I’m conducting a little research for my teacher training degree: I would like to know what your opinions are regarding the two main routes of entry to the EASA Pt66 B1 license.
1: Academic – HE College in an aircraft engineering specific college (2 yrs), followed by 2 years in an EASA pt147 Academy studying for the license exams, followed by a minimum of 2 years experience in a part 145 company as a mechanic.
2: Vocational – Apprenticeship or direct entry into a part 145 company, minimum 5 years experience, and EASA modules taken as self-study (license by post)
In your opinions, what makes for the easiest route?
Is an academic route candidate given the same level of respect as a vocational entrant?
Which route will provide a ‘better’ class of engineer in 5-10 years?
Which do employers prefer to see on the CV?
Personally, I have done both… I joined the RAF as an apprentice, and when I left, went to a part 147 Academy. I contracted for a couple of years as a mechanic, but never applied for the license – I became a teacher instead…
I know what some people will say, but I welcome the views of all..
By: over G - 26th October 2010 at 00:43
Now with virtual classrooms, multimedia, AV, special group forums, confidential chat rooms, video conferencing, web cam links, etc the classroom is in many cases virtual (especially useful for persons based in remote locations).
I seriously think most good engineers consider these things useless for their learning (at least is what i have heard from some of them)
I can’t answer completelly your questing ‘JT442’, i think depends on what you are profiling to, designer? maintenance?
Probably the ‘academic route’ would work better for designers, and probably production
While the vocational one would work better for maintenance
I have been on both, maintenance and production (heavy industry, energetic sector and now metal-mechanic), i always have feel more confortable in maintenance though.
By: nJayM - 26th October 2010 at 00:17
There are modern teaching resources for constantly changing technology
There are modern teaching resources for constantly changing technology.
Therefore the argument that the person that spends more time in the classroom not being as good as ‘the hands on’ person is no longer always the case.
Many years ago both while technology was slower to advance and teaching/learning resources were primarily classroom based the argument may have been true, namely that the ‘hands on’ person was better than someone spending time away in a classroom. This also becomes the case when the ‘chips are down’ – e.g. a real theatre of war.
Now with virtual classrooms, multimedia, AV, special group forums, confidential chat rooms, video conferencing, web cam links, etc the classroom is in many cases virtual (especially useful for persons based in remote locations).
My point is that an engineer or anyone for that matter must take responsibility for advancing their own professional skills (in some quarters this is termed CPD) and in many cases where relevant employers will or should be encouraged to pay or part pay.
Yet at the end of the day it is finally – can you get your hands dirty and keep the business/operation going ?
If you cannot then the learning has come to nought.
By: bloodnok - 25th October 2010 at 18:12
In my experience those who spend the longest in the classrooms don’t make the best mechanics/engineers.
It shouldn’t be about what the easiest route is, it’s all about the standard of the engineer at the end of it, and in my experience ( both military and civil) you can’t beat time on the tools.
Sign In
October 25, 2010 at 1:28 pm