All of the people who run the APS classes are publicly identified. You can shake their hands and ask them questions. And you can sue them.
Funny thing is that with all the dangerous folklore and wildly inaccurate misinformation they have been spreading over decades, they have yet to be sued for negligent misstatement. Not once. Extraordinarily lucky, considering how litigious the USA and Australia are supposed to be.
An alternative explanation is that their courses are based on science and data - science and data that saw vast improvements in piston engine efficiency and reliability over millions of hours of piston engine operations before the jet age. Very difficult to prove something said by APS is inaccurate, when the science and data prove otherwise.
You want to run an aero piston engine on the basis of a single EGT gauge and single CHT gauge? Go for it. The joke is that if you think the CHT gauge being 'in the green' and the EGT gauge being at some temperature relative to peak means that you're operating the engine as efficiently and as a safely as practicable, it's just blissful ignorance. The fact that the engine might survive the abuse or inefficient operation proves nothing, other than that many engines are manufactured with wide tolerances for abuse and inefficient operation.
A comparison between the condition and costs of running engines the blissful ignorance way, on the one hand, and the condition and costs of running engines on the basis of the science and data used by APS, on the other, is quite instructive. But only for those who are willing and able to learn.
(PS: I have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the APS courses. I have a direct interest in aviation safety.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 30th Jan 2016 at 03:49.