Bucks New university plus CCAT

[crazy_bird]

hey guys,
i have just stumbled upon this course offered buy bucks new uni in partnership with cabair...
its called BA(Hons) Air Transport with Commercial Pilot Training.
its basically a 3 year course which offers the JAA ATPL(frozen) and a degree...
can any ex-student or anyone else who knows about this course give me their feedback on it??
thanks a lot
all replies will be appreciated :)
cheers

[crazy_bird]

??????????

[Glugaball]

I would try to avoid a degree like this to be honest. Go and work on a degree you are actually interested in and fit your flying training around your degree or after it. This is how you can formulate your 'safety net'

[crazy_bird]

hi Glugaball,
but why would you try to avoid a degree like this in the first place?
could u pls give me the negative points of it.
thanks :)

[mad_jock]

Because it is useless for anything else.

You would be better going the plumbing college and getting a CORGI ticket.

Go and study something which will allow you to earn money which will pay for your flying. With all these Pilot degree courses you are digging yourself a hole which it will be very hard to climb out of if things don't exactly go to plan.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Because it is useless for anything else.

You would be better going the plumbing college and getting a CORGI ticket.

Go and study something which will allow you to earn money which will pay for your flying. With all these Pilot degree courses you are digging yourself a hole which it will be very hard to climb out of if things don't exactly go to plan.


I would personally make an exception for the BEng or MEng aeronautical/aviation/aerospace engineering courses that include flying - because they actually are proper accredited engineering degrees.

But pretty much all the others, I agree.

G

[mad_jock]

I can't see the point Genghis your either being educated to be an Engineer or your being trained to be a pilot.

Mind you I could never see the point of doing Engineering plus (biz,language,law etc etc) you just turned out students who wern't very good at 2 things instead of having a chance at be useful in one.

Instead if they had done a pure course then backed it up with post graduate study they would be useful in both subjects.

But these combination degrees look sexy in the prospectus and for the breeze block Uni's they can get students in who would never have looked at them before.

And that New Bucks course is a perfect example. Who would want to go to a Nursing/Teaching college to do a Biz degree?. Call it BA(Hons) Air Transport with Commercial Pilot Training and you get kids applying. The fact that the bit of paper at the end is good for next to nothing unless you do actually become a pilot doesn't seem to bother the Academics, who only care that they have bums in through the door.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Two reasons why I see the point:

(1) Somebody may want to be an aviation professional, but hasn't yet clarified in their mind what profession within aviation.

(2) An aeronautical engineer who understands flying, or a pilot who understands aeronautical engineering may well end up much better at their job than somebody with only one knowledge base.

[Or they may have ambitions to be an oddball like me - a multitasking Chartered Engineer and CPL who refuses to give up either engineering or flying, and gets great satisfaction from both. There are a few of us about.]

Incidentally, given that students arrive at university knowing not a lot about aeroplanes, the PPL syllabus at-least is a pretty good "bought in" package of aeronautical knowledge.

When I was teaching on one of these degree courses we had a (very good) RAF sponsored student, streamed pilot. Part way through their degree a medical threw up a problem preventing them becoming an RAF pilot (fine for civil, but they were set on an RAF career). Rolling with the punch, they switched to engineering branch and was last heard of en-route to Cranwell happy to pursue a career as an engineering officer who'd scratch the flying itch by flying privately. My money is on them ending up a Typhoon squadron SENGo with a certain amount of twin-sticker back seat time along the way and a private light single tucked into the corner of the hangar.

A good friend of mine who I studied alongside did Aeronautical Engineering with French, and now works as an engineering manager in a multinational where the language skills are much needed.

These combined degrees can often have their place, they just need to be serious about all and any academic content they're delivering: this may well not be the case at BCUC.

G

[mad_jock]

These combined degrees can often have their place, they just need to be serious about all and any academic content they're delivering: this may well not be the case at BCUC.

Flying is a vocational qualification not academic. So what bits do you miss out of a degree to fit in the vocational bit. I can't think of anything that could have been trimmed from my Mech Eng course apart from Economics but that was only an hour a week in 1st year.

Yes I know in our acredited Degrees we had to go to the workshops and fanny around with welding, machining and other such hands on engineering type things. But we wern't trained to be good at it just have exposure to the methods.

I can see the point of an Aero getting up to say solo but the ATPL theory is utterly useless. It would be like training Mech Engs up to be able to weld a occluded stainless 9g or Machine an engine block from a billet.

I must admit though the Language skills combo I am quite happy with. Certainly on my course the languages were only taken in the elective slots when the rest of us were doing the application type courses. But the core course and subjects were the same. If the course was setup so that to do the languages you missed out on core subjects it would be pants.

If your going to train to be an Engineer do it. If you want to train as a Pro Pilot take the vocational course. If you want to follow in Neil Armstrongs or Genghis footsteps you build your knowledge and skill sets up on firm foundations. A degree which is a taster of several subjects/displines which takes you to a low knowledge base in all of them isn't a firm foundation.

Although a lack of technical competence seems to be an advantage in a great number of industry's for gaining a managment position.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Flying is a vocational qualification not academic. So what bits do you miss out of a degree to fit in the vocational bit. I can't think of anything that could have been trimmed from my Mech Eng course apart from Economics but that was only an hour a week in 1st year.

It's difficult at the best of times, and the people who construct degree programmes have to fight constantly to get the balance right. One year of maths or two? How far do you take the aerodynamics? What about the materials content? - composites are becoming more prevalent, but to make space what metallurgy do you take out? And how about general aeronautical knowledge? Writing skills?

Yes I know in our acredited Degrees we had to go to the workshops and fanny around with welding, machining and other such hands on engineering type things. But we wern't trained to be good at it just have exposure to the methods.

This is a constant battle again. The practices in manufacturing and maintenance keep getting more and more complex - is manual welding really relevant any more? How about some maintenance tasks?

You're absolutely right of-course that all of this is about basic exposure, not about competence - other people in other trades will get that (whilst getting their own light taste of graduate-type education.

I can see the point of an Aero getting up to say solo but the ATPL theory is utterly useless. It would be like training Mech Engs up to be able to weld a occluded stainless 9g or Machine an engine block from a billet.

I did ATPL theory (well, CPL technically, but there's not much in it), but much later. And I've found it very useful - but realistically, during or just after my first aero-eng degree would not have been the right time for it. On the other hand, had I know that material was available a couple of years later when I first started as a young flight test engineer, it might well have been very useful.

I must admit though the Language skills combo I am quite happy with. Certainly on my course the languages were only taken in the elective slots when the rest of us were doing the application type courses.

Similarly on mine, and personally I took the view that languages were something I could learn by many routes, and any time later.

But the core course and subjects were the same. If the course was setup so that to do the languages you missed out on core subjects it would be pants.

This is also true with the accredited aero-eng + flying degrees. It is the fringe stuff that makes way, not the engineering core. Note that I refer to the aero-eng degrees, (BEng or MEng), not the BA or BSc variants.


If your going to train to be an Engineer do it.

Yes, but I'll maintain that some flying knowledge (the accredited eng+pilot degrees go to solo or NPPL generally) is definitely beneficial in an aero-engineer. Similarly, many universities have auto-engineer students running and racing "formula student" racing teams.

If you want to train as a Pro Pilot take the vocational course.

Ultimately, I do have to agree with you - I did the vocational course, enjoyed it, and passed everything full time. But it's a very different beast to my degree, complementary, but doing it at the same time as my BEng would have been the wrong time. (I actually did it just after finishing my PhD).

[quote]If you want to follow in Neil Armstrongs or Genghis footsteps you build your knowledge and skill sets up on firm foundations. A degree which is a taster of several subjects/displines which takes you to a low knowledge base in all of them isn't a firm foundation.

Yes - ish. You will eventually, if you want to do the sort of odd-job-career that I and that Professor Armstrong chappie have pursued, you'll need really solid education and training in both engineering and maths. Pretty much all test pilots nowadays have engineering or science degrees, most often aeronautical engineering, and very often to masters level (and it's amazing how many high level aeronautical engineers are accomplished pilots).

For that matter, for how many years did engineering or science students in the UK join the UAS and learn military flying to a high level? And how many of those ended up pretty senior in one sphere or another? Quite a lot.

Although a lack of technical competence seems to be an advantage in a great number of industry's for gaining a managment position.

Part of that is that the functional technical leaders tend to get really resentful of anybody above them trying to tell them how to do their jobs - so eventually the most senior managers give up trying.

A way around that is for a senior manager to show a lot of humility and demote themself once in a while and do a relatively junior job in their discipline to maintain contact and some grasp of organisation reality. Middle managers however, really hate that - an airline captain doesn't like having his MD as FO, nor does a crew chief want the maintenance director in overalls doing wire locking. Universities solve this quite elegantly by having even the most senior professors engage with the grass roots: so a head of School or Faculty (possibly responsible for a couple of hundred staff and several thousand students) still is expected to teach a few classes and write the occasional research paper themselves; airlines often have management pilots fly a couple of sectors each month, whilst the services still expect basic front line skills of a senior officer - but not all industries, or managers, do this sort of thing.

G

[SupaMach]

Personally, my experience of Bucks wasn't great.
I got the "Foundation Degree", which I admit is different, but I would consider going elsewhere if I choose to top it up in the future.

[crazy_bird]

Genghis and mad jock, guys pls...stick to point here...though i do appreciate the fact that i now have more info with respect to both sides of the coin.
@supamach, hmm..all right, thanks a lot :)
can u pls recommend some other good institutions which offer this kind of course...
thanks guys :)
cheers

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, recommendations:

"Serious degree" with flying content:

Brunel University: Aviation Engineering with Pilot Studies
University of Sheffield: Aerospace Engineering with Private Pilot Instruction
University of Liverpool: Aerospace Engineering with Pilot Studies
University of Salford: Aircraft Engineering with Pilot Studies


I have some knowledge of all of these - they are all serious degrees, delivered by dedicated staff, and the flying hasn't been allowed to dilute the engineering degree content.


If you really want to try and do ATPL at the same time, then use the long summer vacations to study ATPL theory with, for example, Bristol Groundschool, Cranfield Aviation Training School, or Bournemouth Centre for Flight Training. All are serious players with excellent material and won't cost much. If you work hard enough, this is possible - but will be tough.


Then for the further flying to CPL/fATPL - you'll have adequate time to do that after graduating from the academic course - work hard enough and you could just about do it before your student visa runs out. The UK has a great many schools very happy to do this flying training with you - most of them are pretty good, and browsing this forum will find discussion about most of them.

I may as well mention cost at the same time.

The degrees will cost you about £3k.pa if you are British or European, about £11k.pa if you are not, plus about another £6k for the flying.

CPL/ATPL groundschool will cost you about another £1k.

Living in the UK will cost you about £7k.pa

Hour building to be able to take your CPL course will cost you about £100/hr - so maybe £15k.

CPL/IR/Multi flying course costs will be about £16k according to the website of one flying school whose website I just checked.



So, if you want a real "grown-up" degree from the UK, AND a fATPL, then this will cost take about 4 years and cost you (assuming you're from outside the EU) about £78k.

As an interesting comparison, I think that the integrated fATPL costs will cost you slightly more than that, without living costs, and without the degree - although they will only take about half the time.

It should certainly produce a very capable person capable of working incredibly hard, and moving into a junior position then doing very well either as a pilot or aeronautical engineer very quickly.

But, you shouldn't underestimate the very substantial financial and workload commitment this would all entail. Nor how long it'll take to pay the debts back! You'd need to REALLY want this route.

G

[crazy_bird]

hmmm..thanks a lot man
i'll check it out
cheers

['India-Mike]

The trouble with doing these pilot studies degrees is trying to time the ATPL examinations with graduation. Do them too soon while still at uni, and they'll expire before you can get the CPL and IR done (remember, three years!) Do them too late and they'll interfere with the all-important final examinations for the main degree.

I guess what you're looking for is to graduate with a degree and CPL/IR - I don't think any of the UK providers supply such an outcome. Have you thought about Embry-Riddle in the US?

Much as I have a lot of time for Genghis on technical and flying matters I must admit to subscribing to mad-jock's point of view on this one, especially when considering aeronautical engineers who are also pilots. A simply dreadful combo:E

[mad_jock]

To be honest sometimes Engineering degree qualified pro pilots know a bit to much for there own good. ;)

Had a propagating crack in the skin on a wing. The flight was full of office Aero's/Mech Eng's with a couple of crusty Licensed engineers and some Admin types.

Tech'd the aircraft and when I told them the reason the flight was canceled, of course all the techie types had to go and have a look at it.

We had all sorts of cunning ideas about stop drilling it and some fancy speed tape work. Nearly had me convinced. Then a custy voice was heard to utter

"And who the :mad: are you expecting to sign that off?"

A very good reminder I was payed to drive the thing not fix it.

An engineering background does give a slight advantage because you talk the lingo and have a better understanding of some of the system interactions. Personally I find interaction with the engineers is more fruitfull because I will have generally taken note of more "details" about tech issues than some of my collegues.

But it is a part in the big picture of flying the line. There are alot of extremely good pilots out there that don't have an engineering background and who also have a very good relationship with engineering.

Now if you wanted to debate if some sort of social work/physiatrist course would actually give you more benefit for working as an airline pilot than a engineering degree. It wouldn't take much persuasion to have me agreeing with you. But if the personality types that would be interested in such courses would be stable extroverts or what ever we are meant to be this week I wouldn't know.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The trouble with doing these pilot studies degrees is trying to time the ATPL examinations with graduation. Do them too soon while still at uni, and they'll expire before you can get the CPL and IR done (remember, three years!) Do them too late and they'll interfere with the all-important final examinations for the main degree.

I guess what you're looking for is to graduate with a degree and CPL/IR - I don't think any of the UK providers supply such an outcome. Have you thought about Embry-Riddle in the US?

Much as I have a lot of time for Genghis on technical and flying matters I must admit to subscribing to mad-jock's point of view on this one, especially when considering aeronautical engineers who are also pilots. A simply dreadful combo:E

Well, you have a fair point with that last - engineers who are also pilots get wayyyyy, to big for their boots, unlike (say) technicians who are also pilots such as as that nice Chuck Yeager chappie, or "teenage entry" pure pilots who are always the soul of modesty.

I have a lot of time for Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, and would certainly not talk anybody out of going there - but just like the UK, I'd strongly recommend sticking to a solid subject, not a fabricated "aeronautical science" option that is really just making a pseudo-degree out of ATPL subjects. ERAU do both!

Incidentally, you have 36 months from last exam to pass the CPL skill test, with a minimum of 25 flying hours on the course. If you take the last exam at the end of the 2nd long summer vacation of a degree, that gives about 27 months after graduating from the degree. Not exactly unachievable.

Brunel did put exactly this package together with BCFT, but so far as I know they've had no takers yet - the students have preferred to finish their (aviation engineering) degree first, then start ATPLs after graduating. Fair enough, although it'll be interesting to see if anybody does try that route. Doing degree + ATPL GS immediately afterwards, with hour building during summer vacations would work about the same but may well be less stressful.

G

[mad_jock]

The CPL isn't really the problem, its the IR which can cause issues. And what ever schools tell you about it being possible part time its far better doing it full time.

You can do it in 5 weeks or with tech and wx delays it can go to over 3 months.

[SupaMach]

Agreed, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to do a part time IR... full time but with WX delays was bad enough.


I'm sure I saw a Cabair advert which mentioned getting the full degree through bucks a while back?

[crazy_bird]

hmm....
so basically, what you guys are saying is that, i should first do my degree, in something solid and in which i can score well, then proceed on to my pilot training...
@mad_jock : you said that to do the degree and ATPL together, the IR will be a problem, could you pls elaborate...
@India Mike : yup, i am looking for a course with which i can graduate with a degree and license, thats why my eyes fell upon this course offered by bucks and cabair, cause in 3 years, i get a degree as well as a fATPL...but now, based on what the others are saying...i am starting to have second thoughts...
thanks guys :)
cheers

[mad_jock]

You have got it in one.

Do a proper degree (although I am willing to accept that Genghis ones are OK anything with the ATPL subjects in the syllabus arn't deemed proper)

The IR is unlike anything you will have done before. You have highs and lows, through it and it is very demanding. Its very hard to describe what it was like for myself and I would suspect its different for each individual. The stress level is a combination of the skill you are learning, the price that it costs (400 quid an hour) and the some might say anal attention to detail which you have to have.

A 2.5 hour skills test can be failed by missing 1 incorrect RT call and 1 failure to trigger a stopwatch. Cost of said test over £1000. And there is alot riding on it as well. A couple of failures and you have basically lost all the time and money you have invested so far into your training. Because you get one failure or partial and if you don't pass the next one it is very unlikely any employer will employ you.

So if you have done one of these woolly degrees which yes do get you your ATPL's but the other content is worthless you have just lost 3 years of your life and don't have a single thing thats worth anything to show for it.

[crazy_bird]

hmm..all right..makes sense
thanks guys :)
happy landings..

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well said Mad Jock: basically concentrate on one and get it right, then concentrate on the other and get it right (or just do one or the other depending upon the career options you want). Degree then professional licences seems to be the right way around.

Incidentally, whilst they're far from everything, take a look also at published British university league tables. Bucks New Uni is 113rd out of 118 in the Guardian league table, 87th out of 113 in the Complete University Guide, or 119th out of 122 in the Sunday Times University guide. I'm not quite sure why they disagree about the number of universities in the United Kingdom - but the picture is reasonably consistent.

(Actually, I do have a lot of time for BNU - it has a fantastic employability record and provides valuable education and training for young people in Buckinghamshire, mostly still living with their families, who otherwise just wouldn't be able to go to University. But, it really is not a world class university - and I really wouldn't come here from another country).

G