Lobbying to roll back 1500 hr rule:
05-09-2022 | 11:36 AM
#61
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
I call complete b.s. on this statement. I’ve never been in an Indoc class where we discussed what part we did our training under.
additionally, I’ve never had any instructors at any airline ask us if we were 141 or 61 students. So there is no way to just tell by how someone performs what type of civilian initial training one did.
where the separation occurs is how one builds time. CFI, banner tow, survey, plane owner going $100 hamburgers. Yeah, you can separate some wheat from the chaff there. But 61 vs 141. Hell no. And I’ve done both.
additionally, I’ve never had any instructors at any airline ask us if we were 141 or 61 students. So there is no way to just tell by how someone performs what type of civilian initial training one did.
where the separation occurs is how one builds time. CFI, banner tow, survey, plane owner going $100 hamburgers. Yeah, you can separate some wheat from the chaff there. But 61 vs 141. Hell no. And I’ve done both.
05-09-2022 | 01:40 PM
#62
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 480
Likes: 32
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
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
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.
05-09-2022 | 03:03 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 97
And the Airmail act, which is important. 61/141 isn’t college/no college
The advice prior from grads was always to get a degree is something else to fall back on, but now you and the school got something out of it so it’s sooper important. It was always about money like nearly everything.
The advice prior from grads was always to get a degree is something else to fall back on, but now you and the school got something out of it so it’s sooper important. It was always about money like nearly everything.
‘Of course it’s about, however. The fact remains, students that attended a Part 141 university 9 times out of 10 have taken courses that takes a deeper dive into other aspects of flying outside of just flying a airplane. Now if the students don’t get much out of it because they are focus on checking a box and getting their degree and flight time. That’s on them. This is just my observation from learning and teaching both in a Part 61 and Part 141 environment.
05-09-2022 | 03:06 PM
#64
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
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.
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.
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
Last edited by FlyGuy99; 05-09-2022 at 03:21 PM.
05-09-2022 | 03:21 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 97
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.
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.
‘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.
05-09-2022 | 03:23 PM
#66
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
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 maki g 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.
‘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.
05-09-2022 | 03:30 PM
#67
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 480
Likes: 32
This is exactly it man. I don’t have a military background, but did exact same with my students. And for the other poster, may I add that not only was I in a “CFI bubble” but have experience flying literally all over this country including Hawaii (IFR and VFR) in all different types of busy airspace. I have low altitude pipeline experience, mountainous terrain, etc. And in all different types of single and multi-engine airplanes. Not trying to build a resume, but proving a point that hand flying and decision making comes from time building experience. Not after a checkride regardless 61 or 141.
05-09-2022 | 04:11 PM
#68
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2021
Posts: 480
Likes: 32
I’ve learned through experience that skill is important, to an extent. If you flew king airs for 9,000 hours and nothing but king airs, and then go to the airlines, and it’s your first 121 job, yea it’s going to be a learning curve alright. Whereas the guy that flew to 1500 hours and got a good variety of experience along the way will fare much better more than likely. But where they went for flight training doesn’t really mean diddly squat. After a certain point, what it REALLY boils down to is attitude and how you approach the training. That’s what I left out in my previous post, and it’s so important.
You can have people with good attitudes at both types of places we’re talking here, and people with bad attitudes. Regardless of training footprint, and I should also add regardless of experience level, the ones with the bad attitudes don’t fare well and often won’t make it. That said, sometimes even folks with good attitudes can fail as well. Doesn’t mean they’re bad. The more important thing is those are the people that learn from their mistakes. The ones with bad attitudes usually don’t learn from mistakes. They think they are better than everyone else and it shows. People know who they are.
Now, on the subject of the training institution. Training institution doesn’t really matter. The instructor(s) you get matters more than the name of the school/institution you attended. You could attend a brand name institution that everyone knows about or has heard of, but it may not have instructors who are doing a great job at getting people up to, and more importantly beyond the minimum standards. Since this industry always has a high turnover of CFI’s, it’s hard to determine if a particular school is good at teaching students simply because what may be good today, may turn out to be a bad school 3-4 months from now as newer CFI’s come in and the experienced ones are leaving for better jobs. The quality of the school ebbs and flows so much with 99% of civilian schools it’s not even funny.
Big name universities with flight programs are nothing special. Again, change my mind on how it affects a pilot in the grand scheme of things throughout his or her career. We all know that there’s too many CFI’s out there that are just building time, and not really vested in teaching. I’ve had 3 of them. I fired all 3 of them. Found one that cares about teaching. These types can be found anywhere.
I was ‘building time’ too, and told my students upfront when we first met, but I would shut up about it after that unless I was asked. Your success in flight training comes down largely to the instructors you get, and more importantly your attitude. All this 141 university flight training is better than 61 is nonsense, and your just pulling that out of your rear end. When you come out of brand name institution, you are not an ‘all-knowing Chuck Yeager super pilot.’ I get that vibe coming from people like you who went to ‘hard and rigorous’ 141 schools and they are nothing special dude.
You can have people with good attitudes at both types of places we’re talking here, and people with bad attitudes. Regardless of training footprint, and I should also add regardless of experience level, the ones with the bad attitudes don’t fare well and often won’t make it. That said, sometimes even folks with good attitudes can fail as well. Doesn’t mean they’re bad. The more important thing is those are the people that learn from their mistakes. The ones with bad attitudes usually don’t learn from mistakes. They think they are better than everyone else and it shows. People know who they are.
Now, on the subject of the training institution. Training institution doesn’t really matter. The instructor(s) you get matters more than the name of the school/institution you attended. You could attend a brand name institution that everyone knows about or has heard of, but it may not have instructors who are doing a great job at getting people up to, and more importantly beyond the minimum standards. Since this industry always has a high turnover of CFI’s, it’s hard to determine if a particular school is good at teaching students simply because what may be good today, may turn out to be a bad school 3-4 months from now as newer CFI’s come in and the experienced ones are leaving for better jobs. The quality of the school ebbs and flows so much with 99% of civilian schools it’s not even funny.
Big name universities with flight programs are nothing special. Again, change my mind on how it affects a pilot in the grand scheme of things throughout his or her career. We all know that there’s too many CFI’s out there that are just building time, and not really vested in teaching. I’ve had 3 of them. I fired all 3 of them. Found one that cares about teaching. These types can be found anywhere.
I was ‘building time’ too, and told my students upfront when we first met, but I would shut up about it after that unless I was asked. Your success in flight training comes down largely to the instructors you get, and more importantly your attitude. All this 141 university flight training is better than 61 is nonsense, and your just pulling that out of your rear end. When you come out of brand name institution, you are not an ‘all-knowing Chuck Yeager super pilot.’ I get that vibe coming from people like you who went to ‘hard and rigorous’ 141 schools and they are nothing special dude.
05-09-2022 | 04:36 PM
#69
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
I’ve learned through experience that skill is important, to an extent. If you flew king airs for 9,000 hours and nothing but king airs, and then go to the airlines, and it’s your first 121 job, yea it’s going to be a learning curve alright. Whereas the guy that flew to 1500 hours and got a good variety of experience along the way will fare much better more than likely. But where they went for flight training doesn’t really mean diddly squat. After a certain point, what it REALLY boils down to is attitude and how you approach the training. That’s what I left out in my previous post, and it’s so important.
You can have people with good attitudes at both types of places we’re talking here, and people with bad attitudes. Regardless of training footprint, and I should also add regardless of experience level, the ones with the bad attitudes don’t fare well and often won’t make it. That said, sometimes even folks with good attitudes can fail as well. Doesn’t mean they’re bad. The more important thing is those are the people that learn from their mistakes. The ones with bad attitudes usually don’t learn from mistakes. They think they are better than everyone else and it shows. People know who they are.
Now, on the subject of the training institution. Training institution doesn’t really matter. The instructor(s) you get matters more than the name of the school/institution you attended. You could attend a brand name institution that everyone knows about or has heard of, but it may not have instructors who are doing a great job at getting people up to, and more importantly beyond the minimum standards. Since this industry always has a high turnover of CFI’s, it’s hard to determine if a particular school is good at teaching students simply because what may be good today, may turn out to be a bad school 3-4 months from now as newer CFI’s come in and the experienced ones are leaving for better jobs. The quality of the school ebbs and flows so much with 99% of civilian schools it’s not even funny.
Big name universities with flight programs are nothing special. Again, change my mind on how it affects a pilot in the grand scheme of things throughout his or her career. We all know that there’s too many CFI’s out there that are just building time, and not really vested in teaching. I’ve had 3 of them. I fired all 3 of them. Found one that cares about teaching. These types can be found anywhere.
I was ‘building time’ too, and told my students upfront when we first met, but I would shut up about it after that unless I was asked. Your success in flight training comes down largely to the instructors you get, and more importantly your attitude. All this 141 university flight training is better than 61 is nonsense, and your just pulling that out of your rear end. When you come out of brand name institution, you are not an ‘all-knowing Chuck Yeager super pilot.’ I get that vibe coming from people like you who went to ‘hard and rigorous’ 141 schools and they are nothing special dude.
You can have people with good attitudes at both types of places we’re talking here, and people with bad attitudes. Regardless of training footprint, and I should also add regardless of experience level, the ones with the bad attitudes don’t fare well and often won’t make it. That said, sometimes even folks with good attitudes can fail as well. Doesn’t mean they’re bad. The more important thing is those are the people that learn from their mistakes. The ones with bad attitudes usually don’t learn from mistakes. They think they are better than everyone else and it shows. People know who they are.
Now, on the subject of the training institution. Training institution doesn’t really matter. The instructor(s) you get matters more than the name of the school/institution you attended. You could attend a brand name institution that everyone knows about or has heard of, but it may not have instructors who are doing a great job at getting people up to, and more importantly beyond the minimum standards. Since this industry always has a high turnover of CFI’s, it’s hard to determine if a particular school is good at teaching students simply because what may be good today, may turn out to be a bad school 3-4 months from now as newer CFI’s come in and the experienced ones are leaving for better jobs. The quality of the school ebbs and flows so much with 99% of civilian schools it’s not even funny.
Big name universities with flight programs are nothing special. Again, change my mind on how it affects a pilot in the grand scheme of things throughout his or her career. We all know that there’s too many CFI’s out there that are just building time, and not really vested in teaching. I’ve had 3 of them. I fired all 3 of them. Found one that cares about teaching. These types can be found anywhere.
I was ‘building time’ too, and told my students upfront when we first met, but I would shut up about it after that unless I was asked. Your success in flight training comes down largely to the instructors you get, and more importantly your attitude. All this 141 university flight training is better than 61 is nonsense, and your just pulling that out of your rear end. When you come out of brand name institution, you are not an ‘all-knowing Chuck Yeager super pilot.’ I get that vibe coming from people like you who went to ‘hard and rigorous’ 141 schools and they are nothing special dude.
What I did say though is that 141 programs associated with an institution go way more in depth than your average 61 school. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just how those programs are built.
Considering I’ve experienced both sides of that flight training realm, I am fully entitled to say so. Again, from what you’ve said, you haven’t. You’re so stuck on the notion that 141 pilots think they’re “better” or more “superior” than those not and from my personal experience that’s not true. If you met some bad apples, you should probably just act like a grown man and let it go.
How about you go spend a few days at an AABI accredited 141 school and see for yourself? The flight training, and I mean the flight training when it comes to ground school based items is much more enhanced than any 61 school I’ve had experiences with.
Stop being so biased, it’s not a good look
05-09-2022 | 04:45 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 97
You clearly can’t read. I never said part 141 pilots are better than 61 pilots when it comes to skill. If anything, I said it all comes down to building skill in time building.
What I did say though is that 141 programs associated with an institution go way more in depth than your average 61 school. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just how those programs are built.
Considering I’ve experienced both sides of that flight training realm, I am fully entitled to say so. Again, from what you’ve said, you haven’t. You’re so stuck on the notion that 141 pilots think they’re “better” or more “superior” than those not and from my personal experience that’s not true. If you met some bad apples, you should probably just act like a grown man and let it go.
How about you go spend a few days at an AABI accredited 141 school and see for yourself? The flight training, and I mean the flight training when it comes to ground school based items is much more enhanced than any 61 school I’ve had experiences with.
Stop being so biased, it’s not a good look
What I did say though is that 141 programs associated with an institution go way more in depth than your average 61 school. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just how those programs are built.
Considering I’ve experienced both sides of that flight training realm, I am fully entitled to say so. Again, from what you’ve said, you haven’t. You’re so stuck on the notion that 141 pilots think they’re “better” or more “superior” than those not and from my personal experience that’s not true. If you met some bad apples, you should probably just act like a grown man and let it go.
How about you go spend a few days at an AABI accredited 141 school and see for yourself? The flight training, and I mean the flight training when it comes to ground school based items is much more enhanced than any 61 school I’ve had experiences with.
Stop being so biased, it’s not a good look
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
