Utility of Engineering Degree

[Pags]

Concur with everything that's been said above by winged folks, especially the stuff about FCFing a 60. I disagree completely with what BS has said about the 90/10 split between art/knowledge. It's the other way around. Any monkey can move the pipes. I'd much rather fly with an average stick who knows his shit than a chuck yeager who has never opened the book.

I've got two engineering degrees to my name, and neither one of them makes me a better stick and rudder pilot. What my degrees did give me was a large dose of academic confidence. If I can pass a partial differential equation exam, then I can pass any API exam, any advanced instruments exam, and any closed book NATOPS. It makes the academic portion of flying (which is huge) the easy part. Additionally, it teaches you study skills/discipline and time management. You're not going to be able to get an engineering degree without halfway decent study skills and discipline. The studying is never that hard, there's just a lot of it and you need to buckle down and do it. The time management part is self explanatory...if you can get an engineering degree out of college and still have time to party, meet women, etc...then you'll be able to do the same thing in flight school. To this date, getting my BS was the hardest thing I've ever done. I've yet to ever work as consistently hard as I did for that stupid piece of paper.

Engineering also teaches you to be analytical when it comes to solving problems. Most of the tricky situations that you'll encounter both in the air and on the ground aren't covered by an EP or the book. So while it won't help your stick and rudder skills, it will help the judgement skills that are what's really important in flying.

 

[BACONATOR]

Words

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying by ANY means that knowledge isn't important. Quite the contrary. KNOW your shit and ALWAYS be learning something new!

My point was that the knowledge isn't really hard (Not talking about fleet NATOPS. Strictly flight school since that's the realm of this thread's question)

Give me a PCL, and I can learn an EP in 15 minutes. It's just repetition and mind-tricks (mnemonics etc) to get me to memorize it. Same with drawing out systems. A little analytical thought into understanding the systems and limitations etc. But it is a finite and very workable process.

Flying is the hard part. I KNOW how to do a crosswind landing (I swear ), but going BEYOND the knowledge of wing down/top rudder, and actually FLYING it takes skill, finesse and an artful pilot to perfect. (Just one example. This applies to all aspects/maneuvers of flying).

The knowledge is important, but IMHO, the biggest uphill battle was taking the knowledge I HAD and putting from my brain to my hands and feet and making it happen.

 

[Pags]

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying by ANY means that knowledge isn't important. Quite the contrary. KNOW your shit and ALWAYS be learning something new!

My point was that the knowledge isn't really hard (Not talking about fleet NATOPS. Strictly flight school since that's the realm of this thread's question)

Give me a PCL, and I can learn an EP in 15 minutes. It's just repetition and mind-tricks (mnemonics etc) to get me to memorize it. Same with drawing out systems. A little analytical thought into understanding the systems and limitations etc. But it is a finite and very workable process.

Flying is the hard part. I KNOW how to do a crosswind landing (I swear ), but going BEYOND the knowledge of wing down/top rudder, and actually FLYING it takes skill, finesse and an artful pilot to perfect. (Just one example. This applies to all aspects/maneuvers of flying).

The knowledge is important, but IMHO, the biggest uphill battle was taking the knowledge I HAD and putting from my brain to my hands and feet and making it happen.

I get what you're saying. And what I'm saying is that beyond flight school, the inverse is true. Flying is flying. The other stuff (beyond just your platform NATOPS) is what makes you a competent, military aviator.

 

[SDNalgene]

Thanks for the info. It seems like they spend most of the time teaching you how to be a "Good Stick", which I assume is for the best. So, is there any way of predicting flying ability with any accuracy whatsoever before throwing them in the seat? All info points to a negative on that one, but I'll ask anyway.

No real way to predict, but one of our IPs in primary said this, "If you can't drive a car worth a shit I doubt you can fly a plane either." He was referring to this girl who was duty driving (did she get jets, I can't remember....) Not being a dumbass on earth is a good start towards not being one above it.

 

[BACONATOR]

I get what you're saying. And what I'm saying is that beyond flight school, the inverse is true. Flying is flying. The other stuff (beyond just your platform NATOPS) is what makes you a competent, military aviator.

I think we're answering different questions. I see your point that once you're in the fleet, you KNOW how to fly and the hard part is sucking down all the NATOPS knowledge and doing all the PQS for the various quals you need to get to be competetive for the best FITREPS etc.

I was answering his question as it pertains to the TRACOM and flight school since he specifically asked how the degree helps in "Flight TRAINING".

Either way, I agree with what you said about being a fleet aviator.

 

[bert]

I think we're answering different questions. I see your point that once you're in the fleet, you KNOW how to fly and the hard part is sucking down all the NATOPS knowledge and doing all the PQS for the various quals you need to get to be competetive for the best FITREPS etc.

You don't know anything about what will make you competitive for the best FITREPS (hint - flying is a very small part of it). Don't give out gouge about how to excel in the Fleet - you haven't been there and you don't know.

However - you are correct in the sense that if it takes any appreciable amount of your brain power to accomplish the "monkey skills" then you will probably be a poor aircraft commander in any platform.

 

[BACONATOR]

You don't know anything about what will make you competitive for the best FITREPS (hint - flying is a very small part of it). Don't give out gouge about how to excel in the Fleet - you haven't been there and you don't know.

However - you are correct in the sense that if it takes any appreciable amount of your brain power to accomplish the "monkey skills" then you will probably be a poor aircraft commander in any platform.

Ya I don't pretend to know anything about the fleet and didn't intent to make my post sound as if I did. I was kinda just spouting off crap, but the important part of that paragraph was that I see your point as it may apply AFTER the training command, but I think it works differently in the training command (at least so far for me).

You've been there, done that. I haven't done sh!t. I think we'll take your word for it over mine wrt advice.

 

[RotorHead04]

I would echo the sentiment that there is a significant shift between the flight school mentality and the fleet mentality. Case in point, I logged ~120 hours in six months of helo advanced and ~50 hours in six months of the RAG. I wasn't standing twice as much duty in the RAG ... I was going through ground school and sims twice as much! NATOPS is only the beginning.

I have witnessed an interesting cross section of instructors in the RAG ... you can immediately tell the difference between a HAC that has memorized everything throughout his/her career and one who UNDERSTANDS what he/she is talking about. My personal experience thus far has been that those who understand tend to be better teachers and stronger maintenance pilots.

I highly recommend the engineering degree ... the analytical skills you learn and the shear mental anquish you endure while earning the degree(s) are extremely useful. My degrees are in computer engineering, which have been helpful on more than one occasion when dealing with the more computer-driven fleet a/c. (think glass cockpit with multiple mission computers) Overall, though, comfort with technical analysis will give you a leg up when it comes to really understanding performance charts, aerodynamics, etc.

 

[Nomar116]

I loved getting my Mechanical Engineering degree. I did some awesome projects... learning my way around a machine shop and even building/driving an open wheel race car. Even if I never step foot in another machine shop those experiences gave me alot more than just how to run a mill. You get OUT what you put IN, wherever you end up.

If its something you think would interest you, I'm here to tell you to go for it. Its worth the hard work and you still have plenty of time outside of class (lets be honest, were really just haggling over going out Fri/Sat vs. Wed/Thurs/Fri/Sat).

If it doesn't interest you then don't sweat it, you don't have to be an engineer to get through, as any PolySci will tell you. But some really treat their degree as just a check-in-the-box.. don't be THAT guy.

 

[OUSOONER]

I loved getting my Mechanical Engineering degree. words words words... But some really treat their degree as just a check-in-the-box.. don't be THAT guy.

yes..but also, Mr. Rah-Rah McUniversity guy is also a "that" guy in his/her own right too..