Private Pilot in 10 days

Gilan ) wrote:
: I just started flying at a school that offers Private Pilot in 10 days. I
: plan on taking a bit longer then 10 days but wondered how long the average
: person takes to complete their PPL?
:
: Private Pilot in 10 days
: http://www.perfectplanes.com/index.html
:
10 days is going to be 4 hrs of flying a day. That is going to be
very intense and I would worry about mental fatigue. After about
10 hrs, most students get into over controlling the plane (read the
posts on "why are my landings getting worse" over the past decade)
and thouse flights are will take quite a bit out of you. I never
did two lessons in one day but sometimes it took a few days to get
over it and I'm used to marathon hacking sessions which involve
complex mental concentration for ten or more hours for days on end.

FWIW, my scuba class was 126 hrs of class room time and 126 hrs of
pool time before the open water tests over 3 months. Compare that
to the about 50 hrs of flight time to get my PPL and less than 10
hrs of class room time. 10 days is 240 hrs if you don't waste any
of sleeping. I don't think thats enough time to absorb what you
need to know. When I dive, I see the lack of training in others
all the time but most of them went to 3 hr resort classes. Both
diving and flying are very unforgiving of mistakes.

As far as Jim's idea, if the school was run that way and your good
at learing that way, it might be ok. I don't like the idea of here
are the books, pass the test and then we will show you the airplane.
I don't care how many times a student reads the book, the idea that
the rudder pedals are connected to the steering doesn't get through
till they are in the plane. Thats an example of 10 seconds in the
plane is worth more than months in the book. Weather on the other
hand is better from the book unless you live in an area that
demonstrates all the different varieties but that takes nearly a
year. You don't want to see a wall cloud up close and books have
nice pictures of them. If you do see one up close in a small plane,
I suspect it will be one of the last things you ever see. I think
Jim's school would do much better if his 14 days were preceeded by
2 days of classroom training and intro to the plane, then the book
study (for at least a month) and then the 14 days.

A 1/2 century ago there were a group of pilots that trained in about
two weeks. They were called Shimpu while training and depending
on how you look at it, things didn't go well for them. I think
that more time for training is better upto a point but I would be
interested in hear more from people that have trained in very short
times. I could see where getting your PPL in 10 days and then
flying with an instructor frequenly after that could be a good thing
for people flying 15 hrs a month.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

Tim Hogard wrote:

10 days is going to be 4 hrs of flying a day. That is going to be
very intense and I would worry about mental fatigue.


And that's just to attain the bare minimums required by the FARs. Not
many of us walk away with the ticket after just 40 hours.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

"Slav Inger" wrote in message
...
Tim Hogard wrote:

10 days is going to be 4 hrs of flying a day. That is going to be
very intense and I would worry about mental fatigue.


And that's just to attain the bare minimums required by the FARs. Not
many of us walk away with the ticket after just 40 hours.
With the 'accelerated' route, more people would probably get closer to this.
Normally there is a sometimes suprising amount of 'relearning' to do between
lessons that are seperated by some time.
This is really the question. The more normal route, does result in this
'relearning' having to occur, which may well have a long term reinforcing
effect on the learning as a whole. Combine this with the very small amount
of weather experience that might result (though this can also apply over
long training periods in some locations...), and the question is how the
pilot is likely to compare after a few months?.
It is worth remembering, that the accelerated route, was exactly the regime
used to train military pilots. However they were then not given the chance
to forget, being forced to use their skills immediately.
If the 'accelerated' pilot, does it, because they want to 'get a move on'
with flying, and keeps up regular flying immediately after the course, I'd
expect them to be fine.
However it'd be very interesting to see if after a few 'typical' months,
with only occasional flights, whether they remember as much (or more!), than
pilots who take the more normal route. Perhaps an expert in learning, might
be able to give an opinion as to which route is likely to give better 'long
term' memory?.

Best Wishes

Roger Hamlett wrote:

Perhaps an expert in learning, might
be able to give an opinion as to which route is likely to give better 'long
term' memory?.

There was a study done about 1970 on the differences in long-term learning
between those who "crammed" for exams versus those who prepared by studying
lessons throughout the semester. They found that both methods produced similar
scores at the time of the examination. Both groups were retested monthly,
IIRC.

After 1 month, the cramming group retained about 1/3 of the material, but
steady study group retained about 90% of the material. The group that crammed,
however, stabilized at this point, while the steady study group continued to
lose knowledge. After 6 months, both groups tested the same.

Actual use of the information, of course, makes a great deal of difference
in retention of knowledge, and the report on this study mentioned that.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:08:21 -0400, G.R. Patterson III
wrote:
There was a study done about 1970 on the differences in long-term learning
between those who "crammed" for exams versus those who prepared by studying
lessons throughout the semester.

How does this relate to retention of physical skills?

I strongly suspect the 10-day courses are just for the physical flying -
I would expect that they need you to be done with the groundschool before
starting.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:08:21 -0400, G.R. Patterson III
wrote:

There was a study done about 1970 on the differences in long-term learning
between those who "crammed" for exams versus those who prepared by studying
lessons throughout the semester.

How does this relate to retention of physical skills?

I don't know what your experience is nor what the study says about this,
but my own experience is "physical skills: use 'em or lose 'em".

Cheers,
Sydney

Slav Inger wrote:

And that's just to attain the bare minimums required by the FARs. Not
many of us walk away with the ticket after just 40 hours.

It is important to recall that the FARs (and the PTSs) set minimums. I hope
that we all aim far higher than this.

The IR PTS requires demonstration of three different types of approaches.
Should we learn only three?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:

It is important to recall that the FARs (and the PTSs) set minimums. I hope
that we all aim far higher than this.

The IR PTS requires demonstration of three different types of approaches.
Should we learn only three?


That's exactly my point. Quickest doesn't always mean the best.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP