Originally Posted by
FlyGuy99
You’re right. Except most 141 programs have you go through every single task item in the ACS for their checkrides. That’s not including stage checks that come prior to that to be eligible for an end of course ride.
I’ve been a student and taught in both part 61 and 141 programs. 141 programs are tougher to succeed in. My school had a 60% dropout rate in their 141 program due to the rigerious curriculum. It’s unfortunate those folks weren’t able to make it through, but that’s just how the program is.
So yes, we may all study the same material and source information, but the evaluation processes are completely different.
Additionally, in my airline new hire class you could easily tell who was a 141 student, a 61 student, or those that went through the military. Take that as you will
That’s a real load of manure about 141 programs. I get that you went through one and you may be a bit biased towards 141. I’ve taught military in a highly structured environment, and civilian part 61. Never taught in a 141 program, but I have had my share of students coming from some of those places because of problems with the school in question, and was not impressed very much. The fact that your telling us that it had a 60% pass rate means it’s the instructors who are probably responsible for that, and not so much the students. Good, competent instructors wouldn’t have a failure rate that bad. That sounds like needless chest beating and trying to send a message that it’s ‘hard for the sake of being hard’ and nothing else. Sounds like it’s just for bragging rights-purposes only.
I’ve learned over the years that 141 students may be good at excelling in a structured course, and there’s definitely more of a roadmap if you will with the requirement for a syllabus. But, let’s face it, 141 is overrated. Once somebody gets to the 1500 hour mark and they’re still bragging that 141 is better or ‘harder,’ save it. It’s not. Don’t take my word though, I can’t tell you how many people who came out of 141 programs tell me that exact same thing. Often times I’ve seen 141 students don’t have the best hand flying and decision making skills once they complete all their checkrides. One of the previous posters said it correctly in that it’s what you do AFTER your training days that matters. Is when you’re building hours that really counts. How are they building those hours? Got a lot of instrument time/hard IFR skills? Operations in very busy tower controlled airspace? (And no not the typical busy flight training environment, that’s a different kind of ‘busy.’ Not the same thing that you will face in real world 121 ops) got some turbine experience? And no not necessarily the right seat opportunities that’s typical for time builders (seat warmers for insurance purposes) flying in a Pilatus or caravan and thinking they can log that as SIC. I’m talking actual legit turbine PIC. Not that it ‘matters’ in today’s hiring environment, but it definitely does help in the training environment at your first airline.