There has been a lot of comment on what is a useless aviation degree but has anyone thought of what they would like in a usefull Diploma or Degree for a Pilot wanting to fly the latest types of aircraft that are here and coming soon to a airport near you?
Agreed! Most... if not all current Diplomas and University Degrees seem to prepare a pilot for Management than for a flying position, or am I wrong?
What subjects would you put into an Aviation Diploma or University Degree for a Pilot using it as professional development to be a pilot flying say, The latest SAAB340, The Dash 8-300, The Latest Boeings or Airbuses with the Fly by wire concepts and complex systems.
Some areas you might consider thhinking about are Airline Aircraft Famil, Aviation Technology, Aviation Occupational Health, Safety and Security, Aviation Teaching. What about training in the latest systems such as GPS, INS, EFIS, EICAS, ECAM systems, FMS Training in Airbus FMS, Boeing 737 FMS, Universal UNS 1C, Using the latest PFDs, Navigation Displays, ACARS....... Lots of areas.....
What would you put into a course to professionally develop a pilot for flying the latest aircraft and the aircraft of the future.....
It is interesting isn't it that there are many views and posts on a topic called "useless aviation diplomas and degrees" but not one comment on what could be useful to a pilot that wants to use a Diploma or Degree for Professional Development. Or is it just that Pilots know everything already. I agree that Flying Pilots don't want to do "useless aviation degrees or diplomas" that give you a qualification that takes you away from Flying, What about a Diploma in Aviation Education for our Flying Instructors, Or a Diploma in Aviation Occupational Health, Safety, Security and Survival, What about a Diploma in Aviation Technology that keeps a pilot up to date with the latest technology such as GPS systems, EFIS, FMS, Autoflight Systems, MCPs etc. What about an ATPL Course that teaches you not only enough information to pass antiquated ATPL Exam subjects, and most don't do that, using aircraft that few still fly and proves nothing more than a money raising exercise for CASA and the Cyberexams providers. The ATPL courses should also prepare us to fly aircraft such as the SAAB 340B, MetroLiner, Beech 1900, Dash 8, Boeing 737NG, 767, 777 and Airbus types for AGK, Performance and Flight Planning, lets get rid of the Boeing 727 out of our ATPL exams. Our courses should have Currency and Validity to be of any use to persons wanting to make a career of flying in the airlines.
I believe that CASA have been planning on using the 767 for flight planning for a number of years. As with most of the hobnobs on capital hill they have said that there are plans to introduce the 767 into the syallabus but when? not even God knows.
I heard the talk about the Boeing 767 going to be used for future ATPL Planning as well, but I wonder who started that rumour, Its been around for years. Why should we start our ATPL students on an airliner such as the B767? I now we have already started using the B767 for the AGK and its a start, But surely we should be preparing new Airline pilots for something easier for the transition such as the USA does with the B1900 or even the SAAB 340B, It's like throwing students into the deep end and see if they swim. I would like to see and approach that takes smaller steps from the known to the unknown and the easier to the harder. I think it is now the right time with all CASAs changes to update the required theory for ATPL to something that starts to prepare a student for flyiing Commuters as well as Airliners, A course should also have a practical application side to the training that enables a student to see why somethings work and others don't, without a practical side Theory does not get used and soon gets forgotton.
I believe that one of the reasons that the B767 has not been used for Flight Planning is that their is no flight routes within Australia where there is a probem with reduced payload/minimum fuel. This would take out a number of problem questions put into the exam. B767 pilots may be able to say otherwise, it is only speculation.
This was met with the idea of using trips going overseas instead ie Japan/Pacific for some of the bigger questions. This created the problem of providing maps for track/distance calcs. All seemed to hard so idea was shelved.
My opinion is to use B767 but change questions to involve such planning considerations as ETOPS.
The systems are close to those found on the Dash-8 (and to a lesser extent the SAAB), it has weights approaching those of the old 727, and planning it around the countryside will produce landing weight, zero fuel weight, rtow, etops etc type problems.
and it has the added advantage of being the most popular jet in the world, and widely used in Australia..
I totally agree... I am currently study for the planning exam so CASA please hold off any changes until I am done its my last exam. The 737-300 would be a great start and would help those looking at doing the ETA course in the future...
I agree with everybody that commented that the Boeing 737 would be a good choice, but why stop at the B737-300, It would seem like a good choice to use the B737 NG Series with the Glass cockpits which will be the most current type flying Domestically in Australia at the moment, But what about the Airbus, with the A330's that QANTAS have and JetStar with the A320 and orders that QANTAS have for the A380 wouldn't it make sense to also learn something about there Systems, Planning and Performance, Maybe CASA could have type 1 Boeing 737 and Type 2 Airbus A320? I don't think we have to worry about quick changes, It would take a long time to change the system, But we have to start somewhere. With all the CASA comments about introducing Competency Based Training, Two of the main principles is Validity and Currency issues. ATPL Flight Planning and Performance exams using the B 727 as an example fails to address these requirements using these rules.
I reaslise that this doesn't exactly answer the question in the post however I shall put in my moneys worth.
My one greatest criticism of aviation degrees is that it demonstrates a lack of diversity within a person. I would have thought an employer might like to see that you are interested in other things in life. How does the line go? "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". If I met someone who had left school, gained their licence, then done an aviation degree and done nothing more diverse than this then I would question how broad minded they are. I would of course admire their dedication but there are more things to life than work. There are so many things in life to experience that it seems a folly to waste all your time learning about machines which, likely as not, in 20 or so years will be done with our kind. Now I'm not involved in airline hiring so at the end of the day my post is merely a personal opinion, however, I must say that I cherish the travelling that I did before getting an airline job and the university subjects I took that had no direct involvement in aviation.
A good topic this, and I do agree some exams need a bit of updating. However, the aircraft type does not matter as such, because the idea of the exams is not to give you a type rating, but for the student to learn the intricacies of heavy aircraft flight planning, ie fuel burns, weight and balance, take off performance, effects of weight, temperature etc. Whether it be a 737, 727 or 747, what the exams do is give you an insight, and also show that you have the competency to do the sums, as it were. Atpapa, I agree some exams do need updating, however there is no point conducting an exam on FMC's for example. What would you ask? They are quite straight forward to operate (really!!) and differ from Boeing to Boeing and Airbus, so the subject area is too wide. Same with the EFIS displays. As for GPS, again pretty straight forward and I believe there are questions on it. EGPWS and TCAS, easy to use and easy to understand and interpret, no big deal.
The ATPL exams are not a type rating course, they show an ability to learn and understand complex subjects, ability to study and then pass an exam using the noggin. When you do get a job on a jet, you will learn all you need to know about your airplane on the ground course.
As 18 wheeler said, learn to divide by 3 and you'll be sweet!!
I agree with you all adding more info about actual aircraft and slightly less management info would be a huge draw card.
The aviation degree I completed was comprised of the following subjects:
Aviation Biology and Medicine International Aviation Organisation Atmospheric Science
Transport Aircraft Performance Aviation Information Systems Human Factors in Aviation
Aviation Project Airways Operation and Design Planning for Transport Aircraft Operations
Flight Safety Aviation Legal Studies Aviation Management for Pilots
There was only one subject related to Management, and all the subjects were relevant to aviation professionals.
My one greatest criticism of aviation degrees is that it demonstrates a lack of diversity within a person. I would have thought an employer might like to see that you are interested in other things in life. How does the line go? "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".
How can you make such an assumption, that an aviation degree demonstrates a lack of diversity. I would imagine with your very narrow-minded view of tertiary students that my life has been far more diverse than your sheltered existence.
You don't want to do a degree, and that is fine, but stop knocking those who have the dedication and ability to improve themselves.
you can't have read my post correctly. see the line that says " I would of course admire their dedication".
I am not knocking people who have a degree, far from it. A narrow minded person like myself even has one. What I am getting at is maybe it might be more beneficial to do one in something other than aviation. I am glad I did because pretty much all I do at the moment is eat sleep and breathe my flying job. It was nice to have done something else with my time.
I am not trying to get all superior about anything just trying to give some helpful advice.
With reference to the TCAS, EGPWS ect, I agree with nosegear and so on that it is easy once you know it but intailly its a bit of a headache. If you where to incorporate more info on these systems prior to pilots getting in machinery that has it, it would make flying the machine much easier.
It seems that there is a continual push for more and varied degrees to be introduced. Why is that?
How does a University decide what types of degrees to develop?
Concerning Aviation, what is wrong with having the appropriate licences and ratings?
With reference to the topic starter and their assertion that there has been many comments made against degrees and little suggestions about what would make a degree worthwhile...please detail how a Aviation Degree would improve my skills, attributes and attitudes as a pilot.
Lets say I am an individual at the start of a potential career in aviation, here I am sitting in the office of a University looking for a reason to undergo a degree. Why?
I can't seem to get past the idea that like most things, the 'seller' is simply money driven. The academic arguement of furthering aviation through the research and development of man-management, with increased focus on safety and learning, I believe can be equally achieved outside of the University environment.
It seems that the challenge was for those "baggers" to step up and detail how the degree could be improved. But before I concern myself with considering improvements, I am not convinced that the degree should exist.