ATP Final Rule Signed

snOOp said:
I don't think 141 flights schools are bad, but there is zero evidence of it being better than 61 schools. The parallel PTS standards between graduates of 141 and part 61 flight schools makes it illogical that graduates of a a 141 program can get there license R-ATP at 1000TT.

But hey, when a furlough occurs and the 141 grads only have an education in aviation and other co-workers have degrees with focuses outside aviation the joke will be on them...
Click to expand...

From a "slamming the airplane through its paces" point of view, maybe they're the same - but there's more to this than motor skills.
 
snOOp said:
I don't think 141 flights schools are bad, but there is zero evidence of it being better than 61 schools. The parallel PTS standards between graduates of 141 and part 61 flight schools makes it illogical that graduates of a a 141 program can get there license R-ATP at 1000TT.

But hey, when a furlough occurs and the 141 grads only have an education in aviation and other co-workers have degrees with focuses outside aviation the joke will be on them...
Click to expand...


141 programs do not qualify for the R-ATP, accredited universities with aviation majors do. I would have preferred that no one have reduced mins, but I can live with the rule as it is.

Having been part of pt 61 FBO, large accelerated 141 school, poorly run small 141 school, and an university with an aviation program, I agree with the reduced hour requirement. Generally speaking the grads from aviation universities are better trained than 61 grads from small FBOs (141 or 61).

I foresee any universiteies that have aviation programs and are not 141 will be soon.
 
USMCmech said:
141 programs do not qualify for the R-ATP, accredited universities with aviation majors do. I would have preferred that no one have reduced mins, but I can live with the rule as it is.

Having been part of pt 61 FBO, large accelerated 141 school, poorly run small 141 school, and an university with an aviation program, I agree with the reduced hour requirement. Generally speaking the grads from aviation universities are better trained than 61 grads from small FBOs (141 or 61).

I foresee any universiteies that have aviation programs and are not 141 will be soon.
Click to expand...


Thanks for taking the time to respond back to my post. I agree with you that many aviation universities who are not already 61 will need to become 141 soon. Great point.

Edit*** Oops last part got deleted

I just cannot wrap my head around the bold statement. Professional Pilots are professional pilots, part 61 or 141 university grads. The difference is the 61 guy probably is not in over his head in debts. It does not seem right that 61 grads have to get 500 hrs more than a 141 University grad... I just don't understand what the 61 person will learn in 500 more hours than the 141 university grad.
 
I disagree with you on this.

USMCmech said:
Generally speaking the grads from aviation universities are better trained than 61 grads from small FBOs (141 or 61).
Click to expand...


However I could not agree with you more on this
USMCmech said:
I foresee any universiteies that have aviation programs and are not 141 will be soon.
Click to expand...


Most of the university grads barely have experience. For example if one goes to K-State for his four year degree, flight trains at K-State, and eventually instructs for K-State. The only experience this person has is inside of his nice little bubble that K-State made for him/her. When it is time for him/her to go in the real world they fail in experience that 61ers or 141ers have gained by building their their time in different formats. People that instruct, aerial map, and fly 135 have much more experience any day than a person going to an airline from a university that has had only one aviation job.

As Autothrust Blue said we all perform under the same PTS, so we might as well all be treated equal.
 
purpel said:
Most of the university grads barely have experience. For example if one goes to K-State for his four year degree, flight trains at K-State, and eventually instructs for K-State. The only experience this person has is inside of his nice little bubble that K-State made for him/her. When it is time for him/her to go in the real world they fail in experience that 61ers or 141ers have gained by building their their time in different formats.
Click to expand...

That is equally true for grads from Flight Safety or any other large 141 school.

People that instruct, aerial map, and fly 135 have much more experience any day than a person going to an airline from a university that has had only one aviation job.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I interview dozens of pilots a month and find great CFIs from both 141 schools and the 61 environment. 141s tend to handle Standardization better but 61s can often be more versatile. University program graduates generally have a broader depth of knowledge simply because they spent 4 years in training.

No matter their basis in training the quality of the pilot usually comes down to recency and experience. The least capable candidates I see are those who crammed through an accelerated 141 course at minimums then didn't fly for a year before they show up for an interview.

I'm disappointed that the FAA didn't require a greater recency requirement for the RATP, maybe 500 hours in the last 12 months. Even more so if it were Dual Given time perhaps. Mapping, 135'ing, etc is no match for the experience gained by the daily struggle of keeping students from killing you both.
 
USAviationRecruiter said:
I interview dozens of pilots a month and find great CFIs from both 141 schools and the 61 environment. 141s tend to handle Standardization better but 61s can often be more versatile. University program graduates generally have a broader depth of knowledge simply because they spent 4 years in training.

No matter their basis in training the quality of the pilot usually comes down to recency and experience. The least capable candidates I see are those who crammed through an accelerated 141 course at minimums then didn't fly for a year before they show up for an interview.

I'm disappointed that the FAA didn't require a greater recency requirement for the RATP, maybe 500 hours in the last 12 months. Even more so if it were Dual Given time perhaps. Mapping, 135'ing, etc is no match for the experience gained by the daily struggle of keeping students from killing you both.
Click to expand...


I don't really know if that is true, because I got my professional pilots licenses way quicker than university graduates and I've never stopped studying. :cool:

I think Purpel's comment was in regards to CFI's who instruct for a few hundred hours, go aerial map single pilot or crew environment style (which teaches great CRM), then go fly 135 freight single pilot.
 
USAviationRecruiter said:
I interview dozens of pilots a month and find great CFIs from both 141 schools and the 61 environment. 141s tend to handle Standardization better but 61s can often be more versatile. University program graduates generally have a broader depth of knowledge simply because they spent 4 years in training.

No matter their basis in training the quality of the pilot usually comes down to recency and experience. The least capable candidates I see are those who crammed through an accelerated 141 course at minimums then didn't fly for a year before they show up for an interview.

I'm disappointed that the FAA didn't require a greater recency requirement for the RATP, maybe 500 hours in the last 12 months. Even more so if it were Dual Given time perhaps. Mapping, 135'ing, etc is no match for the experience gained by the daily struggle of keeping students from killing you both.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? So daily approaches to mins with ice in twin turbine airplanes, maybe jets and the overall wide range of real experience is no match for CFIing? :rolleyes:
 
z987k said:
Are you kidding me? So daily approaches to mins with ice in twin turbine airplanes, maybe jets and the overall wide range of real experience is no match for CFIing? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

double_facepalm.png
 
z987k said:
Are you kidding me? So daily approaches to mins with ice in twin turbine airplanes, maybe jets and the overall wide range of real experience is no match for CFIing? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


The best pilots have a healthy mix of different types of flying. You will find consistently the most respected pilots here on JC and in the real world have worked 121, 135 freight, 91 corporate, and flight instruction (for example).

The worst pilots are those who have only experienced one segment of this industry, but somehow believe that their expertise in flying F-15s somehow makes them an expert CFI in a Cessna (again a fictional example).
 
USMCmech said:
The best pilots have a healthy mix of different types of flying. You will find consistently the most respected pilots here on JC and in the real world have worked 121, 135 freight, 91 corporate, and flight instruction (for example).

The worst pilots are those who have only experienced one segment of this industry, but somehow believe that their expertise in flying F-15s somehow makes them an expert CFI in a Cessna (again a fictional example).
Click to expand...

I would agree with this wholeheartedly.
 
I used to work with a guy who taught (I use the term loosely). Ok, worked as a CFI, for a year. Flew 135 in Caravans in and flew survey. All over the period of 6 years.

He honestly believes he's done "everything". One of the last conversations I had with him was how he thought it was pointless to get his ATP. Oh, and how he can't wait to work in a position where he can fire people. No joke. This guy belongs on the snap-on truck with the rest of the tools.
 
snOOp said:
I don't think 141 flights schools are bad, but there is zero evidence of it being better than 61 schools. The parallel PTS standards between graduates of 141 and part 61 flight schools makes it illogical that graduates of a a 141 program can get there license R-ATP at 1000TT.

But hey, when a furlough occurs and the 141 grads only have an education in aviation and other co-workers have degrees with focuses outside aviation the joke will be on them...
Click to expand...

Weeellll, there's not "zero evidence." In general, the 141 guys need fewer extra simulator sessions and extra OE in training. At least, our data at ASA showed that. GPA was actually the best indicator of success in training though.

That doesn't mean they are better pilots, but they are probably more accustomed to the faster training pace at an airline.

Anyway...carry on...

:)
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Weeellll, there's not "zero evidence." In general, the 141 guys need fewer extra simulator sessions and extra OE in training. At least, our data at ASA showed that. GPA was actually the best indicator of success in training though.

That doesn't mean they are better pilots, but they are probably more accustomed to the faster training pace at an airline
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and writing a different perspective based on training statistics.

I definitely understand why GPA is a strong indicator of an applicants success in completing an airline's evaluations. Good point
 
snOOp said:
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and writing a different perspective based on training statistics.

I definitely understand why GPA is a strong indicator of an applicants success in completing an airline's evaluations. Good point
Click to expand...

I get your point, and there's more to being a pilot than getting through training smoothly. I think it all boils down to making the right choice. Choose a 61 instructor who pushes hard, and runs a syllabus. Or choose a reputable 141 school with a good record. It doesn't matter which, though regional airline hiring guys DO pay attention to where you did your training.

Frankly, once the giant sucking sound starts in earnest, it won't matter if you got your ticket in a fruit loops box. If you're alive and can fill the seat, they'll see if you can make if through training. :)

(That's at the regional level, of course.)
 
USMCmech said:
The best pilots have a healthy mix of different types of flying. You will find consistently the most respected pilots here on JC and in the real world have worked 121, 135 freight, 91 corporate, and flight instruction (for example).
Click to expand...

The reason why I tried to get out of my one area of "expertise.":oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top