Is an ATPL equal to BSc or BA?
 

This follows on from a previous thread, in which I questioned why a FI Rating has no status as a qualification outside aviation, likewise the same applis to the PPL, CPL and ATPL. This is a problem if someone does not have a first degree and wants to study for a Masters or PhD. UK Universities treat it on a case by case basis.

The combined UK Government website Gov.uk lists the equivalents for academic qualifications between the Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) and the framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ). The UK also has the NVQ system which goes from 1 to 5, 5 being the top end so a masters or PhD. The FHEQ goes from 1 to 7.

Under FHEQ, HND is 5, BA or BSc is 6, MSc or MPhil is 7, PhD is 8, the FHEQ system seems much bettter than the NVQ system.

Does any one know if there is any equivalence in terms FHEQ system, in terms of PPL, CPL, ATPL, as I would say an ATPL is equivalent to FHEQ 6 (BSc or BA).

Is a pity that pilots spend quite alot of time and money on studying, yet the CAA have never engaged with the Higher Education community and FHEQ. To add to this any pilot leaving aviation for whatever reason can have real problems, in terms of employment, as most half decent jobs require a degree thesedays.

Goes anyone have any experience of this, and I would be interested what the situation is in North america.

ATPL theory only just about reaches GCSE difficulty; it is no way comparable to degree level study.
If we made ATPL principals of flight on par with BEng level Aerodynamics I suspect 70% of pilots out there would never pass the ATPLs. The fact is the educational level needed to be a pilot these days isn't actually that great. The way the ground school on a modern type rating also means the technical knowledge needed to pass a modern type rating is also quite low. If someone chooses to go straight to pilot training at 18 without first getting some other career then that is the chance they take.

If you want to do a MSc or a PHd then sorry go and do a degree first. Interestingly in North America all the Major airlines require a College Degree anyway.

portsharbourflying.... Not sure I agree with you, but respect your opinion. and you have a valid point about getting a first degree, but the cost!. I have to add I have known pilots to do a masters or PhD, without a first degree, on the basis of a UK ATPL and research and experience in aviation. For example a Masters Aviation Management, I see not need for an ATPL holder and experienced line pilot to hod a first degree.

As for PPL, I recently looked at the GCSE in meteorology and climate, and I would say that is comprobable to the PPL Meteorology, I would say A levels are comparable to the CPL theory and practical.

As for equating the ATPL to a first degree, its not just the theorectical exams but the practical skills set aquired in flying, such as the practical skill set an undergraduate might aquire. say as a biochemist or in genetics.

I think that these days degree courses are highly variable, Mathematics being the most difficult degree in my opinion and at the other end of the scale, BSc Surf Science and Technology (Plymouth University), BSc Golf Management (Birmingham Universiity), BA Creative Writing (UEA), surely the ATPL theory, technicals IR and 1500 hrs flying is more worthy of equivalent degree status than the three previously mentioned degrees.

Embry Riddle have some programs for BA and MA studies in combination with an ATPL where some "credits" can be cross assigned between the two. Although "my" FTO is one of their partners in Europe I don't know the details. IIRC the ATPL will be credited at around 1/3 of a bachelor's degree in aeronautics or similar. But you really should inquire with them directly.

Myself I got my degrees in aerospace engineering before the ATPL. In my experience, in terms of difficulty and effort the ATPL theory was about 1/10 of the bachelor in engineering (and 1/100 of my ph.d) and this is what I personally would credit for it.

Its neither, an ATPL is a Licence; a Permit to conduct a function, like a gun licence or a dog licence, or a fishing licence. Any academic endeavor in obtaining that licence may have parallels however; flying licences, at whatever level are just licences, not academic qualifications.

Woopity, while I respect you your posts, in the past I need to say fifteen years ago, someone training as a state registered nurse quaulified as a SRN, but these days nurses qualify with a BSc, likewise Radigrapehers and Dieticians. The training and I stand to be corrected, is a third academics and two thirds practical. So why is it any different with pilots.

I need to add I think alot of people travelling in first class from say LHR to LAX would not imagine that P1 and P2 are considered below graduate level. Worse still if the bean counters get on to this they will be demanding pilots are paid less than nurses.

I would add that if a RAF pilot gains his/her wings and completes OCU, that should have equilient status to BSc, but who the awarding body would be, who knows.

i think I need to add the ATPL is a qualification as well as a licence, unlike my TV licence for which i did not take exams. What I actually object to is that if I was quaulified as a surgeon under the Royal College of Surgeons, I retain that quaulification until death,, so why can retired ATPLs not retain an ATPL up to any age, but with PPL priviledges, it it very disrespectal, to ex airline pilots, they quualified, they are entitled to their qualification aa experienced pilots.

That is not the view of the CAA!
They can, I have one and do!
Then why not become a Doctor? Neither a nurse nor a policeman needs a degree to do their job.

I spent a long time in the RAF training people with and without degrees, with a few exceptions I could not tell the difference.

Yes, I do. There is none.

There used to be a Level 4 NVQ (with parity of esteem with a foundation degree) in piloting transport aircraft, with which I was closely involved, but it was almost universally and cynically misused as a vehicle for tax avoidance and was, consequently, withdrawn. As I recall, only one was ever issued, to a senior BA Captain on the sole basis of a portfolio of evidence with zero assessment. If nothing else, the exercise served to demonstrate the unbridgeable void between academic theory and the real world.

Whopity some good points, I could never see why both nursing and policing as a profession needed to become a degree qualified profession, but it is the way the world is going. I just feel that ATPL's are in danger of having a lower status than nurses and policemen.

I agree with you in respect ex RAF piliots and airline pilots, I have met some outstanding people without degrees with expertise in flight safety and training, likewise some not outstanding peple with degrees.

I'm not sure that pilot licenses have any equivalence with educational qualifications. Amongst other things qualifications, once gained, remain in place where as pilot licences require currency. I think a nearer equivalence would be professional registrations.

I'm a lapsed PPL/IMC, but my professional post-nominals are "MSc C.Eng MIET". The "MSc" is my most senior "qualification", the "C.Eng" is my professional registration (Chartered Engineer) and the "MIET" is the membership status of the professional institution which polices my behaviour and currency.

I could be a C.Eng without any degrees (it's more difficulty, but it can be done) and having the degrees is not enough to get C.Eng accreditation. To get the C.Eng accreditation you need to demonstrate a certain minimum level of "underpinning knowledge and understanding" (aka "UK&U" - for Chartered level the level is the equivalent of a Masters and an Honours in engineering disciplines). You then have to demonstrate a history in which you have exhibited five "competencies" (Theory of engineering, application of theory to real problems, management & leadership, communication and professional behaviour). These are assessed by assertion, reference and interview. If you are passed through this process then you must continue to show compliance with the codes of conduct and also undertake a minimum of 30 hours "continuing professional development" per year to maintain the registration.

Now I haven't seen anything in the process of getting to ATPL that has equivalence to an academic qualification, but I *can* see an equivalence to a professional registration. You have the three elements - a minimum level of "UK&U" (aerodynamics, air law, meteorology, navigation theory etc etc), a history of demonstrating the required competencies and a requirement for continuing development/training to remain current. As others have said, the required academic level of the UK&U is sub-A-level (in British terms), so I suspect the level of equivalence wouldn't be at Chartered level except for those pilots who DO have higher degrees, but I could support an argument for Equivalence with Incorporated Engineer.

Of course there would need to be a suitable Institute to assess, award and police these registrations for this idea to have any mileage.

How can an ATPL possibly be equivalent to a degree? Ludicrously pretentious idea!
ATPL. 1 year. Degree 3 years.
ATPL is (a great deal of) rote learning but not to such a high intellectual standard as GCSE. Not even more than a most basic knowledge of Trig needed. NO original thought or thesis appropriate, let alone required. Degree requires several GCSEs to commence it and involves significant amounts of original thought and logical argument.
Chalk and cheese.

As for PPL Met being equivalent to GCSE Climate and Weather (OK, I admit I've never seen the coursework) but I can't believe anyone could pass that after 2 days study, which is all PPL Met takes.

What's this fetish for degrees anyway? Many of the stupidest people I ever knew had two or more degrees. The RAF stopped requiring them for a while in the '70s whan the chop rate increased to an unacceptable level. I, with hundreds of others, joined the RN as a helo pilot on a minimum reguirement of 5 "O" Levels. Go figure. Pilots are doers, not thinkers.

PDR1 ... yes your comments on chartered status are interesting. but it always amuses me when people put MRAES after their name.

As to noflynomore. There is of course a fetish about degress, I think in the in the 1970 only about five percent of people leaving school went onto university, and I'm not sure how many go to university these days, but due to the large number, the government had no choice to apply tuition fees. I was under the impression that in the seventies in respect of Officer Cadets, graduates went to RAFC and non graduates went to RAF Halton, or am I wrong. The good thing about the RAF in the last thirty years is they look for potential in terms of leadership, teamwork and of course academic sucess, it was 5 GCE in the eighties, I think you now need A levels, but not a degree.Did the RAF ever only accept applicants for GDP's from graduates?

Also, ATPL in a year? I have a niece doing a Bsc in Physiotherapy, I will check with her but I guess like nursing or radiography it's probably a third academics and two thirds practical. So getting back to the ATPL, you couldn't do the flying hours and academics in a year. Again equating on time, I remember a head of training in a well known euuropean airline, suggesting that a BSc could easily be achieved in two years, the academics at this conference were livid, he was of course correct, if academic terms were longer or should I say full time and students were not spendind their summers inter railing, BUNAC, or whatever they do these days.

That would be very sporty... A full time theory course takes around 5 months. Allow two months preparation for the exam and a smart student will have passed his theory exams after 7 months. He would then have to fly 10 hours a week for the remaining five months to complete his ATPL in a year. Certainly doable but the weather must be right and the aircraft serviceable and instructors available.

This would be like two semesters at university (one for the theory, one for the practical training). A bachelor study in engineering typically lasts 6 semesters at university and one semester doing some practical stuff.

what next: in the early '70's BA ran sponsored courses for their cadets at OATS. This produced a CPL/IR + ATPL theory in 54 weeks!

PS in those days the course required 230 hrs of flying + 70 hrs of simulated flight (LINK - yes LINK! + Frasca + Comet sim. )

Why? The RAeS is an engineering institution licensed by the Engineering Council. You can only use the "MRAeS" post-nominal if you have achieve full membership. You can only achieve full Membership by demonstrating certain education, competences and experience - it's not just a matter of paying membership subs. Achieving that membership is a first step on the path to gaining Engineering Council registration as a professional engineer at EngTech, I.Eng. or C.Eng level (or you could do it through one of the other licensed institutes like the IMechE, IET etc). So I'm not sure why you sneer at it - an inferiority complex, perhaps?

"I need to add I think alot of people travelling in first class from say LHR to LAX would not imagine that P1 and P2 are considered below graduate level. Worse still if the bean counters get on to this they will be demanding pilots are paid less than nurses".

Sorry Homsap, A Pilot is not an occupation that requires a high academic entry level; the academic requirement to be a pilot is GCSE level. Other than the main stream airlines a lot of pilot jobs are not that well paid. A lot of turbo prop first officer salaries are only about 20 to 25K a year. Although in the long run the pay can be good, for most of us it would mean going bankrupt before we can/could get there.

Not exactly degree scale in any way, is it?

Academic requirement is perhaps as much as 3-4 GCSEs in a year, if that.

I have a BEng as well as being a chartered engineer. ATPL theory is nowhere near degree level, certainly not an engineering degree.

And anyway, why would you want an aviation qualification (be it a license or a rating) to be considered equivalent to anything outside of aviation?

PDR.. I'm sorry if I caused you and others offencewith my comments, I accept that MRAES may be the first step to professional accreditation. I have checked the RAES wedsite, and you need to have a degree and four years experience or without a degree fifteen years experience, plus the fee.

I have to say, my view was rather jaundiced, beause I have known people in the adscence on post nominal in the form a degree or chartered status have 'bought' a MRAES as a post nomininal, to give the impression they are more qualified than they are when seeking consultancy work. I think it would be better if the M was removed it give the impression of a masters, why not simply use RAES as a post nominal.

As for post nominals in surgery a MRCS incolves post graduate exams to be passed, likewise does FRCS again its based on further exams. I believe MRCP which GP's have is the same process.

In respect of I and probably everyone else on this thread upon payment of £302 to the RAES, could put MRAES after their name, which rather goes against how you describe it as part of a developmental process. As for me I think two academic post nominals is enough and as to my membership of RAES, as Groucho Marx said 'I would never want to a meber of a club who would have me as a member'

Again PDR, soory for any offence and clarifying the position.

Homsap,

I will agree with you to an extent MRAES and CEng mean very little; there are two year graduate training schemes in some companies that allow someone to gain charter-ship by getting them to jump through the necessary hoops to tick off the boxes for charter-ship; without necessarily gaining competence in any one technical specialisation.

In Aerospace certainly in my field no one puts that much emphasis on charter-ship; I have never needed it, there are other industries where it is regarded and required but certainly not in Aerospace.

Check, Design and CVE approvals under Part 21 are the important thing and none of those require CEng or MRAES. I normally find that the competence of a person is inversely proportional to the letters displayed in the email signatures. The best Engineers I know even if they have CEng and PHd will tend to keep it quiet. Those with the three line email signatures with every letter they can muster tend to be the less competent (to put it politely).

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...