Accelerated Instrument Rating

[Peter Bauer]

Hi there,

because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments Rating.
Some Flight Schools offer such accelerated thing.
Does anybody of you have any experience in it ?
What school has the most experience doing it ?
What do you think about it ?

Is there a real chance to get the rating in about 2 weeks ?

Peter

[HECTOP]

"Peter Bauer" > wrote:
> because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments
Rating.

I dunno, some may express a different opinion (go ahead and flame me,
assholes ;), but in mine, doing an "Accelerated" Instrument Rating is like
learning to become a surgeon in 24 hours and going out trying to "save"
lives. Of course, any pilot certificate is a license to learn, and a lot is
learnt in real world practice not while riding around with a CFI. But the
Instrument Rating is probably the single most important one of them all, and
taking shortcuts while acquiring it may result in a disaster later on. NTSB
database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots...

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Martin Hotze]

On 10 Jun 2004 13:20:04 -0700, Peter Bauer wrote:

>because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments Rating.
>Some Flight Schools offer such accelerated thing.
>Does anybody of you have any experience in it ?
>What school has the most experience doing it ?
>What do you think about it ?
>
>Is there a real chance to get the rating in about 2 weeks ?

I have not done it myself but I have heard of people - esp. from Europe -
who did it. Most of them (with good preparation) did it in time, but IMHO
all they have afterwards is the license to learn.

Your emailaddress states you are from Germany. Be sure to have the proper
paperwork from your flightschool (I-20?) and the authorities for training
in the US (student visa).

I made the US PPL in about 1.5 weeks, but I then already have logged about
200 hours and had another PPL. And afterwards I felt like I needed another
vacation and I sure didn't want to see or fly a plane for some time. It was
too much.

>Peter

#m

--
Martin!!! Maaaaartiiiin!!! Can you please flame this guy for me?
'HECTOP' in rec.aviation.piloting

[John T]

HECTOP wrote:
>
> But the Instrument Rating is probably the single most
> important one of them all, and taking shortcuts while acquiring it
> may result in a disaster later on. NTSB database is full of such
> accelerated instrument pilots...

I generally agree with your position on accelerated IR programs, but can you
point me to any specific NTSB reports mentioning them?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[HECTOP]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> I generally agree with your position on accelerated IR programs, but can
you
> point me to any specific NTSB reports mentioning them?

I don't think they name school's or methods of achieving ratings in NTSB
reports, but during one of those local FSDO seminars, there was an accident
investigator type who specifically mentioned a few "IR jocks in two weeks"
accidents. If you'll invest in an evening of searching through
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp , you'll find quite a list of accidents
that scream of such training. I remember the tricks I've done right after
gettin' mine, including landing at KMSV at 0x0 from ILS 15, it wasn't IMC,
but totally black night onto an unlit runway, so I (like everyone) have a
few of my own stupid pilot tricks that could've been attributed to lack of
discipline and proper training.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Peter Gottlieb]

"HECTOP" > wrote in message
...
> landing at KMSV at 0x0 from ILS 15, it wasn't IMC,
> but totally black night onto an unlit runway

Sounds like a "faith based" landing...

[HECTOP]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:
> Sounds like a "faith based" landing...

Since weather was VFR like for a month, I just couldn't put up with not
making use of my new IR ticket, so I was looking for trouble at night,
flying approaches, landing at big airports and other sweet stuff. So here I
am, flying down ILS 15 ( http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0406/05675I15.PDF )
at Monticello, pass outer marker, needles are perfect cross, I start
clicking the radio to light up the runway, nothing, nada, I get closer still
clicking with no results, so by the time I reached missed and was ready to
push the throttle to go away, I see these huge white numbers 15 right in
front of me for whatever worth of lighting you can get from that useless
landing light on 172, I dunno what bit me, probably the comfort of a 6000'
runway, but I just pulled the throttle, landed softer than ever before and
just taxied to the ramp where I clicked the mic again and the whole damn
field lit up like a Christmas tree. Obviously those *******s squelched their
received to the point it picked up radio only from the ramp, either to keep
unwanted traffic like me away at night, or to prevent their runway from
lighting up every time someone clicks their radio on a field nearby (forgot
it's name, I think it's the other Sullivan County small field, whatever it's
name) that shares same 122.8 freq. So nothing out of the ordinary happened,
I just sat on the ramp for a while, smoked a stogie and took off back to
CDW. The lesson learnt was that such landing was a really bad idea, since
there could've been equipment left on the runway (who knows!) or some wild
animal chase, whatever, and it really could've ruined my night with nobody
to bring help until the break of dawn.


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Troy Towner]

I attended the Sheble aviation advanced IFR program... I have nothing but
great things to say about it. I am now 6 months later, and still current.
The key to an acceleration program is study hard when your getting it, and
touch up on it every know and then. I would highly recommend the Sheble
school, the price is moderate at around $3200 in 10 days. This program works
you till your tired everyday. Personally I got done in 9 days and relaxed
the 10 day... yes and on the 10 day he rested... The residents locations
they have are very nice, and cheap for what your receiving. The coarse can
be taken in Kingman Arizona, or Henderson Nevada.
http://www.shebleaviation.com/aboutus.html

Hope it goes well....

Troy Towner-Email me if you need more info

"Peter Bauer" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi there,
>
> because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments
Rating.
> Some Flight Schools offer such accelerated thing.
> Does anybody of you have any experience in it ?
> What school has the most experience doing it ?
> What do you think about it ?
>
> Is there a real chance to get the rating in about 2 weeks ?
>
> Peter

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Troy Towner" > wrote in message
...
> I attended the Sheble aviation advanced IFR program... I have nothing but
> great things to say about it. I am now 6 months later, and still current.
> The key to an acceleration program is study hard when your getting it, and
> touch up on it every know and then. I would highly recommend the Sheble
> school, the price is moderate at around $3200 in 10 days. This program
works
> you till your tired everyday. Personally I got done in 9 days and relaxed
> the 10 day... yes and on the 10 day he rested... The residents locations
> they have are very nice, and cheap for what your receiving. The coarse can
> be taken in Kingman Arizona, or Henderson Nevada.
> http://www.shebleaviation.com/aboutus.html
>

Do they have a refresher course on homonyms? :~)

[John T]

"HECTOP" > wrote in message

>
> I don't think they name school's or methods of achieving ratings in
> NTSB reports, but during one of those local FSDO seminars, there was
> an accident investigator type who specifically mentioned a few "IR
> jocks in two weeks" accidents. If you'll invest in an evening of
> searching through http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp , you'll find
> quite a list of accidents that scream of such training.

That's what I thought. :) So you don't *know* the NTSB database is "full
of such accelerated instrument pilots." Rather, you're making a
generalization based on your impression of the quality of the training. In
fact, you're only going on the second-hand word of somebody mentioning a
"few" such reports.

Your impression of the training isn't necessarily invalid. It just doesn't
necessarily have a correlation in a higher number of crashes. The method of
training has little to do with the quality of performance as your own
example demonstrates. We all are capable of rather boneheaded actions.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "HECTOP" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > I don't think they name school's or methods of achieving ratings in
> > NTSB reports, but during one of those local FSDO seminars, there was
> > an accident investigator type who specifically mentioned a few "IR
> > jocks in two weeks" accidents. If you'll invest in an evening of
> > searching through http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp , you'll find
> > quite a list of accidents that scream of such training.
>
> That's what I thought. :) So you don't *know* the NTSB database is "full
> of such accelerated instrument pilots." Rather, you're making a
> generalization based on your impression of the quality of the training.
In
> fact, you're only going on the second-hand word of somebody mentioning a
> "few" such reports.

....who likely has had quite a bit of experience with the data and the
investigations.

> Your impression of the training isn't necessarily invalid. It just
doesn't
> necessarily have a correlation in a higher number of crashes.

Which is his point, isn't it? I'd guess that's why he said "you'll find
quite a list of accidents that scream of such training." ?

> The method of
> training has little to do with the quality of performance as your own
> example demonstrates.

Oh, really? I was under the impression that training was mostly _method_.



> We all are capable of rather boneheaded actions.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"HECTOP" > wrote in message
.. .
> The lesson learnt was that such landing was a really bad idea, since
> there could've been equipment left on the runway (who knows!) or some wild
> animal chase, whatever, and it really could've ruined my night with nobody
> to bring help until the break of dawn.
>
>


Very true. Some people react by repeating the behavior, because it worked
successfully, and others (like you) actually learn from the experience and
become a safer pilot.

[Judah]

Hi Peter,
I think a lot of it has to do with your own experience...

If you just got your private ticket, I would suspect that you really won't
come away after 10 days being a safe IFR pilot, even if you learn
everything necessary to pass the test. But if you have a couple of hundred
hours cross country, and don't need to spend time learning the basics (like
controlling the plane to within tolerances), you will be able to focus your
training on the real IFR stuff, and will surely be better off.

(Peter Bauer) wrote in
om:

> Hi there,
>
> because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments
> Rating. Some Flight Schools offer such accelerated thing.
> Does anybody of you have any experience in it ?
> What school has the most experience doing it ?
> What do you think about it ?
>
> Is there a real chance to get the rating in about 2 weeks ?
>
> Peter

[John T]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message

>
> Which is his point, isn't it? I'd guess that's why he said "you'll
> find quite a list of accidents that scream of such training." ?

He originally said:
"NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots."

It's not. I don't particularly agree with the idea of a two-week IR
program, but to suggest that such pilots are inherently unsafe or should be
in the NTSB database is a fallacy.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Which is his point, isn't it? I'd guess that's why he said "you'll
> > find quite a list of accidents that scream of such training." ?
>
> He originally said:
> "NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots."

He said that the "reports _scream_ of such pilots"
>
> It's not. I don't particularly agree with the idea of a two-week IR
> program, but to suggest that such pilots are inherently unsafe or should
be
> in the NTSB database is a fallacy.

Why? Like any other training, cram courses teach you to take the test, not
to be proficient.

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

everything I've read suggests that it is very well possible, if you
dedicate yourself to it. However, the key seems to be to continue
flying IFR at high intensity for a while after getting the rating.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Hectop,

> NTSB
> database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots...
>

Show us! I'm serious. Show us the statistics you have derived from the
NTSB database that indicates instrument pilots from accelerated courses
have more accidents.

I doubt you can. So why claim such a thing?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Hectop,

> If you'll invest in an evening of searching through
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp , you'll find quite a list of accidents
> that scream of such training.
>

No, you don't. It doesn't say how a pilot was trained in the normal accident
report.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> It's not. I don't particularly agree with the idea of a two-week IR
> program, but to suggest that such pilots are inherently unsafe or should be
> in the NTSB database is a fallacy.
>

I couldn't agree more. HECTOP's statements made my BS detector go full scale.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[John T]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message

>>
>> He originally said:
>> "NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots."
>
> He said that the "reports _scream_ of such pilots"

I quoted his original post. You're quoting his amended post after I raised
the issue.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> He originally said:
> >> "NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots."
> >
> > He said that the "reports _scream_ of such pilots"
>
> I quoted his original post. You're quoting his amended post after I
raised
> the issue.
>
Okay...pardon.

Yet..."NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots." is
undoubtedly true.

Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?

1) A 10 days wonder?
2) A 30 day wonder
3) A 90 day wonder? (No, not OCS)
4) A six month "malingerer"?

:~)

Like I mentioned before, a cram session prepares you to take a test; it
doesn't teach (long term) competence, with the possible exception of those
who are doing it as a career at a school like FlightSafety.

POR - I got my IR in 1979; it took 37 days (Ground School from mid March to
mid April, and flying from April 8th to May 15th) and 51.5 hours. That was
while working a full time job (swing shifts).

[Thomas Borchert]

Tom,

> Yet..."NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots." is
> undoubtedly true.
>

Prove it! For starters, point out just one accident record that mentions
an instrument pilot's training background as being an accelerated course.
Just one. We'll go from there, if we have to, which I do in fact doubt.
Next step of course would be to prove that these pilots comprise a
significant majority in IR-related accidents (whatever that may be),
considering the ratio of instrument rated pilots educated traditionally
versus those from accelerated courses. Good luck in finding those numbers
- but since you made the above statement about it being "undoubtedly
true", I guess you have them readily at hand.

Come on: I've seen your posts here. No offense meant, but you KNOW your
above statement is BS.

Jeeze, this newsgroup is really going downhill...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Judah]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in
:

<Snip>
>
> Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?
>
> 1) A 10 days wonder?
> 2) A 30 day wonder
> 3) A 90 day wonder? (No, not OCS)
> 4) A six month "malingerer"?
>

Which one has the most actual time since getting their rating?

[HECTOP]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote:
> Prove it!

My post was to express my opinion, as I also mentioned in it, opionions may
differ. If you think that I owe you my time proving it or anyhow otherwise,
you're mistaken and should get off yer righteous horse. It is you who are
challening my opinion, and it is your job to disprove it with facts. Don't
make me do your homework for you.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[John T]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Yet..."NTSB database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots."
> is undoubtedly true.

"Undoubtedly," huh? Can you point me to a single such report in the NTSB?
Not one that appears to be such a trainee, but a report where the NTSB
actually mentions an accelerated IR training program (not necessarily as a
contributing factor)?

> Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?
> ...
> Like I mentioned before, a cram session prepares you to take a test;
> it doesn't teach (long term) competence...

Read my posts carefully and you'll see that I'm not advocating accelerated
programs. "Teaching to the test," as it were, is more likely to impart
"knowledge without understanding" - a point we agree on. This isn't to say
that accelerated students are necessarily unsafe or that I wouldn't fly with
them. All it means is that *I* prefer a more traditional training program.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

HECTOP wrote:
>
> My post was to express my opinion, as I also mentioned in it,
> opionions may differ. If you think that I owe you my time proving it
> or anyhow otherwise, you're mistaken and should get off yer righteous
> horse.

Your opinion was the part of your post about your impressions of accelerated
IR training programs. The "fact" you presented to support your opinion was
the reference to the NTSB database and that's the part that you've been
asked to demonstrate.

There's no "righteousness" about the request. If the NTSB has actually
commented on the safety of these accelerated programs in any of their crash
investigations, that information should be publicized.

If you can find such a reference, that is. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[HECTOP]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> There's no "righteousness" about the request. If the NTSB has actually

I said from the start of the message that it was MY opinion and did not
insinuate anything about opinion of the NTSB. When you asked again, I
answered that my opinion was formed based on a discussion at a FSDO safety
seminar, one of those you get yellow postcard invitations in the mail for.
Would you like to continue further questioning, or shall the Court take a
recess, Sir?

"Would be a better laboratory is there were more labor and less oratory"
(C)Elizabeth Haley


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Peter Gottlieb]

Ok. So, let's say I want to get the rating and want decent quality
instruction. What's the best way?

In my case, I've been getting there (slowly) by doing it a little here, a
little there. I want to go someplace and just get it done with.

I am *not* going to the local FBO where the 172 is $135 and hour and the
CFII is $45 (both plus tax, naturally) and they have a reputation for
milking their students.

What are my best options?

[John T]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Ok. So, let's say I want to get the rating and want decent quality
> instruction. What's the best way?
>
> In my case, I've been getting there (slowly) by doing it a little
> here, a little there. I want to go someplace and just get it done
> with.
>
> What are my best options?

What do you want do: Learn how to fly IFR or pass the practical to get your
rating? Accelerated courses generally expect you to have already passed the
written and focus purely on getting you proficient enough to pass the IR
PTS. If you think that style of training is good enough for you, then find
a school with a curriculum/location/price that you find comfortable and go
for it.

If you're more interested in learning to fly IFR, find another nearby FBO
with rates you find more to your tastes and work with your CFII there.

My opinion remains that the IR shouldn't be rushed. However, if one has a
significant amount of experience, is proficient with their airwork, has a
Good Attitude regarding flight, and perhaps has a number of hours if IR
training, then an accelerated program may be a good fit.

I don't like the idea of these programs being used to take a relatively
freshly minted PP to an instrument rated pilot from scratch, though.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Jim Fisher]

"Troy Towner" > wrote in message
...
> I attended the Sheble aviation advanced IFR program... I have nothing but
> great things to say about it. I am now 6 months later, and still current.
> The key to an acceleration program is study hard when your getting it, and
> touch up on it every know and then. I would highly recommend the Sheble
> school, the price is moderate at around $3200 in 10 days. This program
works
> you till your tired everyday. Personally I got done in 9 days and relaxed
> the 10 day... yes and on the 10 day he rested... The residents locations
> they have are very nice, and cheap for what your receiving. The coarse can
> be taken in Kingman Arizona, or Henderson Nevada.
> http://www.shebleaviation.com/aboutus.html

I'll be damned.

This question has been posted quite frequently over the years. All the
nay-sayers say it just can't be as good as your standard training. Not once
has a graduate of one of these programs ever posted to say what you said.

I had been getting quite tired of defending the accelerated programs who,
quite obviously, have merit and value for those who are man (or woman)
enough to go through such a program.

Thanks for the refreshing point of view form someone who's actually been
there, done that as opposed to a bunch of know it alls who wouldn't know
their accelerated ass from a hole in the sky.

-
Jim Fisher

[Jim Fisher]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:c9hyc.10
> Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?
>
> 1) A 10 days wonder?
> 2) A 30 day wonder
> 3) A 90 day wonder? (No, not OCS)
> 4) A six month "malingerer"?

Well, that depends on too many factors. Silly question with no good answer.

> Like I mentioned before, a cram session prepares you to take a test; it
> doesn't teach (long term) competence, with the possible exception of those
> who are doing it as a career at a school like FlightSafety.

That's simply bullsquat. By all accounts, the IFR cram program "graduates"
equal the skills of snail programs just after and long after the training.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it has absolutely no basis in
reality. The reality is that accellerated programs are "just as good" for
those who can handle it.


--
Jim Fisher

[HECTOP]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:
> Ok. So, let's say I want to get the rating and want decent quality
> instruction. What's the best way?

There are a plenty of independent CFII with their own planes who charge a
lot less than FBO's, I don't know any off top of my head, but I'm sure you
could either google them up, or just ask locals.

> I am *not* going to the local FBO where the 172 is $135 and hour and the

I actually did my training at one such FBO that charged about 15% higher for
their rentals and instruction time than the guy next door. But the training
I've got (except that KMSV landing which was totally, totally my own macho
thingie) in MY opinion (again someone will find an excuse to drag me through
the litigation) I received the best training money could possibly buy from
the best and most demanding instructors I ever known. Those who flown with
Warren Loveless and Stanley Sanders at Mac Dan ( http://www.macdan.com )
know that I've got every reason to claim that.

If you want to save money, find a local independent CFII, if you want to to
fly down the ILS at CAT III minimums in a C-172 in any weather day or night,
these are they guys to look up.


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Teacherjh]

Find a flying club you like and join it. Find (maybe through the club) a CFII
you like, and take lessons from him.

Have a plan - carve out the time in your schedule for three two-hour flights a
week. (a three hour block of time, for two hours of flying). Figure some of
these will end up cancelled for weather, or other reasons, that leaves you with
two nice blocks per week. In instrument training (especially when practicing
approaches) you need a nice chunck of time, otherwise you'll spend a lot of
time coming and going.

Keep at it, and adjust based on your progress. That's what I would do.

Jose


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

[Bill Zaleski]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:51:53 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
> wrote:

>Ok. So, let's say I want to get the rating and want decent quality
>instruction. What's the best way?
>
>In my case, I've been getting there (slowly) by doing it a little here, a
>little there. I want to go someplace and just get it done with.
>
>I am *not* going to the local FBO where the 172 is $135 and hour and the
>CFII is $45 (both plus tax, naturally) and they have a reputation for
>milking their students.
>
>What are my best options?
>

I have completed 190 complete instrument ratings in 9 days or less.
None of my students have gotten into trouble or hurt themselves. Let
me know via email if I can be of help..

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:c9hyc.10
> > Question: Who would YOU rather fly with?
> >
> > 1) A 10 days wonder?
> > 2) A 30 day wonder
> > 3) A 90 day wonder? (No, not OCS)
> > 4) A six month "malingerer"?
>
> Well, that depends on too many factors. Silly question with no good
answer.
>
> > Like I mentioned before, a cram session prepares you to take a test; it
> > doesn't teach (long term) competence, with the possible exception of
those
> > who are doing it as a career at a school like FlightSafety.
>
> That's simply bullsquat. By all accounts, the IFR cram program
"graduates"
> equal the skills of snail programs just after and long after the training.

Cite?

[Andrew Gideon]

HECTOP wrote:

> I actually did my training at one such FBO that charged about 15% higher
> for their rentals and instruction time than the guy next door. But the
> training I've got (except that KMSV landing which was totally, totally my
> own macho thingie) in MY opinion (again someone will find an excuse to
> drag me through the litigation) I received the best training money could
> possibly buy from the best and most demanding instructors I ever known.
> Those who flown with Warren Loveless and Stanley Sanders at Mac Dan (
> http://www.macdan.com ) know that I've got every reason to claim that.

Knowing the manager at Mac Dan, I'd bet that one could work out a "package
deal". That might provide a middle ground between "one or twice a week"
and those accelerated programs.

And if the manager wasn't immediately willing, I'd have a chat with a
leaseback-owner (is that the proper expression?).

I expect that this sort of deal would be available elsewhere too.

- Andrew

[Dan Luke]

"Jim Fisher" wrote:
> I'll be damned.
>
> This question has been posted quite frequently over
> the years. All the nay-sayers say it just can't be as
> good as your standard training.

I did it the traditional way, which was a 13-mo. slog with a very
experienced Part 135 pilot as an instructor. After I passed the 'ride
(including a re-test on the holding part) I found I still had a thousand
things to learn about the practical use of the rating.

FWIW, if I had it to do over again I'd do the PIC thing.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Andrew Gideon]

Dan Luke wrote:

> After I passed the 'ride
> (including a re-test on the holding part) I found I still had a thousand
> things to learn about the practical use of the rating.

While I was working on the rating (in the usual way), I was also doing my
own "regular" flying. This would occasionally generate questions that I'd
bring to my CFII that he'd turn into lessons.

I also flew in all four seasons during my IFR training. I'm not sure, but
I'd assume that the "actual" hours accumulated were all across the year.

We'd plenty of times where the CFII and I were studying the weather, both
current and predicted. This was not just to make the go/no-go decision,
but also to pick where the weather would be doing what when. Our goal was
to find the worse weather (up to a point), which is not the norm, but this
was still a practical study of weather over time.

Then we'd fly in it (or not {8^).

All of these would be necessarily diluted if my time with the CFII had
included none of my own normal flying and just a few days of weather.

- Andrew

[HECTOP]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote:
> I also flew in all four seasons during my IFR training. I'm not sure, but

me and Stanley took off for KABE on 9/15/01, and were probably the first
Part 61 aircraft in the air in the whole country and almost got in trouble
for that. I think he told you the story :)

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Michael]

"HECTOP" > wrote
> There are a plenty of independent CFII with their own planes who charge a
> lot less than FBO's

There are very few independent CFII's with their own planes available
for instruction, and the few that exist generally charge more, not
less. Owning a single plane and renting it out for instruction is not
financially viable in most cases. Most independent CFII's that I know
only instruct owners in their own airplanes.

> I actually did my training at one such FBO that charged about 15% higher for
> their rentals and instruction time than the guy next door. But the training
> I've got (except that KMSV landing which was totally, totally my own macho
> thingie) in MY opinion (again someone will find an excuse to drag me through
> the litigation) I received the best training money could possibly buy from
> the best and most demanding instructors I ever known.

OK. Just a couple of questions:

Did that training include circling at minimums - for real, not from a
hooded approach? Did it include a XC flight under IFR in IMC? Did it
include getting a popup for real - meaning in conditions where, due to
low ceilings/vis, you actually NEEDED it? Were you prepared to
anticipate and respond to the "climb VFR to XXXX feet" instruction,
and do you know what the other option is? Did that training prepare
you to depart IFR from an airport without an instrument approach? Did
it prepare you to identify and reject improper departure instructions
that can put you into obstructions? Can you tell me how it can be
possible to have a current book of plates, get a full briefing before
takeoff, including NOTAM's, and still discover that the approach you
planned to use is unavailable and has been for months? For extra
credit, at what point in your flight would you discover this? Under
what circumstances is it possible to fly an approach well within PTS
tolerances, using equipment that is also well within defined
operational tolerances, and still hit an obstruction?

If your training actually covered all these items, you may well have
found a rarity - an FBO with experienced CFII's who actually fly the
system themselves on a regular basis and thus can teach you to do it.
If some of these things weren't covered, and you had to learna about
them on your own later, well, don't feel like the lone ranger. Most
CFII's you find at most FBO's have minimal experience actually flying
IFR. Most independents are people who do it themselves on a regular
basis and instruct others because they enjoy it.

> If you want to save money, find a local independent CFII, if you want to to
> fly down the ILS at CAT III minimums in a C-172 in any weather day or night,
> these are they guys to look up.

Actually, you're most likely not going to save money with an
independent CFII. His plane isn't going to be cheaper, and I would be
surprised if his hourly rate was lower. But you will learn how not to
put yourself in a position where you have to fly to Cat III (which
can't be done consistently in a C-172, or any other plane without
autoland), and you will learn to fly to Cat II comfortably (since that
CAN be done consistently with a C-172 in certain cases - what are
they?). Thing is, a Cat II ILS, hand flown, is not half as
challenging as a circling-only NDB (or even VOR) in 1000-2, never mind
minimums.

As for landing on an unlit runway - if you think that's an IFR skill,
I have news for you. We've got a local pilot who used to routinely
land at an unlit rough grass strip at night, in a taildragger no less,
and the only instrument training he ever got was the required three
hours for his private.

Michael

[HECTOP]

"Michael" > wrote:
> OK. Just a couple of questions:

Dude, I counted no less than NINE direct questions and a rather long list of
statements. What happened to the good old USENET where one would call
another a name and the whole ball would start rollin'?

It was a good training, very good training, with very experienced
instructors, old enough to be our grandpa's and quite demanding at that. I
think I've said enough, if you wanna find out more, stop by Mac Dan at
Caldwell and give my regards to the gentlemen.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

HECTOP wrote:
>
> Dude, I counted no less than NINE direct questions and a rather long list of
> statements. What happened to the good old USENET where one would call
> another a name and the whole ball would start rollin'?

Well, Yuri, you've been gone for a while and we just got into bad habits. :-)

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Jim Fisher]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> Cite?

How about you cite me a reference that they are inherantly unsafe?

Nevertheless, a Google on ""accelerated IFR"
(http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22accelerated+IFR%22)
turns up waaaay too much to sort through and you just aren't that important
to me. ;)

My belief comes from my own very thorough research of the subject and an
AOPA article I simply cannot locate in electronic form anywhere.

AOPA tested "normal" versus accelerated students just after and then one
year after the course. Both scored about the same. The gist of the article
was that it wasn't for everyone but for those who can handle it, it is, in
fact, effective training. See the post in this thread from someone who has
actually been through the course.

I was once considering A-IFR and exchanged emails with roughly a dozen
individuals from all over the country who used either PIC or one individual
who used to frequent this group (who once worked for PIC and went
independent). I got the references from both PIC and the individual who
turned over the list of references in very short order.

Those detailed exchanges absolutely convinced me that accelerated courses
were just as effective as "normal" training. I was about to go when life
got in the way.

Yeah, yeah, they were "references" and for all I know there is a vast
conspiracy to fool people like me into killing myself in a crash course.
But I did have long discussions with some of the respondents and, well, I'm
convinced.

I'll let you all know when I do it one of these days.

So there.

--
Jim Fisher

[Thomas Borchert]

Hectop,

> My post was to express my opinion,
>

Nope, you made a factual statement to SUPPORT your opinion. And I
called your bluff.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> This isn't to say
> that accelerated students are necessarily unsafe or that I wouldn't fly with
> them.
>

And to add one point that hasn't yet been made: If "accelerated" were so bad,
all airline and military pilots would be unsafe.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[HECTOP]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote:
> Nope, you made a factual statement to SUPPORT your opinion. And I

Actually, you've made a pest of yourself without contributing any relevant
opinions on the subject of this thread, whether correct or erroneous, but
yet an opionion. All you did, was flooded it with 7 messages simply trying
to bark up my tree. Way to go Thomas, you're an honorable and useful member
of this community. Where should I send you a complimentary bag of Purina
Chow?

With best regards

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Hectop,

> All you did, was flooded it with 7 messages simply trying
> to bark up my tree.
>

Not so. Pointing out that the key reason you give to support your very
strong opinion that (in my words) accelerated courses make unsafe
pilots is not valid, is a quite valuable contribution to the topic,
IMHO. At least as valuable as giving unsupportable statements of fact
and then later claiming it was just opinion.

BTW, I also posted an answer directly to the OP.

I would suggest we let the matter rest.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Teacherjh]

>>
If "accelerated" were so bad,
all airline and military pilots would be unsafe.
<<

It's not (only) the training, it's what you do with it afterwards. Airline and
military pilots fly a lot, in lots of kinds of weather. At the end of a year,
the training is minor.

Jose

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Teacherjh,

> It's not (only) the training, it's what you do with it afterwards.
>

I agree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

"HECTOP" > wrote
> Dude, I counted no less than NINE direct questions and a rather long list of
> statements.

Yeah, well, I just started listing the stuff that really needs to be
covered in instrument training in order for the pilot to be reasonably
safe and capable but is usually skipped, and the next thing I knew I
was halfway down the page. Those are not all the things I can think
of - just the first few that occurred to me.

> It was a good training, very good training

So the answer is that all those things were done and covered, and
there were no surprises there for you. Right?

You know, difficult does not equal good. I know a lot of CFII's whose
idea of good training is making the student do partial panel NDB holds
in 20+ kts of crosswind, over and over until he can make good looking
racetracks. Is it difficult? Sure it is. But is it good training?
Not really - it's mostly a waste of time. In real life, the only time
it matters is when the hold is there in lieu of PT, and then the only
part that matters is the entry. If you can fly your entry such that
you are reasonably stabilized on the FAC before you cross the fix
inbound, you're good. As for other holds - all that matters is that
you stay inside the protected airspace. You can fly figure-eights
there for all ATC cares.

After you go out there and actually us your instrument rating to
travel for a few years (and no, flying in the local area doesn't
count), you get a real good feeling for what makes good instrument
training. Until then, you really have no idea.

Michael

[Glenn Harris]

I dunno. I did a 7 day instrument rating through a community college
in Florida and was very pleased with the results. There was a real
life experience at the end which reinforced all the skills.
-G

www.geocities.com/cfidarren/ifra.htm

"HECTOP" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Bauer" > wrote:
> > because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments
> Rating.
>
> I dunno, some may express a different opinion (go ahead and flame me,
> assholes ;), but in mine, doing an "Accelerated" Instrument Rating is like
> learning to become a surgeon in 24 hours and going out trying to "save"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
> I have completed 190 complete instrument ratings in 9 days or less.
> None of my students have gotten into trouble or hurt themselves. Let
> me know via email if I can be of help..

Wow, that's over 21 a day!

Oh, you meant...

:-)

Paul