This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:

From my perspective as a former student, the quality of training had noticeably declined, and much of that seemed tied to internal culture especially the relationships between instructors and check instructors. A significant number of instructors were dating each other, and while that might seem unrelated, it clearly affected how students were treated. If you were paired with an instructor who was in a relationship or closely connected with others in the organization, you were far more likely to receive better scheduling, smoother stage checks, and overall priority.

The issue became most obvious during stage checks. Because of the required “backseat” policy where students had to observe lessons and evaluations. I saw firsthand how inconsistent standards were. I sat in on stage checks where students passed despite not knowing key material they absolutely should have known. In contrast, I received an unsatisfactory for missing a single item. Later, I found out that in at least one case, an instructor had a close personal relationship with the check instructor and pushed for their student to pass. That is not just favoritism. It raises serious concerns about safety and integrity. There did not appear to be any meaningful oversight or safeguards in place to prevent this. This cannot be legal or I guess Acron and the FSDO or the FAA just came to an understanding to look the other way. Which would fit considering some of the things that have gone on here.

Scheduling and aircraft assignment only reinforced that pattern. My instructor was not particularly well-liked by others, and as a result, we were consistently given poor time slots and some of the worst aircraft in the fleet. There were multiple occasions where we were assigned planes that could not legally complete the lesson as planned. We would either have to go up and return early or cancel, yet I was still charged in full. That kind of practice is difficult to justify.

At the time, instructors were also handling scheduling, which made favoritism even more obvious. Instructors helped their friends first, while other students were left with whatever remained. On top of that, one of the schedulers was the CEO’s son. It was widely discussed among students and instructors how often schedules were mishandled and how certain people were clearly given preferential treatment. This was not subtle, management plays favorites too, it was easy to recognize, even from my perspective.

To his credit, my instructor did try to advocate for me, but that often resulted in pushback and ultimately made things harder for him. I appreciated that he did not charge me for short breaks during lessons, but I also saw other students being billed for full briefings even when their instructors took 20–30 minute breaks. Again, there was no consistency.

Midway through my training, I was switched to a different aircraft type entirely. This made it extremely difficult to maintain progress, yet I was still expected to perform at the same level immediately, without any real transition period.

Student housing added another layer of frustration. Issues like roommates being unclean, using others’ belongings, or creating uncomfortable living conditions were not addressed. Transportation was also inadequate the shuttle service was unreliable, and requests for something as basic as additional grocery trips were ignored.

As an FAA-track student, the disparity in resources was also hard to ignore. Military students had access to the best aircraft and simulators, followed by international students, while FAA students who were paying comparable or higher costs, consistently received the least favorable equipment. At the same time, scheduling made it nearly impossible to maintain any personal routine. When the school shifted to seven-day operations, I effectively lost any ability to attend church or have a consistent day off, especially if my instructor’s schedule did not align.

uring the holidays, when my instructor took PTO, he specifically tried to place me with another instructor I had worked well with and who had been helpful to my progress. That request was ignored by scheduling, and I was instead repeatedly assigned to a different instructor. While the experience was not outright negative, it did not align with what had been arranged, and it felt more like I was being used to fill flight hours rather than actually being taught. We did get more flight hours too because she was one of those that was well liked by others. But again it felt more like the instructor was time building rather than teaching.

Policy enforcement was another area where the double standard was impossible to ignore. Students were required to wear safety vests on the flight line and were reprimanded if they did not. However, I regularly saw the CEO and his son out on the flight line without vests, with no consequences. The same applied to uniforms. Students could be charged no-show or non-compliance fees for not being in proper uniform, yet some instructors routinely wore oversized hoodies, leather jackets, cowboy boots, or other non-compliant attire without any repercussions. The rules clearly did not apply equally, and that was obvious to everyone.

The cancellation policy and advertised course timelines also raised serious concerns. The timelines presented during enrollment did not reflect reality and seemed more like marketing than achievable goals. Progress often depended less on student performance and more on instructor availability and internal relationships. That is a major issue for a program at this cost.

One of the biggest disappointments was the airline partnerships. This was one of the main reasons I chose the school. However, many of the partnerships advertised on their website were no longer active, or students were given little to no guidance on how or when to apply. In several cases, students missed eligibility windows entirely because they were never properly informed. Despite this, the school continued to advertise these partnerships as if they were fully available and supported, which was misleading.

Ultimately, I chose to leave and continue my training elsewhere. After doing so, I was able to complete multiple ratings, including multi-engine add-on, CFI, CFII, and MEI, before many of my friends had even completed their initial commercial. That contrast made it clear that the issues I experienced were not typical of flight training in general, but specific to this environment.

I initially chose this program for its in-house checkride authority, on-site maintenance, and airline partnerships. While those may sound appealing, the reality did not match the expectation. Between inconsistent standards, favoritism, particularly involving instructor and check instructor relationship, unequal policy enforcement, and misleading partnership information, the overall experience was deeply frustrating.

I cannot recommend this program based on my experience.

Please downvote this comment until it collapses.

Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.