Need recommendation on accelerated IFR courses

[Sanjay Kumar]

Folks !

I am planing to get my IFR ticket. preferably in one of accelerated programs.
I have read about a few but I am still looking for one where they take you
on a cross-country ride to say west-coast or Alaska (I am in east) and you
don't shoot same approach twice. AT the end of the trip you take your
checkride. Do you know of such a course ? How do they compare to ones
that remain local ?

thank you,

-Sanjay Kumar

[Marco Leon]

Saw this one in an article I believe. Sorry, can't recall which publication.
http://www.dsflight.com/

Marco Leon

"Sanjay Kumar" > wrote in message
...
> Folks !
>
> I am planing to get my IFR ticket. preferably in one of accelerated
programs.
> I have read about a few but I am still looking for one where they take you
> on a cross-country ride to say west-coast or Alaska (I am in east) and you
> don't shoot same approach twice. AT the end of the trip you take your
> checkride. Do you know of such a course ? How do they compare to ones
> that remain local ?
>
> thank you,
>
> -Sanjay Kumar

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jack Cunniff wrote:
> http://www.ifrwest.com
>
> I don't think I've heard of any other, and this is a very well-known one.


It looks pretty nice but they want $7500 for six day adventure... and that's if
you're already rated... just not current. I didn't bother looking to see what
it might cost if you're starting from scratch. BTW, you only fly half the time;
it gets shared with another student. I doubt you'll get over 20 hours actual
time on the controls over the 6 days.

I could buy 60 hours of straight dual here in the Carolinas for the same money.
And most IFR panels look pretty much like any other when you get down to it. On
the "Alaskan Adventure" only the nonflying student and the instructor get to
enjoy the view.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Thomas Borchert]

Sanjay,

> but I am still looking for one where they take you
> on a cross-country ride
>

Well, accelerated and cross country probably don't go together that
well. Flying IFR enroute isn't the hard thing to learn about the
rating, so you're bound to waste some time during the long portions of
the flights.

You can see that from the fact that the cross country courses have
advance training requirements.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> I could buy 60 hours of straight dual here in the Carolinas for the same
> money.

Ah, but can you buy a few days of travel with a CFII?

A friend of mine did one of those accelerated IFR rating courses, which left
me somewhat worried. But he almost immediately followed it with one of
these multiday "IFR XC" trips. From his description, that addressed many
of the deficiencies of the "rush to rating" approach.

[It also sounded like a lot of fun.]

Also, don't knock the educational value of right-seat time. The pressure is
off, leaving one more free to listen, consider, compare...

- Andrew

[Michael]

> I am planing to get my IFR ticket. preferably in one of accelerated
> programs. I have read about a few but I am still looking for one where
> they take you on a cross-country ride to say west-coast or Alaska
> (I am in east) and you don't shoot same approach twice. AT the end
> of the trip you take your checkride. Do you know of such a course ?

AFAIK no such course exists. The ones that teach IFR flying on long XC
flights generally require that you already have a significant amount of
instrument time (some require you to be rated). None are geared
towards the checkride.

There is a reason for this. The goal of the program is not to get you
ready for a checkride in minimum time. If that were the goal, the way
to go would be to go to some place with great weather, fly every day
(maybe twice a day) strictly under the hood (no actual), hit the local
approaches hard (and don't go further from home than the DE will be
willing to go), make only the one required XC flight, and take the
checkride immediately. If what you want is a piece of paper rather
than the ability to safely make flights you can't make VFR, this is the
way to go. Fast and cheap.

The purpose of a long range XC flight is very different - it exposes
you to a variety of conditions (different approaches, ATC facilities,
weather, geography) to maximize your preparation for actually using the
rating.

So what is your goal?

Michael

[[email protected]]

Sanjay,
Check this thread where I posted links to IFR accelerated training
reports

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/msg/ae4f01518d189a69?dmode=source&hl=en

Few months ago, I were considering several accelerated training
options with special considerations to DSFI's East Coast trip or
Morey's West Coast trip. We thought it would be a great thing to
combine IFR training with mountain flying and cross-country experience.

I did a Wings training course with Doug Stewart who ran the East
Coast trip and took an introductory IFR training flight with Bill
Zaleski. I was impressed with both instructors, but decided to sign up
with Bill for several reasons: First, as someone had pointed out in
this thread, while you do learn quite a bit in the enroute IFR phase,
the long travelling time does reduce your opportunities to shoot
approaches. Secondly, to go with Doug, we would either have to use his
plane (with a Stormscope) or to add in-flight weather information to
our plane. Either option will add to the cost of the training. Lastly,
Bill happened to have a slot for us right away vs waiting several
months for Doug. We may take short version of the EastCoast trip with
Doug next year as an IFR refresher and to get some mountain flying
time.

We were surprised that Bill thought we were ready after 5 days of
training. In the end, it took 7 days for the two of us. It is
expected that people are very skeptical of accelerated training course.
I would never have gone for one during primary training but instrument
training is a different story. Having seen the struggle my husband went
through with a 'traditional' IFR training, I am convinced that the
'cram' IFR course is a very effective way of learning.

If you read several threads on IFR training, you will see some
people advocate getting some VFR flying experience, doing a lot of long
cross country trips etc. prior to starting IFR training. Both my
husband and I each had over 100hrs x-country (>50nm) time prior to
taking the course. We had also prepared for the course by taking the
written exam, reading many books, practicing on the simulator and
getting some hoodtime serving as each other's safety pilot. This
preparation compensated for the fact that we were not 'natural' flyers.
While we made some mistakes during our training and the checkrides, we
felt the course prepared us well for the real world of IFR flying. We
did a long IFR x-country trip (NY-MI-IL-NY) a month after passing the
checkrides and plan to embark on a longer one (NY-MI-MN-C0-NY) in few
weeks. With lots of preparation, we hope that the two of us will have
a fun but unevenful trip ;-)

Hai Longworth

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote

> Well, accelerated and cross country probably don't go together that
> well. Flying IFR enroute isn't the hard thing to learn about the
> rating, so you're bound to waste some time during the long portions of
> the flights.

I suppose someone could invent a cross country course that had you landing
at multitudes of airports, all close together, while going across the
country. A new record for numbers of landings while going across the
country? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

I did the IFR West Coast Adventure in Februrary 2005.

I had to fly in from Japan to do it. As such, I didn't even have the
25-odd-hours of basic training done before I got here, so I got a
surprise email from Field Morey, the father of the program: "You come
out to Medford and spend a week with me, and I'll make sure you're
ready for the course."

I spent a week doing approaches and planning and all the stuff people
on this thread are talking about. Field is an amazing instructor, and
things came fast and easy. The following week I headed for Wisconsin
where the WCA starts and ends.

It is a misconception that, since it's not all approaches and holds and
such, the course it not up to par. Not all of IFR flying is about the
little fiddly bits. It takes a very short period of time to learn to
do all the approaches into your home airport. My partner and I
averaged 3 approaches a day during the course, and found that just
getting the airplane from point A to point B requires some thought as
well. I now have no qualms about planning a flight into a strange
airport, asking the right questions, doing the right research, and just
getting out in the clag and doing it. Admittedly, I finished the
course with 20 hours logged on the WCA, but I also got to watch my
partner do his flying as well, with the benefit of not being under
pressure at the time. It's a good experience, learning from the
mistakes of your partner.

Additionally, the WCA aircraft are in no way similar to the little
used-up 172 you're going to rent at the local FBO. These were the
best-maintained, most well-equipped aircraft I have had the opportunity
to fly. I can fly a Garmin 530 with aplomb, I'm comfortable with DME,
VORs, using the HSI, stormscope and NEXRAD. I've had the opportunity
to work with a couple types of autopilots. I see the merits of flying
a turbocharged aircraft, and I've set some personal minimum equipment
boundaries on flying into the clouds.

Bottom line, it ain't all about doing 600 approaches into the 3
airports around your home field. Given proper preparation for the WCA,
I can think of no better way to get your IFR rating.


Good luck in your decision.

Brian

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
> Not all of IFR flying is about the little fiddly bits. It takes a very
> short period of time to learn to do all the approaches into your home
> airport. My partner and I averaged 3 approaches a day during the
> course, and found that just getting the airplane from point A to point B
> requires some thought as well.

Good point. Witness the recent thread about the guy who's handoff to
Potomac Approach got refused. A lot of people on this group were acting
like being asked to "say intentions" when their flight-planned route turned
out to be unavailable was a major crisis.

Tooling around at 120 kts and 3000 AGL from one approach to another doesn't
involve much in the way of descent planning. Being at 8000 AGL (or more)
in a 180 kt airplane means if you're not thinking about the descent when
you're 50 miles out from your destination, you're already behind the
airplane.

Two hours of flying local approaches with 4 or 5 hours of fuel when you
took off doesn't make you think about performance much. Flying legs near
the endurance limit of the airplane (maybe to destinations where no fuel is
available) forces you to actually pay attention to power settings and
leaning and stuff like that, not to mention having to make real decisions
about accepting holds and reroutes.

[[email protected]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message

> A lot of people on this group were acting
> like being asked to "say intentions" when their flight-planned route
> turned
> out to be unavailable was a major crisis.

I agree with your point but not your example. Sometimes the most
experienced IFR pilots have the mindset and judgment to question ATC
rather than accept whatever is given and sometimes that is essential
for safe IFR flight.

If you sorted the responses to that situation, I think you would find
fair representation by capable and experienced IFR pilots on both sides
of the
issue.

[Gene Whitt]

Y'All,
I have prepared pilots to take Field's program. A California trained pilot
has great difficulty getting truly hard IFR experience. An IFR rating in
California does not prepare you for what you will meet in
Great Lakes, Northwest, Southwest and the Midwest.

You can get the basics in California but Field (He is named after his
father's airport) will train you to be a survivor. His program is the
best available for those who require the best possible experiences in an
accellerated realistic program. Not everybody can take it and make it.
Field has a syllabus for your local CFI to use before you
fly to Wisconsin.

He also has taken some of my pilots to the Bahamas and Alaska.

Gene Whitt

[Chris]

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Y'All,
> I have prepared pilots to take Field's program. A California trained
> pilot has great difficulty getting truly hard IFR experience. An IFR
> rating in California does not prepare you for what you will meet in
> Great Lakes, Northwest, Southwest and the Midwest.
>
> You can get the basics in California but Field (He is named after his
> father's airport) will train you to be a survivor. His program is the
> best available for those who require the best possible experiences in an
> accellerated realistic program. Not everybody can take it and make it.
> Field has a syllabus for your local CFI to use before you
> fly to Wisconsin.
>
> He also has taken some of my pilots to the Bahamas and Alaska.
>
> Gene Whitt

Unfortunately the program run by Field and his son Rich has now finished.

[xxx]

I recently did one of those courses.

The best I can say about it is that I am now a genuine US government
certified instrument pilot. I can also say that the procedure cost
me less than others have spent to get the same rating.

The course cut a lot of corners. They sort of, arguably, did
meet the minimum legal standards for such training. To say the
course prepares one to fly IFR would be more than a stretch.
It would be absurd.


Sanjay Kumar wrote:
> Folks !
>
> I am planing to get my IFR ticket. preferably in one of accelerated programs.
> I have read about a few but I am still looking for one where they take you
> on a cross-country ride to say west-coast or Alaska (I am in east) and you
> don't shoot same approach twice. AT the end of the trip you take your
> checkride. Do you know of such a course ? How do they compare to ones
> that remain local ?
>
> thank you,
>
> -Sanjay Kumar

[Thomas Borchert]

Xxx,

well, since you're the first to really come down hard on these courses
from personal experience, I'd be very interested in WHICH you took.
Could you post this or at least e-mail me the information? Thanks!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:

> SometimesÂ*theÂ*most
> experienced IFR pilots have the mindset and judgment to question ATC
> rather than accept whatever is given and sometimes that is essential
> for safe IFR flight.

One of the reasons I chose the CFII I did, back when I did, was his comfort
with ATC. It was the start of my education regarding the advantages of a
"well seasoned" CFI. I've since become quite a bigot on that topic, in
fact <laugh>.

One of the "real world" concepts he taught, in addition to the small matter
of IFR flying, was dealing with ATC. I've found far more seasoned pilots
surprised at my negotiation style, and I owe it all to that instructor.

That said, I have to admit that I'd be disturbed to be in IMC w/o a
clearance to some airport. That's a serious problem just waiting for a
comm failure.

I don't recall whether it was real IMC in that earlier thread to which Roy
referred, though.

- Andrew

[John Clonts]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> wrote:
>
>> Sometimes the most
>> experienced IFR pilots have the mindset and judgment to question ATC
>> rather than accept whatever is given and sometimes that is essential
>> for safe IFR flight.
>
> One of the reasons I chose the CFII I did, back when I did, was his comfort
> with ATC. It was the start of my education regarding the advantages of a
> "well seasoned" CFI. I've since become quite a bigot on that topic, in
> fact <laugh>.
>
> One of the "real world" concepts he taught, in addition to the small matter
> of IFR flying, was dealing with ATC. I've found far more seasoned pilots
> surprised at my negotiation style, and I owe it all to that instructor.
>

Hello Andrew,

I am interested in this. Are there any other aspects of this style that you would care to share? Or is it
just basically as said above, "don't blindly accept what is given to you by ATC".


Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Andrew Gideon]

John Clonts wrote:

> I am interested in this. Are there any other aspects of this style that
> you would care to share? Or is it just basically as said above, "don't
> blindly accept what is given to you by ATC".

Hmm. I am *not* this CFII (or any CFI {8^), so I'm not sure I can give
"this style" adequate coverage. But from this one student's perspective...

It involves first a recognition that the people behind the ATC microphone
are just that: people. Once that's internalized, a lot of "mic fright"
goes away.

Listening in for a while also helps that. Even the heavy iron drivers make
mistakes too, as do controllers. And that relates to part of our job.
"Communication" and operating under ATC control (ie. IFR, in a class B,
etc.) doesn't mean giving up PIC status.

I just heard a story a couple of evenings ago about a pilot that had a
mishap on a T&G. He actually ran off the runway into the grass, dented the
plane on something (a taxi light?), and then returned to the air.

When he was asked his intentions by the tower, his response was one which
indicated complete abdication. Bad Move. ATC is not there to fly the
plane.

Another aspect is that ATC and pilot are working cooperatively towards a
goal, with that working sometimes overly well defined by the rules. A
contact approach is one example where the controller is precluded from
doing something that might otherwise be helpful (though I've heard funny
stories of 'hints' given {8^).

But within those limits, it's certainly a team approach. We're on the same
side. If you're unhappy with an instruction or a reply, and assuming
conditions permit, you can work together to find an alternative.

- Andrew

[Rich]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> Another aspect is that ATC and pilot are working cooperatively towards a
> goal, with that working sometimes overly well defined by the rules. A
> contact approach is one example where the controller is precluded from
> doing something that might otherwise be helpful (though I've heard funny
> stories of 'hints' given {8^).
>
> - Andrew
>
Lots of stories like that, but I'll relate one:

Was stuck at Albany NY with light snow falling. Started up and got the
ATIS which was reporting 2 1/2 miles... beacon was on... called Ground,
and they reported it appeared clearer to the West (our direction of
flight). Sat at the runup pad for many minutes, calling for the
official visibility two or three times. Finally asked if I could get a
"special VFR" out of their. Response from the tower was "We thought
you'd NEVER ask!" Was on my way in minutes.

Rich

[Dave Butler]

Rich wrote:
>>
> Lots of stories like that, but I'll relate one:
>
> Was stuck at Albany NY with light snow falling. Started up and got the
> ATIS which was reporting 2 1/2 miles... beacon was on... called Ground,
> and they reported it appeared clearer to the West (our direction of
> flight). Sat at the runup pad for many minutes, calling for the
> official visibility two or three times. Finally asked if I could get a
> "special VFR" out of their. Response from the tower was "We thought
> you'd NEVER ask!" Was on my way in minutes.

In a similar situation, I've had the tower controller ask me: "...is there
anything special you'd like to request?"

Dave

[Dave Butler]

Sanjay Kumar wrote:

> I am planing to get my IFR ticket. preferably in one of accelerated
> programs.
> I have read about a few but I am still looking for one where they take you
> on a cross-country ride to say west-coast or Alaska (I am in east) and you
> don't shoot same approach twice. AT the end of the trip you take your
> checkride. Do you know of such a course ? How do they compare to ones
> that remain local ?

Sanjay, if you can't find an institutionalized course that meets your desires,
how about asking some local instrument instructor if he/she'd like to put
together a curriculum to your specifications? I'd think there must be some
instructors around who'd like to take a cross-country adventure at your expense.

Dave

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Xxx,
>
>well, since you're the first to really come down hard on these courses
>from personal experience, I'd be very interested in WHICH you took.
>Could you post this or at least e-mail me the information? Thanks!
>
>--


Also - you took one of "what" - accelerated or X-country.
As Thomas Borchert points out above, the two are far from synonymous -
and perhaps contradictory. The most famous accelerated course
advertises that the instructor comes to you (some actually put him up in
their homes) and they make it sound like you almost don't leave your
living room!Yet most graduates of this course do seem to fel they got
adequate training.

G Faris

[Chris]

"Rich" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
>> Another aspect is that ATC and pilot are working cooperatively towards a
>> goal, with that working sometimes overly well defined by the rules. A
>> contact approach is one example where the controller is precluded from
>> doing something that might otherwise be helpful (though I've heard funny
>> stories of 'hints' given {8^). - Andrew
>>
> Lots of stories like that, but I'll relate one:
>
> Was stuck at Albany NY with light snow falling. Started up and got the
> ATIS which was reporting 2 1/2 miles... beacon was on... called Ground,
> and they reported it appeared clearer to the West (our direction of
> flight). Sat at the runup pad for many minutes, calling for the official
> visibility two or three times. Finally asked if I could get a "special
> VFR" out of their. Response from the tower was "We thought you'd NEVER
> ask!" Was on my way in minutes.
>
> Rich

I have a similar story too. three weeks or so ago II was flying from Madison
Wi to Niagara Falls on an IFR flight plan. The weather was pretty good
although isolated thunderstorms were forecast for London,Ontario about the
time I was due to pass through.

Anyway travelling at 9000 things looked Ok until we passed Flint. Right
ahead coming out of the cloud deck below was a little tower going up to
maybe 11000ft.
No problem, I asked Center for a deviation to avoid it and they said Ok. As
we moved on the isolated thunderstorms decided to get together and have a
party.
So again I got onto Toronto Center this time gave them the facts asked for
another deviation and they said "do whatever you have to do and call us back
when you are ready".
I flew around the edge of the line, a good distance away and it was smooth
all they way. When the stuff was behind me, I called up again, got a direct
to Niagara Falls and then began the decent.

At the end of the day, ATC are there to help and all you need to do is ask.
Sometimes the biggest fear pilots have is asking for what they need from ATC
fearing they will say no.

On that day I knew what I wanted, I also had a backup plan if they said no
(go back to Flint) and another backup plan if that was not possible
(northern Michigan). Thankfully, they did not say no and I arrived at my
destination within 5 minutes of my estimate despite the manoeuvrings, which
in the end cost me thirty miles.

That confidence came from the program I did, the West Coast Adventure where
there was scope to try out the full gamut of the ATC offering from sleepy
Wyoming to the LA area and everything in between as well as some interesting
instrument approaches to both controlled and uncontrolled fields.

[xxx]

What I took was an intensive 10-day instrument rating course at
one of the schools that advertises in aviation publications.

I do not want to publicly name the school for a few reasons:

1. The owners and key personnel are really nice. I like them as
individuals. They work hard to accommodate students' schedules
and individual preferences.

2. I've no reason at all (quite the contrary) to think the other
ones are any different. Publicly steering students away from
this school and implicitly to another, which would be no better,
would be a petulant and foolish thing to do.

3. They are reasonably up-front about the syllabus and what they
don't do.

4. What they provide is a rating course. Again, they are open and
honest about this. A true instrument course takes a lot longer and
costs a lot more.

5. Their price is good, even considering how they cut corners.
Others seem to provide no more training but charge more for what
they do.


Greg Farris wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >Xxx,
> >
> >well, since you're the first to really come down hard on these courses
> >from personal experience, I'd be very interested in WHICH you took.
> >Could you post this or at least e-mail me the information? Thanks!
> >
> >--
>
>
> Also - you took one of "what" - accelerated or X-country.
> As Thomas Borchert points out above, the two are far from synonymous -
> and perhaps contradictory. The most famous accelerated course
> advertises that the instructor comes to you (some actually put him up in
> their homes) and they make it sound like you almost don't leave your
> living room!Yet most graduates of this course do seem to fel they got
> adequate training.
>
> G Faris

[Michael]

> What I took was an intensive 10-day instrument rating course...
> I've no reason at all (quite the contrary) to think the other
> ones are any different.

Based on what you described, I can very comfortably state that your did
NOT do your training with PIC. That's because PIC is different. At
PIC you get an experienced instructor who is himself an experienced
instrument pilot, and thus you learn enough about actually flying IFR
in IMC to have a reasonable chance of continuing to learn on your own
reasonably safely.

Are there other good options besides PIC? I'm sure there must be. All
you really need to make the training work is an experienced instrument
pilot who knows how to teach effectively and a low end sim - PC based
is fine. I just happen to know that PIC does it, if not right, at
least as well as it can be done if you want to get it done in 10 days.

And then there's the course you took. In your own words:

> To say the
> course prepares one to fly IFR would be more than a stretch.
> It would be absurd.

So there's definitely a difference. Of course PIC isn't cheap, but it
does a reasonable job of preparing you to fly IFR. So what's the
difference?

Basically, it's most likely the instruction. I know quite a few
instructors who would be well qualified to teach such a course, and
would make it far more than a minimum-standards rating course. Some of
them actually do teach instruments part time. None of them are
available to teach 10 solid days in a row because they have jobs that
are either high-paying already (these tend to be the pilot owners) or
jobs that they expect will lead to high paying jobs (freight dogs and
such). If you want to fly with them, you work around their schedule.
They are mostly not interested in quitting their jobs to instruct full
time as independent contractors.

The economics of independent contracting by the day works like this -
unless your REALLY hustle, you are lucky get 200 billable days a year
(and you will spend at least 50 days working that are not billable -
dealing with accounts and taxes, networking, marketing, etc.). Also,
by the time you cover expenses, self-employment taxes, insurance, and
other such costs an employee doesn't worry about, you need to make
about double in gross revenue to match what you would get from a salary
in an 8-5 job. So really those billable days must be AT LEAST
$600/day. That's $6000 for that 10-day course, not including aircraft.

I bet you didn't pay half of that. I'll also bet that had you paid the
premium for PIC, you would feel differently about there being no
difference.

You may not get what you pay for, but you sure will pay for what you
get.
Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick any two.

Michael

[xxx]

Right on both counts. It was not PIC and I did not pay half of
what PIC plus local airplane rental would have cost.

I went into this eyes open. They did cut a few more corners than
I had expected but otherwise it was pretty much as I thought it
would be. Getting the rating that way suited my particular
situation and I do not regret a thing. It must be recognized,
though, that the training was incomplete and insufficient for
flying in instrument conditions.

[[email protected]]

xxx wrote:
> ..... Getting the rating that way suited my particular
> situation and I do not regret a thing. It must be recognized,
> though, that the training was incomplete and insufficient for
> flying in instrument conditions.

xxx,

Are there any prerequisites for that particular school? Most if
not all accelerated courses require passing the written exam and some
require certain minimum dual and/or instrument hours. I don't think
that any student should expect coming to an accelerated intrument
course 'cold' and to learn everything about instrument flying and be
proficient in 7 or 10 days.

I'm very surprised to hear that you do not regret taking the
course eventhough you think it was incomplete and insufficient for
flying in instrument conditions.

IMHO, instrument flying is a 'deadly' serious business. Our only
reason for getting the rating is to be able to use it. We did not
launch into IMC right after getting our ratings until we had some
additional practices. However, we never felt that our training was
incomplete or insufficient. If we had felt that way, any amount of
money that we paid our instructor would have been too much.

Hai Longworth

[xxx]

wrote:

>
> Are there any prerequisites for that particular school?

Only having the written completed. I'm not sure if even that is
a hard requirement.

The schedule suited me for reasons that are not sufficiently of
general interest to go into. Before launching myself into the
clouds I'll get more dual in the conditions and location in which
I may actually be using the rating.

[Michael]

> Getting the rating that way suited my particular
> situation and I do not regret a thing.

Not saying you should. As you said, you went into this eyes open and
got what you paid for. I can easily imagine a situation where this
would make sense. In fact, you almost sound like a newly rated pilot I
know. Because of career-related and partnership-related time
constraints, he could realistically only do an accelerated course. He
also took a low cost two week course, and came out with a rating. He
knows full well the rating is not adequate, but is now flying with a
local and reasonably experienced instrument pilot (not an instructor)
and learning to really use the rating. He seems happy with his
decision.

Where I take issue is with two statements you made to justify not
revealing the name of the school.

> 4. ... A true instrument course takes a lot longer and
> costs a lot more.

This is only half right. Yes, it costs a lot more (it has to) but it
need not take longer.

> 5. ...Others seem to provide no more training but charge more for
> what they do.

While it is of course possible to pay more and not get more, there are
others who charge more but also provide a lot more - not more loggable
hours, perhaps, but a more solid knowledge and skill base that is
sufficient for flying in instrument conditions.

Michael

[Brad Zeigler]

> Sanjay, if you can't find an institutionalized course that meets your
> desires,
> how about asking some local instrument instructor if he/she'd like to put
> together a curriculum to your specifications? I'd think there must be some
> instructors around who'd like to take a cross-country adventure at your
> expense.
>
> Dave

That's exactly what I've been working on offering. I'm an independent
instrument flight instructor (instrument instruction is my specialty) in
Central Virginia and I have been marketing this concept as a service to
flying clubs, partnerships, etc. I have put together an east coast
instrument cross country curriculum that essentially compacts the last 1/2
to 2/3 of a traditional instrument training syllabus into a cross-country
"adventure". Prior to the cross country, the initial training can be
accelerated or done at the traditional pace.

Brad Zeigler

[Maule Driver]

In retrospect, that is a very attractive offering. After doing the
basics one does to pass the checkride, operating for real, in the system
on real trips sounds like the right thing to do.

I'm imagining filing a real plan, VMC or IMC, flying it under the hood,
doing all the radio work, etc.

My experience is that I had to pick up on use of the system after my
ride. Mainly IFR in VMC. Doing it under the hood would have made that
portion of my learning experience so much more valuable.

Brad Zeigler wrote:
> That's exactly what I've been working on offering. I'm an independent
> instrument flight instructor (instrument instruction is my specialty) in
> Central Virginia and I have been marketing this concept as a service to
> flying clubs, partnerships, etc. I have put together an east coast
> instrument cross country curriculum that essentially compacts the last 1/2
> to 2/3 of a traditional instrument training syllabus into a cross-country
> "adventure". Prior to the cross country, the initial training can be
> accelerated or done at the traditional pace.
>
> Brad Zeigler
>
>