'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.

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.

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.

Falacious reasoning. That's like saying that if 10 is dumbed down to 8 and 5 is dumbed down to 4 it makes 8=4.

Really? Which part of the ATPL syllabus included the requirement to do original research? That's a mandatory element of even a basic (non-honours) degree.

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.

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.

That is a truly ridiculous claim! Does not come close to an Engineering degree today.

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.

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.

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!

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!

Quite. But it does provide a near-perfect illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

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.

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.

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with you - I say "may" because anyone who actually reads what I've posted rather than assumed I'd said something else will already have seen it.

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".

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

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.

Lot of intellectual snobbery here.
My sister has a degree in English and my plane stuff must be harder cos she has a degree in reading old books.....right ?

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).

(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 ... :8

I think some people here have a misunderstanding on what equivalent means. What it definitely not refers to is perceived difficulty.

I hold a german diploma in a natural science, this degree is equivalent to a MSc in the British or US System as it encompasses roughly the same requirements, workload, curriculum and examination standards. For that reason its not equivalent to a Phd nor to a BSc, honors or not even though depending on which exact courses you compare, the difficulty may vary greatly. (a BSc at Uni A can be way harder to achieve than a MSc at Uni B)

The biggest difference between a university degree and other forms of training or apprenticeships is that a university degrees primary purpose is not to prepare you for a job but to qualify youfor academic research in your chosen field by scientific standards. That doesn't make it better or worse, it's simply a completely different approach requiring a very different skill set and things to be taught.

Therefore an ATPL can never be equivalent to a degree, aerospace engineering or something else, independent of how much experience you have or how difficult you perceive it to be. The goal is totally different (flying safe and economical in a commercial environment compared to academic research) and it therefore requires a completely different approach to training. To give an example, it would be completely unreasonable and unnecessary to teach ATPL students the Navier-Stokes equation and the level of math required to understand it as it would be to teach an aerospace engineer meteorology. Or for the ATPL student to conduct a wind tunnel experiment and for the engineer to be able to fly proficiently in instrument conditions. For the respectively other however these are essential parts of their training.

So people stop trying to gain respect for your / our profession by trying to make it into something it definitely isn't just because you perceive it as something difficult. I agree wholeheartedly with PDR on this.

I have a B.Eng degree in engineering, an EASA ATPL and various other licences from around the world, and am finishing up an MSc.

I don’t think an ATPL theory exams are particularly difficult, cognitively; more a case of volume of material to learn. I do feel that anyone who has had to be a subject matter expert, i.e. conduct a training needs analysis for their company, has experienced similar tasks as those of of a degree purely due to the amount of regulatory research, etc..

Intellectual snobbery has a different meaning. A good reading about the subject :
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/17505343.cms

While the Spanish government attempts to elevate the status of pilots with education comparisons, the Spanish pilot union SEPLA appears to have lowered the status of some member pilots.

By contradicitng its prior position and submititng to a collective agreement with Norwegian Air Resources, SEPLA has effectivley accepted its members are rented service industry employees and not airline employees. SEPLA members flying for Norwegian have no union representation to the airline (their real employer).

So much for your "status" as a pilot in Spain, whether university educated or fantasy equivalent.

Bondi, I have to admire your ability to turn any subject into an anti Norwegian rant.

I might have to sit this out now because I am beginning to agree with everyone ! PARKBREMSE ; Very well said indeed.

A and C, the word "rant" is not applicable to my post. The vocabulary used in your opinion must emanate from an ATPL education equivalent.

The higher educated will see the irony of the Spanish establishment attempting to raise the status of a particular group of workers, while SEPLA, purporting to represent the best interests of that same group, accept agreements lowering the workers status.

LANDFLAP : Me too. Ok, ok, but will you degree bods allow us to put letters after our names too ? You know, I fancy, GORDOMAC ( UK ATPL/IR/Perf A , B767) the last group being current aircraft. Ah, not current on anything now, so, maybe RETD to replace currency. C'mon PDR, give us something !

Happy to. I've been looking at what it is that would make a profession into a Profession, and it comes down to a number of things which professional pilots do have, but two things which they don't. The two things are:

1. An Institute of some sort which defines and administers Professional status. It would take a week or two to set this up, and needn't be expensive. There are lots of examples to use as models, be they the Engineering Institutes (IET, IMechE, RAeS et al), the Chartered accountant instute (ACMA etc), the solicitor's instute (the Law Society), the Barristers institute (the Bar*), the barristas institute (Costa) (:E), the medical institutes (RCS, RCN et al) etc etc. In fact now I think about it the RAeS is already an accredited institute for Professional Engineers, so you might be able to persuade it to take on a similar role for Professional Pilots.

2. A self-regulatory function in its institute so that the Institute becomes responsible for assurance of maintaining and policing Professional Standards. I don't think this currently exists - this assurance is done externally rather than by self regulation. But you could fix that easily enough.

So if those two aspects were addressed you could establish yourselves as a Profession and have the legally protected exclusive right to "post nominals" (lettuce after your name) as I have the right to add "C.Eng" and anyone who does it without hav9ing the charter would be committing an offence.

As to what those post nominals would be, well that's entirely up to you and your Institute. You could have "CP" (chartered pilot), but if it was up to me I'd choose "Professional Pilot Regulated Under New Exposition", so that Joe Blogs could, on achieving Professional status, sign himself as:

Joe Blogs PPRUNE**

PDR - the professional bodies are Institutions, not Institutes. The Women's Institute is a wonderful thing, but does not confer any form of professional status on participants. Whereas I consider myself thoroughly institutionalised.

I have met professional women, but nothing that a large dose of penicillin couldn't fix...

But you're right, of course. That'll teach me to check what my autocomplete is actually autocompleting with.

Interesting discussion. I agree that the ATPL theory is barely worth comparing to A levels. That being said, the job itself of piloting a commercial airliner does require significant levels of technical expertise, experience, human skills and higher cognitive function.

Especially when troubleshooting and problem solving in the air in a hostile and often time constrained environment.

Let’s just say this: What is the probability that the average airline operator could not pass an average university course? I would say zero.

Remember, 90% of courses at university nowadays should not be there in the first place. But if we look at University as what it, in my opinion, should be (SCIENCE) then there should be no comparison.

Would love to fly where you fly now, Dr Faust. New adquisitions in my present job would make you change that statement in a heart beat. They can't even follow when I explain them NM/minutes to station and v/s to use to descend!

You don't seem to have much of an idea about what you are saying.

SEPLA are defending pilots in low-cost airlines within Spain, well, because it is the reality there. Ryanair is number 1 in national flights.

They are there to improve pilots conditions. The new Norwegian Collective Labour Agreement is a massive improvement compared to the old conditions. What should SEPLA have done?

As for the ATPL, there are many degrees out there that you get by paying a bit of money and go to university not paying much attention. Apart from some engineerings, law, medicine and a few others, reaching a full ATPL in aviation is a lot harder than getting a degree in teaching.

Oh really.

On 4 March, 2015, Dagbladet news reported comments by SEPLA President, Javier Martinez de Velasco;

“Pilots must be employed by an airline and cannot be hired from an external crew company”

“The bosses and the office workers, and even the ground staff can be hired out, but not the pilots”

Article link:
https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/nor...leger/60704442

As previously stated; by signing a collective agreement with Norwegian Air Resources, SEPLA has accepted its members flying for Norwegian are rented service industry employees and not airline employees. Furthermore, with no union representation to the airline – their real employer.

Before responding, be aware I have a Certificate of Secondary Education, CSE, Grade 5 in woodwork and a less formal Spanish university degree/ATPL.

Really? Please name them.

PDR what is quite puzzling in all this discussion is not the fact that the ATPL should or should not be compared to a degree but the fact that You are constantly on these pages bitchin about how much of a über genius You need to be to achieve any kind of studies past high school except of course the ones required to be a professional pilot, which of course you are not. You define yourself as a chartered engineer and you spend half of your day on a professional pilot's forum in the terms and conditions section leading your crusade against any sort of equivalence between pilots studies and any academic title. In my opinion your attitude shows that you have a big load of resentment towards our profession otherwise you would have dropped the question long time back after proving your point. If ATPLs holder do get an academic equivalence to a degree nobody will steal your job or decrease your working conditions as nobody will be awarded an engineering degree or any other degree for free. The equivalence would only be meant for other usages that other users have already explained to you.

I'm merely trying to correct what appears to be a significant misaprehension in certain quarters about wnat is required to achieve a degree. There seem to be many who think that a degree can be obtained without any work, or by just mugging-up on facts and regurgitating them in an exam. Neither of these are true, as most of your colleagues seem to recognise but some are still struggling with. Nor do I suggest that obtaining an ATPL can be done without effort or by just regurgitating learned facts.

I don't claim to be an "uber genius" - you made that up. Nor do I claim that people with degrees are somehow "better" than people without. I have made that very clear on several occasions. All I am saying is that there is no way to somehow equate the two - they are completely different things.

Elsewhere in this place someone asked the question"Why do people live near airports & then complain?". I think there is a similar question "Why do people choose not to take a degree and then complain when people don't accept they should be regarded as having one?".

But you do get this weels "Playing the man rather than the ball" award. That is usually taken to indicate that he you can't discuss the subject in a grown-up manner and are just spitting dummies. If that's the way you want to present yourself it is your democratic right to do so.

PDR the ball has already been played for a while and You still do not get it. We got Your point, thank You very much, that has been told a while back to You. Now, it is a professional pilot forum and we are dealing with our profession related matters be it a degree or anything else so it would be sensible from You to understand this point.
Then I wrote in my previous post "You defined yourself as a chartered engineer" and I get a PM from You with your full name and employee number because I might not believe You... I have absolutely no reason not to believe You but you behaviour is childish to say the least. I think You are way out of line and my point on Your resentment towards the profession and the category seems to be valid then according to your behaviour. Anyway if the mods let you here for me you're mostly welcome.

Anyway now to move away from all these drifts... Thanks to all the posters that have clarified the positions of the Spanish towards the ATPL-degree discussion which definitely makes sense.