Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 141

[AuntPeggy]

Just thought I'd start a new thread with these comments:

Since the 141 vs 61 issue is at hand in the thread...I would like some advice about continuing on with my IR. I just did the PPL ASEL through a 141 program which was well managed, flexible, highly structured, and effective. I am choosing to fly for a while and not go immediately into the IR program. When I do decide to go back for the IR (most likely when I can get enough $$$ together) what say you all about which program to look into?

Again, if you're using educational benefits, you may have to use a 141 school. Absent that, 61/141, same-same.

Now, I WILL recommend you look for a place with a combined SIM/flight program, as it will probably be more cost-effective, and you can learn some lessons in a sim you wouldn't want to learn in an airplane.

Obviously, if you're getting funding from a source requiring Part 141 certification (like VA benefits), you don't have any choice. If that's not an issue, the big advantage of the 141 program is that you don't have to have the 50 hours of XC PIC time -- just 35 hours of instrument training in the IR program. OTOH, if you are planning to take some time and fly a bunch so you get that XC PIC time built, then that advantage fades a bit, and you can do the IR with less training time and enough practice time with a safety pilot to have the 40 hours of instrument time required under Part 61. Either way, you can use an AATD or FTD as part of your training (assuming the 141 school has it approved as part of their TCO).

At PIC, we operate under Part 61, but bring our own portable FTD with us. The typical 10-day program runs about 20-23 hours of flying in your plane and 17-20 hours on the sim.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Re: Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 121

So, there are air carriers (121) that are hiring without instrument rating now? Wow, hiring standards have really plummeted!

Oops. Numerical dyslexia.

 

[Ted]

Re: Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 121

I've done all my training on Part 61, and I liked the lack of a structured curriculum. Since every student learns differently, a good instructor can tailor the instruction to the needs of that particular student. My instructor has (generally) done a good job of knowing what it is that I need as a student, and teaching accordingly. You have a local resource (Roger) who I think would do the same. He seems to have been doing a good job for Julia on the few days she actually goes out for lessons. A few of the things she's told me I took issue with, but then again we're all pilots, so we're all opinionated and think our opinions are best. Plus, since Don is an instrument pilot experienced with flying on instruments in your plane, he's also a very good resource.

Part 141 seems to make sense for people who work best with a structured curriculum (not me) and also are trying to get things accomplished in a hurry.

I'd go the Part 61 route. Seems more logical for you.

 

[roncachamp]

Just thought I'd start a new thread with these comments:

I believe the title should be "Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 141"

 

[dmccormack]

Re: Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 121

Since there's nothing in Part 61 that precludes use of a structured syllabus, there is no advantage to part 141 unless -- as mentioned in the other thread -- you're being funded by an entity that requires 141.

 

[TMetzinger]

Re: Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 121

Or, as Ron said, the dropping of the X/C time for a 141 student.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Re: Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 121

I've done all my training on Part 61, and I liked the lack of a structured curriculum. Since every student learns differently, a good instructor can tailor the instruction to the needs of that particular student. My instructor has (generally) done a good job of knowing what it is that I need as a student, and teaching accordingly. You have a local resource (Roger) who I think would do the same. He seems to have been doing a good job for Julia on the few days she actually goes out for lessons. A few of the things she's told me I took issue with, but then again we're all pilots, so we're all opinionated and think our opinions are best. Plus, since Don is an instrument pilot experienced with flying on instruments in your plane, he's also a very good resource.

Part 141 seems to make sense for people who work best with a structured curriculum (not me) and also are trying to get things accomplished in a hurry.

I'd go the Part 61 route. Seems more logical for you.

Last night Roger asked me when I'd be ready for Instrument training. So, I'll start up again. For me, there is no doubt that Part 61 is the only way to go. I am a very difficult student. As evidence, consider the 200 hours to solo and nearly 300 hours to PP. (Not counting a couple of cross-country trips that were unloggable.)

I am also a very demanding student. Since I have been a teacher, I will want to participate in the teaching decisions as well. Hopefully, our friendship will outlast the effort. To be honest, my friendship with a few of my PP instructors did not.

BTW, since neither Julia nor Roger are on this forum, we can talk about them behind their backs all we want.

 

[Ted]

Peggy, you seem to have edited my post a little bit there.

Given Roger's patience (he seems to put up with me whenever we're in the same room, that's a difficult feat), I think he'd do well by you. From Julia's report of his teaching, he takes it seriously, and if you're serious about it I think he'll appreciate that and be glad to work with you for what works for you. He's also very eager to get that CFII ticket wet. That puts him in a better inherent position than, say, me, who primarily wants it to be able to teach individual people, and provide incidental instruction when I'm making trips with people that I'd be making anyway. I doubt I'll take too many students who aren't already friends of mine.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Peggy, you seem to have edited my post a little bit there.

I wondered what happened to that sentence. Now it's gone.

I must need more than my usual 2 cups of tea this morning.

 

[Everskyward]

Re: Instrument Rating - Part 61 or 121

Since there's nothing in Part 61 that precludes use of a structured syllabus, there is no advantage to part 141 unless -- as mentioned in the other thread -- you're being funded by an entity that requires 141.

I agree. As I recall I got my instrument rating at a school that had a 141 program. I think the instructor used the same syllabus for me as his other students and I remember it being quite structured. I didn't need to do it 141 because I already had the required time (it was 200 hours at that point) and I wasn't trying to qualify for any benefits.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Thanks to whoever fixed the title.

 

[RMCN172RG]

I did my PPL 61 and the IR 141. I started the IR training four days after passing the PPL checkride.

The reasonings were pretty straight forward for me but some of arguments are good for everyone.

First my private instructor was a one man operation and he was not a CFII. Therefore changing schools was a requirement.

I went with a 141 school although the curriculum was not a true clasroom it was a go at your own pace using the Cessna computer based training from King Schools.

The benefits as I see/saw them were part 141 required less time total flying time required to qualify for the license. This is a savings in time and money. The School with multiple palnes and instructors made scheduling easier.

I have a flexible work schedule so I could allocate mornings to the flight school and work around the weather while flying two days per week. I completed the course in under five months from late Oct to Mid March with Michigan Weather, Holidays and other schedules.

I think the key to success with the IR is frequent flights so less time is spent refreshing. I also liked the progrees rides with other senior instructors during the cousre versus working pretty much with just one CFI like I did for my PPL.