My take on it is while it’s great to get you commercial that quick, I don’t think the program does the student any good, because there are so few places that will even look st a guy at bare mins csel times (250 hrs for example) let alone sub 200. It just kind of handcuffs the student in my opinion.
I don't want to de-rail
@pilotbry 's thread too much, but this is a really good topic and worth discussing. I've had my eyes opened to the 141 world lately...
The structure of 141 is good because it sets baselines for quality control, so to speak, and enforces standards which ultimately makes it easier to measure student progress. The school where I teach is one of only 6 or 7 schools in the country that has self-examining authority for PPL, IR, and CSEL, and they're pursuing the ability to self-examine for CMEL and CFI initial. This is very long, arduous process with the FSDO, but I will concede that the standardization is a very good thing for pilots, especially when they have to fly with a different instructor; everyone is on the same page and if the instructor is doing his job and documenting the lesson correctly, then the process for the student is efficient. You get a low-time but standardized student who is a "known quantity" to progress to next level - I think this is part of the reason ab-initio programs kinda work this way.
It is often NOT efficient because of gaps that happen in training due to weather/CFI availability and the student getting rusty while waiting for a stage check, progress check, etc. The lessons in 141 are prescriptive in length - for example, some lessons state that the pilot should be proficient in a given SET of tasks in 1.3 hours. That's potentially do-able, but it's not always the case, and so the student often repeats an entire lesson to brush up on certain things. I get why it's done that way, I'm just not always a fan of it.
All of that being said, I still prefer Part 61 training, because it gives the CFI and student greater flexibility. The *problem* with 61 is that it gives the student and instructor greater flexibility. In my opinion (and I don't have a lot of dual-given under my belt, to be honest) Part 61 is the BEST environment when you have
both a diligent, engaged flight instructor and dedicated, engaged student - so many rich learning experiences can be designed into the training under 61. The problem is that 61 can allow the opposite of that to get through the cracks, so to speak.
And of course, there are exceptions to these nebulous "rules" I'm talking about. This is my limited experience speaking. I may change my mind over time.
What I have a major problem with, though, is putting 61 students through part 141 restrictions. I know of at least one school (not mine) that puts Part 61 students on the same XC restrictions as their 141 students, and they end up flying the same damned time-building laps to the same airport, over and over, at just a 50nm range. That strikes me as having limited learning opportunity for both student AND instructor.
While our 61 students do follow the 141 syllabus, our instructors are given the latitude to design the training to the 61 student needs. We do institute stage checks for our 61 students, too, but they're not strictly mandatory and they're not regulatory - more of an internal quality-control check for our own CFIs. I find this practice favorable.
End of de-rail.
@pilotbry - if you want me to have this post moved to another thread I'll do so. It just seemed relevant.
