Accelerated IR training

jonnyjetprop

jonnyjetprop

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
1,077
Location
Apopka, FL
Display Name
Display name:
John
I'm looking for feedback on accelerated IR training. I'm was hoping to hear for folks on how it worked to get their tickets and longer term retention.
 
I teach this program, but didn't go through it. All I can say is that which is quickly learned is as quickly forgotten unless quickly exercised. So, I tell my trainees to fly IFR somewhere new including SIAP's (no visual approaches) once or twice a week for 4-6 weeks after they pass the practical test.
 
I did the PIC 10 day (well more like 8 for me) which is the same company CapnRon teaches for. For me it was exactly what I need. You don't spend a lot of time forgetting and relearning things that you did two weeks ago or whatever the last time you went flying in a traditional course.

I learned solid skills that I used right away. It's still healthy to realize practical limits, but as time goes on I adjust those.

Somewhere floating around on the red board is the day by day explanation of my ten days.
 
I also took the PIC course, a 7 day "finish up" schedule. I recommend it highly. It was far more organized/efficient than what I was getting with a local CFI-I.

Wells
 
I did GATTS in KS and was very pleased. They broke it down into very simple, bite-sized chunks and each day built on the previous. I felt very prepared for the checkride and did very well. The examiner was also a great guy.
 
Muttley said:
Don't do it!
Quickly learned, quickly forgotten

You'll be one of those all too frequent pilots with the ticket but little practical experience and have a higher chance of ending up on an NTSB report
Click to expand...
True, if you get the rating and then don't use it for a while. However, results suggest otherwise for those who exercise their new skills immediately after completing the program.
 
flyingron said:
I did the PIC 10 day (well more like 8 for me) which is the same company CapnRon teaches for. For me it was exactly what I need. You don't spend a lot of time forgetting and relearning things that you did two weeks ago or whatever the last time you went flying in a traditional course
Click to expand...

The old says "penny wise, pound foolish" is something I try to live by, but I ignored while trying to do the accelerated IR program. I checked with PIC and a few others and found something that was significantly less expensive (and yes, it turned out to be cheaper, not less expensive).

The instructor and I didn't get along well. He didn't strike me as well prepared and didn't communicate well. Fortunately for me, a few days before my training was to begin, I got a promotion with the "You need to be in Czech Republic by next week" commandment. So I broke the training in half and did the first 3 days before heading overseas. Really good luck because after 3 days I knew it wasn't working and I never returned (and thus only wasted 30% of the expense).

I've been in touch with PIC and when I find the time to hit the instrument rating, I'm going that route. It is important to understand true value and the few people I've talked to about PIC have been uniformly positive about the experience. My experience with another vendor was VERY different. I have several advanced degrees and am used to the "drinking from a fire hose" school of training, so it wasn't the format the was a problem, it was the delivery.

Make sure you do your due diligence and it should be fine. I'm not going to publicly blast the guy I used, but if you choose to go with a smaller one guy outfit and want to know if it is the guy I used, feel free to drop me a note. I'll tell you if the guy you are considering is the guy I had the experience with. He's got a decent internet presence, show up on the first page of Google search and I would NEVER recommend him.
 
Muttley said:
Don't do it!
Quickly learned, quickly forgotten
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Your average once a week or longer duration doesn't provide any guarantee of better retention (I'd argue it's worse) nor a more "varied" amount of experience acquisition. In fact, in most schools, you'll get exactly the same syllabus only you'll end up going back over and reacquiring things that have been lost between lessons.

You'll be one of those all too frequent pilots with the ticket but little practical experience and have a higher chance of ending up on an NTSB report
Click to expand...
It's far too easy to get out of instrument proficiency when you don't continue your practice. It's not related to how you got your initial rating.
 
Muttley said:
My personal belief is that this comes from an instant gratification mentality. Those who want to do it fast and get it over with tend to have a personality that doesn't lend itself to being a lifelong learner and therefore an overall better, more consistent pilot.
Click to expand...

Well, for many of us it wasn't INSTANT GRATIFICATION. I have been flying for 32 years. I took an instrument/commercial ground school and took the written three times and let it expire. I'd started instrument training with two different instructors (one who at least was attempting to follow the Dogan book) but the training wasn't consistent enough to be effective for me. After twenty years of reading about IFR flight and self studying, I said enough is enough and wanted a real program to get it done.

The course is very good. First off, don't paint all accellerated courses with the brush that some FBO that has a hotel room nearby and figures they can crank students from zero to ATP in two months aren't the same as PIC.

In fact, my instructor said I was the first student that he thought he was actually holding back by adhering to the syllabus. I didn't need to do any book learning, I just needed the stick and rudder and button mashing time to actually fly.

The PIC training is intense. Even with me as far ahead of the game as I was, it was long days and I was wrung out at the end.

My feeling was I was as ready to go out two weeks after getting my certificate as any chump who spent a year duffing his way through the rating.
 
Muttley said:
I can only speak from my own experience, but the pilots I've met who did accelerated training are not as good as those who trained outside of the accelerated programs. Of course maintaining proficiency depends on the individual, but interestingly enough, those who did accelerated training are also more likely to let proficiency lapse.

My personal belief is that this comes from an instant gratification mentality. Those who want to do it fast and get it over with tend to have a personality that doesn't lend itself to being a lifelong learner and therefore an overall better, more consistent pilot.
Click to expand...

I've been through 6 CFIs and been at it for Three years now, I've 100% given up on finding a CFII who can reliably meet me at my airport and fly at least 2hrs per week. I quit trying about 2 months ago and have been putting my training money in the piggy bank. I'm just taking off work and attending a 10 day course this spring. 100% of my issues are schedule conflicts, I'm very flexible on where and when AND I have my own plane.
 
Last edited:
One point about practical experience and accelerated training...

At least at PIC, the instructors are selected for their experience and maturity, typically retired airline or military with at least 5000 hours of operational experience. We don't stop flying just for IMC, and train in actual instrument conditions as well as VFR with the hood all the time. Thunderstorms and icing aside, we usually fly as long as we have a reasonable expectation of getting back in at the training airport. Many of my trainees have expressed appreciation for that, saying their local instructor would not go up in the weather at all.
 
If I had continued my instrument flight training where I did my primary, I probably could have spread it over a year and not seen any actual (such is life in the semidesert).
I actually hit some actual in my ten days of training and got to learn those puffy late summer cumulous that I was punching through weren't as docile as they appear.
 
I did my IR Part 141 "accelerated." Probably completed it in about 2.5 weeks, but wasn't too rushed but had enough time to complete lessons and retain the knowledge. I don't fly much actual, but ensure to keep my simulated and IPC up to date. (The only reason I don't fly actual is because I only go up once a month or so now. I would love some actual but don't go up enough with work..)
 
Muttley said:
Good point Ron, and I commend your program for that. Fortunately my instructor was of the same mindset so we trained in actual IFR every chance we could. Personally, he didn't like to sign off anyone without at least 10 hours of actual.
Click to expand...
Glad you said "didn't like" rather than "doesn't" or "won't" because that would not work in, say, Arizona or New Mexico. Thus, I view that as an enviable and worthy goal, but not always an achievable one.
 
Last edited:
jonnyjetprop said:
I'm looking for feedback on accelerated IR training. I'm was hoping to hear for folks on how it worked to get their tickets and longer term retention.
Click to expand...

Go for it. It's not how fast or slow you learn it, it's THAT you learn it, and then exercise those perishable skills regularly, so that they don't deteriorate and die, taking you with them....
 
I think Dave hit the nail on the head. It's not how you learn it, it's that you learn it and learn it correctly, and then use it. I think for most of us we could learn the same things with the same instructor in the "7 to 10 day fast track training" as in the month's long "slow training." However, if you do not practice, and use it you will lose your skills.

BTW for what its worth I did it the slow way, 40 hrs over 10 months and think I did okay, If I had the time I would have done the fast course. For me IFR is almost as much as a mindset and a way of thinking about things as it is a way(actual procedures and practice) of flying.

Doug
 
Muttley said:
I can only speak from my own experience, but the pilots I've met who did accelerated training are not as good as those who trained outside of the accelerated programs. Of course maintaining proficiency depends on the individual, but interestingly enough, those who did accelerated training are also more likely to let proficiency lapse.

My personal belief is that this comes from an instant gratification mentality. Those who want to do it fast and get it over with tend to have a personality that doesn't lend itself to being a lifelong learner and therefore an overall better, more consistent pilot.
Click to expand...

Opinions are like .... you could just as easily and logically have said the following.

I can only speak from my own experience, but the pilots I've met who did traditional extended training are not as good as those who trained in accelerated programs. Of course maintaining proficiency depends on the individual, but interestingly enough, those who did traditional extended training are also more likely to let proficiency lapse.

My personal belief is that this comes from laziness and lack of focus. Those who can't focus and dedicate themselves and get it over with tend to have a personality that doesn't lend itself to being a lifelong learner and therefore an overall better, more consistent pilot.

It is hard to argue with many of the comments that "regardless of how you get your rating, it is critical to use it or your proficiency will decay". Okay, it is an opinion, but try to counter that opinion with any logic and you will fail. Your opinion on the other hand is easily countered with equally valid statements and logic.

I went to college in the North and worked in the fields in the South in the summer. I can only speak from my own experience, but people who wear long sleeve shirts and winter jackets are much more likely to go to college and be smarter than people who wear short sleeve shirts. Did I write that or is that a quote from Muttley?
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Go for it. It's not how fast or slow you learn it, it's THAT you learn it, and then exercise those perishable skills regularly, so that they don't deteriorate and die, taking you with them....
Click to expand...
+1

I was fortunate in that my work situation allowed me to work a deal with my boss to come in mid-day Tues and Thurs for a few months while I worked on my primary instruction. I couldn't always fly 3 times a week for various reasons, but that was the goal, and it really worked well for me. Also helped that I had a CFI who was willing to meet my schedule, and was reliable.

By the time I was ready to get my IR, both my work and my CFI(I) situation had changed. It was impossible for me to adjust my work schedule, and the CFII I would have preferred to use was not reliably available in the evenings. It was simply not going to be possible for me to incorporate 3 IR training flights a week into my life like I had for my primary.

What I did see was an opportunity to carve out 2 weeks of vacation, and schedule a 10-day course. This I did, and it worked very well for me. One of the things that helped is that I did a lot of reading between getting my PPL and starting my IR such that I had the written test complete before starting (a typical requirement for most 10-day courses, I think) and also pretty much had all the ground school knowledge down. That allowed us to focus on cockpit skills and application of the knowledge.

Currency and proficiency are irrelevant to how you got your ticket. Somehow, regardless of how you learned it the first time, you need to keep the skills and knowledge from deteriorating, and stay legal. Everyone who knows a couple of GA IR pilots probably knows at least one who's not current or proficient. That's a whole other issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top