Instrumant training

[heavy_d]

I just got my license and want my instrument. I have ten cross-country hours and my instructor sais that I would need fifty cross-country hours at the end of my training.

Anyways, my question is sense the hours would cost as much as a 141 training program is this kind of program worth it to get my intrument in 2 weeks? I have heard that these programs are almost a scam and you don't learn what you do at a regular school. What do you guys think?

 

[midlifeflyer]

First of all, congratulations.

I think you ought to use your newly-earned "license to learn" by drawing a 50 NM circle around your home base, pick some airports outside the circle that you have never been to, grab a slow airplane, go exploring, and build your way up to the 50 hour cross country requirement while you really learn to fly.

The 50 hours cross country is an experience prerequisite, not a training requirement.

 

[BeachBum]

Well, since you only need 40 more cross country hours and the instrument rating requires 40 hours under the hood, just make every lesson a short cross country under the hood. You can log it as both PIC and dual received since you have your license. That's what I did and it worked out great. You kill two birds with one stone.

 

[No Delay]

MidLife and Beachbum both make good points.

1. You have just finished your Private pilot certificate (congrats, by the way). You should take some time to relax and enjoy what you have just earned. Don't make flying all work and no fun.

2. You can do exactly what BeachBum suggest. I am a CFII and teach 10 day IFR course. It is not too difficult to do the instrument training while getting some of your cross country time. I could usually help a student get about 15-20 hours of cross country time while training. I have found that if we attempt to do more than that ... it degrades the quality of the training and then you would actually need more than 40 hours to finish your instrument rating.

I would suggest doing a little of both.

My 2 cents on 141 operations. I think they are a scam. Higher prices, stage checks with the chief pilot, etc. I don't think you get any better training.

That said, I believe you should make sure you have a good instructor who actually has some good IFR experience. A lot of the instructors at these 141 schools are kids who just 6 months earlier walked throught the door with zero flight time and went through a pro-pilot course.

Not to say they are all bad...just exercise caution.

Like I said, it my 2 cents and that's about all it is worth. Hope it helps and again, congrats on the pilot certificate.

 

[seethru]

I don't know if it's fair to say 141 programs a scam. There may be schools out there that are not above board in their training, but 141 is often times the right program for the right student. 141 programs do not necessarily have to be accelerated. They simply are a way to get around the 50 hour x-country by adding in required ground and flight lessons.

The problem with accelerated courses is that there is a lot of pressure on the student, and if you don't have the savvy or skills to keep up, you're going to fall behind quickly. This is especially true of the Instrument Rating.

This is perhaps one of the most difficult ratings to earn. There are a lot of new regulations, new procedures, and new concepts that have to be mastered. Not to mention flying and tying it all together.

Clear skies.

Greg

 

[PropsForward]

Well, since you only need 40 more cross country hours and the instrument rating requires 40 hours under the hood, just make every lesson a short cross country under the hood. You can log it as both PIC and dual received since you have your license. That's what I did and it worked out great. You kill two birds with one stone.

I would not recommend this. You need the practice on approaches. Anyone can fly straight and level under the hood. You will be doing quite the dis-service to your instrument skill this way.

Once you got are good at instrument attitude flying, you need to go right into flying approaches. Load yourself up on single pilot IFR cockpit skill with maintain the PTS +/-100ft, 10°, 10kts.. You will thank yourself for it when you are in actual.

Also try to get some actual with an instructor. You can not log it as PIC, but is is Training rec. (that counts towards the 40hrs), and the experience is invaluable.

 

[seethru]

Also try to get some actual with an instructor. You can not log it as PIC, but is is Training rec. (that counts towards the 40hrs), and the experience is invaluable.

Actually, if you have a qualified instructor, you will log PIC with instruction received during your instrument training. Regardless if you are in simulated or actual instrument conditions.

Greg

 

[minitour]

Actually, if you have a qualified instructor, you will log PIC with instruction received during your instrument training. Regardless if you are in simulated or actual instrument conditions.

Greg

Yep. I think this is the whole logging vs acting thing.

Not 100% positive but I'm pretty sure the -II would be acting as PIC and you would be logging under sole manipulator?

Can anyone confirm?

-mini

 

[BeachBum]

I would not recommend this. You need the practice on approaches. Anyone can fly straight and level under the hood. You will be doing quite the dis-service to your instrument skill this way.

You can still get plenty of practice on approaches. You fly straight and level for 40 minutes to get to an airport 52 miles aways (so it's legal XC time), then you shoot approaches there for an hour or so, and then fly back and shoot an approach back home. You've logged about 2.5 of XC and shot plenty of approaches in the process. I ended up with over 100 approches before my checkride, and nearly every lesson went something like this. I felt very well prepared for the checkride.

 

[bobbysamd]

141 programs

My 2 cents on 141 operations. I think they are a scam. Higher prices, stage checks with the chief pilot, etc. I don't think you get any better training.

Aren't you overgeneralizing just a little bit with that statement? I think you are.

As an instructor who started out teaching Part 61 and later teaching Part 141 (logging most of my 3549 hours of dual given under 141), including giving stage checks, and having learned solely through Part 61, I've seen it from both sides of the desk. I will grant you that some 141 programs take advantage of students. But those from reputable schools provide good quality, standardized training, including excellent instruction in procedures, all of which will help the student later in his/her career. Students who attend 141 schools and really apply themselves learn more, faster and better, and perhaps cheaper, because they're under the discipline of school. Compare with many non-141 programs that are not organized and structured, and under which students get the short end if, for example, their instructor is called away to a 135 flight which will benefit him/her and not the student.

If you have a beef with a specific 141 program, fine. But calling all of them a "scam" is unfair.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yep. I think this is the whole logging vs acting thing.

Not 100% positive but I'm pretty sure the -II would be acting as PIC and you would be logging under sole manipulator?

Can anyone confirm?

Yup. You nailed it. Assuming, of course, that the instrument student is rated for the aircraft, the instrument student gets to write numbers in the PIC column of his logbook, while the instrument rated and current CFII takes command responsibility for the flight.

 

[Mr. Cole]

I had about 35 of the 50 hours XC before starting the IR. It's my personal belief, which probably doesn't mean anything to anyone but me, that you should build experience without the crutch of a CFI in the right seat. If those ten hours of solo XC time were obtained during the training for the PPL, then you still had to have your CFI review your flight planning and sign off on the trip. By the time I started the IR I felt that my skills as a VFR pilot had increased tremendously since the checride. I was more confident in my overall flying ability, but starting the IR broke me down and built me back up as an even better pilot. I also saw some marginal weather that gave me a practical reason for obtaining the IR, not just the fact that it would make me a better pilot overall. There are certainly ways to do that without the IR. If you're not looking to fly as a career then what's the rush in going for the IR right after the PPL?

Dave

 

[heavy_d]

If you're not looking to fly as a career then what's the rush in going for the IR right after the PPL?

Dave

I'm not doing it for the career its just I'm 17 and don't have anything else to spend my money on. It sounds to me after reading all of your posts that there are pros and cons to both 61 and 141 so it's all about if you want to have fun getting the hours, or just getting it over with. Thanks for your posts!

 

[minitour]

...It sounds to me after reading all of your posts that there are pros and cons to both 61 and 141 so it's all about if you want to have fun getting the hours, or just getting it over with. Thanks for your posts!

While there are pros and cons to both, I'd disagree with the statement that one way is "fun" while the other is "get it over with".

The 141 school I'm at could have gone quicker if airplanes weren't down, but I'm sure I could have gone where I got my PPL (61) and done it quicker too.

Either way, I had a blast getting my PPL and IR and I'm having lots of fun getting my CPL. Just because its "faster paced" doesnt mean "less fun".

I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Personally, I like learning (nerd), so the "accellerated" 141 school is fun for me, but I also could have learned the same amount part 61, and in the same amount of time.

Keep in mind if you go 141 that just because the school can do this or that in "less time" doesn't make them a ticket factory. I'm not saying that you think like this, but I've seen people in my ground schools that don't understand any of the information (and I think I ask stupid questions) and are whining because they "paid for a ticket and they want it". The reality is you're paying for training (both 141 and 61) and you've got to put in your time and effort either way. The harder you work and study, the more fun you'll have and the faster it will go for you.

Anyway...thats MHO.

-mini

 

[bobbysamd]

Part 61 v. 141

I'm not doing it for the career its just I'm 17 and don't have anything else to spend my money on. It sounds to me after reading all of your posts that there are pros and cons to both 61 and 141 so it's all about if you want to have fun getting the hours, or just getting it over with. Thanks for your posts!

You might be surprised at what might have started as fun ended as a career. Take it from someone who knows. Just as with you, aviation started out for me as fun and something I always wanted to do. Six years later, it was putting food on my table - and it was still fun.

I say this only as food for thought. All my training was under Part 61. It was fun - because that was all I wanted at the moment - and took a long time. I wished later that I had trained at least some of the time under 141, because I would have learned more, better and faster. If I had it to do over again, I would earned at least my multi and CFI ratings under 141.

In your situation, if you're flying for fun, Part 61 with a good instructor is probably fine. There will be less pressure. But if you are harboring even the slightest thought about being a professional pilot at some point, Part 141 may be well worth considering.

Good luck with however you choose to train.

 

[cessna_driver2]

I have found (with the 141 I went to) that you fly the same amount of hours doing the 141 route as the 61 route. It just cost you twice as much.

Honestly I can say most of the retention I have is due to the hammering I got from the 141 school. I believe it gave the a very good foundation to build upon.

Good luck and congrats on you PVT.