About Acellerated Courses for Private

The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is that
zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish that
the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.


Correct as stated, but it is not unreasonable to make statistical inferences.
For example, assuming any reasonable (such as gaussian) distribution of pilot
abilities at flight check time, a higher =average= pilot quality will translate
into more passes and fewer fails. Assuming a similar distribution among pilots
who take accelerated vs standard training, the set of pilots with the highest
level of fails is likely to have a lower mean than the set of pilots with the
lowest level of fails.

I do grant that (and this is what I think you are getting at) one can correctly
infer nothing about the shape of the pilot distribution from the pass/fail
ratio, and even that given a distribution (such as gaussian) one can correctly
infer nothing about the sharpness of the peak from the pass/fail ratio, nor
about the ability of any individual pilot from his pass/fail result. But that
is not necessary to address the underlying issue.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is
that
zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish
that
the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.


Correct as stated, but it is not unreasonable to make statistical
inferences.
For example, assuming any reasonable (such as gaussian) distribution
of pilot
abilities at flight check time, a higher =average= pilot quality will
translate
into more passes and fewer fails. Assuming a similar distribution
among pilots
who take accelerated vs standard training, the set of pilots with the
highest
level of fails is likely to have a lower mean than the set of pilots
with the
lowest level of fails.

I do grant that (and this is what I think you are getting at) one can
correctly
infer nothing about the shape of the pilot distribution from the
pass/fail
ratio, and even that given a distribution (such as gaussian) one can
correctly
infer nothing about the sharpness of the peak from the pass/fail
ratio, nor
about the ability of any individual pilot from his pass/fail result.
But that
is not necessary to address the underlying issue.

Jose

All this is applicable and pertinent to the overall pass/fail ratio it's
true.
It still remains however, that anytime a test is based on a minimum
standard and the examiner giving that test is lock in legally to pass
based only on that standard, although an overall higher quality of
training will effect the pass/fail ratio as that applies to total, you
are still left with the underlying issues of varying quality on the pass
side of the equation.
What I was finding in the pilots that I was testing was that accelerated
training was getting them through the test with no problem. In fact, you
can make an argument that supports an actual increase on the pass side
for accelerated training. This however, isn't the real issue.
The problem that I was finding was much more subtle than a pure
statistic would reveal. I was finding pilots coming through the
accelerated path who knew the answers mechanically, and could perform in
the airplane mechanically, which met the minimum test standards and made
them safe enough in the air.
I simply wasn't fining the comprehension levels in these pilots that I
was finding in other pilots coming through training paths that allowed a
more relaxed curriculum.
I believe the real issue with accelerated training isn't the pass/fail
ratio itself, but that a comprehension gap exists at the point of
testing (call it cram factor). This "cram factor" allows rote
performance that passes the test, and in almost all cases allows as well
that rote is sufficient to satisfy the flight safety issue. As
experience is gained, the comprehension factors increase until they
reach the normal level already existing in pilots who have not gone
through accelerated training.
In other words, both systems work. Accelerated training will get you to
the test and through it faster. but in my opinion, accelerated training
leaves a comprehension gap that could be a problem for some pilots as
experience past the test fills that gap. It's this "gap" in
comprehension that is the entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
presented it here.
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:

I believe the real issue with accelerated
training isn't the pass/fail ratio itself, but
that a comprehension gap exists at the point
of testing (call it cram factor).
[snip]
It's this "gap" in comprehension that is the
entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
presented it here.

How many pilots fly once- or twice-a-month after being licensed at one of those
accelerated courses? If they were too busy for traditional training, how much
time do they have to fly? How many fill in that "comprehension gap" you
describe? and how much of that rote knowledge that they crammed in 10 days do
they retain if they're only flying even 3x/month?

Rote answers don't, or shouldn't, get you through the test, unless the oral
exam is proportionate to the 10-day accelerated course--15 minutes long. A
competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine the
comprehension level behind them. Even with traditional training, it's difficult
to remember all the answers and explanations for every area and have full
comprehension of them, let alone being able to do so *WHILE* learning to fly,
putting those rote-learned procedures into actual practice, and filling all the
flight requirements **in 10 days**! Possible? apparently. Would you recommend
it to one of your family members? I wouldn't.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
How many pilots fly once- or twice-a-month after being licensed at one of
those
accelerated courses? If they were too busy for traditional training, how
much
time do they have to fly?

In my experience, the "10 day PPLs" didn't stop there, they go on to
accelerated Instrument, Multi, Commercial and CFII with their sights set on
United Airlines. I have been BFR'd by a couple of them and they made it
clear they were "Building time to get to the Captains seat".

Marty

"Marty" pyromarty wrote:

In my experience, the "10 day PPLs" didn't stop
there, they go on to accelerated Instrument, Multi,
Commercial and CFII with their sights set on
United Airlines. I have been BFR'd by a couple of
them and they made it clear they were "Building
time to get to the Captains seat".

Granted, in such a person, obviously that "comprehension gap" that the other
poster mentioned would hopefully close as they move on to each rating.

But I've heard more than one instructor say that's the part they cringe at --
people coming into it (traditional, not accelerated) wanting to race through
their PPL on their way to ATP, as if that's going to get them into the airlines
faster. I've been told, from someone who tried this, that they absolutely *do*
look to see what kind of training you had and that accelerated courses are
generally not looked upon with the same degree of consideration. Owner of one
of the flight schools recently was saying that he has found that the CFIs who
have clawed their way up and paid their dues to be the most competent and
successful, with those who have nothing but accelerated courses being viewed as
red flaggers who *generally* (not always) don't work out for one reason or
another in his experience. This may or may not be the case universally.

Unless you have the examiners and the people who do the hiring for the airlines
here to offer their firsthand input, it's all speculation/opinion/hearsay.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

I believe the real issue with accelerated
training isn't the pass/fail ratio itself, but
that a comprehension gap exists at the point
of testing (call it cram factor).
[snip]
It's this "gap" in comprehension that is the
entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
presented it here.

How many pilots fly once- or twice-a-month after being licensed at one
of those
accelerated courses? If they were too busy for traditional training,
how much
time do they have to fly? How many fill in that "comprehension gap"
you
describe? and how much of that rote knowledge that they crammed in 10
days do
they retain if they're only flying even 3x/month?

Rote answers don't, or shouldn't, get you through the test, unless the
oral
exam is proportionate to the 10-day accelerated course--15 minutes
long. A
competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine
the
comprehension level behind them. Even with traditional training, it's
difficult
to remember all the answers and explanations for every area and have
full
comprehension of them, let alone being able to do so *WHILE* learning
to fly,
putting those rote-learned procedures into actual practice, and
filling all the
flight requirements **in 10 days**! Possible? apparently. Would you
recommend
it to one of your family members? I wouldn't.

If you're getting from what I've been saying all through this thread
that I favor accelerated flight training, then I've truly found that
"comprehension gap" we've been discussing :-)
I absolutely do NOT favor accelerated training.

Your following comment,
" A competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine
the comprehension level behind them." is inconsistent with my
experience, and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal requirement to
pass or fail on a minimum standard demonstrated by the examinee.
This being said, there most surely are DE's out here who do as you
suggest, but they are in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for certification.
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:

Your following comment, "A competent,
conscientious examiner digs on rote answers
to determine the comprehension level behind
them." is inconsistent with my experience,
and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal
requirement to pass or fail on a minimum
standard demonstrated by the examinee.
This being said, there most surely are DE's
out here who do as you suggest, but they are
in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for
certification.

If a DE is not legally required to get anything beyond a rote answer from an
applicant: (a) why require an oral exam? If all that is required is an accurate
rote answer, the knowledge (written) test satisfies that; and (b) why would it
be necessary for someone with the qualifications of a *DE* conduct the oral
exam? Nearly ANYONE is capable of asking questions that merely require only a
rote answer. What would be the point of that kind of oral exam?

I understand what you're saying about meeting the "minimum standard" ... but
there's obviously some discretion and responsibility within the "standards"
framework given to the DE to satisfy him/herself that rote answers are backed
up with some degree of understanding to meet that standard.

That said, has an applicant ever failed an oral exam after giving the correct
rote answer if he couldn't explain it further if he were questioned in more
depth? Would this be legal? Sounds to me like you're saying (above) that in
your experience, examiners don't generally go beyond just hearing the "right"
answer.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Your following comment, "A competent,
conscientious examiner digs on rote answers
to determine the comprehension level behind
them." is inconsistent with my experience,
and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal
requirement to pass or fail on a minimum
standard demonstrated by the examinee.
This being said, there most surely are DE's
out here who do as you suggest, but they are
in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for
certification.

If a DE is not legally required to get anything beyond a rote answer
from an
applicant: (a) why require an oral exam? If all that is required is an
accurate
rote answer, the knowledge (written) test satisfies that; and (b) why
would it
be necessary for someone with the qualifications of a *DE* conduct the
oral
exam? Nearly ANYONE is capable of asking questions that merely require
only a
rote answer. What would be the point of that kind of oral exam?

I understand what you're saying about meeting the "minimum standard"
.... but
there's obviously some discretion and responsibility within the
"standards"
framework given to the DE to satisfy him/herself that rote answers are
backed
up with some degree of understanding to meet that standard.

That said, has an applicant ever failed an oral exam after giving the
correct
rote answer if he couldn't explain it further if he were questioned in
more
depth? Would this be legal? Sounds to me like you're saying (above)
that in
your experience, examiners don't generally go beyond just hearing the
"right"
answer.

You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.
What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with a
verbal answer to a question. Neither does it relate to what takes place
in the written exam. It has EVERYTHING to do with a mechanical recall
that allows an examinee to perform as requested by an examiner in the
air during a flight test without actually having as much comprehensive
understanding of what is being performed and why as could be the
situation if comprehension was causing the performance by the examinee.
It is the entire premise of this thread that an examinee can perform in
this manner and pass a flight test to a minimum standard.

May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a bit more
from the beginning .
Thank you.

Dudley Henriques wrote:



But doesn't this imply that the less comprehending pilots are less
safe?
And when does that become "not safe enough"?

- Andrew

No.

My question was whether or not less comprehending pilots are less safe.
You're answering "no" to that question?

You also wrote (on 12 July):

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!!!!

What was the purpose behind this remedial work if it didn't improve safety?

- Andrew

Dudley Henriques wrote:

The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is that
zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish that
the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.

Worse: it is a minimum standard sought at a single moment in time. There's
no guarantee that the same standard could be met by a pilot a day, a week,
or three weeks hence. That is, I believe, part of Jose's point/question.

- Andrew