R-ATP and Instruction...

[Autothrust Blue]

Foreign ab initio programs scare the heck out of me. There's nothing to break the incestuous chain.

If you think domestic ones are going to be any better (and that day will come, for reasons), well.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

If you think domestic ones are going to be any better (and that day will come, for reasons), well.

I have no reason to believe they would be any better and a few reasons to believe they might be worse depending on the implementation.

 

[killbilly]

I don't understand why this is confusing to anyone
The whole point of the rule was to lower the minimums for someone that completed a verified and approved training footprint, in order to produce a known quantity. You don't do the program, your training curriculum is unknown=No cookie

I get that - really. But by that logic, why should I be allowed to teach it then? Because I didn't do the program, my curriculum is unknown, but it doesn't apply to the people teaching the people who will be 'known'?

It's hair-splitting - I get it. And it's fine - this is a consequence of a choice I made a long time ago. Just seems like an odd and somewhat hypocritical loophole.

A very, very experienced and wise aviator - when I pointed this out - shrugged and said, "your first problem is that you're applying logic to the FAA. Stop doing that. It will only bring you tears and heartache."

 

[killbilly]

The point that the university based schools make (and it is a valid one) is that they are different ecause they take a full 4 years and go beyond the bare minimum. ATP, FSA, and the other stand alone 141 programs tend to rush you through and teach you just enough to pass the check ride.

Now the position of Riddle that they somehow produce pilots that are automatically better because they slept through CRM class is BS.

They aren't all taking 4 years to do that, though - you can get the program done in far less than that via online and training through an affiliate. This is precisely what Liberty University does with their aviation program.

 

[killbilly]

I haven't researched the details of 141 programs, but it wouldn't take much effort for them to provide different entry points for their students if it were permitted. "A verified and approved training footprint" is not incompatible with accepting some training received elsewhere.

The whole industry is based on accepting training received elsewhere and then independently evaluating the skills and knowledge of the individual.

It's about money, not safety.

I don't know that that's wholly true, but it may play into part of it.

I've only been teaching for 5 months or so. The majority of my students are 141, although I'd say half of them don't really need to be.

As near as I can tell, what 141 does is bring a structure to the program that 61 doesn't require, with a series of stage/progress checks that have to be executed by chiefs who receive additional training and have specific criteria to work from. There is a certain advantage to this in that there is some built-in quality control to the program for the student, and training issues can be caught and addressed early. There is also some efficiency to be gained; because the program is broken into stages with progress checks, the student can work with more than one instructor who can review the previous lesson notes and address the immediate goals. And, again, from what I can tell, the standardized procedures the students learn definitely help establish a baseline for building-block training.

In my opinion, 141 programs suffer in two areas:

1) For it to be effective/successful, it absolutely requires all of the instructors to buy in to the training methodology and to teach the same things, even if they don't teach the same way. At most flight schools, you have a collection of different persons and personalities teaching, and on more than one occasion I've found another instructor teaching a student something they shouldn't, or deviating in a way that will make it difficult for another instructor to continue consistently for the student. In this case, the latter is worse than the former.

Some of it is ego, a lot of it is guys who simply love aviation and want to share what they know in their way; it's hard to fault good intentions like that but it comes at a disservice to the overall goal sometimes. One of the chiefs is fond of saying, "there's more than one way to cook an egg safely, y'know?" He's absolutely right about that - but in that program, in that system, there's a specific way the egg needs to be cooked, and that's what the Powers That Be want, because the curriculum is 'known' and approved.

It's sorta like flying your jet according to the GOM/FOM, no?

2) I think 141 tends to hinder the progress of the better, motivated students. I've got 2 who are really driven, solid pilots. They're hungry, they seek to learn more (one of them leaves for the USAF academy in June) and they consistently strive to fly better every time. A part 61 program would let their instructors get a little more creative and expand the envelope and challenge them more. I don't think middle-aged guys who are training for pleasure flying and want to buy a 182 or a Cirrus later need to go through a 141 program designed to produce airline pilot candidates. But they are.

Just my limited .02 from my limited view of instructing a sample set of a dozen and a half at various stages, so far....

If you think domestic ones are going to be any better (and that day will come, for reasons), well.

I have no reason to believe they would be any better and a few reasons to believe they might be worse depending on the implementation.

I think you're both right here, and I think Pilot Fighter hits the nail on the head - the implementation is key.

 

[USMCmech]

They aren't all taking 4 years to do that, though - you can get the program done in far less than that via online and training through an affiliate. This is precisely what Liberty University does with their aviation program.

Yeah, Liberty found a loophole and ran with it.

 

[nibake]

They aren't all taking 4 years to do that, though - you can get the program done in far less than that via online and training through an affiliate. This is precisely what Liberty University does with their aviation program.

If it makes you feel any better, I taught part 61 and then 141 in a similar scenario. I was trained by a crop duster so no cookie for me. I did, however use that extra time to gain a lot of fantastic experience that I wouldn't trade for anything. I also used that time to get started with my bachelor's degree. And when I hit 1500 hours with 25.1 multi, I was hired by a 121 carrier and things have been really good. It's ok to be frustrated. But in the end you are probably learning a lot about the FAA and the industry and maybe even a little about flying through this experience, and you will be better for it. And if your goal is to fly 121, in a couple of years this will just be a distant memory. As others have said, don't play the game of comparing when others start and move up the ladder or you'll drive yourself crazy. I was an early career switcher, so I was about 8 years behind from the start, but that doesn't matter, this career has been very good to me so far and there are decades of good years ahead.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

For it to be effective/successful, it absolutely requires all of the instructors to buy in to the training methodology and to teach the same things, even if they don't teach the same way.

If a program is designed correctly, the testing and evaluation stages are robust, consistent, and independent.

My point is that you could design an effective program that allowed different entry points that maintained consistency of standards.

I think that most programs allow students to walk in with a PPL and build from there. If I were the czar of a program I'd still require those folks to repeat ground school and receive 20 hours of dual followed by a demanding check ride. If you did this, you'd be raising the bar not lowering it.

You could take the same approach for other certs and ratings. I understand this wouldn't please the original poster that wants to show up with his CFI and get to work.

 

[killbilly]

If a program is designed correctly, the testing and evaluation stages are robust, consistent, and independent.

My point is that you could design an effective program that allowed different entry points that maintained consistency of standards.

I think that most programs allow students to walk in with a PPL and build from there. If I were the czar of a program I'd still require those folks to repeat ground school and receive 20 hours of dual followed by a demanding check ride. If you did this, you'd be raising the bar not lowering it.

You could take the same approach for other certs and ratings. I understand this wouldn't please the original poster that wants to show up with his CFI and get to work.

You're quoting the original poster.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not quite sure you understand my point, or rather, maybe I'm not understanding the last part of yours - I think we're talking about multiple things; the efficacy of 141 programs, and the fact that the practice of allowing non-eligible students to teach the same curriculum (and who met the ACS standards) to eligible (who must meet the same ACS standards) students but not qualify for the reduced minimums is inconsistent with the spirit of the rule.

 

[jmc4]

...I've found another instructor teaching a student something they shouldn't, or deviating in a way that will make it difficult for another instructor to continue consistently for the student. ...

What are your thoughts on instructor QC/Observation check flights? For example, every once in a while a senior instructor rides backseat for a lesson.

 

[killbilly]

What are your thoughts on instructor QC/Observation check flights? For example, every once in a while a senior instructor rides backseat for a lesson.

I think it's a fine idea if it's done as a quality-control measure and the pre- and post-flight briefings between the Senior instructor and Instructor happen away from the student's view. The Senior instructor shouldn't do anything that could be construed as undermining the Instructor during that session. It should be used constructively. That said, you and I both know that Senior Instructors can vary widely in their styles, methodologies - I will concede that it's possible to make that situation worse rather than better. In that sense, the 141 progress checks may be adequate.

But you've been teaching a hell of a lot longer than I have. What are your thoughts on this?

The mark of a good Senior Instructor here - in my opinion only - is the ability to have some serious self-discipline and shut the hell up during the lesson - the mission there should be to make the Instructor better at his job, yeah?

I mean, if the Senior instructor really feels like they have to intervene in the flight, the problem started a while back and had nothing to do with the student. Ideally, it's a 'light' critique designed to ensure that the Instructors are teaching in a way compliant with both FAA's and the school's policies.

But that's my view in my limited experience. It may be naive of me to think so, and I may learn something new here.