Reality Check

Your going to tell me that an FSA instructor that has for example, 1200TT with 700ME/Instrument does not have the experience that a part 61 instructor with 1200TT and 100ME has? Yeah, that makes sense. The average IP at FSA has 700 multi when they reach 1200TT. "Most" 61 guys STRUGGLE for multi time, let alone multi instrument time. Not to mention that all FSA instructors teach only multi-instrument in the Seminole once they reach 200 dual given. So where is this extra fabulous 61 experience? Do not even try to say it is taking up sky divers, towing gliders, or towing banners. Call the pilot recruiter for ASA and ask her what she thinks about those sky diver, Glider and banner towing hours in the logbook. I know a guy that flies VFR doing traffic watch in a 172, does that count for extra experience? maybe your practice areas are different or the airports that you take your students to are far more advanced than ours?

IF, a 61 guy is lucky, he might get some SIC or to sit right seat in a single pilot 135 operation "a few times". Sure I would take it, but even that would not out weigh the FSA instructors experience. The only advantage a 61 instructor has over the FSA instructor is being in the FBO environment for "connections". Even then, an FSA instructor (or other 141 instructor) can find the same leads to get picked up with a 135 operation at say 700TT. Actually, if the FSA and 61 instructor both put in for the same low time 135 job, I'll bet big money the FSA guy will get it. Get it?

I am sorry if I sound a bit rude, but I just do not understand where this extra experience is that we 141, structured program, thorough checklist and procedure instructors do not have. yes, FSA teaches their students to think outside the box too and to handle any unforeseen situation that may come our way.

To end on a positive note. I know there are some good 61 instructors out there that truly care about their students and what they learn. Look deeper into my post and you will see what I was referring to. HINT: Structure, Syllabus, oh yeah, and actually using a checklist, which is rare in the 61 environment.

Good Times.....ILS
 
I am glad you responded, you are helping me make my point even better.

So let me ask you this, so who do these 0 time to CFI/CFII's teach with their 200 hours? I'll tell you, the private and commercial students. I think that is wrong, but it is how the system works. I have worked with a 20,000 hour instructor and I guarantee you he could fly the pants off most, if not all the pilots there. And this guy didn't have 700 multi hours, just a desire to teach. So I am sorry, all that multi time you get at FSI doesn't mean jack when it comes to teaching skills, it just happens to look better in your logbook.

And like you said before, "FBO instructors having connections," you are right, that is huge, because it isn't what you know, it is who you know.
 
I think the important thing to remember is that flying isn't specifically "procedurally"-based, it's "performance"-based.

Having learned steep turns thru a small part-61 school, and then thru a large part-141 program, and then once again at Skyway and then once again at Delta, there are various ways to teach the specific procedure.

But you only pass the procedure if the results are the same within the FAA parameters.

Is there one way to teach a particular manuever? Absolutely not.

Is there one acceptable result? Absolutely yes.

My best advice would be to initially teach a manuever as per the syllabus you're working with. If the student cant' perform as per your syllabus, he most likely isn't failing, perhaps the syllabus itself is failing, teach it differently. The most important thing I've learned thru almost 8,000 hours of flying is that performance isn't an algebraic equation. It's more of an essay-style answer. You've got to do what it takes to get the performance to match your desired result.

I had an instructor attempt to fail me because I did a flow pattern incorrectly. My response: "Did I miss an item on the after landing checklist?" His: "No, but the flows are done as follows" My response: "That wasn't part of the sylllabus and if I missed an item as part of my flow and missed it while reviewing the checklist, I won't challenge your assessment".

2150 RPM + 2.65 degrees nose up + 3 degrees of nose high trim does not equal the perfect downwind pattern speed. Enough power + enough pitch + enough trim to stabilize the aircraft does however.
 
I think the important thing to remember is that flying isn't specifically "procedurally"-based, it's "performance"-based.

Having learned steep turns thru a small part-61 school, and then thru a large part-141 program, and then once again at Skyway and then once again at Delta, there are various ways to teach the specific procedure.

But you only pass the procedure if the results are the same within the FAA parameters.

Is there one way to teach a particular manuever? Absolutely not.

Is there one acceptable result? Absolutely yes.

My best advice would be to initially teach a manuever as per the syllabus you're working with. If the student cant' perform as per your syllabus, he most likely isn't failing, perhaps the syllabus itself is failing, teach it differently. The most important thing I've learned thru almost 8,000 hours of flying is that performance isn't an algebraic equation. It's more of an essay-style answer. You've got to do what it takes to get the performance to match your desired result.

I had an instructor attempt to fail me because I did a flow pattern incorrectly. My response: "Did I miss an item on the after landing checklist?" His: "No, but the flows are done as follows" My response: "That wasn't part of the sylllabus and if I missed an item as part of my flow and missed it while reviewing the checklist, I won't challenge your assessment".

2150 RPM + 2.65 degrees nose up + 3 degrees of nose high trim does not equal the perfect downwind pattern speed. Enough power + enough pitch + enough trim to stabilize the aircraft does however.
 
You were fortunate to have had an instructor with that kind of time and experience. That is great. Now, tell me how many other small FBO instructors have that kind of experience. Probably something along the lines of 1 in 1,000 to 5,000. Besides, if all of his twenty thousand hours were done instructing, I am not impressed. Do you think he is any better at teaching pre-private maneuvers or commercial maneuvers at 20,000 than he was at 8,000 hours of dual given? Assuming, it is all dual given of course. We have an instructor with 29,000 hours at FSA. He knows his PTS and FARS but even he will tell you that after several thousand hours of dual given it is all the same. I have trained 61. Two ratings at two different FBO schools. The training was horrible, the planes were buckets, and the instructors knew maybe half of what they should have. Is this every FBO school? No, but a damn good majority of them.

As far as teaching maneuvers a bunch of different ways. Yes, you can go from one maneuver into another without completely cleaning up the airplane (ie. slow flight into stalls etc.). So the setup can vary. As far as performing it, Doug, you hit it on the head when you said we need to perform it to PTS the way the FAA wants to see it. In my 61 experience, all three instructors taught several maneuvers three different ways and Doug hit it on the head again when he said they are more than likely not following a syllabus. Out of the three, only one was teaching it correctly and unfortunatley he was the first one to leave the school.

My big beef with small 61 operations is the lack of structure, syllabus, checklists, and procedures. Doug hit it again, when he said maneuvers are not just "procedural". The maneuver has to start somewhere though or the student will be lost. The procedures that FSA uses to set up the maneuvers are a guideline that will most likely produce the best results. The "performance" on any particular day may change and so may the inputs required to complete the maneuver successfully. The problem with most small operations is they do not provide the procedures for the maneuvers at all. So the instructors are left to teach it whichever way. This ultimatley hurts the student when he bounces from one instructor to another. At FSA and Riddle etc. The procedures for the maneuvers are really straight out of the Airplane Flying Handbook. They are just put in order of operation on "paper" and configured for the particular aircraft they are using (speeds, power settings etc.)....guidelines.

When a 61 operation does not use procedures or checklists, it does not mean you are teaching them to think outside the box, giving them real world "think for yourself" experience. There is a reason FSA, UND, Riddle etc. have a much higher pass rate than the 61 FBO schools, I just explained it. If you do not believe me then contact your local FSDO and have them give you the pass rates for the 141 vs 61 schools. The Scottsdale FSDO told me themselves that they wished everyone trained 141. At least one examiner there. The examiner that told me said, "I can tell you have been through Flight Safety". Nice compliment, I thought... I have some fellow FSA friends doing the Mesa PACE program right now. One of them called me and told me that during his final stage check, the check pilot told him, I can always tell which students came from FSA and ERAU. Gee, more nice compliments on these 141 pilots flying abilities.

Remember, this is my opinion of 61 operations. You do not have to share it with me. I do know alot of instructors at 61 ops that have said, I wish I would have gone to someplace like FSA Riddle etc. And again, I know guys that have spent more than I did at FSA at a 61 school. It ALL depends on the person, what they put into it, and how hard they are willing to work with respect to how much money they will spend.

It's been fun...really
smile.gif


ILS
 
[ QUOTE ]
. Even then, an FSA instructor (or other 141 instructor) can find the same leads to get picked up with a 135 operation at say 700TT. Actually, if the FSA and 61 instructor both put in for the same low time 135 job, I'll bet big money the FSA guy will get it. Get it?



[/ QUOTE ]

Both the 135 operations I worked for cared less where you got your training as a candidate, they were interested if you met the mins, and could perform on the checkride.
 
BTW, I am pt. 141 now at UND. Did my private 61.

We have some great pilots here, but we also have our duds that I would trust with a road flare.

Anyways, I am not sure how it works at other 141 schools, but if you fail a checkride at UND, the FAA wll not find out about it. So of course our pass rates are higher, everyone who is issued a cert issued by the FAA shows a first time pass rate. Kind of unfair, but that is how 141 schools are.

About FSA, I know they are a great school. Their reputation is great and I have heard great things from many graduates. Just don't go bashing people who do it a different way because that is all they can afford. Like MikeD said, as long as you meet the mins and can pass a checkride, where you came from doesn't mean squat.
 
[ QUOTE ]


About FSA, I know they are a great school. Their reputation is great and I have heard great things from many graduates. Just don't go bashing people who do it a different way because that is all they can afford. Like MikeD said, as long as you meet the mins and can pass a checkride, where you came from doesn't mean squat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should add that anything you present in a resume could conceivably help, depending on where you're applying for a job, who's doing the hiring, etc (what I'm saying is that being from FSA/Pan Am/DCA/ERAU, etc I don't believe would ever hurt you.....but whether it really gives you an advantage or not, I don't really think so). But generally, it's been my experience of what I wrote previously to be the case.

It's much the same way airlines think of college degrees. IMO, they look to see if the "have a degree" box is checked. I doubt they really care if someone has a Bachelors in Astrophysics, or a Bachelors in Forestry Management.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have had probably around 14 instructors in my day, and by far the best was trained part 61. Training 141 may or may not be better, but nothing can substitute for EXPERIENCE, which many instructors at pt. 141 schools DO NOT HAVE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this!
 
I've never trained with Flight Safety? Why would you think I did because I work for UPS? We do our training in house. There was a time when we used several different vendors for training. FSA (Boeing), United, USair, Northwest...but not anymore.

I'm as strong a proponent of 61 as you are of your system. No point in arguing about it. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I just get sick of all the crap about "the academies" being the only way to the airlines. Like MikeD said...it's about hours, ratings, and experience. One exception would be bridge programs and the like that provide for preferential hiring with an academy. Not that 300 hour pilots belong in jet airliners...but that's another story.
 
Hello everyone. I am new to Jet Careers and was searching through the inventory on the forums to find something interesting to chime in on. This will do. OK, after reading everyones response to FlyinT this is what I came up with.

Obviously, everyone here is very proud of the training they have recieved. Both programs have their pro's and con's. I am going to have to agree with clr4ils because I did all of my training part 61 thinking it would save me a bunch of money. My total cost through MEI was $49K. I have friends that have attended both FSA and UND that you guy's speak of. My friend who went to FSA hands down recieved better training than I did and flew nicer aircraft. He finished FSA somewhere around $50K. My friend that attended UND finished at around $80K but obtained a four year degree also. I am kicking myself for not going to FSA. I spent the same amount, flew crappy aircraft and was part of a system that had absolutley none of the structure that clr4 is talking about.

It doesn't sound to me like clr4 is saying that all part 61 is bad, but he does have a point when it comes to checklists and using a good syllabus. Our checklist for our Cessna's consisted of a small laminated piece of paper that usually made its way to the back seat. I have seen FSA's checklists. They are very airline oriented. Syllabus? Whats that? No seriously, the one our Chief Pilot made up was so bad that I just found my own. It was alright, but not great.

Anyway, take it from someone who did all of his training part 61. It is not as cheap as it used to be back in the day. These FBO's are charging the same as the academies for most of their rentals. The ground time and ground schools are a little cheaper but the ground schools I attended were not much to talk about either. When you look at the big picture, a place like Flight Safety, or another good 141 school, would be a better choice.

Thanks everyone.
IP
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've never trained with Flight Safety? Why would you think I did because I work for UPS?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just giving you a bad time.
smile.gif
When my friend with UPS transitioned from the 747 to the MD-11 last year, he trained at Flight Safety International in long Beach, CA. I know you guys do most, if not all, in house, but I thought there might be a chance that you too had done some training with FSI through UPS.

[ QUOTE ]
I just get sick of all the crap about "the academies" being the only way to the airlines

[/ QUOTE ]

I get sick of those ads too. Comair = "gauranteed interview", Westwind = "right seat direct", Pan-Am = "gauranteed interview by 700 hours".....Have you ever noticed that the most reputable schools like FSA, Riddle, and UND do not advertise like that. Flight Safety only gaurantees excellent quality training. The rest is up to you. Even the interview process for CFI at FSA can be tough. FSA has never claimed to be the only way to the airlines and if new pre-private students think the academies are the only way, then your right, open their eyes to all of the choices. Just make sure that if you are telling them to go 61 that you at least point them in the direction of a "good" 61 school. There are some out there. I haven't heard of them, but I am sure they are out there.

Peace out.....ILS
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever noticed that the most reputable schools like FSA, Riddle, and UND do not advertise like that. Flight Safety only gaurantees excellent quality training.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riddle should be taken out of your list now with all that Capt Crap they have been advertising. What a joke.
 
Yeah, I do not know much about it (ERAU CAPT Program), but I heard something about an MD-90 type rating at something like 300 hours. Not sure what good that will do if you are not going to fly an MD-90 shortly after the type????? I think they would have been better off investing in a CRJ or ERJ SIM and put together a bridge program or maybe type their instructors once they hit like 1200+ hours.

Dont know...Maybe someone can fill us in on that program.

ILS
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have had probably around 14 instructors in my day, and by far the best was trained part 61. Training 141 may or may not be better, but nothing can substitute for EXPERIENCE, which many instructors at pt. 141 schools DO NOT HAVE.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why do you say part 61 instructors are more experienced than part 141. This is something for me to consider as I am looking into a 141 school.
 
Not neccessarily true. A blanket statement saying that part-61 CFI's are more experienced than part-141 CFI's isn't supportable.

The most experienced CFI's have, well, more experience.
 
So how would I know if a CFI has lots of experience? Would I have to ask their students?
 
[ QUOTE ]
So how would I know if a CFI has lots of experience? Would I have to ask their students?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could maybe ask to see their logbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top