Originally Posted by
Cleared4appch
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.
141 flight schools who claim they’re 141 solely for the purpose of a training syllabus and 141 schools associated with a 4-year institution are two different entities.
Like I’ve mentioned before, it’s most 141 schools. Those whom you have may encountered were probably from the former.
Turbine time with a fresh commercial license? Good luck getting a gig like that out the bat. Most low-time time building jobs are either CFI, banner towing, or pipeline patrol. Most people won’t be going to their first airline with turbine time unless your daddy has a jet, you built military turbine time, or you just plain old got lucky.
Was just talking to a Delta 717 Captain who mentioned one of the newer guys he’s flown with was a military guy and he was struggling in the “busy” 121 environment. But oh wait, doesn’t he have turbine time? What type of airplane you sat your @ss in to build time doesn’t necessarily help you in the 121 world in some cases.
Also, most students won’t be the most confident in those aspects after passing their checkride because of exactly that. They just passed their checkride. Time building is where you build confidence, so on that I agree whether 141 or 61. But knowledge wise? 141 trumps most times. That’s seriously not even an opinion. It’s fact. Like I’ve mentioned, I’ve been in both part 61 and 141 training environments as both a student and instructor. My experience and I’m sure those of many others who’ve done 141 can also agree it’s more in depth. Not trying to sound “superior” but those who didn’t participate in a legit 141 program at all won’t understand.
Considering you’ve only been in a 61 environment, albeit your 141 students coming over, you’re more biased than others trying to explain this to you