Best Flight School In The Us Suggestion
06-05-2009, 04:52 AM
#11
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Originally Posted by flightsinc
Try these guys they offer 100 hours multi turbine at the end of your course.
Flights Inc. - Flight Training and Aircraft Rental
Flights Inc. - Flight Training and Aircraft Rental
Another quote gets me: "The pre-paid course price includes flight instruction, ground instruction, aircraft rental and use of our extensive DVD library and books" Oh well, not my money
06-05-2009, 09:43 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Trying not to crash
Posts: 1,260
Well, I graduated from (And instruct at ) a part 141 4 year program. Our particular school (I'm sure you can guess it) is not soley an aviation school, aviation is just one of the the many programs in the University. I'd recommend that over going to a pure aviation college, just for the diversity. I have a lot of friends who've graduated in business, engineering, psychology, and other useful fields. All these friends will come in handy later, I'm sure.
I have had a very varied experience. I completed my private pilot license at a small, mom-and-pop FBO. I graduated from high school, and came to the University. I obtained my instrument, commercial, and multi-Injun ratings here, before going back to another small mom-and-pop school to get my CFI. Then, I got hired back at the university to teach. So I would say I get a good feel for most of the types of training environments, and they all have their benefits and downsides.
I enjoyed the part 141 curriculum because of the intense structure, and especially the college classes that came along with it. A mom-and-pop FBO just won't give you the same knowledge of intimate details that a semester long course in things such as CRM, advanced aircraft systems, and long range navigation. I'm sure if I would've stayed at a small FBO, I would not have had such an intimate knowledge of things such as North Atlantic tracks, APU's, air cycle machines, and especially meteorology. In fact, most of the meteorology classes that we have to take are not specific to aviation, but are in the actual meteorology department.
That's not to say that a small mom-and-pop trained pilot cannot be as good as one trained at a major university, but it would involve quite a bit more self-study and hunting for material (especially for those things that do not directly relate to the aircraft your flying).
I feel that the route that I took was the best option for me, but I am glad that I got a good mix of training. I feel sorry for the people at our flight school have never trained or even been to another small airport, because I feel that they are missing out on the very interesting world of general aviation. My main regret as of now, is that I did not choose to double major as a lot of my classmates did. I could have easily get a degree in both aviation and business, or any other field offered at the university.
The bottom line is that the primary determinant of how good of the pilots you will become is your own motivation. I feel that the university offers all the information that you could possibly need, but spreading it out over four years allows for things to sink in. I feel that a small mom-and-pop FBO will do a good job of giving you the essential stick and rudder pilot skills, but you may have to do a lot of studying on your own and working little harder to understand more advanced systems. More than likely, you won't be able to start up and run a turboprop on a stand, but if you absorb information from books well then you can be very competitive with a university pilot. I feel that short crash courses, however, are the worst of the three options. The emphasis there, as someone stated above, is to get you past a check ride in the absolute minimum time. This is quite counterproductive to being allowed to take your time and absorb all of the information that is required of you.
As an instructor in a part 141 school, I do notice that the people who have come from a very flying background seem to do better in general than those who have no other flight experience. Like anything else, there are a lot of lazy people- so comparing any one student to another one could go either way in terms of skills. If you take nothing else from this, remember that the it's not so much the flight school, but the student. If you take the time to make sure that you understand the material, and understand the shortfalls of whatever method of training that you take, then you have the potential could be an excellent pilot not matter where you decide to go.
You can feel free to private message me if you have any questions.
I have had a very varied experience. I completed my private pilot license at a small, mom-and-pop FBO. I graduated from high school, and came to the University. I obtained my instrument, commercial, and multi-Injun ratings here, before going back to another small mom-and-pop school to get my CFI. Then, I got hired back at the university to teach. So I would say I get a good feel for most of the types of training environments, and they all have their benefits and downsides.
I enjoyed the part 141 curriculum because of the intense structure, and especially the college classes that came along with it. A mom-and-pop FBO just won't give you the same knowledge of intimate details that a semester long course in things such as CRM, advanced aircraft systems, and long range navigation. I'm sure if I would've stayed at a small FBO, I would not have had such an intimate knowledge of things such as North Atlantic tracks, APU's, air cycle machines, and especially meteorology. In fact, most of the meteorology classes that we have to take are not specific to aviation, but are in the actual meteorology department.
That's not to say that a small mom-and-pop trained pilot cannot be as good as one trained at a major university, but it would involve quite a bit more self-study and hunting for material (especially for those things that do not directly relate to the aircraft your flying).
I feel that the route that I took was the best option for me, but I am glad that I got a good mix of training. I feel sorry for the people at our flight school have never trained or even been to another small airport, because I feel that they are missing out on the very interesting world of general aviation. My main regret as of now, is that I did not choose to double major as a lot of my classmates did. I could have easily get a degree in both aviation and business, or any other field offered at the university.
The bottom line is that the primary determinant of how good of the pilots you will become is your own motivation. I feel that the university offers all the information that you could possibly need, but spreading it out over four years allows for things to sink in. I feel that a small mom-and-pop FBO will do a good job of giving you the essential stick and rudder pilot skills, but you may have to do a lot of studying on your own and working little harder to understand more advanced systems. More than likely, you won't be able to start up and run a turboprop on a stand, but if you absorb information from books well then you can be very competitive with a university pilot. I feel that short crash courses, however, are the worst of the three options. The emphasis there, as someone stated above, is to get you past a check ride in the absolute minimum time. This is quite counterproductive to being allowed to take your time and absorb all of the information that is required of you.
As an instructor in a part 141 school, I do notice that the people who have come from a very flying background seem to do better in general than those who have no other flight experience. Like anything else, there are a lot of lazy people- so comparing any one student to another one could go either way in terms of skills. If you take nothing else from this, remember that the it's not so much the flight school, but the student. If you take the time to make sure that you understand the material, and understand the shortfalls of whatever method of training that you take, then you have the potential could be an excellent pilot not matter where you decide to go.
You can feel free to private message me if you have any questions.
06-05-2009, 02:18 PM
#14
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Slice
Prairie Air Service, Inc
Herb is Austrian born and has worked with thousands of students over the years from the U.S. and abroad...no jet training but you will learn a lot. Worked for me anyway.
Herb is Austrian born and has worked with thousands of students over the years from the U.S. and abroad...no jet training but you will learn a lot. Worked for me anyway.
Hi, Slice, thanks for your time, I will check the website out carefully !
06-05-2009, 02:35 PM
#15
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by detpilot
Well, I graduated from (And instruct at ) a part 141 4 year program. Our particular school (I'm sure you can guess it) is not soley an aviation school, aviation is just one of the the many programs in the University. I'd recommend that over going to a pure aviation college, just for the diversity. I have a lot of friends who've graduated in business, engineering, psychology, and other useful fields. All these friends will come in handy later, I'm sure.
I have had a very varied experience. I completed my private pilot license at a small, mom-and-pop FBO. I graduated from high school, and came to the University. I obtained my instrument, commercial, and multi-Injun ratings here, before going back to another small mom-and-pop school to get my CFI. Then, I got hired back at the university to teach. So I would say I get a good feel for most of the types of training environments, and they all have their benefits and downsides.
I enjoyed the part 141 curriculum because of the intense structure, and especially the college classes that came along with it. A mom-and-pop FBO just won't give you the same knowledge of intimate details that a semester long course in things such as CRM, advanced aircraft systems, and long range navigation. I'm sure if I would've stayed at a small FBO, I would not have had such an intimate knowledge of things such as North Atlantic tracks, APU's, air cycle machines, and especially meteorology. In fact, most of the meteorology classes that we have to take are not specific to aviation, but are in the actual meteorology department.
That's not to say that a small mom-and-pop trained pilot cannot be as good as one trained at a major university, but it would involve quite a bit more self-study and hunting for material (especially for those things that do not directly relate to the aircraft your flying).
I feel that the route that I took was the best option for me, but I am glad that I got a good mix of training. I feel sorry for the people at our flight school have never trained or even been to another small airport, because I feel that they are missing out on the very interesting world of general aviation. My main regret as of now, is that I did not choose to double major as a lot of my classmates did. I could have easily get a degree in both aviation and business, or any other field offered at the university.
The bottom line is that the primary determinant of how good of the pilots you will become is your own motivation. I feel that the university offers all the information that you could possibly need, but spreading it out over four years allows for things to sink in. I feel that a small mom-and-pop FBO will do a good job of giving you the essential stick and rudder pilot skills, but you may have to do a lot of studying on your own and working little harder to understand more advanced systems. More than likely, you won't be able to start up and run a turboprop on a stand, but if you absorb information from books well then you can be very competitive with a university pilot. I feel that short crash courses, however, are the worst of the three options. The emphasis there, as someone stated above, is to get you past a check ride in the absolute minimum time. This is quite counterproductive to being allowed to take your time and absorb all of the information that is required of you.
As an instructor in a part 141 school, I do notice that the people who have come from a very flying background seem to do better in general than those who have no other flight experience. Like anything else, there are a lot of lazy people- so comparing any one student to another one could go either way in terms of skills. If you take nothing else from this, remember that the it's not so much the flight school, but the student. If you take the time to make sure that you understand the material, and understand the shortfalls of whatever method of training that you take, then you have the potential could be an excellent pilot not matter where you decide to go.
You can feel free to private message me if you have any questions.
I have had a very varied experience. I completed my private pilot license at a small, mom-and-pop FBO. I graduated from high school, and came to the University. I obtained my instrument, commercial, and multi-Injun ratings here, before going back to another small mom-and-pop school to get my CFI. Then, I got hired back at the university to teach. So I would say I get a good feel for most of the types of training environments, and they all have their benefits and downsides.
I enjoyed the part 141 curriculum because of the intense structure, and especially the college classes that came along with it. A mom-and-pop FBO just won't give you the same knowledge of intimate details that a semester long course in things such as CRM, advanced aircraft systems, and long range navigation. I'm sure if I would've stayed at a small FBO, I would not have had such an intimate knowledge of things such as North Atlantic tracks, APU's, air cycle machines, and especially meteorology. In fact, most of the meteorology classes that we have to take are not specific to aviation, but are in the actual meteorology department.
That's not to say that a small mom-and-pop trained pilot cannot be as good as one trained at a major university, but it would involve quite a bit more self-study and hunting for material (especially for those things that do not directly relate to the aircraft your flying).
I feel that the route that I took was the best option for me, but I am glad that I got a good mix of training. I feel sorry for the people at our flight school have never trained or even been to another small airport, because I feel that they are missing out on the very interesting world of general aviation. My main regret as of now, is that I did not choose to double major as a lot of my classmates did. I could have easily get a degree in both aviation and business, or any other field offered at the university.
The bottom line is that the primary determinant of how good of the pilots you will become is your own motivation. I feel that the university offers all the information that you could possibly need, but spreading it out over four years allows for things to sink in. I feel that a small mom-and-pop FBO will do a good job of giving you the essential stick and rudder pilot skills, but you may have to do a lot of studying on your own and working little harder to understand more advanced systems. More than likely, you won't be able to start up and run a turboprop on a stand, but if you absorb information from books well then you can be very competitive with a university pilot. I feel that short crash courses, however, are the worst of the three options. The emphasis there, as someone stated above, is to get you past a check ride in the absolute minimum time. This is quite counterproductive to being allowed to take your time and absorb all of the information that is required of you.
As an instructor in a part 141 school, I do notice that the people who have come from a very flying background seem to do better in general than those who have no other flight experience. Like anything else, there are a lot of lazy people- so comparing any one student to another one could go either way in terms of skills. If you take nothing else from this, remember that the it's not so much the flight school, but the student. If you take the time to make sure that you understand the material, and understand the shortfalls of whatever method of training that you take, then you have the potential could be an excellent pilot not matter where you decide to go.
You can feel free to private message me if you have any questions.
06-05-2009, 02:37 PM
#16
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Ewfflyer
Sounds like it's a PFT at the end of your "training" in some 121 operation. It only mentions it's "Sister Company." So whomever it is, you get to pay $9000 for 100hrs in the right seat! What a deal!!!
Another quote gets me: "The pre-paid course price includes flight instruction, ground instruction, aircraft rental and use of our extensive DVD library and books" Oh well, not my money
Another quote gets me: "The pre-paid course price includes flight instruction, ground instruction, aircraft rental and use of our extensive DVD library and books" Oh well, not my money
06-05-2009, 05:16 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Spartan
Posts: 3,652
Originally Posted by lbm1974
Hi, Slice, thanks for your time, I will check the website out carefully !
06-05-2009, 07:02 PM
#19
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by HectorD
I would not want my surgeon to have graduated from a fast track program, I would not want my attorney to have graduated from a fast track program, why should pilots be any different?
06-09-2009, 12:48 PM
#20
pants on the ground
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: back seat
Posts: 1,358
Originally Posted by HectorD
I would not want my surgeon to have graduated from a fast track program, I would not want my attorney to have graduated from a fast track program, why should pilots be any different?
THAT IS THE BEST QUOTE I HAVE EVER READ REGARDING TRAINING ADVICE. COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
