Thanks for the email. . . I would agree with you on "accelerated" programs. Although I have seen several students succeed at this when they are at a point to easily make the transition - but usually not primary students - something more like a commercial ticket.

But, I must ask, what makes an accelerated program in your viewpoint? Isn't a 141 school a version of an accelerated program - it does have less hours requirements? What is the difference between going somewhere and focusing for several days versus drawing something out over a longer period but having less requirements?

The school that I attended was not a 141 school nor was it an "accelerated" program. But, the CFI's were definitely prodigies of the 141 school system. Needless to say, I was not overly impressed. But, it was a great experience because I finally had the opportunity to see what Rich had been talking about. You see, he flies as a captain in regional jets and I often hear the first officer stories.

Not believing something until it actually happens or I see it or have the data to prove it, I used this as a learning experience to see it for myself. Previously, my instructor(s) had over 20,000 hours flying every type of small airplane imaginable - with experiences in hauling banners, crop dusting, and hauling freight in DC-3's and B-18's and can even remember hearing stories from my glider instructor about teaching students in Stearman's during WWII. These are the people that became my mentors and guided me through the process - and still do today. I wonder how many 141 prodigies take the time to "look at the other side" as I did? I know a few that have, and they are amazed at the "other side of aviation".

The point made in the 141 article last month is that students are not learning "the real world" flying scenarios and the necessary experiences that are needed. The response that we received, and published this month, from a 141 instructor stating that students don't even make the weather calls is a prime example. How are these pilots going to react when they need to make a weather decision - will I be reading about them in the NTSB accident website? I'd be curious to know how your 141 school handles weather situations.

Let me give you an example. . . I moved an airplane up to the Oshkosh grounds and needed to get to another airport to bring another plane into Oshkosh (during the big EAA event). I flew in the backseat of a C-172 with a UND student (had all ratings through commercial multi-engine) in the left seat and an instructor from another college in the right seat. I kid you not, the UND student looks to the instructor and says (and this was no joke) "why don't you fly, the only thing I've really learned how to do in my almost 4 years is to program the GPS". I was looking for ways to get into that front seat as quickly as possible - if the need arised. You see, too much stuff is being thrown at people to learn how to fly - and sadly most of it does not include flying.

In talking to many others, this problem is not just a 141 school issue - it's an industry wide issue. How many of your instructors plan on instructing as their career? How many of them plan to use instructing to "build time" as a stepping stone in their career path to a "higher" paying job. How many of your instructors are younger than your students? How many years and how much experience is required before a CFI can teach at your school?

You mentioned tailwheel airplanes and tailwheel aircraft at your school. . . I think it is wonderful that you have the opportunity to show this to others. I hope and pray that it is being done correctly. But, the scenario that you mention is the first example of where it became clear to me that there is a problem in tailwheel instructing. . . .

Having owned a Citabria for several years, I had sold it to buy something a little more speedier. While searching for the right plane to buy I needed a flying fix and decided to rent a Citabria from a local 141 school operation. I also need to mention that I had flown this plane over 250 hours a year, in a multitude of situations and environments. So, during the checkout, I made the first landing as I would normally - in close, slightly high, no power, with a radical slip (CFI is on board and shouldn't have a problem with this but wouldn't have done it with a non-flying passenger). The instructor just about had a cow. So, I spent the next hour explaining there is a difference between a slip and the cross controlled situation that gets people into trouble near the ground. Then, the next hour was spent talking about why there is no need to do wheel landings. So, I paid an instructor for a checkout and ended up doing all the instructing. I've been there and done a 141 school with tailwheel aircraft and instructors that "can" teach in them - but "can" they really?

The comments we make here and in the newsletter are not made to belittle anyone. They are there to hopefully better all of aviation. Your school might be one of the few that actually does it right. And, if they are, I applaud them (and you) for turning out good pilots. But for every one that is doing it right, there are many, many more that aren't - accelerated or not. If each pilot (and school) doesn't take the time to care about it today, none of it will be around in 10 years from today. I, personally, would like to see it around until I bite the bullet and for at least another generation to enjoy. I hope you feel the same way.

Ginger Davidson