About Acellerated Courses for Private

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

If you simply stay on the issue and away from the personal
stuff, no one should have a problem with me.
Nuff said I hope! :-)

You've lost it, man. I didn't say anything personal. Nothing. Nada. In
this debate forum, I simply take issue with your stance that accelerated
training just can't be as good as traditional training. That's it! Grow
up.

Sticking to the bubject (as I have been all along):

You that are against accelerated training have to answer the question I
originally posed: Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions
of "pilots" unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the
test & Ride are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them
back to the drawing board. It can't be both, can it?

In other words, the practical test that sends the accelerated students into
the wild blue yonder is either sufficient or it is not.

You and every single other individual who are so against it have absolutely
no quantifiable data to support your stance. All you have is opinions
which, thus far, are NOT supported by any amount of data. You've supported
it with anecdotal evidence which simply doesn't count for squat.

On the other hand, pilots are graduating from accelerated programs every
day. Some in as little as 10 days. Some in 30 days. They've been doing it
successfully for a hundred years. We have an FAA that oversees this stuff
and, to my knowledge, they have NEVER had to adjust training requirements or
issue any statement on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the thousands
of PP accelerated course graduates over these many years. None!

I can give you equally anecdotal evidence that says that traditional
training just plain sucks. I don't have to tell you how many times our
primary training was interrupted by life events, weather, mechanical
problems and so forth and so on. I can't count the number of times I've had
to re-learn something because I went for a week or more without cracking a
book or cranking a plane. Most of that would have gone away had I been in
an immersive environment making for a more effective training schedule.

I can give you concrete evidence that the average person, without
reinforcement, will retain about 95% of the information by the next day. By
the 7th day, this is down to 80% and by day 10 it is 70%. This is the case
with immersive (cramming) as well as traditional studies. Without
reinforcement, the knowledge goes away no matter what kind of program you
are in.

Hell, I know some government programs that can take a young, carefree,
innocent boy, to a secluded island off the coast of South Carolina , break
him down to his basic building blocks with brute force then rebuild him into
a lean, mean killing machine full of ****, vinegar, and lust for life! This
can be done in SIX WEEKS! I'm not making this up.

And you want to tell me a dedicated, intelligent individual cannot learn to
do such a simple thing as fly from point A to point B in less than six
months? Hogwash!

It would take a dedicated CFI who understands the physiological and
psychological needs of the human brain. He would also be willing to immerse
himself and even thrive in that kind of environment. I imagine it probably
isn't for everyone but, then again, I really have no idea. But neither do
you, Dudley.

Is it ideal? I dunno. Are there better ways? Probably. But does anyone
here have anything to offer other and unsubstantial opinions?

No.

--
Jimfisher
(my new accelerated signature)

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane.

I would add a third element: developing good judgement.

This is true, and it's an integral part of any good flight training
program. I like to consider it as part of the immersion factor; the part
where the student is exposed to the instructor. The first few hours are
critical in the "good judgment" area. It's here that the overall tone of
what the student will come to expect from his/her flying experience will
be formed.
Students are habit pattern sponges. They will emulate and in most cases
duplicate their instructor's attitude and habit patterns. It's
absolutely crucial that the instructor set the tone IMMEDIATELY for what
will be absorbed by the student in the way of developing habit patterns
and judgment. Everything the instructor does both in and outside the
airplane will be watched by the student. In this respect there can be an
unusual process going on, and it's a wise instructor who knows how this
works.
When it comes to what a student ACTUALLY remembers and adopts as their
own habit patterns and basis for judgment, it isn't so much what the
instructor says that matters. It's what the instructor DOES in and
around the airplane that impresses the student.
The safer the instructor IS, the more of that safe habit pattern and
good judgment will rub off on the student.
You can't actually "teach" good judgment by any other method but
example.
Along these lines I always told prospective CFI's to consider carefully
the potential for both good and bad that their example both in and
around the airplane could transfer over to their students.
Developing good judgment in a student is one of the prime
responsibilities of a flight instructor, and an awesome responsibility
that should be taken VERY seriously!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"gatt" wrote in message

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to learn to
fly in the same?

Using the same logic, why only four years of college? Why not extend that
to 8, 12 or more?

A dedicated individual can get an advanced degree in as little as two years
if he wants. Not many people want to 'cause college is just too much damn
fun but it can be done.

If you are to take that stance, you must dictate what the "proper" amount of
time would be. Is 45 days enough? 60? 160?

At exactly what level is efficiency traded for overload?

Answer: There is no answer. Accelerated is probably good for some,
probably not for others. That's for me to decide and not some old school
CFI who knows only one way to teach.

--
Jim Fisher

Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a day
shall we.
All the best,
DH

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

If you simply stay on the issue and away from the personal
stuff, no one should have a problem with me.
Nuff said I hope! :-)

You've lost it, man. I didn't say anything personal. Nothing. Nada.
In
this debate forum, I simply take issue with your stance that
accelerated
training just can't be as good as traditional training. That's it!
Grow
up.

Sticking to the bubject (as I have been all along):

You that are against accelerated training have to answer the question
I
originally posed: Either the written test & checkride is a joke and
jillions
of "pilots" unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or
the
test & Ride are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send
them
back to the drawing board. It can't be both, can it?

In other words, the practical test that sends the accelerated students
into
the wild blue yonder is either sufficient or it is not.

You and every single other individual who are so against it have
absolutely
no quantifiable data to support your stance. All you have is opinions
which, thus far, are NOT supported by any amount of data. You've
supported
it with anecdotal evidence which simply doesn't count for squat.

On the other hand, pilots are graduating from accelerated programs
every
day. Some in as little as 10 days. Some in 30 days. They've been
doing it
successfully for a hundred years. We have an FAA that oversees this
stuff
and, to my knowledge, they have NEVER had to adjust training
requirements or
issue any statement on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the
thousands
of PP accelerated course graduates over these many years. None!

I can give you equally anecdotal evidence that says that traditional
training just plain sucks. I don't have to tell you how many times
our
primary training was interrupted by life events, weather, mechanical
problems and so forth and so on. I can't count the number of times
I've had
to re-learn something because I went for a week or more without
cracking a
book or cranking a plane. Most of that would have gone away had I
been in
an immersive environment making for a more effective training
schedule.

I can give you concrete evidence that the average person, without
reinforcement, will retain about 95% of the information by the next
day. By
the 7th day, this is down to 80% and by day 10 it is 70%. This is
the case
with immersive (cramming) as well as traditional studies. Without
reinforcement, the knowledge goes away no matter what kind of program
you
are in.

Hell, I know some government programs that can take a young, carefree,
innocent boy, to a secluded island off the coast of South Carolina ,
break
him down to his basic building blocks with brute force then rebuild
him into
a lean, mean killing machine full of ****, vinegar, and lust for life!
This
can be done in SIX WEEKS! I'm not making this up.

And you want to tell me a dedicated, intelligent individual cannot
learn to
do such a simple thing as fly from point A to point B in less than six
months? Hogwash!

It would take a dedicated CFI who understands the physiological and
psychological needs of the human brain. He would also be willing to
immerse
himself and even thrive in that kind of environment. I imagine it
probably
isn't for everyone but, then again, I really have no idea. But
neither do
you, Dudley.

Is it ideal? I dunno. Are there better ways? Probably. But does
anyone
here have anything to offer other and unsubstantial opinions?

No.

--
Jimfisher
(my new accelerated signature)

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Dudley Henriques wrote:


The accelerated program at the basic level can do the job, but doing
the
job more slowly, allowing the comprehension to advance parallel with
the
performance, is a better method for turning out a more finished and
more
safe pilot exiting the flight test and entering the self educating
phase
of a pilot's career.

I misread this sentence at first, but in an interesting way. These
accelerated courses do not, I fear, actually "do the job" more
quickly...
depending upon what the job is.

Exactly! The unwritten purpose, and indeed in many cases the written
purpose of the accelerated program, is to get you through the rating and
into the general community in a minimum time frame. Whether or not this
produces a safe pilot is a matter of individual standards.

My position on this issue is simply that the accelerated program at the
basic level through Private, graduates a rated pilot, and that this
pilot can be safe enough, but the comprehension issues lagging behind
the performance level at graduation by using a " minimum time spent in
the program" method produce a less than optimum condition at graduation,
which in my opinion again, has been proven to me at least, through my
personal experience checking out pilots coming through different
learning paths, to be not as effective a method of training as a method
that contains a time span between lessons that allows a more
comprehensive graduate, which under my personal definition, equates into
a better rounded and safer all around pilot entering the general
community.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Barry, et all,
We had not had the 25 knot crosswinds that he had on the day of his
checkride. I teach all landings as though they are crosswinds.
Same techniques apply, keep nose straight with rudder correct drift with
wing low.

gene
"Barry" wrote in message ...
He failed the flight test on the thirtieth day due to
crosswind landings. We had flown the entire month without
have to make a cross wind landing.

Note that FAR 61.87(d)(3) requires demonstrated proficiency in
crosswind landings before a student may solo.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

Tell you what; we'll just put you down as a no vote and call it a day
shall we.
All the best,
DH

I am not a yes or no vote. I don't know.

I'd like you to answer the following question that I've asked thee times so
far with no repsonse:

"Either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test & Ride are
effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
drawing board. It can't be both, can it?"

--
Jim Fisher

"Gene Whitt" wrote in message
nk.net...
Barry, et all,
We had not had the 25 knot crosswinds that he had on the day of his
checkride. I teach all landings as though they are crosswinds.
Same techniques apply, keep nose straight with rudder correct drift
with
wing low.

gene

et al;
(as Gene says for a general post picking up on something

I agree totally with this concept and wish all instructors did the same.
A landing is a landing.....and right from the gitgo, the student should
be aware that the airplane is flown at all times in existing conditions,
NOT in expected conditions that require different techniques. It's all
one big scenario up there, and it's a constantly changing scenario.
Treating crosswind landings as a separate and unique issue IN THE
AIRPLANE is counter productive to proper understanding.
I would encourage having the student study cross wind technique and it's
application in the landing equation, and be prepared for those
conditions by all means, but once in the airplane, all landings should
be considered as an event taking place in whatever wind conditions are
being encountered in real time during the approach.
The sooner students begin treating landings this way the sooner they
will understand the REAL world the airplane is in, and their
relationship to the airplane in this world.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:eiVIc.1281

There are two aspects to flying, knowledge and the act of actually
controlling the airplane. I agree that knowledge is best built up over a
period of time but, from my own experience, I believe that the ability to
learn new muscle-based activities is accelerated in an immersion
enviornment. If you wanted to learn to juggle would you practice every
day
for seven days or once a week for seven weeks?

This is a good point. I'm not sure to what extent, because while motor and
sensory skills can be taught by immersion, I think it's the other issues
such as knowledge, practice and procedure that are left behind. A great
stick and rudder pilot is still going to have trouble if he forgets VFR
minimums or cruises into Class B and can't understand the instructions being
given to him.

I'm sure that the more you fly, the better you fly but I think if it takes
12, or 20, or 100 days to learn then that's what a student pilot and
instructor should allow.

-c

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
"gatt" wrote in message

We didn't learn to walk in ten days. How in hell can we expect to learn
to
fly in the same?

Using the same logic, why only four years of college? Why not extend that
to 8, 12 or more?

Four years is a long time. It's not ten days. I took five and a half years
because I couldn't take all of the elective material I needed for what I
wanted to do in only four.

A dedicated individual can get an advanced degree in as little as two
years
if he wants.

Still, I would question the robustness of that education. I mean, you can
get a degree from Devry, or some other agency over the internet without
having to take classes at all, but it might not be worth the paper it's
printed on.

If you are to take that stance, you must dictate what the "proper" amount
of
time would be. Is 45 days enough? 60? 160?

It shouldn't be measured in terms of hours or days, but at what point the
student pilot is qualified to become a private pilot. We already know that
the 40-hour legal minimum is unrealistic for most people and that some take
up to 80 hours or more.

At exactly what level is efficiency traded for overload?

That's a good question. I bet a guy could do his master's thesis by
comparing BFR data, or by somehow retesting pilots across all types of
training schemes, and get good data.

Answer: There is no answer. Accelerated is probably good for some,
probably not for others. That's for me to decide and not some old school
CFI who knows only one way to teach.

Depends on whether you're the student who doesn't know aileron from upper
camber or a private pilot who has used his 10-day PP/SEL for a couple of
hundred hours.

Me? I've got a clean record and every instructor, examiner and BFR
instructor I've had has told me I'm a better-than-average pilot for my time.
But I'll still defer to the old school CFI who has probably encountered and
survived countless situations about which I still have no idea. (My DE flew
a tour P-51s and by 1945 was back stateside training young Air Corps pilots,
and was still an instructor/examiner in 1988. I defer unconditionally.)

The FAA doesn't see a problem with it, though, so at this point it's just an
interesting subject to discuss.

-c