Well, assuming that the OP is serious about learning to fly, that should not be a problem.
If you were the CFI trying to organize that, you might feel differently. It would take me a couple of hours just to develop the plan to conduct the necessary ground training prior to that flight, and probably a couple of days to execute it -- maybe even a couple of weeks. You'd have to cover airspace, instrument procedures, VFR and IFR aeronautical charts, communication, IFR and VFR flight rules, weather theory and forecasts/charts/reports, etc. in order to make this a legitimate training flight rather than a monkey-told/monkey-do with the instructor doing all the thinking, all the radios, all the navigation, and all the planning/decision-making and the trainee merely manipulating the flight controls on command -- and that's when it starts to look like a Part 135 operation masquerading as training. I just don't see it happening properly unless the trainee is really,
really serious (which Ted probably was).
Plus, what's the odds of the FAA even asking? 0.001%?
Probably depends on whether or not the "training" provider advertises or otherwise gets a reputation for offering this as a service, or something goes wrong on the flight. The outfit down in Florida advertising something like this in an obviously
faux-training manner was reported to the FAA, which investigated and shut them down hard. It's certainly not something I'd risk my tickets on without a solid commitment by the trainee demonstrated by undergoing the ground training I consider appropriate prior to the flight, and that could be one heck of a lot of ground training.
I will say that such a flight might be part of a solid program of situationally-based training like they do at Middle Tennessee State University, where the students are prepared over 2-3 semesters for an integrated PP/IR course culminating in a single PP/IR practical test. However, IIRC, they go through several weeks of classroom and both part-task and FTD sim work before the first flight.
