Recommendations for accelerated instrument training NYC area

On 3/1/05 6:35 PM, Michael R wrote the following:
As long as you don't mind using old versions. The instrument practical test
standards changed a few months back.

Small changes and only to the PTS AFAIK. I'll bet there haven't been
significant changes to the Sporty's and King courses in several years, maybe
longer. Producing that stuff is just too expensive to be re-doing it everytime
there is a NOTAM.

For the drilling the actual test, faatest.com stays very current and I have
found it to be a good cheap tool. Got 100% on my written.


"Mitty" wrote in message
...

BTW, Did you count the usual $300-500 in test prep material in your
$7000??? AF has their own...see if you can preview it first tho...I
think Sportys would be better...

No reason to spend anywhere near that kind of money. The Sporty's and
King DvD courses are routinely available on eBay for 60-90% of their new
price...

wrote:

Well, it may be a great experience. And it may be worth the money.

We are not looking for a quick and cheap way to get our instrument
rating. Our goal is to find an effective way to get the rating and the
real experience. I have known few instrument-rated pilots who were
never trained in real IMC.
My husband started his training about a year ago with a local
intructor the slow way - about one lesson a week with breaks in between
due to vacations, weather etc. His progress was very slow, one step
forward then half a step back! We will most likely spend more money on
a cross-country training trip like the DSFI's East Coast trip or
Morey's West Coast trip than with local training. I believe that
either one will prepare us well for our plan of extending our trips
further out West.
Hai Longworth

,

You may want to check out the East Coast IFR experience, 6-days of
intensive training for $6000
http://www.dsflight.com/eastcoast-ifr.html
We are both IFR students and are thinking of taking the course soon.


How will that 6000-$/15-hour-experience help him get his IR for 7000 $?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

,

We are not looking for a quick and cheap way to get our instrument
rating.

Which is all well - but the OP did ;-)

Morey's West Coast trip


That, IIRC, DOES end with getting the rating - very much different from
the East Coast thing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 1 Mar 2005 17:32:19 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

Our local FBO charges $25/hr for the simulator, which is typical. So
let's knock off $500 from the $4000 charge. At $33/hr, we're looking
at paying for 100+ hours of dual before we hit $3500, and we haven't
even started on the accomodations or travel costs.


Well, this analysis (?) overlooks a key point. The total aircraft
costs, a major cost of the rating, is not going to be the same.

The total cost of the aircraft is key when you are comparing the two
modes, since an accelerated course will undoubtedly use fewer aircraft
hours than the less efficient spread-out version, at least in my
experience, and I've done a number of ratings both ways.

Add 20 hours of aircraft time (minimum, in my estimation, because of
all the rehash, and startup overhead) and you've added $2000 right out
of the shoot. Even if the student owns his aircraft, the fuel costs
are considerable.

And yes, I have seen 100 under-the-hood-hour pilots without a rating.

On a personal note, for what it is worth, I stopped doing ratings on
a non-accelerated basis, partly because it was so frustrating
revisiting stuff that gets forgotten between sessions, and the
built-in inefficiencies , even thought the dragged-out version in the
long run means more revenue to me.

I'll add another point. Anyone who does not spend 20 hours in a
simulator before getting into an aircraft is also spending a lot more
than he needs to.

I wasn't knocking the experience. It looks like it would be a fine
experience for a fledgling instrument pilot, and probably lots of fun.

I was merely pointing out that it appears to be not (a) "intensive",
nor (b) inexpensive, and (c) only seems to provide about 1/3 of the
total hours required for a rating (although it may satisfy the total
dual instruction requirements).

In other words, it seems to be something which augments other forms of
instrument training we have been discussing, rather than replaces it.


On 1 Mar 2005 21:52:06 -0800, "
wrote:


wrote:

Well, it may be a great experience. And it may be worth the money.

We are not looking for a quick and cheap way to get our instrument
rating. Our goal is to find an effective way to get the rating and the
real experience. I have known few instrument-rated pilots who were
never trained in real IMC.
My husband started his training about a year ago with a local
intructor the slow way - about one lesson a week with breaks in between
due to vacations, weather etc. His progress was very slow, one step
forward then half a step back! We will most likely spend more money on
a cross-country training trip like the DSFI's East Coast trip or
Morey's West Coast trip than with local training. I believe that
either one will prepare us well for our plan of extending our trips
further out West.
Hai Longworth

wrote in message
...
On 1 Mar 2005 17:32:19 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

Our local FBO charges $25/hr for the simulator, which is typical. So
let's knock off $500 from the $4000 charge. At $33/hr, we're looking
at paying for 100+ hours of dual before we hit $3500, and we haven't
even started on the accomodations or travel costs.


Well, this analysis (?) overlooks a key point. The total aircraft
costs, a major cost of the rating, is not going to be the same.

I did not need to pay to put my CFII up in a hotel in Boston and buy him
meals for 10 days either. That's an easy $2000.


I'll add another point. Anyone who does not spend 20 hours in a
simulator before getting into an aircraft is also spending a lot more
than he needs to.


My 172's direct operating costs are about $50/hour. The Frasca at my local
flight school rents for $35. If I had to rent a plane at $90/hr wet we'd be
talking something.

In any case, I think it is foolish to focus excessively on cost in getting
an instrument rating. If it costs $2000 more and you get better training,
sounds like a good deal to me.

-cwk.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:12:58 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:


My 172's direct operating costs are about $50/hour. The Frasca at my local
flight school rents for $35. If I had to rent a plane at $90/hr wet we'd be
talking something.

You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training
device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I've
done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool.

In any case, I think it is foolish to focus excessively on cost in getting
an instrument rating. If it costs $2000 more and you get better training,
sounds like a good deal to me.

-cwk.


No argument there. And if an accelerated course also is less
expensive, and I am convinced it usually is, there is no contest.

And let me add one more plug for the accelerated method.

Non-accelerated, you have a rating in 8-12 months.

Accelerated, you have the rating in 10 days, and spend those same 8-12
months flying in the system and gaining experience.

Who's thebetter instrument pilot at the end of those 8-12 months,
would you suppose?

I'm combining stuff from both replies, bear with me.

Add 20 hours of aircraft time (minimum, in my estimation, because of
all the rehash, and startup overhead) and you've added $2000 right
out
of the shoot.

First, I don't agree with your cost asessment. Around here, an
instrument trainer rents for $60-$80/hr. Between airline tickets and
10 days of hotels and meals, you're looking at $1500, easy. So even at
20 hours, the costs there are a wash and my original asessment holds.
In areas where the rentals cost more, hotels and meals do too.

Second, I don't agree that 20 hours is a minimum - more like a maximum.
I completed my rating (in the non-accelerated mode, stretched out over
half a year) in 43 hours, and my FIRST student (I would like to think
I've gotten better since then) that I took from zero was done in under
55 - despite major equipment problems, the inefficiencies of
structuring the training to get what actual we could, and having the
process stretch out over more than a year. Had I been willing to
ignore opportunities to get actual, and had we not had several sessions
where the glideslope had problems (how would THAT have affected an
accelerated course?) we would have been done in well under 50 hours.
Also, his direct operating costs were about $25/hr (Pacers are cheap to
fly).

Third, I would go so far as to suggest that most pilots who need 20+
hours more to complete the rating flying once or twice a week rather
than on an accelerated basis probably won't be safe once they get the
rating. If they forget so much week to week, how much will they forget
when they go weeks between approaches?

You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training
device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I've
done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool.

That's true if the training we're focusing on is scan and procedures.
Of course everyone is different, but I found that even in the airplane,
I was proficient at scan and procedures prior to the 20-hour mark. Of
course scan and procedures are essential for safe and capable IFR
flying, but they are far from sufficient. The real issues are ATC and
weather, and those can't be learned on the simulator at all.

Non-accelerated, you have a rating in 8-12 months.
Accelerated, you have the rating in 10 days, and spend those same 8-12

months flying in the system and gaining experience.
Who's thebetter instrument pilot at the end of those 8-12 months,
would you suppose?

That depends - did the student who did the accelerated course learn
enough to be capable of flying weather and learning further on his own?
I'm seeing an awful lot of students who seem to need an instructor
when the weather goes bad. To me that indicates a problem. Because
weather is what it is in Houston, I am generally only able to get my
student about 5 hours of actual in the course of training (and believe
me we make it a point ot get it if it is available, even if it's not
the most efficient way to get to the checkride) but they're all able to
go out and fly weather on their own.

If the accelerate training employs good instructors, I don't see why
those students should be any different - and thus you are right, of
course they will be the better instrument pilots. But if choosing the
accelerated program means settling for inferior instructors (and unless
you pay the premium for an outfit like PIC, it certainly will) then I
don't agree. The student who got inferiour training will not have been
progressing in those 8-12 months unless he was carrying an instructor
around in weather - in which case, what was the point of having the
rating?

Like I said - I'm not saying a program like PIC isn't worthwhile,
merely that you will pay a premium for it. And if you replace their
multi-thousand-hour instructors with standard FBO timebuilders, then I
would say it's not worthwhile at any price.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ps.com...
I'm combining stuff from both replies, bear with me.

Ditto.

You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training
device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I've
done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool.

That's true if the training we're focusing on is scan and procedures.
Of course everyone is different, but I found that even in the airplane,
I was proficient at scan and procedures prior to the 20-hour mark. Of
course scan and procedures are essential for safe and capable IFR
flying, but they are far from sufficient. The real issues are ATC and
weather, and those can't be learned on the simulator at all.

I don't think the Frasca is worth a damn for learning anything but scan &
procedures, at least it wasn't for me. There's simply none of the "sweat
factor" you get in the airplane, particularly in actual and when you can't
quite recall the last thing ATC told you. You just can't get that in a sim.
Scan and procedures are important, no question, and learning them on the sim
makes sense. I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you
want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I'm not saying
accelerated courses can't go beyond teaching to the test, but when you make
achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is at
least a little moral hazard there.

To be fair, all of my objections are predicated on your ability to locate a
*good* local CFII. This is in some cases not possible and you are then faced
with choosing between an accelerated course taught by a good out-of-towner
or a haphazard program by the local timebuilder. The choice is pretty
obvious there.

I'm seeing an awful lot of students who seem to need an instructor
when the weather goes bad. To me that indicates a problem. Because
weather is what it is in Houston, I am generally only able to get my
student about 5 hours of actual in the course of training (and believe
me we make it a point ot get it if it is available, even if it's not
the most efficient way to get to the checkride) but they're all able to
go out and fly weather on their own.

Do you mean "are not willing to fly weather alone" or "are not capable of
flying weather alone?" As a new instrument pilot, I think part of this is
the "fear of clouds" that is now being fairly successfully inculcated during
primary instruction. Fear is good when it keeps you from doing something
stupid, but what constitutes stupid is much harder to judge with an IR than
without. I have about 25 hours of actual, a good bit of it in nice thick New
England muck, but I still hesitate to go up on my own, knowing that the
price of small mistakes is much higher than in VFR.

best,
-cwk.