Spanish government declares ATPL as equivalent to a University degree
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Days off' ? You're 68, hope your not still working for a living. i especially hope you're still not flying people around in aeroplanes.
I looked at this thread and thought "Nah, it's not worth getting involved". But then the crass stupidity of some of the ideas posted changed my mind a bit.
I've a degree in aero engineering. I did it because I thought it might help in my flying career. It has to some extent, but only a bit. It did help me get a place on a sponsored ATPL cadet course (remember those ?). However the only exam I failed was the initial aeronautics exam. I was trying to be too clever with half remembered equations, and simple multi choice answers. I had to simplify my way of thinking before the resit. Since then, over a career of a few decades, I've hardly ever had to use any of the specialist knowledge from the degree course.
To argue that the level of knowledge required to pass an ATPL exam is equivalent to that required to pass a UK degree course is either misguided, wrong, or just stupid .. depending on your level of diplomacy.
I looked at this thread and thought "Nah, it's not worth getting involved". But then the crass stupidity of some of the ideas posted changed my mind a bit.
I've a degree in aero engineering. I did it because I thought it might help in my flying career. It has to some extent, but only a bit. It did help me get a place on a sponsored ATPL cadet course (remember those ?). However the only exam I failed was the initial aeronautics exam. I was trying to be too clever with half remembered equations, and simple multi choice answers. I had to simplify my way of thinking before the resit. Since then, over a career of a few decades, I've hardly ever had to use any of the specialist knowledge from the degree course.
To argue that the level of knowledge required to pass an ATPL exam is equivalent to that required to pass a UK degree course is either misguided, wrong, or just stupid .. depending on your level of diplomacy.
Many organisations treat the ATPL as a degree equivalent. Where I work, a degree is a minimum qualification for an ex-pat work visa, but the ATPL is treated as the equivalent of a degree- which is just as well, as there wouldn't be many pilots here. And I'm currently studying for a MSc without having a previous degree. The entry standards for my course are 'a good science degree, or considerable industry experience backed up by qualifications'. My ATPL was acceptable. The Spanish seem to be formalising this. Good!
As I understand it the only thing the Spanish are formalising is that an unfrozen ATPL (to describe it loosely) will be accepted as higher education for the purpose of some unemployment and social security benefits - that's all.
The entry requirements of a part-time tutored MSc are usually just guidelines to indicate the sort of person who might be able to complete it - these courses are very lucrative for universities and they rarely turn anyone away except for those courses which are accredited for things like professional registration. My more recent masters was one of these part-time ones, and even though it was an engineering MSc run out of a maths faculty (and needed a significant grasp of both calculus and Laplace) they accepted standards who only had CSE maths. I found myself giving a crash course in some undergrad maths to one of them - from an O-level maths grade C to integrating trig functions and doing bode plots in about three months. But she was cute so it wasn't that arduous...
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to belittle these courses. An MSc is an achievement regardless of where the student started. All I'm saying is that acceptance onto the course isn't a reliable indication of equivalence of entry qualifications.
The entry requirements of a part-time tutored MSc are usually just guidelines to indicate the sort of person who might be able to complete it - these courses are very lucrative for universities and they rarely turn anyone away except for those courses which are accredited for things like professional registration. My more recent masters was one of these part-time ones, and even though it was an engineering MSc run out of a maths faculty (and needed a significant grasp of both calculus and Laplace) they accepted standards who only had CSE maths. I found myself giving a crash course in some undergrad maths to one of them - from an O-level maths grade C to integrating trig functions and doing bode plots in about three months. But she was cute so it wasn't that arduous...
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to belittle these courses. An MSc is an achievement regardless of where the student started. All I'm saying is that acceptance onto the course isn't a reliable indication of equivalence of entry qualifications.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone made the rather good point that the dumbed down ATPL's of today have matched the dumbed down degrees of today. So, they are equivalent. The very taxing ATPL's of the 1970's were, I suggest, pretty close to, say, a BA in Politics, Economics & Philosophy from Loughborough. Equal standards have been maintained albeit downwards.
The very taxing ATPL's of the 1970's were, I suggest, pretty close to, say, a BA in Politics, Economics & Philosophy from Loughborough. Equal standards have been maintained albeit downwards.
At the risk of labouring a point - there are *no* UK recognised degrees in any subject which can be obtained by just multiple-choice exams.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PDR1, calm down. ATPL of the 70's was the comparison with the degrees of today. Then, there were NO multi-choice exams. Everyone requiring hand written submissions. Don't even get me started on how ,for example, in Met Practical, we had to construct an entire met chart, decode most stations, show the centre of the low, centre of the high, plot the fronts, give an" actual" (using correct language ) of a departure point, correctly identify a destination, decode that as well and then, with good knowledge of geostrophic theory & Buys Ballot's law, offer a forecast for the destination. Crikey, that was just Met Practical requiring 80% to pass. Met Theory only needed 65%. Gosh, I did say " Don't even get me started" but you trolled me out !Nowadays, ATPL has dumbed down and so, has, my goodness, your every day degree in Social Media Studies . My ATPL of the 70's is equal to any degree of today. Easily by far. THAT, my dear fellow, was the point.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps not but it likely far surpasses the required standard achieved by a number of graduates today. Regardless though, I have seen examples of expert handling and airmanship delivered by graduates holding fairly mediocre degrees and some extraordinarily poor flying from apparently very sharp cookies on paper - I was informed by an F/O following a landing event requiring intervention that he couldn't understand why he was struggling to judge the roundout and flare because "I've got a degree"!
Fortunately, a flying career in many parts of the world is still one where the only degree necessary is a modicum of common-sense and reasonable level of basic educational standard in order to reap the benefits, enjoyment and reward of a professional skill based occupation, in the company of generally decent, likeminded and entertaining colleagues while offering opportunities to see almost all of the earth and spend some time in interesting places over the span of your working life. Few careers requiring graduate level education can boast the same.
Fortunately, a flying career in many parts of the world is still one where the only degree necessary is a modicum of common-sense and reasonable level of basic educational standard in order to reap the benefits, enjoyment and reward of a professional skill based occupation, in the company of generally decent, likeminded and entertaining colleagues while offering opportunities to see almost all of the earth and spend some time in interesting places over the span of your working life. Few careers requiring graduate level education can boast the same.
This is degenerating into hogwash. No ATPL was *ever* equal to any degree then or now because there is no requirement for an ATPL to undertake original research (a mandatory element of all degrees). You assert that your pilot qualification (as awarded by Pontious himself, no doubt) must be superior to any degree ever awarded - how on earth would you know that? Have you actually taken all of those courses? Of course you haven't. You just have almost psychotic levels of arrogance and hubris.
The repeated, and embarrassingly silly, reports of how graduates have exhibited shortcomings as pilots are utterly irrelevant. It's like saying "I once saw an ATPL who couldn't clear the roots that were blocking his sewer, so therefoer all pilots must be inferior to drain cleaners".
Flying is not a degree, but can be a profession. That is patently obvious and is acknowledged by many/most of the professional pilots (both those with degrees and those without). But what we are seeing here is the massive inferiority complex of that small proportion of the ATPL population who firmly believe that they must be superior to everyone else in all respects.
If you ever DO formally organise yourselves as a profession I sincerely hope you set up processes to identify these poor souls and ensure they are weeded out of the profession to avoid further embarrassment.
The repeated, and embarrassingly silly, reports of how graduates have exhibited shortcomings as pilots are utterly irrelevant. It's like saying "I once saw an ATPL who couldn't clear the roots that were blocking his sewer, so therefoer all pilots must be inferior to drain cleaners".
Flying is not a degree, but can be a profession. That is patently obvious and is acknowledged by many/most of the professional pilots (both those with degrees and those without). But what we are seeing here is the massive inferiority complex of that small proportion of the ATPL population who firmly believe that they must be superior to everyone else in all respects.
If you ever DO formally organise yourselves as a profession I sincerely hope you set up processes to identify these poor souls and ensure they are weeded out of the profession to avoid further embarrassment.
PDR
Has it escaped you that this is the Terms and Endearment section for professional pilots?
Just curious old chap why you see fit to lecture those you clearly see as inferior. When I have more time I might post my thoughts seeing as I started my CPL NAV studies immediately after sitting the theory for an MSc which I completed two years later.
Incidentally where I used to work both my line managers had completed Doctorates having started their careers as apprentices. Both were very down to earth chaps and not the slightest bit up their own bottoms. Just saying!
Has it escaped you that this is the Terms and Endearment section for professional pilots?
Just curious old chap why you see fit to lecture those you clearly see as inferior. When I have more time I might post my thoughts seeing as I started my CPL NAV studies immediately after sitting the theory for an MSc which I completed two years later.
Incidentally where I used to work both my line managers had completed Doctorates having started their careers as apprentices. Both were very down to earth chaps and not the slightest bit up their own bottoms. Just saying!
It's not me who is seeing people as inferior. I have been consistent in saying my fundamental point is that if you want ATPL to be respected as a Profession (which it certainly could/should be) then seek respect for what it IS rather than trying to portray it as the one thing it isn't.
Apparently some pilots are such snowflakes that they cannot allow the suggestion that others have greater academic achievements than they do, while we are more than happy to recognise that professional pilots have much greater flying skill/proficiency/knowledge/experience than we do. But that still doesn't make it a degree!
Apparently some pilots are such snowflakes that they cannot allow the suggestion that others have greater academic achievements than they do, while we are more than happy to recognise that professional pilots have much greater flying skill/proficiency/knowledge/experience than we do. But that still doesn't make it a degree!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up high
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PDR. You miss the point completely despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you several times.
1. Piloting commercial airliners (ATPL - Airline Transport Pilots Licence) IS a profession that is an obvious fact. The profession is entered by passing the ATPL exams AND gaining experience -1500 hours in multi crew airplanes- AND passing a practical exam.
2. The Spanish authorities have equated an ATPL to a degree for the purpose of grade classification in their existing system of pensions and social security benefits. They have NOT said that all ATPLs will be awarded honorary degrees. They could have opened a whole new classification in their system just for ATPLs but they have preferred to consider an ATPL as a degree to keep it simple. They have done the same for other professions, for example for Army officers or Merchant Navy officers.
3. No one is saying that a degree in Telecommunication engineering is the same difficulty as David Beckham studies (Staffordshire University) or for that matter an ATPL. What they are saying is that they will be classified the same for social security purposes.
1. Piloting commercial airliners (ATPL - Airline Transport Pilots Licence) IS a profession that is an obvious fact. The profession is entered by passing the ATPL exams AND gaining experience -1500 hours in multi crew airplanes- AND passing a practical exam.
2. The Spanish authorities have equated an ATPL to a degree for the purpose of grade classification in their existing system of pensions and social security benefits. They have NOT said that all ATPLs will be awarded honorary degrees. They could have opened a whole new classification in their system just for ATPLs but they have preferred to consider an ATPL as a degree to keep it simple. They have done the same for other professions, for example for Army officers or Merchant Navy officers.
3. No one is saying that a degree in Telecommunication engineering is the same difficulty as David Beckham studies (Staffordshire University) or for that matter an ATPL. What they are saying is that they will be classified the same for social security purposes.
We could wind it up with a bit of humour before the handbags really start coming out.PDR ; I thought "hubris" was something I put on my salad in sunny Cyprus. Oh, and with your degree, you should know how to spell."Falacious". It has two "l's".
In the late sixties, BOAC/BEA had a love affair with University Graduates. Normal (if that really is the word) candidates for the College of Air Training were required to offer the General Certificate of Education showing at least five passes at Ordinary level including Maths, Physics & English Language. Two further passes were required at Advanced level. Broadly, university entrance requirement. Subjects like Art, Needlework, Domestic Science (cooking), PE, Netball etc were all excluded.
The love affair started if you could offer a degree. Even in the advert, BA (as the joint corporation is known today) suggested that special acknowledgement would be offered as all degree entrants would, of course, go "up" to Oxford rather than smelly Hamble. Of course, they would do a shorter course (13 months rather than 18) and these potential Nasa Space Cadets would gain a "Frozen ATPL" at the end of the shorter course.
A degree, even in zoo-ology, would be embraced by the Hamble Selection Board.
I was "up" at Oxford on a sponsored CPL/IR course and made chums with some of the "BG graduate" Course members. Most appeared inarticulate and unwilling to inter-act with members of other courses. Some, who bothered, made it quite clear that they intended to stay with BA for a short term and then pursue Post Graduate work with NASA on the Space Mission Programme, etc. One very likeable bod went on to own & run his own GA company making a fortune within the time-frame of my "graduating" and going from Viscount First Officer to Trident First Officer. Drat !
I became most unpopular with this group for suggesting that they were, therefore, taking up places more suited to the "A" level brigade, focusing on career motivation with the sponsoring airline.
PDR will , no doubt, suggest more "hubris", perhaps ,even ,psychotic tendency towards a more envied group . Touch of the green-eye coming through in your posts dear chap but it has been a humorous, light hearted exchange for my Saturday morning read. Thanks.
Oh, like someone else, once it is all sorted, I look forward to coming back "up" to Oxford to pick up my degree acknowledgement of the fierce ATPL's of the seventies.
In the late sixties, BOAC/BEA had a love affair with University Graduates. Normal (if that really is the word) candidates for the College of Air Training were required to offer the General Certificate of Education showing at least five passes at Ordinary level including Maths, Physics & English Language. Two further passes were required at Advanced level. Broadly, university entrance requirement. Subjects like Art, Needlework, Domestic Science (cooking), PE, Netball etc were all excluded.
The love affair started if you could offer a degree. Even in the advert, BA (as the joint corporation is known today) suggested that special acknowledgement would be offered as all degree entrants would, of course, go "up" to Oxford rather than smelly Hamble. Of course, they would do a shorter course (13 months rather than 18) and these potential Nasa Space Cadets would gain a "Frozen ATPL" at the end of the shorter course.
A degree, even in zoo-ology, would be embraced by the Hamble Selection Board.
I was "up" at Oxford on a sponsored CPL/IR course and made chums with some of the "BG graduate" Course members. Most appeared inarticulate and unwilling to inter-act with members of other courses. Some, who bothered, made it quite clear that they intended to stay with BA for a short term and then pursue Post Graduate work with NASA on the Space Mission Programme, etc. One very likeable bod went on to own & run his own GA company making a fortune within the time-frame of my "graduating" and going from Viscount First Officer to Trident First Officer. Drat !
I became most unpopular with this group for suggesting that they were, therefore, taking up places more suited to the "A" level brigade, focusing on career motivation with the sponsoring airline.
PDR will , no doubt, suggest more "hubris", perhaps ,even ,psychotic tendency towards a more envied group . Touch of the green-eye coming through in your posts dear chap but it has been a humorous, light hearted exchange for my Saturday morning read. Thanks.
Oh, like someone else, once it is all sorted, I look forward to coming back "up" to Oxford to pick up my degree acknowledgement of the fierce ATPL's of the seventies.
I am not, and do not, say that people with degrees make better pilots because piloting doesn't need the things needed to gain a degree, and gaining a degree doesn't give you the things you need to do piloting. It should be patently obvious that therefore an ATPL (or whatever) is not the equivalent of a degree, and nor is a degree the equivalent of an ATPL - they are completely different things.
I have degrees (and I'm a chartered engineer) but I only took flying as far as a PPL-IMC. I haven't held a stick for over 20 years and haven't been P1 for more than 25 - these are the life choices I made. So any of those who carried on to CPL, full IR or have more hours or even those who are just more current than me are undoubtedly better pilots. Just as with by education, expertise and experience I will probably be the better engineer. Do I envy those who are better pilots? Certainly on some days I do. I have often found myself striving to mitigate the institutional stupidity of the MoD* and on those days I deeply envy anyone who flies for a living. But I don't see myself as superior or inferior to these people - we are not in the same field so it would be an apples/monkey-wrenches comparison.
All I have done is disagree with the repeated assertion by some that "my ATPL is equivalent to a degree" because, as agreed by many of the ATPLs on here, such a statement is what is technically termed "utter twaddle" - as would be the natural corollary "a degree is the equivalent of an ATPL".
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some societies or countries, the social status is important, more than it should be. Therefore, this ATPL equivalent to university degree might be a social class recognition, but it doesn't bear on much value for the real labor market.
Is a truck driver an intellectual? Probably not. Is the FO of A380 an intellectual? Probably yes
Is a truck driver an intellectual? Probably not. Is the FO of A380 an intellectual? Probably yes
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal take on it is that the ATPL exams do not justify a degree, however to gain the actual ATPL licence you need to have constant study over many years and probably multiple type specific courses (B747, B777, A320 etc) and that to me was much more effort and time consuming than the degree. Just my two cents.
How would pilots like it if people started claiming they "had the equivalent of an ATPL, 2 type ratings and 20,000 hours because they have a degree in aeronautical engineering"?
As I have said - seek respect for what your profession is, not for what it demosntrably isn't. The one with the snobbery are those who feel they must lay claim to "degree equivalence" because they feel being a professional pilot is to demeaning (which I don't agree, as I have made clear repeatedly in this thread).
As I have said - seek respect for what your profession is, not for what it demosntrably isn't. The one with the snobbery are those who feel they must lay claim to "degree equivalence" because they feel being a professional pilot is to demeaning (which I don't agree, as I have made clear repeatedly in this thread).
(Ladies and) Gentlemen, just wanted to say how much I'm enjoying this thread for many reasons. Couldn't get into commercial aviation as a 'driver, airframes' due to dodgy eyesight but both my father and one of my sisters held UK ATPLs and enjoyed their careers. One group of my family are very hung up on the 'must have a degree to be ... ' thing. The possible drivers for that view have been discussed in many variations on this thread - thank you. As a professional engineer I enjoy winding those individuals up by saying 'well surely a UK ATPL (gained back in the day etc.) must equate to an MSc. - discuss.' And then watch the fun start! PS - could we start another thread somewhere on the Oxbridge conceit of being able to convert one of their basic degrees in basket weaving (sorry, 'hard' degree suspicion of 'soft' 'arty' degrees) to a Masters after three years (time, not further professional training) and payment? No? Oh well ... 