The ideal degree course?
Moderator
Thread Starter
I'm more or less with you I-M, but not totally.
Whilst a PPL is not of sufficient academic rigour to count as part of a degree pass, nor are many of the subjects as taught in the first year of any Engineering degree. However, like those, there's potential to build upon them with a view to teaching subjects in a way that just wouldn't be possible otherwise.
To offer an obvious example, flight mechanics - taught far too often as a purely academic subject with no relation to the actual task of flying an aeroplane. (I recall getting into a thoroughly enjoyable debate on this subject during my PhD transfer viva with an academic who knew far more than I about the maths of flight mechanics, but had never actually learned to fly an aeroplane - we came at it from totally different viewpoints). Similarly there is much potential to involve students in real-aeroplane project work to a degree which wouldn't be possible without their having developed a good knowledge of flying. But I think it must be important that the PPL is a means to an end within the degree, and not an end in itself.
As to the last point, that will be a difficult challenge, as will persuading academics who don't understand either aviation or engineering to start thinking in terms of flying machines, not bits of discrete structure and code. I have an idea as to the nature of the problems here, but as yet, not enough answers.
G
Whilst a PPL is not of sufficient academic rigour to count as part of a degree pass, nor are many of the subjects as taught in the first year of any Engineering degree. However, like those, there's potential to build upon them with a view to teaching subjects in a way that just wouldn't be possible otherwise.
To offer an obvious example, flight mechanics - taught far too often as a purely academic subject with no relation to the actual task of flying an aeroplane. (I recall getting into a thoroughly enjoyable debate on this subject during my PhD transfer viva with an academic who knew far more than I about the maths of flight mechanics, but had never actually learned to fly an aeroplane - we came at it from totally different viewpoints). Similarly there is much potential to involve students in real-aeroplane project work to a degree which wouldn't be possible without their having developed a good knowledge of flying. But I think it must be important that the PPL is a means to an end within the degree, and not an end in itself.
As to the last point, that will be a difficult challenge, as will persuading academics who don't understand either aviation or engineering to start thinking in terms of flying machines, not bits of discrete structure and code. I have an idea as to the nature of the problems here, but as yet, not enough answers.
G
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Daigaba System
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Met Uni
Is this a worthwhile course then?
More business management than aero/technical but PPL and ATPL are part of the course.
LINK to the course
More business management than aero/technical but PPL and ATPL are part of the course.
LINK to the course
Guest
Posts: n/a
This may or may not be a good course, but it's the sort of innovation in aeronautics/aviation that the traditional aeronautical engineering universities just aren't taking up. I used to look down my nose at this sort of thing - I don't any more.
Arguably, the real test of the value of a degree is whether or not it has been placed before an appropriate accreditation body - if not, why not, and what the outcome was. For example, with aeronautical/avionics engineering degrees the appropriate bodies are the RAeS, the IMechE and the IEE. Full accreditation, for example, of an MEng degree allows the holder to progress towards CEng status without the extra postgraduate examinations called 'matching sections', so accreditation is an important attribute of a degree programme.
Arguably, the real test of the value of a degree is whether or not it has been placed before an appropriate accreditation body - if not, why not, and what the outcome was. For example, with aeronautical/avionics engineering degrees the appropriate bodies are the RAeS, the IMechE and the IEE. Full accreditation, for example, of an MEng degree allows the holder to progress towards CEng status without the extra postgraduate examinations called 'matching sections', so accreditation is an important attribute of a degree programme.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you seen the UNI of Salford course?
http://www.cse.salford.ac.uk/coursev...neering&ref=77
Whislt I accept that PPL ground school doesn't really equate to degree level when you get onto the ATPL ground school then it is/was quite challenging.
I don't know if they still include it but things like the TPhigram and thermodynamics, and working out compressibilty errors ias/cas/ras differences did keep us out of the pub for a few nights.
http://www.cse.salford.ac.uk/coursev...neering&ref=77
Whislt I accept that PPL ground school doesn't really equate to degree level when you get onto the ATPL ground school then it is/was quite challenging.
I don't know if they still include it but things like the TPhigram and thermodynamics, and working out compressibilty errors ias/cas/ras differences did keep us out of the pub for a few nights.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the aviation enthusiast, maybe the three career streams that presently exist, do so for good reasons?
Route 1: On the one hand you have the traditional academic route, of which I am a product - BEng Aero Eng, PhD Unsteady Aerodynamics. These courses (claim) to equip you with the necessary mathematical/analytical/computational techniques that form the basis of many of the major technological advances of the 20/21st centuries. You need a degree of mathematical ability to succeed.
With this type of qualification you can get a job at GE doing CFD, or Ferrari working in their wind tunnels, or with Airbus looking at FBW development.
Route 2: Alternatively, you can aim for a wrenching qualification. Some of the most fun I ever had was post BEng wrenching on light pistons and DC3's. My degree didn't help one iota for this work. PT6 hot section inspection? Re-hanging C206 control surfaces? Re-riveting a B18 wing underskin? Huh?
All news to me. No differential equations to solve in this job.
To succeed in this discipline a mechnical inclination would seem to be a good pre-requisite. You're the kind of guy/gal who took things apart as a kid, works on your own car, improvises repairs to your PC when a motherboard fails...
You can get a job with Marshall Aerospace with this qualification or Storm Aviation.
Route 3: And then you have wannabe pilots.
I only ever wanted to be a pilot. The other qualifications I accumulated along the way were only circumstantially acquired.
I'd love to know the demographics behind the average qualfiying fATPL holder these days, but I'd hazard a guess, many of them have already been down Route 1?
It would appear to me, initially at least, that if you try and amalgamate all these streams, you'd wind up diluting the course and de-valuing each one of the disciplines as a result?
An engineer doesn't need a PPL. A mechanic doesn't either. A pilot doesn't need a BEng.
I would of course, justify my experience of all three streams by saying they've added to my experience base and made me a better pilot as a result, but I'd hate to think of a graduate with an Aviation Studies degree thinking that because he'd got a PPL he'd have a head start towards a fATPL.
Knowing how the airlines think these days, he'd only have to enroll in an Integrated 509 course anyway whereupon he starts from scratch again like I did. Time wasted?
I try not to think of my 10 years in streams 1 and 2 prior to arriving in the flightdeck as wasted, but thats not always easy.
Of course, the problem with this, is that because this is the way the system works, you have to make the decision early in life facing the very real possibility that you'll get the decision wrong and have to start again in the stream you really do want to be in!
An anecdotal story that perhaps justifies my dilution theory....
When I first started at flight-school, during my ground school Flight Dynamics class, after an auspicious start, the instructor went on to talk about Lift Pressure.
Being fairly confident that seven years at University had taught me the difference between a Force and a Pressure, I proceeded politely to tell him there was no such thing.
Eventually I gave up, figuring, I'd best keep my mouth shut for the duration of the course, for fear of acquiring a name for myself.
Route 1: On the one hand you have the traditional academic route, of which I am a product - BEng Aero Eng, PhD Unsteady Aerodynamics. These courses (claim) to equip you with the necessary mathematical/analytical/computational techniques that form the basis of many of the major technological advances of the 20/21st centuries. You need a degree of mathematical ability to succeed.
With this type of qualification you can get a job at GE doing CFD, or Ferrari working in their wind tunnels, or with Airbus looking at FBW development.
Route 2: Alternatively, you can aim for a wrenching qualification. Some of the most fun I ever had was post BEng wrenching on light pistons and DC3's. My degree didn't help one iota for this work. PT6 hot section inspection? Re-hanging C206 control surfaces? Re-riveting a B18 wing underskin? Huh?
All news to me. No differential equations to solve in this job.
To succeed in this discipline a mechnical inclination would seem to be a good pre-requisite. You're the kind of guy/gal who took things apart as a kid, works on your own car, improvises repairs to your PC when a motherboard fails...
You can get a job with Marshall Aerospace with this qualification or Storm Aviation.
Route 3: And then you have wannabe pilots.
I only ever wanted to be a pilot. The other qualifications I accumulated along the way were only circumstantially acquired.
I'd love to know the demographics behind the average qualfiying fATPL holder these days, but I'd hazard a guess, many of them have already been down Route 1?
It would appear to me, initially at least, that if you try and amalgamate all these streams, you'd wind up diluting the course and de-valuing each one of the disciplines as a result?
An engineer doesn't need a PPL. A mechanic doesn't either. A pilot doesn't need a BEng.
I would of course, justify my experience of all three streams by saying they've added to my experience base and made me a better pilot as a result, but I'd hate to think of a graduate with an Aviation Studies degree thinking that because he'd got a PPL he'd have a head start towards a fATPL.
Knowing how the airlines think these days, he'd only have to enroll in an Integrated 509 course anyway whereupon he starts from scratch again like I did. Time wasted?
I try not to think of my 10 years in streams 1 and 2 prior to arriving in the flightdeck as wasted, but thats not always easy.
Of course, the problem with this, is that because this is the way the system works, you have to make the decision early in life facing the very real possibility that you'll get the decision wrong and have to start again in the stream you really do want to be in!
An anecdotal story that perhaps justifies my dilution theory....
When I first started at flight-school, during my ground school Flight Dynamics class, after an auspicious start, the instructor went on to talk about Lift Pressure.
Being fairly confident that seven years at University had taught me the difference between a Force and a Pressure, I proceeded politely to tell him there was no such thing.
Eventually I gave up, figuring, I'd best keep my mouth shut for the duration of the course, for fear of acquiring a name for myself.
Last edited by SR71; 11th Sep 2005 at 21:11.
City University's Air Transport Engineering degree includes two modules called Maintenance Technology and Maintenance Planning, including MSG3. Also included are modules on Systems Safety and Reliability and Airline Economics. This course has been around for a long time with support, originally, from BEA/BOAC and later BA. It was designed directly for airline engineers.
http://www.city.ac.uk/ugrad/engineer...transport.html
The standard Aeronautical Engineering programme includes the Maintenance modules as options.
From this year both courses now offer an Aircraft Operations and Performance elective which covers day to day airline planning and operations.
There is also a degree which includes a full frozen ATPL - Air Transport Operations.
http://www.city.ac.uk/ugrad/engineer...transport.html
The standard Aeronautical Engineering programme includes the Maintenance modules as options.
From this year both courses now offer an Aircraft Operations and Performance elective which covers day to day airline planning and operations.
There is also a degree which includes a full frozen ATPL - Air Transport Operations.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm familiar with that one Groundloop. It was developed in cooperation with BEA/BOAC/BA (in its various manifestations) as the academic part of their graduate apprenticeship scheme. Graduates from the scheme got their hands dirty in BA's hangars then after qualifying stayed in the maintenance side of BA's E & M Division until they acquired experience and licences. Then, if they were lucky, they moved into the engineering side of E & M as Development Engineers. It was a good course, but has been overtaken by time. It is thin in some of the areas that I think are now needed in Development/Tech Services/Planning.
There is a huge gap between SR71's Route 1 and Route 2 that most people outside the tech support area of Air Transport operations don't appreciate. We don't need specialists in unsteady aerodynamics, Ferrari's wind tunnels or the Airbus FBW design office. Nor do we need former spanner wielders like me, who've read a lot of interesting books. It is an area that has become a specialism of its own. Which universities include the finer academic points of Quality Assurance auditing in an aeronautical degree course? Or organizational psychology - the very basis of Human Factors in Engineering? From what I've seen, and admittedly I've not seen as much as folk like Ghengis who are involved in both sides of aero-engineering, there's a widening gap between academic theory and industrial practice that disturbs me greatly.
There is a huge gap between SR71's Route 1 and Route 2 that most people outside the tech support area of Air Transport operations don't appreciate. We don't need specialists in unsteady aerodynamics, Ferrari's wind tunnels or the Airbus FBW design office. Nor do we need former spanner wielders like me, who've read a lot of interesting books. It is an area that has become a specialism of its own. Which universities include the finer academic points of Quality Assurance auditing in an aeronautical degree course? Or organizational psychology - the very basis of Human Factors in Engineering? From what I've seen, and admittedly I've not seen as much as folk like Ghengis who are involved in both sides of aero-engineering, there's a widening gap between academic theory and industrial practice that disturbs me greatly.
Moderator
Thread Starter
On that last point Blacksheep, I agree totally - my only point would be that it's far from limited to maintenance. A friend of mine, who is a highly respected (ex-industry) academic and writer of textbooks put his finger on it in my opinion, when he said that the basic problem is a loss of concentration upon the flight vehicle.
If you start at the vehicle (be it an airliner, a light aircraft, a military helicopter, or even a satellite), identify the core skills needed to (a) design it, (b) build it and (c) operate it - then you should have the right basis for training aerospace professionals in general, and engineers in particular.
Sadly, for engineering training, that link was probably initially lost 20 years ago and they've been drifting apart since.
G
If you start at the vehicle (be it an airliner, a light aircraft, a military helicopter, or even a satellite), identify the core skills needed to (a) design it, (b) build it and (c) operate it - then you should have the right basis for training aerospace professionals in general, and engineers in particular.
Sadly, for engineering training, that link was probably initially lost 20 years ago and they've been drifting apart since.
G
