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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 07:54 PM |
instrument courses | Tony Woolner | Piloting | 0 | November 9th 03 12:31 AM |
instrument courses | ArtP | Piloting | 0 | November 8th 03 01:02 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 |