About Acellerated Courses for Private

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

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!!!!

But you've checked out students who were taught in the traditional
method who required absolutely no remedial work what so ever? Not
even a little bit?

No, that's inaccurate.
I have had pilots that I've checked out that came though traditional
training who also needed remedial work. That isn't the issue in context.
What IS indicative is that I have NEVER checked out a pilot who came
through a basic training accelerated course who didn't need remedial
work. There's a big difference in any reasonable interpretation between
the two situations.
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 news:NmEIc.4603

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! :-)

I wish my logbook and experience demonstrated that much limited data!

-c

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to learn and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft is any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you simply do not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to learn to
fly in the same?

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between
the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to
learn and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short
term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest
material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last
minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft is
any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you simply
do not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to
learn to
fly in the same?

-c

This is exactly correct.

It's the period BETWEEN flight lessons where the REAL learning in flying
takes place. It's here, with the pressure off, and the student relaxed
and MENTALLY ENGAGED back into what he/she did in the airplane with the
instructor, that the student has the chance to think back (I call it the
re-run syndrome :-) and put together what he/she did in the airplane
as a rote function,then couple that rote function with the thought
process that produces the much needed comprehension factor that is an
absolute MUST if long term result is the goal, which of course it is.
:-)
The result of this type of learning is " Ah HA!!!!!!!!!!! So THAT'S
why it works that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
A MUCH safer and more informed pilot!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane. I agree that knowledge is best built up over a
period of time but, from my own experience, I believe that the ability to
learn new muscle-based activities is accelerated in an immersion
enviornment. If you wanted to learn to juggle would you practice every day
for seven days or once a week for seven weeks?

Mike
MU-2


"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to learn
and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest
material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft is any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you simply do
not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to learn to
fly in the same?

-c

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Hi Andrew;

No wonder Usenet is so confusing for older people like me !!! :-)))

It helps to have been using it from the beginning (well, not really... only
since about 1982). Of course, the downside of this is that conventions are
second-nature, and we forget that others lack that background.

The quote you have for me here isn't mine . It's Marc's.
I'm sitting here reading this post thinking , "When the living hell did
I say THAT!!!!!!!?"

Right. It's obviously not your text, to me, given the "double quote" (the
two greater-than symbols. But that makes me lax about fixing the header
inserted by my news reader...and I shouldn't be.

Sorry.

- Andrew

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane.

I would add a third element: developing good judgement.

Mike;
Unless I'm misreading something, you two are almost together on this.
Dudley
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane. I agree that knowledge is best built up
over a
period of time but, from my own experience, I believe that the ability
to
learn new muscle-based activities is accelerated in an immersion
enviornment. If you wanted to learn to juggle would you practice
every day
for seven days or once a week for seven weeks?

Mike
MU-2


"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:qaTIc.1160$

If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between
the
"traditional" method and the "accelerated".

Much has been learned in recent years about the adult capacity to
learn
and
methods for enhancing adult learning. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated, for example, that cramming for a course ensures short
term
results at the expense of long term results. Anybody with a college
education understands why its better to study, consider and digest
material
over the course of a term than to cram for everything at the last
minute.

I don't see why people think learing to safely operate an aircraft
is any
different. If you learn everything in a very short period you
simply do
not
have time to consider what you have learned, to chew on it and
develop
questions and think about the individual things, or to apply them.

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to
learn to
fly in the same?

-c

No sweat Andrew. Usenet quotes drive me nuts as well. Sometimes, if a
thread goes on for any length at all, I simply give up trying to figure
out just who said what and to whom!!! :-)
Dudley
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Hi Andrew;

No wonder Usenet is so confusing for older people like me !!! :-)))

It helps to have been using it from the beginning (well, not really...
only
since about 1982). Of course, the downside of this is that
conventions are
second-nature, and we forget that others lack that background.

The quote you have for me here isn't mine . It's Marc's.
I'm sitting here reading this post thinking , "When the living hell
did
I say THAT!!!!!!!?"

Right. It's obviously not your text, to me, given the "double quote"
(the
two greater-than symbols. But that makes me lax about fixing the
header
inserted by my news reader...and I shouldn't be.

Sorry.

- Andrew

Dudley Henriques wrote:


The accelerated program at the basic level can do the job, but doing the
job more slowly, allowing the comprehension to advance parallel with the
performance, is a better method for turning out a more finished and more
safe pilot exiting the flight test and entering the self educating phase
of a pilot's career.

I misread this sentence at first, but in an interesting way. These
accelerated courses do not, I fear, actually "do the job" more quickly...
depending upon what the job is.

Sure, perhaps they get one past the checkride more quickly. But do they
actually build a safe pilot more quickly? Given the assumption being made
here by Dudley - and I share it - that there's less depth acquired over the
shorter period, then the missing depth is going to be acquired - if at all
- outside the training environment. That's inefficient, slower, and likely
less safe.

So if the job is to build safe pilots, I think that an accelerated course
might be precisely the wrong approach...again, given the assumption.

There's another aspect: why take an accelerated course? After I finished my
PPL, there was a collection of skills I knew I lacked. I went out and
worked on them (ie. spin/unusual attitude training). I'd have been just as
happy to see these part of a PPL program, but such is not the case around
here.

If someone is in a rush, will they be filling in these missing areas?
Perhaps...perhaps the rush is to get past the "basic" into more advanced
work. But perhaps not.

- Andrew