About Acellerated Courses for Private

LOL.


--
Ritchard Findlay
Toronto, CANADA

(remove "nospam." to reply)


"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
. ..
I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated g

Joe Johnson wrote:

I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated g


Proof of the premise.

He took an *acellerated* typeing course.

"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

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

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

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.

"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

"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

"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

"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