Leaning towards Part 141 school instead of Part 61 ... thoughts?

Marc Roberson

Marc Roberson

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
13
Display Name
Display name:
FlyAway
Ahoy me mateys. Tis a student pilot aboard who doesn't want to choose the wrong flight school & walk the plank

I am fortunate to have both a Part 61 & 141 school very close and although it would be easier to complete GS & flight training at the 61 (10min vs 25min drive), I am wondering if this will matter to any potential employer or Officer on the USAF pilot board I'll be doing this year. Thoughts? Will you come out a substantially better pilot from a 141 school?

Cliffs:
OP can choose Part 61 or 141
OP is leaning towards Part 141
OP is enlisted USAF, wondering if Part 61 or 141 will matter for pilot board
 
Can't speak for the Airforce, but 141 or 61 has no bearing on civilian flying. You either have the ratings or you don't, it doesn't matter where they came from.
 
Are you using GI Bill benefits? Did the Part 61 school say they were a VA approved school?
 
Marc Roberson said:
I didn't ask since my GI benefits are exhausted.
Click to expand...

Then I would go with the closest / cheapest. I don't think the AF or future employer will care about 61 vs 141. Ratings and experience.
 
Either one will work. Find an instructor who fits your schedule and personality.
 
Doesn't matter which you choose to use. If you did have GI flight bennies left it would have to be an approved flight school which is Part 141.
 
"Will you come out a substantially better pilot from a 141 school?"
\
It all depends on the instructor(s). My experience in working with both programs is that the instructor is constrained by 141 to do x number of things in x number of hours, which can lead to short-cutting. I absolutely hated 141. I prefer to train to proficiency, not to checking off boxes.

Bob Gardner
 
I chose a 141 school because I liked the structured regimen. Not that it would have been different with a pt 61 school.
 
With a good CFI 61 is the way to go, as there is more flexibility

141 is better with ho hum CFIs as its paint by numbers
 
To your question, source of civilian training has zero preference or bearing to the UPT board. The only credit is given for hours up to 250 in the PCSM score calculation (AFOQT + TBAS + civilian hours), having a PPL is not even required. Subjective evaluation of your application may consider your attained civilian ratings in the overall determination, but PCSM score carries more objective value.

Good luck with the UPT board. Consider the Guard/Reserves UPT boards if you don't get picked up and decide to separate. They're more competitive than Active Duty to get in, but there's a reason why it's more coveted.
 
James331 said:
141 is better with ho hum CFIs as its paint by numbers
Click to expand...

Hmm I started at a 141 school as a CFI, and taught at another 141 in addition to 61 at flight schools and free lancing over the years. But it's good to be a "ho hum CFI" I guess. :rolleyes:
 
I agree with Bob. As a CFI, I often checked out pilots from the local 141 school after they attained their PPL. We had lots of planes at good prices. I found their training lacking partly because, I believe, the DPE was on staff and when they reached the end it was checkride time. Bob is right. The 141 curriculum is very structured with proficiency not being the primary goal.

But the bottom line is the CFI. Get a good one and don't be afraid of 61. Ask around and you may find an excellent independent instructor. No one cares how you were taught -- can you fly the Airplane!;)
 
mscard88 said:
Hmm I started at a 141 school as a CFI, and taught at another 141 in addition to 61 at flight schools and free lancing over the years. But it's good to be a "ho hum CFI" I guess. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You wont find many backcountry, float, acro, etc courses operating 141, I mean its cool if you can use it to get govt money for training military or intl students, or for high volume puppy mills, but a quality experienced CFI pt 61 is the way to go.
 
mscard88 said:
That's your opinion. I don't agree.
Click to expand...

You gotta agree though cookie cutter paint by numbers is however always the choice of the lowest common denominator
 
James, curious, have you ever taught at a Part 141 flight school? Some of the 141 programs I was in were at Air Force aero clubs and some CFIs were AF pilots.
 
mscard88 said:
James, curious, have you ever taught at a Part 141 flight school? Some of the 141 programs I was in were at Air Force aero clubs and some CFIs were AF pilots.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant to the quality of instruction?
 
James331 said:
How is that relevant to the quality of instruction?
Click to expand...

So you haven't, and know nothing about the quality of 141. That's what I thought. Quality instruction can be 61, as well as 141, and subpar instruction at either too. But it comes down to individual CFIs and how they perform. But stating that 141 are "paint by numbers" and "ho hum" CFIs is ludicrous, especially when you apparently know nothing about 141 flight schools.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
So you haven't, and know nothing about the quality of 141. That's what I thought. Quality instruction can be 61, as well as 141, and subpar instruction at either too. But it comes down to individual CFIs and how they. But stating that 141 are "paint by numbers" and "ho hum" CFIs is ludicrous, especially when you apparently know nothing about 141 flight schools.
Click to expand...

Worked at one, no, but interviewed a few when I was working on my licenses, also talked to a few as a CFI, ofcourse it's not 100% of them, but many seem very paint by numbers and the rules and structure seems to likley tie the hands of really good CFIs to customize to their students or more specialized flying.
 
You're all wrong then, "seem"?, and how does it "tie a CFI's hands", more nonsense from you. Even 61 you should be following a syllabus. Same thing done at 141, and having taught at both, and independent, really is no difference other than 141 being a bit more structured and formal perhaps. You don't really know do you, but you're gonna keep trying to convince folks that that you do, but you have no first hand knowledge or experience teaching at one.
 
mscard88 said:
You're all wrong then, "seem"?, and how does it "tie a CFI's hands", more nonsense from you. Even 61 you should be following a syllabus. Same thing done at 141, and having taught at both, and independent, really is no difference other than 141 being a bit more structured and formal perhaps. You don't really know do you, but you're gonna keep trying to convince folks that that you do, but you have no first hand knowledge or experience teaching at one.
Click to expand...

Ok bud, you know all, you invoked the airforce card so yeah, you must be right lol.

Simply stated, and you even said the same, 61 gives the CFI more freedom, which can be used well by a good CFI, or bumbled up by a crap CFI.

But you tell me slick, top notch CFI, will he be able to offer more under 61 or 141??
 
James you drinking? Air Force card? Why because I mentioned some of the CFIs at aero clubs were AF pilots as well? Either 61 or 141 may offer "more", or less too, I'm just calling you out because you're making blanket (typical of your posts) statements about 141 with no direct knowledge.
 
Simply stated


Does 61 offer more freedom on the part of the CFI???????



?
 
*sigh*

Not about "freedom", whatever you mean by that. Quality instruction can be accomplished at either, and is done daily at both. Nothing wrong with either route. Both get the job done.
 
If you aren’t an ATP, gold seal, former DZ, first learned to fly in a tail wheel CFI, you’re not worthy.
 
I'm not Gold Seal nor DZ, and didn't learn in a tailwheel. Whoa is me. :cryin:
 
Part 141 - Regimented. Must follow the syllabus. Not much room for customizing to your needs.

Part 61 - Not necessarily regimented. May follow a syllabus as a guide. Can customize to your needs.
 
OP. Doesn't seem like you have a consensus here. And you never will if your question is which is generally better, 61 or 141. The question you need to be asking is which of the two programs you are specifically looking at is better or the best fit for you. That will be best answered by folks who know those schools as well your your own analysis. There may be folks on here who might have personal insight into those particular schools if you care to list them.
 
But that's not what he's asking. He's asking what will give him a leg up for a USAF OTS to UPT pilot board. The asnwer is it doesn't matter, they don't care. They only care about hours (a certificate is not even required) to the extent that it goes into a PCSM calculation, otherwise it doesn't matter. Having a license already would be a positive subjective measure in a Guard/Reserve interview, but again the nature of training doesn't matter one iota. I'm speaking in first person here, as someone who has conducted interview panels for squadron hiring at the UPT and rated levels. Feel free to steer the kid the wrong way with inapplicable civilian gouge though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top