About Acellerated Courses for Private

In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high.


There are two ways to read this.

1: You should always strive to be better.

2: You always should not fly unless you are better.

I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems to be
proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are not safe
enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after all a
license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough to fly (2)
but not safe enough to stop learning (1).

Jose




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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high.


There are two ways to read this.

1: You should always strive to be better.

2: You always should not fly unless you are better.

I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems
to be
proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are
not safe
enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after
all a
license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough
to fly (2)
but not safe enough to stop learning (1).

Jose

I see it this way.
You can pass the test with varying degrees of competence as long as all
of those degrees of competence are above the minimum test standard. Any
of these varying degrees can be correctly stated as being safe enough to
fly. Some pilots going through the test process will naturally be better
than others. Are they more safe? Probably.....at least I think so
anyway. It's all a study in relativity. There are no absolutes in this
equation; no single identifiable level of competence. The only common
denominator in the equation is the minimum test standard having been met
at a specific point in time.
For my purposes as a check pilot, I can have two pilots to check out who
have come through the system using varying methods. Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check
pilot.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check
pilot.


.... and that's the way it should be.

Jose



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

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their
check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good
check
pilot.


... and that's the way it should be.

Jose

To review your initial post to me about the comparison between
accelerated and conventional training methods, I can only restate the
gist of the initial comments I made on this subject in my first post.
I have long believed that accelerated training at the Private level is
not the optimum method to use in learning to fly. I base this on my
experience as a check pilot dealing with the various training systems in
use.

My opinion of the optimum method of training at the Private level is a
training program that allows a period of time for reflection and review
between actual time spent in the cockpit. This period doesn't have to be
prolonged, but it has to be PRESENT. In other words, an accelerated
program that included this factor would satisfy my requirement for
optimum.

An accelerated program that concentrates heavily on cockpit time at the
expense of time between lessons for review and reflection in my opinion
is not an optimum training method and I would never recommend it.
You can flight test both methods and get a safe result, but in my
opinion you get a BETTER level of comprehension at the flight test by
NOT using a training method that denies review and reflection between
flights.

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:

[...]
Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial work. I
did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots need
remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the level
of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training
methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else.

Okay. As long as you're using "insufficient" to mean "not sufficient", I
understand. I even understand that the benchmark against which you're
measuring is your own and not the PTS. This is what I thought you were
claiming at first, before all the confusion about whether questions were
being asked and answered or how "insufficient" was defined were raised.

But this takes us right back to my original question about your opinion. If
you've a definition of "sufficient" for a private pilot that is higher than
the PTS, what does this say about the PTS? Or if this is not a matter so
much of the PTS, but of how exams are given...or how DEs "drill" down into
comprehension...

My question really is: is there a flaw in the testing system?

One could argue that your standards are higher than those of the PPL
checkride, and that doesn't by itself denigrate the PPL checkride.
However, you obviously think pilots should have that additional
comprehension.

Does that comprehension (or lack thereof) reflect upon a pilot's safety?
And, if so, why are we accepting the lower standard?

After all, we're not speaking of having more knowledge, or having
more/better skills. We do need to leave room for the Commercial and ATP,
after all laugh.

But is it so unreasonable to require that pilots understand the knowledge
that's already required of them?

- Andrew

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.

Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several different ways
to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I suspect I
see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a
safe pilot.

You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I don't
believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure about
death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something towards
which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.

Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on a
different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being flying.
We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of flight.

That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to maximize
safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.

If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require that
comprehension from pilots? I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that this
knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and comprehensively
understood.

If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited time
involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based upon
Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.

- Andrew

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

[...]
Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial
work. I
did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots
need
remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the
level
of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training
methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else.

Okay. As long as you're using "insufficient" to mean "not
sufficient", I
understand. I even understand that the benchmark against which you're
measuring is your own and not the PTS. This is what I thought you
were
claiming at first, before all the confusion about whether questions
were
being asked and answered or how "insufficient" was defined were
raised.

Unfortunately on Usenet, this happens quite often. It usually results in
a huge thread creep which is what has happened with this thread.


But this takes us right back to my original question about your
opinion. If
you've a definition of "sufficient" for a private pilot that is higher
than
the PTS, what does this say about the PTS? Or if this is not a matter
so
much of the PTS, but of how exams are given...or how DEs "drill" down
into
comprehension...

My question really is: is there a flaw in the testing system?

There are many flaws in the system, but someone somewhere with
competence had to come up with a test standard they considered to be
safe for certification. This is exactly what they did. The PTS is the
result of this competent opinion. How this standard relates to an
overall competency level at the passing point of the flight test is up
for grabs really, as I have stated before many times. There are huge
variances present in the equation. What the student actually brings into
and takes out of the training program; the caliber of the instructors;
the caliber of the examiner; There are many factors that will determine
an overall compentency level. The main thing is that the basic test
standard be a safe standard, and I believe that through time, this has
been proven to be the fact. But this by no means should be construed to
define that all pilots passing through the test standard pass with the
same degree of competence. I think we can assume that all things
considered, all who pass are safe.
The way I view the PTS; it represents a BEGINNING point where a new
pilot has shown competent authority that he/she is safe enough to be
allowed certain privileges while continuing forward with the absolutely
necessary education and practical experience that will insure a state of
CONTINUED safety as that pilot travels through their tenure in aviation.
Where that pilot is existing on the safe side of the comprehension scale
exiting the flight test can only be determined by a highly experienced
check pilot trained in probing for a maximum competency level not tied
to any pre-determined test standard. The actual determination of this
maximum competency level is in actuality the individual opinion of that
specific check pilot.



One could argue that your standards are higher than those of the PPL
checkride, and that doesn't by itself denigrate the PPL checkride.
However, you obviously think pilots should have that additional
comprehension.

You are absolutely correct on all counts here.

Does that comprehension (or lack thereof) reflect upon a pilot's
safety?
And, if so, why are we accepting the lower standard?

No to the first question, as I have again stated in this post.
The test standard, as I have also stated , is considered a safe standard
as the starting point toward further education and experience to
maintain that safe level.

After all, we're not speaking of having more knowledge, or having
more/better skills. We do need to leave room for the Commercial and
ATP,
after all laugh.

The Commercial TS is simply one more means of demonstrating to competent
authority that the ever present necessary education and experience path
is being followed.

But is it so unreasonable to require that pilots understand the
knowledge
that's already required of them?

I basically understand Fermat's last theorem............but I'm still
working on it!!!!! :-)))))

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

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

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension
yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I
probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.

Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several
different ways
to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I
suspect I
see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face
of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adequate to produce
a
safe pilot.

It is adequate to produce a safe pilot. If the Private minimums were
higher, you might just as well get the Commercial :-)

You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I
don't
believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure
about
death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something
towards
which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.

I can't figure out where you're getting this from. The only "absolute" I
recognize as that word pertains to flight safety is that if a pilot can
meet the "absolute" test standard in the PTS, that pilot can be
considered safe. Absolute in this case simply means the pre-determined
test standard for establishing a demonstration of safe procedures.
After the test has been passed, safety in an airplane is a completely
relative term. It relates directly to continued education and currency
that translates into a continuing gaining of experience that insures a
safe standard will be maintained. Take anything out of this equation and
safety can become an issue fairly fast.


Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on
a
different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being
flying.
We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of
flight.

This is a REAL stretch of how a pilot should be viewing flight safety,
and completely in opposition to anything I have ever taught to pilots
about flight safety. You are taking the obvious, which is that flying by
definition might be an unsafe endeavor and we as pilots accept that when
we choose to fly.....and projecting that into the context of how a pilot
has to view flight safety. This is totally out of line with my thinking
on this subject.
Don't EVER take up low altitude aerobatic demonstration flying with this
attitude or you will be dead in fifteen seconds or less.
If you said this to me during a check flight, I would send you back for
"remedial work"
:-)


That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to
maximize
safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.

If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require
that
comprehension from pilots?

We DO require that comprehension. We just don't require it all at once
at flight test time.
All we require at the test is a demonstrated POINT that defines enough
comprehension for certain privileges to be put on a piece of paper. If
you've heard in once, you've heard it a thousand times from almost every
competent pilot you'll meet in aviation. "The certificate is nothing but
a license to learn".
All flying really is, is an honor system. There is no top end to
competence or comprehension. It's a never ending process. You can
demonstrate continued competence at higher levels if you like. All THAT
does is confirm that you have made the right choices and continued this
never-ending process of learning and gaining experience. Interestingly
enough you can also take no active steps to gain better comprehension
and competency.
Fortunately, just gaining experience alone without this active
involvement will in most cases add up to some increased level of
competence and comprehension.
It's all up to the individual pilot which path to take, but one way or
the other, flying safely demands a constant maintaining of at least the
competency you had exiting the flight test.




I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that
this
knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and
comprehensively
understood.

Remember Andrew, the flight test is only a demonstrated safe competency
level that assumes you will go on gaining what you need to know continue
to be safe over time. Actually, I can think of no greater example of
allocating personal responsibility than when a DE signs you off as a
Private Pilot. The DE is literally entrusting you to continue your
learning process after the door closes behind you and you have left the
examiner's office.


If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited
time
involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based
upon
Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.

There are some bad DE's. Most fortunately are quite good.
The system isn't perfect but it works!

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