If you have your written and some (not all) of your X-C time met, I would recommend this type of program over a more traditional program.
You will wind up paying less and get more out of the training than a traditional program. Additionally, I have found that there is a much higher drop-out rate for those who take the traditional route compared to the accelerated program.
Many of the detractors to this type of program think that those who have completed an accelerated IFR program are much less prepared for "real world" IFR than those that have done a traditional FBO style program. This is complete hog-wash!
I think that those who have completed accelerated programs and those who have done traditional programs are equally prepared for the difficulties of flying IFR.
What seperates newly minted IFR pilots is the seriousness in which they pursue recurrent training and currency. That is what seperates those that are dangerous from those that are not.
I once had a student who was the on again / off again type. When I was working with him on his Private Pilot Certificate, he would get serious for a week then I wouldn't see him for 3 weeks. His work schedule was very difficult. Took him 2.5 years to get his Certificate along with about 150 hours. Not that he was all that bad, but just wasn't scheduling consistantly.
After that, he wanted to get his instrument. I couldn't stand to see it take him 2-3 years to complete it. So I created my own Part 61 course to do it in 10 days. He took 2 weeks off of work, and we got serious.
I had him complete his written, and then make sure he had all his XC requirements out of the way.
The first 5 days, were spent in the Class Room and SIM. Each day went something like this:
Day 1: Basic Attitude Instrument
Day 2: VOR & NDB Navigation and Holds
Day 3: VOR & ILS Approaches
Day 4: NDB Approaches & Review
Day 5: 2 LOFT Sessions
As and Example, This Was Day 3:
0800-1000: Ground Discussion of VOR Approaches
1000-1200: Sim Session Flying VOR Approaches
1200-1300: Lunch
1300-1500: Ground Discussion of ILS Approaches
1500-1700: Sim Session Flying ILS Approaches
By the end of the first 5 days, he could have passed his checkride if taken in the sim. We had logged 20 hours of One-On-One Ground Instruction along with 20 hour of Sim Instruction. I had him doing Partiel Panel NDB holds with ease. The intesity of the progam made him real proficient.
After the first 5 days, we went out to the airplane and did the same stuff there. In the briefings we did Flight Planning. We flew most flights like mini Cross Countries. Each Leg about 50 NM. Each Leg and Destination offered a new scenario or different problem.
I had more fun in that 2 weeks instructing than I did my entire time instructing. I wish I could have done that type of instructing all the time (IN A TWIN OF COURSE!). It was very rewarding to see someone go such a long way in such a short time. Best way to go! By the way, I had a career-track student once that we did a similar type progam in the Twin....This guy was sharp as a knife by the time we were done.
The only negative, however, was his lack of Actual IMC experience. We didn't fly through 1 cloud the entire time. In that short period of time, we didn't have any opportunites to "Take advantage of a 200 & 1/2 Day." But, we discussed his limitations, and he was aware of them. A few weeks after he got his Rating, we went up and got him some good actual. And he did REAL well.
Professional Instrument Courses is a well-known ten-day course and has been around forever. The founder, Peter Dogan, also wrote the program's textbook, IFR Training Manual. The book is excellent. I had an instructor who worked for PIC. He was excelllent, ex-AF, and very experienced.
But as JetPilot500 noted above, you can do the same thing if you can find an instructor who is willing to work with you and if you can set aside the time. More proof of the benefits of the discipline and momentum provided by a well-organized program and the ills of dragging out training. I was kind of in the same boat as his student - it took me a couple of years to get my instrument rating because of a bad work schedule. Once I got a better schedule, my instructor (not the same one as at PIC) got me finished in a couple of months.
As a cautionary point, I agree wholeheartedly with those who note the difference between being competent and passing a checkride. I would say that one "advantage" I had during my instrument training is I experienced all kinds of weather, including a number of hours of actual. In addition, with my consent, my instructor and I filed and he took me on more than the required number of cross countries on clearances. I finished my training with a great of confidence in being able to work in "the system."
they teach you the rating I would not do it I went to a 10 day school and am not comfortable that someone could fly IFR after.
I went on for more training after at my $ Chas
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.