About Acellerated Courses for Private

I've been reading these threads about extreme accelerated courses that
get you passed the written and through the check ride on these groups
now for six years. I've been involved in flight instruction for over
fifty years. I've seen a lot of pilots in that time; taught literally
hundreds, and , checked out many more in all kinds of airplanes . I have
no idea what the experience of other CFI's has been concerning this
issue, but I'm absolutely certain that the result of my personal
experience on this issue has been more than conclusive to me.
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.
But for the novice, entering into the initial learning curve with little
or no experience, the issue in my opinion takes on an entirely different
light.
Learning to fly an airplane PROPERLY, is a process that begins at point
A and never ends. This learning process goes on to infinity. The
licensing process is merely a designed spot along the learning curve
where demonstrated performance gains the person demonstrating a legal
recognition that a specific level has been achieved. Right here you have
a problem if you are attempting to view the entire process as a whole.
The system rewards demonstrated performance and rewards that
demonstrated performance, but REALITY dictates an ACTUAL level of
performance. Now, where does that leave us in discussing accelerated
courses for new pilots?
First of all, if the ACTUAL performance level can be consistently
matched with the DEMONSTRATED performance level at the time of testing,
we have no problem and the issue is moot, but I can tell you that from
my personal experience, viewing the accelerated course for the beginning
pilot, NOT the case at all!!
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!!!!
Now, is this indicative of the fact that I might be conservative in what
I expect from a new pilot I'm checking out in an airplane? It could be,
and I am indeed quite thorough in my checkout requirements, but this
really isn't the issue with me. It goes a bit deeper than that.
What I was finding in these pilots coming out of accelerated courses was
a common trait that deeply disturbed me...a common denominator.
A great many of these pilots could demonstrate on command, but when
taken deeper into the problem, had little ACTUAL understanding.
This, I believe is the crux of the issue on accelerated courses for
beginning pilots. Let's face it, the purpose of the course isn't to make
you into a safe pilot. It's to get you though the process safely in a
minimum amount of time. In other words, you are cramming what you need
to know in order to satisfy the legal requirement.
What ACTUALLY happens to you when taking these courses is that when you
finish, you can DEMONSTRATE what has to be demonstrated all right, and
at that point, if you are a normal person with normal intelligence and
abilities, you then go forth and BEGIN the catching up process that will
eventually lead you to the meeting between your ability to demonstrate
something and your understanding. Somewhere down that long unending
learning curve, your understanding catches up to you. THIS is the way
accelerated training works.
Is this a good way to do things in flying? Who knows! Most pilots who go
through these "courses" go on to catch up on the comprehension issues
and do just fine. Some don't! Some never make it to that all important
comprehension level that is so important to a SUSTAINED career as a
pilot....pleasure or professional.
My experience with pilots coming out of accelerated courses hasn't been
that good. In my opinion, the ability to demonstrate without complete
understanding is a real potential problem for a new pilot.
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 of the learning curve.
Now....what exactly constitutes the "normal process" in the flying
learning curve is another subject altogether :-))))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I agree completely.

Bob Gardner

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...

I've been reading these threads about extreme accelerated courses that
get you passed the written and through the check ride on these groups
now for six years. I've been involved in flight instruction for over
fifty years. I've seen a lot of pilots in that time; taught literally
hundreds, and , checked out many more in all kinds of airplanes . I have
no idea what the experience of other CFI's has been concerning this
issue, but I'm absolutely certain that the result of my personal
experience on this issue has been more than conclusive to me.
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.
But for the novice, entering into the initial learning curve with little
or no experience, the issue in my opinion takes on an entirely different
light.
Learning to fly an airplane PROPERLY, is a process that begins at point
A and never ends. This learning process goes on to infinity. The
licensing process is merely a designed spot along the learning curve
where demonstrated performance gains the person demonstrating a legal
recognition that a specific level has been achieved. Right here you have
a problem if you are attempting to view the entire process as a whole.
The system rewards demonstrated performance and rewards that
demonstrated performance, but REALITY dictates an ACTUAL level of
performance. Now, where does that leave us in discussing accelerated
courses for new pilots?
First of all, if the ACTUAL performance level can be consistently
matched with the DEMONSTRATED performance level at the time of testing,
we have no problem and the issue is moot, but I can tell you that from
my personal experience, viewing the accelerated course for the beginning
pilot, NOT the case at all!!
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!!!!
Now, is this indicative of the fact that I might be conservative in what
I expect from a new pilot I'm checking out in an airplane? It could be,
and I am indeed quite thorough in my checkout requirements, but this
really isn't the issue with me. It goes a bit deeper than that.
What I was finding in these pilots coming out of accelerated courses was
a common trait that deeply disturbed me...a common denominator.
A great many of these pilots could demonstrate on command, but when
taken deeper into the problem, had little ACTUAL understanding.
This, I believe is the crux of the issue on accelerated courses for
beginning pilots. Let's face it, the purpose of the course isn't to make
you into a safe pilot. It's to get you though the process safely in a
minimum amount of time. In other words, you are cramming what you need
to know in order to satisfy the legal requirement.
What ACTUALLY happens to you when taking these courses is that when you
finish, you can DEMONSTRATE what has to be demonstrated all right, and
at that point, if you are a normal person with normal intelligence and
abilities, you then go forth and BEGIN the catching up process that will
eventually lead you to the meeting between your ability to demonstrate
something and your understanding. Somewhere down that long unending
learning curve, your understanding catches up to you. THIS is the way
accelerated training works.
Is this a good way to do things in flying? Who knows! Most pilots who go
through these "courses" go on to catch up on the comprehension issues
and do just fine. Some don't! Some never make it to that all important
comprehension level that is so important to a SUSTAINED career as a
pilot....pleasure or professional.
My experience with pilots coming out of accelerated courses hasn't been
that good. In my opinion, the ability to demonstrate without complete
understanding is a real potential problem for a new pilot.
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 of the learning curve.
Now....what exactly constitutes the "normal process" in the flying
learning curve is another subject altogether :-))))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Learning to fly an airplane PROPERLY, is a process that begins at point
A and never ends. This learning process goes on to infinity. The
licensing process is merely a designed spot along the learning curve
where demonstrated performance gains the person demonstrating a legal
recognition that a specific level has been achieved.

Well said Dudley. Fortunately, many folks around here express an
understanding of "the license to learn". IMHO, a fundamental concept in
piloting. Now, if all CFIs and examiners could teach/test for this...we'd
be a much safer bunch.

Thanks again for sharing your insights/experience on the subject. Always
great reading.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

If the Air Force (which presumably knows something about flight training) or
Navy saw any benefit to accelerated training they would do it that way and
save a ton of money.

The Academy guys we get generally already have some experience in gliders.
USAF gives them 90 days and 50 hours to get their private pilot
certificate -- hardly an accelerated course for people willing to fly full
time and who already have valuable flying experience. USAF insists that
these pilots use the full 50 hours, too. If they have time left over, USAF
wants them using it to fly cross country.

These are pilots who are going directly into advanced training when they
finish with us. Now, if the United States Air Force wants private pilots to
have 50 hours before beginning advanced training and they want completely
trained private pilots, what does that have to say about taking some
'accelerated' course and trying to become a private pilot in 10 days? If the
military doesn't want you, who would?

I have never seen a pilot who got his license in 10 days or flown with one.
I am willing to bet that the Air Force has and they did not like what they
saw. I have no doubt that the military still has bad memories of April,
1917, when pilots were sent to the front with three hours training and the
average life expectancy of a pilot was only a few days.

The military does not do accelerated courses for advanced training or
instrument ratings, either. If anything, they spend more time and care on
these than conventional civilian courses. It would be nice, I suppose, to be
able to plug into the Matrix and download a type rating for the 747 and the
experience that goes along with it, but the real world does not work that
way.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
k.net...

I've been reading these threads about extreme accelerated courses that
get you passed the written snip

I sent my daughter to a two day Masterdrive course this weekend to start her
on learning to drive the family car. The result is only that I am not quite
so frightened in the right seat of our Nissan Pathfinder. Watching her learn
to drive does remind me of my first few instructional flights.

As usual, great post Dudley.

Michael

"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

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

snipped a bunch of good stuff...

My experience with pilots coming out of accelerated courses hasn't been
that good. In my opinion, the ability to demonstrate without complete
understanding is a real potential problem for a new pilot.
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 of the learning curve.
Now....what exactly constitutes the "normal process" in the flying
learning curve is another subject altogether :-))))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


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.
Rich Russell

I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated g

LOL.


--
Ritchard Findlay
Toronto, CANADA

(remove "nospam." to reply)


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

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:46:25 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

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.

This single factor you have stated here is the cornerstone of the
learning process as it relates to learning to fly. I can't stress enough
the importance I place on instructors COMPLETELY understanding this
single simple premise. Unfortunately, some do not!!
Learning to fly an airplane is a process that involves several very
different and distinct areas of involvement; the first is the constantly
changing dynamic that is occurring in real time as the student is in the
airplane with the instructor. Because of the constantly changing
dynamic, the rote function becomes predominant over the comprehension
requirement. The "on board" teaching scenario for a flight instructor is
a classroom in constant motion at speeds varying from the left side to
the right side of the flight envelope of the airplane; and all this
while moving constantly in in a 3 dimensional environment.
This scenario demands an ongoing, constantly changing physical
interaction with the aircraft by the student.......or by the instructor
if the student is too slow :-) Good instructors don't ride the controls
on their students, and this requires an elevated level of "teaching
ability" if this is to be achieved.
Teaching" in this environment will require the instructor to constantly
be ahead of the changing dynamic so that correct action can be taken by
the student AS IT'S REQUIRED!!! ANY CFI can take the controls and "do
it" for the student. The trick in good flight instruction is NOT for the
instructor to have to take the controls from the student. It's this
single factor of good flight instruction that sets up the conditions for
what we're discussing here; the period between lessons!!!!
If one stops to consider for even a moment or two, the optimum curve for
learning to fly an airplane properly, it becomes apparent that dealing
with understanding and comprehension should take place BEFORE the flight
in discussion with the student about what is about to happen in the
airplane, and AFTER the flight, again in discussion with the student
about what HAS happened during the lesson. The period in between lessons
therefore, becomes of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE in the learning process, as
it's HERE that the student puts together the understanding and
comprehension needed to complete the lessons learned. The actual time in
the aircraft itself is mostly a "show and do", which by it's very nature
is a rote lesson period.
The bottom line on this is that you actually learn to fly an airplane
both inside and outside the airplane. Those periods between flights are
where it really comes together for you, not usually in the airplane when
things are happening in that constantly changing scenario.
A "rushed through" program of any kind, although allowing one to parrot
the rote functions learned in the air, can deny those all important "in
between times" that is so critical to comprehension and understanding.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt