About Acellerated Courses for Private

[Dudley Henriques]

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

[Bob Gardner]

I agree completely.

Bob Gardner

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

[Jack Allison]

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

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

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

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student

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

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

[C J Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael 182]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> I've been reading these threads about extreme accelerated courses that
> get you passed the written <snip>

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

As usual, great post Dudley.

Michael

[Jim Fisher]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash courses
> for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall abilities of
> pilots who had gone through a normal process

I'm more with you than again' you on this one, Dudley. However, I had the
same thought about accelerated courses for the IFR that I was once
considering until I researched the subject and was convinced otherwise.

I wonder if I would again be swayed if I were to look into the accelerated
Private programs? I doubt it. I don't see how anyone could gain the
experience they need within 40 to 50 hours and a few weeks. Some do, of
course, but speaking as one who got their wings at about 70 hours, it still
wasn't really enough. Had I known what I know now, I would have stayed
under the tutelage of my CFI for a dozen or two more hours . . . Okay,
that's a damn lie. I wanted my wings just as bad as anyone else and wanted
the NOW, by golly. I still coulda' used a few more hours, though.

I, Jim Fisher, Internationally Famous Former Airplane Owner, probably would
have been one of those that "cracked" under your probing questions and you
would have equated my knowledge with the Accelerated dudes. We will never
know, I guess.

What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here in the
group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really doesn't
mean squat. Just because you've had a few students from Accelerated Courses
("AC") who didn't quite meet your standards doesn't mean most, some, all or
none of them will not. Your experience is not anywhere close to a
scientific sampling.

All that said, perhaps you've illuminated a problem that does not rest with
the AC courses but with the Private Pilot written and checkride.

Many CFIs here in the group have stated over and over again "Don't worry
about the checkride or your written grade. What matters is that you
passed." But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley.

So, either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test and Ride
are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
drawing board.

It can't be either, can it?

--
Jim Fisher

[Richard Russell]

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

snipped a bunch of good stuff...

>My experience with pilots coming out of accelerated courses hasn't been
>that good. In my opinion, the ability to demonstrate without complete
>understanding is a real potential problem for a new pilot.
>As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash courses
>for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall abilities of
>pilots who had gone through a normal process of the learning curve.
>Now....what exactly constitutes the "normal process" in the flying
>learning curve is another subject altogether :-))))
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>

As always, an excellent analysis. I'm a low-time (100 hour) pilot and
I remember my training very well. I did over a 6 month period, flying
twice a week. I have no problem remembering how important the days
were between my lessons. That time was invaluable to the process,
allowing me to evaluate what I had done and mentally practice and
prepare to do better the next time. I truly believe that this kind of
learning must be digested, and that takes time. I also cannot imagine
getting my license after only experiencing ten days of weather, rather
than the change of several seasons. Actually, I'm amazed that they
let me fly at all! Even with my big, bad 100 hours I feel like I'm
taking my first lesson every time I get in the plane. Good luck to
the ten-day wonders.
Rich Russell

[Joe Johnson]

I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated <g>

[Ritchard Findlay]

LOL.


--
Ritchard Findlay
Toronto, CANADA

(remove "nospam." to reply)


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

[Dudley Henriques]

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

I have no problem remembering how important the days
> were between my lessons. That time was invaluable to the >process,
> allowing me to evaluate what I had done and mentally practice and
> prepare to do better the next time. I truly believe that this kind of
> learning must be digested, and that takes time.

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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..

> I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated <g>

Poor retired CFI.........no spell checker!!!! :-)))

DH

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Todd Pattist wrote:

> My view of accelerated training mirrrors Dudley's.

First, let me say that I have nothing but respect for both Dudley and
Todd - I rarely disagree with either of them (which, of course, means
that they're both right most of the time :-) ).

> ... I heard long ago that most of the students in the
> AF Academy solo from ab initio in only 12 flights....
> ...Finally, they do a very rigorous intensive program aimed at
> the solo with a very limited solo of around the pattern and
> down.

I learned to fly gliders at the age of 16 at a soaring "camp" in
Franconia, NH, near Cannon Mountain. There were about 8 - 10 of us,
with three or four instructors. We each got ONE flight each day for 21
days (if we were very lucky, two, but that only happened a couple of
times) in the morning, before the tourists showed up for glider rides.
Each ride averaged about 10-20 minutes, depending upon tow altitude and
lift conditions.

I soloed on my 11th flight - I had 10 landings TOTAL before my solo.
Before anyone says "well, you must be above average in skills", there
were one or two out of the 10 folks that soloed on their 9th or 10th
flight, and the rest all soloed before their 15th flight. I hardly
think that ALL of us could have been above average in pure flying skill.

This type of instruction is what I would refer to as
"semi-accelerated" - one flight per day, but EVERY day.

I guess I just don't see why flight instruction is any different than
any other type of instruction. If someone want to learn to be a doctor
or a lawyer, they go to school all day, every day, and practice the crap
out of it. They don't go to one class per week, or maybe two, and think
that they're getting the same education. It's the same with sports -
intensive sports camps/training facilities produce much more highly
skilled athletes than those that practice on their own every once in a
while. No one would suggest that college should be an 10 year rather
than 4 year ordeal to allow folks to "absorb and digest" the material -
that's why you study in the evenings.

Personally, I wouldn't have any reservations about doing the 7-10 day
IFR training (and might, in the near future), and if I had had the $$ to
do an intensive PP class back in 1974-1980 when I trained for my glider
and SEL ratings, I would have jumped at it.

I guess all the defense of the "traditional" system of flight training
just sounds like the classic "that's the way we've always done it around
here" defense, and that's rarely, if ever, a good reason to do anything.
Try to think out of the box, and compare flight training to every other
form of training out there. People learn best (and retain more, IF THEY
CONTINUE TO USE THE SKILLS) in an intensive environment. Flight
training, whether advanced or basic, is no different, IMO.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash
courses
> > for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall abilities
of
> > pilots who had gone through a normal process
>
> I'm more with you than again' you on this one, Dudley. However, I had
the
> same thought about accelerated courses for the IFR that I was once
> considering until I researched the subject and was convinced
otherwise.
>
> I wonder if I would again be swayed if I were to look into the
accelerated
> Private programs? I doubt it. I don't see how anyone could gain the
> experience they need within 40 to 50 hours and a few weeks. Some do,
of
> course, but speaking as one who got their wings at about 70 hours, it
still
> wasn't really enough. Had I known what I know now, I would have
stayed
> under the tutelage of my CFI for a dozen or two more hours . . . Okay,
> that's a damn lie. I wanted my wings just as bad as anyone else and
wanted
> the NOW, by golly. I still coulda' used a few more hours, though.
>
> I, Jim Fisher, Internationally Famous Former Airplane Owner, probably
would
> have been one of those that "cracked" under your probing questions and
you
> would have equated my knowledge with the Accelerated dudes. We will
never
> know, I guess.
>
> What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here
in the
> group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really
doesn't
> mean squat. Just because you've had a few students from Accelerated
Courses
> ("AC") who didn't quite meet your standards doesn't mean most, some,
all or
> none of them will not. Your experience is not anywhere close to a
> scientific sampling.
>
> All that said, perhaps you've illuminated a problem that does not rest
with
> the AC courses but with the Private Pilot written and checkride.
>
> Many CFIs here in the group have stated over and over again "Don't
worry
> about the checkride or your written grade. What matters is that you
> passed." But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according
to
> you, Dudley.
>
> So, either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of
"pilots"
> unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test and
Ride
> are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to
the
> drawing board.
>
> It can't be either, can it?
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.

I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
personal stuff and assumptions please.

Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
mean squat"....... and simply ask logical, pertinent questions if
that's at all possible. I'll be glad to discuss the issue with you.
Appreciate it! :-)
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[m pautz]

Joe Johnson wrote:

> I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated <g>
>
>
Proof of the premise.

He took an *acellerated* typeing course.

[Andrew Gideon]

Jim Fisher wrote:


> Many CFIs here in the group have stated over and over again "Don't worry
> about the checkride or your written grade. What matters is that you
> passed." But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
> you, Dudley.
>
> So, either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
> unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test and Ride
> are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
> drawing board.
>
> It can't be either, can it?

Dudley has some good opinions, but he also has a tendency to draw
conclusions from limited data and then assume them to be true.
Unfortunately, most people untrained in statistics are guilty of this type
of error in one form or another.

What he didn't write - and may not even have considered - is how many pilots
out of a unaccelerated program would pass his test. He'd not be the only
one here to point out the flaws in much flight training.

Lack of depth of understanding is something I find all too frequency, in
many different areas. Yes, I believe that a rushed education is biased
towards this. However, I've seen plenty of people with conventional
educations in a subject that still lack real depth.

On that theme, I have to admit that I'm towards the "test & checkride is a
joke" side of your argument. It is too easy for someone that I'd not want
to see flying to pass. The two sets of aviation tests I've taken - IR and
PPL - tested some, but not all, of what was required.

During my PPL, for example, the DE asked some question about flying into
weather where the obvious answer was "don't go". Asking that question is
fine, in that it would be Very Bad if a pilot didn't know the answer. But
having the candidate state "I'd not go" on a test is quite different from
seeing how he or she would react in the get-there-itis world.

No, the checkride isn't really a joke per se. But it does leave untested
too much of what I think a pilot needs to carry. Having said that, though,
I don't know how so short a test can test for handling pressure, judgement,
and such.

Someone on this thread mentioned physicians. One difference - among many -
is that a physician operates (pun mostly unintended {8^) under supervision
for an extensive period of time. In the case of a checkride, it's one test
and then *zoom*.

I'd opine that the CFI's role should be more than just instructor. A CFI
should act as a filter for those characteristics different to spot in a
single test. Someone that is too willing to fly beyond his or her envelope
should, in my perfect world, never be sent to a DE.

But, real world, I doubt that many are willing to do this. I'd guess that
the more exprienced CFIs - those that recognize the cost of failing to
filter in this way - do. But the time-builders have their attention
elsewhere too often, I believe.

Back to Dudley's message, and your question about flight tests: This depth
of which he speaks is *not* one of these difficult-to-test qualities. I
specifically recall the weather part of my IR oral, as it was a very
in-depth conversation (and damned interesting!). If a pilot cannot discuss
a required topic in depth, the DE should catch this.

Someone used the phrase "Santa Claus DE" here recently. I hate to think
that these exist...but perhaps they do.

- Andrew

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Mark;
See my inserts please;


"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
news:waDIc.59547$JR4.1000@attbi_s54...
> Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> > My view of accelerated training mirrrors Dudley's.
>
> First, let me say that I have nothing but respect for both Dudley and
> Todd - I rarely disagree with either of them (which, of course, means
> that they're both right most of the time :-) ).

Thank you, but my wife is beginning to doubt your sanity already!!
:-))

>
> > ... I heard long ago that most of the students in the
> > AF Academy solo from ab initio in only 12 flights....
> > ...Finally, they do a very rigorous intensive program aimed at
> > the solo with a very limited solo of around the pattern and
> > down.
>
> I learned to fly gliders at the age of 16 at a soaring "camp" in
> Franconia, NH, near Cannon Mountain. There were about 8 - 10 of us,
> with three or four instructors. We each got ONE flight each day for
21
> days (if we were very lucky, two, but that only happened a couple of
> times) in the morning, before the tourists showed up for glider rides.
> Each ride averaged about 10-20 minutes, depending upon tow altitude
and
> lift conditions.
>
> I soloed on my 11th flight - I had 10 landings TOTAL before my solo.
> Before anyone says "well, you must be above average in skills", there
> were one or two out of the 10 folks that soloed on their 9th or 10th
> flight, and the rest all soloed before their 15th flight. I hardly
> think that ALL of us could have been above average in pure flying
skill.
>
> This type of instruction is what I would refer to as
> "semi-accelerated" - one flight per day, but EVERY day.

It's important you put what we're discussing here in the right context.
It's very easy to misinterpret the issue if one isn't extremely careful.
No one is saying, or even implying that this scenario can't be done. It
indeed can be done, and is done all the time.

The issue context in your specific scenario simply would be stating that
at the point of your solo in that glider, you were at a level where you
could demonstrate performance, but not necessarily at a corresponding
level of comprehension that you might have had had you been exposed for
a longer period. You were safe enough. What I've been saying is that
given a different learning situation, where periods of time were allowed
between flight lessons, you would simply have had a much higher level of
comprehension.
You can fly either way. Rote will allow you to handle the glider.
Comprehension allows you to handle it better...that's all! In your case,
as in the case of thousands of people exposed to accellerated training,
the comprehension usually follows and cathes up at a later time. It's
just not the optimum way to learn to fly. There are dangers in not
having a certain level of comprehension.
Bottom line; acellerated training will work. A bit slower training with
time to absorb and comprehend is better.
>
> I guess I just don't see why flight instruction is any different than
> any other type of instruction. If someone want to learn to be a
doctor
> or a lawyer, they go to school all day, every day, and practice the
crap
> out of it. They don't go to one class per week, or maybe two, and
think
> that they're getting the same education. It's the same with sports -
> intensive sports camps/training facilities produce much more highly
> skilled athletes than those that practice on their own every once in a
> while. No one would suggest that college should be an 10 year rather
> than 4 year ordeal to allow folks to "absorb and digest" the
material -
> that's why you study in the evenings.

The difference is in the force of impact on your body if something you
didn't quite understand catches up to you :-))
In a classroom; you make a mistake; you try it agin. Make a mistake in
an airplane; you might not get a second chance!
Comparing flying to a classroom only learned profession is a bad
analogy.

>
> Personally, I wouldn't have any reservations about doing the 7-10 day
> IFR training (and might, in the near future), and if I had had the $$
to
> do an intensive PP class back in 1974-1980 when I trained for my
glider
> and SEL ratings, I would have jumped at it.

Again, we're not discussing advanced acellerated training; only
beginning training from Student through Private Pilot.
>
> I guess all the defense of the "traditional" system of flight training
> just sounds like the classic "that's the way we've always done it
around
> here" defense, and that's rarely, if ever, a good reason to do
anything.

> Try to think out of the box, and compare flight training to every
other
> form of training out there.

Flight training, or any type of training that occurs in a dynamic
environment that can kill you is NOT like any form of training out
there!!


People learn best (and retain more, IF THEY
> CONTINUE TO USE THE SKILLS) in an intensive environment.

People RETAIN best in a non intensive environment. They then must
continue to use the skills they have LEARNED in an intensive
environment.

Flight
> training, whether advanced or basic, is no different, IMO.

Advanced flight training is VERY different from basic flight training.
The difference is in the experience level insertion point. Advanced
training can be accelerated because it assumes a certain level of
performance. That level of performance is totally absent in basic flight
training. It's the development of the basic skills required for advanced
flight training that makes basic flight training in my opinion, MUCH
more time consuming than the advanced format.
In other words, when a new pilot arrives to fly a position on the
Thunderbirds, he DAMN well better already know one hell of a lot about
close formation flying!!! :-))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:HhDIc.62946$a24.45427@attbi_s03...
>
> Joe Johnson wrote:
>
> > I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated <g>
> >
> >
> Proof of the premise.
>
> He took an *acellerated* typeing course.

typeing??? :-))))

DH

[Jim Fisher]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
> the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.

Naw, not really. Your stance on accelerated anything is about as
supportable and demonstrable as my stance on high versus low wing.

> I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
> CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
> personal stuff and assumptions please.

Read it again, Dudley. There was no "veiled" anything in my post. Anything
"personal" was interpreted that way by you and not typed that way by me.
You've gone off the deep end misinterpreting posts before here in these
groups. You've done it again with mine.

> Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
> not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
> mean squat".......

I was never in the military so pulling rank won't get anything but a smirk
on a good day and a big, hairy moon on a bad one.

You were wrong on the acellerated IFR subject and you might be (but probably
are not) wrong about this acellerated Private thing. Until somebody pipes
up with some quantifyable data, you're opinion means squat. Sad but true.

I am of the opinion that accelerated courses, when done properly, have merit
and can produce good results. That opinion is supported by the successful
accelerated IFR programs. I don't know (and neither do you) if that is the
case with Private programs.

--
Jim Fisher

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...

> Dudley has some good opinions, but he also has a tendency to draw
> conclusions from limited data and then assume them to be true.

You obviously don't know me :-)

There are no conclusions here; just a fairly high experience level
coupled with a simple opinion based on that experience. That's why I
wrote,

"Is this a good way to do things in flying? Who knows!"

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! :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Euan Kilgour]

Richard Russell > wrote in message >...

> As always, an excellent analysis. I'm a low-time (100 hour) pilot and
> I remember my training very well. I did over a 6 month period, flying
> twice a week. I have no problem remembering how important the days
> were between my lessons. That time was invaluable to the process,
> allowing me to evaluate what I had done and mentally practice and
> prepare to do better the next time. I truly believe that this kind of
> learning must be digested, and that takes time. I also cannot imagine
> getting my license after only experiencing ten days of weather, rather
> than the change of several seasons. Actually, I'm amazed that they
> let me fly at all! Even with my big, bad 100 hours I feel like I'm
> taking my first lesson every time I get in the plane. Good luck to
> the ten-day wonders.

I agree 100% with Richard here. Because one of the first things I
discovered when I took my first flight in the left seat that my
natural flying aptitude isn't quite up to the level of my enthusiasm,
I am able to get more out of each flight with a few days between
lessons.

Euan - 1.7 hours.

[Gene Whitt]

Y'All,
I held off longer than I thought I would before jumping into the pool. I
once taught a student in 31 days to his PP rating. Acelerated? No! He had
money, time and motivation. I had time. We flew twice a day, three times a
week for four weeks. He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without have to make a
cross wind landing. We went up immediately after the failure and he passed
the next day. Two weeks later he added his heliocopter rating.

I do not teach to private pilot standards of the PTS because they are
minimums. In fact all FAA requirements and standards are minimums and that
is not the way any CFI should teach. Prior to the FAA requiring three hours
night experience, etc. I taught my students over ten hours and never
counted landings or distance.
I took them on a night flight S.F. Bay tourl as well as a multiple airport
flight into the foot hills of the Sierras. Even now I take my students into
ten different airports to get their 50 mile distance and ten landings The
FAA minimums for night are minimums.

I have always taught my students SVFR procedues and allowed them to fly SVFR
until the FAA stepped in and said no student SVFR. I have lost count of the
number of pilots I have introduced to the desirablity of being capable of
SVFR flight. SVFR is not something you want to happen for the first time to
you without any training or experience. Again, the FAA minimums for SVFR
are non-existent from the flight program.

The above instructional areas can not take place in an accelerated program.
My student do not solo in less than 20 hours. In those hours they have
learned all procedures for arrival and departure procedures at airports in
four different quadrants from the home field. Prior to 9/11 my students had
usually spent two hours at a radar facility and another two hours at a
Flilght Service Station and every third flight included a tower visit. The
greatest single problem my students have is when ATC expects their procedure
skills to equal their raidio skills. Student flying is not any safer since
9/11 in my opinion.

Finally, I am with Dudley 100%
Gene Whitt

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "m pautz" > wrote in message
> news:HhDIc.62946$a24.45427@attbi_s03...
> >
> > Joe Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with everything except the spelling of accelerated <g>
> > >
> > >
> > Proof of the premise.
> >
> > He took an *acellerated* typeing course.
>
> typeing??? :-))))
>
> DH
>
>

[Barry]

> He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
> crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without have
> to make a cross wind landing.

§61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

(a) General. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless
that student has met the requirements of this section.

(c) Pre-solo flight training. Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student
pilot must have:

(1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of
this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be
flown; and

(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an
authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this
section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of
aircraft to be flown.

(d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine
airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine
airplane rating must receive and log flight training for the following
maneuvers and procedures:

(3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and CROSSWIND

[Barry]

> He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
> crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without
> have to make a cross wind landing.

Note that FAR 61.87(d)(3) requires demonstrated proficiency in
crosswind landings before a student may solo.

[[email protected]]

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?

My take? I think accelerated courses may work for some people. My
wife is a teacher of learning disabled kids. She's studied teaching
methods and learning diabilities for much of her long teaching career.
Learning is a very complicated subject and one of the big difficulties
with teaching is that kids (and adults) learn at different rates.
Some pickup information almost instantly and retain it like they have
computers for brains. Others have to read and re-read or have it read
to them and then have it explained again and still don't get it. If
you try to teach everyone with one same method, the quick learners are
bored to distraction and the slow learners don't get it.

I think it's possible that those who learn fast and retain information
well could benefit from accelerated courses like you mention. Of
course, understanding something and translating that to coordinated
movement is different.

So practicing is important and the more you practice the better you
get. It would follow that a LOT of practice is better than a little
practice. Who does not benefit from practicing landings over and over
again? Most eventually get it, but not without practice, and
continued practice is what keeps the skill level high.

So I'm inclined to think that there's something to these accelerated
courses. They aren't for everyone of course, but they'd work for fast
learners I think.

Corky Scott

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> No one would suggest that college should be an 10 year rather
>> than 4 year ordeal to allow folks to "absorb and digest" the
>> material -
>> that's why you study in the evenings.

Well, this is just a single data point...

I did my undergrad the usual way. I did my graduate work at night, while
working. I believe that this helped me get a *lot* more out of the
graduate work.

Related variables, though, include that I could often use what I'd learned
in the evenings at work during the day (even if abstractly). More, I could
see opportunities in the real world where what I'd be learning applied.

Hmm...I'd not considered it this way, but this experience might explain why
I've taken written tests towards the end of my training, rather than early.
I note that many take the written exams early to get past them, but I took
both PPL and IR writtens relatively shortly before my checkrides. I found
the tests pretty easy, as a result, as much of the material was part of a
consistent fabric of knowledge and experience.

Still, this is just me. Others may operate differently.

Another difference between college and flight training is that college
typically involved a fairly diverse course load. That is, one isn't taking
one course for 40 hours, but 4 or 5 or 6 different course concurrently.
Perhaps we should have an accelerated program which combines aviation,
SCUBA, A&P, and whatever else that interests me (or others, I suppose {8^).

- Andrew

[Mike Rapoport]

> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash courses
> > for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall abilities of
> > pilots who had gone through a normal process

I'm not a CFI so I don't really know what I am talking about but this is
usenet so here goes anyway(!!!)...It is my impression that, right or wrong,
most students are trained to proficiency in each task and then they are
moved on to the next task. When they have adequate proficiency to pass the
checkride they are signed off to take it. Most students (guessing here
again) are mature enough to recognize their limitations and use their PP
certificate to expand their capabilities and continue to expand their
knowledge as well so the fact that they are not meteorologists or FAR
lawyers doesn't put them at undue risk.

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

Mike
MU-2

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > > As I've said, the pilots I've checked coming out of these "crash
courses
> > > for the Private" were safe enough, but lacked the overall
abilities of
> > > pilots who had gone through a normal process
>
> I'm not a CFI so I don't really know what I am talking about but this
is
> usenet so here goes anyway(!!!)...It is my impression that, right or
wrong,
> most students are trained to proficiency in each task and then they
are
> moved on to the next task. When they have adequate proficiency to
pass the
> checkride they are signed off to take it. Most students (guessing
here
> again) are mature enough to recognize their limitations and use their
PP
> certificate to expand their capabilities and continue to expand their
> knowledge as well so the fact that they are not meteorologists or FAR
> lawyers doesn't put them at undue risk.
>
> If this is the case, there shouldn't be a major difference between the
> "traditional" method and the "accelerated".
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Both will do the job; there's no question about that. You can rote a
pilot right through a program and 9 times out of 10, the comprehension
will catch up through a natural evolutional process as comprehension is
gained through experience .
The only issue I see with the accelerated program (only at the basic
level) is that I believe it's not the optimum method to use to learn to
fly. There are better ways available.....not faster....but better!!
There is a danger area there for a pilot who knows the answers to the
questions without fully understanding the questions themselves. This
danger area will naturally decrease as experience is gained, but it's
still there and could be a safety factor. What happens in the ideal
situation is that the pilot self motivates toward the comprehension
needed. But sometimes this doesn't happen, and the pilot enters into a
flying situation without that motivation toward self learning the much
needed comprehension.
Bottom line for me at least is this;
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.
Keep in mind, that these comments are only my opinion based on personal
experience. Whether or not they can be proven right or wrong is
statistical analysis, and that's another matter entirely.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Paul Sengupta]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> I heard long ago that most of the students in the
> AF Academy solo from ab initio in only 12 flights. I was
> astounded, and to most glider pilots and glider instructors,
> it seems almost unbelievable.

There was a programme on TV here in the UK about army training
of helicopter pilots at Middle Wallop. The students started flying in
fixed wing planes (Chipmunks). They started circuit bashing immediately.
They had to solo in 5 hours. If they didn't, they were "on report" and had
another 2 hours to try to solo. If they didn't achieve this, they were out.
If they took more than 5, it was a mark against them and they had to
redeem themselves over the next x number of hours.

Paul

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message

> Read it again, Dudley. There was no "veiled" anything in my post.
Anything
> "personal" was interpreted that way by you and not typed that way by
me.
> You've gone off the deep end misinterpreting posts before here in
these
> groups. You've done it again with mine.

Nonesense! Your post reads like the script from the Shining!! :-)))
It's no big deal Jim, and I think it's quite humorous really, but if any
re-reading should be done, you do it. You start out neutral enough with
your answer, but in the middle for some ungodly reason, you must
suddenly remember that you don't REALLY like my deodorant or something,
because you change from the issue over to me and get nastier and nastier
until at the last sentence, I get a picture of you coming through the
door with an ax holler'in "Here's Jimieeeeee" !!!!" :-)))))))
As I said JF, no big deal at all, and you're right. I do get testy with
posts that change the subject from the issue to the messenger. No need
for that. If you simply stay on the issue and away from the personal
stuff, no one should have a problem with me.
Nuff said I hope! :-)

> You were wrong on the acellerated IFR subject and you might be (but
probably
> are not) wrong about this acellerated Private thing. Until somebody
pipes
> up with some quantifyable data, you're opinion means squat. Sad but
true.

About your reference to IFR accelerated training and my opinion on it; I
seem to remember on another thread about accelerated courses, some
thread creep as people posted on down the line. If my comments on that
thread led you to believe that I was opposed specifically to FIR
accelerated training, either I miss-spoke or you read something I didn't
mean to convey.
Anyway, if you go back and read my initial comments in THIS thread, you
will note the following statement by me dealing directly with this
subject;

"I should state that I consider the subject of accelerated courses for
advanced tests and ratings such as multi, instrument, and ATP to be a
separate issue. In my opinion, an argument can be made for accelerated
courses dealing with higher ratings and written test prep when the
insertion point for these programs assumes a certain existing level of
experience and demonstrated performance".

I hope this clears up your "misunderstanding" on the IFR issue at least!
:-)

All the best,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Andrew;

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

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!!!!!!!?"
:-)
Dudley



"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> >> No one would suggest that college should be an 10 year rather
> >> than 4 year ordeal to allow folks to "absorb and digest" the
> >> material -
> >> that's why you study in the evenings.
>
> Well, this is just a single data point...
>
> I did my undergrad the usual way. I did my graduate work at night,
while
> working. I believe that this helped me get a *lot* more out of the
> graduate work.
>
> Related variables, though, include that I could often use what I'd
learned
> in the evenings at work during the day (even if abstractly). More, I
could
> see opportunities in the real world where what I'd be learning
applied.
>
> Hmm...I'd not considered it this way, but this experience might
explain why
> I've taken written tests towards the end of my training, rather than
early.
> I note that many take the written exams early to get past them, but I
took
> both PPL and IR writtens relatively shortly before my checkrides. I
found
> the tests pretty easy, as a result, as much of the material was part
of a
> consistent fabric of knowledge and experience.
>
> Still, this is just me. Others may operate differently.
>
> Another difference between college and flight training is that college
> typically involved a fairly diverse course load. That is, one isn't
taking
> one course for 40 hours, but 4 or 5 or 6 different course
concurrently.
> Perhaps we should have an accelerated program which combines aviation,
> SCUBA, A&P, and whatever else that interests me (or others, I suppose
{8^).
>
> - Andrew
>

[Dudley Henriques]

> 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

[gatt]

"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

[gatt]

"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]

"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

[Mike Rapoport]

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
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[Roy Smith]

"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.

[Dudley Henriques]

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
> >
> >
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

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
>

[Andrew Gideon]

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

[Jim Fisher]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message

If you simply stay on the issue and away from the personal
> stuff, no one should have a problem with me.
> Nuff said I hope! :-)

You've lost it, man. I didn't say anything personal. Nothing. Nada. In
this debate forum, I simply take issue with your stance that accelerated
training just can't be as good as traditional training. That's it! Grow
up.

Sticking to the bubject (as I have been all along):

You that are against accelerated training have to answer the question I
originally posed: Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions
of "pilots" unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the
test & Ride are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them
back to the drawing board. It can't be both, can it?

In other words, the practical test that sends the accelerated students into
the wild blue yonder is either sufficient or it is not.

You and every single other individual who are so against it have absolutely
no quantifiable data to support your stance. All you have is opinions
which, thus far, are NOT supported by any amount of data. You've supported
it with anecdotal evidence which simply doesn't count for squat.

On the other hand, pilots are graduating from accelerated programs every
day. Some in as little as 10 days. Some in 30 days. They've been doing it
successfully for a hundred years. We have an FAA that oversees this stuff
and, to my knowledge, they have NEVER had to adjust training requirements or
issue any statement on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the thousands
of PP accelerated course graduates over these many years. None!

I can give you equally anecdotal evidence that says that traditional
training just plain sucks. I don't have to tell you how many times our
primary training was interrupted by life events, weather, mechanical
problems and so forth and so on. I can't count the number of times I've had
to re-learn something because I went for a week or more without cracking a
book or cranking a plane. Most of that would have gone away had I been in
an immersive environment making for a more effective training schedule.

I can give you concrete evidence that the average person, without
reinforcement, will retain about 95% of the information by the next day. By
the 7th day, this is down to 80% and by day 10 it is 70%. This is the case
with immersive (cramming) as well as traditional studies. Without
reinforcement, the knowledge goes away no matter what kind of program you
are in.

Hell, I know some government programs that can take a young, carefree,
innocent boy, to a secluded island off the coast of South Carolina , break
him down to his basic building blocks with brute force then rebuild him into
a lean, mean killing machine full of ****, vinegar, and lust for life! This
can be done in SIX WEEKS! I'm not making this up.

And you want to tell me a dedicated, intelligent individual cannot learn to
do such a simple thing as fly from point A to point B in less than six
months? Hogwash!

It would take a dedicated CFI who understands the physiological and
psychological needs of the human brain. He would also be willing to immerse
himself and even thrive in that kind of environment. I imagine it probably
isn't for everyone but, then again, I really have no idea. But neither do
you, Dudley.

Is it ideal? I dunno. Are there better ways? Probably. But does anyone
here have anything to offer other and unsubstantial opinions?

No.

--
Jimfisher
(my new accelerated signature)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "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.

This is true, and it's an integral part of any good flight training
program. I like to consider it as part of the immersion factor; the part
where the student is exposed to the instructor. The first few hours are
critical in the "good judgment" area. It's here that the overall tone of
what the student will come to expect from his/her flying experience will
be formed.
Students are habit pattern sponges. They will emulate and in most cases
duplicate their instructor's attitude and habit patterns. It's
absolutely crucial that the instructor set the tone IMMEDIATELY for what
will be absorbed by the student in the way of developing habit patterns
and judgment. Everything the instructor does both in and outside the
airplane will be watched by the student. In this respect there can be an
unusual process going on, and it's a wise instructor who knows how this
works.
When it comes to what a student ACTUALLY remembers and adopts as their
own habit patterns and basis for judgment, it isn't so much what the
instructor says that matters. It's what the instructor DOES in and
around the airplane that impresses the student.
The safer the instructor IS, the more of that safe habit pattern and
good judgment will rub off on the student.
You can't actually "teach" good judgment by any other method but
example.
Along these lines I always told prospective CFI's to consider carefully
the potential for both good and bad that their example both in and
around the airplane could transfer over to their students.
Developing good judgment in a student is one of the prime
responsibilities of a flight instructor, and an awesome responsibility
that should be taken VERY seriously!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jim Fisher]

"gatt" > wrote in message

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

Using the same logic, why only four years of college? Why not extend that
to 8, 12 or more?

A dedicated individual can get an advanced degree in as little as two years
if he wants. Not many people want to 'cause college is just too much damn
fun but it can be done.

If you are to take that stance, you must dictate what the "proper" amount of
time would be. Is 45 days enough? 60? 160?

At exactly what level is efficiency traded for overload?

Answer: There is no answer. Accelerated is probably good for some,
probably not for others. That's for me to decide and not some old school
CFI who knows only one way to teach.

--
Jim Fisher

[Dudley Henriques]

Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a day
shall we.
All the best,
DH

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> If you simply stay on the issue and away from the personal
> > stuff, no one should have a problem with me.
> > Nuff said I hope! :-)
>
> You've lost it, man. I didn't say anything personal. Nothing. Nada.
In
> this debate forum, I simply take issue with your stance that
accelerated
> training just can't be as good as traditional training. That's it!
Grow
> up.
>
> Sticking to the bubject (as I have been all along):
>
> You that are against accelerated training have to answer the question
I
> originally posed: Either the written test & checkride is a joke and
jillions
> of "pilots" unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or
the
> test & Ride are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send
them
> back to the drawing board. It can't be both, can it?
>
> In other words, the practical test that sends the accelerated students
into
> the wild blue yonder is either sufficient or it is not.
>
> You and every single other individual who are so against it have
absolutely
> no quantifiable data to support your stance. All you have is opinions
> which, thus far, are NOT supported by any amount of data. You've
supported
> it with anecdotal evidence which simply doesn't count for squat.
>
> On the other hand, pilots are graduating from accelerated programs
every
> day. Some in as little as 10 days. Some in 30 days. They've been
doing it
> successfully for a hundred years. We have an FAA that oversees this
stuff
> and, to my knowledge, they have NEVER had to adjust training
requirements or
> issue any statement on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the
thousands
> of PP accelerated course graduates over these many years. None!
>
> I can give you equally anecdotal evidence that says that traditional
> training just plain sucks. I don't have to tell you how many times
our
> primary training was interrupted by life events, weather, mechanical
> problems and so forth and so on. I can't count the number of times
I've had
> to re-learn something because I went for a week or more without
cracking a
> book or cranking a plane. Most of that would have gone away had I
been in
> an immersive environment making for a more effective training
schedule.
>
> I can give you concrete evidence that the average person, without
> reinforcement, will retain about 95% of the information by the next
day. By
> the 7th day, this is down to 80% and by day 10 it is 70%. This is
the case
> with immersive (cramming) as well as traditional studies. Without
> reinforcement, the knowledge goes away no matter what kind of program
you
> are in.
>
> Hell, I know some government programs that can take a young, carefree,
> innocent boy, to a secluded island off the coast of South Carolina ,
break
> him down to his basic building blocks with brute force then rebuild
him into
> a lean, mean killing machine full of ****, vinegar, and lust for life!
This
> can be done in SIX WEEKS! I'm not making this up.
>
> And you want to tell me a dedicated, intelligent individual cannot
learn to
> do such a simple thing as fly from point A to point B in less than six
> months? Hogwash!
>
> It would take a dedicated CFI who understands the physiological and
> psychological needs of the human brain. He would also be willing to
immerse
> himself and even thrive in that kind of environment. I imagine it
probably
> isn't for everyone but, then again, I really have no idea. But
neither do
> you, Dudley.
>
> Is it ideal? I dunno. Are there better ways? Probably. But does
anyone
> here have anything to offer other and unsubstantial opinions?
>
> No.
>
> --
> Jimfisher
> (my new accelerated signature)
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> 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.

Exactly! The unwritten purpose, and indeed in many cases the written
purpose of the accelerated program, is to get you through the rating and
into the general community in a minimum time frame. Whether or not this
produces a safe pilot is a matter of individual standards.

My position on this issue is simply that the accelerated program at the
basic level through Private, graduates a rated pilot, and that this
pilot can be safe enough, but the comprehension issues lagging behind
the performance level at graduation by using a " minimum time spent in
the program" method produce a less than optimum condition at graduation,
which in my opinion again, has been proven to me at least, through my
personal experience checking out pilots coming through different
learning paths, to be not as effective a method of training as a method
that contains a time span between lessons that allows a more
comprehensive graduate, which under my personal definition, equates into
a better rounded and safer all around pilot entering the general
community.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Gene Whitt]

Barry, et all,
We had not had the 25 knot crosswinds that he had on the day of his
checkride. I teach all landings as though they are crosswinds.
Same techniques apply, keep nose straight with rudder correct drift with
wing low.

gene
"Barry" > wrote in message ...
> > He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
> > crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without
> > have to make a cross wind landing.
>
> Note that FAR 61.87(d)(3) requires demonstrated proficiency in
> crosswind landings before a student may solo.
>
>
>
>

[Jim Fisher]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message

> Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a day
> shall we.
> All the best,
> DH

I am not a yes or no vote. I don't know.

I'd like you to answer the following question that I've asked thee times so
far with no repsonse:

"Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test & Ride are
effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
drawing board. It can't be both, can it?"

--
Jim Fisher

[Dudley Henriques]

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Barry, et all,
> We had not had the 25 knot crosswinds that he had on the day of his
> checkride. I teach all landings as though they are crosswinds.
> Same techniques apply, keep nose straight with rudder correct drift
with
> wing low.
>
> gene

et al;
(as Gene says for a general post picking up on something ;)

I agree totally with this concept and wish all instructors did the same.
A landing is a landing.....and right from the gitgo, the student should
be aware that the airplane is flown at all times in existing conditions,
NOT in expected conditions that require different techniques. It's all
one big scenario up there, and it's a constantly changing scenario.
Treating crosswind landings as a separate and unique issue IN THE
AIRPLANE is counter productive to proper understanding.
I would encourage having the student study cross wind technique and it's
application in the landing equation, and be prepared for those
conditions by all means, but once in the airplane, all landings should
be considered as an event taking place in whatever wind conditions are
being encountered in real time during the approach.
The sooner students begin treating landings this way the sooner they
will understand the REAL world the airplane is in, and their
relationship to the airplane in this world.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[gatt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
news:eiVIc.1281

> 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?

This is a good point. I'm not sure to what extent, because while motor and
sensory skills can be taught by immersion, I think it's the other issues
such as knowledge, practice and procedure that are left behind. A great
stick and rudder pilot is still going to have trouble if he forgets VFR
minimums or cruises into Class B and can't understand the instructions being
given to him.

I'm sure that the more you fly, the better you fly but I think if it takes
12, or 20, or 100 days to learn then that's what a student pilot and
instructor should allow.

-c

[gatt]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "gatt" > wrote in message
>
> > We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to learn
to
> > fly in the same?
>
> Using the same logic, why only four years of college? Why not extend that
> to 8, 12 or more?

Four years is a long time. It's not ten days. I took five and a half years
because I couldn't take all of the elective material I needed for what I
wanted to do in only four.

> A dedicated individual can get an advanced degree in as little as two
years
> if he wants.

Still, I would question the robustness of that education. I mean, you can
get a degree from Devry, or some other agency over the internet without
having to take classes at all, but it might not be worth the paper it's
printed on.

> If you are to take that stance, you must dictate what the "proper" amount
of
> time would be. Is 45 days enough? 60? 160?

It shouldn't be measured in terms of hours or days, but at what point the
student pilot is qualified to become a private pilot. We already know that
the 40-hour legal minimum is unrealistic for most people and that some take
up to 80 hours or more.

> At exactly what level is efficiency traded for overload?

That's a good question. I bet a guy could do his master's thesis by
comparing BFR data, or by somehow retesting pilots across all types of
training schemes, and get good data.

> Answer: There is no answer. Accelerated is probably good for some,
> probably not for others. That's for me to decide and not some old school
> CFI who knows only one way to teach.

Depends on whether you're the student who doesn't know aileron from upper
camber or a private pilot who has used his 10-day PP/SEL for a couple of
hundred hours.

Me? I've got a clean record and every instructor, examiner and BFR
instructor I've had has told me I'm a better-than-average pilot for my time.
But I'll still defer to the old school CFI who has probably encountered and
survived countless situations about which I still have no idea. (My DE flew
a tour P-51s and by 1945 was back stateside training young Air Corps pilots,
and was still an instructor/examiner in 1988. I defer unconditionally.)

The FAA doesn't see a problem with it, though, so at this point it's just an
interesting subject to discuss.

-c

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> > Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a
day
> > shall we.
> > All the best,
> > DH
>
> I am not a yes or no vote. I don't know.
>
> I'd like you to answer the following question that I've asked thee
times so
> far with no repsonse:
>
> "Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of
"pilots"
> unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test &
Ride are
> effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
> drawing board. It can't be both, can it?"
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Jim;

The reason I haven't answered your question isn't because I can't, or
don't want to. It's because I'm getting from the "tone" of your posts to
me that it wouldn't matter much what I answered.
You obviously have some VERY strong pro opinion on accelerated flight
training and this opinion is different from my own. I accept that.
You on the other hand, seem to think your point about flight tests will
prove me wrong, so you keep pushing that at me.
The problem with answering you is that the premise for your question is
flawed as it addresses what I have said, and that makes it extremely
difficult to deal with what you are requesting. In fact, a lot of what
you have posted fits the same category. The reference to IFR training
for example. I wouldn't mind you disagreeing with me about IFR
accelerated training. The problem is that I don't disagree on the IFR
position and have plainly stated as much to you several times now.
I simply have to assume in these circumstances that you and I just have
to agree to disagree and let it go at that, rather than spend a ton of
bandwidth trying to get together on something we'll not be agreeing on
anyway :-)
I'll give your "question" a try here and see what happens if you like,
but I don't see us getting anywhere. Just the tone of this post to me;
"I've asked you 3 times now to answer this" is unsatisfactory to me.
The plain simple truth of it is that we just don't seem to like each
other :-) No biggie at all really.
Now to your "question".
Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Your premise that by my
standards, the flight test must produce either an incompetent pilot or
send a failure back to the drawing boards is flawed. You have totally
misinterpreted what I have said.
What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an accelerated
basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be appropriate
comprehension standards.
This shouldn't be read to imply that these pilots were unsafe. It should
however be interpreted to mean that in my opinion, these pilots might
have had better comprehension had they not taken the accelerated route.
It's simply a matter of my believing that one system is more optimum
than the other. It's not a statistical analysis; it's an an opinion, and
as an opinion, doesn't have to be proved at all.
Now, apparently you disagree with this. That's fine. By all means, push
the accelerated program if you like. I think I've gone to great pains to
allow you an uncontested opinion.

There, now I've answered your question.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Paul Banks]

I'm just gonna pipe up here because I think that Dudley is quite right
to bring up how you respond to posts in a personal manner. For example,
you attack not the credibility of the topic under discussion, but rather
you make a personal attack by saying things like;

"What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here in the
group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really doesn't
mean squat."

and

" But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley."

It would be hard not to see that as personal whether you "typed it that
way" or not. Posters would do well to remember that the internet doesnt
record your emotions whilst typing. Your post quite clearly conveys a
personal reply rather than an objective reply to the subject in hand.

Telling someone their opinion "doesnt mean squat" is not constructive
criticism, is inflamatory, shows lack of respect and demonstrates
aggressive assertiveness which is not a quality of good leadership; with
obvious implications for the captains of aircraft.

I only have 4 hours flying experience total but I hope you will consider
and respect my opinion.

Many thanks,

Paul

Jim Fisher wrote:

> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
>>There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
>>the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.
>
>
> Naw, not really. Your stance on accelerated anything is about as
> supportable and demonstrable as my stance on high versus low wing.
>
>
>>I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
>>CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
>>personal stuff and assumptions please.
>
>
> Read it again, Dudley. There was no "veiled" anything in my post. Anything
> "personal" was interpreted that way by you and not typed that way by me.
> You've gone off the deep end misinterpreting posts before here in these
> groups. You've done it again with mine.
>
>
>>Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
>>not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
>>mean squat".......
>
>
> I was never in the military so pulling rank won't get anything but a smirk
> on a good day and a big, hairy moon on a bad one.
>
> You were wrong on the acellerated IFR subject and you might be (but probably
> are not) wrong about this acellerated Private thing. Until somebody pipes
> up with some quantifyable data, you're opinion means squat. Sad but true.
>
> I am of the opinion that accelerated courses, when done properly, have merit
> and can produce good results. That opinion is supported by the successful
> accelerated IFR programs. I don't know (and neither do you) if that is the
> case with Private programs.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
>

[Paul Banks]

Jim,

I'm just gonna pipe up here because I think that Dudley is quite right
to bring up how you respond to posts in a personal manner. For example,
you attack not the credibility of the topic under discussion, but rather
you make a personal attack by saying things like;

"What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here in the
group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really doesn't
mean squat."

and

" But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley."

It would be hard not to see that as personal whether you "typed it that
way" or not. Posters would do well to remember that the internet doesnt
record your emotions whilst typing. Your post quite clearly conveys a
personal reply rather than an objective reply to the subject in hand.

Telling someone their opinion "doesnt mean squat" is not constructive
criticism, is inflamatory, shows lack of respect and demonstrates
aggressive assertiveness which is not a quality of good leadership; with
obvious implications for the captains of aircraft.

I only have 4 hours flying experience total but I hope you will consider
and respect my opinion.

Many thanks,

Paul

Jim Fisher wrote:

> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
>> There's a little more to the educational end of the flying equation than
>> the "high wing, low wing" thing Jim.
>
>
>
> Naw, not really. Your stance on accelerated anything is about as
> supportable and demonstrable as my stance on high versus low wing.
>
>
>> I'll be glad to discuss any opposing opinion you might have as a non
>> CFI; only try a repost will you....this time without all the veiled
>> personal stuff and assumptions please.
>
>
>
> Read it again, Dudley. There was no "veiled" anything in my post.
Anything
> "personal" was interpreted that way by you and not typed that way by me.
> You've gone off the deep end misinterpreting posts before here in these
> groups. You've done it again with mine.
>
>
>> Just pass on things like how many students you think I might or might
>> not have dealt with, and whether or not my opinion "means or doesn't
>> mean squat".......
>
>
>
> I was never in the military so pulling rank won't get anything but a
smirk
> on a good day and a big, hairy moon on a bad one.
>
> You were wrong on the acellerated IFR subject and you might be (but
probably
> are not) wrong about this acellerated Private thing. Until somebody
pipes
> up with some quantifyable data, you're opinion means squat. Sad but
true.
>
> I am of the opinion that accelerated courses, when done properly,
have merit
> and can produce good results. That opinion is supported by the
successful
> accelerated IFR programs. I don't know (and neither do you) if that
is the
> case with Private programs.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Paul Banks wrote:

> "What I do know is that you are welcome to your opinion (an most here in
> the group want to hear it - it's what we are here for) but it really
> doesn't mean squat."

Out of context, this looks a little nasty. In context, however, it reads to
me that Jim is pointing out that Dudley is drawing a conclusion based upon
very limited data. You've left out the text:

Your experience is not anywhere close to a
scientific sampling.

It didn't read as nasty at all in context.

> and
>
> " But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
> you, Dudley."

This doesn't even seem particularly nasty out of context. It's true: Dudley
is claiming that having passed the exam isn't sufficient for graduates of
accelerated programs. They're still not sufficiently "deep".

The fact is: Jim is asking a perfectly reasonable question of Dudley: do you
believe or not that passing the PPL exams is sufficient to guarantee a safe
pilot.

As I've already noted, I believe the answer can be "no" too easily.

But what does "safe pilot" mean? As has been mentioned here frequently,
learning to fly is continuous. It doesn't - or shouldn't - end at the PPL
checkride. This is just one benchmark, like the first solo or the
intrument rating or the first engine failure.

It's a benchmark at which certain rights are accrued, but so are many other
benchmarks. This doesn't signify the end of the process.

[Well, the engine failure might.]

- Andrew

[Mike Rapoport]

Agreed but don't the accelerated courses require that you pass the written
before you start?

Mike
MU-2


"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> news:eiVIc.1281
>
> > 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?
>
> This is a good point. I'm not sure to what extent, because while motor and
> sensory skills can be taught by immersion, I think it's the other issues
> such as knowledge, practice and procedure that are left behind. A great
> stick and rudder pilot is still going to have trouble if he forgets VFR
> minimums or cruises into Class B and can't understand the instructions
being
> given to him.
>
> I'm sure that the more you fly, the better you fly but I think if it takes
> 12, or 20, or 100 days to learn then that's what a student pilot and
> instructor should allow.
>
> -c
>
>
>

[Journeyman]

In article t>, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The difference is in the force of impact on your body if something you
> didn't quite understand catches up to you :-))
> In a classroom; you make a mistake; you try it agin. Make a mistake in
> an airplane; you might not get a second chance!
> Comparing flying to a classroom only learned profession is a bad
> analogy.

Dudley, I completely agree with your basic point: downtime is essential
for really learning a subject. It takes time for the synapses to rewire
themselves.

But, as a matter of logic, I must take issue with your paragraph above.
If anything, flying is like writing a calculus exam while dribbling a
basketball. If cramming for academic exams doesn't work in the long
term, then neither will cramming for academic exam while dribbling the
basketball.

IOW, being on a desktop simplifies the problem. If the reduced problem
is still unsolvable, we can conclude the harder problem is probably
unsolvable too. This supports your position. OTOH, reversing it would
not work.

A 40-hour week-long academic course is not like a 13-week 3-hour course.
The former is like trying to drink from a firehose. A lot of the
information splatters all over the place. It can only be worse in the
real-time environment of an airplane.

(OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).


Morris

[Jack]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
> controlling the airplane.

Three, actually. Experience is the glue that holds control and knowledge
together. Experience is what enables one to know not only what is
possible, but what is likely, before it happens and while something can
still be done about it.

It's not all in the book, and control that's adequate for solo, or even
a type rating, is just the beginning of becoming a pilot.


Jack

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I would encourage having the student study cross wind technique and it's
> application in the landing equation, and be prepared for those
> conditions by all means, but once in the airplane, all landings should
> be considered as an event taking place in whatever wind conditions are
> being encountered in real time during the approach.

I learnt to fly in Florida (intensive course! :-) But that's another
part of the thread...).

I didn't know what a non-crosswind landing was. When I joined the
club at Cardiff on returning to the UK, I couldn't understand why
they wouldn't let me fly if there was a wind greater than 10 knots
(not the crosswind component!). I did my GFT (general flight test)
in 25 gusting 35.

Paul

[Jim Fisher]

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
> (OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
> matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).

Thanks.

I'll state once again that I don't know if one is just as good as another.
Logic tell me that flying is better learned through log, thorough, studious
dedication. But there is no data supporting Dudley's stance. None.

There is a vast amount of data from graduates of these programs for many
decades. They pass the checkride. They get their wings. That should be
enough to convince anyone that the programs work for many people unless one
is willing to admit that the Checkride is a farce and there are people out
there wreaking havoc after graduating from the accelerated courses.

--
Jim Fisher

[Shirley]

"Paul Sengupta" wrote:

>I didn't know what a non-crosswind landing was.
>When I joined the club at Cardiff on returning to
>the UK, I couldn't understand why they wouldn't
>let me fly if there was a wind greater than 10
>knots (not the crosswind component!). I did my
>GFT (general flight test) in 25 gusting 35.

They conduct the GFT in winds like that?
Where's the rest of the story?
;-)

[Shirley]

"Jim Fisher" wrote:

>There is a vast amount of data from graduates
>of these programs for many decades. They pass
>the checkride. They get their wings. That should
>be enough to convince anyone that the programs
>work for many people unless one is willing to admit
>that the Checkride is a farce and there are people
>out there wreaking havoc after graduating from
>the accelerated courses.

Approaching it from another standpoint: If you knew what the requirements were
and had a basic understanding of how MUCH material must not only be learned,
but also of the degree of competency and understanding SHOULD be involved, if
you didn't know how to fly yourself, would you be the first passenger of
someone who got their wings in 10 days?

[Jim Fisher]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Your premise that by my
> standards, the flight test must produce either an incompetent pilot or
> send a failure back to the drawing boards is flawed. You have totally
> misinterpreted what I have said.
> What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an accelerated
> basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
> remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be appropriate
> comprehension standards.

So is that a product of the acellerated training itself or is it a product
of the typical acellerated student who "graduates" with only 40 to 50 hours
under his belt instead of the usual 70 or so? If that accelerated student
had the blazed through 70 to 100 hours would he be "as good as" the
traditional student? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Perhaps the typical accelerated student represents a particular mindset of
people who perhaps aren't as dedicated to learning to fly as traditional
students. Perhaps they just aren't as passionate about flying as "normal"
people. After all, these students probably tend to be doctors, busy
businessmen and folks with more money than time. They just need to get this
"training nonsense" behind them so they can be more productive in their
careers. If they had instead gone through traditional training, would they
tend to display the same kinds of weaknesses? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

That's my whole point, Dudley. Not one soul here - including you - has
provided any more than lightweight ancedotal evidence and baseless theories
that accelerated students tend to suck.

The reality and the body of evidence (consisting of thousands of successful
graduates of these programs going back 100 years) tends to indicate
otherwise.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jack]

Jim Fisher wrote:

> The reality and the body of evidence (consisting of thousands of successful
> graduates of these programs going back 100 years) tends to indicate
> otherwise.

There is no "evidence" to show that these pilots would not have been
better if they had had a conventional course. Unless you come up with
some, I'll stick with logic and the expectations of highly experienced
instructors, whose anecdotal evidence runs counter to your pet theory.

The other side of the coin is the high proportion of private pilots who
spread their training out over too many months, and even years, and who
waste both time and money while failing to make much progress. Every CFI
can tell you stories about that kind of student, but I suppose their
"evidence" would be inadequate for you, too.


Jack

[John Stevens]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message t>...
> "Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Barry, et all,
> > We had not had the 25 knot crosswinds that he had on the day of his
> > checkride. I teach all landings as though they are crosswinds.
> > Same techniques apply, keep nose straight with rudder correct drift
> with
> > wing low.
> >
> > gene
>
> et al;
> (as Gene says for a general post picking up on something ;)
>
> I agree totally with this concept and wish all instructors did the same.
> A landing is a landing.....and right from the gitgo, the student should
> be aware that the airplane is flown at all times in existing conditions,
> NOT in expected conditions that require different techniques. It's all
> one big scenario up there, and it's a constantly changing scenario.
> Treating crosswind landings as a separate and unique issue IN THE
> AIRPLANE is counter productive to proper understanding.
> I would encourage having the student study cross wind technique and it's
> application in the landing equation, and be prepared for those
> conditions by all means, but once in the airplane, all landings should
> be considered as an event taking place in whatever wind conditions are
> being encountered in real time during the approach.
> The sooner students begin treating landings this way the sooner they
> will understand the REAL world the airplane is in, and their
> relationship to the airplane in this world.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

This is exactly how my instructor is teaching landings. He taught me
crosswind technique (wing low to stop the drift, rudder to line up
with the runway) and said "You'll use some amount of this technique on
every landing you do." In my limited experience I have to agree that
it's easier to view all landings as varying applications of these
techniques rather than "Oh! A crosswind, what do I do now?"

John S.

[SelwayKid]

Jack > wrote in message >...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
> > controlling the airplane.
>
> Three, actually. Experience is the glue that holds control and knowledge
> together. Experience is what enables one to know not only what is
> possible, but what is likely, before it happens and while something can
> still be done about it.
>
> It's not all in the book, and control that's adequate for solo, or even
> a type rating, is just the beginning of becoming a pilot.
>
>
> Jack

Jack
May I add......flying is a constant series of corrections. The major
difference between an old pro and the new pilot? The old pro sees the
need for the changes much more quickly so the resulting changes are
smaller. To the inexperienced it seems like the old pro hasn't done
anything at all.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Your premise that by my
> > standards, the flight test must produce either an incompetent pilot
or
> > send a failure back to the drawing boards is flawed. You have
totally
> > misinterpreted what I have said.
> > What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an
accelerated
> > basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
> > remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be
appropriate
> > comprehension standards.
>
> So is that a product of the acellerated training itself or is it a
product
> of the typical acellerated student who "graduates" with only 40 to 50
hours
> under his belt instead of the usual 70 or so? If that accelerated
student
> had the blazed through 70 to 100 hours would he be "as good as" the
> traditional student? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
>
> Perhaps the typical accelerated student represents a particular
mindset of
> people who perhaps aren't as dedicated to learning to fly as
traditional
> students. Perhaps they just aren't as passionate about flying as
"normal"
> people. After all, these students probably tend to be doctors, busy
> businessmen and folks with more money than time. They just need to
get this
> "training nonsense" behind them so they can be more productive in
their
> careers. If they had instead gone through traditional training, would
they
> tend to display the same kinds of weaknesses? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
>
> That's my whole point, Dudley. Not one soul here - including you -
has
> provided any more than lightweight ancedotal evidence and baseless
theories
> that accelerated students tend to suck.
>
> The reality and the body of evidence (consisting of thousands of
successful
> graduates of these programs going back 100 years) tends to indicate
> otherwise.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Let me try this worded more simply for you.

A flight instructor has simply posted an opinion on accelerated training
at the basic level based on his personal experience dealing with these
issues for fifty years. That opinion states he believes the best all
around way to learn to fly is taking a path that allows ample time
between lessons so that comprehension can keep pace with rote learning;
rather than a method that doesn't allow this time.
This is simply an opinion; not a statistical analysis.
No one has used the term "accelerated programs suck" except YOU!
No one has used the term "the check ride is a joke" except YOU!
No one has used the term "Jillions of pilots unworthy of the privilege
are flying over our heads" except YOU!

Is a picture beginning to form here for you? It sure is for me. In your
effort to defend your position on accelerated training, which is heavily
a pro position, you are grossly over reaching with glittering
generalizations describing scenarios that don't exist in the basic
premise.
The truth is that there is no argument, and nothing has to be proved.
It's my opinion that these accelerated programs are not optimum. That
doesn't in any way imply the things you are saying in your responses.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article t>,
Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > The difference is in the force of impact on your body if something
you
> > didn't quite understand catches up to you :-))
> > In a classroom; you make a mistake; you try it agin. Make a mistake
in
> > an airplane; you might not get a second chance!
> > Comparing flying to a classroom only learned profession is a bad
> > analogy.
>
> Dudley, I completely agree with your basic point: downtime is
essential
> for really learning a subject. It takes time for the synapses to
rewire
> themselves.
>
> But, as a matter of logic, I must take issue with your paragraph
above.
> If anything, flying is like writing a calculus exam while dribbling a
> basketball. If cramming for academic exams doesn't work in the long
> term, then neither will cramming for academic exam while dribbling the
> basketball.
>
> IOW, being on a desktop simplifies the problem. If the reduced
problem
> is still unsolvable, we can conclude the harder problem is probably
> unsolvable too. This supports your position. OTOH, reversing it
would
> not work.
>
> A 40-hour week-long academic course is not like a 13-week 3-hour
course.
> The former is like trying to drink from a firehose. A lot of the
> information splatters all over the place. It can only be worse in the
> real-time environment of an airplane.
>
> (OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
> matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).
>
>
> Morris

I'm having trouble with your analogy.

The only point I was making was that in an airplane, sometimes you don't
get a second chance to do something which is true; as the 32 funerals I
have attended during my aviation career for pilots who didn't get that
second chance will clearly attest.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Journeyman" > wrote in message
> > (OTOH, to be fair to Jim Fisher, you do acknowledge that what really
> > matters is what you do afterwards, which is one of his main points).
>
> Thanks.
>
> I'll state once again that I don't know if one is just as good as
another.
> Logic tell me that flying is better learned through log, thorough,
studious
> dedication. But there is no data supporting Dudley's stance. None.

Long studious dedication isn't needed. All that's needed is enough time
between lessons for comprehension to catch up to performance. It's
usually a matter of a day or few days in my experience.

>
> There is a vast amount of data from graduates of these programs for
many
> decades. They pass the checkride. They get their wings. That should
be
> enough to convince anyone that the programs work for many people
unless one
> is willing to admit that the Checkride is a farce and there are people
out
> there wreaking havoc after graduating from the accelerated courses.


Again, you keep coming back to a false premise with this doomsday
scenario of yours.
None of the scenarios you are describing here would be the result of
what is being discussed.
Accelerated training does NOT produce the results you are fantasizing so
verbally in every post you make. No one has implied this but YOU!
It HAS been suggested however, that a time span between lessons that
allows comprehansion to catch up to rote performance is a more optimum
method to use in learning to fly an airplane.
Just what is it about this simple premise that you don't understand?
Even if you object to the opinion stated, and wish to counter that there
is no statistical evidence to prove it, the fact remains that it's only
an opinion, and as such, dosen't require proof.
To be quite frank with you Fisher, I can see no logical reason for your
argument at all. You're beating a dead horse. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jim Fisher]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
would you be the first passenger of
> someone who got their wings in 10 days?

Had I known back then what I know now, I would not have taken my family up
with me the day after my own checkride.

Would *I* go? Probably but that depends on the individual. I have friends
with hundreds of hours that I will not go up with. I've been up plenty of
times with new graduates. I would not consider an acellerated student any
different from a traditional one in that respect.

If you pass the checkride, you are generally good to go.

--
Jim Fisher

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an accelerated
> basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
> remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be appropriate
> comprehension standards.
> This shouldn't be read to imply that these pilots were unsafe. It should
> however be interpreted to mean that in my opinion, these pilots might
> have had better comprehension had they not taken the accelerated route.

Why is the PPL exam set permitting people to become pilots with a level of
comprehension you find inappropriate?

- Andrew

[Mike Rapoport]

Agreed, but there isn't an appreciable difference between the experience of
an accelerated student and a traditional student. The traditional student
only has about 60hrs when he/she passes the checkride.

Mike
MU-2


"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
> > controlling the airplane.
>
> Three, actually. Experience is the glue that holds control and knowledge
> together. Experience is what enables one to know not only what is
> possible, but what is likely, before it happens and while something can
> still be done about it.
>
> It's not all in the book, and control that's adequate for solo, or even
> a type rating, is just the beginning of becoming a pilot.
>
>
> Jack

[Mike Rapoport]

Jim's point is that there is no evidence that the accelerated pilot knows
any less or has any less skill than the traditional student.

Miike
MU-2


"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Fisher" wrote:
>
> >There is a vast amount of data from graduates
> >of these programs for many decades. They pass
> >the checkride. They get their wings. That should
> >be enough to convince anyone that the programs
> >work for many people unless one is willing to admit
> >that the Checkride is a farce and there are people
> >out there wreaking havoc after graduating from
> >the accelerated courses.
>
> Approaching it from another standpoint: If you knew what the requirements
were
> and had a basic understanding of how MUCH material must not only be
learned,
> but also of the degree of competency and understanding SHOULD be involved,
if
> you didn't know how to fly yourself, would you be the first passenger of
> someone who got their wings in 10 days?
>

[Paul Sengupta]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul Sengupta" wrote:
>
> >I didn't know what a non-crosswind landing was.
> >When I joined the club at Cardiff on returning to
> >the UK, I couldn't understand why they wouldn't
> >let me fly if there was a wind greater than 10
> >knots (not the crosswind component!). I did my
> >GFT (general flight test) in 25 gusting 35.
>
> They conduct the GFT in winds like that?
> Where's the rest of the story?
> ;-)

It wasn't a crosswind of 25G35. It was maybe 10 or 15 degrees
off runway heading. Not a problem. My short field landing (in a 172)
was pretty short...

Florida can be fairly windy and pretty bumpy so you get used to it.

There was a huge thunderstorm about 30 miles away and all the air
for miles was being sucked into it. Some people came back from
that direction asking "could I put my teeth back in now please?".

I went up in the opposite direction into a patch of blue sky to do
my bits.

Paul

[Journeyman]

In article et>, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Jim's point is that there is no evidence that the accelerated pilot knows
> any less or has any less skill than the traditional student.

Yes, but on the contrary, there is evidence. We have the testimony of
a highly experienced long-time instructor. Jim's statements to the
contrary notwithstanding, we can consider him a competent observer.

Now, casual observations, even from competent observers may be
compelling, but they are not as decisive as carefully designed
controlled statistical studies, of which Jim claims there isn't any.
That doesn't mean there isn't any evidence to be had at all.

Morris

[Journeyman]

In article t>, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> I'm having trouble with your analogy.
>
> The only point I was making was that in an airplane, sometimes you don't
> get a second chance to do something which is true; as the 32 funerals I

Agreed.

> have attended during my aviation career for pilots who didn't get that
> second chance will clearly attest.

My belated but sincere condolences.


What I'm trying to say is that if you cannot pass a calculus test, then
you cannot pass a calculus test while dribbling a basketball. We can
look at learning in a classroom for what doesn't work and conclude it
won't work in the cockpit.

OTOH, if I can pass a calculus test in a classroom, I may or may not be
able to pass it while dribbling the basketball.

I'm taking issue with the logic of the claim that we can draw no
conclusions from the classroom learning experience because the cockpit
learning exerience is so unforgiving. We can learn a lot from the
classroom experience about what will *not* work in the cockpit.

My classroom experience in forced-fed learning environments tells me
that it won't work any better in the cockpit where things are harder,
faster, and less forgiving. This is your basic point, agreeing with
your observations.


Morris

[gatt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message

> Agreed but don't the accelerated courses require that you pass the written
> before you start?

I took the weekend cram pass-your-written-or-get-your-money-back course for
my written, in some hotel conference room. Unfortunately, I don't remember
much about it. ;>

-c

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:50:31 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote:

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

I think that the short answer is we aren't infants when we are
learning to fly. You can't "teach" infants to walk because if their
motor skills haven't developed enough they literally cannot learn to
walk. Perhaps this is not a good comparison.

The college education is also, in my opinion, not a good comparison
either because there is more to the "education" process in college
than merely going to classes. There's a maturing process going on and
a snipping of the umbilical cord, so to speak, happening too. You
can't force the maturing process, unless you put the kids in combat,
like what happened in WWII. We aren't talking about that, I hope.

All we are talking about is learning to fly in an accelerated course.
It is possible that this kind of forced learning doesn't work as well
for long term retention as the traditional learning method but I think
we lack information to know this because the skills and information
are constantly used as our intrepid graduate flies. Perhaps the
flying helps reinforce the rapid learning so that retention is higher
than merely cramming for a bio exam that will never be used in life.

As someone pointed out there are three parts to the "learning to fly"
equation: Book learning (FAR's, weather, airplane technical
information, navigational techniques etc etc.), stick and rudder
skills and Judgement.

Items one and two can probably be learned in an accelerated manner but
I wonder if judgement can.

Corky Scott

[Jim Fisher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> Out of context, this looks a little nasty. In context, however, it reads
to
> me that Jim is pointing out that Dudley is drawing a conclusion based upon
> very limited data.

You're dead-on. Thanks, Andrew.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jim Fisher]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> It HAS been suggested however, that a time span between lessons that
> allows comprehansion to catch up to rote performance is a more optimum
> method to use in learning to fly an airplane.
> Just what is it about this simple premise that you don't understand?

And my premise is that THERE IS NO DATA THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT STANCE while
there is 100 years of sample data that suggests otherwise. Who's not
understanding a simple premise? Ain't me.

Geez.

--
Jim Fisher

[Cecil Chapman]

> "Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
> unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test & Ride
> are
> effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
> drawing board.

Sounds like a sensible and direct question to me,,,, I too, would like to
hear a simple straight-forward answer to that question.

Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to gauge
pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't..

... So far the 'answers' to your post, sound more like the 'non-answers'
from political candidates when asked a direct question.

P.S. as a fellow IT nerd, I am rather fond of 'words' like 'jillions'...
<g>

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Paul Banks]

I think the same question could be asked of any test.

There are clearly two distinct opinions on how to pass a test.

1) There's the "accellerated" camp. The way these couses work is to
teach the student how to pass the test. A typical example is revising
the question bank. Come the day of the test, the student knows whats
required and without much thought or understanding just rattles off the
answers.

and then;

2) There's the "normal" camp. These courses teach true understanding of
the material the test covers such that the student is able to draw his
own conclusions on the material presented to him. Come the day of the
test, each part of the examination presents a problem that requires
solving. A student who understands the material covered by the test can
then solve the problem.

When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.

Clearly, when you couple 2) with experience gained after the test, the
student is able to build confidently upon that experience because when a
new problem comes along, this experience serves to reenforce his ability
to solve the new problem.

With that in mind, we return to the original question,
and I'm not sure that there's an easy black and white answer to it.

> Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to
gauge pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't.

Given that graduates of both 1) and 2) can fly the plane to the required
standard at a point in time, it is a sound measure. It's what happens
afterwards that worries me.

You only have to look at car drivers to see this - they all passed the
driving test, but clearly not all of them should be on the road.

A responsible pilot/driver will take additional training and advice as
nescessary. The sad truth is, there will always be irresponsible ones
that dont.

Paul B
4 Hours so far!


Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>"Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
>>unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test & Ride
>>are
>>effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
>>drawing board.
>
>
> Sounds like a sensible and direct question to me,,,, I too, would like to
> hear a simple straight-forward answer to that question.
>
> Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to gauge
> pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't..
>
> .. So far the 'answers' to your post, sound more like the 'non-answers'
> from political candidates when asked a direct question.
>
> P.S. as a fellow IT nerd, I am rather fond of 'words' like 'jillions'...
> <g>
>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul Banks
> wrote:

>When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
>will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
>there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
>problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
>in solving problems, will be impaired.

If this "problem" is something necessary for safe flight, why would it
be something not memorized by the student taking the accelerated
course, but IS memorized by the student taking the traditional course?

Corky Scott

[Paul Banks]

> If this "problem" is something necessary for safe flight, why would it
> be something not memorized by the student taking the accelerated
> course, but IS memorized by the student taking the traditional course?

It all has to do with the theory on the way we humans memorise
information - and I agree it's subjective at the worst of times but many
parts are generally understood.

The student in the accelerated model (1) has learned how to recall the
information under a certain set of circumstances - i.e. when being
examined. He doesnt understand the material (yet) as he can't possibly
have had the time to comprehend it - but he does memorise it. In his
memory there is a direct link between the requirements of the test and
the answers (be they written or practical) but, the links between the
chunks of information are not present as the glue (comprehension) is not
present to allow them to be forged. Over time, unless rehearsed
regularly, the unlinked information is easily forgotton.

The student in the normal model (2) has learned the information through
understanding. With comprehension, the student does not have to remember
every peice of information required to pass the test as separate
unrelated items, but only has to retain an understanding of the topic.
Because all the information is linked through comprehension, he will not
forget it so easily. With a true understanding of a given system, he is
able to answer specific questions about it and even prove his answer. As
such his confidence builds and through experience, he is able to
instantly recall things when nescessary, backed up with true
understanding. A student in (1) would have to rely on recall alone and
thus would be left wondering if he remembered it correctly.

Now I'm not saying that graduates of (1) never reach a true
understanding eventually. With regular use and the discipline to
question information constantly, this would not be a problem. Some
information would undoubetdly have to be relearned. But given the way
human memory is understood to work, the chances are much higher that he
will not.

Put a graduate of (1) in an emergency situation and he might just
remember what to do. He might forget though and not have an
understanding of the relevant system required to work out what to do. He
will panic as a result.

Put a graduate of (2) in the same situation and he may still not
remember what to do. BUT the key is that he will understand the relevant
system and will be able to work out what to do. Sure he may be stressed,
but he has a much higher chance of doing the correct action and a much
lower chance of panicing and doing the wrong thing.

When the situation is over, the graduate of (2) is able to link the
newly learned solution with the rest of his understanding of the system
in general. The chances of him being able to confidently recall the
information are greatly increased and are substantially better than
those of graduate (1) who may not even remember what he did!

Paul B



wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul Banks
> > wrote:
>
>
>>When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
>>will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
>>there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
>>problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
>>in solving problems, will be impaired.
>
>
> Corky Scott
>
>
>
>
>

[Cliff]

Hello All!

I am Cliff Manley of Perfect Planes, Inc.
I have trained many pilots in 10 days. I expect them to have done a home
study course for the written exam before they come. If they need further
help on any areas they are lacking in, I will give them ground schooling for
that. I also give them ground schooling for the oral exam.

I do not guarantee a 10 day course, as matter of fact everyone is different.
I would say that most people do not finish in 10 days, and I assure you that
I am not so ignorant that I would try to push someone through that is not
"safe" If someone needs 80 hours, that's what they get!

We do fly every day and I do believe that is the best way to learn anything.
You can't learn to play an instrument with a one hour a week lesson and no
daily practice. I don't believe that unless someone is learning disabled
they need many days to comprehend what I tell them. Ask any elementary
teacher if they teach reading comprehension that way? Do they ask a student
to read something and them tell them what it meant next week after they
comprehend it? Get real! I can tell right then if someone understands
through questions, if they don't I will reword it until they do! It's called
teaching!

The DE's examine my students probably more closely than others, and would
not pass them if they where not satisfied with their competency. My pass
rate is about 90% on the first try. The ones that fail are usually in the
45-60 year old group and get nervous.

I don't have time to answer all of the foolishness I have seen here, but be
sure of one thing, the students that I teach can fly better and safer than
most. If you do anything everyday you WILL be better! I do not offer a 10
day course, I claim only that it can be done in as little as 10 days. I have
had some students that I think I could have finished in half that. They were
gifted and did everything right the first time! VERY RARE! But as much as
some of you would like to believe, flying an airplane is not rocket science,
it is not really very difficult or FAA would require more than the average
work week of time to learn it. some of the slow learners take two weeks
worth of time. The fact is that most people cannot afford the time off of
work, so they don't have any other choice than to take a lesson a week and
have to re-learn each time stretching out the process. Some instructors and
schools actually like that, since they make more money if someone takes 80
hours instead of 50. Helps pay the light bill so to speak. I just love to
teach, am not a time builder, but a teacher. I love to see others enjoy the
gift of flight! I have also flown over 100 young eagles! Kids love it too!

Anyway have fun guys! I do. If someone learns in 40 or 100 hours, they are
just as excited to fly!

Cliff

[Dudley Henriques]

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> > "Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of
"pilots"
> > unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test &
Ride
> > are
> > effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to
the
> > drawing board.
>
> Sounds like a sensible and direct question to me,,,, I too, would like
to
> hear a simple straight-forward answer to that question.
>
> Either the written & checkride that is used as the sole measure to
gauge
> pilot capability & proficiency is sound or it isn't..
>
> .. So far the 'answers' to your post, sound more like the
'non-answers'
> from political candidates when asked a direct question.

The written and the check ride are adequate to produce safe pilots.
You can get to these "tests" by taking several training paths. You can
get there through an accelerated path, and on the other hand you can
take days....weeks.....even years to get there. Regardless of the path
taken, if you can pass the written and the flight test, you can
certainly be considered to be a safe pilot. No one is disputing this
fact.
The system obviously works, and has worked well for many years.
The issue as I have presented it in no way suggests that pilots going
through accelerated programs are not safe. That seems to be Fisher's
assumption. I would in fact disagree with that assumption. They ARE
safe. That's not the issue being discussed.....not by me anyway!!! :-))
I HAVE suggested however that in my opinion, the pilots I have flight
checked who have come through the accelerated path, although safe
enough, could have in my opinion been even better pilots had they been
given the time for their comprehension levels to catch up to their
performance levels.
What's with all the ...YOU CAN'T PROVE THIS!!!!!! business?
That's been my experience.....period!! That's all that's been stated. If
someone else has experienced this issue differently, that's fine with
me. I have no problem at all with that.
All this seems plain enough to me. What I REALLY can't figure out is why
a few seemingly intelligent people out here can't post an opposing
opinion on something without resorting to phrases like "Grow Up", and
"your opinion doesn't mean squat"
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > What I said was that I had never flown with a product of an
accelerated
> > basic training program where that pilot didn't in my opinion need
> > remedial training to bring them up to what I consider to be
appropriate
> > comprehension standards.
> > This shouldn't be read to imply that these pilots were unsafe. It
should
> > however be interpreted to mean that in my opinion, these pilots
might
> > have had better comprehension had they not taken the accelerated
route.
>
> Why is the PPL exam set permitting people to become pilots with a
level of
> comprehension you find inappropriate?
>
> - Andrew

Just because I found the comprehension levels "inappropriate" shouldn't
be misconstrued into meaning that I believe the flight test standards
were lax. This wasn't the case at all. I would consider the standards to
be an established MINIMUM for defining a safe pilot. What I am saying is
that in my experience, the comprehensive levels of the accelerated
trainees could have been BETTER!!!!
My standards are fairly high it's true, especially for my airplanes, but
they are not so high that I wouldn't check out a safe pilot who I felt
simply needed remedial work on his comprehension.

My usual method was to simply spend the time necessary with the pilot
and bring them up to speed on anything I found during the check flight
that I thought was out of line with that pilot's experience level.
The rub on all this is that many of the things that I discovered needing
some work were not critical things necessarily, but rather things that I
felt a pilot at the level of experience I was checking should know. A
lot of it had to do with the depth of the understanding, rather than the
total absence of comprehension.
Being safe is one thing. Being evaluated by a check pilot looking for a
specific depth of comprehension to match your hours of experience is
quite a different thing. All of us, including me, can use more
comprehension. What I was finding was a pilot who I felt should be
understanding what was happening at a deeper depth than I was getting
for the rating held and the hours flown. You could classify it as
something I felt the pilot should know more about than I was getting
from him. Nothing critical, just something I wasn't getting from a lot
of the pilots who were coming through the program taking a little more
time BETWEEN FLIGHTS!!!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

After viewing this person's website cover to cover and reading what he
has posted here I will only say that even if I were to choose an
accelerated training program, it wouldn't be THIS particular one with
THIS specific instructor! Again, only an opinion.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Cliff" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Hello All!
>
> I am Cliff Manley of Perfect Planes, Inc.
> I have trained many pilots in 10 days. I expect them to have done a
home
> study course for the written exam before they come. If they need
further
> help on any areas they are lacking in, I will give them ground
schooling for
> that. I also give them ground schooling for the oral exam.
>
> I do not guarantee a 10 day course, as matter of fact everyone is
different.
> I would say that most people do not finish in 10 days, and I assure
you that
> I am not so ignorant that I would try to push someone through that is
not
> "safe" If someone needs 80 hours, that's what they get!
>
> We do fly every day and I do believe that is the best way to learn
anything.
> You can't learn to play an instrument with a one hour a week lesson
and no
> daily practice. I don't believe that unless someone is learning
disabled
> they need many days to comprehend what I tell them. Ask any elementary
> teacher if they teach reading comprehension that way? Do they ask a
student
> to read something and them tell them what it meant next week after
they
> comprehend it? Get real! I can tell right then if someone understands
> through questions, if they don't I will reword it until they do! It's
called
> teaching!
>
> The DE's examine my students probably more closely than others, and
would
> not pass them if they where not satisfied with their competency. My
pass
> rate is about 90% on the first try. The ones that fail are usually in
the
> 45-60 year old group and get nervous.
>
> I don't have time to answer all of the foolishness I have seen here,
but be
> sure of one thing, the students that I teach can fly better and safer
than
> most. If you do anything everyday you WILL be better! I do not offer
a 10
> day course, I claim only that it can be done in as little as 10 days.
I have
> had some students that I think I could have finished in half that.
They were
> gifted and did everything right the first time! VERY RARE! But as
much as
> some of you would like to believe, flying an airplane is not rocket
science,
> it is not really very difficult or FAA would require more than the
average
> work week of time to learn it. some of the slow learners take two
weeks
> worth of time. The fact is that most people cannot afford the time off
of
> work, so they don't have any other choice than to take a lesson a week
and
> have to re-learn each time stretching out the process. Some
instructors and
> schools actually like that, since they make more money if someone
takes 80
> hours instead of 50. Helps pay the light bill so to speak. I just love
to
> teach, am not a time builder, but a teacher. I love to see others
enjoy the
> gift of flight! I have also flown over 100 young eagles! Kids love it
too!
>
> Anyway have fun guys! I do. If someone learns in 40 or 100 hours, they
are
> just as excited to fly!
>
> Cliff
>
>

[Barry]

> On that theme, I have to admit that I'm towards the "test & checkride is a
> joke" side of your argument. It is too easy for someone that I'd not want
> to see flying to pass. The two sets of aviation tests I've taken - IR and
> PPL - tested some, but not all, of what was required.

Pilots and CFIs should keep in mind that the checkride (even when performed in
strict compliance with the PTS) is not a comprehensive evaluation of
everything that a pilot should know or be able to do. It's just a spot check
after the CFI has certified that the applicant is proficient.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> > On that theme, I have to admit that I'm towards the "test &
checkride is a
> > joke" side of your argument. It is too easy for someone that I'd
not want
> > to see flying to pass. The two sets of aviation tests I've taken -
IR and
> > PPL - tested some, but not all, of what was required.
>
> Pilots and CFIs should keep in mind that the checkride (even when
performed in
> strict compliance with the PTS) is not a comprehensive evaluation of
> everything that a pilot should know or be able to do. It's just a spot
check
> after the CFI has certified that the applicant is proficient.

Exactly! By definition, the flight test is a minimum legal standard to
be met; simply a legal obstacle to be passed. This minimum standard
assumes a certain level of performance.
The interpretation of the QUALITY
of that performance exiting the passed flight test should never be
construed to mean
anything other than the fact that a specific pilot has met these minimum
standards.

Exactly how "safe" and how "educated" an individual pilot is at the
time that pilot took the flight test is a wide open issue subject to
much deeper interpretation than the simple fact that the flight test has
been passed.
The issue of exactly how safe an individual pilot is at the point of
his/her flight test can be considered to be TOTALLY the summation of the
QUALITY of the pilot's flight training coupled with the pilot's
retention of that training and the insertion of that training into
his/her performance with an airplane.

In other words, you can pass the flight test meeting the minimum
standard and be safe, or you can pass it with a standard FAR in excess
of the minimum requirements and be a hell of a lot safer.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 at 13:24:18 in message
>, Jim Fisher
> wrote:

>Answer: There is no answer. Accelerated is probably good for some,
>probably not for others. That's for me to decide and not some old school
>CFI who knows only one way to teach.

I have watched this discussion without comment so far - partly because I
am not qualified to give very strong opinions about learning to fly.

I have met many people in my career who have no idea why they annoy
people so much. They are insensitive to how other people react. That is
probably a disadvantage in any instructional situation. Some of them are
trying to assert their credentials by deliberate rudeness. Some just get
their kicks from it. It is hard to assess this from usenet discussions.

The second sentence in the paragraph that I have quoted above comes
across to me as incredibly arrogant and insulting. I am affronted by
that insult to my friend Dudley. I don't know you so perhaps you don't
mean it to be that way. But right or wrong, Dudley deserves respect. He
certainly has mine. From what I know of Dudley I feel sure that his
instruction was subtly adjusted to meet the characteristics of every
pupil he ever taught.
--
David CL Francis

[Marty]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Exactly how "safe" and how "educated" an individual pilot is at the
> time that pilot took the flight test is a wide open issue subject to
> much deeper interpretation than the simple fact that the flight test has
> been passed.
> The issue of exactly how safe an individual pilot is at the point of
> his/her flight test can be considered to be TOTALLY the summation of the
> QUALITY of the pilot's flight training coupled with the pilot's
> retention of that training and the insertion of that training into
> his/her performance with an airplane.
>
> In other words, you can pass the flight test meeting the minimum
> standard and be safe, or you can pass it with a standard FAR in excess
> of the minimum requirements and be a hell of a lot safer.
>

After passing my PPL ride, the DE and I had a discussion over lunch about
the checkride in general. I asked him how in that short time he could
determine I was a Pilot. His answer contained much of what Barry and Dudley
say, but he went on to say "How many times have you gotten into a car with
someone, and by the time they had backed out of the driveway, you wished you
were somewhere else?"

A year later I was invited to ride along with a guy on a short flight to get
parts for another plane. By the time we had taxied to the runway I had that
feeling of "let me out". The entire trip there and back I was wanting to
take the controls but resisted the urge figuring it was a sure fire way to
die. This jerk seemed to love taking-off,climbing, and flying the pattern on
the edge of a stall with the horn going off 60% of the time.
He was the new operator of the FBO and as I soon found out, "a 10 day
wonder".
I never went up with him again and couldn't tell you if he is still alive or
not.

Marty

[Shirley]

"Marty" pyromarty wrote:

>he went on to say "How many times have you
>gotten into a car with someone, and by the
>time they had backed out of the driveway, you
>wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
>as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".

That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to fly,
would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in *10 days*
or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the majority of
10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a period of
several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools have a
specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has tested
students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety, and
confidence. How do the majority compare?

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> You could classify it as
> something I felt the pilot should know more about than I was getting
> from him. Nothing critical, just something I wasn't getting from a lot
> of the pilots who were coming through the program taking a little more
> time BETWEEN FLIGHTS!!!!

You indicate that the comprehension under discussion is "nothing critical".
In that case, why do you seek it out at all?

Elsewhere in this thread, you implied[1] that the additional comprehension
translates to additional safety. I believe that!

But doesn't this imply that the less comprehending pilots are less safe?
And when does that become "not safe enough"?

- Andrew

[1] In t>:

I HAVE suggested however that in my opinion, the pilots I have flight
checked who have come through the accelerated path, although safe
enough, could have in my opinion been even better pilots had they been
given the time for their comprehension levels to catch up to their
performance levels.

I'm taking "better pilots" to imply "safer pilots".

[Jack]

Shirley wrote:

> That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to fly,
> would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in *10 days*
> or in a couple of months?

I can only give you one and a half answers, and neither of them is what
you specifically asked for:

1.0) as someone who does have a clue about how to fly, I'd pick the
one who'd had a couple of months to think about what he was
learning;

1.5) I wouldn't send a loved one up with either one of them.


--
Jack

"Cave ab homine unius libri"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> "Marty" pyromarty wrote:
>
> >he went on to say "How many times have you
> >gotten into a car with someone, and by the
> >time they had backed out of the driveway, you
> >wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
> >as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".
>
> That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to
fly,
> would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in
*10 days*
> or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the
majority of
> 10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a
period of
> several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools
have a
> specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
> traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has
tested
> students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
> confidence. How do the majority compare?

This is a valid question, and difficult to answer statistically, because
part of the answer is subject to individual interpretation by a specific
examiner. You can get a figure on a pass/fail rate based on the
accelerated program vs other methods, but that's going to be inclusive.
The problem is that the test standard is a minimum standard. You will
find that the pass/fail ratio only gives you a number for the fail side
of the equation. The other side of the equation is much more difficult
to ascertain since it deals directly with an unknown variable on the
pass side only; that being the ACTUAL QUALITY of the pilot who has
passed the test.
The DE is looking for a minimum criteria. If they find it, you have
passed. The ACTUAL quality of your performance and comprehension at the
time of testing is something else altogether.
The reason this data is inconclusive is this;
Assume a scenario with one individual pilot taking a flight test with 10
different examiners; one right after the other. Also assume that the
pilot's performance will be good enough to pass the minimum standard as
determined by the flight test directive. The pilot will pass by all 10
examiners (if the examiners are following the guidelines), but if you
ask all 10 examiners to sit down and write their opinion on exactly how
good this pilot ACTUALLY is in the air, the data recovered from this
exercise will be all over the board as far as determining a constant
data point is concerned.
The pilot may possess a quality of performance and comprehension WAY
beyond the minimum standard, but the exact point where that quality can
be firmly established is extremely difficult to determine.
To determine where the pilot's actual performance level is, you need the
services of an extremely good check pilot who is NOT looking for the
minimum standard but rather the upper end of the pilots actual
knowledge, comprehension, and performance levels.
Doing this is a highly specialized skill. It requires pushing a pilot to
his/her absolute limits and discovering what they are. There are very
few check pilots who work in this environment.

It just happens that this exact type of check flight was a specialty for
me, and the pilots who worked for me; as much of the checkout work we
did involved checking pilots out in extremely high performance
airplanes.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > You could classify it as
> > something I felt the pilot should know more about than I was getting
> > from him. Nothing critical, just something I wasn't getting from a
lot
> > of the pilots who were coming through the program taking a little
more
> > time BETWEEN FLIGHTS!!!!
>
> You indicate that the comprehension under discussion is "nothing
critical".
> In that case, why do you seek it out at all?
>
> Elsewhere in this thread, you implied[1] that the additional
comprehension
> translates to additional safety. I believe that!
>
> But doesn't this imply that the less comprehending pilots are less
safe?
> And when does that become "not safe enough"?
>
> - Andrew

No. The less comprehending pilots have met minimum standards are have
been deemed safe enough to be certificated.
All we're discussing here is a HIGHER degree of comprehension than that
required by those minimum standards.
It's not black and white.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> "Marty" pyromarty wrote:
>
> >he went on to say "How many times have you
> >gotten into a car with someone, and by the
> >time they had backed out of the driveway, you
> >wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
> >as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".
>
> That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to
fly,
> would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in
*10 days*
> or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the
majority of
> 10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a
period of
> several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools
have a
> specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
> traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has
tested
> students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
> confidence. How do the majority compare?

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> "Marty" pyromarty wrote:
>
> >he went on to say "How many times have you
> >gotten into a car with someone, and by the
> >time they had backed out of the driveway, you
> >wished you were somewhere else?" [snip]
> >as I soon found out, "a 10 day wonder".
>
> That's precisely what I meant when I asked, if you didn't know how to
fly,
> would you rather go up with someone who went from start-to-finish in
*10 days*
> or in a couple of months?! Moreover, the people to ask how the
majority of
> 10-day wonders compare with those whose training progresses over a
period of
> several weeks or months would be the DEs. Do these accelerated schools
have a
> specific DE on staff? or do they choose from the pool of DEs that the
> traditional schools pick from? I'd like to hear from a DE that has
tested
> students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
> confidence. How do the majority compare?

This is a valid question, and difficult to answer statistically, because
part of the answer is subject to individual interpretation by a specific
examiner. You can get a figure on a pass/fail rate based on the
accelerated program vs other methods, but that's going to be conclusive
enough for a complete quality check.
The problem is that the test standard is a minimum standard. You will
find that the pass/fail ratio only gives you a number for the fail side
of the equation. The other side of the equation is much more difficult
to ascertain since it deals directly with an unknown variable on the
pass side only; that being the ACTUAL QUALITY of the pilot who has
passed the test.
The DE is looking for a minimum criteria. If they find it, you have
passed. The ACTUAL quality of your performance and comprehension at the
time of testing is something else altogether.
The reason this data is inconclusive is this;
Assume a scenario with one individual pilot taking a flight test with 10
different examiners; one right after the other. Also assume that the
pilot's performance will be good enough to pass the minimum standard as
determined by the flight test directive. The pilot will pass by all 10
examiners (if the examiners are following the guidelines), but if you
ask all 10 examiners to sit down and write their opinion on exactly how
good this pilot ACTUALLY is in the air, the data recovered from this
exercise will be all over the board as far as determining a constant
data point is concerned.
The pilot may possess a quality of performance and comprehension WAY
beyond the minimum standard, but the exact point where that quality can
be firmly established is extremely difficult to determine.
To determine where the pilot's actual performance level is, you need the
services of an extremely good check pilot who is NOT looking for the
minimum standard but rather the upper end of the pilots actual
knowledge, comprehension, and performance levels.
Doing this is a highly specialized skill. It requires pushing a pilot to
his/her absolute limits and discovering what they are. There are very
few check pilots who work in this environment.

It just happens that this exact type of check flight was a specialty for
me, and the pilots who worked for me; as much of the checkout work we
did involved checking pilots out in extremely high performance
airplanes.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...

>I'd like to hear from a DE that has tested
> students coming from both re skill, knowledge/understanding, safety,
and
> confidence. How do the majority compare?

It's difficult to get rock solid scientific data on how REALLY GOOD a
specific pilot is when taking the flight test for several reasons, the
least of which is the fact that for flight test purposes, the DE is
testing for a known and published MINIMUM STANDARD. If that minimum
standard is met, the pilot is passed. It's important to recognize that
the minimum standard has been determined to be a demonstration of safe
operating practices.
This establishes a sort of paradox in a way. You can establish data for
a pass/fail ratio according to training method used, but it's extremely
difficult to establish how much better above the minimum standard a
specific pilot might have performed during a flight test, since the
upper limits of the tested pilot's performance by test definition are
not tested!
There are pilots who specialize in operating as check pilots who DO
operate in the area of exploring a specific pilot's maximum limits of
comprehension and performance. This is a highly specialized skill and
requires an extremely well qualified check pilot.
The reason I mention this is because the process of evaluation involved
in checking a pilot for a minimum standard and the process involved in
checking a pilot for a maximum competence level are entirely different
procedures. For the minimum standard, if the pilot can perform to that
standard, the procedure doesn't require additional exploration above the
standard point to establish additional data on the pilot being tested.
On the other hand, a pilot being tested for maximum performance levels
will be asked to perform at the highest level possible and within the
closest tolerances possible for the pilot/airplane combination being
used for the test.
Since most of the check flights I performed were involved with extremely
high performance airplanes, I adopted early on, a check flight procedure
that truly tested the upper limits of the pilots I was flight testing.
Keep in mind this wasn't the DE scenario, so I had much greater latitude
in which to operate.
We discovered however, through the use of our procedures in flight
checks, that using the same method we were using for high performance
airplanes for check outs in light GA airplanes; produced an extremely
desirable result; that being a solid look at the ACTUAL performance
levels of the pilots we were checking out in our airplanes. By testing
for a maximum level instead of a minimum level, we discovered that many
pilots who were "safe" could be made a hell of a lot "safer".
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Teacherjh]

Suppose that the flight test were conducted three weeks after the last flight
the student actually took. Comparing the accelerated students with the
standard curriculum students, which do you think would be more likely to pass
this delayed flight test?

My feeling (just that) is that the standard curriculum students would be in a
better position, since their knowledge, gained over a long time, will probably
remain a long time. The accelerated students, it would seem to me, would be
more likely to have forgotten stuff over the three weeks they were not flying.

OTOH, it might be that those three ("inactive") weeks would provide enough time
for the information to gell, and the accelerated students would do better than
they would have earlier. (whether this would be better than the normal
curriculum students with a delayed flight test I don't know)

Anybody with actual datapoints here?

Jose


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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> Suppose that the flight test were conducted three weeks after the last
flight
> the student actually took. Comparing the accelerated students with
the
> standard curriculum students, which do you think would be more likely
to pass
> this delayed flight test?
>
> My feeling (just that) is that the standard curriculum students would
be in a
> better position, since their knowledge, gained over a long time, will
probably
> remain a long time. The accelerated students, it would seem to me,
would be
> more likely to have forgotten stuff over the three weeks they were not
flying.
>
> OTOH, it might be that those three ("inactive") weeks would provide
enough time
> for the information to gell, and the accelerated students would do
better than
> they would have earlier. (whether this would be better than the
normal
> curriculum students with a delayed flight test I don't know)
>
> Anybody with actual datapoints here?
>
> Jose

The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is that
zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish that
the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.
You can get a pass/fail ratio for accelerated training opposed to other
forms of training at the test point, but getting a handle on the ACTUAL
QUALITY or the high end comprehension and performance levels of a
specific pilot at that moment in time is another matter; much more
difficult to determine, since the upper levels of a pilot's performance
capabilities are by definition, NOT required, nor are they even tested
by the examiner giving the flight test.
To establish these parameters, an entirely different type of flight
check is necessary; an actual limiting parameter flight check. This is a
highly specialized flight check.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Teacherjh]

>>
The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is that
zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish that
the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.
<<

Correct as stated, but it is not unreasonable to make statistical inferences.
For example, assuming any reasonable (such as gaussian) distribution of pilot
abilities at flight check time, a higher =average= pilot quality will translate
into more passes and fewer fails. Assuming a similar distribution among pilots
who take accelerated vs standard training, the set of pilots with the highest
level of fails is likely to have a lower mean than the set of pilots with the
lowest level of fails.

I do grant that (and this is what I think you are getting at) one can correctly
infer nothing about the shape of the pilot distribution from the pass/fail
ratio, and even that given a distribution (such as gaussian) one can correctly
infer nothing about the sharpness of the peak from the pass/fail ratio, nor
about the ability of any individual pilot from his pass/fail result. But that
is not necessary to address the underlying issue.

Jose


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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is
that
> zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
> flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
> point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish
that
> the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.
> <<
>
> Correct as stated, but it is not unreasonable to make statistical
inferences.
> For example, assuming any reasonable (such as gaussian) distribution
of pilot
> abilities at flight check time, a higher =average= pilot quality will
translate
> into more passes and fewer fails. Assuming a similar distribution
among pilots
> who take accelerated vs standard training, the set of pilots with the
highest
> level of fails is likely to have a lower mean than the set of pilots
with the
> lowest level of fails.
>
> I do grant that (and this is what I think you are getting at) one can
correctly
> infer nothing about the shape of the pilot distribution from the
pass/fail
> ratio, and even that given a distribution (such as gaussian) one can
correctly
> infer nothing about the sharpness of the peak from the pass/fail
ratio, nor
> about the ability of any individual pilot from his pass/fail result.
But that
> is not necessary to address the underlying issue.
>
> Jose

All this is applicable and pertinent to the overall pass/fail ratio it's
true.
It still remains however, that anytime a test is based on a minimum
standard and the examiner giving that test is lock in legally to pass
based only on that standard, although an overall higher quality of
training will effect the pass/fail ratio as that applies to total, you
are still left with the underlying issues of varying quality on the pass
side of the equation.
What I was finding in the pilots that I was testing was that accelerated
training was getting them through the test with no problem. In fact, you
can make an argument that supports an actual increase on the pass side
for accelerated training. This however, isn't the real issue.
The problem that I was finding was much more subtle than a pure
statistic would reveal. I was finding pilots coming through the
accelerated path who knew the answers mechanically, and could perform in
the airplane mechanically, which met the minimum test standards and made
them safe enough in the air.
I simply wasn't fining the comprehension levels in these pilots that I
was finding in other pilots coming through training paths that allowed a
more relaxed curriculum.
I believe the real issue with accelerated training isn't the pass/fail
ratio itself, but that a comprehension gap exists at the point of
testing (call it cram factor). This "cram factor" allows rote
performance that passes the test, and in almost all cases allows as well
that rote is sufficient to satisfy the flight safety issue. As
experience is gained, the comprehension factors increase until they
reach the normal level already existing in pilots who have not gone
through accelerated training.
In other words, both systems work. Accelerated training will get you to
the test and through it faster. but in my opinion, accelerated training
leaves a comprehension gap that could be a problem for some pilots as
experience past the test fills that gap. It's this "gap" in
comprehension that is the entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
presented it here.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Shirley]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

>I believe the real issue with accelerated
>training isn't the pass/fail ratio itself, but
>that a comprehension gap exists at the point
>of testing (call it cram factor).
[snip]
>It's this "gap" in comprehension that is the
>entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
>presented it here.

How many pilots fly once- or twice-a-month after being licensed at one of those
accelerated courses? If they were too busy for traditional training, how much
time do they have to fly? How many fill in that "comprehension gap" you
describe? and how much of that rote knowledge that they crammed in 10 days do
they retain if they're only flying even 3x/month?

Rote answers don't, or shouldn't, get you through the test, unless the oral
exam is proportionate to the 10-day accelerated course--15 minutes long. A
competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine the
comprehension level behind them. Even with traditional training, it's difficult
to remember all the answers and explanations for every area and have full
comprehension of them, let alone being able to do so *WHILE* learning to fly,
putting those rote-learned procedures into actual practice, and filling all the
flight requirements **in 10 days**! Possible? apparently. Would you recommend
it to one of your family members? I wouldn't.

[Marty]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> How many pilots fly once- or twice-a-month after being licensed at one of
those
> accelerated courses? If they were too busy for traditional training, how
much
> time do they have to fly?

In my experience, the "10 day PPLs" didn't stop there, they go on to
accelerated Instrument, Multi, Commercial and CFII with their sights set on
United Airlines. I have been BFR'd by a couple of them and they made it
clear they were "Building time to get to the Captains seat".

Marty

[Shirley]

"Marty" pyromarty wrote:

>In my experience, the "10 day PPLs" didn't stop
>there, they go on to accelerated Instrument, Multi,
>Commercial and CFII with their sights set on
>United Airlines. I have been BFR'd by a couple of
>them and they made it clear they were "Building
>time to get to the Captains seat".

Granted, in such a person, obviously that "comprehension gap" that the other
poster mentioned would hopefully close as they move on to each rating.

But I've heard more than one instructor say that's the part they cringe at --
people coming into it (traditional, not accelerated) wanting to race through
their PPL on their way to ATP, as if that's going to get them into the airlines
faster. I've been told, from someone who tried this, that they absolutely *do*
look to see what kind of training you had and that accelerated courses are
generally not looked upon with the same degree of consideration. Owner of one
of the flight schools recently was saying that he has found that the CFIs who
have clawed their way up and paid their dues to be the most competent and
successful, with those who have nothing but accelerated courses being viewed as
red flaggers who *generally* (not always) don't work out for one reason or
another in his experience. This may or may not be the case universally.

Unless you have the examiners and the people who do the hiring for the airlines
here to offer their firsthand input, it's all speculation/opinion/hearsay.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
>
> >I believe the real issue with accelerated
> >training isn't the pass/fail ratio itself, but
> >that a comprehension gap exists at the point
> >of testing (call it cram factor).
> [snip]
> >It's this "gap" in comprehension that is the
> >entire crux of the accelerated issue as I've
> >presented it here.
>
> How many pilots fly once- or twice-a-month after being licensed at one
of those
> accelerated courses? If they were too busy for traditional training,
how much
> time do they have to fly? How many fill in that "comprehension gap"
you
> describe? and how much of that rote knowledge that they crammed in 10
days do
> they retain if they're only flying even 3x/month?
>
> Rote answers don't, or shouldn't, get you through the test, unless the
oral
> exam is proportionate to the 10-day accelerated course--15 minutes
long. A
> competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine
the
> comprehension level behind them. Even with traditional training, it's
difficult
> to remember all the answers and explanations for every area and have
full
> comprehension of them, let alone being able to do so *WHILE* learning
to fly,
> putting those rote-learned procedures into actual practice, and
filling all the
> flight requirements **in 10 days**! Possible? apparently. Would you
recommend
> it to one of your family members? I wouldn't.

If you're getting from what I've been saying all through this thread
that I favor accelerated flight training, then I've truly found that
"comprehension gap" we've been discussing :-)
I absolutely do NOT favor accelerated training.

Your following comment,
" A competent, conscientious examiner digs on rote answers to determine
the comprehension level behind them." is inconsistent with my
experience, and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal requirement to
pass or fail on a minimum standard demonstrated by the examinee.
This being said, there most surely are DE's out here who do as you
suggest, but they are in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for certification.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Shirley]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

>Your following comment, "A competent,
>conscientious examiner digs on rote answers
>to determine the comprehension level behind
>them." is inconsistent with my experience,
>and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal
>requirement to pass or fail on a minimum
>standard demonstrated by the examinee.
>This being said, there most surely are DE's
>out here who do as you suggest, but they are
>in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
>so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for
>certification.

If a DE is not legally required to get anything beyond a rote answer from an
applicant: (a) why require an oral exam? If all that is required is an accurate
rote answer, the knowledge (written) test satisfies that; and (b) why would it
be necessary for someone with the qualifications of a *DE* conduct the oral
exam? Nearly ANYONE is capable of asking questions that merely require only a
rote answer. What would be the point of that kind of oral exam?

I understand what you're saying about meeting the "minimum standard" ... but
there's obviously some discretion and responsibility within the "standards"
framework given to the DE to satisfy him/herself that rote answers are backed
up with some degree of understanding to meet that standard.

That said, has an applicant ever failed an oral exam after giving the correct
rote answer if he couldn't explain it further if he were questioned in more
depth? Would this be legal? Sounds to me like you're saying (above) that in
your experience, examiners don't generally go beyond just hearing the "right"
answer.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" wrote:
>
> >Your following comment, "A competent,
> >conscientious examiner digs on rote answers
> >to determine the comprehension level behind
> >them." is inconsistent with my experience,
> >and in fact is antithesis to the DE's legal
> >requirement to pass or fail on a minimum
> >standard demonstrated by the examinee.
> >This being said, there most surely are DE's
> >out here who do as you suggest, but they are
> >in no way required to do this and in doing so, do
> >so to satisfy no current FAA requirement for
> >certification.
>
> If a DE is not legally required to get anything beyond a rote answer
from an
> applicant: (a) why require an oral exam? If all that is required is an
accurate
> rote answer, the knowledge (written) test satisfies that; and (b) why
would it
> be necessary for someone with the qualifications of a *DE* conduct the
oral
> exam? Nearly ANYONE is capable of asking questions that merely require
only a
> rote answer. What would be the point of that kind of oral exam?
>
> I understand what you're saying about meeting the "minimum standard"
.... but
> there's obviously some discretion and responsibility within the
"standards"
> framework given to the DE to satisfy him/herself that rote answers are
backed
> up with some degree of understanding to meet that standard.
>
> That said, has an applicant ever failed an oral exam after giving the
correct
> rote answer if he couldn't explain it further if he were questioned in
more
> depth? Would this be legal? Sounds to me like you're saying (above)
that in
> your experience, examiners don't generally go beyond just hearing the
"right"
> answer.

You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.
What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with a
verbal answer to a question. Neither does it relate to what takes place
in the written exam. It has EVERYTHING to do with a mechanical recall
that allows an examinee to perform as requested by an examiner in the
air during a flight test without actually having as much comprehensive
understanding of what is being performed and why as could be the
situation if comprehension was causing the performance by the examinee.
It is the entire premise of this thread that an examinee can perform in
this manner and pass a flight test to a minimum standard.

May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a bit more
from the beginning .
Thank you.

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:


>>
>> But doesn't this imply that the less comprehending pilots are less
> safe?
>> And when does that become "not safe enough"?
>>
>> - Andrew
>
> No.

My question was whether or not less comprehending pilots are less safe.
You're answering "no" to that question?

You also wrote (on 12 July):

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!!!!

What was the purpose behind this remedial work if it didn't improve safety?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The mistake a lot of the people in this thread seem to be making is that
> zeroing in on the flight test and trying to use the results of the
> flight test to establish an ACTUAL quality level for the pilot at that
> point in time doesn't equate. All the flight test does is establish that
> the pilot being tested has met a MINIMUM STANDARD.

Worse: it is a minimum standard sought at a single moment in time. There's
no guarantee that the same standard could be met by a pilot a day, a week,
or three weeks hence. That is, I believe, part of Jose's point/question.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:


>
> You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be used
> to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way something
> is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.

Where did this occur? We have been discussing the ability to perform the
flight test tasks, true. But we've also been discussing the performance on
the oral part of the test (and the depth of comprehension demonstrated by
said performance).

You yourself wrote in t>:

I was finding pilots coming through the
accelerated path who knew the answers mechanically, and could perform in
the airplane mechanically, which met the minimum test standards and made
them safe enough in the air.
I simply wasn't fining the comprehension levels in these pilots that I
was finding in other pilots coming through training paths that allowed a
more relaxed curriculum.

This makes it clear that we - that you - are speaking of both the oral test
and the flight test on this thread.

> What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with a
> verbal answer to a question.

But "a verbal answer to a question" is the fundamental component of the oral
part of the "checkride".

- Andrew

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be
used
> > to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way
something
> > is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.
>
> Where did this occur? We have been discussing the ability to perform
the
> flight test tasks, true. But we've also been discussing the
performance on
> the oral part of the test (and the depth of comprehension demonstrated
by
> said performance).
>
> You yourself wrote in
t>:
>
> I was finding pilots coming through the
> accelerated path who knew the answers mechanically, and could
perform in
> the airplane mechanically, which met the minimum test
standards and made
> them safe enough in the air.
> I simply wasn't fining the comprehension levels in these
pilots that I
> was finding in other pilots coming through training paths that
allowed a
> more relaxed curriculum.
>
> This makes it clear that we - that you - are speaking of both the oral
test
> and the flight test on this thread.
>
> > What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with
a
> > verbal answer to a question.
>
> But "a verbal answer to a question" is the fundamental component of
the oral
> part of the "checkride".
>
> - Andrew
Apparently there is absolutely nothing I can say or do that will get the
few of you who just aren't following this in context away from the
flight test as the focus of this discussion.
My findings have little to do with the flight test per se. They were
made on flight checks given to pilots AFTER the flight test had been
passed and are only relevant to that scenario.
I think I'll just move on from you two and allow you simply to continue
questioning the validity of my comments as you wish. I can see at this
point that both of you questioning me on this constantly are completely
convinced that I'm in some kind of error. I will achieve nothing further
by trying to sort all of it out for you again. Perhaps it's something I
didn't explain for you properly. In any case, we are not in the same
boat and I'm fairly certain we won't ever actually get in the same boat
on this.
Thank you both for your input.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Apparently there is absolutely nothing I can say or do that will get the
> few of you who just aren't following this in context away from the
> flight test as the focus of this discussion.

Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest with the post to which
you've just replied. You claimed that Shirley had not followed the thread
when you wrote:

May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a bit more
from the beginning .

because she was discussing issues related to the oral exam. You also wrote:

You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this thread.
What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to do with a
verbal answer to a question.

Which seems a little odd since we are not only discussing the oral test, but
your finding these pilots to have insufficient comprehension. How did you
discover this w/o conversation with the pilots in question?

> My findings have little to do with the flight test per se.

But you've been mentioning the flight test (and oral) too! You appear to be
[trying to] shift the thread around in a way I don't grasp.

> They were
> made on flight checks given to pilots AFTER the flight test had been
> passed and are only relevant to that scenario.

Right. I think we all understand this. These were pilots that had passed
the PPL checkride, but whom you [at some point after their checkride] found
lacking in comprehension. You believed "remedial" action required. That's
very clear.

But you've been steadfastly avoiding the issue of why you considered
"remedial" action necessary if the pilots you found lacking were already
sufficiently safe. I can imagine all sorts of perfectly reasonable
answers, but I've yet to see yours.

> I will achieve nothing further
> by trying to sort all of it out for you again.

You could try answering the question once: why would you feel "remedial"
action necessary if the pilots you found lacking in comprehension were
already sufficiently safe?

I know you've no problem expressing your opinions, but just to make things a
little more clear for you, I'll provide some of the possible answers that I
see:

o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be
more safe.

o They were safe at the time of the PPL checkride, but were no
longer so.

o Comprehension doesn't impact safety, but I [you] believe it necessary
for other reasons.

But I really do want to know *your* answer.

- Andrew

[Shirley]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest
>with the post to which you've just replied. You
>claimed that Shirley had not followed the thread

I admit I didn't read *every* post, I read the majority of them, and I wasn't
going to argue, but the oral exam certainly WAS discussed. I realize, Dudley,
that you were addressing the competency and comprehension levels of
already-licensed private pilots. My point was simply that even BEFORE a person
gets there, an examiner, during the oral exam, makes an evaluation of
comprehension. Whether or not a "rote answer" by itself is acceptable is, as
you said, left to the discretion of the examiner. One would HOPE that rote
answers for areas where the examiner can clearly perceive little or no
comprehension would not fit into the category of having met minimum standards.
I am sure, depending on the DE, that sometimes they unfortunately do.

I don't see, though, how you can evaluate "comprehension" and NOT be talking
about how a person responds verbally, whether still an applicant OR an already
licensed private pilot. Like it or not, comprehension (on the ground) and
mechanical skill (in the air) do overlap each other or go hand-in-hand, if you
will.

Dudley:
>>My findings have little to do with the flight test per se.

Andrew:
>But you've been mentioning the flight test (and oral)
>too! You appear to be [trying to] shift the thread
>around in a way I don't grasp.

I agree. The oral exam was part of this discussion. Again, how can it not be if
you're talking about "comprehension"?

Dudley:
>>I will achieve nothing further by trying to sort all of
>>it out for you again.

I don't think we need you to sort anything out. Insufficient comprehension
can't be dealt with without at least *some* discussion, regardless of what a
person's flight test looks like. It's just common sense that flying well on a
particular day isn't *necessarily* an indication of comprehension -- gee, maybe
that's why an oral exam is part of the PPL test and a minimum of one hour of
ground part of a BFR.

--Shirley

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here.
See my inserts;

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > Apparently there is absolutely nothing I can say or do that will get
the
> > few of you who just aren't following this in context away from the
> > flight test as the focus of this discussion.
>
> Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest with the post to
which
> you've just replied. You claimed that Shirley had not followed the
thread
> when you wrote:

>
> May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a
bit more
> from the beginning .

Part of the problem here is that YOU are reading what you want to see
into someone else's comments and projecting them back in a different
context. Take the above;
I didn't "CLAIM" that Shirley didn't read the thread. I respectfully
suggested that she perhaps read it again from the beginning. There is
one hell of a HUGE difference between these two interpretations and the
whole crux of your continued posts to me can be centered on this
interpretative difference.


>
> because she was discussing issues related to the oral exam. You also
wrote:
>
> You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can
be used
> to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way
something
> is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this
thread.
> What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to
do with a
> verbal answer to a question.
>
> Which seems a little odd since we are not only discussing the oral
test, but
> your finding these pilots to have insufficient comprehension. How did
you
> discover this w/o conversation with the pilots in question?

In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient." In my
context, insufficient means "could be better".
>
> > My findings have little to do with the flight test per se.
>
> But you've been mentioning the flight test (and oral) too! You appear
to be
> [trying to] shift the thread around in a way I don't grasp.

The ONLY reason I've even mentioned the flight test OR the oral is in
answer to the horrific thread creep that you two are forcing.
>
> > They were
> > made on flight checks given to pilots AFTER the flight test had been
> > passed and are only relevant to that scenario.
>
> Right. I think we all understand this. These were pilots that had
passed
> the PPL checkride, but whom you [at some point after their checkride]
found
> lacking in comprehension. You believed "remedial" action required.
That's
> very clear.

Believe it or not, you have this in context....almost!
I didn't find these pilots lacking in comprehension that would indicate
a lower than required to pass the flight test. I DID however, find these
pilots lacking in the comprehension that I was seeing from pilots who
hadn't come through the accelerated training path.
Can you POSSIBLY understand this in context? I'll reduce it even further
for you.
I found the pilots I was checking could have been even BETTER pilots
based on the methods I was using to check them out. The "remedial
training" I gave them simply brought them up to where I considered their
comprehensive levels should be.
Again....I DON'T use a DE syllabus to check out pilots. I use an
entirely different method. There is NO comparison between the two
methods.
>
> But you've been steadfastly avoiding the issue of why you considered
> "remedial" action necessary if the pilots you found lacking were
already
> sufficiently safe. I can imagine all sorts of perfectly reasonable
> answers, but I've yet to see yours.

Is it HUMANLY POSSIBLE that anyone could misunderstand what I have said
above? They could have been BETTER. Where they were was sufficient!!!
Are you getting it YET?????
>
> > I will achieve nothing further
> > by trying to sort all of it out for you again.
>
> You could try answering the question once: why would you feel
"remedial"
> action necessary if the pilots you found lacking in comprehension were
> already sufficiently safe?

Believe me, THIS is the last time I'll dealing with this. Anything
further I'll consider a troll post.
>
> I know you've no problem expressing your opinions, but just to make
things a
> little more clear for you, I'll provide some of the possible answers
that I
> see:
>
> o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be
> more safe.

BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand?

> o They were safe at the time of the PPL checkride, but were no
> longer so.
>
> o Comprehension doesn't impact safety, but I [you] believe it
necessary
> for other reasons.
>
> But I really do want to know *your* answer.
>
> - Andrew

Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Please Keep Your Word]

> Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here.

If only that were true.

> Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

Considering you don't trim your posts and usually run paragraphs
together without spaces I daresay you are not so smart yourself.

[Dudley Henriques]

See my inserts, and then I'm going to pass on further dialog with you on
this matter.

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> >Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest
> >with the post to which you've just replied. You
> >claimed that Shirley had not followed the thread

I claimed nothing of the kind.
>
> I admit I didn't read *every* post, I read the majority of them, and I
wasn't
> going to argue, but the oral exam certainly WAS discussed. I realize,
Dudley,
> that you were addressing the competency and comprehension levels of
> already-licensed private pilots. My point was simply that even BEFORE
a person
> gets there, an examiner, during the oral exam, makes an evaluation of
> comprehension. Whether or not a "rote answer" by itself is acceptable
is, as
> you said, left to the discretion of the examiner. One would HOPE that
rote
> answers for areas where the examiner can clearly perceive little or no
> comprehension would not fit into the category of having met minimum
standards.
> I am sure, depending on the DE, that sometimes they unfortunately do.

The depth to which an examiner takes an applicant taking a Private
flight test is strictly at the discretion of the examiner if the
applicant meets the minimum standards. It's important to realize that if
something comes up in the oral that produces the correct answer, it is
NOT...and I repeat NOT the responsibility of the examiner to go deeper
into the discussion until a discrepency is noted. In fact, a very strong
argument can be made for examiners not going very deep into a subject if
the right answer is showing up front.
A good DE will indeed go beyond the simple answer as you have correctly
stated, and at some point will make a decision on the comprehension. The
main thing to remember her Shirley, is that there is a specific minimum
requirement for comprehension, and if that minimum has been satisfied,
the examiner isn't duty bound to explore any deeper. This dosen't mean
the applicant isn't safe. In fact, if the applicant has met the minimum
standard, he/she IS safe, and the examiner is duty bound to pass the
applicant.
All I've been saying from the very beginning is that in my opinion,
based on my experience over time, the comprehension levels of pilots I
was checking out after having gone through this minimum standard process
after being trained in accelerated programs, could have been better. I
was also finding pilots coming through traditional training programs
that I felt could use some additional comprehension. The common factor
in all this was that I wasn't satisfied with ANY of the accelerated
trained pilots. To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards
are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.
None of what I found would indicate that these pilots were not safe
simply because I believed they needed remedial work. All that means is
that SOME of the pilots we were checking out of traditional training
were less than our desired levels, but ALL of the pilots we tested
coming out of accelerated training were less than our expected standard.
This thread is suffering greatly from thread creep. Most people,
especially competent CFI's answered immediately and knew exactly what I
was addressing. A few here, are innocently responding to the thread
creep as it wanders more and more away from the base issue and into
tangent mode :-)
>
> I don't see, though, how you can evaluate "comprehension" and NOT be
talking
> about how a person responds verbally, whether still an applicant OR an
already
> licensed private pilot. Like it or not, comprehension (on the ground)
and
> mechanical skill (in the air) do overlap each other or go
hand-in-hand, if you
> will.

This is a valid way to deal with some forms of comprehension. I have no
problem with it.

One last thought about discussion having relevance to comprehension as
you have presented it to me as though I don't understand it :-)
I have no problem with this; it's 101........IF the issue is
discussion. Actually, I can make your point here even more relevant by
telling you that it was in part, discussion, coupled with performance,
that revealed to us as check pilots the necessity for an even HIGHER
comprehension level than we were finding in the pilots being checked.
Am I getting through here at last Shirley? I hope so.
The bottom line is that all of what you are saying is relevant. You're
just assuming all through this that my test standard was revealing a sub
safe level. That simply wasn't the case. We just found that these pilots
could have, in our opinion, and based on our flight check
methods.........a bit better, so we made them better. That's what good
instructors do.....make pilots better!!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Please Keep Your Word" > wrote in message
...
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here.
>
> If only that were true.
>
> > Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!
>
> Considering you don't trim your posts and usually run paragraphs
> together without spaces I daresay you are not so smart yourself.

Oh....you know how it goes on Usenet. Some people think you're
smart....some can't stand you and don't think you're so smart. As long
as those who think you're smart outnumber those who don't, you're WAY
ahead of the game. :-)
I'll just put you in the "you don't think I'm all that smart" column.
The world moves on....... :-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Teacherjh]

>>
The main thing to remember her Shirley, is that there is a specific minimum
requirement for comprehension, and if that minimum has been satisfied,
the examiner isn't duty bound to explore any deeper.
<<

I"m not Shirley, but to my eyes, a correct answer does not imply comprehension.
Were I a DE (and I"m not), I would see it as my duty to establish, to my
satisfaction, that the comprehension is there, at least to minimum standards.
This does not mean "the right answer to a fixed set of questions". It means
the understanding behind these answers.

If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our problem).

>>
To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards
are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.
<<

It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are standards "too
high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?)

But this is all besides the point. It may be that the accelerated programs
produce acceptable pilots (to minimum standards) and we have become used to
superior pilots (trained the standard way to better standards). Is this what
you are saying?

Jose





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

[Shirley]

Dudley said:
>>there is a specific minimum requirement for
>>comprehension, and if that minimum has been
>>satisfied, the examiner isn't duty bound to
>>explore any deeper.

teacherjh wrote:
>to my eyes, a correct answer does not imply
>comprehension. Were I a DE (and I"m not), I
>would see it as my duty to establish, to my
>satisfaction, that the comprehension is there,
>at least to minimum standards. This does not
>mean "the right answer to a fixed set of questions".
>It means the understanding behind these answers.

Precisely, Jose! From the PTS:

"Since there is no formal division between the 'oral' and 'skill' portions of
the practical test, this becomes an ongoing process throughout the test. Oral
questioning, to determine the applicant's knowledge of TASKs and related safety
factors, should be used judiciously at all times, especially during the flight
portion of the practical test. Examiner's shall test to the greatest extent
practicable the applicant's correlative abilities rather than mere rote
enumeration of facts throughout the practical test."

I don't think the above paragraph can be interpreted to mean that rote answers
c/would satisfy a minimum requirement for comprehension. It clearly states that
the examiner shall test for **CORRELATIVE** abilities rather than mere rote
answers. IMO, that *IS* "duty bound to explore deeper".

--Shirley

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Please Keep Your Word" > wrote in message
...
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here.
>
> If only that were true.
>
> > Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!
>
> Considering you don't trim your posts and usually run paragraphs
> together without spaces I daresay you are not so smart yourself.

Maybe is you read the CONTEXT of his post (which is depreciated by snipping)
you'd realize he's quite brilliant.

Based on your stupid remark, I'd say you were downright dense.

[Jim Fisher]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message

> Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

Dudley,

Andrew wasn't asking anything but honest questions and in a much calmer
manner than even I was. By Usenet standards, Andrew was darn close to being
Incredibly Nice, Indeed.

I used to have some respect for you. Even in this thread where you accused
me of bashing you(and I did not - no matter what you wish to believe) I
still held to some respect for some of your opinions.

For what it's worth (which ain't much, I'm sure), I have lost that respect.
You're just a run of the mill, high-on-himself, certificate-waiving, pompous
asshole who obviously thinks CFI-dom is the pinnacle of Enlightenment.

The reality is that you're probably a closet high-winger.

--
Jim Fisher

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> > Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!
>
> Dudley,
>
> Andrew wasn't asking anything but honest questions and in a much
calmer
> manner than even I was. By Usenet standards, Andrew was darn close to
being
> Incredibly Nice, Indeed.
>
> I used to have some respect for you. Even in this thread where you
accused
> me of bashing you(and I did not - no matter what you wish to believe)
I
> still held to some respect for some of your opinions.
>
> For what it's worth (which ain't much, I'm sure), I have lost that
respect.
> You're just a run of the mill, high-on-himself, certificate-waiving,
pompous
> asshole who obviously thinks CFI-dom is the pinnacle of Enlightenment.
>
> The reality is that you're probably a closet high-winger.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Actually Fisher, I have never sought your respect nor anyone else's on
Usenet and can assure you I don't require it. Losing it therefore is a
non event for me. In fact, it's incredibly self serving of you to
believe that losing your respect would be a problem for me or anyone
else for that matter. Respect comes and goes on Usenet like flies on a
crap pile.
In making statements like this you're falling for the oldest Usenet
game out here; that someone actually cares what you really think about
them. Hell man, I would have thought you've been out here long enough to
have learned by now that Usenet isn't the place where you earn people's
respect. You do that in the real world.
That being said, I'll just have to settle for the respect I have managed
to earn from the real world and learn to live with not having yours I
guess.
I might be able to handle that I think! :-))
Actually, to be quite blunt with you, as far as Usenet is concerned, the
people whose respect I value are in my address book. Everything else
that comes and goes out here isn't important really.
Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that
high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on
Usenet :-))))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:


> In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient." In my
> context, insufficient means "could be better".

FYI:

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=insufficient

You'll note that "not sufficient" is the definition of "insufficient".

[...]

>> o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be
>> more safe.
>
> BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand?

I'm afraid that it is, given that you've made this statement as a comparison
between graduates of accelerated and "conventional" programs. Recall that
your original statement on this thread included:

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!!!!

If the graduate of an accelerated program is safe as defined by the PPL
exam, but could be more safe, then what is the difference between the
graduate of an accelerated program and the graduate of a "conventional"
program? Surely, the graduate of a "conventional" program could/should
also be more safe than he/she is. By this definition of "remedial work",
would you not find a need for "remedial work" with any recently
certificated pilot?

For that matter, can not *any* pilot be better than he/she is?

- Andrew

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that
> high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on
> Usenet :-))))


It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or
the other.

[Andrew Gideon]

Teacherjh wrote:

>
> If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our problem).

I have to completely agree with this.

My checkrides - and for that matter, my various check "outs" (ie. club, FBO,
etc.) - have all been pretty deep. Now, this may be because I don't take
that "say as little as possible" advice one gets, but I suspect that the
examiners are playing the major role in this. I think they are looking for
my limits.

Personally, I think this terrific. In fact, I'd expect it and I'd worry in
its absence.

Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

>>>
> To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
> into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards
> are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.
> <<
>
> It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are standards
> "too
> high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?)

I suppose, in the abstract, standards can be too high. And if we made the
PPL standards as high as possible, we'd have no Commercial and no ATP.

Still, Dudley's statement that some pilots have insufficient comprehension
is worrisome. Someone else used here the expression "Santa Claus DE",
which bugs me even more.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that
>> high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on
>> Usenet :-))))
>
>
> It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or
> the other.

Or both!

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>
> > In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient."
In my
> > context, insufficient means "could be better".
>
> FYI:
>
>
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=insufficient
>
> You'll note that "not sufficient" is the definition of "insufficient".

So? Context again...as it has been for the last ten or so posts with
you. You just can't seem to get it can you? The pilots I was checking
out of accelerated training were "not sufficient" to MY standards
Gideon, NOT the flight test standards. The dictionary definition is in
complete agreement both ways. The pilots were also "insufficient" to MY
standards. Dawning on you yet?


>
> [...]
>
> >> o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should
be
> >> more safe.
> >
> > BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand?
>
> I'm afraid that it is, given that you've made this statement as a
comparison
> between graduates of accelerated and "conventional" programs. Recall
that
> your original statement on this thread included:
>
> 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!!!!
>
> If the graduate of an accelerated program is safe as defined by the
PPL
> exam, but could be more safe, then what is the difference between the
> graduate of an accelerated program and the graduate of a
"conventional"
> program?

The difference is exactly as I stated it. I was getting what I
considered insufficient results from all the accelerated grads. I was
getting mixed results from the conventional grads; insufficient on one
side......mixed on the other side........This Gedion, is a difference!



Surely, the graduate of a "conventional" program could/should
> also be more safe than he/she is.

Absolutely! That's why the Commercial PTS is basically an "upgraded"
Private PTS in a lot of respects. It requires an even deeper level of
comprehension and performance to a closer tolorance of the same subject
matter by the examinee in many cases.


By this definition of "remedial work",
> would you not find a need for "remedial work" with any recently
> certificated pilot?

Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial work. I
did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots need
remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the level
of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training
methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else.
>
> For that matter, can not *any* pilot be better than he/she is?

All pilots can be better than they are. Pilots like myself for example,
who lived and worked in a highly dangerous environment with high
performance airplanes were engaged in a daily regimem of self
improvement. Without it, I never would have survived to be here arguing
this ridiculas argument with you :-)

BTW, I apologize for losing my temper with you. I shouldn't have done
that. If you can, please forgive my personal remark in the last thread.
If you wish to engage in this discussion with me, please continue. I'll
try and keep my temper in check and deal with your questions as they are
thrown my way :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Teacherjh wrote:
>
> >
> > If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our
problem).
>
> I have to completely agree with this.
>
> My checkrides - and for that matter, my various check "outs" (ie.
club, FBO,
> etc.) - have all been pretty deep. Now, this may be because I don't
take
> that "say as little as possible" advice one gets, but I suspect that
the
> examiners are playing the major role in this. I think they are
looking for
> my limits.
>
> Personally, I think this terrific. In fact, I'd expect it and I'd
worry in
> its absence.

If your check pilots are probing your limits, they are performing check
flights as they REALLY should be performed. You should seek out and fly
with check pilots who use this method.
>
> Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
> improved safety, but I believe that to be true.

I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably
assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
comprehension yields improved safety.

>
> >>>
> > To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
> > into an overall picture one has to realize that my training
standards
> > are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.
> > <<
> >
> > It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are
standards
> > "too
> > high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?)

I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of
it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a
safe pilot. I believe the DE giving the flight test is the ultimate last
piece in the safety equation. If you get a good DE and or a good oral
and check flight, coming out of it you should be adaquate safety wise.
Most pilots are adaquate. Some DE's will dig deeper in the oral and
performance than others, but the average is a safe pilot if passed.
It's important to realize that no matter what the comprehension level is
at passing, that level can really range. In reality, what usually
happens on a flight test is that the examiner digs deep enough to
satisfy him/herself that the level of comprehension is adaquate for the
test standard. As Shirley said, sometimes a DE goes in deeper; but many
times, time restrictions and scheduling can be factors as to just how
deep a DE will go. So you get a safe pilot and then what happens?
There's a period of "adjustment" that all pilots go through after
getting the Private. What happens is a natural process where they "catch
up" on the comprehension they might have missed during the training
process. Oh, they're safe enough....but they could be better.....in some
cases, a whole lot better. Some of these pilots run into check pilots
like myself, who, simply because of the high performance environment we
live in, tend to look for that "deeper level" of comprehension I've been
talking about. True, we're not checking these pilots out in P51's, but
our check out methods tend to reflect the higher standard we have to
demand from the pilots we're dealing with in high performance airplanes.
When I say I'm not finding comprehension levels in accelerated program
trained pilots, all that means is that in my opinion, the accelerated
pilots had problems that I was picking up during check flights that
bothered me. It wasn't that the pilots weren't safe. They were safe.
I just felt I wasn't getting the level of understanding I was looking
for. In all cases, it was mostly a matter of bringing these pilots up to
speed on these things to where we were satisfied.



>
> I suppose, in the abstract, standards can be too high. And if we made
the
> PPL standards as high as possible, we'd have no Commercial and no ATP.

In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high. I had a sign over my desk for years
that read
" Perfection may be unattainable, but spend your entire career in
aviation trying to achieve it anyway"
>
> Still, Dudley's statement that some pilots have insufficient
comprehension
> is worrisome. Someone else used here the expression "Santa Claus DE",
> which bugs me even more.

Rest easy. The DE's are for the most part doing a credible job. As I
said Andrew, my definition for "insufficient comprehension" equates only
to my standards. The flight test standards are sufficient as that
relates to general safety.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or
> the other.

I dunno -- some of those mid-wing aircraft look pretty neat!

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Teacherjh]

>>
In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
standards can NEVER be too high.
<<

There are two ways to read this.

1: You should always strive to be better.

2: You always should not fly unless you are better.

I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems to be
proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are not safe
enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after all a
license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough to fly (2)
but not safe enough to stop learning (1).

Jose




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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now;
> standards can NEVER be too high.
> <<
>
> There are two ways to read this.
>
> 1: You should always strive to be better.
>
> 2: You always should not fly unless you are better.
>
> I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems
to be
> proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are
not safe
> enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after
all a
> license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough
to fly (2)
> but not safe enough to stop learning (1).
>
> Jose

I see it this way.
You can pass the test with varying degrees of competence as long as all
of those degrees of competence are above the minimum test standard. Any
of these varying degrees can be correctly stated as being safe enough to
fly. Some pilots going through the test process will naturally be better
than others. Are they more safe? Probably.....at least I think so
anyway. It's all a study in relativity. There are no absolutes in this
equation; no single identifiable level of competence. The only common
denominator in the equation is the minimum test standard having been met
at a specific point in time.
For my purposes as a check pilot, I can have two pilots to check out who
have come through the system using varying methods. Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check
pilot.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Teacherjh]

>>
Although both pilots
are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check
flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check
pilot.
<<

.... and that's the way it should be.

Jose



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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> Although both pilots
> are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their
check
> flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in
> comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps
> necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good
check
> pilot.
> <<
>
> ... and that's the way it should be.
>
> Jose

To review your initial post to me about the comparison between
accelerated and conventional training methods, I can only restate the
gist of the initial comments I made on this subject in my first post.
I have long believed that accelerated training at the Private level is
not the optimum method to use in learning to fly. I base this on my
experience as a check pilot dealing with the various training systems in
use.

My opinion of the optimum method of training at the Private level is a
training program that allows a period of time for reflection and review
between actual time spent in the cockpit. This period doesn't have to be
prolonged, but it has to be PRESENT. In other words, an accelerated
program that included this factor would satisfy my requirement for
optimum.

An accelerated program that concentrates heavily on cockpit time at the
expense of time between lessons for review and reflection in my opinion
is not an optimum training method and I would never recommend it.
You can flight test both methods and get a safe result, but in my
opinion you get a BETTER level of comprehension at the flight test by
NOT using a training method that denies review and reflection between
flights.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

[...]
> Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial work. I
> did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots need
> remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the level
> of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training
> methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else.

Okay. As long as you're using "insufficient" to mean "not sufficient", I
understand. I even understand that the benchmark against which you're
measuring is your own and not the PTS. This is what I thought you were
claiming at first, before all the confusion about whether questions were
being asked and answered or how "insufficient" was defined were raised.

But this takes us right back to my original question about your opinion. If
you've a definition of "sufficient" for a private pilot that is higher than
the PTS, what does this say about the PTS? Or if this is not a matter so
much of the PTS, but of how exams are given...or how DEs "drill" down into
comprehension...

My question really is: is there a flaw in the testing system?

One could argue that your standards are higher than those of the PPL
checkride, and that doesn't by itself denigrate the PPL checkride.
However, you obviously think pilots should have that additional
comprehension.

Does that comprehension (or lack thereof) reflect upon a pilot's safety?
And, if so, why are we accepting the lower standard?

After all, we're not speaking of having more knowledge, or having
more/better skills. We do need to leave room for the Commercial and ATP,
after all <laugh>.

But is it so unreasonable to require that pilots understand the knowledge
that's already required of them?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields
>> improved safety, but I believe that to be true.
>
> I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably
> assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
> this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
> comprehension yields improved safety.

Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several different ways
to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I suspect I
see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).

> I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of
> it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a
> safe pilot.

You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I don't
believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure about
death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something towards
which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.

Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on a
different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being flying.
We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of flight.

That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to maximize
safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.

If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require that
comprehension from pilots? I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that this
knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and comprehensively
understood.

If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited time
involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based upon
Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.

- Andrew

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial
work. I
> > did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots
need
> > remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the
level
> > of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training
> > methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else.
>
> Okay. As long as you're using "insufficient" to mean "not
sufficient", I
> understand. I even understand that the benchmark against which you're
> measuring is your own and not the PTS. This is what I thought you
were
> claiming at first, before all the confusion about whether questions
were
> being asked and answered or how "insufficient" was defined were
raised.

Unfortunately on Usenet, this happens quite often. It usually results in
a huge thread creep which is what has happened with this thread.

>
> But this takes us right back to my original question about your
opinion. If
> you've a definition of "sufficient" for a private pilot that is higher
than
> the PTS, what does this say about the PTS? Or if this is not a matter
so
> much of the PTS, but of how exams are given...or how DEs "drill" down
into
> comprehension...
>
> My question really is: is there a flaw in the testing system?

There are many flaws in the system, but someone somewhere with
competence had to come up with a test standard they considered to be
safe for certification. This is exactly what they did. The PTS is the
result of this competent opinion. How this standard relates to an
overall competency level at the passing point of the flight test is up
for grabs really, as I have stated before many times. There are huge
variances present in the equation. What the student actually brings into
and takes out of the training program; the caliber of the instructors;
the caliber of the examiner; There are many factors that will determine
an overall compentency level. The main thing is that the basic test
standard be a safe standard, and I believe that through time, this has
been proven to be the fact. But this by no means should be construed to
define that all pilots passing through the test standard pass with the
same degree of competence. I think we can assume that all things
considered, all who pass are safe.
The way I view the PTS; it represents a BEGINNING point where a new
pilot has shown competent authority that he/she is safe enough to be
allowed certain privileges while continuing forward with the absolutely
necessary education and practical experience that will insure a state of
CONTINUED safety as that pilot travels through their tenure in aviation.
Where that pilot is existing on the safe side of the comprehension scale
exiting the flight test can only be determined by a highly experienced
check pilot trained in probing for a maximum competency level not tied
to any pre-determined test standard. The actual determination of this
maximum competency level is in actuality the individual opinion of that
specific check pilot.


>
> One could argue that your standards are higher than those of the PPL
> checkride, and that doesn't by itself denigrate the PPL checkride.
> However, you obviously think pilots should have that additional
> comprehension.

You are absolutely correct on all counts here.
>
> Does that comprehension (or lack thereof) reflect upon a pilot's
safety?
> And, if so, why are we accepting the lower standard?

No to the first question, as I have again stated in this post.
The test standard, as I have also stated , is considered a safe standard
as the starting point toward further education and experience to
maintain that safe level.
>
> After all, we're not speaking of having more knowledge, or having
> more/better skills. We do need to leave room for the Commercial and
ATP,
> after all <laugh>.

The Commercial TS is simply one more means of demonstrating to competent
authority that the ever present necessary education and experience path
is being followed.
>
> But is it so unreasonable to require that pilots understand the
knowledge
> that's already required of them?

I basically understand Fermat's last theorem............but I'm still
working on it!!!!! :-)))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Dudley Henriques]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> >> Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension
yields
> >> improved safety, but I believe that to be true.
> >
> > I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I
probably
> > assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about
> > this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved
> > comprehension yields improved safety.
>
> Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several
different ways
> to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I
suspect I
> see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below).
>
> > I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face
of
> > it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adequate to produce
a
> > safe pilot.

It is adequate to produce a safe pilot. If the Private minimums were
higher, you might just as well get the Commercial :-)
>
> You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I
don't
> believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure
about
> death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something
towards
> which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable.

I can't figure out where you're getting this from. The only "absolute" I
recognize as that word pertains to flight safety is that if a pilot can
meet the "absolute" test standard in the PTS, that pilot can be
considered safe. Absolute in this case simply means the pre-determined
test standard for establishing a demonstration of safe procedures.
After the test has been passed, safety in an airplane is a completely
relative term. It relates directly to continued education and currency
that translates into a continuing gaining of experience that insures a
safe standard will be maintained. Take anything out of this equation and
safety can become an issue fairly fast.

>
> Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on
a
> different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being
flying.
> We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of
flight.

This is a REAL stretch of how a pilot should be viewing flight safety,
and completely in opposition to anything I have ever taught to pilots
about flight safety. You are taking the obvious, which is that flying by
definition might be an unsafe endeavor and we as pilots accept that when
we choose to fly.....and projecting that into the context of how a pilot
has to view flight safety. This is totally out of line with my thinking
on this subject.
Don't EVER take up low altitude aerobatic demonstration flying with this
attitude or you will be dead in fifteen seconds or less.
If you said this to me during a check flight, I would send you back for
"remedial work"
:-)

>
> That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to
maximize
> safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion.
>
> If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require
that
> comprehension from pilots?

We DO require that comprehension. We just don't require it all at once
at flight test time.
All we require at the test is a demonstrated POINT that defines enough
comprehension for certain privileges to be put on a piece of paper. If
you've heard in once, you've heard it a thousand times from almost every
competent pilot you'll meet in aviation. "The certificate is nothing but
a license to learn".
All flying really is, is an honor system. There is no top end to
competence or comprehension. It's a never ending process. You can
demonstrate continued competence at higher levels if you like. All THAT
does is confirm that you have made the right choices and continued this
never-ending process of learning and gaining experience. Interestingly
enough you can also take no active steps to gain better comprehension
and competency.
Fortunately, just gaining experience alone without this active
involvement will in most cases add up to some increased level of
competence and comprehension.
It's all up to the individual pilot which path to take, but one way or
the other, flying safely demands a constant maintaining of at least the
competency you had exiting the flight test.




I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge
> required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that
this
> knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and
comprehensively
> understood.

Remember Andrew, the flight test is only a demonstrated safe competency
level that assumes you will go on gaining what you need to know continue
to be safe over time. Actually, I can think of no greater example of
allocating personal responsibility than when a DE signs you off as a
Private Pilot. The DE is literally entrusting you to continue your
learning process after the door closes behind you and you have left the
examiner's office.


> If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited
time
> involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based
upon
> Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this.

There are some bad DE's. Most fortunately are quite good.
The system isn't perfect but it works!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt