View Poll Results: Should CEng and IEng be licenses to practice ?
Yes, CEng and IEng should be licenses to practice
18
45.00%
No, there is no need for licensing of management level Engineers
13
32.50%
Frankly it's irrelevant
6
15.00%
I don't have an opinion, but felt like voting anyway
3
7.50%
Voters: 40. This poll is closed
CEng or IEng as a licence to practice ?
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
CEng or IEng as a licence to practice ?
A question to the house.
LAME / Certified Mechanic / Licensed Technician (choose the title according to nationality and preference) level Engineering professionals have a clear licence to practice. Aircrew have a clear licence to practice.
However, although the CEng and IEng qualifications exist for those of us practicing in design / analysis / senior management roles, they are not a license to practice. Somebody with no formal training or qualifications can quite legally do (the Engineering parts) of my job, whilst there are people junior to me who could not without formal qualifications.
Personally, I'm troubled like this. I'm proud of my CEng, and hope that it is a fair reflection of the level I work at. I would like it to be a licence to practice, forcing those without similar level qualifications to either prove that they can meet the grade in a formal assessment system, or have their work checked and supervised by somebody who has.
Opinions anybody?
Eur.Ing. Genghis, CEng
LAME / Certified Mechanic / Licensed Technician (choose the title according to nationality and preference) level Engineering professionals have a clear licence to practice. Aircrew have a clear licence to practice.
However, although the CEng and IEng qualifications exist for those of us practicing in design / analysis / senior management roles, they are not a license to practice. Somebody with no formal training or qualifications can quite legally do (the Engineering parts) of my job, whilst there are people junior to me who could not without formal qualifications.
Personally, I'm troubled like this. I'm proud of my CEng, and hope that it is a fair reflection of the level I work at. I would like it to be a licence to practice, forcing those without similar level qualifications to either prove that they can meet the grade in a formal assessment system, or have their work checked and supervised by somebody who has.
Opinions anybody?
Eur.Ing. Genghis, CEng
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: europe
with the best respect, I went through this process and as you know at the end of the day, it does not get you anymore credibility apart from talking about it with fellows over a G&T and a few extra bits after your name. No im not a failed Ceng but I cannot see any point in paying annually for a qualification that has the stigma of the "guild of master craftsmen" (woodworker) that can be bought
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
It is not the same everywhere.
I assume that C eng is a Civil engineer. As an example in the States a Civil Engineer can participate in the design of civil projects such as roads, bridges, dams and so on. However in order to sign off on the project the individual must have a BSc or higher in Civil Engineering and be certified as a professional engineer which requires a level of experience and the ability to pass a very difficult test. The same holds true for other engineering disciplines. These individuals are very much in demand on the job market and no, they are not required to pay a fee to maintain their status.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
CEng is Chartered Engineer, IEng is Incorporated Engineer. Both basically require a degree, 2 years further training, and at-least 2 years practice. The difference really is in the level of degree - BEng(Hons), BSc(Hons) or MEng for CEng; BEng, BSc or Btech for IEng. Both have non-degree routes through considerably greater experience and a minimum level of academics.
Normal practice is to apply through one of the institutions, such as RAeS or IMechE, which is where the money really goes. I pay about £140pa to the RAeS but I do have the right if I wish to just pay the Engineering Council (or whatever they're called this week) fees to keep the qualification, which run to about £30pa.
It sounds to me that CEng and IEng are equivalent to what you refer to as "professional engineer".
Incidentally, you generally tell somebody's discipline by membership of institutions. For example, I'm CEng MRAeS MIMechE - or in other words qualified as an aeronautical and mechanical Engineer. Civil would be MICE (Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, one might argue they could have thought of a better acronym).
Having said that, I'd also prefer to see fees being waived, or at-least reduced to the level of the £40 every 5 years I pay FEANI to maintain my Eur.Ing. qualification.
G
Normal practice is to apply through one of the institutions, such as RAeS or IMechE, which is where the money really goes. I pay about £140pa to the RAeS but I do have the right if I wish to just pay the Engineering Council (or whatever they're called this week) fees to keep the qualification, which run to about £30pa.
It sounds to me that CEng and IEng are equivalent to what you refer to as "professional engineer".
Incidentally, you generally tell somebody's discipline by membership of institutions. For example, I'm CEng MRAeS MIMechE - or in other words qualified as an aeronautical and mechanical Engineer. Civil would be MICE (Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, one might argue they could have thought of a better acronym).
Having said that, I'd also prefer to see fees being waived, or at-least reduced to the level of the £40 every 5 years I pay FEANI to maintain my Eur.Ing. qualification.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 28th February 2003 at 21:15.
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
I have a confession - one of my offspring is a lawyer. To be a member of the profession and practice as a solicitor she must be a member of the Law Society and also hold a current Legal Practice Certificate - a form of licence. Thus, when one engages a solicitor, one is assured that, as well as the necessary experience and training, the solicitor is also subject to controlled ethical standards. There is a similar situation for Medical Practitioners, Architects and other Professionals. The main difference between these professions and the engineering profession is that they provide a personal service directly to a particular client.
As a Professional Engineer (IEng MRAeS MIEE) I'm technically qualified, subjected to peer review and submit to a code of conduct through my institutes, but membership is not mandatory. Ghengis really asks whether it should be compulsory for practicing Professional Engineers to be members of a relevent society. I do think that this should be the case, but first we must get our house in order and amalgamate the whole profession under a single Engineering Institute, with seperate divisions for each specialisation. Only then will our profession be in a position to enjoy public recognition and be granted the right to issue licences to practice. The Engineering Council is an attempt to produce a unified engineering profession, but by and large, it hasn't been too successful so far.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
As a Professional Engineer (IEng MRAeS MIEE) I'm technically qualified, subjected to peer review and submit to a code of conduct through my institutes, but membership is not mandatory. Ghengis really asks whether it should be compulsory for practicing Professional Engineers to be members of a relevent society. I do think that this should be the case, but first we must get our house in order and amalgamate the whole profession under a single Engineering Institute, with seperate divisions for each specialisation. Only then will our profession be in a position to enjoy public recognition and be granted the right to issue licences to practice. The Engineering Council is an attempt to produce a unified engineering profession, but by and large, it hasn't been too successful so far.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: uk
Having read this thread with a vested interest and with no axe to grind at all I would like to state a few points as we as engineers see things within the industry.
Having any form of qualifacation is an achievement on its own but the aviation industry runs along totally different lines and formats to any other industry you will find.
As engineers who are responsible to our employers,passengers,crew and the authorities who regulate this business.Some of us are granted licences to perform and CERTIFY the work carried out on our aircraft to allow the pilot to fly the said aircraft safely from point A to B.
These Licences are probably one of the hardest qualifacations to obtain in any enviroment and not only are academic but also rely on hands on knowledge and experiance to gain.
My question is why should someone who has done a few extra years at school be given management status?
Is the industry saying that these qualifacations are higher than the safety related licence bearing in mind the now present situation with the JAR66 C licence and degree holders?
When will our lords and masters finally recognise that the engineers licence (of which the number is now reducing thanks to JAR66) is a highly professional qualifacation of which takes on an awful amount of responsibility and should be treated as such but normally isn't.
At the end of the day by all means go and gain the qualifacation that allow letters to be placed after your name but dont expect to be given senior posts within this industry because of them.
There are a dwidling number of very professional experianced and highly qualified persons who work very hard under normally difficult circumstances who very rarely ever get the appreciation they deserve and who's standing is barely recognised because they are not members of the right society or don't have letters after there name, but without the WHOLE AVIATION INDUSTRY WOULD STOP! The pilot can only fly it until it breaks then he requires someone to repair it and LEGALLY RELEASE/CERTIFY the work performed to allow the thing to go again.
Not a lot of the general public are aware of this as it is not seen every day.
Having any form of qualifacation is an achievement on its own but the aviation industry runs along totally different lines and formats to any other industry you will find.
As engineers who are responsible to our employers,passengers,crew and the authorities who regulate this business.Some of us are granted licences to perform and CERTIFY the work carried out on our aircraft to allow the pilot to fly the said aircraft safely from point A to B.
These Licences are probably one of the hardest qualifacations to obtain in any enviroment and not only are academic but also rely on hands on knowledge and experiance to gain.
My question is why should someone who has done a few extra years at school be given management status?
Is the industry saying that these qualifacations are higher than the safety related licence bearing in mind the now present situation with the JAR66 C licence and degree holders?
When will our lords and masters finally recognise that the engineers licence (of which the number is now reducing thanks to JAR66) is a highly professional qualifacation of which takes on an awful amount of responsibility and should be treated as such but normally isn't.
At the end of the day by all means go and gain the qualifacation that allow letters to be placed after your name but dont expect to be given senior posts within this industry because of them.
There are a dwidling number of very professional experianced and highly qualified persons who work very hard under normally difficult circumstances who very rarely ever get the appreciation they deserve and who's standing is barely recognised because they are not members of the right society or don't have letters after there name, but without the WHOLE AVIATION INDUSTRY WOULD STOP! The pilot can only fly it until it breaks then he requires someone to repair it and LEGALLY RELEASE/CERTIFY the work performed to allow the thing to go again.
Not a lot of the general public are aware of this as it is not seen every day.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Sounds like a bit of axe grinding to me.
I don't know of any CEng type Engineer who has any problem with the fact that a technician type Engineer is a highly trained and qualified professional. The fact is you are trusted to keep them running, I'm trusted to sign the design of the thing off in the first place as fit for service. Neither of these are trivial tasks, and both require a great deal of academic and practical training. The difference, to me, is that you can't be employed in your job without proving you've met the required standards. It is possible to bluff your way into mine without any formal training or qualifications at-all. That is my grounds for a license to practice.
And incidentally, if you inquired you'd find that many senior managers hold your type of qualifications not mine, and that many "white collar" engineers on the design and certification (or management) side at places like BAe, Britten-Norman, etc. make a good deal less money than a good LAME. I used the term "management level", because the American term "professional engineer" implies that I am and you are not, which I find inappropriate and demeaning to fellow aviation professionals who just happen to have a different set of pieces of paper.
Most technicians can't drive or design an aeroplane, most pilots can't fix or design an aeroplane, most designers can't fix, build or fly. Nonetheless, we all trained for a lot of years to get where we are. I find the engineer's "the pilot can only fly it until it breaks", as infantile as the pilot's "grounding an aircraft for maintenance is like the tail wagging the dog" and I've heard both far too bloody often.
G
I don't know of any CEng type Engineer who has any problem with the fact that a technician type Engineer is a highly trained and qualified professional. The fact is you are trusted to keep them running, I'm trusted to sign the design of the thing off in the first place as fit for service. Neither of these are trivial tasks, and both require a great deal of academic and practical training. The difference, to me, is that you can't be employed in your job without proving you've met the required standards. It is possible to bluff your way into mine without any formal training or qualifications at-all. That is my grounds for a license to practice.
And incidentally, if you inquired you'd find that many senior managers hold your type of qualifications not mine, and that many "white collar" engineers on the design and certification (or management) side at places like BAe, Britten-Norman, etc. make a good deal less money than a good LAME. I used the term "management level", because the American term "professional engineer" implies that I am and you are not, which I find inappropriate and demeaning to fellow aviation professionals who just happen to have a different set of pieces of paper.
Most technicians can't drive or design an aeroplane, most pilots can't fix or design an aeroplane, most designers can't fix, build or fly. Nonetheless, we all trained for a lot of years to get where we are. I find the engineer's "the pilot can only fly it until it breaks", as infantile as the pilot's "grounding an aircraft for maintenance is like the tail wagging the dog" and I've heard both far too bloody often.
G
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
I take note of the 'devil' at the top of your post asheng, and the fact that you registered a username especially for it. 
Just to put things in perspective, the 'IEng' in my own list of letters is based upon my Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licences, rather than an engineering degree. In my present job I'm no longer required or allowed to certify work on aircraft, but I remain qualified to do so. Meanwhile, I earn a good deal less than many of the LAEs in my organization and work longer hours than most of them, but without any overtime pay. Now, this isn't a whinge, I chose to do what I do and enjoy the challenge, but as Ghengis has pointed out, there are people in engineering who aren't qualified or tested in the same way as LAEs and Professional Engineers. Maybe its time to weed them out?
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Just to put things in perspective, the 'IEng' in my own list of letters is based upon my Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licences, rather than an engineering degree. In my present job I'm no longer required or allowed to certify work on aircraft, but I remain qualified to do so. Meanwhile, I earn a good deal less than many of the LAEs in my organization and work longer hours than most of them, but without any overtime pay. Now, this isn't a whinge, I chose to do what I do and enjoy the challenge, but as Ghengis has pointed out, there are people in engineering who aren't qualified or tested in the same way as LAEs and Professional Engineers. Maybe its time to weed them out?
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm writing from the other side of the fence, being one of those professional engineers who doesn't hold the CEng title.
From my own workplace, I would estimate that 2-3% of the engineers (not technicians or fitters) hold that title.
I would assume that other aerospace design/manufacturing facilities holding design authority (as we do) are in a similar position.
So "Weeding Out" is not really the correct phrase, "Eliminating Vast Swathes" of the aerospace design profession would be closer to the truth.
In my case, I feel no particular urge to pay £140 pa for a magazine that I do not read. Can you persuade me that the RAeS offers any more than that?
From my own workplace, I would estimate that 2-3% of the engineers (not technicians or fitters) hold that title.
I would assume that other aerospace design/manufacturing facilities holding design authority (as we do) are in a similar position.
So "Weeding Out" is not really the correct phrase, "Eliminating Vast Swathes" of the aerospace design profession would be closer to the truth.
In my case, I feel no particular urge to pay £140 pa for a magazine that I do not read. Can you persuade me that the RAeS offers any more than that?
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
More than a (yes not truly brilliant, but improving) magazine yes. A superb technical library with free access, access to technical committees monitoring and influencing virtually every level of aviation, access to many independent professionals in other fields of aviation, a free careers centre, discounted entry to conferences, a nationwide free lecture programme, a place to hold meetings for free and get a cheap lunch in the middle of London - for example.
Having said all that, I'm not convinced it is good value for money at £140/year. I pay it because I think it's the best thing there, I get involved in it's committees because I think it can be made better.
But this actually was never my point. My belief is that Engineers working at CEng level should have been through an independent assessment process, of a known standard, before being allowed to work at an independent researcher / design signatory / senior engineering manager level. What we have at the moment is the CEng.
The actual Engineering council fees of around £30/yr are about the same as the American "Professional Engineers" license and although I do believe in membership of the RAeS / IMEchE / etc those are not what I personally feel should be compulsory.
Concerning "weeding out" versus "eliminating vast swathes", does anybody know what happened when a license to practice became compulsory for doctors, accountants, osteopaths, pilots, etc? I don't actually know, but I'd guess they were given a reasonable number of years warning, the powers that be geared up to handle lots of applications, a lot of people did some fairly rapid learning and training they should have done before, and a few rotten apples dropped quietly from the bottom of the barrel - but in that I'm guessing.
G
Having said all that, I'm not convinced it is good value for money at £140/year. I pay it because I think it's the best thing there, I get involved in it's committees because I think it can be made better.
But this actually was never my point. My belief is that Engineers working at CEng level should have been through an independent assessment process, of a known standard, before being allowed to work at an independent researcher / design signatory / senior engineering manager level. What we have at the moment is the CEng.
The actual Engineering council fees of around £30/yr are about the same as the American "Professional Engineers" license and although I do believe in membership of the RAeS / IMEchE / etc those are not what I personally feel should be compulsory.
Concerning "weeding out" versus "eliminating vast swathes", does anybody know what happened when a license to practice became compulsory for doctors, accountants, osteopaths, pilots, etc? I don't actually know, but I'd guess they were given a reasonable number of years warning, the powers that be geared up to handle lots of applications, a lot of people did some fairly rapid learning and training they should have done before, and a few rotten apples dropped quietly from the bottom of the barrel - but in that I'm guessing.
G
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
From: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Genghis,
Whilst I'm merely a humble tech I've deep reservations about the direction that the engineering industry/establishment is heading. With the loss of the traditional path into engineering, apprenticeship, day release, sandwich course. We are losing the broad base of experience that used to be gained by people who followed this route. Not just the feel for the processess and materials, but man managment skills and the mutual respect that's gained when you work with people. We are also losing the middle ground, people like myself who act as a bridge between the "Professionals" and the shop floor.
I've had the misfortune to get stuck under a gradate entry box ticker who has no idea about basic engineering, I had to teach him how to use a micrometer! he is now chartered with I mech E fortunatley as we work mostly in research he's not going to hurt too many people, also I think he's aiming towards a move to politics he certainly has the personality for it.
What concerns me about this is the emphasis seems to be on career progress and programme/project management rather than actual nuts and bolts. Being able to draw charts and make power point presentaions are handy skills but don't really help when your trying produce a finished product that actually works. We need organisation but we need people who can actually do the job. If the institutes continue as they seem to be then the papers will sadly become worthless.
Whilst I'm merely a humble tech I've deep reservations about the direction that the engineering industry/establishment is heading. With the loss of the traditional path into engineering, apprenticeship, day release, sandwich course. We are losing the broad base of experience that used to be gained by people who followed this route. Not just the feel for the processess and materials, but man managment skills and the mutual respect that's gained when you work with people. We are also losing the middle ground, people like myself who act as a bridge between the "Professionals" and the shop floor.
I've had the misfortune to get stuck under a gradate entry box ticker who has no idea about basic engineering, I had to teach him how to use a micrometer! he is now chartered with I mech E fortunatley as we work mostly in research he's not going to hurt too many people, also I think he's aiming towards a move to politics he certainly has the personality for it.
What concerns me about this is the emphasis seems to be on career progress and programme/project management rather than actual nuts and bolts. Being able to draw charts and make power point presentaions are handy skills but don't really help when your trying produce a finished product that actually works. We need organisation but we need people who can actually do the job. If the institutes continue as they seem to be then the papers will sadly become worthless.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
I agree with you, but is anybody going to worry that much about the actual technical ability of CEng applicants, or the list of core abilities required, whilst in practice it's not actually required?
G
G
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Bottle Fatigue's "Vaste Swathes" are not to what I refer. Those vaste swathes are, by and large, qualified for the positions they hold but, by declining to get involved, they are a symptom of the engineering profession's problem. My 'weeding out' alludes to those who are unfit for office, but who nevertheless manage to talk their way into managerial positions by pure salesmanship or "bull!!!!!" as it is more commonly known. You've all met them and you know the type of people to whom I refer.
A qualification system for higher level staff would prevent many of these unfit people from being let lose on their destructive path. That is why I consider that a form of licencing, such as CEng/IEng, based upon peer review and a process of Continuing Professional Development (you forgot the CPD in your exposition, Ghengis!) is not only in order, but highly desirable.
Competent managers have nothing to fear from submitting themselves to peer review and certification, whereas "bull!!!!!ters" are easily unmasked by independent examiners. Its not all down to academic qualifications either. As I indicated in my earlier post, my own IEng was secured by the mature candidate process. You first describe your career in a detailed written exposition, then after passing that hurdle, you turn up for the board of inquisition armed with documentary proof, in the form of actual examples of your work. The grilling that follows is fair but tough and would certainly have unmasked any of the bull!!!!!ters that I've worked with over the years. [A bit similar to the old UKCAA Licence exams actually...]
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
A qualification system for higher level staff would prevent many of these unfit people from being let lose on their destructive path. That is why I consider that a form of licencing, such as CEng/IEng, based upon peer review and a process of Continuing Professional Development (you forgot the CPD in your exposition, Ghengis!) is not only in order, but highly desirable.
Competent managers have nothing to fear from submitting themselves to peer review and certification, whereas "bull!!!!!ters" are easily unmasked by independent examiners. Its not all down to academic qualifications either. As I indicated in my earlier post, my own IEng was secured by the mature candidate process. You first describe your career in a detailed written exposition, then after passing that hurdle, you turn up for the board of inquisition armed with documentary proof, in the form of actual examples of your work. The grilling that follows is fair but tough and would certainly have unmasked any of the bull!!!!!ters that I've worked with over the years. [A bit similar to the old UKCAA Licence exams actually...]
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Last edited by Blacksheep; 6th March 2003 at 00:12.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: uk
Genghis,you are great!...Please let me wallow in your greatness,Aeng[Hons],Beng[Hons],Ceng[Even More Hons]!
AshEng,I felt your post was well worded and carefully thought out.
Our friend Genghis is correct in saying[I think this is what he is saying amongst all of his high-and-mighty,I'm great,look at me,let's look down upon anyone without copious amounts of letters after their name attitude] that everyone has a place to play in the industry of keeping our a/c flying safely.
I rely on design engineer's every day of the week.Without their input,the work I carry out IAW the MM is worthless.However,design engineers also rely on us,the certifying 'engineer','technician',minion, etc....to carry out that said work,IAW what the design engineer intended.If we don't do that then all your work is pointless.
All us lower life forms such as LAME,Technician,Fitter recognise that you do an important job.As you imply,I could not do your job,but I ask the question how you would cope,given a 30-40 min turnaround,with a serious defect written in the Tech-Log?Would you be able to action/interperet [spelling?] [but i'm sure YOU would have known how to spell it!!!] your own design information with regard to despatching the aeroplane/fixing the aeroplane or not?
All the best,
Eng122,[I don't feel i'm able to be 123 anymore!!]
AshEng,I felt your post was well worded and carefully thought out.
Our friend Genghis is correct in saying[I think this is what he is saying amongst all of his high-and-mighty,I'm great,look at me,let's look down upon anyone without copious amounts of letters after their name attitude] that everyone has a place to play in the industry of keeping our a/c flying safely.
I rely on design engineer's every day of the week.Without their input,the work I carry out IAW the MM is worthless.However,design engineers also rely on us,the certifying 'engineer','technician',minion, etc....to carry out that said work,IAW what the design engineer intended.If we don't do that then all your work is pointless.
All us lower life forms such as LAME,Technician,Fitter recognise that you do an important job.As you imply,I could not do your job,but I ask the question how you would cope,given a 30-40 min turnaround,with a serious defect written in the Tech-Log?Would you be able to action/interperet [spelling?] [but i'm sure YOU would have known how to spell it!!!] your own design information with regard to despatching the aeroplane/fixing the aeroplane or not?
All the best,
Eng122,[I don't feel i'm able to be 123 anymore!!]
Last edited by eng123; 6th March 2003 at 10:59.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Having a bad day old chap?
Since I look after the maintenance on two light aircraft that I fly and do about half a dozen annuals per year on other aircraft using procedures I wrote (without pay, and mostly to make sure I haven't made a balls up of the procedures), I'm sure I'd cope quite well but not as well as somebody who does nothing else.
I have specifically avoided saying that that technicians are an inferior lifeform, I've spend quite enough time servicing aircraft in the rain to be quite clear on that point. However, I'm more than happy to make an exception in your case.
G
N.B. Or are you cleverly illustrating one of the reasons our combined profession fails much of the time to get itself taken seriously by the rest of the world?
Since I look after the maintenance on two light aircraft that I fly and do about half a dozen annuals per year on other aircraft using procedures I wrote (without pay, and mostly to make sure I haven't made a balls up of the procedures), I'm sure I'd cope quite well but not as well as somebody who does nothing else.
I have specifically avoided saying that that technicians are an inferior lifeform, I've spend quite enough time servicing aircraft in the rain to be quite clear on that point. However, I'm more than happy to make an exception in your case.
G
N.B. Or are you cleverly illustrating one of the reasons our combined profession fails much of the time to get itself taken seriously by the rest of the world?
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 6th March 2003 at 12:19.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: canada
When I worked for an airline, we had a couple of DARs. They had the credentials to approve designs and changes to aircraft. But more times than not the designs were only a nice picture, and could not be implimented. When you as the LAME had to install or modify the a/c as per said drawing, you would find that is was not workable.
I'm not a CEng or a IEng, and I have great respect for many of them, but the problem that I have is I have to work on many of these designs made by someone in an office, who doesn't put much thought of maintaining his/her design. When I have to fix an a/c, it normaly is dark, cold, and oily. Half the time it is as if the bit you are trying to remove was put in first, and the whole structure was built around it. Makes it hard to do a turn around, and clear that tech log snag in time for the next flight, and many times I have found that the structure was mangled by the last poor guy who was stuck fixing the machine in less than ideal environments.
I don't care what title a person holds, I just think they should spend some time twisting a wrench before they are let lose to come up with the next great design.
I'm not a CEng or a IEng, and I have great respect for many of them, but the problem that I have is I have to work on many of these designs made by someone in an office, who doesn't put much thought of maintaining his/her design. When I have to fix an a/c, it normaly is dark, cold, and oily. Half the time it is as if the bit you are trying to remove was put in first, and the whole structure was built around it. Makes it hard to do a turn around, and clear that tech log snag in time for the next flight, and many times I have found that the structure was mangled by the last poor guy who was stuck fixing the machine in less than ideal environments.
I don't care what title a person holds, I just think they should spend some time twisting a wrench before they are let lose to come up with the next great design.
Joined: Oct 2001
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: East Sussex
Genghis,
I have been a Licensed Engineer with multiple UK and Australian endorsements for some years now. I am also a MRAeS and IEng. As JAR 66 loomed I duly converted my UK Licence. On contacting IMechE to enquire about membership, I was told that despite being a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, a senior manager within a large maintenance organisation, MRAes and I Eng and with 30 years in the industry, I was not qualified to join IMechE as I did not have a degree.
Please note that there are no sour grapes on my part (too old for that sort of thing now). We should continue to promote the position of the Licensed Aircraft Engineer so that the word 'Engineer' associated with the role actually reflects the position and the level of responsibility. I believe that the RAeS, Engineering Council and IMechE are potential vehicles to do so. I also realise that some of the afore mentioned institutions have already made considerable steps to do so.
I was therefore saddened to see that after all the years of experience and the level of qualifications, I was not considered suitable for IMechE, unlike a person fresh from university with the ink on his dergree still wet who is welcomed into such a fraternity almost straight away. Why then should we wonder when some folks in the industry are disillusioned with the so called 'professional societies' when such things occur.
By the way I voted yes to your poll
It's good to talk,
Tempsford
I have been a Licensed Engineer with multiple UK and Australian endorsements for some years now. I am also a MRAeS and IEng. As JAR 66 loomed I duly converted my UK Licence. On contacting IMechE to enquire about membership, I was told that despite being a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, a senior manager within a large maintenance organisation, MRAes and I Eng and with 30 years in the industry, I was not qualified to join IMechE as I did not have a degree.
Please note that there are no sour grapes on my part (too old for that sort of thing now). We should continue to promote the position of the Licensed Aircraft Engineer so that the word 'Engineer' associated with the role actually reflects the position and the level of responsibility. I believe that the RAeS, Engineering Council and IMechE are potential vehicles to do so. I also realise that some of the afore mentioned institutions have already made considerable steps to do so.
I was therefore saddened to see that after all the years of experience and the level of qualifications, I was not considered suitable for IMechE, unlike a person fresh from university with the ink on his dergree still wet who is welcomed into such a fraternity almost straight away. Why then should we wonder when some folks in the industry are disillusioned with the so called 'professional societies' when such things occur.
By the way I voted yes to your poll
It's good to talk,
Tempsford
Last edited by Tempsford; 8th March 2003 at 16:20.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Yes, they gave me considerable grief too (with less experience than you but a degree) - apparently didn't think RAeS' standards for CEng issue were high enough and I think it's only in the last year or so that they've started to accept Incorporated Engineers. A rather analy retentive attitude IMHO.
G
G
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: uk
Genghis,oh great one.....you don't have to say that you consider us Licenced Eng's [oops,sorry,I shouldn't say Eng as I don't have a degree] Licenced Technicians are,in your opinion,lower life forms as it can be seen for all in the tone of your language.
Also,looking after your puddle-jumper with minimal or no pressure at all is a very different environment to working on the ramp at a major airport with a tech-log defect that require's rectification whilst there are 200+ passenger's sitting there looking out the window at you.
All The Best!
eng123
Also,looking after your puddle-jumper with minimal or no pressure at all is a very different environment to working on the ramp at a major airport with a tech-log defect that require's rectification whilst there are 200+ passenger's sitting there looking out the window at you.
All The Best!
eng123
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
eng123, before I left the RAF I couldn't even spell 'injuneer' now I are one.
If you read what I said earlier you might deduce that I'm an LAE, without an engineering degree. I acquired what you call 'letters after my name' and what I call professional recognition, through practical experience plus commitment. Commitment to engineering, to aviation and to standards. In your earlier post you tell us how hard LAEs work, how responsible the LAEs' position is and you also complain about the poor design that often makes life difficult. All this is true, we've all experienced these things, but what are you doing about them?
You can go on merely fixing aeroplanes and cursing the bad designs for the rest of your working life if you wish. On the other hand you could devise new tools [or modify existing ones] that work around poor access; you could think of some way of reworking badly designed installations and eliminate the problem, then submit the idea to the manufacturer for consideration as a design change. You are almost certainly aware of at least one safety hazard - don't just complain to colleagues about it, report it to the manufacturer and the regulators, including your suggestions for changes that might overcome the problem. Then you'd be a professional, a non-gradute one perhaps, but a professional for all that.
You've already made a step in the right direction by posting here, now go out and turn your frustration into useful energy and dare to make a difference. Good luck in your career and don't let the b@stards grind you down; we know that LAEs truly are salt of the earth - all we have to do is prove it.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
If you read what I said earlier you might deduce that I'm an LAE, without an engineering degree. I acquired what you call 'letters after my name' and what I call professional recognition, through practical experience plus commitment. Commitment to engineering, to aviation and to standards. In your earlier post you tell us how hard LAEs work, how responsible the LAEs' position is and you also complain about the poor design that often makes life difficult. All this is true, we've all experienced these things, but what are you doing about them?
You can go on merely fixing aeroplanes and cursing the bad designs for the rest of your working life if you wish. On the other hand you could devise new tools [or modify existing ones] that work around poor access; you could think of some way of reworking badly designed installations and eliminate the problem, then submit the idea to the manufacturer for consideration as a design change. You are almost certainly aware of at least one safety hazard - don't just complain to colleagues about it, report it to the manufacturer and the regulators, including your suggestions for changes that might overcome the problem. Then you'd be a professional, a non-gradute one perhaps, but a professional for all that.
You've already made a step in the right direction by posting here, now go out and turn your frustration into useful energy and dare to make a difference. Good luck in your career and don't let the b@stards grind you down; we know that LAEs truly are salt of the earth - all we have to do is prove it.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Last edited by Blacksheep; 9th March 2003 at 02:13.