Trey,trey kule wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:46 amL39 Guy.
I have read and reread all your posts on this thread. The sense I get is you are really, really promoting this program. And in a very well written way. So well written, in fact, that I can understand why people think you are not as advertised, and have some self interest in this program.
When I read posts such as you wrote, my reaction is to treat them as postamercials.
You do not write like the father of a son who went through the program. Rather more like a promoter defending the program.
If I was asked by a young one about this program, my advice would to be very very cautious. In my experience, Seneca does not have the best reputation, and their graduates are not consistently to the same standard of ability. But that is a very limited and personal opinion.
Be aware when you read glowing posts about a school program.
I assume that you have read what I wrote about the CAE/Jazz/Seneca program in this thread: viewtopic.php?p=1095990#p1095990.
Without revealing too much behind my handle (L39 Guy), a previous poster gave away a lot of my background - B787 Captain at AC, a Professional Engineer, etc. I did my flying training through the military many years ago and have been flying professionally for 36 years.
I can assure you that I am no marketing guy and thank you for the compliment about my writing skills; I do a lot of writing but have to work hard on the grammar, etc.
I did have a son go through 1 year Airline Pilot Flight Operations program at Seneca. He did this with a university degree and the multi-IFR, etc. prerequisites with the flying training from a hodge-podge of flying schools, instructors, etc. I thought the ~$12K we spent on the program the best ~12K I have ever spent on flying training. This is why.
First, he did not do an integrated flying training program like one would do in the military, Seneca, Mount Royal, etc. This program pulled together all of the training he did at the various flying schools/instructors and filled in any gaps.
The academics taught in the 1 year program are focused and applicable, unlike something like calculus which is not very useful when an engine is on fire. Subjects like aircraft performance, computer programming (FMS programming), crew resource management, etc. These were all subjects that are directly applicable in day-to-day professional flying.
The flight training, all in simulators, on the Beech King Air and CRJ provided not just an "endorsement" but was also done with excellent training scenarios taught by experienced aviators. In fact, one of his simulator instructors was a coursemate of mine in the Air Force who went on to fly for Emirates before returning to Canada. Pretty tough to beat that kind of experience to teach in an airline-type, multi-crew operation.
I have flown with my son after the Seneca program; he is a different aviator - more professional, SOP, disciplined and technically savvy, the kind of pilot I would want to have beside me in any airline operation. He finished that program a changed aviator.
Since then he has been hired by Jazz as his first professional flying job. I couldn't be happier as he is going to get amazing experience and training with them. And, with the Jazz agreement with Air Canada, he will be at AC in a few years although I hope he spends a few years at Jazz including in the left seat when the time is right.
I have flown with many Seneca graduates during my time at AC and I would have to say that with a few exceptions they have been first class. But you are going to find that in every group of people. The Seneca (or Mount Royal or other) grads that show up thinking they know everything are in for a rude surprise but those that accept that they still have lot to learn are both a pleasure to fly with and easy to fly with as they know their stuff either from their Seneca (or Mount Royal or other) training or from a professional attitude.
I would also go as far as to rate Seneca pretty close to the military in terms of the product they produce for an airline cockpit. Agreed, they don't do some of the fun stuff we did in the military like formation, aerobatics, low-level navigation, etc., however their CRM and flying skills are top drawer. There are those on this forum who pooh-pooh Seneca grads (and Mount Royal grads) as being 250 hour wonders with no business in a Dash 8 or Q400 cockpit; I would like to point out that the military has 250 hour wonders go into fast jet (solo) cockpits, C17's, Aurora's, C130's, Airbus A310. It can be done and done safely with the proper training and supervision from the organization and an aviator with good background training and the right attitude.
WRT the new CAE/Jazz/Seneca program, my comments the other day ago about the cost/benefit and career risk speaks for itself. If one want to flying medivacs or bush or floats then this is not for you; if one wants to wear a tie and fly 705 this program is an excellent ticket into Jazz thence Air Canada. When you do the math of the costs, the post-secondary+endorsements is almost the same as post-secondary+CAE/Jazz with the big difference being the latter is a ticket into Jazz then Air Canada.
Finally, a word about post-secondary education as those of us with it seem to get bad-mouthed and should be ashamed of having achieved it. A post-secondary education does not mean that one is smarter than one without it; I have met plenty of people without a post-secondary education that are pretty brilliant; conversely, I have met some people with a post-secondary education that are pretty dumb.
But what a post-secondary education does is prove that one can learn. Most of the material in post-secondary education one quickly forgets and perhaps never want to see again. Calculus comes to mind. But being a professional aviator is a continual learning experience. Name me another profession or trade does the amount of training we do, particularly at the 705 level. Yes, doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, accountants, etc. do professional development, sometimes while on a cruise ship. But how many go back to school for two to three months at a time every few years as we do when we learn a new aircraft? Not many.
So as professional aviators we are in a constant training and learning environment and someone with a post-secondary education has proven that they can learn. That doesn’t mean that someone that doesn’t have a post secondary education can’t, all it means is that one with the degree or diploma can. Sort of like having a instrument rating; if you have one you have proven that you can do it, if you don’t there is a risk that you might not be able to do it.
I suspect that is why AC places and emphasis on a post-secondary education, as well as this CAE/Jazz program as well as all major US carriers that require a college degree.