Recommendations for accelerated instrument training NYC area

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:47:44 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you
want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I'm not saying
accelerated courses can't go beyond teaching to the test, but when you make
achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is at
least a little moral hazard there.




I teach on an accelerated basis only. I use a simulator extensively
in this training.

I do this because, in my experience over 17 or so years with both
methods, I have concluded that the simulator/accelerated method turns
out better qualified, more knowledgeable, and better trained pilots,
more quickly, and at a reduced cost.

If you also have extensive experience using both methods, I might be
willling to accept your moral prejudgments.

If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of the
commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the
uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious
wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation
industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your
implication of moral superiority.

wrote:
I am interested in taking an
accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day
course and other similar 10 day courses.

Before youspring for one of the expensive package deals, just mosey down to your
local FBO and talk to one of the instructors. Tell them what you're interested
in and ask whether they can put together a syllabus that will do what you want.

You might save a few bucks(?).

You get to meet the instructor beforehand and decide whether you like him or
her, before he arrives in your living room on expense account.

Dave

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
Do you mean "are not willing to fly weather alone" or "are not
capable of
flying weather alone?"

I think the distinction you are making is an imaginary one. Those who
are unwilling, are unwilling because deep down they know they are
incapable. That's a fairly harsh statement, but the more I fly with
other pilots, the more I realize it's true. It's very comforting to
say "I'm just as capable as that guy launching into the clag solo, I'm
just more concerned with safety" but based on my experience it's simply
not true.

Michael

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:47:44 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you
want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I'm not saying
accelerated courses can't go beyond teaching to the test, but when you
make
achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is
at
least a little moral hazard there.

I teach on an accelerated basis only. I use a simulator extensively
in this training.

snip

If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of the
commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the
uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious
wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation
industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your
implication of moral superiority.

cfeyeeye, I'm not accusing *you* of anything. We're talking about
"accelerated training" versus "traditional training" in general, so put the
knife down, K?

When I asked the guy I chose for my CFII, "how long will this take," he
basically said, "as long as it takes and not a day more." I took 55 hours to
get there over 18 months and would say I lost maybe 5-10 hours in the
process due to delays. He said he actually preferred to take at least 6-9
months working on it so we could go up in different weather conditions, and
it is a point of pride for him that most of his students take the test with
15-20 hours of actual, most of it doing approaches. It's good experience and
in my mind worth every nickel.

With an accelerated course, the instructor has an innate incentive to do one
thing only, and that is to get this guy through the test. With a traditional
course, there is an incentive to train ad infinitum and never quite finish.
Each course has its unique moral hazards. It's simply a term of art. I'm not
imputing that accelerated training is like abortion or gay marriage or the
death penalty or whatever.

Best,
-cwk.

On 1 Mar 2005 15:57:33 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:


The most useful piece of advice you've gotten is this - quick, cheap,
good - pick two. I will modify that and say that you can pick AT MOST
two - you may get less. You won't get all three.

Glad someone agreed with me. All 3 are not mutually exclusive, but
you don't usually get something for nothing.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an accelerated course, except of course it will not expose you to a wide range of weather.

I guess that depends on where/when you do it. So far I have 9 hours
of actual....out of ~23 flight hours. We've had 20 degrees F with
icing, snow, wet snow, rain, and a 50 degree foggy day; as well as
clear and partly cloudy days.

My understanding is that PIC actually uses experienced instrument
pilots as instructors (but I could be wrong here). I know for a fact
that American Flyers is using timebuilders. I know some of their
instructors and I've flown in IMC with some of their graduates, and I
am NOT impressed and would not recommend the operation.

In my limited experience, I have found that many CFIs are timebuilders
in one form or other. Some are CFI'ing as an interim 'career' until
the airline job...some are working another job and CFIing to build
time to get an aviation job. I've met a newly minted CFII that seems
to know his stuff...and I've met an experienced CFII that I don't have
full confidence in.

I must admit I did go to American Flyers with some skepticism; that
was dealt with the first day when it was obvious these guys were
serious and knowledgeable. I fully planned to give it a day or two
and quit if it didnt pan out.

--Don

In my limited experience, I have found that many CFIs are
timebuilders
in one form or other. Some are CFI'ing as an interim 'career' until
the airline job...some are working another job and CFIing to build
time to get an aviation job.

And what they have in common is this - they're not experienced enough
to get an airline job. That means they're not experienced enough to
teach instruments either. What you want is the guy who IS experienced
enough to get an airline job. Of course that costs more.

I must admit I did go to American Flyers with some skepticism; that
was dealt with the first day when it was obvious these guys were
serious and knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, you're not going to know if these guys were really
knowledgeable until a couple of years after you get done. That's when
you'll be the guy who launches into the clag solo, in a single or light
twin, and actually goes places - while the rest of the airport wonders
how you can fly in that weather. That's what having good training buys
you.

Of course if you're the one on the ground, and other people are
launching into the clag - well, then you'll know something too.

Michael

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

In my mind, a big part of the question has to be whether you can link up
with a true CFII in your area. By this I don't mean a 500-hour graduate of
some ab-initio program, but someone with some serious time. A key question
to ask is whether they will take you up for training in actual conditions,
and what their comfort margins are. With 25 hours in, I was going up with
my CFII on days with 300-400' ceilings and 1mi vis. That's a good workout.

I know several good instructors in the CDW/TEB area. Choosing amongst them
is, in my opinion, down to a matter of style. But all have plenty of
experience teaching in actual and thousands of hours "in the system".

While this is not an accelerated program, you might be able to do something
of this sort anyway. You'd have to discuss it with the CFII of your
choice, of course, but with enough lead time they could probably block out
many hours for you each week for the time you'll need.

If you're interested in getting in contact these these instructors, contact
me privately.

- Andrew

Michael wrote:

Unfortunately, you're not going to know if these guys were really
knowledgeable until a couple of years after you get done.Â*Â*That'sÂ*when
you'll be the guy who launches into the clag solo, in a single or light
twin, and actually goes places - while the rest of the airport wonders
how you can fly in that weather.Â*Â*That'sÂ*whatÂ*havingÂ*goodÂ*trainingÂ* buys
you.


As someone else has suggested, a good idea is to ask the people doing as you
describe above. It's imperfect, as there's no guarantee that they *should*
be flying in that grin, but it's if you collect a variety of opinions
that would hopefully cancel out the noise.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
As someone else has suggested, a good idea is to ask the people doing
as you
describe above.

Yes. In my opinion, it's the ONLY really useful advice you can give
someone looking for training. By definition, if you need training, you
can't really evaluate the quality of the training you are getting with
regard to content.

It's imperfect, as there's no guarantee that they *should*
be flying in that grin

That kind of thing tends to be self-correcting. Or used to be. These
days, with modern two-axis autopilots coupled with moving map GPS, the
correction takes longer. But if you can find someone doing these
things, again and again, without all the bells and whistles, you can
pretty much guarantee that he can evaluate the quality of training.

In general, the very best advice you can give someone seeking training
is this - find someone who is making use of the training in the way you
would like to be able to do, and have him choose your instructor.

Michael

I used American Flyers after numerous cancellations from a private
instructor. Advantage of a school:
1. I was able to get a training session on short notice when my work
schedule permitted.
2. The short notice thing has a cost in that you don't always get the
same instructor, but the school has a standard syllabus that all
instructors use.
3. Most instructors were time-builders but attitudes and standards
were much more professional than the private instructors I've had.
4. AF's book isn't worth the money, but you have to buy it.
5. I've checked with them on recurrent training, and they seem to be
trying to find as many ways as possible of increasing my expense.
6. Overall, I felt that I received excellent and consistent training.