I am a 300+ hour private pilot living and flying in the NYC area
(specifically Caldwell NJ / Teterboro). I am interested in taking an
accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day
course and other similar 10 day courses. I already have about 10 hours
of simulator time and am familiar basics of partial panel instrument
and approach training. However I now want to complete my training in a
focused and intense training environment.

Can anyone recommend an excellent course in this area or others areas
around the country? I am particularly cost sensitive and would be most
interested in a complete course (aircraft time included) for less than
$7000.

Thanks!

Hi xxx (you didn't give a name)

Slight sarcasm intended, but this brings to mind a sign which I've
often seen in Automotive and TV/Radio repair shops...

Quick
Cheap
Good
---------
Pick two
---------
A good job quick won't be cheap
A good job cheap won't be quick
A quick job cheap won't be good

And you are in one of the highest cost areas in the nation...

Having said that...
I am a ~100 hr pilot currently working on my IA at American Flyers in
Cleveland. I will be looking at ~$9500 when finished, but it IS
QUICK and it IS GOOD.

I am using Part 141 'cuz GI Bill reimburses me 60%...and 141 tng tends
to be expensive. However, AF also do accelerated part 61 tng...and if
you already have your 50 hrs X-C...so much the better...and it will
cost you a lot less! Don't balk at the rates until you do the math!
These guys will work with you all day 7 days a week if you want.

To start, I took a week off work and did M-F, about 7 hours a day to
kick it off. That got me well over 1/3 of the way there. Should
have my IA rating by mid-March and going right into the Commercial.
Why? Why not?

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...

Not sure how far this is, but might be worth checking out...

American Flyers
50 Airport Road, Suite 120
Morristown, NJ 07960
800-449-7650

Can't hurt to take a lesson or two, it's all log-able!

FYI, no affiliation, just a satisfied customer...

--Don

Don Byrer
Electronics Technician
FAA Airways Facilites/Tech Ops, RADAR/Data/Comm @ CLE
Amateur Radio KJ5KB
Private Pilot Instrument Student
PP-ASEL 30 Jan 2005

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I am a 300+ hour private pilot living and flying in the NYC area
> (specifically Caldwell NJ / Teterboro). I am interested in taking an
> accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day
> course and other similar 10 day courses. I already have about 10 hours
> of simulator time and am familiar basics of partial panel instrument
> and approach training. However I now want to complete my training in a
> focused and intense training environment.

I suspect there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion on this subject. We
all learned a certain way, and those who are happy with the way we learned
will argue that it is the best.

Like you (I'm guessing) I was a busy professional motivated to get my IR
done and finished. The PIC concept appealed to me, but I ultimately chose to
work with a local instructor and took about 18 months and 55 hours to do it,
with probably half of that time being the usual friction of life.

In my mind, a big part of the question has to be whether you can link up
with a true CFII in your area. By this I don't mean a 500-hour graduate of
some ab-initio program, but someone with some serious time. A key question
to ask is whether they will take you up for training in actual conditions,
and what their comfort margins are. With 25 hours in, I was going up with my
CFII on days with 300-400' ceilings and 1mi vis. That's a good workout.

You may well not find anyone who fits this bill. It's not unlikely that the
guy you do find does not work for the local flight school as he has a list
of steady clients who keep him busy and pay $40/hr right into his pocket. If
you can't find such a fellow, then go ahead, go with PIC. I do not doubt
that they will teach you the procedures well, and that's what you need to
pass the test. There's no shame in that and if you're a 22yo kid who wants
an airline job it's probably the sensible approach.

But perhaps more so than any other rating, the difference between what you
need to pass the test and what you need to really use the rating well as a
private pilot is gigantic. My CFII believed that it was important to work on
the skills over 6-12 months so the procuedures got really imprinted into
your brain and allowed you to see a variety of conditions. This is doubly
true up here in the Northeast where you've really got three entirely
different climates to fly in. Again, if you have a CFII who won't fly when
the ceilings are below 1500', this doesn't make much difference.

Also, if you really want to use the rating, at least for the first year or
two you will want to do a lot of recurrent training. I try to fly
approaches, holds, etc. in actual with my CFII at least once every three
months. In this case it is good to have someone local who knows you (and
vice-versa) you can call on when you have some free time and the clouds roll
in. If you don't have the time to get the rating the old-fashioned way, do
you have the time to keep yourself proficient enough to use it?

> Can anyone recommend an excellent course in this area or others areas
> around the country? I am particularly cost sensitive and would be most
> interested in a complete course (aircraft time included) for less than
> $7000.

We all have a budget, but $7000 is pushing it a little, at least in the
Northeast where a plane + instructor will be at least $130/hour.

I'm just going to throw a few more cents in here... The IR is simply
*different* than all the others, because it's a license to take yourself in
harm's way. You can be a VFR private pilot, and as long as you follow some
pretty basic rules, probably never come anywhere close to grief, especially
if you stay proficient.

IFR flying is different. People on the ground looking up at a sky of fluffy
white clouds cannot appreciate just how harsh and unforgiving environment it
really is up there. With the right equipment and skills it can be challenged
safely most of the time. But if you really want to use the rating, you owe
it to yourself to train like your life depends on it, and there is simply no
cheap way to do so.

-cwk.

> 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. Buy one,
use it and resell it. I actually made money on my Sporty's discs! Same story
on books, supplemental video tapes, ets. Everything is available and what you
don't like can be resold. Best value is to find a large package, keep what you
like and resell the rest.

Short, intense training can do the job. It's not what I did, but if I
had to do it over again, it is what I would do. It all really depends
on the person. It is more about what you do with the rating after you
get it, than the rating itself. In my case, I am a mature self learner,
who owns his own airplane. But either way will work. When you appear at
the intense course, they schedule your checkride. That has to tell you
something.

For me, flying IFR is mostly about worrying about something in the
airplane failing and dealing with ATC. Flying the approaches and
cruising in the clouds seems to go smoothly. Though the skills do
deteriorate. I am probably marginal right now for IMC. But I know my
limitations and can get back up to speed. I wouldn't fly a low approach
right now. But I would fly cruise in the clouds, and after about a 1/2
hour of that, I would up to speed for an approach. The autopilot in my
plane is broken right now, which doesn't mean I can't do it, but it
takes away some safety margin. Other than that, my equipment is all
working. I am still legal to go, currencywise. The decision to go
depends on the weather, the condition of the plane, my mental state, my
recent experience and how familiar I am with the route and will I know
what to expect from ATC. Add all those factors up and I get a go/nogo
indicator. I know enough to say no, which is important.

Baliman,
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.

Hai Longworth

On 1 Mar 2005 07:31:10 -0800, "
> wrote:

>Baliman,
> 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.
>
>Hai Longworth


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

But the way I read it, you are going to get about 15 hours of
intrument time over 6 days.

That's not what I would call "intensive".

And with another 25 hours of instrument time required on top of this
$6000, I wouldn't call it real cheap, either, compared to, say, a
10-day course with 20 hours of sim time at $40/hour and20 of an
aircraft @100/hour, and 80 hours of an instructor's time, say $3600,
and you got yourself a rating from scratch for less than $7000.

But they are totally different experiences, to be sure.

wrote:
> I am a 300+ hour private pilot living and flying in the NYC area
> (specifically Caldwell NJ / Teterboro). I am interested in taking
an
> accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10
day
> course and other similar 10 day courses.

You have already gotten a bunch of advice.

The most useful piece of advice you've gotten is this - quick, cheap,
good - pick two. I will modify that and say that you can pick AT MOST
two - you may get less. You won't get all three.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an accelerated course, except of
course it will not expose you to a wide range of weather. That's not
the end of the world - proper training will allow you to work your way
into flying weather withoug scaring yourself TOO badly - but it's not
optimal either.

Will you get proper training in an accelerated course? You may, but
you will have to pay through the nose for it.

If you want good instrument training, you won't get it from someone who
went through a zero-to-CFI/CFII/MEI course in 300 hours and then got
into the right seat of a trainer, where he has been ever since. There
is a lot to instrument flying that this sort of instructor isn't going
to know. The kind of pilot who WILL know it is someone who has done it
- a long time owner who has used his plane for transportation, a
freight dog, someone like that. Someone with that kind of experience
is not going to drop everything to train you for 10 days unless he is
well paid (think $500+ per day gross, or on salary). He might be
available to you on HIS schedule at the going rate if he's just doing
it part time because he enjoys it.

My understanding is that PIC actually uses experienced instrument
pilots as instructors (but I could be wrong here). I know for a fact
that American Flyers is using timebuilders. I know some of their
instructors and I've flown in IMC with some of their graduates, and I
am NOT impressed and would not recommend the operation.

Of course all this assumes that you're actually going to use the rating
to make IFR flights that can't be made under VFR. If you just plan to
use the rating procedurally or are getting it for professional reasons,
forget everything I've said and find the cheapest, fastest thing you
can.

Michael

As long as you don't mind using old versions. The instrument practical test
standards changed a few months back.


"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:
> >Will you get proper training in an accelerated course? You may, but
> >you will have to pay through the nose for it.
>
> I would like to know what your basis is for this assertion.

Simple economics. Teaching an accelerated course isn't something that
you can do in your spare time (as opposed to teaching a non-accelerated
course, which is something many pilots do in their spare time) and
hiring someone who is actually qualified to teach IFR flying (as
opposed to passing an instrument checkride) to do so full time in
piston singles is going to be expensive, since those hours don't
contribute to career advancement.

> Could you provide some data which show the comparative costs of
> accelerated courses, versus non-accelerated?

Yes. PIC (which is basically the gold standard of these courses, and
employs instructors with thousands, not hundreds, of hours) costs
$4000, plus travel and accomodation expenses for the instructor. This
does not include aircraft costs. By comparison, the local FBO charges
$33/hr.

> Presumably you have data that show some kind of average of the total
> hours of instruction which one requires under the respective modes,
> in order to make a fair comparison.

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.

You think 100+ hours of dual is average? I sure don't. In fact, I've
NEVER seen it take that long.

Not saying it's not worth it - just that it's expensive.

Michael

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.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:47:44 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

> 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.




I teach on an accelerated basis only. I use a simulator extensively
in this training.

I do this because, in my experience over 17 or so years with both
methods, I have concluded that the simulator/accelerated method turns
out better qualified, more knowledgeable, and better trained pilots,
more quickly, and at a reduced cost.

If you also have extensive experience using both methods, I might be
willling to accept your moral prejudgments.

If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of the
commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the
uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious
wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation
industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your
implication of moral superiority.

wrote:
> I am interested in taking an
> accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day
> course and other similar 10 day courses.

Before youspring for one of the expensive package deals, just mosey down to your
local FBO and talk to one of the instructors. Tell them what you're interested
in and ask whether they can put together a syllabus that will do what you want.

You might save a few bucks(?).

You get to meet the instructor beforehand and decide whether you like him or
her, before he arrives in your living room on expense account.

Dave

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
> Do you mean "are not willing to fly weather alone" or "are not
capable of
> flying weather alone?"

I think the distinction you are making is an imaginary one. Those who
are unwilling, are unwilling because deep down they know they are
incapable. That's a fairly harsh statement, but the more I fly with
other pilots, the more I realize it's true. It's very comforting to
say "I'm just as capable as that guy launching into the clag solo, I'm
just more concerned with safety" but based on my experience it's simply
not true.

Michael

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:47:44 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I teach on an accelerated basis only. I use a simulator extensively
> in this training.
>
<snip>
>
> If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of the
> commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the
> uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious
> wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation
> industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your
> implication of moral superiority.

cfeyeeye, I'm not accusing *you* of anything. We're talking about
"accelerated training" versus "traditional training" in general, so put the
knife down, K?

When I asked the guy I chose for my CFII, "how long will this take," he
basically said, "as long as it takes and not a day more." I took 55 hours to
get there over 18 months and would say I lost maybe 5-10 hours in the
process due to delays. He said he actually preferred to take at least 6-9
months working on it so we could go up in different weather conditions, and
it is a point of pride for him that most of his students take the test with
15-20 hours of actual, most of it doing approaches. It's good experience and
in my mind worth every nickel.

With an accelerated course, the instructor has an innate incentive to do one
thing only, and that is to get this guy through the test. With a traditional
course, there is an incentive to train ad infinitum and never quite finish.
Each course has its unique moral hazards. It's simply a term of art. I'm not
imputing that accelerated training is like abortion or gay marriage or the
death penalty or whatever.

Best,
-cwk.

On 1 Mar 2005 15:57:33 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:


>The most useful piece of advice you've gotten is this - quick, cheap,
>good - pick two. I will modify that and say that you can pick AT MOST
>two - you may get less. You won't get all three.

Glad someone agreed with me. All 3 are not mutually exclusive, but
you don't usually get something for nothing.

>There is nothing inherently wrong with an accelerated course, except of course it will not expose you to a wide range of weather.

I guess that depends on where/when you do it. So far I have 9 hours
of actual....out of ~23 flight hours. We've had 20 degrees F with
icing, snow, wet snow, rain, and a 50 degree foggy day; as well as
clear and partly cloudy days.

>My understanding is that PIC actually uses experienced instrument
>pilots as instructors (but I could be wrong here). I know for a fact
>that American Flyers is using timebuilders. I know some of their
>instructors and I've flown in IMC with some of their graduates, and I
>am NOT impressed and would not recommend the operation.

In my limited experience, I have found that many CFIs are timebuilders
in one form or other. Some are CFI'ing as an interim 'career' until
the airline job...some are working another job and CFIing to build
time to get an aviation job. I've met a newly minted CFII that seems
to know his stuff...and I've met an experienced CFII that I don't have
full confidence in.

I must admit I did go to American Flyers with some skepticism; that
was dealt with the first day when it was obvious these guys were
serious and knowledgeable. I fully planned to give it a day or two
and quit if it didnt pan out.

--Don

> In my limited experience, I have found that many CFIs are
timebuilders
> in one form or other. Some are CFI'ing as an interim 'career' until
> the airline job...some are working another job and CFIing to build
> time to get an aviation job.

And what they have in common is this - they're not experienced enough
to get an airline job. That means they're not experienced enough to
teach instruments either. What you want is the guy who IS experienced
enough to get an airline job. Of course that costs more.

> I must admit I did go to American Flyers with some skepticism; that
> was dealt with the first day when it was obvious these guys were
> serious and knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, you're not going to know if these guys were really
knowledgeable until a couple of years after you get done. That's when
you'll be the guy who launches into the clag solo, in a single or light
twin, and actually goes places - while the rest of the airport wonders
how you can fly in that weather. That's what having good training buys
you.

Of course if you're the one on the ground, and other people are
launching into the clag - well, then you'll know something too.

Michael

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

> In my mind, a big part of the question has to be whether you can link up
> with a true CFII in your area. By this I don't mean a 500-hour graduate of
> some ab-initio program, but someone with some serious time. A key question
> to ask is whether they will take you up for training in actual conditions,
> and what their comfort margins are. With 25 hours in, I was going up with
> my CFII on days with 300-400' ceilings and 1mi vis. That's a good workout.

I know several good instructors in the CDW/TEB area. Choosing amongst them
is, in my opinion, down to a matter of style. But all have plenty of
experience teaching in actual and thousands of hours "in the system".

While this is not an accelerated program, you might be able to do something
of this sort anyway. You'd have to discuss it with the CFII of your
choice, of course, but with enough lead time they could probably block out
many hours for you each week for the time you'll need.

If you're interested in getting in contact these these instructors, contact
me privately.

- Andrew

Michael wrote:

> Unfortunately, you're not going to know if these guys were really
> knowledgeable until a couple of years after you get done.Â*Â*That'sÂ*when
> you'll be the guy who launches into the clag solo, in a single or light
> twin, and actually goes places - while the rest of the airport wonders
> how you can fly in that weather.Â*Â*That'sÂ*whatÂ*havingÂ*goodÂ*trainingÂ* buys
> you.
>

As someone else has suggested, a good idea is to ask the people doing as you
describe above. It's imperfect, as there's no guarantee that they *should*
be flying in that <grin>, but it's if you collect a variety of opinions
that would hopefully cancel out the noise.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> As someone else has suggested, a good idea is to ask the people doing
as you
> describe above.

Yes. In my opinion, it's the ONLY really useful advice you can give
someone looking for training. By definition, if you need training, you
can't really evaluate the quality of the training you are getting with
regard to content.

> It's imperfect, as there's no guarantee that they *should*
> be flying in that <grin>

That kind of thing tends to be self-correcting. Or used to be. These
days, with modern two-axis autopilots coupled with moving map GPS, the
correction takes longer. But if you can find someone doing these
things, again and again, without all the bells and whistles, you can
pretty much guarantee that he can evaluate the quality of training.

In general, the very best advice you can give someone seeking training
is this - find someone who is making use of the training in the way you
would like to be able to do, and have him choose your instructor.

Michael

I used American Flyers after numerous cancellations from a private
instructor. Advantage of a school:
1. I was able to get a training session on short notice when my work
schedule permitted.
2. The short notice thing has a cost in that you don't always get the
same instructor, but the school has a standard syllabus that all
instructors use.
3. Most instructors were time-builders but attitudes and standards
were much more professional than the private instructors I've had.
4. AF's book isn't worth the money, but you have to buy it.
5. I've checked with them on recurrent training, and they seem to be
trying to find as many ways as possible of increasing my expense.
6. Overall, I felt that I received excellent and consistent training.