FIRC Time

Acrofox

All dragon~
The length is not AOPA's fault. It is mandated by the FAA as part of the course approval process.

"Curricula presented for FAA approval consideration should consist of no fewer than 16 hours of ground and/or flight instruction." AC 61-83J
I'm aware of the time requirement; however, this is my fourth FIRC and it was, by far and away, the longest and most painful. My complaint about the previous FIRCs is that the quality of information presented was extremely low. This, at least, was not the case with the AOPA FIRC, but it was ridiculously long.

Honestly, the requirement is stupid as hell, but something about AOPA's FIRC was especially long and arduous. I feel there was almost sixteen hours in waiting for video timers alone.

-Fox
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
I'm aware of the time requirement; however, this is my fourth FIRC and it was, by far and away, the longest and most painful. My complaint about the previous FIRCs is that the quality of information presented was extremely low. This, at least, was not the case with the AOPA FIRC, but it was ridiculously long.

Honestly, the requirement is stupid as hell, but something about AOPA's FIRC was especially long and arduous. I feel there was almost sixteen hours in waiting for video timers alone.

-Fox
Sounds like the issue is content. If it's all/mostly textual material, you can scan it for something new, and do something else while waiting for the timer to expire. More difficult to do that with a lot of video content.
 

BigZ

Well-Known Member
I'm aware of the time requirement; however, this is my fourth FIRC and it was, by far and away, the longest and most painful. My complaint about the previous FIRCs is that the quality of information presented was extremely low. This, at least, was not the case with the AOPA FIRC, but it was ridiculously long.

Honestly, the requirement is stupid as hell, but something about AOPA's FIRC was especially long and arduous. I feel there was almost sixteen hours in waiting for video timers alone.

-Fox
That’s how I remember it too. It was good, but I remember knocking it out over a weekend was tough af
 

tlove482

Well-Known Member
I'm aware of the time requirement; however, this is my fourth FIRC and it was, by far and away, the longest and most painful. My complaint about the previous FIRCs is that the quality of information presented was extremely low. This, at least, was not the case with the AOPA FIRC, but it was ridiculously long.

Honestly, the requirement is stupid as hell, but something about AOPA's FIRC was especially long and arduous. I feel there was almost sixteen hours in waiting for video timers alone.

-Fox
It probably was. I doubt there is more than an hour of actual reading.
 

Richman

Well-Known Member
I vacillate between AOPA and Gleim depending on mood, how receptive I am to learning that year and/or residual attention span available.

The AOPA course in the past was always my go to when I was in learning mode, and their production values were always high.

This cycle, it was kinda lame. Endless videos of one guy talking got really old really fast. Lots of recycled content. It was ok, but way off their past standard.

Certificate processing was fine.

I was going to harsh them on the survey monkey, but it expired before I got around to it.
 

bLizZuE

Fly airplanes, drink beer, never at the same time.
It is hard to watch the same videos several cycles in a row.
 

BigZ

Well-Known Member
Doing the AceCFI right now
So far so good, since I do need to get back into the "GA pilot" mindset. Matter of fact, that course would probably make a good supplement to the Initial CFI training.
It is, however, all timed reading. Timers are set up for a fairly leisurely pace, I do find myself finishing sooner and then sitting there scrolling up and down every couple of minutes for the next however many minutes. Annoying. Videos were less annoying to me
 
Top