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.
Not all 141 schools are not equal. There is a difference between a flight school that just that a flight school that runs 61 and 141 programs in parallel and there’s Part 141 University schools. The folks are talking about Part 141 university schools just just the structure and curriculum that is required for the R-ATP reduction results in students taking a deeper dive in various course subjects outside of just flying unlike say a Part 141 pilot factory that just has a flying curriculum. So sure, I do believe because of that structured and more in-depth training, yeah there should be a reduction. I say this with both a 61 and 141 background.
‘Sure I’ll give you that the structure environment and tight restrictions at Part 141 universities and handicap students some limiting exposures to a more challenging operating environment and lack of flexibility can lead to slower area development of decision making. But the lack of Hand Flying thing, come on man. That’s showing up from all backgrounds even military…. I tell you what, I enjoyed teaching in a 61 environment with my background as a military vet, Part 61 and 141 uni student. I was able to create a structured training plan for my students and leverage the flexibility of Part 61 to really tailor their training for them.