Part 141 Vs Part 61: A DPE’s Take

I often get asked the question by prospective flight school students on the best places to go for flight school. There are so many options and so many different paths to obtaining a career in aviation, and it’s often hard to determine the best course of action. However, one of the most common questions I get asked is whether or not to go part 61 (informal instruction) or part 141 (formal and highly regulated).

I will preface this with the fact that there are many part 61 flight schools that operate like 141 schools but without issuing a graduation certificate at the end. For example, ATP and American Flyers have part 61 students involved in a rigid training program that has “checks and balances”, although not required legally by the FAA. The students get the benefit of a rigid, formal training program but still have to meet the aeronautical experience requirements which are often much more hours than a part 141 program.

For the sake of this article, I will address the observations I have had when comparing a typical part 61 student from an independent, smaller flight school to a part 141 student in a formal, FAA approved training program.

I will start by comparing the aeronautical experience requirements:

This image is a bit oversimplified as there are specific requirements for both that aren’t mentioned in the paragraph, but you can see that 141 programs have less total hours. I will say this about my general observations during practical exams: more experience (often equated to hours at these lower levels) generally means better overall performance. While this isn’t always the case, applicants who come with 70 hours for a practical exam usually do better than those who come with exactly 40.5 hours for their private pilot exam. For the commercial, I don’t see much of a difference in hours as I do see a difference in preparation. People who have flown more with a flight instructor recently do better than those who worked toward their commercial over several years and are pulling out old logbooks to show cross countries. Recent experience and amount of training tends to be the biggest indicator of performance with commercial.

Instrument is a completely different situation as it highly depends on the applicant and training. For example, under part 61, an applicant needs only 15 hours with an instrument instructor and the other 25 can be with a safety pilot. When I see applicants with the minimum with an instrument instructor (which is usually earlier on in training so they can gain the skills to go fly with a safety pilot), the performance usually isn’t as good as an applicant who got all 40 hours with an instrument instructor. Since part 141 requires the entirety of the training to be with an instructor, even though it’s less hours than that of part 61, they tend to do better on exams.

I also often get asked about the role of simulator training. I have seen this go both ways. If the applicant has a quality instructor, the simulator time often results in better performance specifically for instrument. While some applicants use simulator time to count toward the 35 or 40 hours for instrument, I often see the best performance when the simulator time is in addition to the time in the airplane. When I see an applicant for an instrument rating with 20+ hours of simulator time and 40 hours of training with an instructor, I usually see a recipe for success. The problem that most people have for an instrument exam is getting behind the airplane, and simulators help an applicant learn to manage the airplane and procedures. However, simulator training is never an equal substitute for time spent in the airplane navigating real world challenges like weather, ATC, etc. In a controlled environment, I believe almost everyone could probably pass an instrument exam on the first try. But real world flying is rarely that easy, and often missteps due to weather, ATC, etc often lead to threats and mismanaged errors that result in exam failures. I wrote about this phenomenon in a previous article on Check Ride Threat and Error Management (https://fullthrottleaviation.wordpress.com/2022/02/24/dpe-hot-spots-threat-and-error-management-for-unexpected-ifr-scenarios%ef%bf%bc/).

So while this isn’t a clear answer on whether or not to go part 61 or 141, I will summarize the following general observations:

1. Part 61 students often have more actual flight hours, and I see a general trend that more experience leads to better performance.
2. Part 141 students rarely come to an exam missing aeronautical experience requirements.
3. Part 141 students have more time with an instructor overall, and usually more recent experience as there are specific requirements for graduating from 141 programs.
4. Part 141 students usually are working on flight training full time compared to part 61 students who often have other careers, jobs, or obligations.
5. If I have two students, one of which is part 61 and the other 141, and they have the exact same amount of hours and experience (same hours with a CFI, same recent experience, same aeronautical experience requirements), then the performance is generally the same.
6. I see the best performance from applicants who have recent flight training experience with a CFI, regardless of part 61 or 141.
7. I see the best performance from applicants who have flown more with a CFI and less on their own to get the total hours required, regardless of part 61 or 141.

It’s a hard decision to make on which route to take. I see success with both, but it often depends on the applicant and school. If a student is proactive and goes above and beyond the minimum, they do very well part 61. If a student doesn’t pay attention and takes many breaks during training and does the absolute minimum, there’s no checks and balances in place to make sure they are prepared for an exam under part 61 like there is under 141.

Please feel free to leave any feedback about your training experience. I have seen wonderful applicants from both 61 and 141, and these are general observations I have seen over the past few years of practical exams I have administered.

---

Sarah is currently a FAA Safety Team Lead Representative, NAFI Master Instructor, Gold Seal Flight Instructor, and 737 captain for a Major U.S. airline. Sarah holds an ATP, CFI, CFII, MEI and has flown over 8800 hours. She holds a pilot license in 4 different countries (USA, Canada, Belize and Iceland – EASA) and has flown over 150 different types of airplanes in 25 different countries including oceanic crossings in small aircraft. Since aviation for work isn’t enough, she also lives in a hangar home on the west side of Houston! Although much of her flying is now professional in nature, she enjoys flying her Super Cub, Patches, on her days off. As a regular attendee of Oshkosh and local fly-ins, she enjoys the company and camaraderie that general aviation brings and is passionate about aviation safety and flight training. 

• designated pilot examiner
• time building