Accelerated Instrument Rating

Hi there,

because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments Rating.
Some Flight Schools offer such accelerated thing.
Does anybody of you have any experience in it ?
What school has the most experience doing it ?
What do you think about it ?

Is there a real chance to get the rating in about 2 weeks ?

Peter

"Peter Bauer" wrote:
because of less time i'm interested in doing an Accelerated Instruments
Rating.

I dunno, some may express a different opinion (go ahead and flame me,
assholes , but in mine, doing an "Accelerated" Instrument Rating is like
learning to become a surgeon in 24 hours and going out trying to "save"
lives. Of course, any pilot certificate is a license to learn, and a lot is
learnt in real world practice not while riding around with a CFI. But the
Instrument Rating is probably the single most important one of them all, and
taking shortcuts while acquiring it may result in a disaster later on. NTSB
database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots...

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

HECTOP wrote:

But the Instrument Rating is probably the single most
important one of them all, and taking shortcuts while acquiring it
may result in a disaster later on. NTSB database is full of such
accelerated instrument pilots...

I generally agree with your position on accelerated IR programs, but can you
point me to any specific NTSB reports mentioning them?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
I generally agree with your position on accelerated IR programs, but can
you
point me to any specific NTSB reports mentioning them?

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. I remember the tricks I've done right after
gettin' mine, including landing at KMSV at 0x0 from ILS 15, it wasn't IMC,
but totally black night onto an unlit runway, so I (like everyone) have a
few of my own stupid pilot tricks that could've been attributed to lack of
discipline and proper training.

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

"HECTOP" wrote in message
...
landing at KMSV at 0x0 from ILS 15, it wasn't IMC,
but totally black night onto an unlit runway

Sounds like a "faith based" landing...

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:
Sounds like a "faith based" landing...

Since weather was VFR like for a month, I just couldn't put up with not
making use of my new IR ticket, so I was looking for trouble at night,
flying approaches, landing at big airports and other sweet stuff. So here I
am, flying down ILS 15 ( http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0406/05675I15.PDF )
at Monticello, pass outer marker, needles are perfect cross, I start
clicking the radio to light up the runway, nothing, nada, I get closer still
clicking with no results, so by the time I reached missed and was ready to
push the throttle to go away, I see these huge white numbers 15 right in
front of me for whatever worth of lighting you can get from that useless
landing light on 172, I dunno what bit me, probably the comfort of a 6000'
runway, but I just pulled the throttle, landed softer than ever before and
just taxied to the ramp where I clicked the mic again and the whole damn
field lit up like a Christmas tree. Obviously those *******s squelched their
received to the point it picked up radio only from the ramp, either to keep
unwanted traffic like me away at night, or to prevent their runway from
lighting up every time someone clicks their radio on a field nearby (forgot
it's name, I think it's the other Sullivan County small field, whatever it's
name) that shares same 122.8 freq. So nothing out of the ordinary happened,
I just sat on the ramp for a while, smoked a stogie and took off back to
CDW. The lesson learnt was that such landing was a really bad idea, since
there could've been equipment left on the runway (who knows!) or some wild
animal chase, whatever, and it really could've ruined my night with nobody
to bring help until the break of dawn.


HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.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.

Your impression of the training isn't necessarily invalid. It just doesn't
necessarily have a correlation in a higher number of crashes. The method of
training has little to do with the quality of performance as your own
example demonstrates. We all are capable of rather boneheaded actions.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"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.

Hectop,

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.


No, you don't. It doesn't say how a pilot was trained in the normal accident
report.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Hectop,

NTSB
database is full of such accelerated instrument pilots...


Show us! I'm serious. Show us the statistics you have derived from the
NTSB database that indicates instrument pilots from accelerated courses
have more accidents.

I doubt you can. So why claim such a thing?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)