ATPL(H) is equal to a PHD
 

What is the UK academic equivalent of a UK CAA ATPL(H). Is it equal to or less than a Bsc, Msc or Phd. Any references will be appreciated

Less than any of the qualifications you mentioned.

I reckon it's equivalent to an old Uk 'O' Level Grade C in Physics. It's all multi guess, memory test, and there's no dissertation to complete!

:rolleyes:

well, it's hard to say really. i think all 14 exams are worth more than 1 O level. i reckon about 4-5 'O' levels

i know people who have taken 3+ years to get the ATPL theory

Squirrel senior - I reckon you've forgotton the struggle mate ! I reckon it's easily equivilent to an old polytechnic degree.

References
 

Can any one supply any references?

NQF
 

There is a thing called the National Qualifcation Framework (NQF) which lets you compare levels of various courses/qualifications. If the answer is anywhere it is there! For example after much consulatation with CAA I have established the PPL is at least level 3. (A-levels). So ATPL must be higher.

http://www.qca.org.uk/493_15772.html

PHD is level 8 by the way.

Ok, so a few 'o' levels then. :)

If getting a phd or degree is as easy as passing the atpl exams, I think i'll be enrolling very soon.

I don't think you can compare the two. One is higher learning and proof of learning. The other is an extended memory test with a lot of useless information. I'll let you decide which one is which.:ok: :E

From actual experience. The Complete ATPL(H) correspondence course I did with Trent, was given a value of 30 points (in those days 1/2 credit) by the OU. (I think you need 360 points for an BA/BSc honours degree).

I consider an ATPL to be the equivalent of a Degree.

Years ago, in the days when having a Degree really meant something, the argument against regarding it as equivalent would have been that it's a practical course rather than an academic course designed to develop and expand intellectual capacity. Now that you can get into a 'university' with a couple of E Grades at A level to study some course which doesn't require intellectual capacity, that argument no longer holds true IMHO.


kms
Much depends upon whether we have a flair for a subject, in particular whether we are better at Arts or Science subjects.
I've got a law degree from one of the top universities and, while I wouldn't say it was easy, I wouldn't claim it was difficult. That's partly because the selection process was such that those who would have found it difficult would probably not have got into the university, and certainly not into my college, and partly because I've got a flair for law. However, I think I'd find the ATPL exams difficult. Even at school, my grades in maths & science were consistently lower than in other subjects.

Much also depends upon the university. These days, the fact that someone has a Degree doesn't mean much without knowing where it's from - and in what subject. Football? Hair-dressing? Golf Course Management? Leisure Studies?


FL

I can say for sure its not degree stuff, i have looked over the ATPL's, and they are hard in places, but not really that hard. I would say 14 exams would be about 3 A levels, based on four subjects per A. i would say the depth of the content is under AS Level, its pretty vauge stuff you need to know. ATPL's from what i can see are GCSE level maths and physics at most. Over here, 16 modules would get you a BTEC National Diploma, which is 3 A'Levels, but a fair few of those 16 are junk tutorials, and they are usually open book exams...

I used to think however that the ATPL was like a degree, well i compared it more to a CIMA or Chartered Qualification, but i was wrong again there, or so i was told...

To me the ATPL contains a fair bit of info and brain like a sponge, as there is a load of info to take in and understand... But does it matter what level the ATPL is? Its needed to go commercial, and its got no use in any other industry, just flying... Its like having a CIMA and applying for an Engineering job...

i wouldnt say an ATPL is like a Phd at all. A phd typically takes 3-4 years. 1 year studying, 1 year doing practical research, and 1 year writing it up as a book.

unless you go to one of the top unis most BSc/BA courses today are a joke. golf course management, media studies, pop music studies, sports and fitness etc. its all about the unis making money via course fees/international students these days.

the goverments target of most people going to higher education is a crap strategy. it just results in lots of broke people with worthless degrees working in ASDA, while we are all paying through the nose for plumbers/electricians etc, as all the vocational training institutions closed down and there is a shortage. the trouble is, everyone wants to work in tv/music/the meeja, and no-one wants to study the practical stuff.

i worked in the media for years and i never met a single person with a media studies/communication degree.

nowadays a degree is considered "standard" (like O levels were years ago) and to get anywhere with employers you need an Msc or a Phd

apologies for going off-topic, just my 2 pence

So here's an added extra....what if you also have an IR? Does that give you a Doctorate? It bloody well should. (personal opinion:* ):ok:

Here's a question for you all. What are the two things you need to be a helicopter pilot? You only need these too things, nothing else.

Any guesses?

Money and a medical?:rolleyes:

Balls?:}

OO OO OO OO

That's me out then! :}

Havin gone through school, uni, professional qualification and now ATPL ground school; I'd put them, difficulty wise, alongside A-levels. However, there may be a "kudos" level which may be higher than that on the basis that fewer people are in a position to study ATPLs. Someone either has to get accepted on a cadetship or sponsorship, pass interviews and selection criteria or they reach a position in life where they can be self-funded - not something that an A-level student needs to go through.

Of course, I am talking about 1980s A level (proper ones!)

Cheers

Whirls

thecontroller

It may be going off-topic (slightly), but I agree with virtually everything you said in your '2 pence' about the current status of degrees. A degree from a top university still carries weight but, as you say, simply having a degree in something from somewhere has now become standard. The desire to call all post school qualifications a 'degree' was silly; it's devalued degrees. I suppose it's all part of the culture in which people who do a few months (or weeks) training now refer to their job as their 'profession'.

Unfortunately, it's not about universities 'making money' as much as struggling to make ends meet. The government's ridiculous policy has meant (amongst many other bad things) that the education budget is spread so thinly that no-one gains - except the government which can boast that x% of school-leavers now go to university. The target is 50%. :rolleyes:
Also, conveniently, they aren't then counted in the unemployment figures. ;)

Hey Whirls, It's not rocket science but of course they weren't anywhere as difficult as proper 1970s ones...... :)

P.S. hope your battery's charged up, that's only 'O' level stuff ;)

Yes, battery(ies) is/are fully charged :confused: ; I got O Level Battery Charging and Cell Topping-up!

Cheers

Whirls

IQ
 

An interesting commodity is intelligence, as defined by PhDs, ATPL passes or what ever yardstick.
In another life I was a TAFE instructor & one year I took a bunch of wide eyed youngsters to the Sydney QANTAS base. One of 'em asked the recruitment officier what he looked for in a prospective wide body pilot. "we like 'em bright", he replied, "but not too bright"!
Weirdest experience of my life was purchasing a little seconf hand Robbie which brought me into contact with a bunch of millionaire private owners displaying a whole different other kind of 'intelligence'.
Personally I'd like to see a CSQ exam, more pilots with a high 'common sense quotient' would do nicely.

The exams by themselves are probably just below HNC level - the subject matter is not difficult, but there is a lot of it, and if you take the point that uni training is to prepare you to think (it often doesn't matter which degree you have), then I don't think they fit the bill at all. Only after you have some flight experience, say about 5000 hours, does it approach anywhere near. Having said that, London City accept the ATPL as an entry into their MSc in Aviation Safety Management.

I take flying lawyer's point about his flair for law, but I'll bet his questions were a lot more involved. For example, to take the critical point, in a typical pilot's exam, you will be given the departure and destination points, the wind velocity and other relevant information and be asked to calculate the CP along with the PNR (Point of No Return), which is OK as far as it goes, but tells you nothing about your qualities as a Captain, however much it may demonstrate your technical abilities as a pilot.

Now take the same question, but introduce the scenario of a flight across the Atlantic, during which you are tapped on the shoulder by a hostess who tells you that a passenger has got appendicitis. First of all, you have to know that you need the CP, which is given to you already in the previous question. Then you find out that you are only 5 minutes away - technically, you should turn back, but is that really such a good decision? (Actually, it might not be, since it will take a few minutes to turn around anyway). Commercially, turning back would be disastrous, and here you find the difference between being a pilot and a Captain, and the type of thinking that should qualify you for a degree.

Me, I did the five minute version - I just studied what people actually remembered five minutes after doing the finals! :)

Phil

Has the UK CAA ever confirmed the Academic equivalence of the ATPL?

I'm always a little puzzled when this question arises. If you have been to university and read a science subject, the question is a no-brainer (to use common parlance): there is no similarity at all. If you read a humanity, or underwater basket weaving, then you may find the science side of the ATPL exams difficult, and wonder if they are equivalent to a science degree. They are not!

If you want to use the ATPL as a form of credit for further study, then ask your proposed course provider whether they recognise it. I can concur that the OU certainly gave it 30 points credit, as has been said earlier (so, a 1/12 of the total required), and that some aviation based MSc providers recognise it in lieu of a first degree. Similarly, the RAeS will recognise professional qualifications plus experience, in lieu of a degree for Membership status.

The CAA are not in the business, or in any way empowered, to confer a formal academic status to their exams; that is for other bodies to decide.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with an elderly (or so he seemed to me at the time) barrister when I was a student about to sit my Bar Finals.
'I'm told they're much more difficult now. In my day, you could read up on the train and get through Bar Finals.
Really?
Oh, yes. If you had a Law degree, they weren't very challenging.
Did you pass first time?
Err, no. Like a damn fool I caught the express.'


"uni training is to prepare you to think"
That's the nub of the matter - which is often overlooked these days.
A problem with some of the now called 'universities' is that they don't do that; they simply teach students to pass exams.
Further, some subjects now studied to 'degree' level simply don't lend themselves to academic study. eg Many vocational courses.

If Dangagan had asked his question years ago, I would have given a different answer. However, because the Government has been so keen to make the university figures/school-leaver unemployment figures look good, the distinction between academic and vocational study has now been blurred - even though the two are very different.

I thought the HNC/HND system was good, and more appropriate. Now, instead of obtaining a respected HND in a subject, a large percentage of students end up with what many people regard as a joke degree.

"it often doesn't matter which degree you have"
If you're referring to academic courses at good universities, I agree entirely.

I do not have a degree, but I do have a fixed wing and a helicopter ATPL. I do not consider myself to be academically equivalent to a degree. I do consider my years of experience to give me the equivalent to a degree.... ie from the university of life.
When I did my ATPL exams, it was 8 months of part time study, 2 hrs EVERY day including holidays. I didn't open the Met book until 10pm the night before the exams, skimmed it for a couple of hours and scraped a pass on the multiple guess the next day. Hardly degree level.

You didn't take the express train, then! :)

Phil

Wrong comparitor.

We should be contrasting professional flying qualifications with qualifications of other professions, not those of the accademic world. Is a commercial pilots license equiv. to an accounting qualification? Something in IT? The law perhaps?

Discuss :E (12 marks)

Having worked as a college (FE) lecturer, I think part of the problem with the education system here is that young people are no longer taught how to learn. When the answer isn't obvious, they simply don't know what to do. Things that I would consider absolutely basic skills (such as making notes on a given topic to be used for later revision or reinforcement of knowledge after the initial learning) seem to be completely missing. As my partner works as a (high-)school teacher, I know that there are serious issues facing schools as well, and it's not that teachers don't want to teach these things, but there seems to be a tendancy to pass the buck - someone arrives on an AVCE course (vocational A-level), unable to write a coherant English sentance; rather than organising to rectify the problem, they are 'helped' just enough to get them through, then pushed on to the next level up. There is no such thing as failure: teachers are required to provide feedback explaining in ever-more-explicit terms what you need to correct, until you submit something that can be considered passable (generally about the point where the lecturer has had to mark essentially the same piece of work 4 or 5 times, and has given up the will to live); there is a trend away from exams, which adds to this.

I would say the ATPL qualification is broadly similar to what we call industry qualifications in IT and engineering. Things like the Sun Java certifications or the Cisco networking stuff. I see the following similarities:
- Courses can be studied as classroom modules or (broadly) self-study
- Courses consist of a set of knowledge which must be internalised, followed by some exams
- Exams are often multiple guess
- Passing the exam(s) requires a combination of remembered information and learned skills
- Training is provided by commercial entities rather than government-affiliated learning institutions (although this is changing with ATPLs)
- Gaining the qualification makes you (more) employable, but doesn't guarantee you can do a given job
- The courses are more vocational, i.e. they're more concerned with teaching students a specific set of skills, rather than equipping them with basic knowledge and the ability to teach themselves what the need to know, when they need it

That said, the ATPL training would rate as a fairly high-level industry course; for comparison, the basic Sun Java course (Sun Certified Java Programmer) requires you to pass a single multiple-choice exam, with the classroom-based course lasting a week. I believe the Cisco Certified Network Associate (?) consists of 4 multiple-choice exams and a practical exam, with the classroom-based course being run part-time over about 6 months (open to correction on this one).

Is an ATPL equivalent to the Chartered Accountant’s exams? Definitely not. All the professional accountancy qualifications have to be carried out through the sponsorship of an employer with a structured training programme which lasts at least three years. The employer has to undertake that the student will receive appropriate “on-the-job” training and the studying is much more intensive.

The exams (6 in the first year, five in the second and four in the year plus now, a case study lasting a few days) are 60% written essay questions with only 40% being multi-guess. The pass rates are much lower with exams failures along the way being commonplace.

There is no way anyone could complete all the exams for Chartered Accountancy with a year’s part-time study!!

Can I have me 12 points please!

Cheers

Whirls

I would kind of agree with that, being Novell-certified myself. In that respect, the JAA exams would equate to Microsoft ones, since you have to learn wrong facts to pass the exams and the questions don't make sense anyway! :)

Phil

How many ACAs (or even FCAs) are responsible for daily life and death decisions?
A major problem with aviation today (not the only problem, but) is that it is not regarded correctly as a profession (hence the lamentable wage rates for highly qualified people)
You went off track with the answer. You can have two marks for being partisan. Resubmit your corrected answer by Wednesday. ;)
The comparison to those dumb IT certification exams is a bad one too. They exist to provide training dollars to Cisco, Microsoft, Tibco, SAP, etc. There is no (comparible) flight test ...

None.

However, you may need to define your question. Are we talking about the academic status of the two qualifications or the social status?

I was led to believe that the original question was to do with the academic levels.

Cheers

Whirls

Maybeeee we should look for Chartered status.

Chartered Helicopter Pilot (CHP). Fellow of the Institue of ... (FHP) :E

Mmmmm .... Well does it really matter?

Having been in the Helicopter game since 1974 I wonder!

I initially came through the Australian system pre 1975. After Matriculating from school, did all the necessary exams the hard way (?) i.e. essay type answers did all the flying at much the same time as also becoming a LAME (Licensed Aircraft Engineer) went into commercial ops and learnt the realities!

Had a severe rush of blood to the head and decided to go to obtain a UK ATPL H (vintage 1980) thus did a bunch more essay type exams and had an "Open Walletectomy" performed by a really professional mob called the UK CAA! ..... Ha Ha still managed to get their licence!

Then for work requirements needed the "Yank" equivalent so whilst waiting also got CFII and A&P rating (now that was relatively easy compared to doing an Engineering apprenticeship ??).

Having then spent years working around the world collecting various type ratings,Instrument ratings experience, knowledge and other various bits of plastic and paper credential I find that helicopter pilot employers tend to have one thing in common .........

THEY ALL TEND TO RATE THEIR PILOTS ONE RANK BELOW THE OFFICE CAT IN STATUS!


Cheers :D :ugh:

Controller

To drift yet further from the thread.

Anyone earning 25K a year as a helicopter pilot is doing so because they don't yet have substantial background as a pilot, or the right type of qualifications.

What those qualifications are, is open to debate. Depending on where you want to be in the industry 10 to 15 years from now.

Many people on this forum claim to be helicopter pilots. But I've found few job's of any value that look for a generic helo pilot...The ones that are available are basically college job type employment, until you grow up and get a real job...

Nobody flying tours, charter, joyrides, race meetings in small singles etc. is ever going to kick on with real life Without deciding where you need to be down the road.

This is about the most bouyant the industry has been for a long time, last I remember was around 1987-88 or so.

Then, as now! Qualified people were bumping around, looking and finding better deals...

I don't know any qualified and competant working pilot who is ' out of work'
in Europe.

If anyone's out of work right now, and by work, I mean a real job with a real salary. He/She has more than the usual skeletons in the closet...Or they're low timers with nothing to bring to the table from an owner/operator perspective.

For low timers. Life's tough when you still have to go thru the hoops...Your in a kind of apprenticeship stage and I appreciate that it's frustrating as your particular apprentice ship seems open ended. But that's the price you have to pay for not getting a military somewhere to pay for your services.

We all pay one way or another for our choices in life. I chose to let my government pay for my flight training. You (generic self improvers) chose not to. But inevitably, balance is restored further down lifes path.

But it would be unfair for a self selected, self improver with a few bucks. To study for a year and a half and then be on an equal employment basis to someone who served for several to many years as a mil pilot.

You don't earn much because your not worth much at this point.
A hard but accurate fact.
____________________________________________________________ ___

This thread started with comparisons of degree/ tertiary/further education.

I think there's an element of jealousy in some of the responses. Trying to belittle the qualification of an ATPL.

Anyone who's done both would be hard pressed to choose whether to resit the ATPL's or resit the Engineering degree I sat (Having 4 years to play with the BSc degree makes a difference, and in fact is just a memory test also)

Also the ATPL is not just theoretical. You have to fly to the standard and then maintain that standard (more or less) thruout your career.

Salaries are really moving at the moment if you have solid IFR/Offshore/SAR/Utility background...

The problem is many people are still trying to 'make it' in their late forties.
Still taking jobs based on the equipment, more than the salary.

Surprise people, but salary is everything once the shine has gone from the apple.

I presently work for a private owner earning €140K plus accommodation when on duty, flying a late model medium twin...

He's got more money than sense. So I'm helping address the problem. This is the easiest job I've ever had...And I mean easy! All you need are not too many skeletons and to have paid your dues...This job paid €85K only 2 years ago. He asked me to come on board at that time, and I declined because I was already on 75K and the move wasn't worth it to me. 200 bucks a week doesn't make up for the stress of changing jobs.

He said I had a crazy idea about the value of my skills and I said fine...

He hired a guy who signed on for €60K plus a type rating (FSI)...The guy scared him on the first couple of flights, and the owner called me back.

I went on board and I've been here for 19 months.

A standard wage for someone who can just pole it around from A to B in VFR is around €70K..Additional skills they have to pay for...

Make 'em!

Hunter.

Can't compare.

I am a University Lecturer and it is quite possible for a student at 17y to start with say a National Diploma (2 years no exams), a 3 year degree with very little examined content, an MSc by research, a Phd the same way and then a D.Lit.

Resits with no loss of credits available, even Accreditation of Prior Learning.

Walk in the park compared to the ATPL requirements.

Well, what sort of career path would you like?

Cron

"I am a University Lecturer and it is quite possible for a student at 17y to start with say a National Diploma (2 years no exams), a 3 year degree with very little examined content, an MSc by research, a Phd the same way and then a D.Lit

Resits with no loss of credits available, even Accreditation of Prior Learning."

Not in physics you won't- anywhere. No third year resits, every module examinable, except lab prac, but that's graded.

Daughter's doing it now. I'm living it!

Physics is often quoted as a 'bedfellow' to the ATPL study. I'd be interested to see an extract from the study that's at A Level.

CG