About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated g

Poor retired CFI.........no spell checker!!!! :-)))

DH

Todd Pattist wrote:

My view of accelerated training mirrrors Dudley's.

First, let me say that I have nothing but respect for both Dudley and
Todd - I rarely disagree with either of them (which, of course, means
that they're both right most of the time :-) ).

... I heard long ago that most of the students in the
AF Academy solo from ab initio in only 12 flights....
...Finally, they do a very rigorous intensive program aimed at
the solo with a very limited solo of around the pattern and
down.

I learned to fly gliders at the age of 16 at a soaring "camp" in
Franconia, NH, near Cannon Mountain. There were about 8 - 10 of us,
with three or four instructors. We each got ONE flight each day for 21
days (if we were very lucky, two, but that only happened a couple of
times) in the morning, before the tourists showed up for glider rides.
Each ride averaged about 10-20 minutes, depending upon tow altitude and
lift conditions.

I soloed on my 11th flight - I had 10 landings TOTAL before my solo.
Before anyone says "well, you must be above average in skills", there
were one or two out of the 10 folks that soloed on their 9th or 10th
flight, and the rest all soloed before their 15th flight. I hardly
think that ALL of us could have been above average in pure flying skill.

This type of instruction is what I would refer to as
"semi-accelerated" - one flight per day, but EVERY day.

I guess I just don't see why flight instruction is any different than
any other type of instruction. If someone want to learn to be a doctor
or a lawyer, they go to school all day, every day, and practice the crap
out of it. They don't go to one class per week, or maybe two, and think
that they're getting the same education. It's the same with sports -
intensive sports camps/training facilities produce much more highly
skilled athletes than those that practice on their own every once in a
while. 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.

Personally, I wouldn't have any reservations about doing the 7-10 day
IFR training (and might, in the near future), and if I had had the $$ to
do an intensive PP class back in 1974-1980 when I trained for my glider
and SEL ratings, I would have jumped at it.

I guess all the defense of the "traditional" system of flight training
just sounds like the classic "that's the way we've always done it around
here" defense, and that's rarely, if ever, a good reason to do anything.
Try to think out of the box, and compare flight training to every other
form of training out there. People learn best (and retain more, IF THEY
CONTINUE TO USE THE SKILLS) in an intensive environment. Flight
training, whether advanced or basic, is no different, IMO.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
.. .
"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 more with you than again' you on this one, Dudley. However, I had
the
same thought about accelerated courses for the IFR that I was once
considering until I researched the subject and was convinced
otherwise.

I wonder if I would again be swayed if I were to look into the
accelerated
Private programs? I doubt it. I don't see how anyone could gain the
experience they need within 40 to 50 hours and a few weeks. Some do,
of
course, but speaking as one who got their wings at about 70 hours, it
still
wasn't really enough. Had I known what I know now, I would have
stayed
under the tutelage of my CFI for a dozen or two more hours . . . Okay,
that's a damn lie. I wanted my wings just as bad as anyone else and
wanted
the NOW, by golly. I still coulda' used a few more hours, though.

I, Jim Fisher, Internationally Famous Former Airplane Owner, probably
would
have been one of those that "cracked" under your probing questions and
you
would have equated my knowledge with the Accelerated dudes. We will
never
know, I guess.

What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here
in the
group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really
doesn't
mean squat. Just because you've had a few students from Accelerated
Courses
("AC") who didn't quite meet your standards doesn't mean most, some,
all or
none of them will not. Your experience is not anywhere close to a
scientific sampling.

All that said, perhaps you've illuminated a problem that does not rest
with
the AC courses but with the Private Pilot written and checkride.

Many CFIs here in the group have stated over and over again "Don't
worry
about the checkride or your written grade. What matters is that you
passed." But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according
to
you, Dudley.

So, either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of
"pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test and
Ride
are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to
the
drawing board.

It can't be either, can it?

--
Jim Fisher

There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.

I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
personal stuff and assumptions please.

Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
mean squat"....... and simply ask logical, pertinent questions if
that's at all possible. I'll be glad to discuss the issue with you.
Appreciate it! :-)
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Joe Johnson wrote:

I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated g


Proof of the premise.

He took an *acellerated* typeing course.

Jim Fisher wrote:


Many CFIs here in the group have stated over and over again "Don't worry
about the checkride or your written grade. What matters is that you
passed." But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley.

So, either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test and Ride
are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
drawing board.

It can't be either, can it?

Dudley has some good opinions, but he also has a tendency to draw
conclusions from limited data and then assume them to be true.
Unfortunately, most people untrained in statistics are guilty of this type
of error in one form or another.

What he didn't write - and may not even have considered - is how many pilots
out of a unaccelerated program would pass his test. He'd not be the only
one here to point out the flaws in much flight training.

Lack of depth of understanding is something I find all too frequency, in
many different areas. Yes, I believe that a rushed education is biased
towards this. However, I've seen plenty of people with conventional
educations in a subject that still lack real depth.

On that theme, I have to admit that I'm towards the "test & checkride is a
joke" side of your argument. It is too easy for someone that I'd not want
to see flying to pass. The two sets of aviation tests I've taken - IR and
PPL - tested some, but not all, of what was required.

During my PPL, for example, the DE asked some question about flying into
weather where the obvious answer was "don't go". Asking that question is
fine, in that it would be Very Bad if a pilot didn't know the answer. But
having the candidate state "I'd not go" on a test is quite different from
seeing how he or she would react in the get-there-itis world.

No, the checkride isn't really a joke per se. But it does leave untested
too much of what I think a pilot needs to carry. Having said that, though,
I don't know how so short a test can test for handling pressure, judgement,
and such.

Someone on this thread mentioned physicians. One difference - among many -
is that a physician operates (pun mostly unintended {8^) under supervision
for an extensive period of time. In the case of a checkride, it's one test
and then *zoom*.

I'd opine that the CFI's role should be more than just instructor. A CFI
should act as a filter for those characteristics different to spot in a
single test. Someone that is too willing to fly beyond his or her envelope
should, in my perfect world, never be sent to a DE.

But, real world, I doubt that many are willing to do this. I'd guess that
the more exprienced CFIs - those that recognize the cost of failing to
filter in this way - do. But the time-builders have their attention
elsewhere too often, I believe.

Back to Dudley's message, and your question about flight tests: This depth
of which he speaks is *not* one of these difficult-to-test qualities. I
specifically recall the weather part of my IR oral, as it was a very
in-depth conversation (and damned interesting!). If a pilot cannot discuss
a required topic in depth, the DE should catch this.

Someone used the phrase "Santa Claus DE" here recently. I hate to think
that these exist...but perhaps they do.

- Andrew

Hi Mark;
See my inserts please;


"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
news:waDIc.59547$JR4.1000@attbi_s54...
Todd Pattist wrote:

My view of accelerated training mirrrors Dudley's.

First, let me say that I have nothing but respect for both Dudley and
Todd - I rarely disagree with either of them (which, of course, means
that they're both right most of the time :-) ).

Thank you, but my wife is beginning to doubt your sanity already!!
:-))


... I heard long ago that most of the students in the
AF Academy solo from ab initio in only 12 flights....
...Finally, they do a very rigorous intensive program aimed at
the solo with a very limited solo of around the pattern and
down.

I learned to fly gliders at the age of 16 at a soaring "camp" in
Franconia, NH, near Cannon Mountain. There were about 8 - 10 of us,
with three or four instructors. We each got ONE flight each day for
21
days (if we were very lucky, two, but that only happened a couple of
times) in the morning, before the tourists showed up for glider rides.
Each ride averaged about 10-20 minutes, depending upon tow altitude
and
lift conditions.

I soloed on my 11th flight - I had 10 landings TOTAL before my solo.
Before anyone says "well, you must be above average in skills", there
were one or two out of the 10 folks that soloed on their 9th or 10th
flight, and the rest all soloed before their 15th flight. I hardly
think that ALL of us could have been above average in pure flying
skill.

This type of instruction is what I would refer to as
"semi-accelerated" - one flight per day, but EVERY day.

It's important you put what we're discussing here in the right context.
It's very easy to misinterpret the issue if one isn't extremely careful.
No one is saying, or even implying that this scenario can't be done. It
indeed can be done, and is done all the time.

The issue context in your specific scenario simply would be stating that
at the point of your solo in that glider, you were at a level where you
could demonstrate performance, but not necessarily at a corresponding
level of comprehension that you might have had had you been exposed for
a longer period. You were safe enough. What I've been saying is that
given a different learning situation, where periods of time were allowed
between flight lessons, you would simply have had a much higher level of
comprehension.
You can fly either way. Rote will allow you to handle the glider.
Comprehension allows you to handle it better...that's all! In your case,
as in the case of thousands of people exposed to accellerated training,
the comprehension usually follows and cathes up at a later time. It's
just not the optimum way to learn to fly. There are dangers in not
having a certain level of comprehension.
Bottom line; acellerated training will work. A bit slower training with
time to absorb and comprehend is better.

I guess I just don't see why flight instruction is any different than
any other type of instruction. If someone want to learn to be a
doctor
or a lawyer, they go to school all day, every day, and practice the
crap
out of it. They don't go to one class per week, or maybe two, and
think
that they're getting the same education. It's the same with sports -
intensive sports camps/training facilities produce much more highly
skilled athletes than those that practice on their own every once in a
while. 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.

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.


Personally, I wouldn't have any reservations about doing the 7-10 day
IFR training (and might, in the near future), and if I had had the $$
to
do an intensive PP class back in 1974-1980 when I trained for my
glider
and SEL ratings, I would have jumped at it.

Again, we're not discussing advanced acellerated training; only
beginning training from Student through Private Pilot.

I guess all the defense of the "traditional" system of flight training
just sounds like the classic "that's the way we've always done it
around
here" defense, and that's rarely, if ever, a good reason to do
anything.

Try to think out of the box, and compare flight training to every
other
form of training out there.

Flight training, or any type of training that occurs in a dynamic
environment that can kill you is NOT like any form of training out
there!!


People learn best (and retain more, IF THEY
CONTINUE TO USE THE SKILLS) in an intensive environment.

People RETAIN best in a non intensive environment. They then must
continue to use the skills they have LEARNED in an intensive
environment.

Flight
training, whether advanced or basic, is no different, IMO.

Advanced flight training is VERY different from basic flight training.
The difference is in the experience level insertion point. Advanced
training can be accelerated because it assumes a certain level of
performance. That level of performance is totally absent in basic flight
training. It's the development of the basic skills required for advanced
flight training that makes basic flight training in my opinion, MUCH
more time consuming than the advanced format.
In other words, when a new pilot arrives to fly a position on the
Thunderbirds, he DAMN well better already know one hell of a lot about
close formation flying!!! :-))

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

"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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.

Naw, not really. Your stance on accelerated anything is about as
supportable and demonstrable as my stance on high versus low wing.

I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
personal stuff and assumptions please.

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.

Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
mean squat".......

I was never in the military so pulling rank won't get anything but a smirk
on a good day and a big, hairy moon on a bad one.

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.

I am of the opinion that accelerated courses, when done properly, have merit
and can produce good results. That opinion is supported by the successful
accelerated IFR programs. I don't know (and neither do you) if that is the
case with Private programs.

--
Jim Fisher

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Dudley has some good opinions, but he also has a tendency to draw
conclusions from limited data and then assume them to be true.

You obviously don't know me :-)

There are no conclusions here; just a fairly high experience level
coupled with a simple opinion based on that experience. That's why I
wrote,

"Is this a good way to do things in flying? Who knows!"

Are you telling me that fifty years of checking pilots out in all kinds
of airplanes; pilots who have come to me from all forms of prior
training are nothing but "limited data?" I don't think so! :-)

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

Richard Russell wrote in message . ..

As always, an excellent analysis. I'm a low-time (100 hour) pilot and
I remember my training very well. I did over a 6 month period, flying
twice a week. I have no problem remembering how important the days
were between my lessons. That time was invaluable to the process,
allowing me to evaluate what I had done and mentally practice and
prepare to do better the next time. I truly believe that this kind of
learning must be digested, and that takes time. I also cannot imagine
getting my license after only experiencing ten days of weather, rather
than the change of several seasons. Actually, I'm amazed that they
let me fly at all! Even with my big, bad 100 hours I feel like I'm
taking my first lesson every time I get in the plane. Good luck to
the ten-day wonders.

I agree 100% with Richard here. Because one of the first things I
discovered when I took my first flight in the left seat that my
natural flying aptitude isn't quite up to the level of my enthusiasm,
I am able to get more out of each flight with a few days between
lessons.

Euan - 1.7 hours.