part 61 or 141?
 

I am less than 2 weeks away from my first lesson. First off I made it clear to the CFI that I intend to do a home study program, instead of spending a lot on a study kit, and do computer based programs. For this reason he recommended the part 61 program... He told me to purchase some Jeppesen items. When I added everything, for an extra 30 bucks or so I could buy the entire 141 kit, so that's what I did. In other words, it was cheaper for me to buy the entire kit. Now my concern is, should I change my mind and go for 141 instead? I understand that it does not make a huge difference at this point, but am I better off in a 141 program in terms of saving money and since I have the 141 kit? Don't I have to do an extra 5 more XC trips in a 61 program? Also would I end up spending a lot more for ground school in a 141? As of now I am signed up for the 61...

Pearl -

I started off in the Part 61 world and ended my time in civilian aviation with the Part 141 world.

In my experience I much preferred the -141 world for my training. I thought the structure of the program made it much easier to progress and to know what was expected of me on each and every flight.

Once I was in the military I realized that the program that I had been a part of closely resembled military training to include progress/standardization checks which the military called "off-wing" flights and end of stage checkrides.

All in all - much depends on ones personality and how they like to learn - or learn best regardless of their personal preferences!

Good luck in your decision.

USMCFLYR

Generally, if you need a lot of structure in order to get the job done, go 141. If you can motivate yourself to do it, then 61 is the thing to do.

I'm not sure it makes a big difference at the PPL level though. It may be more relevant for the IFR and the CPL.

You want to be the best pilot you can be. In my mind, it doesn't matter if you go 61 or 141. All else being equal, get a good instructor and all will be well.

Or, tell your CFI you "want structure" and then do it part 61. 141 has less flexibility that 61. 141 has lower times but can end up costing more in the long run. For example, under 61, you can use a ground trainer for 50 of the 250 for a commercial.

Then again, under 141, I was able to get my CPL in just over 180 hours (including some non-training fun flying... so probably more like 150).

It's all personal preference. I prefer part 141 because it's what I know and what I teach, but there are advantages to part 61 as well. If you're interested in a career in aviation, I would suggest part 141 because it's more similar to airline style training.

Thanks. I also forgot to mention that I already had discussed that although I may be doing part 61 for my PPL, I am surely going to switch for 141 for the next ratings, because I want to do this as a career. I think I will just stick to 61 now, and then switch.

I have trainined and worked under both 61 and 141.

61 is far more flexible and usually cheaper.

The gotcha with 141 is that although they advertise fewer hours, they almost invariably charge more for those hours. So you end up spending as much or more on 141, and hit the streets with less flight time. Well, guess what...pilot hiring is based on your actual flight experience in a real airplane...nobody cares about 141 vs. 61, some airline folks don't even know what 141 is.

Another problem is that you cannot focus your training efforts on areas where you need emphasis...you will have to repeat tasks which you have already mastered because the syllabuis says that, and then pay for EXTRA training if you have weak areas which you cannot master within the syllabus. Of course you will get charged for extra training...most students do end up buying more training.

With 61 you have to either find the right small school or carefully manage your own training at an FBO/club, but you can save a large amount of money that way.

I would only recommend 141 if you have military VA benefits (that's what 141 was created for) or are enrolled in a university flight program where you have no choice. Most 141 schools will allow you to do a 61 program if that makes more sense.

Having trained and received training under 61. And having been through one 135 initial, and two 121 initials. Two 121 type ratings and an F/E rating. I don't believe in the slightest that training under 141 will make "airline training" any easier. But, to each his own....

You can make 61 mimick 141 to your hearts content. Syllabus, ground training, sims, ect. The only difference is 61 has higher times required.

Best advice is don't switch in the middle of your rating. At least don't go from 61 to 141 in the middle. That never works in your favor. As for which is better, that should primarily depend on how you like to work, and where the best instructors are. Finding a great instructor is probably the best thing you can do for your training.

Thanks everyone. I will stick to part 61 for now, and see if I want to change to 141 after my PPL. The rental costs is a little higher ($135 hourly plus instructor) so I have to find some ways to save some money too. And if 141 will let me do that, I probably will... But it is clear that, at this point it does not make much of a difference.

From being at a part 141 school that also does part 61 to some extent.
If you are debating part 141 and 61 from the same school (i.e the per-hour cost is the same).
I would probably do the private 61, instrument 141, and commercial 141, then the instructor ratings 61.

Why? Well maybe my logic is flawed, but the way at least our 141 programs are structured, in Private you will be able to walk away with less hours. In our 141 private program, just finishing all the flights in the syllabus gave me close to 60 hours, you should be able to do it in 40 hours with the part 61 private.

For the instrument rating, the part 141 version lets you get away with less nasty cross countries, and less hours.
For the commercial, again you only need about 35 hours or so for the commercial course itself.
For the instructor ratings, part 61, just makes it easier to do it with your instructor the way you guys feel. The entire course is so theoretical that it's a lot easier to just work on the stuff you feel you need and then do the rest from home.
I'm a CPL now, did it all part 141 here in Florida, and walked away with about 150 hours after my commercial rating. I Expect around 190 hours or so after I have my single-commercial, CFI, CFII and MEI

That does sound a little bit on the high side to me. What aircraft type is this for?

Yeah it is, we had a discussion before and most people advised me to look at another place. They are 172s, 1997 or later (if that makes any difference). It takes me less than 20 minutes to drive to the FBO, plus since I am paying as I go, and since I have a funky schedule at my job, I really have no choice at this point...

You must be doing a FITS Commercial if you have that few hours. Most schools don't do that. In fact, Part 141 requires 120 hours of training toward the Commercial alone. While that is, for most students, less than the 250 TT requirement in Part 61, there is still a substantial amount of time involved unless the school has a special syllabus allowing proficiency-based training. Again, that is an abnormal situation although it may become more popular.

As for the IFR, those nasty cross countries are really what soon-to-be Instrument pilots need. Any monkey can shoot an approach, but remember that your life will be spent flying from A to B in any kind of weather. Shooting the approach is 10 minutes out of a 2 or 3 hour flight. The stuff in between is very important as well. The biggest thing about Part 61 is the requirement of 50 XC hours before doing your IR. If you want the time and you are going to do the Commercial as a Part 61, then you should do the IR the same. If you do the Commercial under Part 141, then you have a choice to make.

It is clear to me now that this is more complicated than I expected :)

The emphasis in peoples thinking on this subject usually involves finding the path that requires the least flight time. They wish to shave off a few hours here or there to save some money. But this is not a very good strategy for a couple of reasons. One it presupposes that you are talented enough not to need those extra hours which is something you do not know until your actual checkrides are passed. Second for pilots wishing to go on to a professional flying career, they will need far more hours anyway; as many as four times more than a wet ticket commercial usually has. Saving a few hours on flight training is of no particular advantage for aspiring pros and as King said you probably need them anyway for better skill development. To save money in flight training there are definitely some things one should do but choosing Part 61 versus 141 based on the hours requirements is not really one of them.

I don't see the major difference in coming out of commercial with 150, 180 or 250 hours to be honest.
Maybe you have a little extra experience, but it's not like you're gonna go right to the airlines either way.
For my part, I'm planning on going right onto instruction now, and getting up to 800h + TT, so getting the extra hours while being paid for seems like a better alternative than racking up a few extra hours on a few cross countries here and there that I'm the one paying for.. Unless I'm missing something

The X-C flights that 61 requires prior to the IFR rating are a great learning experience and confidence builder for a low time pilot. I believe that's a good thing, though some will find it a waste of time and money.

People should focus on being a good, well rounded, pilot, when they approach flight training. Not focus on being an "airline pilot". Airline pilots are simply regular pilots who fly for an airline.

You might think you're gonna be an airline pilot at 800tt, but what if you end up hauling river rafters off of dirt strips in the Grand Canyon in a 207 with no GPS?

That's where you'll be glad you had a little more X-C experience and focused on good stick and rudder fundamentals. 61 or 141, I'd implore you not blow anything off because, "I'm going to be an airline pilot".

What I'm saying is, you're gonna fly those XC as an instructor when you have IR students, over and over and over again.
What am I missing in regards to doing them as a student when you're going to do them 10x more at least as an instructor either way?

You'd be a much better instructor if you had actual experience as a student before you start instructing, don't you think?

You know, being able to say "When I was a student, I made that same mistake". Should you be instructing someone in something you decided to bypass to save money?

I see your point, but you could make the same argument with many things involved with flying and teaching. Why bother perfecting slow flight as a student, you're gonna teach it a million times as a CFI anyway...

That argument doesn't impress me.

Well as far as being good enough to pass your checkrides, you should be able to do a good enough slow flight per the PTS anyway, but in regards to experience flying cross countries it would seem like the basic experience, and the major errors is gained through the normal cross countries of the private, instrument and commercial, and the extended experience is more gained through doing it again and again.
So from my point of view, I don't really see the point, and your comparison is a bit off imo

Cross-country flying was one of the weakest areas for all my students. For whatever reason, they always had trouble with it. I'm talking about Instrument and especially Commercial students. I only had one guy who was almost always on top of the flight. Sadly, most of my students had gotten their ratings at our school, so that has something to do with it.

Come to think of it, I rescind my previous comment. Students have trouble with cross countries because they don't practice them enough. And that is sad, since that is what most of your personal flying (whether professional or just for fun) is going to be.

As an instructor, I'd advise you not to go to the same places all the time. Will you visit several airports more than once? Absolutely. Will you do the exact same plans every time? I hope not. Challenging your students will sometimes will challenge you, and it should. I hated going to the same lame places, so I always looked for new places to go. If I went back to instructing, I'd still have favorites, but always keep my eye out for a nice diversion or challenging airport too.

I agree with not going to the same airport every time, and I've always tried to go to different airports every time I have a cross country, and so far, I think I have.
Had my last cross country, which was a really long cross country from Daytona to Key West, with a landing at Tamiami Kendall at night on the way back.
I feel I have some experience with flying to different airports in my cross countries and have weeded out at least some of the beginners problems.
It seems like, no matter how you choose to gain that extra experience needed to meet hour minima you will get more cross country experience as time goes by