When flying 2 times per day and studying your ass off...it's more than doable and i'm not the only one that's accomplished that.

You don't think it's reasonable for someone to get their PPL in about 3 weeks yet you sit around and praise ATP for their program from PPL to all 3 their CFI ratings in 90 days. Tell me how that makes sense.

 

So I "praised" ATP's program? I somehow remember I said it's not the best program because it tries to teach things much too quick and the standards are sometimes poor. I was discussing an unrealistic expectation of costs, not including ground time, etc.

Yes, it's my opinion that a private checkride can not be done in a 1.3. You have to be evaluated starting up, checking the guages, asked a few questions, getting weather, taxiing out, making turns, answering a few questions about the airport signs and markings, getting prepared to fly your cross country in the run-up, getting set up, entering frequencies, opening the flight plan, doing the runup, actually checking rather than just using rote-procedures as fast as possible, maybe answer a few more questions, then do a short or soft field takeoff, and if not, a full stop or stop-and go later where that can be properly evaluated, and that stop and go could be combined with a remaining takeoff for efficiency obviously. Then you're simulating the XC, and it has to go far enough for the examiner to be certain that you are able to navigate properly and by reference to the ground. This means at least a couple checkpoints, in addition, doing the aircraft's cruise checklist and knowing how to lean the mixture for cruise. There's also radar services and communications to be evaluated in cruise. Clearing the airport, making it up to cruise, leaning the mixture, and flying to a few checkpoints is going to at least take the better part of half an hour. If not, it's not really being evaluated. It doesn't need to go on excessively, but it does need to go on to the point where it can be realistically evaluated. Then you do a diversion, which depending on the examiner, could be to a nearby point or dirt strip (unrealistic IMO, but I digress) or to a point at which you'd actually land for a non-emergency, which could even be "over the horizon". I'd usually choose the latter, but it wouldn't take but 10 minutes or so if one was diligent and quick, but it'd take at least that long to run the calcs, point the aircraft and start going, make all the necessary calls, plans and changes, maintain control, and provide verification/answer questions on the route so I'm certain you'd get there. Then it's on to maneuvers, like steep turns, stalls, slow flight, emergencies, emergency approach and landing, ground reference maneuvers, all of which take time to set up, especially with clearing turns and being safe. At some point you have to do "hood work" and a few tasks, like turns, or climbs, and also unusual attitudes. Then it's back to the airport to finish up landings (I always give the option of doing the landings first if someone wants though, before heading out), of which there are at least 4 that have to be demonstrated to the best of my knowledge without looking at the PTS, normal, short, soft, fwd-slip. If in some way the fwd-slip is combined (shouldn't be combined with normal for sure) you still have to do a go-around on one approach anyway, and there's the other takeoff that needs to be done. Maybe even a no-flap landing in addition to the ones above if all abnormals aren't completed yet.

This isn't meant to be "drawn out" as long as possible, but it is meant to be a fair test and thoroughly evaluated. There are things that examiners do to make it more efficient, but it's not going to cut a private checkride down to 1.3, and if it does, red flags should be going off for those that know about it. 1.3 might be realistic for a best-case scenario added rating on a good day, but for a private? Like I said, red flags. I'm not saying you shouldn't be a pilot, hopefully you'll get enough training and experience that there isn't any difference later on, but again, 1.3 is a red flag, as is doing the cert as fast as possible, which misses out on things you'd experience over a longer period of time, at least if we are talking about 19 days.

Just my opinion though...

 

Likewise, there is no way one can obtain the experience one should have before receiving a Commercial & CFI certificate in 90 days. These zero-to-hero programs make me want to puke.

 

Everyone I know has recommended knocking out a rating or license as quickly as possible by condensing all the material and flying every day. This includes several aviators with an ATP, CFIs, and other DPEs. I guess you're the exception to the rule. Either way...ATP is a ripoff.

 

It seems that Driver's Ed was longer than 19 days back when I did it over the summer!
There is benefit in condensing training and not dragging it out over an exceptionally long period of time - but that doesn't mean cramming it in without ever absorbing it is any better.

USMCFLYR

 

Drivers Ed was 1 semester if I remember correctly...but it was for 50 minutes and only once a week. I spent 8-10 hours a day at the airport between flying, studying, working with other students etc.

 

So while learning to drive you only spent 50 minutes, once a week?

USMCFLYR

 

Once one has acquired the requisite experience for a rating, within limits, the more frequently you train the higher your short term retention will be. That is well established and I'm not disputing that.

There are longer term issues of assimilation and integration of knowledge that this fails to address - and that is the issue here.

The question arises - what experience does a private pilot who knocked out his rating in 19 fair weather days in the fall have operating in winter weather, or dealing with convective activity? How effectively have they actually assimilated all of the material and skills for the rating?

The same question for someone who obtained their Commercial & CFI in 90 days. What resources do they actually own (in the sense of having first hand knowledge, rather than just book learning) which they can then in turn pass along to their students?

I'm generally in favor of the "ATP Rule", but it in and of itself fails to addresses all of the issues. Ideally there would also be a chronological requirement of so many years (I'd pick five) of being an active pilot with a minimum number of hours logged each quarter to be eligible for the ATP rating. Such a requirement would be cumbersome and difficult to implement - yet I believe it really goes to the heart of what the public rightly expects in a professional aviator. I also think it would be reasonable to require one year of active flying experience to be eligible for a Commercial or CFI certificate.

 

There are several issues that hasn't been discussed with recent changes that were made by ATP within the last several months. First, the days of ATP just handing you a book are now over. One thing that I like that they did is develop full blown ground schools through the Ipad. This alleviates the instructor from having to be there all the time and makes your scheduled ground time more productive as the student can now go into discussions with little background knowledge already. Secondly, you are not buying "flight" time at ATP as much as you are a program. Keep in mind my story of how I went under flight time on everything but ATP assured me I got what I paid for. For example, during your instrument program you get 12 flights (that is not a typo) before you take your check ride. 2 of those flights are your commercial XC's. All your other time is spent in the sim which I think was a total of 24. You have unlimited access to the sim as long as no one is using it which makes your flights more productive because you can use the aircraft to go fly a XC somewhere close or just shoot approaches. All the sims are scenario based. Chances are you are never actually going to go over sim time unless you are really struggling. Now if you are more advanced (this happened to me) and are flying through instrument training (I did mine in 12 days) they will offer to let you just fly XC's and move planes for maint. The down fall if you fail your check ride that's on you not the instructor but that's why they let the student chose. Me and my instructor went down to Tampa twice. So in all reality I only really did check ride prep flights because all I did was XC's for the rest of my training. But most of those flights were in real IMC and most of the approaches were down to actual minimums. I did an ILS where I actually broke out 1 FT above DH. That's one thing I will give ATP they encourage instructors to go fly in IMC and get real experience. Now for those that bash the ATP will never teach you anything. First ATP is designed for (mostly college graduates are most of the students) for the person that can read a book and learn the knowledge. The ones that couldn't learn like that got kicked out or dropped out. The program isn't for every one but they don't say it is either. How does ATP make money you ask? By the add on programs. They make more from the add on's than they do from the ACPP. All those deals you see on the web site is how they keep the other training centers busy. For example, they will offer free housing if you do the ACPP at XYZ training center. Or they might take off $2,000 to get a training center business. There business model is smart but they will be quick to tell you a lie. What they don't tell you is when you drop out you don't get honored with a full refund. For example, when I did the CFI opt out I got refunded $2,000 even though the course is around $6,000. When I went back and reread the contract sure enough it said they have the right to that. That's why I would never recommend ATP any one. They are a great airline style based academy but they make their business from those that can't succeed. Any business that conducts business like that is one I will never teach at or associate my self with. Those of you that went more than a year ago. This is all recent changes. BTW the guaranteed job went bye bye. They promise you a job for six months but they have instructors who have been there for years. When I was there I even watched them fire instructors for BS reasons because they had no openings but they HAD to hire them due to a contract the school had with the students. Some of them legitimately could not fly. My instructor almost got fired because on my instrument check ride I didn't operate the GPS exactly how he wanted it. I operated it in a safe manner that was consistent with regulations but he has his way of doing things. BTW any book ATP gives you that isn't a study guide was written by an examiner. SOCAL you need to make the decision but if you have any more questions feel free to ask.

 

That he would be the examiner not the instructor*