Flight School vs Aviation College

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:59 pm

I posted this in the General Comments section, but it got waylaid by a couple ne'er-do-wells (as so many threads in that section tend to

) so I thought I'd try it here and see if I can have any better luck getting decent responses:

For those who either ARE working as a pilot now, or HAVE worked as a pilot in the past, at any level in this industry (but preferably those who have made it to a comfortable place ), what is your opinion of these two possible routes? What did you do? What do you recommend in THIS day and age in order to best nail the first job, and then eventually move on up through the ranks?
I graduated from a mom-and-pop type operation, at my own pace, and I made out fine. I spent less , got hired , have had a great career through some very difficult times , and can't see my lack of an aviation diploma ever holding me back (I do, however have a University Degree-non aviation). I know what I would recommend, and why, but I'm probably a little biased for more than one reason...

Tango01 · Post by **Tango01** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:33 pm

Okay I am not a pro, but my understanding is that it all comes down to:

1) Hours (especially MIFR, Turbine etc)
2) Who you know
3) Timing (being at the right time in the right place)

As far as a college diploma, if you already have post secondary education, you're more than fine. I don't think an aviation diploma is any better than any other diploma/degree as long as you have number 1 and 2 & 3 mentioned above.

If I'm wrong, someone please tell me so I can change my route now (before getting my CPL).

T01

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:01 am

I went to Selkirk. Did it help me get my first job? Don't think so, although when I interviewed the CP did ask me why I went to a college instead of a flight school.

Why did I? At the time Canadian required a degree, or accepted a diploma from Selkirk. I liked the structured environment, the university transfer courses, the location, the reputation, the 24 hour, free and unlimited sims, and the more in depth class room stuff.

What has it done for me? I think we learned a lot more than what the average school teaches. We were all prepped to ATPL level as opposed to commercial level. Other than that, it hasn't done much. But it was hella fun!

I would do it again in a heart beat! Best 2 years ever!

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:35 am

I am working at my first flying job at the moment. I, too, recently graduated from University which has an aviation-related program. In my case, it did not help me get the job, as I got hired based on the recommendation of a friend of mine outside the program. However, I think the connections that I have made with my classmates and profs and instructors may come in handy down the road.

Personally, your education will more than likely not count for anything for the first few jobs, unless you have a trade that can come in handy, such as a mechanic. However, I think it will make a difference in the long run, when you start to apply to larger carriers.

There are pilots at every level who have taken both routes. I say, choose the one that best suites you. If you want a degree, than get one. If you want a diploma, then go for that. If all you want to do is fly and forgo a formal education, than follow that path. I think any type of education is good, and anything you can add to a resume is also a good thing.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:55 am

As an added note, I find some sort of post secondary education makes one appreciate things in general a lot more. Granted you would have to take courses in a field you actually have an interest, or motivation to learn in.

For example, a University degree is more than just learning about the field you're getting your degree in. It's about learning how to learn, and learning how to think. They try to get students to think for themselves, and not take everything for face value. Far too many people read some opinion piece in the newpaper, and immediately believe everything they read, or automatically adopt the opnions of the author. The same applies when learning how to fly...don't always believe your instructor is right. Learn to question, and learn find out for yourself when appropriate.

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:34 pm

What? No mention of the fact that it isn't really so much about the 'where' as it is about the 'who'!! I know, my mind's pretty much already made up. I'm just curious what it is that makes folks choose one over the other, despite the lack of tangible and useful benefits the college program has over the FBO, considering what they charge to be trained to an ATPL standard.

I'd Rather Be Flying · Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:39 am

Every job that I've had in this industry is due to the fact that I've known someone who is already there (or has been there) or having the fortune of being in the right place at the right time.

A diploma program does offer some things that you won't get at a local flying club or FBO, but when it comes to the basics, the flying is more or less the same. After all, we all still must pass to a flight test standard. (Even though the standards are sometimes debatable....we'll leave that for another thread).

I firmly believe that it's not what you know, but who you know, and the experience you have, that will get you the 'in' that you need. And yes, I have a two year aviation diploma, it hasn't helped me get a job, but I enjoyed the schooling nonetheless and am currently working at a great company!

Clear skies!

CAPGEN · Post by **CAPGEN** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:02 am

Is there going to be a point in the not too distant future where it's going to matter where you got trained?

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:02 am

On another note, and no offence to instructors, I find the quality of instruction may be a bit better. The instructors at colleges for the most part are experienced pilots. When I went to Selkirk, we had all very, very experienced guys. They weren''t 500 hour pilots, who just wanted to put in their time at the flight school, get some PIC, and then get the HOD.

This was a major factor in my decision.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:21 am

You will spend big $$$ at a fancy aviation college.

You can get the same pieces of paper, and the same hours in your logbook, at a smaller flight school, especially if you buy (then sell) and buck-fifty for building time, preferably with a partner.

However, it is up to you, to manage your training. No one at the flight school will do it for you - they will be indifferent towards you at best, and take advantage of you at worst. All they want is your money.

If you want to learn about basket-weaving, or film studies, or ancient history, sure, go to a college. It will probably make you a better person. At least you will learn some big words to impress the guys on the ramp with.

TopperHarley · Post by **TopperHarley** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:32 am

Look at it this way... you are investing in yourself. If you want to find the cheapest school, with poor maintenance and instructors, then you will not receive high quality training. This means you will pick up poor flying skills, and after 250 hours, you will most likely be flying like a 100 hour pilot.

I paid $32,500 for all my training and believe that I got a very good deal (from a quality and value standpoint). I trained on great a/c with great instructors, and went to a school that worked hard to improve the conditions of the training environment. Now that I look back on it, I would not have gone to another flight school even if they offered to train me for a lot less. The cost is NOT the only consideration.

I believe there IS a difference where you train; however, some companies simply could care less.

For example, you can have 2 law graduates. One guy goes to Harvard, the other guy goes to Joe Blow's college. They both have the same "piece of paper," but obviously, one received better education. This analogy may not be comparable to aviation, simply because law firms care a lot more about your schooling then do small air operators.

Don't look at it as "a piece of paper." Consider everything from cost, to facilities, to instructors, to future prospects, etc etc. Do NOT base your decision on where to fly on only 1 variable!

Just my opinion,

Chris.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:04 am

It all depends on where you go I guess.

How do you explain that College in Ontario that teaches students to fly circuits in a Baron with the gear down?

Does anyone here think that is "Quality" instruction?

Cat

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:20 am

A pilot's first 200 hours are a lot like the time a Tour de France cyclist spent learning to ride a tricycle when he was 3 years old.

At the time it seems really important, but after a while, you realize how little you knew back then, compared to what you know now.

If you talk to some grumpy old pilots, they don't care much how you (or they) got your first 1000 hours.

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:49 pm

This is a copy of my response on the other thread.

Like so many others who have posted here, my feelings are biased by my experience as well. I may have a bit of a unique perspective, however, having taught at a college, while running a charter company, FTU next door. I'm just wondering if my thoughts seem way off base to others.

Here's my thinking: The biggest challenge this industry offers right now is getting the FIRST job. Once you're in, the bulk of your further education comes from the industry itself - on the job training (upgrades) if you will. I don't see a whole lot of operators hiring 200 hr CPL Multi IFR pilots directly into the right seat of a KA200, but I DO see the colleges continuing to sell their program based on that principle. I'm not questioning their ability to produce a high quality KA200 F.O., but I AM questioning the demand for that product. These days, unless your career is handed to you by your Daddy (more power to you if you can pull that one off ), we're all going to pay our dues in one form or another- Instructing, working a dock, F.O. on a bag run, etc.

Knowing what I do now, If I were doing it all over again, some of the questions I would be asking are: 1) What are the chances of getting a job where I train? 2) How quickly can I get out there and start paying my dues? 3) How much is it going to cost? 4) What do my instructors actually know about doing the job I'm being trained to do? 5) What IS the job I'm training to do, and how well prepared am I going to be to do that job?

The answer to question 1 is easy. There seems to be basically NO chance of getting hired right out of flight school by any College Program . That is not to say that every student that graduates from an FBO will get a job, but at least they have a CHANCE. While the connections made at a College are great, so too are the conversations you have and the connections you make on a daily basis with the itinerant pilots who hang out at the flight school FBO.

Question 2 depends more on the student at an FBO than anything else. I once took a student from 0 hours to CPL Multi IFR in 1 year (to the day, in fact ). If you're motivated (as most College Prospects are), and have the funds in place (ANY accredited school can get you student loan $$), there is no reason why it should take longer than 2 years to complete your licenses and ratings, and get out there. This puts you in the market at least a year ahead of the College Graduate. Remember also, as every Chief Pilot knows, Springtime is the season to have all your ducks in a row.

Question 3 is harder to answer. From my calculations, going the FBO route will leave you with between $10,000 and $20,000 hanging in your jeans. That's quite a bit of scratch for those first few years of paying your dues, or it goes quite a ways towards an independent degree or diploma. Is the extra amount spent in a College Program justified by the aid that education, or level of training, offers you either immediately, or eventually, in this industry. My answer is no, not today. Back when Commuter Airlines were hiring off the street (I've been told it actually did happen), the answer may have been different, but the times have changed now, and so has the entry level position.

Question 4 seems to be the really difficult sell for the FBOs, and in a way relates closely to question 3. The comment about QUALITY of instructors is a good one here. There is no question that on the whole the caliber of instructor at the college is higher (many College Programs use Class 4 instructors, so that alone cannot be an indicator, and many FBOs have career,experienced instructors on staff) - typically part 705 experienced. These professionals command a higher wage, therefore the cost of the College Program goes up. Is their level of knowledge and experience something that is going to make a difference when it comes to getting that first job? Is it going to make a difference 10 years down the line? I don't know. What I do know, is that an FBO school with a working charter side employs instructors who are also experienced in the working side of the industry. By no means am I trying to suggest that their level of knowledge is as deep as the College Professor, but they ARE doing, today, the job that a prospective CPL is training for. Can they teach a fresh CPL how to do their first flying job as well and as safely as a College Professor can? I think so. My point here, I guess, is that there are good instructors (and bad ones) everywhere if you look for them.

Question 5 has been answered throughout my ramblings here. The typical first flying job will be a 182 or 206 (maybe floats) flying day VFR charter, or as F/O on an Islander or Ho flying cargo (maybe pax), or ... Maybe part of the problem is that so few prospects want to even consider that these are likely to be their first jobs, that they can't see the reality of what they're getting trained to do. They see themselves as Airline Captains as soon as they graduate, so they pursue that type of training.

Hopefully I haven't pissed anyone off here...That wasn't my intention! For those who can afford the time and the $$, and who maybe need a little more discipline, there is no question that the College route is the way to go. I just feel that an FBO can produce AS GOOD A CANDIDATE FOR THE ENTRY LEVEL POSITIONS THAT EXIST NOW, for way less money. Simply trying to find out if there are others out there who are thinking the same way in terms of preparing yourself effectively and economically for the realities of this industry today.

Always open for discussion.

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:10 am

You seem to be putting all the empasis on "getting the first job". I agree that overall, college or FBO will not make a difference there, but certain companies (ie North Wright) want to hire college grads only. Air Sprint is another one.

What about personal satisfaction? What about personal enjoyment? What about wanting to learn as much as you can about the job you are going to be doing?

No, college won't help you get the first job for the most part, but which turns out a safer, more compitent, confident, knowledgeable pilot? I think college grads are better prepared, and a little more knowledgeable. I am biased though. Do I think FBOs don't produce good pilots? Nope, flown with lots of good guys who didn't train at college.

You need to take some of the focus off of the first job aspect, understanding that they are fairly similar, and now look at the other benefits of college vs. club training, and whether or not the small price difference is worth it.

I don't think the price difference is terribly high. For 2 years at Selkirk, my flying fees were about 21-22000K. Plus tuition of maybe 1000 a year, probably less. The hourly rate for the 172 and BE95 were less than most clubs because we did not pay dual rates. Simulator was free and unlimited. And I did a TON of extra flying, from circumnavigating Vancouver Island, to taking my brother to the beach in Tofino for the day, and taking lots of friends and family on joy rides.

You seem to make a post about this every couple of months. I notice you are in YCG? Having a hard time competing with Selkirk?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:38 am

Disco :

Airtids does not have to compete with Selkirk to produce superior pilots, all he needs to do is concentrate on superior training.

Some of the Selkirk grads that I had for first officers some years ago couldn't find their asses with a set of moose antlers let alone fly.

The bottom line is the quality of training depends on the teacher, some are good and some are bad, no matter who they work for.

Cat

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:50 am

Stu,

Absolutely NO trouble competing with Selkirk: We produce totally different products, and also have other aspects to our company than merely training. We produce a blue-collar pilot- ie. someone who is well prepared, and looks forward to starting a career off in the bush, or instructing, or.... They would be content to see their career out in that kind of environment, OR progress on up through the ranks to the Big Iron, learning and gaining personal satisfaction as they go. They are stick and rudder pilots, indoctrinated in the fine art of marginal VFR flying in the mountains, and the critical decision making that goes on in that kind of operation. These are the skills a new pilot needs to survive; to get to the better equipment, better operation, and bigger salary. These are also the skills that a Chief Pilot looks for in an entry level pilot, along with a good attitude (not above washing a plane to help out because, 'Hey, I dropped $60,000'), and a great personality. There's only so much ANY school can do though...

The college produces what I would call a white-collar pilot, ie. someone who is well suited to graduate and jump into the right seat of a KA200, and make a fine FO. They are trained to this standard by some excellent instructors (I know, I was one of them

) Trouble is, these are not the jobs that a fresh MIFR CPL are likely to get these days, and yet the colleges continue to push that as a reason for dropping the big coin. This is exactly the kind of marketing that all the newbie pilots are complaining about, and paints ALL flight schools with the same crappy brush.

Take a look at their website Stu: Two year program will cost you $50,000 (does not include PPL, or housing etc.) and any way you look at it, you're going to end up saving a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money through an FBO, unless you are somehow able to sneeze at $10-20,000.

The reason I keep asking about this is that we all keep hearing about what a hard time newbies are having getting into this industry, and from my perspective, it all comes back to how much research these folks did before signing on to a certain program. If you were in the market for a pickup, would you drop the coin on the first one you saw, or would you do some research? Granted, many of the folks who end up in college programs are there because their folks are alumni, and therefore the recommendation takes on a different meaning. I'm just hoping to EDUCATE wannabe's that there are other, and in my opinion better, ways to get into this industry, and have a joyous ride

. We just can't compete with the marketing power of a government subsidised program.

You mention Northwright and Airsprint. These operators simply want someone with post-secondary education. They say NOTHING about a requirement for an Aviation diploma. I'm sure my 2 degrees would get me in the door. Additionally, there are a hell of a lot more operators out there (can't mention names here) who will not hire college grads because of the risk of getting one with an elitist attitude. Just a thought.

Cat has it correct. All we, or any other school for that matter, needs to do to compete is to offer excellent training by experienced instructors. Our program allows us to do that in spades. Quality of intruction being the same, I feel that given the realities of the industry today, it is the College who should be having trouble competing with us

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:13 am

If you want to learn to fly, save big $$$ and learn to fly at a flight school. Face it, becoming a pilot does not exactly pose enormous mental or academic challenges.

If you want to go to school and really learn something, skip the kiddie colleges and go to a real school ie university (U of T, Western, Queens, McGill, etc).

I personally don't see what serious academic pursuits such as theoretical physics have to do with learning to operate heavy machinery (ie becoming a pilot). They just want you to operate the fricken thing, not design it. Remember, the highest any pilot ever shoots for is to join the union.

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:13 am

airtids,

Again, you seem to be focusing on the "getting the first job" aspect and the money thing, so I will restate what I said earlier.

We have agreed that college does not assist the "first job". However, Airsprint USED to want an aviation diploma, and North-Wright "prefers" it. You get more points at AC, and when CDN was around they considered them equivalent to a degree, which they required. Higher level jobs are becoming more and more competitive. This is one more way to set yourself out from the other candidates. My old Chief Pilot brought up the college thing in my initial interview. Did it help me? I don't know, but I got the job, and he wanted to discuss it, so it isn't something that hiring people just ignore.

And as far as money goes, your arguement doesn't wash with me. I know many people who when the club route who have more than me. When I went through Selkirk, flying fees were roughly $24000 for the 2 years. I did a TON of extra flying, and both years got 1000-2000 dollars back. I can't remember hourly rates, but as I said, the rates were cheaper than most clubs. 1 rate dual or solo. And no charge for sim. Tuition was negligable. The extra cash involved in a college is because the estimates they give you are inclusive of room and board. If you do it at a local club where you can still live with mommy and daddy, well obviously it is going to be cheaper. If you are living on your own, and add the amount you spend on "life" to the amount you are paying for your flight training, you will get the same as going off to college. I spent $48K over 2 years. TOTAL. ON EVERYTHING. Less than half that was for flying. I could have done it cheaper, but I wanted to enjoy life while I was there. I went to the bar and had fun twice a week, ate out almost everyday, and spent a lot of money on aspects unrelated to college. Red and Whitewater beckoned ever weekend in the winter. Don't tell me how much Selkirk costs, I KNOW! I WENT THROUGH IT!

But more so, college makes you more marketable in my opinion. Don't try to convince me that college grads are a bunch of spoiled kids who refuse to work the ramp, or aren't suited for the bush. That is a small minority of them, mostly coming from a subsidized school in Southern Ontario that shall remain nameless. I know of a dozen or more people I went to college with, myself included, who worked ramp/docks, flew floats/skis in the bush, and have work the same shitty jobs that club grads have. Using the white collar/blue collar comparison doesn't hold water with me, although I agree that overall, college grads may be streamlined more towards FO on multi-IFR operations. Does that mean they can't hold their own in the bush? Hell no.

I always say that you can teach a monkey to fly (I am proof of that). Flying the plane is the hard part, and I don't believe you can "teach" good hands and feet. That is learned through experience. The hardest part about aviation is the decision making. You make a comment about the skills that Chief Pilots are looking for when they are hiring. Hands and feet can't be judged other than in an airplane, and how many companies hiring low timers do sim evals? You will never convince me that at 250 hours you are a "skilled" pilot. At Selkirk I got my share of "marginal VFR flying in the mountains" and learn lots on "the critical decision making that goes on" in doing so. I wouldn't expect anything less from a school that has been teaching commercial flying in the mountains for over 30 years.

So unfortunately, I think we may have to agree to disagree. People need to do what is best for themselves. If they want to rush to get their licences and get out quickly, by all means go to a club. If you want a true life experience, and are willing to take a little more time, learn a little more, and make yourself more marketable in the long run, then go to college.

Make the decision that is best personally.

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:53 am

Stu,

Undoubtedly we will have to agree to disagree. At least we both made it clear at the outset that our biases were likely to shine through, and whaddaya know...? I'm glad we're having this discussion, because it lets me know what the thought processes are from folks on the other side.

Couple of points though. The reason I keep bringing up the 'First Job' aspect (only twice now in over four years of contributing to this forum, by the way

) is because that is the crux of this discussion. I think most pilots will agree that getting 'The First Job' is the hardest part of this business today. My point here is that you should spend your money with the operation who will make that task a little easier.

It was obviously quite some time ago that you graduated from the College program. I refer you again to their website: $50,000 for tuition and flying. I too know what it costs, I TAUGHT THERE! I am not downplaying the quality of that program, it is excellent for what it does, and having the Diploma MAY make a difference somewhere down the line. Problem is, there is very little market for it's product (200hr CPL MIFR First Officers) TODAY. You can't tell me that someone who completes the same licenses and ratings at a club are going to pay that kind of cash! If so, please tell me which club it is, I'm curious. More likely, there was something abnormal going on.

My biggest concern, however, is your statement that you can't teach good hands and feet. BS BS BS Did you ever instruct? You most certainly can teach someone to be a stick and rudder pilot. That is exactly the reason a perspective pilot needs to seek out experienced, quality flight instruction. Not just for the cerebral issues that can be passed on, but a willingness on the part of the instructor to expect and demand more from a pilot candidate than merely going through the motions. A good instructor will instill a desire to fly with passion, verve, and spirit, to the utmost of their ability, and that takes effort from the instructor. Yes, these skills are generally also gained with experience, but so much the better if you show up to that first job with these skills that are needed already in place. Which leads into what a Chief Pilot does and does not know when interviewing. Just as the reputation of certain college grads preceeds them (I never suggested that ALL college grads are ill suited to the rigors of the lower levels of this industry, just that that is a perception- not my experience either, in the hiring I have done), so does the reputation of pilots who graduated from 'Flight School X' who have proven to come equipped to handle "The First Job". And have an extra 10 Gs in their pockets with which to buy the gang rounds at the watering hole!!

As you stated, "Make the decision that is best personally". But don't go whining when you have a hard time getting "in" and the place you trained at won't hire you.

CLguy · Post by **CLguy** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:29 pm

I did the college route in Ontario and would certainly do it again. I can't honestly say that I ever got a job because of my College Diploma but no doubt it tipped the scales a couple of times and I can say that I have gotten jobs because of the friends that I made and the people I met through college.

First from where I stand today looking at the training industry I see only a few true Aviation College Programs in the country. A couple in Ontario come to mind where you go to school full time to become a pilot. There seems to be a lot of Want-To-Be Schools who are jumping on the band wagon preaching Aviation Diploma while allowing a local Flying Club to suck you dry of all your money. One in Manitoba comes to mind!!! To me a true Aviation College is one where you pay your tuition and they train you, period. Just like someone taking Nursing, or Engineering. None of those students ever have to enroll in a College and then go to the local hospital or engineering firm and pay extra for their required training.

I know many pilots who have gone both routes and I certainly can't say one way is better than the other. For me, it was living for 2 years in the enviroment that made the difference. You live and breathe Aviation and your classmates become your friends forever.

I did my Private Licence at the local Flying Club before I went to College and the training was great. The only difference was, that once your lesson was over you walked out and that was it until the next lesson and you never got the chance to form the bonds you did in College.

Of course this is just my opinion but I would do it the same way again.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:42 pm

The lack of hands and feet training is apalling in a lot of todays pilots.

I just can't believe that anyone can actually hold a license and not know how to physically fly an airplane.

What good is book learning when the pilot wrecks the airplane due to poor aircraft handling skills?

GRRRR.... It drives me nuts.

Cat

LastSamurai · Post by **LastSamurai** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:06 pm

My apologies go out to airtids, his employees and company for this post--it was indeed uncalled for.

G

LastSamurai · Post by **LastSamurai** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:09 pm

These are also the skills that a Chief Pilot looks for in an entry level pilot, along with a good attitude (not above washing a plane to help out because, 'Hey, I dropped $60,000'), and a great personality.

Airtids...this is total BS There are a lot of Selkirk grads out there who are working ramp, throwing bags, fueling airplanes, in the middle of butt-@#$! nowhere...who arent afraid of getting dirty and dont think they are above their job just because of the school they trained at.

Airtids, get your information right...or dont say it at all. You have a bid misconception about Selkirk and I feel that you are down-playing the school to your advantage.

G

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:51 pm

540,

I'm not exactly sure you really know what (or whom) you are talking about

. Nearest I can tell, you've been in this industry for what, three years

, working a ramp for at least part of that (good on ya, by the way). What's your experience? Who the hell do you think you are to judge another pilots stick and rudder skills with that kind of resume.

Worry about yourself before using your vast knowledge to criticise others. All my instructors have spent at least a season flying operationally in all kinds of weather out here, and do every flight that is requested of them unless I (That's right, me. Maybe you have a problem with the personal limits I have set for my company? Hop into my shoes, lets see you do it better!) dictate otherwise. This is before they even start instructing. How many schools do you know of that do that? The only one who ever refused work here, no longer works here, and never held an instructor rating, so maybe YOU should get YOUR facts straight. On the occasion that a pilot gets hired with less than a desireable level of skill, they are given additional training to get them up to speed. Be careful who you are talking about, lest you prove Cat Driver right

Feel free to PM me if you feel you have personal knowledge about one of my staff that I don't. Otherwise, it would seem that the right thing to do here is apologise for criticising things and people you know nothing about. Some anonymous forum troll doesn't have the right to trash-talk one of my hard working and (I stand by my assessment) highly skilled employees.

As for the comment about an elitist attitude, that was not directed specifically at Selkirk grads (although you are making an excellent case for their inclusion), but rather an unfortunate opinion about college grads in general that has developed as a result of a few, but has come to taint the entire group. You haven't been around for terribly long if you want to try and argue that the stereotype doesn't exist. It is shared by more folks than myself (college grads included like Stu), and yet I even hire them. Read the post properly before you start criticising the words YOU put in MY mouth.

This thread is not about me and any problem I have with A college program. I don't have a bad misconception about Selkirk, I have a bad opinion of ALL College Programs in this day and age. I feel they are charging too much for what they do to get your career underway. Stu (one of your classmates??)specified Selkirk, and I have more experience with that particular program than any, so naturally it became a focal point, but I have been very careful to generalise, and also to point out that as far as college programs go, Selkirk's is indeed excellent. He questioned (with a bit of a dig, but it's OK, I can take it

)my ability to compete with their program, and I explained why we don't need to. This thread is about why people believe that the college route is still the way to go given the current difficulty in obtaining initial employment. If the consensus is "because I met great friends" and "it was the best friggin year of my life" (to paraphrase you!!) and "it will help down the road" and "I needed a little extra supervision/structure", then fine. When your goal is to get a job however, again I ask, 'Why don't you train where you will work?' Sorry you got your panties in a knot and pressed the submit button before you thought things through.