wa143@sdcc12.UUCP (wa143) (03/04/85)
Has anyone had any (good/bad) experiences with the weekend ground schools so heavily advertised in the local and national aviation publications? I'm mostly interested in the *Instrument* ground programs. Dave Alderson UC San Diego
jpj@mss.UUCP (J. P. Jenal) (03/07/85)
I have been meaning to write about this for sometime so here goes. A couple of months ago I took the ATE/American Flyers Private Ground School. This course was a *three* day course - Friday, Saturday and Sunday from (roughly) 8:00 - 4:00. For this pleasure I paid $175. My overall reaction is mixed. The first two days our instructor was reasonably good - he would often stress topics by saying to "...write it down, it would be on the test." By and large, this information was true. We worked a large number of problems during the class but for me, the time spent teaching people how to use a E-6B was pretty much wasted and I was often quite bored. It was clear to me that some of the people in the class new nothing before walking in the door - I certainly wouldn't advise that course of action to anyone - things went by too quickly if you didn't know anything but far too slowly if you did know much (most?) of the material. On Sunday things got worse. We had a change of instructor and this fellow was apparently unfamiliar with the material - he is a CFI but teaches mostly Instrument work and was often confused about some of the details in the Private course. (As a teacher, I find that unforgivable - we were paying good money for this school to provide us with information - I wasn't really looking to correct the teacher's errors.) The material that was scheduled for Sunday included meteorology and the F.A.R.s. As this was the material that I was weakest on I was hoping for some inspired teaching. Alas, the teacher went so slowly through the basics of weather that we only spent an hour or so on the F.A.R.s - which left me somewhat concerned. On the more positive side, the note book that we received was good - like reading the Jepsen manual but obviously geared toward the Exam. At the end of each chapter (Aerodynamics, W&B, Engine & Airplane Systems, Aircraft Instruments, Nav Charts, Flight Planning, Radio Nav, Weather Theory, Weather Services, Regs & Medical Facts) there was a list of the questions from the Exam book (also included - if you don't already have one) that pertained to that chapter - a real win when cramming for the test. Overall, I would say that the course was worthwhile if only because it forced me to spend the time with the material and actually do the studying I needed to do. If you have been putting off the process of preparing for a written - it is *always* possible to find something better to do (like maybe go flying!?!) - the thought of having spent that money may be sufficient motivation to make you indulge in the ultimate power cram. How did I do? Oh, well, I have no complaints on that score - 98%! Hope this helps someone else - if you have any questions feel free to ask. Cheers... Jim Jenal (aka ...!scgvaxd!mss!jpj) Mayfield Senior School ( " ...!ihnp4!mss!jpj) ------- 31 and still looking!
plb@dcdwest.UUCP (Phil Blais) (11/26/85)
>Even one of the "two day wonder courses" claims that (approximate quote) >"you will have enough knowledge to be able to pass the test IF TAKEN >WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME". I suspect that people who take these short >intensive courses don't retain the material as long as others >(I would like to hear from people with positive comments about this >type of course). While working on my instrument ticket I attended a two day "wonder course" given by King Accelerated Ground Schools. I hesitated in making my decision to go for all the usaul reasons but figured I'd give it a try to see what it was like and at the very least I'd learn what was considered significant and what was less so as regards the written test (atleast from King's prospective). The course was given on a Sat. and Sun. and consisted of a number of lessons covering all the basic areas. The test was taken immediately after the course on Monday night. There were seven people in my class and as it turns out all seven passed the test. Test scores for these seven ranged from aprrox. 70 - 90. Observations: This type of study is very intense as there is alot of material presented in a very short time. Very little time is available for discussion after a lesson because you'd never finish if it were, atleast not in two days. Retention is a personal thing. Granted, you probaly will retain more from a formal study course given over a semester or whatever, but if you as an individual really want to learn the material you'll study on your own anyway (in both cases) and then I'd say retention level would be comparible. One big advantage of the accelerated course is that it helps you zero in on the material that is most relevent to the test. This could be called 'teaching the test' but if the FAA considers it important enough to test on then one should probaly assume its for a reason and learn the material well. Course cost for me was $125 which included a study guide and a CFII present as the course was given. All lessons are videotaped, well organized and professionally presented. You do begin to hate the face on the video tape after about 12 hours. (=:.
jackg@tekchips.UUCP (Jack Gjovaag) (11/29/85)
I took a weekend ground school for my instrument rating and found it to be quite worth it, but maybe not for the reasons you might expect. First, the instrument rating written exam has a fair amount of stuff in it that may not be very relevant to every examinee. For instance, all chart material used in the exam is based on NOS charts, while every instrument pilot I know of, including myself, use the (superior--editorial comment) Jeppesson charts for flying. The ground school lets you get over this hurdle with ease. Also, in instrument flying, you are really dealing with the needed knowledge much more intimately while you are in the cockpit, than when you are working on a private rating. Thus, I view the exam as just a formality to get out of the way as quickly as possible. The real knowledge of instrument flying and the regulations comes from flying, studying and encountering many of the situations you must be familiar with. I took the exam before ever beginning the flying part of the training. I suppose one might avoid paying the $150 (or whatever it costs these days) by taking the exam late in the training, when you already will (better) know what you need to know. Unfortunately that still leaves you with the NOS problem and bits of material that remain in the exam even though outdated.