Need recommendation on accelerated IFR courses

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

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

"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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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