good@pixar (If your cat had kittens in the oven would you call them biscuits?) (03/06/86)
Enough people asked about the Aviation Seminars two-day crash course (perhaps not a good choice of words...) instrument class that I'll post my observations here. The bottom line is that I passed with a score of 93, so the claims about average scores seem to be right on the money. Now for the gory details: I took the course on a minimum of sleep, and took the test right after the class. They say that scores are pretty much the same as long as you take it within 48 hours, but I wanted to get it out of the way. The instructors were good at keeping the class on track, which was difficult in our case because we had one "chatty cathy" type who wanted to tell us all sorts of war stories. The structure of the course is very good at preparing you to take the test. One of the instructors suggested that we also take the long, $15 version at our local community college to aid long-term retention of the material. The test itself is a crock. It is so full of things which are totally irrelevant to flying an airplane that I don't feel the least bit guilty for having taken a cram course to pass it. Besides, I lucked into an instructor who is making sure I know what I really need to know in the real world. In summary, if you are looking down the barrels of the Instrument written test, this is a good way to take care of it. --Craig ...ucbvax!pixar!good
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/11/86)
In article <2537@pixar.pixar>, good@pixar writes: > [referring to the instrument test] > The test itself is a crock. It is so full of things which are totally > irrelevant to flying an airplane that I don't feel the least bit guilty for > having taken a cram course to pass it. I don't agree. It seems to me that the test is very pertinent. My main concern is that it doesn't go into depth on weather interpretations, but expects easy answers. Do you have examples of what you think is irrelevant? Peter Ladkin