From my understanding they operate like a 141 (syllabus, strict schedules, etc) so a lot of people think they are one. They might have 1 location in Florida that is actually 141 but the rest of their locations are part 61.
How to reduce the timeline and training requirements to push more people through the puppy mill pipeline, while still being able to claim the benefits associated with 141, thereby reducing costs, increasing throughput and thus profit.
/s. Maybe. Maybe not.
FAA is gonna make it mandatory all training aircraft are 2 pilot crews post PPL on cross countries and all solo’s are “supervised” by an onboard instructor lol
Honestly I see way more of that in the part 61 schools in my area. Because of the higher hour requirement for commercial a bunch of the 61 schools in Phoenix do that for over 50 hours in their commercial syllabi. I got 25 hours of solo time just in commercial at my 141, my part 61 roommate has 10 hours of solo time.
To be completely honest…I think logging SIC in a single pilot aircraft should be allowed without needing foggles. Encourages safety by having an extra set of eyes and ears and making it easier for safety pilots to do safety pilot things.
And at the 135 level, the whole PDP OpSpec is a pain in the rear end. Boutique did screw things up for everyone. But from a safety perspective…two guys upfront is better than one. The FAA should be incentivizing it as opposed to making a lot of bureaucracy about it.
"The National Flight Training Alliance (NFTA) has graciously volunteered to champion stakeholder engagement during this process as our industry lead. NFTA is comprised of flight training providers and industry-wide aviation stakeholders with a relationship to aviation training."
If anyone thinks the lobbyists don't write the laws...
Yup. And what I noticed is that the gubment and the industry met for a few weeks, here and there, wine and dine, parties, a few fancy appreciation events... And then the legislative affairs agents would write law, and watch it pass through the process. The elders amongst us were in our late 20's
Interesting. How many years ago was that? I was our company’s rep in our industry association for some 20 years. We had to go through anti corruption training with annual recurrency. Strict no gifts and no entertainment policy, no discussion of prices or commercial activity, etc. Documentation of all meetings and activities. The association would often be consulted to give our opinion on pending regulatory rules and legislation, including suggested edits to texts.
10-15 years ago. We had the same training and such. Everything was documented, transparent, above board, and we still had a good time. Very enlightening to say the least. I learned votes count, but don't really do much in the large scale. Locally, yes
Having been a couple years removed from my CFI days. But being involved with launching a 141 certificate. Here’s my take -
* Give all 141 certificate holders that are no longer provisional certificates self examining authority by default instead of needing to apply for it. This way DPEs will be freed up for Part 61 and provisional Part 141 students.
* Automatically approve a short course for commercial for full certificate holders, and allow self examining authority. I believe it’s 120 or 150 instead of 190 hours. With a lot of places it just means less time burning through an AATD for like 25 of those hours, and less random timebuilding flights. Students who graduate from a short course must go with a DPE instead of an in house checkride. Meanwhile provisional certificate holders can retain the 190 hour requirement, which is still better than 250.
* Train to proficiency instead of one thing causing a bust. Granted most guys use discretion before issuing a pink slip, but still. I’ve been through 3 121 initial courses and 1 135 initial course. All of the 121 checkrides allowed you to repeat one thing twice or two things once. My 135 ride was just train to proficiency. AQP allows you to break things down by phase. Maybe introducing something like this for initial certification would take the stress out of the checkride.
Pretty much it for what I remember. But hopefully means things improve for future guys and training gets easier under 141.
I tried coming up with an AQP syllabus for primary training but wasn’t really able to figure out how we’d make it work. Airlines training under AQP usually break things down into smaller bite sized units.
Indoc, Systems, Procedures, Maneuvers, and then LOFT (line flights).
There’s only so much you could separate things down to in a train to proficiency model for primary training. Maybe separate “gates” for each area in the ACS divided up into stage checks as opposed to all at once. But also…pre solo maneuvers are mostly what you’d see on a maneuvers validation at the 121 level.
On the other hand, 121 N&O training is simply an oral and a checkride (which resembles an AQP maneuvers validation), but the checkride you get two repeats. And for the repeats the examiner can debrief you before you try again so you don’t make the same mistake.
I think that model makes the most sense for GA and primary training. If a student is showing good decision making and is overall safe…let them try again on a Power Off 180 or a Lazy Eight if they were slightly out of tolerances. As long as the examiner is satisfied they’d be safe flying on their own.
I start my students (not learners, that's fukkin bs) with TEM before the first preflight. XCs and flights to the practice area are all scenarios and write themselves on the way lol. I'm glad you're out there trying to make the new way fit into a non compliant system
I’ll admit back when I instructed full time I was more of a box checker than a simulated scenario kinda guy towards the beginning. Then as my students got experience and figured things out I kinda added the scenario tidbits for preflight planning. Towards the end my same students would join me on legit trips which they got to see things in action.
I’ll admit I see the benefit of scenario based training since it’s an application of real world stuff. Sometimes though it’s over the top with how some schools are teaching it and making students write an essay on PAVE/IMSAFE on a given scenario (yes it’s true surprisingly).
141 schools are incentivized to pass their students with self examining authority. I believe it’s 90% as the required pass rate as opposed to the 80% needed to maintain 141 status.
But also no pink slip is recorded for a checkride bust under 141. Effectively eliminating part of the drawback. Carriers I interviewed with asked about disapprovals and wrote not to include stage checks.
I did 141 which had self examination authority. The failed stage checks are asked about and the ones which would’ve resulted in a new cert are absolutely counted as checkride fails still.
I didn’t have self examining authority where I trained but it was under 141. United’s app specifically said “do not include stage checks”.
I’ve found that a lot of the fails that would result from a disgruntled guy having a bad day are less of a factor under 141 with self examining authority. They must maintain that pass rate to keep their examining authority active, unlike a DPE who can bust a bunch of people, write something up in DMS as to why, and it’s all good.
United’s app still asks for stage checks.
“Have you ever been removed from flight status, downgraded, or failed any portion of flight training either civilian or military?”
^ Sounds like a stage check
Interesting. I always disclosed any busts I had. But I could’ve sworn their app said on there in parentheses not to include stage checks.
Guess they removed that part then.
It goes both ways. I’ve seen my own students’ careers affected by a grumpy 60 year old that has political issues with our flight school. Had one fail two of my students back to back for obscure stuff on the oral. Meanwhile, I had 30 students go through self examining and pass first try.
To be fair I think most people in the NFTA pushing for changes want the same stuff I wrote. These were problem areas we ran into.
This and changing 529 rules for the ability to be used at a flight school. However that’s outside the FAA’s jurisdiction
Yep this exactly.
Insane to me that we go through all our primary training told that if we land 2 feet short on a short field, it’s a bust. I’ve had students myself bust over really stupid things.
Then I get to my regional and am told that I get 2 repeats on my initial type ride. For recurrent, I’ve been told that you can repeat maneuvers as many times as you need as long as you complete within the 2 hour sim block.
So why do obscure maneuvers in primary training have to be perfect when odds are, I’m not gonna be flying a small plane by myself anyways? Outside of solo requirements, I didn’t solo a GA plane once ever.
For what it’s worth, not all airlines use AQP. If you ever take a traditional training program (multiple LCCs still do), you don’t get any repeats on your type ride.
I think train to proficiency certainly has a valuable place, especially for minor mistakes that don’t affect the safety of flight - like, say, forgetting to slow to 280 to meet a speed restriction on an arrival. But at some point, you either meet the standard or you don’t. With your example of the short field landing - yes, an applicant should be able to consistently land within tolerances. If they land 2 feet short, they should have gone around. If they choose to land anyway, or they don’t realize they’re short, that’s a fail.
Your primary training maneuvers don’t need to be perfect, they need to consistently meet standards. DPE quality varies widely, which is why 121 airlines couldn’t care less if you fail 1 or 2 part 61 rides as long as you have decent explanations.
To your last point, the purpose of a pilots license for most people is to fly solo. And a huge issue nowadays is pilot mills running people all the way through to cfi without any real solo/PIC experience. I worry this lack of experience will haunt us down the road.
From the first page of what is linked....
December 16, 2024
To Aviation Stakeholders:
The General Aviation and Commercial Division is announcing public meetings as the first step for the modernization of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 141 pilot schools initiative. These public meetings will provide a forum for the aviation community to discuss, prioritize, and provide recommendations to the FAA concerning part 141. The FAA is asking stakeholders to consider and develop proposals that would serve the needs of current and future pilot schools, encourage innovation, and provide a robust and safe training environment that instills the necessary knowledge, skills, critical thinking, and aeronautical decision making in new pilots to reduce the overall accident rate for all facets of aviation. These public engagement meetings are an excellent opportunity for the flight training industry to present suggestions that could significantly enhance part 141 for pilot training and certification for years to come.
The National Flight Training Alliance (NFTA) has graciously volunteered to champion stakeholder engagement during this process as our industry lead. NFTA is comprised of flight training providers and industry-wide aviation stakeholders with a relationship to aviation training. They are experienced with gathering and sharing feedback with the FAA. We are looking forward to facilitating various workgroups that may be developed from these meetings.
More details regarding the goals and tasks associated with the Modernization of Part 141 public meetings, as well as schedules/locations are available on our website. The attached document contains the purpose, background, objectives, and tasks of these stakeholder meetings.
We would like to openly invite all flight training providers, aviation associations, producers of commercially produced syllabi, manufacturers of aviation training devices and any other stakeholders, who would like to participate in these meetings, to attend
Sinerely,
Eugene H McClure III
Acting Maager
General Aviation and Commercial Division.
43 Comments
dmspilot00@reddit
videopro10@reddit
EntroperZero@reddit
NuttPunch@reddit
DinkleBottoms@reddit
EntroperZero@reddit
DinkleBottoms@reddit
Bastinglobster@reddit
thetuxfollower@reddit
BelowAverage355@reddit
saml01@reddit
aftcg@reddit
flyingwithfish24@reddit
skele651@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
0621Hertz@reddit
chuckop@reddit
aftcg@reddit
Horror-Raisin-877@reddit
aftcg@reddit
Horror-Raisin-877@reddit
aftcg@reddit
NuttPunch@reddit
chuckop@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
aftcg@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
aftcg@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
Yesthisisme50@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
Yesthisisme50@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
Yesthisisme50@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
user623827169@reddit
MehCFI@reddit
EmotioneelKlootzak@reddit
anaqvi786@reddit
user623827169@reddit
cfipilotmichigan@reddit
jet-setting@reddit
TxAggieMike@reddit (OP)