FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1944
1944 - 0246.PDF
126 FLIGHT • y . FEBRUARY 3RD, JQ44 The Student's! Point of View Training of Engineers jj j>^tke Spcedfd'iip Tempo Needed ist-war Indwstry By IB. J. STEDy\N IN recent times the lecture halls (it many engineering institutions have . reverberated w^th arguments as diverse as they are plentiful on theN**tyfi^jaL3ai train our future engineers. Having experienced soiiie these discussions, the writer feels that as one who has^wftly just completed his training he %vould like to state his views on a subject which, he feels, so far has tended to be dis cussed above the student's head, and to a large extent without the student being consulted. First, it is essential to look at the background or his torical cause of this controversy^ It must be apparent to all who are connected with tjreindustry to-day that great changes have already come_about in engineering, but these are small compared with those which loom ahead in the post-war era. The engineering industry used to be pre dominantly engaged on small-scale or jobbing production. During the war, expansion has shown up the need for specialised qualifications \1 remej**^indeed it is usual for great changes to bring ies. Let us consider both arguments from the point r of view of their supporters, if it is possible to be unbiased under such conditions. Jx is that were hitherto unneces sary, and because of this there has been found a very great lack of engineers with experience and ability to master the special aspects of large-scale production. It can be said that the theoretical side is fairly well catered for and as advanced as any other country in tfefe world, but as the scale of production has progressively risen, so the attendant functions of Planning, Production Control, Methods, Costs, Maintenance, etc., have become progressively more important, demanding the full-time attention of an executive. It is frequently argued that far from growing, the industry will decrease in size after the war. However, as always occurs in wartime, the great technical advances that have been made have enabled needs of the population to be met where this would have been impossible a decade ago. Similarly, our engineering resources have been vastly increased, due to Government subsidising of industrial plant, and we can see, for example, that in post-war Eujepe as in this country the need for many of the engineers' products will be greater than ever before to make up for years of non-productivity. Even if industry does decrease in size, the need for these new functions under all conditions will have been realised. Post-war Situation So here we have a vastly changed situation. The general tempo of engineering has been speeded up. New methods of production have been discovered, openings in industry have been developed, and these new openings require new personnel. What then of the engineer trained in the pre war era and brutally launched out on to the turbulent seas of this minor industrial revolution ; and what of the student and apprentice now training along lines th^ft have hardly changed in the last 20 years? The remedies, as has been stated, are many and various, but they appear to resolve themselves into two distinct schools: those who support specialisation and those who support generalisation—a term that has been coined merely to meet the needs of the situation. The former believe in early division of studies and exclusive knowledge of specialised subjects; the latter believe just as adamantly in "A little bit of everything." Both these policies are Specialisation argued, quite logically, that as an industry expands and attendant functions assume such proportions as to engage the full-time attention of the executive, his respon sibilities tend to be limited to the exclusive consideration of, for example, Deta'il Costing, Estimating, Automatic Lathes, Aerodynamics, Drafting, Thermodynamics, etc., etc., and that these duties are of such proportions that not only do they require a special "interest" or "lean ing" on the part of the executive in that subject but also a full Knowledge, which it is said can be acquired onlv—J when a complete training has been devoted to it. Accord^" ingly, the trainee should A GREAT deal has been written and spoken recenth on the subject of engineering training and special reference nas been made to the provision of an adequate number of highly aeronautical engineers to meet post-war needs. Nearly every one has had a say in the matter, except the student himself. The author of this article is a young man who has just completed his aeronautical training, and here he gives his views on what is wanted. He is, it might be added, a student member of the Institution of Production Engineers. start to concentrate upon certain subjects very early in his training; towards the end of it should limit his attention to one subject to be his sole occupation. Of course, this pre-supposes that the situation in the in dustry that is envisaged by the supporters of this idea is one of highly developed and watertight compart ments, each department being highly specialised and "minding only its own business," indeed, being able to mind no other business but its own. Generalisation Here we have the other extreme. The industrial picture envisaged by the supporters of Generalisation is to a greater extent founded upon ^experience. They say that their experience has shown that when a particular job is under taken by a specialised department it may come to a sari end because of certain unforeseen developments—develop ments which must necessarily be unforeseen because they copfe* under the aegis of another department. They use the argument that if the '' specialist'' had been more con versant with other processes, the failure would have been obviated. The holders of this opinion have evolved an engineer's training which touches upon all subjects. The phrase "all subjects" is used to include all those that enter, in any way, into the particular branch of engineering concerned, and here the training course embodies every thing from the most advanced theory to the most,basic workshop practice. Conclusions and Suggestions As has been stated, the§e two schools represent the extremes of the argument. The suggestions which the writer would like to put forward are, it is realised, con tentious, yet it would appear that sooner or later some stable plan acceptable •'to the industry as a whole must be formulated. Excessive specialisation is very likely to cause inefficiencies due to lack of co-operation between depart ments. The existing type of organisation, in England at least, is centred round the Line and Staff type. It hA also been shown that many hold-ups and unnecessary mis takes could have been avoided had there been greater co-operation for instance between Design and Production.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
