You cant buy MRAeS, you have to earn it (then you pay the fees!).

I have come across somebody using "ARAeS", who turned out to be an affiliate. That you can buy, and most definitely gives no right to use postnominals. Very firm words were had from various quarters after I shopped him (those weren't the only postnominals he hadn't earned but was using!).

Why not just "RAeS" ? Well because it's not the correct form, and because there are AMRAeS, MRAeS, CRAeS, FRAeS - and they all imply different levels of professional status.

To the best of my knowledge whilst some employers prize RAeS / CEng, etc. most do not - portsharbour is correct. That said, there are places where it has value. You can only be an E-conditions signatory at the moment if you are CEng MRAeS or CEng FRAeS, and I've certainly found that certain doors do open if you're an association Fellow, but that may not be very evident from outside.

The other advantage to these qualifications, if you are jobhunting, is that it means that you've been shown to meet a certain level of skill in your profession by an independent panel. There is something to be said for having that ability to demonstrate this, without having to go to your current employer for it.

I am a CEng but not in aerospace. In a former life it was (and still is) an essential requirement to sign off certain documents. Each industry is different.

The OP asked if the ATPL is the equivalent of a degree. Anyone completing the above course has not obtained an ATPL.

Maybe they have a frozen ATPL (or whatever it is called nowadays). Not the same thing.

An ATPL requires 1500 hours flying experience, often a lot more if you have to factor Co Pilot time.

Good point, well made 3Wheels.

And there are of course MSc courses in Air Transport Management who will accept an ATPL in leiu of a BSc/BA/BEng for entry. So in that particular, narrow instance an ATPL is equivalent to a bachelors degree. But, in no other that I can think of.

I happen to be an assessor/advisor for I.Eng and C.Eng applications - I only mention that to make it clear that I am not speculating or reporting rumours.

A carefully-crafted ytwo-year grad development scheme might JUST make I.Eng, but won't make C.Eng. The exemplifying qualification for C.Eng is an accredited Masters degree supported by an accredited Honours degree (or equivilent "Underpinning Knowledge and Understanding" achieved by other means). That alone just gets you through the starting gate. To get to an assessment interview you need a career history showing you have displayed all the "competencies" as defined in UKSpec (available free at all good internets near you). Two of these are "engineering" - specifically understanding and furtherence of engineering science, and application of engineering tools & methods to address real world problems. The other three are "professional" - management/leadership, communication and a mop-up for professional attributes (compliance with copdes of conduct, ethical behaviour, promoting safety in engineering, contributing toi sustainable development etc). You provide a career history, with referees, that show an arguable case for these and it gets you to an assessment interview. At the interview they grill you until golden-brown with some charred areas and if you pass your papers will be forwarded to the Engineering Council with a recommendation. The only "walk-over" entries are provided to a few senior military engineering post-holders, but this practice is being restricted now.

There was a time when some corporate "high flyer" grad schemes would get you to C.Eng in two years, but those days are gone and we've been rejecting most of them for a while now where they simply don't meet the requirement. In my own organisation we've reworked our fastrack scheme to ensure that these candidates are given placements where they do actually do engineering rather than merely l;eading/managing other engineers for this reason.

You need to be chartered (or in exceptional circumstances incorporated) to be a CAA form 4 signatory. You also need to be I.ENg or C.Eng for some of the accountable roles in a CAMO (or sub-part G or similar). I understand the MAA are looking to have similar policy requirements. In a DAOS organisation it is becoming the norm to require I/C.Eng for any role which has a signatory authority, because that prevents anyone in a court or BoI asking "on what basis did the company determine that Josaphine Bloggs was fit to exercise that authority/judgement".

The "m" determines level of membership and this is the same for all institutes. There are "Associate" or "Licensurate" levels for people working towards full membership, then there are "Member" levels for people who have achieved it, and usually "Fellow" levels for those who significantly contribute to either their field or their instutute. So you have LRAeS, MRAeS and FRAeS - they mean different things and are not (in my experience) really confused with degree post-nominals.

And for engineering the exemplifying qualifications for Chartered Engineer are an accredited Masters degree supported by an Accredited Honours degree, but they are a bit flexible and allow people to offer equivilent knowledge and understanding that has been developed by other means.

Only if you have the required qualifications and experience. My fdaughter would not be able to get MRAeS simply by paying the fee. That's kinda the point.

From the sounds of it they wouldn't want you anyway due to sub-optimal attitudes. I'm not currently a member of the RAeS because in my current role the IET is more appropriate, but I could move my flag back there if circumstances warranted it because C.Eng is an Engineering Council registration; it's not owned by any one institute.

I thinkthere is some confusion on here, by ATPL I meant an issued ATPL with 1500 hours, not just the exams. I appreciate that on an academic level that the ATPL exams might not be as difficult as say a BSc Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, I can not comment how they would compare with say a BA/BSc in Gender Studies, Golf Management or Media Studies.

To make a comparison a BSc in Pysiotherapy at Nottingham University. which is is a vocational qualification like the ATPL, takes three years, of which one third is taught and the other two thirds is course work and practical work.

Gengis is of course correct that a number of universities will accept people on couses such as a MSC in Airline Management or Human Factors on the basis of an issued ATPL, flying experience and demonstation of ability or knowledge in a specific field.

Yes. But how could those 1500 working hours in the right hand seat be credited towards an academic degree?

What next.. The working hours would be credited in the same way as a BSc Physiotherapist, Radiographer or Nurse work is credited for working hours in a hospital, as I said only a third of the course is academic, but the other two thirds, is in the sense learning just in the same way someone in the right hand seat is learning. I thik these days degrees do not actually always have to be totally academic, and organisations like the Health Care Professional Council are trying to make occupational courses such as nursing more professional through the award of a degree. I do think that that police officers doing degree course in Policing is a step too far.

I believe that there may be a precedent here.

Although I'm now out of the mob, I seem to remember that military personnel who completed their pilot training could apply for a Foundation Degree in Aviation Studies.

Additionally, I understand that with further study, this was able to be "topped up" to a BSc (Hons) in Applied Aviation Studies (link) through Staffordshire University.

I don't know if this is of any relevance to the OPs question but it might be something worth investigating? If the military could do it, perhaps there may be an avenue worth pursuing for civilian pilots too?

Just a thought!

ACC123..... Good point, I think a means of topping up is a good idea, say with modules in airline management, human factors, etc.. might be the way forward. The problem is that I feel the aviation industry is falling behind and their isn't the will there, unlike the Health Care Professional Council, who want all health care professionals to qualify to degree standard.

I have a little experience of education, so feel able to give a view... Re: healthcare professionals- if we mean everyone in healthcare, this is NEVER going to happen. Any such attempt will just serve to devalue degrees to the level of the bogus American outfits which invite you to big up your life experiences and award on that basis.

As for the parity the OP alludes to, I think it rears its head when someone would like it to be the case. If you want a degree, go out and get one.

As an exmple, an RAF multi engine pilot doing an OU degree might get 30 points knocked off the 360 needed for an honours degree. The 30 points would be at a low level, and would not affect the degree classification. So an operational C-17 pilot would get no more than 1/12 of his study waived. How much should an newly minted ATPL get?

CG

Having seen some UK graduates in Nursing at a well known London teaching hospital I wouldn't trust them to make a paper aeroplane or stick on a plaster.

No-one know about this:

https://www.taysideaviation.com/cour...honours-degree


Seems to answer the question?

Charlie Golf... the Health Care Professional Council includes social workers, dieticians, speech therapists, radiographers, pysiotherapists, etc. As far as I am aware dieticians and social workers have a degree in their own right prior to training. The other professions undertake a BSc three year course thesedays.

Free tuition in Scotland- fantastic bargain!:E

charliegolf.... the catch is that you need to be resident in Scotland for three years.

And then all your flying fees are paid for?

I have never seen such ego in my life.

Never met a Harrier pilot, obviously!:E

I'm old fashioned enough to think that only degrees with A-level subject names (and some like medicine) are worthy of study. Pilots don't need degrees- if they'd like one, go and get one...