Accelerated training...

Sport aviation is growing rapidly. But the new sport pilot / light-sport aircraft rules are still a mystery to many flight schools and instructors. To locate a flight school offering sport pilot training and/or light-sport aircraft rentals, click on the "Flight School And Rental Finder" tab above. This is a great place to share ideas on learning to fly, flight schools, costs and anything else related to training.

Moderator: drseti

David Pavlich
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:43 pm

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by David Pavlich »

Thanks, Andy! It's one of the schools I was looking at since a couple of guys on the EAA forum recommended them.

David
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by MrMorden »

David Pavlich wrote:Thanks, Andy! It's one of the schools I was looking at since a couple of guys on the EAA forum recommended them.

David
They are great, Romke Sikkema (he's from South Africa) is their lead instructor and on-site DPE. If you are planning to take your checkride there he cannot train you since it would taint his objectivity as a DPE. Jeff Hudson did most of my training, he's a 10,000 hour pilot with all of it in LSAs and ultralights. He will make you use your feet and teach you how to really fly and land especially in a crosswind. Rob Singles may or may not still be there, young guy flying since he was 14, very good also.

They really bent over backward to help me reach my training goals. They'll tell you up front they can't guarantee anything because it all depends on your skill level, weather, and other factors. But if it can be done they will help you do it.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by Jack Tyler »

Re: the choice of 'test first, flight training second' - or vice versa - it's probably worth considering the sequence used for the military's student aviators. USAF/USN/USCG and most foreign students receiving their military flight training have followed the same sequence for decades now. First comes what we refer to as ground school, introducing a mix of both military-specific rules & standards (e.g. 'course rules' for the airfield to later be flown from), the FARs, and other topics. Students are incrementally tested on all these subjects, comparable to the FAA written. The next (short) period is aircraft familiarization, instructor introductions and a 'first flight' which is a mix of demo'ing to the student what the a/c is capable of doing and what the student would like to see demo'd. Step three is the structured syllabus from FAM 1 thru Solo to the final check-ride, followed by receiving one's wings and being assigned to the 'community' where the student will next receive his/her advanced training.

One can rightly claim that much learning about the FARs, weather, airspace, comms and the rest will continue during flight training but I personally see little value in putting a student pilot in a cockpit prior to having some knowledge about most of what the written test measures. Military training is like drinking from a fire hydrant and they've been using this sequence for many decades now. Just something to reflect on...
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by drseti »

Jack, it's undeniable that this approach works well for military pilots. Not so much for the typical sport pilot, whose goals, objectives, skill set, learning style, and motivation all tend to be somewhat different. Most of the students I see want to be up in the air, as soon as possible, with very little interest in the cognitive learning that must inevitably be a part of flight training. If you make them jump through too many academic hoops before getting them into the cockpit, you'll lose them. So, generally better to let them be the loose nut holding the stick for a while, and then ease them into the book-learning side of things once they're hooked. Perhaps too many flight schools have the attitude of "this is how it's always been done; this is how the military does it, and it works fine," which may be partially responsible for the abysmal completion rate that AOPA always decries.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
deltafox
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:21 pm

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by deltafox »

Part of the military training experience was spending time in simulators. Many were simply cockpit mock ups to practice procedures, sometime the gauges actually worked. What role do sims play in an accelerated program for Sport Pilots?
Dave
CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by CTLSi »

......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Merlinspop
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by Merlinspop »

Military pilot candidates and civilian flight students have vastly different motivations and options. If your goal is to fly a hot fighter jet (assuming here in the US), you have 3 options, USAF, USN, USMC (and their reserve/guard components)... and two of those routes are pretty much already combined, and very rarely can one drop out of one program and have any hope of entering another. So they'll do pretty much every and anything they have to do to reach their goal. Put all the ground school stuff first? Sure! Shine shoes, buff floors, make beds, fight Lou Gossett, Jr in the rain? Can do.

Compare that to someone wanting to get a civilian pilot's license. There really is no comparison, unless a flight school has some sort of serious competitive advantage or an extremely narrow niche.
- Bruce
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by drseti »

deltafox wrote:Part of the military training experience was spending time in simulators. Many were simply cockpit mock ups to practice procedures, sometime the gauges actually worked. What role do sims play in an accelerated program for Sport Pilots?
Here's an interesting article on sim training:

http://www.flyingmag.com/training/recur ... ining-work

Doesn't deal with Sport Pilot or primary training, though. As an early adopter of the AOPA Jay sim by Redbird, I'll be happy to share my experiences, but in a separate thread, and in about two weeks. I'm in Berlin right now, and leave for Beijing tomorrow morning. So, patience please, until I get back home.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by Jack Tyler »

A couple of thoughts...

As I've mentioned before, one of our (Jax, FL) local flight schools produces PPL students, ready for their checkrides, before they reach the 40 hrs of flight time mandated. (And their checkride success rate in these cases has so far been 100%) If you ask the students what helped them accomplish that, their answer always includes a) the full-motion sim at the school and b) the policy on sim use used by the school (no time limits on use; just work around the scheduled time slots the instructors need). This is the same result recently accomplished in San Marcos TX at its Skyport FBO/flight training center with 50 PP and advanced rating students, except that their program took it one step further. At a Cessna training center like the local one I mentioned, the training syllabus has remained pretty conventional. The Skyport initiative set out to first redesign the curriculum so it maximized the advantage of sim use, and then integrated sim use into the student training. Paul's Jay sim, at one end of the simulator food chain, was introduced by the same company - Redbird - that built the Skyport FBO, has been experimenting (and measuring results from) the training curriculum, is now testing the viability of a 172 reburbishment program that eliminates the need to use 100LL...and lest we forget, started the whole thing by revolutionizing the manufacture of full motion sims to make them both far better and far cheaper.

I mention all this because discussing the usefulness of 'a simulator' is both doing so in a vacuum and missing the bigger picture which may apply. It's also worth considering that a common theme that lies across all of these Redbird accomplishments is a willingness to innovate. It's a fascinating story and one that demonstrates what's possible in GA if only change could be more broadly embraced.

As I summarized in my earlier post about military flight training, I wasn't suggesting it is the best way to train...but I do think it bears some reflection. And especially so for those who believe in some absolute fashion that flight training 'should' precede ground instruction. My point was that a 'ground school first' approach does work. And let's also agree that not all PP/SP student pilots fit one mold, which is why I disagree with sweeping generalizations like "Military pilot candidates and civilian flight students have vastly different motivations and options" and " typical sport pilot, whose goals, objectives, skill set, learning style, and motivation all tend to be somewhat different." With some students, yes...but in other cases, that's not been my experience when talking to prospective military and civilian student pilots. In both groups, you'll find the same mix of learning styles (which the military does not screen on). In both groups you'll find some with comparable levels of motivation, altho' to different ends perhaps. 'Skill sets' may not vary that much at all, given that military training is ab initio training and no student pilots are required to have any cockpit time nor do the Mid summer cruises provide them with that exposure. Bottom line: Don't just dismiss the success of the military flight training sequence nor hold onto the broad conclusion that things must start in the cockpit.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
David Pavlich
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:43 pm

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by David Pavlich »

This same thought process has gone into a school around Mobil, AL.

http://www.zuluflighttraining.com/

David
Merlinspop
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by Merlinspop »

Jack Tyler wrote:A couple of thoughts... Bottom line: Don't just dismiss the success of the military flight training sequence nor hold onto the broad conclusion that things must start in the cockpit.
I'm not. The military process has outstanding results.

I'm just saying that a civilian student has more options and a flight school has to strike a balance in order to attract and retain students. Being able to point to a 100% success rate is a huge selling point, which I'm sure would go a long way. Significantly lower cost can be another. But short of being able to make such arguments (or having a geographical monopoly), a school that insists on a student passing the written before putting a butt in the left seat of a trainer will probably lose a lot of students to a school that doesn't.
- Bruce
User avatar
hirschr
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: Accelerated training...

Post by hirschr »

I took a two week accelerated course with PC Aircraft in San Manuel, AZ last February. I went into it with 20 hours of previous training in a c-150 from way back in 1989. I added 12 hours of dual and 6 hours of solo in an Ercoupe and passed my SP check ride at the end of the course. I took the written beforehand. I REALLY enjoyed the accelerated course format, generally one flight in the morning and one in the afternoon. The weather killed a couple of days, and some days were just one flight. I treated it like a vacation, with the hope (but not the expectation) of passing the check ride in the time I had. It was alot of fun and the cost was very reasonable. I would highly recommend it to finish up a rating, or to start out and get to (at least) solo. If you go into a two week course with the absolute expectation of coming out with an SP rating you may be dissapointed, there are just too many factors, including your own abiltiy to "drink from a fire hose", that could affect the outcome. The folks at PC made this PERFECTLY clear up front.
Post Reply