanks.

I'll state once again that I don't know if one is just as good as
another.
Logic tell me that flying is better learned through log, thorough,
studious
dedication. But there is no data supporting Dudley's stance. None.

Long studious dedication isn't needed. All that's needed is enough time
between lessons for comprehension to catch up to performance. It's
usually a matter of a day or few days in my experience.


There is a vast amount of data from graduates of these programs for
many
decades. They pass the checkride. They get their wings. That should
be
enough to convince anyone that the programs work for many people
unless one
is willing to admit that the Checkride is a farce and there are people
out
there wreaking havoc after graduating from the accelerated courses.


Again, you keep coming back to a false premise with this doomsday
scenario of yours.
None of the scenarios you are describing here would be the result of
what is being discussed.
Accelerated training does NOT produce the results you are fantasizing so
verbally in every post you make. No one has implied this but YOU!
It HAS been suggested however, that a time span between lessons that
allows comprehansion to catch up to rote performance is a more optimum
method to use in learning to fly an airplane.
Just what is it about this simple premise that you don't understand?
Even if you object to the opinion stated, and wish to counter that there
is no statistical evidence to prove it, the fact remains that it's only
an opinion, and as such, dosen't require proof.
To be quite frank with you Fisher, I can see no logical reason for your
argument at all. You're beating a dead horse. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
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
would you be the first passenger of
someone who got their wings in 10 days?

Had I known back then what I know now, I would not have taken my family up
with me the day after my own checkride.

Would *I* go? Probably but that depends on the individual. I have friends
with hundreds of hours that I will not go up with. I've been up plenty of
times with new graduates. I would not consider an acellerated student any
different from a traditional one in that respect.

If you pass the checkride, you are generally good to go.

--
Jim Fisher

Dudley Henriques wrote:

What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an accelerated
basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be appropriate
comprehension standards.
This shouldn't be read to imply that these pilots were unsafe. It should
however be interpreted to mean that in my opinion, these pilots might
have had better comprehension had they not taken the accelerated route.

Why is the PPL exam set permitting people to become pilots with a level of
comprehension you find inappropriate?

- Andrew