Continuing Education and Certifications for Young Aero Designer 1

[Aero.Aspirant]

Greetings all,

I have just completed my first year as an Design engineer working for a small aerospace company producing various STCs for varying air frames. I graduated college with an undergraduate's degree in mechanical engineering with a "good" (for an undergrad) background in aircraft structural design and stress analysis.

My current work is more focused on modeling and design work for interior and structure related projects. My company is offering to pay for a course / certification of my choosing for either structural analysis or design.

I was wondering if you guys had any recommendations for useful / interesting coursework which would result in a professional certificate. The standard course they offer is the Practical Stress Analysis for Design Engineers by Flabel. Frankly I am interested in taking that but I just wanted to make sure I am not missing out on the opportunity to take a more fundamental or recognized course.

I am open to suggestions!

(I have academic with Bruhn, Niu, and Roark. Are there any programs which would certify my ability to implement portions of their methodologies in a professional setting?)

 

[rb1957]

Flabel is a good enough course. At this stage of your career anything helps. The key is seeing/learning how to apply what you learn in the classroom (the theory) to the real world. It seems like you're on a pretty good course. Recognise that "mod-shops" (or "chop-shops") deal with a particular set of problems, particularly if you're working interior monuments.

If you're doing FEMs of interior monuments, please don't constrain the 4 (presumably) floor pickups as rigid 3 (or worse 6) degree of freedom constraints. Please, please (don't do this). It is much more accurate to model as 3 degree finite stiffness constraints. For example I will connect a support node to three rigidly constrained nodes using three rods (so that each rod reacts one orthogonal force. The model responds to the stiffness of these rods, typically anything from 10^4 to 10^7 (L = 1, E = 10^7, A = 10-3 to 1 ... yes?).

How did you handle Bruhn ? It is a bit of a tough read, but Bruhn was from an earlier (tougher) era.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[SWComposites]

Frankly, in 40+ years as a stress analyst (and related fields) I’ve never heard of a “certificate” in stress analysis, just a number of courses, and texts. Flabel is a good one. There used to be other good ones thru UCLA Extension, don’t know if they are still around. Useful experience comes from actually doing analysis on real structures, not from courses.

 

[Ng2020]

It's good that they (presumably a smaller company) are interested in your continued development.
Also have a look at the offerings from Kansas University. e.g Their 1309 course may be relevant to your employer's line of business and is an important subject area that not necessarily covered by many undergrad university courses.

 

[rb1957]

one thing that would be amazing for your experience (but very outside the box) ... could you get a short term placement (internship ?) with another company ... either in the same mod business or maybe an OEM ... maybe an OEM whose planes you guys work on a lot, maybe "get into bed" with them ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[CWB1]

Is your goal to obtain a certificate or become proficient in FEA?

You dont become proficient in FEA by studying theory. You become proficient by creating models, predicting behavioral trends/limits, testing the accuracy of those trends/limits, and learning what corrections need to be made to improve model accuracy. If you want coursework to that end, study DoE, failure analysis, and quality management.

Another common mistake is how many companies/analysts treat FEA like a validation test rather than a research and product planning tool. You shouldnt need to reanalyze the same systems and phenomena every few years when a new design iteration is released, you should build, iterate, and validate (test) a model once/upfront to map out the trends/limits for major variables. That model/testing should cover an absurd range of possibilities, and the results should be documented/graphed for multi-generational product planning. Documented well, it should allow the plethora of variables in each future design to be highly optimized upfront rather than scrambling to optimize a few on the backend. Analyzing trends also helps highlight errors, whereas if your analysis is focused on just the current design its likely that your analysis will be consistently wrong/inaccurate.

 

[rb1957]

I guess we work in different industries. I use FEA to model structures (rather than a "R&D planning tool"), pretty much one time, then move on. For me, understanding the theory is fundamental, as important as practical modelling.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[Sparweb]

That model/testing should cover an absurd range of possibilities, and the results should be documented/graphed for multi-generational product planning.

My industry typically doesn't support that, but wouldn't it be nice.

Aspirant,
There are lots of courses designed for skills upgrades. As noted above, it's up to you to put the skills and knowledge to use solving real-world problems (otherwise it becomes worthless).

Some suggestions, assuming you're in the continental USA:
Flabel as you mentioned
Patrick Safarian:

https://fdtcourse.com/index.php/instructors/

FAA Designee courses:

https://av-info.faa.gov/DsgReg/Sections.aspx?shid=2

Kansas University:

https://www.enrole.com/kupce/jsp/index.jsp?categoryId=10001

Aircraft Electronics Association:

https://aea.net/training/

These came to mind pretty easily. Other courses for composites, systems, avionics and other subjects are close at hand. SAE and ASTM probably have lots, too.

 

[rb1957]

something to consider ... getting an AME license.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[WKTaylor]

Hope this makes sense...

The important elements of an early engineering career You are learning early... ae... your 'familiarity with the complex interworking of real aircraft; hardware, materials; Assy/installation processes; maintenance issues.... and hopefully testing and evaluation on the ground and in-flight. There is no on harder to deal with who is 'all tech geek'... and is completely clueless what a REAL bolt, rib, frame web, or finish system... and so-on... REALLY look like... and how they are effectively assembled to be a component. I have met brilliant idiots... capable of math-geeking everything... but clueless about how to set-up the problem from the the real world perspective. Gaaaaaaaa.

Recommendation #1...

IF You are able... to broaden your 'world-of aerospace' perspective... fight for a basic course in Aircraft Accident Investigation. When I attended this course [MIL equivalent] early in my career... my eyes were opened for the VERY FIRST TIME. I was made aware of the mind-boggling-span of aviation that us mere mortal engineers are rarely made aware of: the aircraft and hardware crash/failure for sure... but also everything else that contributes to flight safety were presented equally... parts/equipment/airframe-materials deterioration, logistics, maintenance, servicing, airfield operations, air traffic control, weather, flight-crew operations, leadership/responsibility/risk/decision-making, physiology and psychology and a host of unfathomable human-factors, etc. AND THEN... how these factors often compound/align in just the right/wrong-way to cause failures and accidents [now often described as the 'swiss-cheese model' of multi-occurrences].

NOTE: Early career awareness of this 'span of aviation', tuned my senses to be aware of the broader picture that others fail to 'see', IE: I look for what is irregular, out-of-place, inconsistent, etc... those 'Rut-Ro moments' [for me]... when I hit the brakes and took a harder look at 'what just went whizzing-by' almost unnoticed.

OK... Recommendation #2... for the Geek-in-you...

BE AWARE... You are at the end of the era RE 'old ways of doing our business'...

My company and the DoD are progressing FAST towards 'Digital Twins' for everything... and the DT's for structural, mechanical/electromechanical, electrical/electronic, fluids, powerplants, materials, etc... will have to match the 'real world hardware'... that is 'operating in the real DT world'. I believe courses are evolving for 'Digital Twins'...

The 'real world hardware' has it's challenges to model effectively... HOWEVER, the 'real-world that the hardware interacts with' is also most complex part of the DT world... due to randomness/combinations of encounters.

PSsst: Civil aerospace is the 'easier' to DT model; Military aerospace modeling has many more levels of complications.

My head hurts... have fun...

AND I suggest you consider the following quotes to think about...

"When you're curious, you find lots of interesting things to do." -- Walt Disney

"Always stay curious. Curiosity instills creativity.” --Aerin Lauder

"Stay curious.” –PBS Motto --2014

"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.” –Albert Einstein

"Commonplaces never become tiresome. It is we who become tired when we cease to be curious and appreciative.” --Norman Rockwell, artist, illustrator

"Have knowledge of what you're talking about. Read and be curious. Always listen.” --Andre Leon Talley

...and just for fun...

"Curious-enough to take it apart. Skilled-enough to put it back together. Clever enough to hide the extra parts when I’m done.” –He-shirt logo

"Communicating with an engineer is only slightly more difficult that communicating with the dead.” –unknown


Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[SWComposites]

Concur with Wil,
Hands on experience with aircraft fabrication and assembly is vital,
And learning the history of aircraft, successful and not so successful, builds deep understanding.
Another good (and eye opening) experience is working in a Stress Liaison/ MRB group.

I'm not convinced about the DT thing. Seems like yet another fad; a solution looking (desperately) for a problem.

 

[CWB1]

Analytical process depends on the company, not industry.

Most engineers have folders of math models and cheat sheets/charts that are based on extensive simulation and testing, not theory. Without them you’ll never understand complex relationships between variables, every complex design effectively becomes a guesstimate of what is efficient but usually isn’t, and you’re forced to waste budget testing unnecessary details or risk failure.

In college I worked at an AE firm that designed missile vision and control systems then went into recip engine development post-grad. Like most products, neither starts with a CAD model never mind a detailed one that you can run FEA/CFD on. Marketing creates a spec sheet based on the aforementioned math model and the desired flight and engine performance characteristics dictate many of the product’s physical features before you start CAD. If you have a good engineering team there usually isn’t much analysis done on the backend of design or iteration needed bc they have similar math models for families of individual components to save time/effort/testing.

Mid-career I made the mistake of working for a small manufacturer that did all of their FEA/CFD ad-nauseum on the backend. Being the new-guy, I immediately started creating math models to help myself understand their system of products and when my boss heard about them, I was given a small budget to validate. In less than a year I’d made myself and a large portion of the engineering dept mostly redundant and happily resigned.

 

[Sparweb]

CWB1,
Where IS this paradise you work in?

Unless the OP is extremely lucky, like you are, they will probably find themselves in a work environment where many of the engineers are too young to have had a chance to develop many of their own math models, too many senior engineering staff have left/retired so their tricks are forgotten, and the marketing department (if it exists) is staffed by folks whose closest approach to math was a graphic arts class.

Aero.Aspirant,
The survival strategy, in the more bleak environment I just described, is to be able to think and act independently. Be able to solve problems and master things just well enough to complete the current problem, and move on to the next problem that needs solving. In the STC world you are working in, the margins are low enough that dwelling on old problems that have been adequately solved or potential problems that aren't confronting you may be discouraged. Seeking improvements is good, but there's rarely time available. If you do manage to find those opportunities, do them in the open because they can lead to important innovations. The irony is that you can't always expect the support you think this deserves.

 

[WKTaylor]

FYI... worth reading/heeding... I downloaded/*.pdf'd this from Raymer's Website many years ago... but just as relevant for today.

Raymer's Rules for New Grads
[URL unfurl="true"]https://res.cloudinary.com/engineering-com/image/upload/v1721943508/tips/Raymers_Rules_for_New_Grads_tyudlh.pdf[/url]

xxxxxxxxxx

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[Aero.Aspirant]

Hello everyone and thanks for all your detailed answers.

From the feedback you all have provided I have come to the following conclusions.

1. There is not one "standard" course/certificate that is universally recognized. More so that there is a category of methods from varying sources which are generally accepted and I should take the time to understand them each in turn.
2. It is important to involve myself in as many facets of aviation as possible to develop a realistic understanding of the aviation world. As the young guy in the office I volunteer as much as possible to travel to our on site locations to help with maintenance, fit checks etc.. I've really enjoyed that so far and have worked hard to give the company confidence in sending me for any onsite tasks.

Your suggestions to pursue a AME is something I plan on looking into as well. It seems bizarre to me that the people designing the components are not qualified to install them on the aircraft themselves... I also plan on obtaining a PPL in due time (and money)​

I will accept the Flabel course as a starting point the company is offering me and expand my horizons from there.

Thanks again for the feedback. Sorry for the late response I don't check in very often.

 

[CWB1]

Where IS this paradise you work in?

I've stuck to OEMs and Tier1 suppliers post-college. Somebody told me years ago that for better or worse, big business doesnt do anything without data (arguably over) analysis and IME that's very true for everybody below senior management. If you can prove it then you might have a shot at doing it, if you cant then good luck.

My standard advice for juniors is to job hop around the country while you're young and single. Unless you're from Wichita, Detroit, Silicon Valley, or other industry Mecca, or spend a few years job hopping, you wont meet the real players, understand the industry's direction, nor opportunities. You'll also get exposed to areas where incomes are higher, cost-of-living is lower, and/or where your hobbies/interests can be enjoyed more.

Also worth mentioning is that IME, younger engineers need to recognize that their peers are the ones doing both the new flashy high-profile products and new tech research. Juniors who allow themselves to be pigeonholed in the hopes of eventually working up to those projects are usually disappointed. Those projects are expected to be risky, have quality issues, and require plenty of grunt work, OT, and/or travel. They also dont require the breadth and depth of the trickier quality issues, process development, and other activities that seniors' time is usually reserved for. Frankly, engineering gets downright boring after 40 so make hay bc the sun shines while you're young.