The ideal degree course?
Moderator
Thread Starter
The ideal degree course?
I have good reasons for asking this, but if anybody wants them, PM me and all will become (privately) clear.
Let's say you wanted to construct the perfect undergraduate degree course for future aviation professionals. Let's assume that they have left school aged 18, with a good standard of maths and physics, and want the option 4 years later of progressing to becoming either a professional aerospace engineer, or a professional pilot. (Or perhaps for the more gifted individuals, both
).
Assuming we're at a high quality university, with good engineering resources, and also access to a competent flying training organisation with the usual GA training facilities - what would you put in that course?
(And what should be mandatory, and what elective?)
G
Let's say you wanted to construct the perfect undergraduate degree course for future aviation professionals. Let's assume that they have left school aged 18, with a good standard of maths and physics, and want the option 4 years later of progressing to becoming either a professional aerospace engineer, or a professional pilot. (Or perhaps for the more gifted individuals, both
).Assuming we're at a high quality university, with good engineering resources, and also access to a competent flying training organisation with the usual GA training facilities - what would you put in that course?
(And what should be mandatory, and what elective?)
G
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems you have a Test Pilot School curriculum in mind...
The Aerospace Engineer requirement is controlling here; there is no further academic requirement for professional pilots, unless you want to fold in the ground school requirement for the Commercial Pilot Cert into electives or core.
The Aerospace Engineer requirement is controlling here; there is no further academic requirement for professional pilots, unless you want to fold in the ground school requirement for the Commercial Pilot Cert into electives or core.
Moderator
Thread Starter
It seems you have a Test Pilot School curriculum in mind...
Whilst I agree with you that strictly, there aren't any special requirements for pilots at degree level, there is much which might be included to allow people to decide upon their preferred career path, and to prepare them for either route - after-all, an engineering degree is not all of an engineers training, nor in some countries an essential prerequisite to becoming an engineer. Also, there are a fair number of options within the standard aero-eng degree course.
I have my own views on this, but would love to know those of my fellow aviation pros.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 1st Sep 2005 at 12:02.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello. You can check what is done at Embry Riddle since they have all these programs:
- Aerospace engineering curriculum
- Flight test specialization curriculum
- Proff. Pilot curriculum
Otherwise it can go all over the place (my experience from different schools in both Europe and USA/Canada).
You should touch a lot of general mech. Eng. Stuff as prep and then go into more specific aerospace curriculum.
What I mean is go through these sections:
- Aerodynamics (low, high speed)
- Construction and design
- Manufacturing
- Flight mechanics (performance)
- Propulsion (jet engines, rocket engines)
- Stability and control (include aeroelasticity issue etc)
- Equipment (electrical system, hydro systems, combined sys, autopilot)
- Structural analysis (static, fatigue, DTA, FEM etc)
- Material sciences (composite properties, mech of materials)
- Regulatory issues (FARs, JARs etc)
- Navigation
- Other topics in Flight Ops
In my experience I had one or more of courses in these areas plus 2 extra years of general mech engineering (overall 5 years of courses).
You can always pick what you think it is essential for a specific branch from the above list.
Regards,
- Aerospace engineering curriculum
- Flight test specialization curriculum
- Proff. Pilot curriculum
Otherwise it can go all over the place (my experience from different schools in both Europe and USA/Canada).
You should touch a lot of general mech. Eng. Stuff as prep and then go into more specific aerospace curriculum.
What I mean is go through these sections:
- Aerodynamics (low, high speed)
- Construction and design
- Manufacturing
- Flight mechanics (performance)
- Propulsion (jet engines, rocket engines)
- Stability and control (include aeroelasticity issue etc)
- Equipment (electrical system, hydro systems, combined sys, autopilot)
- Structural analysis (static, fatigue, DTA, FEM etc)
- Material sciences (composite properties, mech of materials)
- Regulatory issues (FARs, JARs etc)
- Navigation
- Other topics in Flight Ops
In my experience I had one or more of courses in these areas plus 2 extra years of general mech engineering (overall 5 years of courses).
You can always pick what you think it is essential for a specific branch from the above list.
Regards,
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
That list illustrates something that has bothered me for several years. The lack of interest in maintenance by academia - maintenance is ignored and left to the technician or mechanic.
Large commercial aircraft are now mostly maintained under MSG3 Maintenance Programmes, backed by reliability monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the maintenance programme. It is no longer a matter of stripping an aircraft down and reassembling it with new or overhauled parts. The maintenance engineer must exercise a greater degree of engineering judgment and most of us just don't have the academic training to fit us to that task.
The necessary skills for the new methods are not properly covered in the various license syllabi. We have to develop repair schemes and we do use graduate engineers in the 'back room' engineering offices. Unfortunately, a lack of understanding of maintenance issues often handicaps them. Neither the LAE nor the current graduate aeronautical engineers are ideal for the job. I'd like to see degree courses pay more attention to maintenance issues - the aging airframe, composite repairs, non-destructive testing, engine health monitoring and especially regulatory matters.
In short. Make maintenance a respectable academic subject - or even a complete degree - in its own right.
Large commercial aircraft are now mostly maintained under MSG3 Maintenance Programmes, backed by reliability monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the maintenance programme. It is no longer a matter of stripping an aircraft down and reassembling it with new or overhauled parts. The maintenance engineer must exercise a greater degree of engineering judgment and most of us just don't have the academic training to fit us to that task.
The necessary skills for the new methods are not properly covered in the various license syllabi. We have to develop repair schemes and we do use graduate engineers in the 'back room' engineering offices. Unfortunately, a lack of understanding of maintenance issues often handicaps them. Neither the LAE nor the current graduate aeronautical engineers are ideal for the job. I'd like to see degree courses pay more attention to maintenance issues - the aging airframe, composite repairs, non-destructive testing, engine health monitoring and especially regulatory matters.
In short. Make maintenance a respectable academic subject - or even a complete degree - in its own right.
Moderator
Thread Starter
That, my dear Blacksheep, is a fascinating and very valid point - both for the reasons you make, and also that it would certainly be very helpful for future professional pilots to have a good understanding of the issues and rationale behind maintenance planning.
Not having formally studied the academics of this myself to a particularly high level, can you suggest a good reference or textbook one might use as the basis for such a course within a more general BEng or MEng? Something like this?
And am I right in thinking that you DON'T mean a course like this? (excellent 'though I'm sure it is). You mean the academic subject of planning, constructing, and making as efficient (from time, cost and safety viewpoints) as possible aircraft maintenance and inspection practices?
G
Not having formally studied the academics of this myself to a particularly high level, can you suggest a good reference or textbook one might use as the basis for such a course within a more general BEng or MEng? Something like this?
And am I right in thinking that you DON'T mean a course like this? (excellent 'though I'm sure it is). You mean the academic subject of planning, constructing, and making as efficient (from time, cost and safety viewpoints) as possible aircraft maintenance and inspection practices?
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 3rd Sep 2005 at 07:24.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my thoughts
I was born in what today would be called a British Overseas Territory. I received a rather backward elementary education. At fourteen I went to boarding school, passed certificates and unbelievably to me went on to university. Joined the military. Left the military. Flew.
For the first year at University chemistry and physics from school were “reinforced”. Actually it was mostly repetition and I darn near flunked chemistry, my best subject at school, out of boredom.
Theory of Structures commenced at once, very badly taught by a professor. Sometimes the only way to understand is to teach yourself. Sometimes the cleverest man is a lousy teacher.
Year One had both pure and applied maths but the applied maths was so little different from physics that it could well have been dropped. But tradition and obeisance to old Buggins decreed otherwise.
Pure maths continued for three years and went far too far as I then thought. However the student’s subsequent career often takes an unexpected path. Life has shown that the maths only went a little too far but not a lot too far. Sometimes the old farts know more than we think about what we need to lnow.
After boring Classical Physics in Year One came Modern Physics in Year Two. Brilliantly taught and brilliantly coupled with second year pure maths. Just brilliant. When what was “advanced” in one’s youth crumbles into dust, the “basics” had better be the foundation of continued success or else you’re in trouble. This year was well done.
The Second Year included two Humanities options and I chose Economics (Keynes and Cairncross) and Business Law. You need to understand or at least appreciate upwards, downwards and sideways all that goes on in your company, especially finance.
In the second year we studied electrical engineering but for only one year. A big mistake that and very much towards heavy power and sadly not enough into electronics. Very enjoyable lab work most afternoons. Today I would insist that it continue all the way through alongside the big subjects which were mechanical – strength of materials, engineering thermodynamics, structural mechanics and “fluidics”. That trendy term encompassed aerodynamics broadly set in the field of fluid mechanics. Rather badly taught which has always been a hindrance to me.
Third Year saw the passing away of everything except maths and mechanical engineering and set the scene for the Final Honours Year. The lab work was excellent though some of the engines!!!
I’d rate my first year dull, second year brilliant, third year very good and final year as on equal terms with the profs and lecturers in the way we treated each other. So, having had a good career and helped shape to some degree what and how we fly may I suggest
First Year
Mathematics (Pure and Applied)
Physics and Chemistry of Propulsion
Theory of Structures
Electrical Technology
Mechanical Technology
Computer Studies
Second Year
Mathematics of Computation
Modern Physics
Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer
Electronics
Strength of Materials
Fluid Mechanics
(plus two Humanities Options or languages)
Third Year
Control Engineering
Advanced Structures
Advanced Mechanical Engineering
Advanced Electrical Engineering
Fluidics
Engineering Practice
Honours Year
Three from five:
a) Control Engineering
b) Advanced Structures
c) Advanced Mechanical Engineering
d) Advanced Electrical Engineering
e) Fluidics
Chosen Thesis/ Project
Broadly, very broadly it is what I did and the rose tinted glasses are still in their case.
For the first year at University chemistry and physics from school were “reinforced”. Actually it was mostly repetition and I darn near flunked chemistry, my best subject at school, out of boredom.
Theory of Structures commenced at once, very badly taught by a professor. Sometimes the only way to understand is to teach yourself. Sometimes the cleverest man is a lousy teacher.
Year One had both pure and applied maths but the applied maths was so little different from physics that it could well have been dropped. But tradition and obeisance to old Buggins decreed otherwise.
Pure maths continued for three years and went far too far as I then thought. However the student’s subsequent career often takes an unexpected path. Life has shown that the maths only went a little too far but not a lot too far. Sometimes the old farts know more than we think about what we need to lnow.
After boring Classical Physics in Year One came Modern Physics in Year Two. Brilliantly taught and brilliantly coupled with second year pure maths. Just brilliant. When what was “advanced” in one’s youth crumbles into dust, the “basics” had better be the foundation of continued success or else you’re in trouble. This year was well done.
The Second Year included two Humanities options and I chose Economics (Keynes and Cairncross) and Business Law. You need to understand or at least appreciate upwards, downwards and sideways all that goes on in your company, especially finance.
In the second year we studied electrical engineering but for only one year. A big mistake that and very much towards heavy power and sadly not enough into electronics. Very enjoyable lab work most afternoons. Today I would insist that it continue all the way through alongside the big subjects which were mechanical – strength of materials, engineering thermodynamics, structural mechanics and “fluidics”. That trendy term encompassed aerodynamics broadly set in the field of fluid mechanics. Rather badly taught which has always been a hindrance to me.
Third Year saw the passing away of everything except maths and mechanical engineering and set the scene for the Final Honours Year. The lab work was excellent though some of the engines!!!
I’d rate my first year dull, second year brilliant, third year very good and final year as on equal terms with the profs and lecturers in the way we treated each other. So, having had a good career and helped shape to some degree what and how we fly may I suggest
First Year
Mathematics (Pure and Applied)
Physics and Chemistry of Propulsion
Theory of Structures
Electrical Technology
Mechanical Technology
Computer Studies
Second Year
Mathematics of Computation
Modern Physics
Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer
Electronics
Strength of Materials
Fluid Mechanics
(plus two Humanities Options or languages)
Third Year
Control Engineering
Advanced Structures
Advanced Mechanical Engineering
Advanced Electrical Engineering
Fluidics
Engineering Practice
Honours Year
Three from five:
a) Control Engineering
b) Advanced Structures
c) Advanced Mechanical Engineering
d) Advanced Electrical Engineering
e) Fluidics
Chosen Thesis/ Project
Broadly, very broadly it is what I did and the rose tinted glasses are still in their case.
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
Thats more or less correct Ghengis. I'd like to see something that treats maintenance issues - technical support, planning, scheduling, airworthiness and other 'backroom' elements - with more academic rigour. At the moment we either have to take aeronautical or electrical/mechanical engineering graduates and indoctrinate them into aircraft maintenance or pick out the most thoughtful and analytical LAEs and train then up. Neither means of formation is ideal. We need maintenance professionals who undergo intellectual development targetted at the maintenancer field from the outset. With apologies to yourself, I find current aeronautical graduates too manufacturing focussed.
I can't recommend a single source reference book - I struggled along blindly myself, finding my own way with short courses here and there and picking relevant information from various aeronautical and electronic texts as well as avionic equipment and test equipment manufacturers manuals. My academic knowledge of statistics and experiment design came in useful too, while training courses on flight recorder analysis and accident investigation were useful in setting up flight data analysis in our own Tech Services section.
Maybe I've just found a useful project for my retirement in three or four years time?
I can't recommend a single source reference book - I struggled along blindly myself, finding my own way with short courses here and there and picking relevant information from various aeronautical and electronic texts as well as avionic equipment and test equipment manufacturers manuals. My academic knowledge of statistics and experiment design came in useful too, while training courses on flight recorder analysis and accident investigation were useful in setting up flight data analysis in our own Tech Services section.
Maybe I've just found a useful project for my retirement in three or four years time?
Last edited by Blacksheep; 3rd Sep 2005 at 13:03.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my humble opinion, it's all well and good to teach the theory or flight/ops/met etc, what is additionally needed is some form of airmanship module - essentially go over the most relevant accident/incident investigations and set projects to find out how certain accidents could have been avoided - personally I think a lot of pilots (professional or not) are re-inventing the wheel by taking years to discover all the nasty lessons. There's got to be a better way.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Maybe I've just found a useful project for my retirement in three or four years time?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.glam.ac.uk/coursedetails/685/96
Is a very good course (on it myself). You get a BSc Hons degree (think Kingstons is just foundation?), and the B1 Part66 License.
The course is based around the license really, I'd personally like to have seen something a bit more like "PPL training" included aswell, Navigation, more in-depth aerodynamics etc.....I believe there is somewhere up north (Newcastle rings a bell?) that includes PPL on one of their courses.
I am going to end up as an engineer, but dream is to be a pilot, oneday maybe! (Finances are the problem, career as an engineer should sort that). Would be great if there could be a course that bridged the gap between Pilot and Engineer diceplines a bit more.
Is a very good course (on it myself). You get a BSc Hons degree (think Kingstons is just foundation?), and the B1 Part66 License.
The course is based around the license really, I'd personally like to have seen something a bit more like "PPL training" included aswell, Navigation, more in-depth aerodynamics etc.....I believe there is somewhere up north (Newcastle rings a bell?) that includes PPL on one of their courses.
I am going to end up as an engineer, but dream is to be a pilot, oneday maybe! (Finances are the problem, career as an engineer should sort that). Would be great if there could be a course that bridged the gap between Pilot and Engineer diceplines a bit more.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I know of three UK based engineering degrees that include a PPL - Liverpool (in my opinion the best set up at present), Sheffield (getting there), and Brunel (announced but not yet started running, I have inside knowledge that it should be pretty good). Leeds also offer a BSc in "aeronautical science" with a PPL, but for my taste their academic syllabus is (relative to the others) a bit lightweight, and isn't accredited by the RAeS.
In the US there are several "aeronautical science" degrees, which basically consist of a lightweight-ish aeronautics course (not really intended to produce engineers - but extremely knowledgeable pilots), and a full CPL/IR. The best known (and possibly best) provider of these is Embry Riddle at Daytona Beach, FL and Prescott, AZ.
G
In the US there are several "aeronautical science" degrees, which basically consist of a lightweight-ish aeronautics course (not really intended to produce engineers - but extremely knowledgeable pilots), and a full CPL/IR. The best known (and possibly best) provider of these is Embry Riddle at Daytona Beach, FL and Prescott, AZ.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 3rd Sep 2005 at 22:10.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot to mention the Glamorgan course is RAes approved 
(Which is needed if you plan on joining the RAF as an EngO, must be an accredited degree!).
Genghis, what path would you recommend taking to flight testing? I'd love to do something along those lines oneday, but B1 (and hopefully B2 aswell) first, then ATPL....
Sorry its a bit off-topic!
(Which is needed if you plan on joining the RAF as an EngO, must be an accredited degree!).Genghis, what path would you recommend taking to flight testing? I'd love to do something along those lines oneday, but B1 (and hopefully B2 aswell) first, then ATPL....
Sorry its a bit off-topic!
Moderator
Thread Starter
Genghis, what path would you recommend taking to flight testing? I'd love to do something along those lines oneday, but B1 (and hopefully B2 aswell) first, then ATPL....
(1) Military + Test Pilot School, or
(2) MEng (Aero), try to get a job in a flight test department as an FTE; if you want to become a TP work on the flying as you go along.
There are quite a lot of threads in the "Flight Test" Forum on this subject.
G
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest two other skills.
Firstly social skills, and whilst I'm not the biggest fan of CRM because is is impossible to run a 2 man crew on one man one vote principles, if two people are working together whether relining a wing fuel tank with a rubber liner, or doing a let down into an airport with terrain problems then communication is vital.
The second one which I think is even more important is logic/problem analysis/common sense call it what you will. You can be able to qoute every manual to the finest detail, but when it all turns pear-shaped then there is no substitute for quick thinking and common sense. How you teach or acquire those skills though is a different question.
Firstly social skills, and whilst I'm not the biggest fan of CRM because is is impossible to run a 2 man crew on one man one vote principles, if two people are working together whether relining a wing fuel tank with a rubber liner, or doing a let down into an airport with terrain problems then communication is vital.
The second one which I think is even more important is logic/problem analysis/common sense call it what you will. You can be able to qoute every manual to the finest detail, but when it all turns pear-shaped then there is no substitute for quick thinking and common sense. How you teach or acquire those skills though is a different question.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Seat1APlease Would you consider that extensive learning through (aerospace related) team based study/design/research projects would go a long way towards that?
G
G
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--Would you consider that extensive learning through (aerospace related) team based study/design/research projects would go a long way towards that?--
It would certainly help with the CRM/communications skills but I suspect that whilst problem solving/ analytical skills can be improved with practice, that there are some people who are born with those skills and some who are a lost cause no matter how much they try. You can try and cover every eventuality by study and research into every previous incident but no two events are identical and reacting quickly and logically is not easy to teach.
It would certainly help with the CRM/communications skills but I suspect that whilst problem solving/ analytical skills can be improved with practice, that there are some people who are born with those skills and some who are a lost cause no matter how much they try. You can try and cover every eventuality by study and research into every previous incident but no two events are identical and reacting quickly and logically is not easy to teach.
Last edited by Seat1APlease; 4th Sep 2005 at 09:24.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis
Your original query refers to an 'aviation course'. Most if not all UK universities currently offer aeronautical engineering; avionics; or mechanical engineering with aeronautics degrees. None of which I would consider, with or without a PPL, to be aviation degrees.
Question - are you proposing a new degree, or do you mean 'aeronautical engineering' when you say 'aviation'? Not being pedantic, but the distinction is an important one.
Your original query refers to an 'aviation course'. Most if not all UK universities currently offer aeronautical engineering; avionics; or mechanical engineering with aeronautics degrees. None of which I would consider, with or without a PPL, to be aviation degrees.
Question - are you proposing a new degree, or do you mean 'aeronautical engineering' when you say 'aviation'? Not being pedantic, but the distinction is an important one.
Moderator
Thread Starter
A fair and reasonable question I-M.
In a nutshell, a university who shall remain nameless (but not one either you or I are normally associated with) has decided to create such a course, they've produced a prospectus, decided in (back of envelope depth) a syllabus, and decided that it should both be RAeS accreddited as an Aero-Eng degree, but also include a JAR-PPL and equip it's graduates to head for any of an Aeronautical Engineering career, a professional piloting career, or related engineering work (airport design, ops planning, etc.). They've elected to call this "Aviation Engineering".
Now, having done so, they've asked me to try and make this work! Not easy, but I enjoy a good challenge.
But in answer to your specifics, yes I am in essence proposing a new degree - and I do believe that this will be possible. I just don't believe that it'll be easy - for either the students or those running the course. In fact this may well be the most difficult thing I've done yet if I see the challenge through.
G
In a nutshell, a university who shall remain nameless (but not one either you or I are normally associated with) has decided to create such a course, they've produced a prospectus, decided in (back of envelope depth) a syllabus, and decided that it should both be RAeS accreddited as an Aero-Eng degree, but also include a JAR-PPL and equip it's graduates to head for any of an Aeronautical Engineering career, a professional piloting career, or related engineering work (airport design, ops planning, etc.). They've elected to call this "Aviation Engineering".
Now, having done so, they've asked me to try and make this work! Not easy, but I enjoy a good challenge.
But in answer to your specifics, yes I am in essence proposing a new degree - and I do believe that this will be possible. I just don't believe that it'll be easy - for either the students or those running the course. In fact this may well be the most difficult thing I've done yet if I see the challenge through.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis
Good - with the exception of accreditation as an aero eng degree (due to what I'd perceive as a diluted level of engineering), an excellent idea. Aviation as an activity can in some areas require degree-level qualified personel. A beefed-up Embry-riddle model might be a good starting point, as well as the available UK-based maintenance degree programmes. My institution tried to get involved in such a programme some years ago, but it failed to materialise due to differences between the partners. A great shame.
However, there is no place for a PPL as a module or course in either a new aviation degree or a more traditional aero. eng. degree. The material simply doesn't meet the academic levels required of a degree. I must emphasise that's not to say a PPL or other flying qualification isn't important to providing a rounded aeronaut, it's just that it isn't academically advanced enough. That's not snobbery, or elitism, it's just the way it is.
By all means offer a PPL with the degree, but it shouldn't appear on the degree scroll as an academic element of the qualification.
Having said that, some of the best engineers I know are pilots. Some of the best pilots I know however aren't engineers or have a university degree. Offering a flying qualification as currently done in the UK in the context of the degrees on offer is just marketing. And don't expect rounded individuals just because a complete aviation programme (with or without flying) has been put together. Students want to pass exams. They compartmentalise ie they won't use the knowledge gained in one subect or year to help them in another. A flying qualification would become just another module to pass (albeit a rather sexy and appealing one), and its relevance and context would either be lost on them, or of no significance in the context of the exam-passing sausage machine that masquerades as 'education' in the UK just now.
The most important element of your course will be staff. You'll need aeronautical enginners who work in academia, not academics who've done aeronautical engineering. UK universities struggle to recruit the former as we now always have one eye on the Research Assessment Exercise - currently it'd be madness for a UK university to go out and recruit from industry engineers who don't have a raft of scholarly journal publications obtained in the current assessment period, and who can rapidly generate research income from external sources. How many engineers out there in industry have that kind of CV? (yourself excluded, of course!)
Good - with the exception of accreditation as an aero eng degree (due to what I'd perceive as a diluted level of engineering), an excellent idea. Aviation as an activity can in some areas require degree-level qualified personel. A beefed-up Embry-riddle model might be a good starting point, as well as the available UK-based maintenance degree programmes. My institution tried to get involved in such a programme some years ago, but it failed to materialise due to differences between the partners. A great shame.
However, there is no place for a PPL as a module or course in either a new aviation degree or a more traditional aero. eng. degree. The material simply doesn't meet the academic levels required of a degree. I must emphasise that's not to say a PPL or other flying qualification isn't important to providing a rounded aeronaut, it's just that it isn't academically advanced enough. That's not snobbery, or elitism, it's just the way it is.
By all means offer a PPL with the degree, but it shouldn't appear on the degree scroll as an academic element of the qualification.
Having said that, some of the best engineers I know are pilots. Some of the best pilots I know however aren't engineers or have a university degree. Offering a flying qualification as currently done in the UK in the context of the degrees on offer is just marketing. And don't expect rounded individuals just because a complete aviation programme (with or without flying) has been put together. Students want to pass exams. They compartmentalise ie they won't use the knowledge gained in one subect or year to help them in another. A flying qualification would become just another module to pass (albeit a rather sexy and appealing one), and its relevance and context would either be lost on them, or of no significance in the context of the exam-passing sausage machine that masquerades as 'education' in the UK just now.
The most important element of your course will be staff. You'll need aeronautical enginners who work in academia, not academics who've done aeronautical engineering. UK universities struggle to recruit the former as we now always have one eye on the Research Assessment Exercise - currently it'd be madness for a UK university to go out and recruit from industry engineers who don't have a raft of scholarly journal publications obtained in the current assessment period, and who can rapidly generate research income from external sources. How many engineers out there in industry have that kind of CV? (yourself excluded, of course!)