On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:28:04 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
I don't believe in the value of random stick-and-rudder
sessions with no pre-flight or post-flight briefing, or continuity of
instruction.
--Noel

Bravo.

Speaking as a student pilot who is not a "quick learning young natural", and who has had a haphazard and prolonged training, I believe that I've found the 'silver lining' to what appears to be the prevalent and defacto training methodology in the USA. The 'silver lining' to the current state-of-training is this: as I approach the date of my practical test, I've come to the conclusion that no test or examiner can (or will) accurately evaluate the completeness and quality of my training, knowledge, and manifest skill. That responsibility rests squarely on me and that realization suggests to me that I should pass the "attitude" and "wisdom" components of the practical examination. CFI-Gs and recurrent training are essential to identifying and correcting deficiencies, but the responsibility is mine. It's 100% up to me to identify the holes in my training and skills, and my limitations. It's up to me to remedy my deficiencies and fly within my limitations. That's a critical part of what it means to deserve a pilot's certificate.

All of my several instructors have been terrifically skillful, dedicated, and generous, but the overall training methodology, as it plays out in practice, and in my limited experience, is catch-as-catch-can. Maybe it's suppose to be that way?? It's surely made me self-reliant. If a student is not prepared to passionately continue their training for the rest of their flying career, then they should not show up for their practical exam. It's on the student's head to make that frank self-examination.