UoW Aviation/Geogrpahy program

[nemesest]

does anyone know why anyone would go to a UoW Geography aviation program when it costs 75k+ in total while if you just go through regular geography program and do flight training on the side, it costs around 55k?

basically, in UoW program the flight training costs 50k while if done without it it costs 30k.

[4Stroke]

Do you mean the University of Western Ontario (UWO) or University of Waterloo (UoW)??? apples/oranges.

the UWO Program, if what you are asking about, is not geography, but rather a business program. Yes the tuition costs are expensive at first look, but its no more expensive than doing ANY university degree and flying at a school separately.

Sure, it would be cheaper if you did everything up to the CPL and M/IFR at Bob's Flying School and bait shop.....but would you want to????

Take a look at their website and maybe do a little research before posting that question again.

cheers,
4S

[JBI]

To the previous poster, University of Waterloo has brand new Aviation & Geography and Aviation & Science degree programs done in conjunction with Waterloo-Wellington Flight Centre. Perhaps you should take a look at their website and do a little more research before posting an answer again.

http://www.aviation.uwaterloo.ca/

The price quoted for the Waterloo program does seem to be on the expensive side. The school itself estimates that the cost for flight training alone is $50,000 on top of regular 4 year tuition for the degree. I'm not sure how the fees are broken up, so perhaps it may be possible to decrease these. Mind you, on Waterloo-Wellington's website, their "fast-Track Commercial Program" is estimated to cost $47,000.

I'm not sure why this is such a high cost. This is even higher when you consider that with this program students need to have access to a car to get from campus to the airport and that most of the flying takes place in the summer, so getting a full time summer job would be tough. The program allows for roughly 3 credits (out of 40 total) to be earned from flight training towards the degree.

Like many University programs (including Western's), the flight training is not done by the University but rather the local flying school. While these schools have a good reputation, it is still a different atmosphere than a college that has a specialized fleet. That being said however, it would seem that according to Waterloo-Wellington's website that the "fast-Track" Commercial program has more extensive ground school courses compared to doing it on your own at another flying club. This could be useful, however, I do not know enough about the course content to know if it would be worth it or not.

I think this program has the potential to be a good one. However, prospective students should look carefully at their situation (transportation and financial) before deciding on it.

Cheers!

[4Stroke]

To the previous poster, . Perhaps you should take a look at their website and do a little more research before posting an answer again.

yup, i got 0wned.

[JBI]

yup, i got 0wned.

It's all good, it's still a really new program and not a lot of people have heard about it.

Just a friendly, neighbourhood, internet b@tch slap

[Blue Side Down]

I know I"ve mentioned my opinion before, but just in case it helps ya:

I think that a university flight training program of any sort is of no use at all. There simply isn't enough time in eight semesters to do a complete job of teaching both 'how-to-fly' and what is requied for an serious undergraduate degree. And as far as I've heard, the non-flying education is a farce. It's got a good chance of being a waste of time... ...I mean, it'll get you where you're going, but quite inefficiently.

If you have the resources, complete your flying independent of any university endevour- you'll save time, money, and frustration. Well, you're right, you may not save money, it is flying after all; but you will get further,faster, by being free to learn independently rather than having to keep in line with a class.

Realistically, you can complete a PPL in six weeks no problem at all. Picture it like this: take this summer, get your PPL, spend the remaining months slowly building time, maybe look into towing for a gliding club or similar to get some real work experience. Complete your first year at university in a degree you find interesting, and fly once or twice a month- at a liesurely pace to keep current. Next summer, fly off your multi-IFR and finish up the summer with a commercial ride. By this time the momentum will have built and you'll be into a flying job by the next summer after a little legwork/ time building. You'll graduate two or three hundred hours ahead of the flying program people, and you'll have a serious degree to boot.

If flying school is definately something that you'd like to do on the other hand; I'd suggest looking into a school like Confed- which has a strong reputation specifically for flight training.

For any other info feel free to PM

[Hedley]

Blue Side Down is right ... unless you're scamming money
out of the government (ie getting them to subsidize your
flight training) I can't see why anyone would ever try to
mix university and flight training.

High school knowledge is all that a pilot needs. Would you
go to university to learn to operate a bulldozer or crane,
or to weld?

If you honestly want to round out your knowledge as
a pilot, get your hands dirty and learn a bit more about
the mechanical/electrical side of things. Again, university is
probably not the most cost-efficient and time-efficient way
to learn about spinning wrenches or crimping wires.

FWIW. BTW, I am NOT anti-university - far from it. I hold
both an ATPL and a BSc (Engineering). I just happen to
agree with Blue Side Down that if you want to go to University,
take (and learn!) something worthwhile. It is a waste of
your time and money to simply scam the system to
get yourself a piece of paper that says you have a degree.

Heck, if that's all you want, there are paper mills out there
that you can send a few bucks to, and they will grant you
a Phd for "life experience"

[CLguy]

I agree with the above posters!! It is not the most efficient or cost effective way to earn a CPL and degree. The route I have seen guys take over the years, and very successfully has been, get your commercial as fast as possible, get some float time and go fly in the bush for the summers. Since you will be laid off every fall anyway, register at university and spend the winters learning, then head back to fly in the bush for the summers to build your time and make some money. After 3 or 4 years of university you will be sitting with enough PIC time to go and get your Multi-IFR and actually be marketable without having a $70K loan that needs to be paid back. This meaning you will have enough PIC flight time to by-pass the ramp work, bag smashing crap for up to 2 years and go direct to the flight deck and actually be able to move to the left seat very quickly!!

Just my 2 cents!!

[nemesest]

hi everyone, thank you for the replies

i just came back from waterloo-wellington flight centre from a meeting with the head instructor. basically, what he said was pretty much the same as what you guys are saying. he said "if you want a degree go to university. if you want to become a pilot go to college (cofed, sault, algonquin, seneca etc.)."

okay, so after looking at MANY programs and listening to peoples' opinions i fully agree that university is not the most efficient way to become a pilot. but, i think i'd still want a degree just for education.

i think what i will end up doing is taking flight training over 3 summers (including this summer) and take a non-integrated university program. For the last 2 years of university I'll either try instructing and/or do bush in the summer. do you guys think it will work?

[Stevo226]

There is another point here that nobody has mentioned yet. University and Flying DO NOT mix. Universities have such a prestigious reputation that they must maintain, and when that spills over into the aviation side the result is 95% of the flight training taking place in SKYCLR. I'm across the ramp from a university flight school and I have not seen those guys turn a prop in probably 4 weeks now. The weather has not been great, but it has not been out of the question either. I have done close to 40 hours in the last 4 weeks, with every other day being completely weathered out.

What does this all mean? This school is producing unsafe pilots. What will these pilots do on they're first cargo run when they get into a low level jet stream, or some snow, rain, fog, cloud, etc.? what if the only option is to continue at 500' AGL, or take the 25 kt. crosswind?

Having a perfect accident record is great, but what about only giving students 10 hours of flying in 3 months? you've gotta draw a line somewhere, give these guys some real flying experience. But then that big University might blush if somebody snaps a nosegear on landing, or puts in into a controlled landing in a field

[costermonger]

There is another point here that nobody has mentioned yet. University and Flying DO NOT mix. Universities have such a prestigious reputation that they must maintain, and when that spills over into the aviation side the result is 95% of the flight training taking place in SKYCLR. I'm across the ramp from a university flight school and I have not seen those guys turn a prop in probably 4 weeks now. The weather has not been great, but it has not been out of the question either. I have done close to 40 hours in the last 4 weeks, with every other day being completely weathered out.

What does this all mean? This school is producing unsafe pilots. What will these pilots do on they're first cargo run when they get into a low level jet stream, or some snow, rain, fog, cloud, etc.? what if the only option is to continue at 500' AGL, or take the 25 kt. crosswind?

Having a perfect accident record is great, but what about only giving students 10 hours of flying in 3 months? you've gotta draw a line somewhere, give these guys some real flying experience. But then that big University might blush if somebody snaps a nosegear on landing, or puts in into a controlled landing in a field

Good thing the University won't actually be responsible for teaching these students how to fly, or deciding when they should or shouldn't be in the air.

[Grey_Wolf]

Good thing the University won't actually be responsible for teaching these students how to fly, or deciding when they should or shouldn't be in the air.

What does this all mean? This school is producing unsafe pilots. What will these pilots do on they're first cargo run when they get into a low level jet stream, or some snow, rain, fog, cloud, etc.? what if the only option is to continue at 500' AGL, or take the 25 kt. crosswind?

As Costermonger said, the University will deal with the Academic Portion of the degree, while the associated FTU (Flight Training Unit) will teach these folks an how to fly planes. Granted that every school has certain weather minimums for students; they vary from school to school. God knows how many times this issue of cross-winds has been harped on these forums, especially for one particular school. Hopefully, the student is exposed to a variety of flying, than demands more skill than most, but that depends on which Instructor they get. Some considerations are Controlled vs Uncontrolled? Paved, Gravel, or Grass Runways? Experienced Instructor (Has worked in a 700 Ops) vs Newer Class 4? Nose Wheel vs Tail Wheel Aircraft? The personal weather limitations of the Instructor vs Schools Minimums?

As for training, the FTU trains to the CPL, ME-IFR stage. Graduating the kids at 250 hours, certainly doesn't ready them for "real life flying". Hell at 1300 hours I'm still learning! The idea is to prepare these students to be able to learn and apply that knowledge to the job at hand. Why do you think there is "On-the-job" training.