A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

About Acellerated Courses for Private



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 13th 04, 04:16 AM
Gene Whitt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Y'All,
I held off longer than I thought I would before jumping into the pool. I
once taught a student in 31 days to his PP rating. Acelerated? No! He had
money, time and motivation. I had time. We flew twice a day, three times a
week for four weeks. He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without have to make a
cross wind landing. We went up immediately after the failure and he passed
the next day. Two weeks later he added his heliocopter rating.

I do not teach to private pilot standards of the PTS because they are
minimums. In fact all FAA requirements and standards are minimums and that
is not the way any CFI should teach. Prior to the FAA requiring three hours
night experience, etc. I taught my students over ten hours and never
counted landings or distance.
I took them on a night flight S.F. Bay tourl as well as a multiple airport
flight into the foot hills of the Sierras. Even now I take my students into
ten different airports to get their 50 mile distance and ten landings The
FAA minimums for night are minimums.

I have always taught my students SVFR procedues and allowed them to fly SVFR
until the FAA stepped in and said no student SVFR. I have lost count of the
number of pilots I have introduced to the desirablity of being capable of
SVFR flight. SVFR is not something you want to happen for the first time to
you without any training or experience. Again, the FAA minimums for SVFR
are non-existent from the flight program.

The above instructional areas can not take place in an accelerated program.
My student do not solo in less than 20 hours. In those hours they have
learned all procedures for arrival and departure procedures at airports in
four different quadrants from the home field. Prior to 9/11 my students had
usually spent two hours at a radar facility and another two hours at a
Flilght Service Station and every third flight included a tower visit. The
greatest single problem my students have is when ATC expects their procedure
skills to equal their raidio skills. Student flying is not any safer since
9/11 in my opinion.

Finally, I am with Dudley 100%
Gene Whitt

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

"m pautz" wrote in message
news:HhDIc.62946$a24.45427@attbi_s03...

Joe Johnson wrote:

I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated g


Proof of the premise.

He took an *acellerated* typeing course.


typeing??? :-))))

DH




  #22  
Old July 13th 04, 01:34 PM
Barry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without have
to make a cross wind landing.


§61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

(a) General. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless
that student has met the requirements of this section.

(c) Pre-solo flight training. Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student
pilot must have:

(1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of
this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be
flown; and

(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an
authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this
section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of
aircraft to be flown.

(d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine
airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine
airplane rating must receive and log flight training for the following
maneuvers and procedures:

(3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and CROSSWIND


  #23  
Old July 13th 04, 01:41 PM
Barry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without
have to make a cross wind landing.


Note that FAR 61.87(d)(3) requires demonstrated proficiency in
crosswind landings before a student may solo.




  #24  
Old July 13th 04, 02:48 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

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!!!!


But you've checked out students who were taught in the traditional
method who required absolutely no remedial work what so ever? Not
even a little bit?

My take? I think accelerated courses may work for some people. My
wife is a teacher of learning disabled kids. She's studied teaching
methods and learning diabilities for much of her long teaching career.
Learning is a very complicated subject and one of the big difficulties
with teaching is that kids (and adults) learn at different rates.
Some pickup information almost instantly and retain it like they have
computers for brains. Others have to read and re-read or have it read
to them and then have it explained again and still don't get it. If
you try to teach everyone with one same method, the quick learners are
bored to distraction and the slow learners don't get it.

I think it's possible that those who learn fast and retain information
well could benefit from accelerated courses like you mention. Of
course, understanding something and translating that to coordinated
movement is different.

So practicing is important and the more you practice the better you
get. It would follow that a LOT of practice is better than a little
practice. Who does not benefit from practicing landings over and over
again? Most eventually get it, but not without practice, and
continued practice is what keeps the skill level high.

So I'm inclined to think that there's something to these accelerated
courses. They aren't for everyone of course, but they'd work for fast
learners I think.

Corky Scott


  #25  
Old July 13th 04, 04:11 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dudley Henriques wrote:

No one would suggest that college should be an 10 year rather
than 4 year ordeal to allow folks to "absorb and digest" the
material -
that's why you study in the evenings.


Well, this is just a single data point...

I did my undergrad the usual way. I did my graduate work at night, while
working. I believe that this helped me get a *lot* more out of the
graduate work.

Related variables, though, include that I could often use what I'd learned
in the evenings at work during the day (even if abstractly). More, I could
see opportunities in the real world where what I'd be learning applied.

Hmm...I'd not considered it this way, but this experience might explain why
I've taken written tests towards the end of my training, rather than early.
I note that many take the written exams early to get past them, but I took
both PPL and IR writtens relatively shortly before my checkrides. I found
the tests pretty easy, as a result, as much of the material was part of a
consistent fabric of knowledge and experience.

Still, this is just me. Others may operate differently.

Another difference between college and flight training is that college
typically involved a fairly diverse course load. That is, one isn't taking
one course for 40 hours, but 4 or 5 or 6 different course concurrently.
Perhaps we should have an accelerated program which combines aviation,
SCUBA, A&P, and whatever else that interests me (or others, I suppose {8^).

- Andrew

  #26  
Old July 13th 04, 04:26 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash courses
for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall abilities of
pilots who had gone through a normal process


I'm not a CFI so I don't really know what I am talking about but this is
usenet so here goes anyway(!!!)...It is my impression that, right or wrong,
most students are trained to proficiency in each task and then they are
moved on to the next task. When they have adequate proficiency to pass the
checkride they are signed off to take it. Most students (guessing here
again) are mature enough to recognize their limitations and use their PP
certificate to expand their capabilities and continue to expand their
knowledge as well so the fact that they are not meteorologists or FAR
lawyers doesn't put them at undue risk.

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Mike
MU-2


  #27  
Old July 13th 04, 04:46 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash

courses
for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall

abilities of
pilots who had gone through a normal process


I'm not a CFI so I don't really know what I am talking about but this

is
usenet so here goes anyway(!!!)...It is my impression that, right or

wrong,
most students are trained to proficiency in each task and then they

are
moved on to the next task. When they have adequate proficiency to

pass the
checkride they are signed off to take it. Most students (guessing

here
again) are mature enough to recognize their limitations and use their

PP
certificate to expand their capabilities and continue to expand their
knowledge as well so the fact that they are not meteorologists or FAR
lawyers doesn't put them at undue risk.

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Mike
MU-2


Both will do the job; there's no question about that. You can rote a
pilot right through a program and 9 times out of 10, the comprehension
will catch up through a natural evolutional process as comprehension is
gained through experience .
The only issue I see with the accelerated program (only at the basic
level) is that I believe it's not the optimum method to use to learn to
fly. There are better ways available.....not faster....but better!!
There is a danger area there for a pilot who knows the answers to the
questions without fully understanding the questions themselves. This
danger area will naturally decrease as experience is gained, but it's
still there and could be a safety factor. What happens in the ideal
situation is that the pilot self motivates toward the comprehension
needed. But sometimes this doesn't happen, and the pilot enters into a
flying situation without that motivation toward self learning the much
needed comprehension.
Bottom line for me at least is this;
The accelerated program at the basic level can do the job, but doing the
job more slowly, allowing the comprehension to advance parallel with the
performance, is a better method for turning out a more finished and more
safe pilot exiting the flight test and entering the self educating phase
of a pilot's career.
Keep in mind, that these comments are only my opinion based on personal
experience. Whether or not they can be proven right or wrong is
statistical analysis, and that's another matter entirely.

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


  #28  
Old July 13th 04, 04:51 PM
Paul Sengupta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
I heard long ago that most of the students in the
AF Academy solo from ab initio in only 12 flights. I was
astounded, and to most glider pilots and glider instructors,
it seems almost unbelievable.


There was a programme on TV here in the UK about army training
of helicopter pilots at Middle Wallop. The students started flying in
fixed wing planes (Chipmunks). They started circuit bashing immediately.
They had to solo in 5 hours. If they didn't, they were "on report" and had
another 2 hours to try to solo. If they didn't achieve this, they were out.
If they took more than 5, it was a mark against them and they had to
redeem themselves over the next x number of hours.

Paul


  #29  
Old July 13th 04, 05:03 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


Read it again, Dudley. There was no "veiled" anything in my post.

Anything
"personal" was interpreted that way by you and not typed that way by

me.
You've gone off the deep end misinterpreting posts before here in

these
groups. You've done it again with mine.


Nonesense! Your post reads like the script from the Shining!! :-)))
It's no big deal Jim, and I think it's quite humorous really, but if any
re-reading should be done, you do it. You start out neutral enough with
your answer, but in the middle for some ungodly reason, you must
suddenly remember that you don't REALLY like my deodorant or something,
because you change from the issue over to me and get nastier and nastier
until at the last sentence, I get a picture of you coming through the
door with an ax holler'in "Here's Jimieeeeee" !!!!" :-)))))))
As I said JF, no big deal at all, and you're right. I do get testy with
posts that change the subject from the issue to the messenger. No need
for that. If you simply stay on the issue and away from the personal
stuff, no one should have a problem with me.
Nuff said I hope! :-)

You were wrong on the acellerated IFR subject and you might be (but

probably
are not) wrong about this acellerated Private thing. Until somebody

pipes
up with some quantifyable data, you're opinion means squat. Sad but

true.

About your reference to IFR accelerated training and my opinion on it; I
seem to remember on another thread about accelerated courses, some
thread creep as people posted on down the line. If my comments on that
thread led you to believe that I was opposed specifically to FIR
accelerated training, either I miss-spoke or you read something I didn't
mean to convey.
Anyway, if you go back and read my initial comments in THIS thread, you
will note the following statement by me dealing directly with this
subject;

"I should state that I consider the subject of accelerated courses for
advanced tests and ratings such as multi, instrument, and ATP to be a
separate issue. In my opinion, an argument can be made for accelerated
courses dealing with higher ratings and written test prep when the
insertion point for these programs assumes a certain existing level of
experience and demonstrated performance".

I hope this clears up your "misunderstanding" on the IFR issue at least!
:-)

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


  #30  
Old July 13th 04, 05:11 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Andrew;

No wonder Usenet is so confusing for older people like me !!! :-)))

The quote you have for me here isn't mine . It's Marc's.
I'm sitting here reading this post thinking , "When the living hell did
I say THAT!!!!!!!?"
:-)
Dudley



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

No one would suggest that college should be an 10 year rather
than 4 year ordeal to allow folks to "absorb and digest" the
material -
that's why you study in the evenings.


Well, this is just a single data point...

I did my undergrad the usual way. I did my graduate work at night,

while
working. I believe that this helped me get a *lot* more out of the
graduate work.

Related variables, though, include that I could often use what I'd

learned
in the evenings at work during the day (even if abstractly). More, I

could
see opportunities in the real world where what I'd be learning

applied.

Hmm...I'd not considered it this way, but this experience might

explain why
I've taken written tests towards the end of my training, rather than

early.
I note that many take the written exams early to get past them, but I

took
both PPL and IR writtens relatively shortly before my checkrides. I

found
the tests pretty easy, as a result, as much of the material was part

of a
consistent fabric of knowledge and experience.

Still, this is just me. Others may operate differently.

Another difference between college and flight training is that college
typically involved a fairly diverse course load. That is, one isn't

taking
one course for 40 hours, but 4 or 5 or 6 different course

concurrently.
Perhaps we should have an accelerated program which combines aviation,
SCUBA, A&P, and whatever else that interests me (or others, I suppose

{8^).

- Andrew



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pilot Courses John Stevens Piloting 1 April 30th 04 09:11 PM
Best GA Pilot Continuing Education Courses O. Sami Saydjari Instrument Flight Rules 7 January 2nd 04 08:54 PM
instrument courses Tony Woolner Piloting 0 November 9th 03 01:31 AM
instrument courses ArtP Piloting 0 November 8th 03 02:02 PM
Wanted: Experienced CFIIs to Teach 10-day IFR Rating Courses near Pittsburgh Richard Kaplan Instrument Flight Rules 2 October 1st 03 01:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.