CEng and ECUK, a.k.a. Engineering Council

[Genghis the Engineer]

Once upon a time, I became a Chartered Engineer - this took considerable time money and effort, which was rewarded with a rather handsome certificate (which I am looking at on my wall as I type), a registration card, and a set of very stern rules about professional behaviour that I was supposed to abide by (and so-far, I hope I have).

A young man working for me has just got his CEng. The new ECUK (formerly the Engineering Council) has given him a rather scrappy A4 certificate done on an office printer, no registration card, and not even a copy of the code of conduct for registered engineers.

Not only that, but if he wants to become a Eur.Ing. which cost me a nominal fee and bit of form filling on top of my CEng, the RAeS website now say he has to pay £100 and wait 6 months whilst they think about it.


All seems like a bit of a downgrade of service to me. The amount of effort the chap has gone through to get there, you'd think the least they can do is still give him a decent certificate for his office wall!

Just thought I'd vent my spleen on the subject !

G

[Tempsford]

Well done Genghis to you and your colleague. I also have a gripe. After 32 years in aircraft Maintenance holding Multiple Type Licences with a number of different Authorities, having Management Qualifications and for the last 10 years being repsonsible for over 200 staff worldwide maintaining over 1 billion pounds worth of aircraft and being responsible for a budget in excess of 15 million pounds, I though that when the RAeS wrote to me as a MRAes and IEng asking me if I wanted to be considered for an upgrade to FRAeS, I would duly apply. After due deliberation, they advised me that I did not have enough experience or responsibility and that my application would not be processed any further. To rub salt in the wound, they wrote to me again a year later and asked the same question. I got the same response on the second application. I am obviously not the sort of person they want to regrade and I fully understand that they send such letters to all members, but if they are not going to accept oiks like me for regrade please don't send me the letter in the first place.
Makes you feel really valued that does. I will not be renewing my membership of the RAeS.
It also makes you realise why a large number of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers have chosen not to becone involved with the RAeS.

Feel better now and am getting off soap box

Temps.

[Blacksheep]

I noticed that the Europeans look down their noses at British engineering qualifications. Our Chartered Engineers are far too "hands on" for their liking.

While visiting German companies I find their negotiating teams are usually led by Doctors of Engineering and even some of their secretaries are Dipl. Eng.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Tempsford, whilst I'm not going to do anything as drastic as resign, I've had a very similar experience. After encouragement from several senior colleagues - and like you responsibility for a lot of aeroplanes and people (although not a budget for some years - we have other people for that) I made an application for Fellowship.

So I applied, and about 3 months later got a very bland letter from an administrator saying that I wasn't considered suitable. What really irritated me, was a blank refusal to explain the reasons why.

Having in the couple of years since won a couple of national engineering awards and finished my PhD, I shall have another go this year. If they turn me down, I probably won't resign - but I shall certainly go straight to the president and demand a clear explanation of the reasons why.

I do suspect that if you are not part of a major university, Big Airways, or the RAF the RAeS does tend to think that you are a minor player not worthy of fellowship - or in my case even an explanation of why! But, no I won't resign - I prefer to make my protests internally.

G

N.B. Just after I got my rejection for FRAeS, a junior of mine who had held his CEng for just under a year (I've had mine for nine) got the same "think about regrading to Fellow" letter as you did. You can guess just how I felt about that.

[Tempsford]

Genghis,
Apologies if my previous mail seems like a case of me throwing my doll out of the cot. It was not meant to come across like that. Like all of us in this industry, I have taken a lot of knockbacks and one from the RAes does not exactly come high on the list of important factors in my life. I know what I contribute to the industry and if that is not enough to warrant a regrade in the opinion of the RAeS, then so be it.
I just feel that they should not build a persons hopes up for regrade if the person concerned is not what they are looking for in the first place and definitely don't do it a second time so soon after the first rejection.
Identify likely candidates for regrade from the RAeS data base and send such letters to them only. That is of course if such letters should be sent in the first place.
As you say, the situation was, in your case excaserbated by a colleague of yours receiving such a letter soon after you were declined for re-grade.

Temps

[freikorps]

the problem here temps i feel is, your not actually considered by the outside world to be a "proper engineer" at all if i can put it that way, you are to some a aircraft tradesman who has passed a couple of licence exams which are not seen as "proper" qualifications and which are not that difficult anyway, this hardly puts you in the same strata as someone who has for example gone on to uni and obtained an engineering degree, this is not my view but certainly one held by a number of friends who consider themselves to be"proper engineers" due to the fact they hold eng. degrees, however as a licensed enginer myself i certainly consider myself a" proper" engineer!

[Genghis the Engineer]

At risk of subverting the conversation, I'd venture that a "proper" Engineer is one who has both good academic qualifications and good practical training and experience. How much of which is an interesting point for argument.

I make no secret of having a couple of degrees, and being very proud of the fact. But, those alone would qualify me to do nothing. Similarly, it doesn't really matter how much practical experience you've got - you need to have spent a fair bit of time learning the theory that supports it.



But, what is perhaps at the root of both Tempford's grouch and mine, is that there are influentual people who have taken a particular view of what constitutes "real" engineering, and "real" aviation. Clearly, neither of us are regarded as having done enough of that - whatever it is. In my case probably because I've chosen to spend my career around "little aeroplanes", in his I suspect because he's regarded as being too practical and not theoretical enough.

G

N.B. I've just checked - RJ Mitchell had no degree, that shoots down at-least one argument!

[Tempsford]

Freikorps,
I will not enter into a debate as to the merits of Licenses versus Degrees.That chestnut has been discussed on here time and time again and the result has been some pretty unsavoury comments. Thankyou for reminding me about my roots. You are probably right, I am aiming too high and I should know my place. You have told me and I suspect the RAeS are doing exactly the same thing.
I had an interesting chat with the IMechE as well. They won't even look at you unless you do have a degree. A week after being told that by the local IMechE membership person, I was asked to show some members of the IMechE round our facility and a person from that organisaion was put in touch with me. Guess what...yup it was the same person who had told me to go away because I didn't have a degree.
It is pleasing to see that you are a Licensed Engineer and that as you say, you know the value of the Licence you hold.

Genghis,
Once again, thanks for your comments. I suspect that your application will be viewed more favourably in the future than mine.

Temps

[Genghis the Engineer]

IMechE have, for years, excluded anybody not eligible for CEng - that was a policy decision made I suspect shortly after George Stevenson shuffled off. Allied to this, was a grave suspicion of anybody who didn't hold a degree - believing that they belonged in some other "lesser" institution.

About a year ago, there was a sudden reversal, and now they think IEng's are the most wonderful people - so long, one suspects, as there aren't too many cluttering the place up and making it look untidy. All rather odd and distasteful - I prefer to recognise my professional colleagues for their competence, not their tertiary education. Frankly, I belong to the IMechE because they are useful (and they keep giving me awards, and they might stop if I left - the last one came with a cheque!), the attitude there does trouble me - just read the letters page of any issue of "professional engineering" and you'll see what I mean.

G

[freikorps]

hi temps ,sorry i did not intend to put you down, i just gave you a view from "outside the box" if you like and how we are viewed by others who generally know very little of what being a licensed engineer is all about, and who at times i would dearly love to put in the position of being on their own at three am ,pouring with rain, and having to make decisions which could risk the lives of hundreds of people and millions of quids worth of aircraft( i know im being a bit melodramatic but you get my drift) and your not even a real engineer!

[Tempsford]

freikorps,
No offence taken I can assure you. As you say, lets' get real here. The system is geared up to degree holders and the lesser qualifications such as ours are what they are...lesser. As I have said I do not want to get into a Degree vs Licence debate. The degree holders have got it wrapped up. We know what we contribute and that is far far more than a lot of people will ever realise, understand or are even bothered about. What I do know is that I have had the privelege to meet and work with some of the most unassuming, practical and yet unrewarded (both in in financial and proffessional recogntion) groups of people who are otherwise known as Aircraft Maintenance Engineers, whether they were Licensed or not.

Temps

[Blacksheep]

Not only did RJ Mitchell not have a degree Ghengis, he also designed small aeroplanes. ;)

As "one of nature's engineers", Mitchell was in good company -

Isambard Kingdom Brunel was a Member (but not a Fellow) of the Institute of Civil Engineers and was elected to the Royal Society at the early age of 26. Despite these honours, he never attended university and learned his engineering hands-on, working for his father's civil engineering business, straight after leaving school at the age of sixteen. The only degree he held was the Honourary Degree of Civil Laws, awarded him by the University of Oxford in 1857, two years before his death.

James Watt didn't go to university either and the only degree he held was also an honourary degree - from the University of Glasgow. James Watt learned the trade of mathematical instrument maker in Glasgow before setting up a business in London and entering into a partnership with Matthew Boulton, another ill-educated ex-apprentice.

George Stephenson held no degrees, not even honourary ones, though it was he who proposed the rules for the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and was elected its first president. The son of a colliery fireman, he learned to read and write at night school and followed his father into the colliery, eventually qualifying as an engineman - which is how he learned about engines.

A fine band of Technicians that lot, eh? Makes you proud to be a technician, so it does.

{Blacksheep, IEng MRAes MIEE, & not a gentleman... :8}

[Tempsford]

Blacksheep,

Well said. A topic that, like you I do feel quite strongly about. A more recent example of a person who I would call an Engineer was good old Fred Dibnah. Not on the same scale perhaps as the names you have mentioned, but a heck of an Engineer. Not only did he know how his machines worked, he could draw/design/build/test and maintain them. I believe that he went to Art College.
We have one Engineering Masters Degree holder in the MRO I work for. This is out of 800 staff. A quarter of those staff are Licensed. This person has been heard to say on more than one occasion that they are the most qualified person in the Company. If this sort of arrogant and I am afraid to say, ignorant comment is indicative of the sort of person who has a degree and is also the opine of some Degree holders, then, I am glad that I chose the career path I did.

Temps

Temps

[Genghis the Engineer]

If this sort of arrogant and I am afraid to say, ignorant comment is indicative of the sort of person who has a degree and is also the opine of some Degree holders, then, I am glad that I chose the career path I did.

It is typical of some degree holders - generally those who haven't yet seen enough of real engineering to put their university qualification in context. It is, I'm afraid particularly typical of many university engineering lecturers who have never actually worked in engineering - personally I'd sack the lot of them, and not allow anybody to teach Engineering who hasn't at-least 10 years real-world experience.

But, I'm afraid to my mind it is no more arrogant than that of people with a lot of practical experience who considers that means they have nothing to learn from somebody who spent 3+ years of 50+ hours a week studying in a university.


What we need, and sort of have (but not as well as we should by a long way) is a recognition of the mix of practical and academic - and the need for both in anybody trusted out on their own. The debate really shouldn't be about one versus the other, but about how much of each we need in what role. The bottom line is we're all engineers, qualified as such to do a job - and if we get it wrong, aeroplanes start getting broken. That applies equally to your arrogant MEng holder - he may p*** people off, but presumably he can do his job or he'd be out on his ear.

G

[Tempsford]

Genghis
Many thanks for the positive response and the self restraint that you have exhibited from not entering into an us v them scenario. I agree that all areas of Engineering have their element of people who should conduct themselves in a more professional and understanding manner. I am afraid that if the ones that teach instill a specific mindset on their students then we have big, big problems.
The questions are, 'how do we break down these walls?' and 'what is the way forward to stop this infighting between two areas with a common cause?'


Temps

[McAero]

Personally, I do not classify myself as an engineer....and never have done throughout my time at University. And I won't consider myself an engineer either untill I have gained C.Eng status or I make significant enough progress in the workplace....if that ever happens. The difference comes in the term "engineer". In Europe,engineer actually means "inventor" so you can see the clashes in style between us and them already. An engineer to me is the man on the wing so to speak, or in the cockpit, or in the lab. Both go hand in hand and like Genghis says - rely on each others abilities and skills.

If there are issues with the RAes etc, then please take it up with them, but don't blame the guys who have spent 4 years studying their balls off, because the whole issue smells of hypocrisy.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The questions are, 'how do we break down these walls?' and 'what is the way forward to stop this infighting between two areas with a common cause?'

Well, a bit of an attitude change at places like Hamilton Place and Birdcage Walk would help - but frankly I think that they are the symptom, not the disease.


I think a culture change is called for - include experienced technicians in the teaching staff of University Aerospace Engineering departments, and experienced graduates teaching - particularly the theory side - to apprentices and on HND/HNC courses. Add in a prohibition on anybody who has gone straight from school-to-university-to-PhD teaching in universities until they've gone out and got some real world Engineering experience (e.g. got IEng or CEng) then I think you'd start to solve the problem.

Will this happen? Almost certainly not, but one can dream.

G

[Blacksheep]

Thanks for the mature replies so far. This is, as Ghengis suggests, a debate about the proper relationship between theoretical and practical experience for engineers.

I am not a graduate engineer. My particular mix of qualifications includes many, many years as a supervisory technician / LAE combined with a few years of senior management supported by an honours degree in Economics. I'd rather have read engineering, but with family committments I couldn't afford the time off from paid employment that such a programme entailed. One way or another, I feel that I am qualified to operate at the strategic planning level in the aircraft maintenance / engineering industry and my current employers seem to feel the same way.

What is an Engineer? The examples I gave above were certainly at the head of the field. What distinguishes them, I believe, was their ability to see the future, ignore the limitations of the present, and that they dared to be different. They were also, (with the exception of Brunel), clever enough to overcome the disadvantages of a working class background. None of them, including Brunel, were Gentlemen in an age when that was particularly important. I feel that this is one of the things that has caused the Engineering Profession such difficulties as exist to the present day.

Who cares about being a member of the Learned Societies? We all seek the recognition of our fellows, but it is up to each and every individual to make his own mark upon history - the best of the past are our guides - Bert Rutan (who is a graduate engineer) is perhaps the best example for our designers to follow today.

In the meantime, the recognition of our fellow practitioners is the best we each can aim for. Maslow had it right in his Hierarchy of Needs....

[merlin505]

I have read this topic so far with alot of interest.
The majority of undergraduate/graduate engineers seem to be a strange breed to me.
I am a graduate myself and agree with Genghis that hands on experience should be an essential counterpart to academic studies but in my experience this is not a widely held point of view, especially amongst those currently studying engineering at university.
At the moment the gliding club in my university is doing a major overhaul of a wooden glider. We have a number of engineering students on the members books (worse a few are aeronautical engineering students!) but none of them have expressed the slightest interest in getting involved with working on a real aircraft.

[Tempsford]

Merlin,
You mentioned wood. Unless its aluminium or composite, many of the younger generation whether they be degree or other types of student may struggle with that.

All,
A pleasant change to exchange views in such a positive manner, long may it continue in this forum.

Thank you

Temps