Seneca College Crashes again, minor injuries.

[FenderManDan]

Was it in 172 or Bonanza?

I've never heard of a Cessna Bonanza.

Read better there is an "or".

FlyGy wrote:
FenderManDan wrote:
Was it in 172 or Bonanza?


I've never heard of a Cessna Bonanza.

It's a close cousin to the Cessna 7GCBC Cherokee-Muskateer.

For others that have a strange sense of humour:

http://www.senecac.on.ca/school/aviation/fleet/

[Inverted2]

Seneca's fleet consists of 18 aircraft:

•12 Cessna 172s
•4 Beechcraft Bonanzas
•2 Beechcraft Barons

http://www.senecac.on.ca/school/aviation/fleet/

Probably should update that photo, shows 5 Bonanzas still!

[FlyGy]

Was it in 172 or Bonanza?

I've never heard of a Cessna Bonanza.

Read better there is an "or".

FlyGy wrote:
FenderManDan wrote:
Was it in 172 or Bonanza?


I've never heard of a Cessna Bonanza.

It's a close cousin to the Cessna 7GCBC Cherokee-Muskateer.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you...but try to follow along. mmmmmkay?

If you had bothered to read at least a quarter of the 88 words in the news article you would have recognised the word "Cessna" in the second sentence.

We weren't making fun of how your question was written, we were poking fun because you asked if it was the 172, a Cessna aircraft, or a Bonanza, a Beech aircraft. Since the article clearly states that it was a Cessna, then how could you have possibly ask if it was a Bonanza?

Read better indeed.

[hew44]

Glad they are both ok, hopefully it was some sort of mechanical issue and not pilot error.

I have only flown with a couple Seneca grads in commercial opts (maybe not enough of a sample) but one thing common with these two, a whole lot of books smarts and 0 common sense. If you need to remember something from the AIM, ask them and they will give you an answer word for word and tell you what page its on. But the kinda people that would brief an emergency descent in detail and pass out before getting it done.

[bizjets101]

Cadors Number: 2012O2117

Reporting Region: Ontario
Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type: Incident

Occurrence Date: 2012-07-24
Occurrence Time: 2150 Z

Day Or Night: day-time
Fatalities: 0

Injuries: 0
Canadian Aerodrome ID: CNP8

Aerodrome Name: Greenbank Airport
Occurrence Location: Greenbank Airport (CNP8)
Province: Ontario

Country: CANADA
World Area: North America
Reported By: NAV CANADA

AOR Number: 149778-V1
TSB Class Of Investigation:

TSB Occurrence No:
Aircraft Information
Flight #:
Aircraft Category: Aeroplane

Country of Registration: CANADA
Make: CESSNA

Model: 172S
Year Built: 2001

Amateur Built: No
Engine Make: AVCO LYCOMING

Engine Model: IO-360-L2A
Engine Type: Reciprocating

Gear Type: Land
Phase of Flight: Unknown

Damage: Unknown
Owner: SENECA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Operator: SENECA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY
Operator Type: Commercial
Event Information
Collision with terrain
ELT/SAR/comm search
Detail Information
User Name: Donaldson, John
Date: 2012-07-25
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: General Aviation
Narrative: UPDATE Supplemental information received from NAV CANADA A.O.R. #149785-V1: NAV CANADA staff at Toronto ACC received numerous reports of an active ELT signal heard from 2130Z and 2230Z. The source was identified as C-GSCB at Greenbank Airport.
User Name: Donaldson, John
Date: 2012-07-25
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: General Aviation
Narrative: The Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology Cessna 172S aircraft (C-GSCB) was on a VFR flight from Toronto (Buttonville) Airport (CYKZ) to Greenbank Airport (CNP8). NAV CANADA staff at Buttonville Tower reported that J.R.C.C. Trenton staff had called to report an ELT activation. The source was determined to be from C-GSCB. J.R.C.C. Trenton staff called back and reported that the aircraft had apparently crashed at Greenbank Airport. Both occupants were reported as being "fine" and Seneca College sent someone to retrieve the pilots. Ops. impact -- none. Damage -- unknown. Circumstances -- unknown.

[126.7_STFU]

What's going on over there? I think what's going on is successful flight training for the most part mixed with a few who may in fact be incompetent.

So what you are telling us is Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology hires a few incompetent flight instructors because they are unable to identify them in their hiring process......and they just keep them until they wreck an airplane?

Just asking.......

Sure. I believe there should be a perfect hiring process where they can screen instructors and look into the future with a crystal ball and eliminate any possibility of incidents or accidents.

My mistake .

This thread reeks of egocentric diarrhea

Kaopectate oughta take care of that.

No doubt, any "issues" at Seneca are similar to the same type of issues which are going on frequently at other FTUs in the country, or worldwide .... oh yes, I forgot ... they aren't FTUs, anywhere with some degree of structure to a training program is a "Puppy Mill." I wonder what the whole Commonwealth Air Training Plan was .... if not a huge series of "Puppy Mills," then at the very least they would be renamed as "Mink Breeding Farms"
when viewed by the history revisionist group.

Your point makes no sense. If I understood your fragmented post correctly, it seemed as though you would imply that the BCATP was a successful platform, one which was accident free. Yes i'd agree. Revisionist history at its finest.

There are countless Seneca success stories. There are countless Sault success stories. There are countless Confed success stories. There are countless U of Western success stories. There are countless other success stories from local flying clubs. Some unfortunate events have taken place at these colleges over the past many years, such as stealing airplanes, landing on soccer fields, spinning into the trees, etc.

You know, it just dawned on me. I recently checked the CADOR's to confirm my epiphany. There has never been a single accident in this country outside of the flight colleges. Mr. Pay-as-you-go somehow has the high ground and will always be blessed with a competent instructor and reap the rewards later............just keep on paying of course. Standards ? What standards.

I would place wager that the shit talkers never attended a college rather, would argue that this is RED and this is BLUE

We can play these games all day. Introduce some credible information if you have it and how they can rectify the issues perhaps. Otherwise leave your cynical trash at the door. Luckily these two escaped unharmed.

[Cat Driver]

Otherwise leave your cynical trash at the door. Luckily these two escaped unharmed.

Those of us who question " why " these accidents happen are " cynical "?

We should be satisfied that they escaped unharmed and just shrug our shoulders and say it was only the airplane that got wrecked?

Sure. I believe there should be a perfect hiring process where they can screen instructors and look into the future with a crystal ball and eliminate any possibility of incidents or accidents.

My mistake .

No one can look into the future and eliminate accidents........we can carefully assess the performance and thought process of our pilots though and when we identify incompetent ones we remove them from their position.

[Gessle64]

how they can rectify the issues perhaps.

Produce pilots and develop instructors that can:

-Handle more than 5kt crosswinds.
-Land a plane-Commercial pilots that can't land a plane become instructors that can't land a plane.
-Handle low visibility/ceiling conditions. This means using instructors with ACTUAL instrument time, not the Cornwall instrument time. This also means you might have to provide ACTUAL pay.

The school can assist by:

-Teaching what's necessary to fly and navigate an airplane, rather than focusing on pushing mindless and endless SOPs. A flight school is not an airline, no matter how much they try to be one. By introducing the internal politics of a (bad) airline into a FTU, the student is alienated. Flight schools like this always treat the student as an afterthought and the learning process suffers. These students become instructors and the process repeats. Most students don't know any better than what's been demonstrated to them.

Gessle64,
I don't want to argue with you, but just curious – is there something wrong with Seneca's instructors? Are they too young and inexperienced, or something like that?

Please see above. I'm not a part of the "old timer" crowd, although somehow we do share some of the same beliefs. I think it's good influence...customer centred, learning HOW to fly influence.

[Krimson]

Produce pilots and develop instructors that can:

-Handle more than 5kt crosswinds.
-Land a plane-Commercial pilots that can't land a plane become instructors that can't land a plane.
-Handle low visibility/ceiling conditions. This means using instructors with ACTUAL instrument time, not the Cornwall instrument time. This also means you might have to provide ACTUAL pay.

This 5kt crosswind limit is a myth. I believe the rule there is that prior to achieving a PPL, on solo flights the student is limited to 10kt crosswind. If the student demonstrated within the previous 30 days a landing in 20kt xwind, then that student may fly with 20kt wind.
Every flight school I have visited has vis/ceiling limits. Where the lines are drawn are varied, I believe insurance comes into play here, don't want to let a student loose an aircraft solo seeing marginal VFR for the first time. There are instructors all across Canada with the the bare commercial+class IV rating. They get hired. Welcome to aviation. This is not a specific school's problem, but a problem with our industry as a whole. To point the finger at one individual (which I have seen several times in different threads) and say "YOU are the problem" is not someone who sees the true issues, and just likes to point blame.

The school can assist by:

-Teaching what's necessary to fly and navigate an airplane, rather than focusing on pushing mindless and endless SOPs. A flight school is not an airline, no matter how much they try to be one. By introducing the internal politics of a (bad) airline into a FTU, the student is alienated. Flight schools like this always treat the student as an afterthought and the learning process suffers. These students become instructors and the process repeats. Most students don't know any better than what's been demonstrated to them.

Seneca is geared towards airlines. They prepare students with courses with required information beyond a bare bones CPL. They provide FMS, SMS, CRM, SOP training and more. This is why jazz, georgian, and recently cathay has come on board with Seneca. They like the product. It is not an airline, but it provides valuable training for an airline. They have guys from AC and jazz teaching on an RJ with jazz SOPs until proficient. Like it or not, it is a snapshot into the airline cockpit. Start with SOPs from the beginning, and it will not be a problem in the future. This does not mean the flying is left out. Some students are meant to be pilots, some are not. That's it.

About students becoming instructors at the FTU where s/he trained; this is not something new either. It has happened at many FTUs and will continue to happen. The student is basically in a long interview, getting to know the staff and the staff see how the student preforms. The individual will need a first job somewhere, if the school thinks s/he is a good pilot and instructor, why not take him or her on board? Why go to another school and learn from scratch? Should instructors have other flying experience prior to instructing? I believe so. Is it right to say one individual is what is wrong? No. Change the system, do not blame someone for doing their job.

Gessle64,
I don't want to argue with you, but just curious – is there something wrong with Seneca's instructors? Are they too young and inexperienced, or something like that?

Please see above. I'm not a part of the "old timer" crowd, although somehow we do share some of the same beliefs. I think it's good influence...customer centred, learning HOW to fly influence.

There are young instructors all across Canada. There are older ones too. Seneca has some of both, as do other flight schools. I don't think this is a failure of one school, but perhaps the industry all together. There are not a lot of other countries where instructing is an entry level position.

[Cat Driver]

There are not a lot of other countries where instructing is an entry level position.

Sort of like our healthcare system isn't it?

Sub third world.

[Colonel Sanders]

This 5kt crosswind limit is a myth

Not at a very large flight school near me, which is
not Seneca College. I have to train their graduates
to land in a crosswind, which as you might expect
really pisses me off.

I don't think this is a failure of one school

Nice try to spread the blame around, but any school
that positions itself as producing a premium product
shouldn't be using sub-par instructors.

[Apollo]

I may be a bit biased, as I am a Seneca grad...

First of all, glad to hear that everybody is OK.

Second - you have to realize that the Seneca hate-wagon will never end - and 99% of those who hate it, probably have very little experience with the school itself, or its graduates.

Seneca has, and will continue to produce commercial pilots who will enter every aspect of the industry. Some will be great pilots, some will be mediocre, and some will just plain not work out. I'm pretty sure you can say that about any flight school, anywhere, ever.

As for the policies Seneca has - when I was a student there, the 5kt crosswind limit was only for pre-PPL solo flights, if you were with an instructor, crosswind was limited by the number in the POH of the aircraft - once you had your PPL, you could fly in any crosswind (up to the POH limit) that you had demonstrated on your recent currency. That doesn't seem like a bad idea, because how many of you would cut loose a student in 15-20kt crosswinds who hadn't flown in them in the previous 30 days? These kids aren't seasoned CPL/ATPL veterans with thousands of hours.

I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Seneca College - I had great instructors who had tons and tons of experience and motivation to teach. JB(X2), JT, MN, LM, MR, JR, and a few others who initials escape me at the moment. Thank you very much to all of you! You taught me the skills that have made me successful in the industry, and if I did it all over again, I would return to Seneca.

If you don't like it here, no-one is forcing you to stay... Just saying.

[Gessle64]

I believe insurance comes into play here, don't want to let a student loose an aircraft solo seeing marginal VFR for the first time.

Or an instructor...

They provide FMS, SMS, CRM, SOP training and more.

What are the merits of this training if even the instructor cannot keep the greasy side down?

This is why jazz, georgian, and recently cathay has come on board with Seneca. They like the product

You can't fool me with that. I've been around it for a while. It's a marketing move to attract students and build enrollment numbers. The partnered airlines benefit by having a ready supply of cheap, competitive labour.

It is not an airline, but it provides valuable training for an airline. They have guys from AC and jazz teaching on an RJ with jazz SOPs until proficient. Like it or not, it is a snapshot into the airline cockpit. Start with SOPs from the beginning, and it will not be a problem in the future.

I wasn't aware that learning SOPs were such a problem once arriving at an airline. I suspect that FTU SOPs will be the new companion to the training bond.

If you apply what's relevant for your type of operation and aircraft, problems are minimized. Pretending that a training unit is an airline only adds to the complication of learning how to fly. All the policies and SOPs irrelevant to operating in the actual environment take away learning time and energy that a student needs to succeed.

[Duncan Idaho]

I see 8-10kts tailwind (invisible to me as well) followed till after clearing south-end trees and after the stretched-out flare-period (3 seconds seemed long as pitot airspeed boosted in meeting west crosswind component mid-runway) allows the old red 68 Cessna to touch soon enough I guess. But now it was too fast on airspeed and quickly I realize 3/4gross is not letting it slow on this downslope ... evident in ~ 5 seconds of still relatively high groundspeed. I have full power on again at 60knots past halfway but aircraft now is very slow to accelerate on the grass but at the same time it's also hard too to see what's left of RWY over the (small) knoll ahead. At this point I 'dread the overshoot' and pull power off [facing a reality that the ACnow skids on the green grass ... eventually over the road into the vineyard where I am somewhat lucky for high wing

Give any thought to maybe just touching down, raising the flaps and slowing down? I find a lot of new pilots have a feeling that they have to hit ref before they can think about touching down. It'll slow down to a stop a lot quicker if you just cut the power, get it onto the runway, raise the flaps and brake as able. In a lot of airplanes, though not all cause of dec angles, you can touch down at ref plus 5, 10 or 20 and stop in ~2000 feet without any drastic measures. It's not a short field procedure but if you're trying to hustle it's no great feat.

[Colonel Sanders]

how many of you would cut loose a student in 15-20kt crosswinds

Here.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to posture as a premium school,
provide premium training. And Seneca doesn't. It provides middle
of the road training, as you have argued - no better or worse than
at any average FTU in Canada, where you can get your licences
and ratings much faster.

If that makes me a "hater" because I don't drink the Seneca Koolaid,
that's ok too.

[pdw]

(Duncan, you gotta have the whole post about that ... someone scooped only part of it from the other thread. Power is off turning final, but used 'to adjust for clearing trees' at 65kts prior a steeper glide-rate down to the turf; then on the short final, in dropping toward the grass-threshold 36, power was kept right off.)

[MIQ]

I don't know where they're getting their instructors, but it's time to shop elsewhere.

I know that Seneca hires their own graduates as instructors... Probably not all of their instructors are from Seneca, but quite a few.

And Krimson made a very valid point here regarding instructors in Canada and the industry. How do you get that first job with your fresh CPL and 200 hours in the book? You can either work the ramp in N.W.T for two years under minimum wage OR you become a flight instructor since that is pretty much the only job that you can get if you have less than 1.500TT and no Multi PIC. Out of all the schools I've visited in southern Ontario, I haven't met many 'old' instructors with more than 1.500 hours. I find it quite scary that I can get my CPL and instructor rating within two years of training and then I'm supposed to teach other people how to fly whereas two years ago I had no idea how to fly an airplane myself...

[Duncan Idaho]

Rampies in the NWT make decent money, up to $16-20 an hour is I think the norm. Plus you get all kinds of tax benefits. Not such a bad way to spend a year and you're seeing more of Canada too.

[Brown Bear]

So, how many accidents/incidents/occurrences, has Seneca College had in the not too distant past? Is there another flight college that has even come CLOSE? Nope.
How many deaths because an instructor with SEVEN HOURS of actual IFR time couldn't keep it right side up?
These guys have problems. If it were a commercial op, TC would pull their OC pending an audit. That's what should happen here. Pull the school's ticket. TC, get off your ass and protect the flying public. That's your job.
Back to my cage now for some chick drinks. The ones with umbrellas in them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The most important responsibility of an instructor is to not let the student crash.

The most important responsibility of the CFI is to ensure that their instructors are competent.

A C 172 on wheels is a pretty forgiving aircraft so to let things get so out of hand that the airplane gets bent on landing, and in light of numerous other previous incidents /accidents; is to me a pretty powerful indicator of systemic problems.......

Bottom line: This is an accident that should never happen.

If asked, I personally would not recommend Seneca college for aspiring commercial pilots.

[BverLuver]

Big Pistons Forever,

I share you sentiments and refer to this thread, where someone is trying to decide between Seneca and Centennial, for my opinion on the school and it's graduates.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=82886

BL

[pdw]

Give any thought to maybe just touching down, raising the flaps and slowing down? I find a lot of new pilots have a feeling that they have to hit ref before they can think about touching down. It'll slow down to a stop a lot quicker if you just cut the power, get it onto the runway, raise the flaps and brake as able. In a lot of airplanes, though not all cause of dec angles, you can touch down at ref plus 5, 10 or 20 and stop in ~2000 feet without any drastic measures. It's not a short field procedure but if you're trying to hustle it's no great feat.

From clearing the trees to the turf ... sure ... it went to plus 10-15 and the power was kept right off, come to think of it ... and let touch down as early as possible.

(How do you identify a frontal triple point from WX-history ?)

[tbaylx]

Give any thought to maybe just touching down, raising the flaps and slowing down? I find a lot of new pilots have a feeling that they have to hit ref before they can think about touching down. It'll slow down to a stop a lot quicker if you just cut the power, get it onto the runway, raise the flaps and brake as able. In a lot of airplanes, though not all cause of dec angles, you can touch down at ref plus 5, 10 or 20 and stop in ~2000 feet without any drastic measures. It's not a short field procedure but if you're trying to hustle it's no great feat.

From clearing the trees to the turf ... sure ... it went to plus 10-15 and the power was kept right off, come to think of it ... and let touch down as early as possible.

(How do you identify a frontal triple point from WX-history ?)

Same way you identify a frontal quadruple point of course

[pdw]

The landing windsock observation (?kts and whether N,S, E or W) would be difficult to predict. Will await the final report to hear whether rwy 3, 36 or 180 used.

Strong variable (many directions) in regions around Greenbank airport at 17:50 local time July 24 / 2012, ... using closest Wunderground weather station histories (30-40 km).

[Pratt X 3]