"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"HECTOP" wrote in message


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



We all are capable of rather boneheaded actions.