Statement "Aviation courses are not equivalent to higher education" Agree/Disagree?

[aaaaaa]

I live in an area where luckily most students of higher education receive grants - unless the course is aviation oriented.

I have been busy fighting for some form of partial grant to help with an integrated fatpl. I do not expect a full grant but have been trying to obtain assistance with:

1 The academic and theoretical side

2 The accommodation costs

Where I live these are normally paid for the length of the college/ university course whether it is dentistry or pottery - three years or six.

After lengthy correspondence I have received another letter of refusal but with the statement:

"The Council considers that aviation courses are not equivalent to higher education courses. The academic element of the course (ie the scientific and theoretical element) covers a much less extensive field than a higher education course and accounts for only a minority of the full cost of aviation training".

I would like the views of potential and actual commercial pilots on that statement as I am still going to fight the Council over this. Am I to assume that studying for an atpl is not as demanding or difficult as those who choose to study North American Indians or Art (nothing wrong with either of those subjects and I am sure they are just as demanding).

Just because the course is much shorter than a university degree surely does not make it any less academic - it is just that it is a much more intensive course with no long uni holidays. (therefore cheaper on the accommodation side!). I accept that the flying side is probably the most expensive element and accept that it would be unreasonable for this to be awarded a grant.

As most people fly these days, I am sure that they would like to know that the flight deck crew have received some sort of higher education!!!!!!

Please take time to reply with your views - be it for or against the Council statement. Thanks

[Dr.Evil 2002]

I totally disagree with your Council's statement.

I myself have not studied for a degree so it will be interesting to see what the graduates have to say but my opinion is as follows.......

The theoretical studies for your ATPL are demanding, intense and by no means a walk in the park. No holidays, no half terms, no 50% pass mark. 14 subjects to learn and understand in 6 months, now thats no mean feat and with a pass mark of 75% I for one believe the ATPL should be considered as Degree equivalent on the Theoretical side alone!!!!!

Friends of mine have degree's, and I remember them going to lectures once a week, studying (my opinion) worthless subjects, coming away with a 2:2 having spent 3-4 years pissing it up and having a great time. Now im not saying all degrees are worthless but some sure as hell are and I think its about time the Government/Education board recognised how much time, effort, dedication and hard work we put in to gaining an fATPL.

Anyway, time for me to get off my high horse!

Good luck with your fight with the council, im in your corner all the way!!!!


Dr. E

[BravoOne]

The banks also seem to think that if your not studying to become a lawer or doctor that your not worth considering.

I was also told that in order to qualify for funding that I must fullfill the following crieria:

1. Have secured a job for completion of my training and
2. Loan Security.

I offered them security and they still turned me down.

They couldn't quite grasp the fact that in order to secure the job, you must first have the relevant qualifications. An IT student doesn't start their computing degree on the basis that they have a job secured at the end of their degree course, and yet they qualify because the course is provided by a government run/part run institution.

B1.

[SKYYACHT]

I for one would dearly love to see the situation from the Local authority grants officer's point of view, but I doubt that I could get me head that far up my ar*e. I spend a great deal of time instructing at professional flight crew level, and getting a grip on the finer and more arcane points of Scheduled performance A, or the intricacies of an FMS based navigation system, and these are at degree level, and many of our crew members who do in fact have degrees themselves, often have to apply considerable mental efforts in gaining 100% understanding.

It seems that there is no comparative study or unified approach to the offering of grants. I know that the Learning Skills Council and the Department of Education assess various courses to check eligibility for "grants status", but it seems that aviation has dropped through the net.

Naturally, if you want to study underwater basket weaving or the life and reproductive cycle of the Maris Piper potato, then you get it. The ambition to fly a 100+ tonne aeroplane is naturally an elitist occupation, and as such is not eligible for assistance.

Perhaps a letter to your/our MPs?

[icemaiden]

OK, pilot training provides vocational not academic training. That does not mean that it is less demanding, in fact most vocational courses are more demanding due to their practical nature. I doubt they will shift on the issue, as they have not done so for other vocational qualifications (ie legal practice course for solicitors and bar vocational course for barristers). Despite my doubts I hope you will continue to pursue the council, and good luck with your flying.

[Crashlanding]

I would just like to say that I took what is concidered to be about the 5th hardest degree in the country (Micro electronics and computing) basically a combined degree where you have to do the hardest modules from 4 other subjects. For this I spent 1 day per subject in the final year in revision and about 3 months making and building my final year project with a further month in the thiesis and final presentation.

What I do know being almost complete now on my ATPL exams is that I have never in my life had to study as hard as I do konw. I have spent the last year and a half studying every day, I havnt gone out bar to go to work or to fly a plane.

I can safley say this is harder than my degree, in the breadth of the subjects.

You have to remember in the good old CAA licence days we got tax relief because you was doing an NVQ 4 qualification, which is the same as a degree and that was why we used to get tax relief. This conviently changed as soon as we hit JAR to save the govenment a lot of money in tax rebates, and at the same time made this a pleasure course not a preofessional course. (that is the response I love from my counciler who does fly, as I dont konw what please I have managed to achieve by studing so hard)

There is im afraid no chance of changing this situation especially with the current govenment who manged to promise not to sell of the airtraffic before power and then as soon as it comes in starts the wheels in motion to do a PPP put it through the house of commons 3 times because at least there are still some lords who had sense to fight it. Regreatable if the govenment thinks this way there is no chance for them helping such a small minority of people when they want the majority of votes with Hospitals and schools.

Sorry to moan but it does tick me off, and has taken me off the main point that this course is as hard as my degree, and I have to study way harder now then I did doing my degree

[Luke SkyToddler]

Yeah ... makes me laugh ... I drank and played the guitar for three years of a fully-government-funded Bachelor of Arts degree, then I thought I'd better do something that might actually make me employable and took up pilot training. I did more work in about the first week at flying school than I did for three years at university

[Hap Hazard]

Agree with what you say all the "A's", we once at least had a thing called NVQ, which was a real help to both student and schools alike.
It was well and truely abused by the industry to the point that it was withdrawn for trainee pilots.
It saved me a load of £££'s, but as usual was stuffed up for those down the line......you guys.
Its an expensive and cut throat industry that seems to do its own thing when compared to other industries.
Apparently only about one log book was ever completed and returned to the appropriate dept. (no doubt someone will have more accurate figs)
I know when I was training and asked about getting the modules in my book signed, I was nearly laughed out of the room.
I didnt bother after that.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say it isn't equivalent to a degree. Or at-least some degrees.

I worked my balls off for 3 years doing a degree in aeronautics, which cost me about £5k/pa. , of which about £750 pa came from the state The only time I've worked harder was at ETPS. The study parts of an ATPL do not take more years or more hours than that - having said which they're undeniably very hard work, and at-least as worthwhile.

Conversely there are people who do degrees in ladies-basket-weaving or some equivalent and are treated identically to an Engineering or Medical student. This certainly makes no sense to me.

My stepson has just started a vocational degree at Loughborough, which will be costing him, his mother and I about £6k/pa. We get virtually no support from the state for this, having to cover all his living costs and £1000pa in tuition costs. So, he's hardly getting a free ride.

So where do I stand? Well I don't think an ATPL should be considered equivalent to a degree, it isn't. It is a tough vocational qualification, training people we need - that is how it should be treated. I do think that, at-least for the academic parts the state should not let you pay more than the equivalent of £1000 that my stepson is having to stump up in tuition fees.

As for the vocational bit (known in the trade as flying training), well the NHS pays for training doctors after their degrees, law firms pay to train lawyers after their degrees, my then employer paid for 4 years engineering training for me before and after mine. I can't see why the government should let the airlines off the hook, they don't anybody else?

And find the money by withdrawing the funding for degrees in outer-mongolian -archeology and suchlike pointless wastes of my taxes to help Tony say he's putting 1/3 of our 18 year olds through "higher education"

G

[TCM]

Having gained a degree and now training for the ATPL, I agree that the ATPL exams should be eligable for some form of grant/student loan. As for the rest of the training it is highly debatable, but ultimately it is down to the airlines to ensure they get the pilots they require.

It would be nice if the ATPL training was regarded in the same light as a degree, in terms of being able to get subsidised loans and recognition of the academic aspect. However, it seems it will still be regarded as an expensive hobby for some time.

TCM

[Luke SkyToddler]

In case you were wondering, here in New Zealand aviation training is treated like any other degree for funding purposes ... ie as long as you sign up for a professional course you qualify for a low interest, government provided student loan (which you don't have to pay back until you gain paid employment). That loan covers the lot ... theory, flying, everything.

Which may go some way towards explaining why there's so goddam many of us out there trying to get airline jobs

[pa28biggles]

It depends what type of degree you are comparing ATPL theory too. Degrees range in workload, i know people that attend less and more lectures than i do in the week. But if a uni student is eligable for a student loan(i get £3k a year) so should an fATPL student. I have to pay tuition fees though (£1100 pa).
I actually live at home and spend my loan on hour building, the loan only gains interest which is just about equal to inflation, and you dont pay it off until you earn >£10K. And when you do pay it off, its an insignificant amount (% i think) of your wage.
So why cant an fATPL student get at least a student loan???.....

[Steepclimb]

The problem is the way flight training was always carried out. In the past you were trained by the military or an airline or paid for it yourself on a very ad hoc basis. That all supplied the needs of the industry nicely.

Despite the like of OATS and others setting themselves up as 'colleges' they were never seen as such.

Another problem is that particularly in Europe flight training is ferociously expensive. In America everyone pays for college so it's not an issue plus it's cheaper to fly.

But I think there may be a case to made now that the JAA insist on either full time or modular courses. Surely this now can be considered the equivalent of a college course. After all you spend a year or more in full time education in a rather more disciplined environment than most colleges. The old ad hoc system is dead. I think a case could be made. But don't hold your breath.

All this only applies to flying courses, the EU kindly coughed up the fees for my brother Aircraft Engineers course.

[scroggs]

As Icemaiden and Genghis quite rightly state, a commercial flying licence course is a vocational qualification, not an academic one. The level of difficulty is irrelevant. The cost of the course should be borne by the student or by the student's potential employer, unless you advocate that all vocational courses should be funded, or part-funded, by the state? Then your under-water basket weavers could continue to receive funding for post-graduate professional studies, and in fact all businessmen/women, lawyers, plumbers and whomever would be equally entitled to public funding for all and any of their courses after initial qualification. It would be a farce - and a bloody expensive one.

It's no good quoting doctors, teachers or lawyers as examples. They all require degrees in order to undertake their professional training. Their degrees are subsidised by the state - as are yours, those of you that have them - but their professional training is paid for by their respective industries. If you wish to make a case for funding, you should be directing your energies -as is Pprune - toward the aviation industry, which should be funding, at least in part and possibly with state help, a national college of professional aviation.

I'm sorry, but you'll get nowhere with your local council, and that's as it should be.

[timzsta]

Good luck with your battle with the council.

The thing about an ATPL course is you actually have to turn up every day and study to get the qualification at the end of the day - and turn up sober too.

Also with a degree you dont have to go back every 6 months and prove you still know what you were taught in a simulator.

[foghorn]

Agree - not equivalent

Having a frozen ATPL and two Masters degrees from Cambridge University, I will happily say that the frozen ATPL was not a patch on getting a degree.

The theory portion of the frozen ATPL was more like Upper Sixth Form, studying for A-Levels. The practical portion has very few similar things with which to compare it.

cheers!
foggy.

[aaaaaa]

I agree with Foghorn in that probably an faltp would not be in the same league as two Masters from Cambridge, also Icemaiden and Ghengis, I also agree, the flying aspect is down to 'self'.

However the academic side should be given some assistance, just because it is not a uni course and it is much shorter dosnt mean to say it is any less an achievement than many other subjects.

Foghorn - perhaps we had better get the Education Department to add aviation studies for A Levels if that is what you truly believe the level is - however the Education Department dosn't seem to be able to sort out its own internal and marking problems so probably aren't qualified to know the requirements of commercial flying.

What is the definition of "Higher Education" anyway. I should imagine there must be many men and women at 30K ft who would be just a tad insulted to think they have not received a higher education!!!

[deza]

stop bloody moaning the lot of you, nobody forced you you to take up flying?

be lucky.

[P.Pilcher]

I'm afraid everyone, it is all down to the laws of supply and demand. At the moment, and for a very long time now, the airlines have had streams and streams of qualified but inexperienced pilots knocking on their doors wanting a job. Despite the fact that it is v. expensive, JARs make things much more difficult and so on, the fact remains that there are tons of qualified pilots out there and a whisper that "so-and-so is recruiting" fills their mailbox with CVs. Regrettably, while the airlines have no problem in obtaining new recruits, little will change. Only when this is no longer the case will getting the qualification become financially easier.

Sorry to repeat the obvious.

[Speed Twelve]

Well, I've got a fATPL and an honours degree in electronics engineering so I'll comment.

University consisted of spending four years trawling round bars and dancefloors in Edinburgh. Occasionally I went along to some lectures and stuff so that some boffin could fill a whiteboard with flute music. The lecture halls weren't in cloud in icing conditions with an engine out, so no pressure there, basically.

I reckon, in my brain anyway, that the volume of academic and operational flying knowledge required for an ATPL is generally equivalent to an ordinary degree in an engineering or science subject. It's all subjective depending on how difficult you reckon these things are...

Unfortunately, public money won't be subsidising flying training as long as the public continue to perceive flying as an elitist occupation, as has been mentioned. Not while it can be used to send carjacking neds on safaris abroad as 'punishment'.

ST