4 ms·
As I know as couple of people who either build aircraft for a living or build aircraft for their personal use, neither of them is an aerospace engineer. But I'd
by oldandtired 9y ago
As I know as couple of people who either build aircraft for a living or build aircraft for their personal use, neither of them is an aerospace engineer. But I'd happily fly in their aircraft.
Irrespective of the title, can they design and build the object in question. This applies to all fields.
The point that we must look at is whether or not the problem before us can be solved by us. It doesn't matter if you build from the ground up or use some pre-built parts. Is the solution going to work and solve the problem at hand. If it does then you have success, if it doesn't then you have failure.
It is a matter of understanding the problem (in terms of the problem space), what solutions you use only matters if you can't solve the problem.
- Confusion 9y agoPeople who build aircraft are not people who design aircraft. Moreover, the point of the comment isn't about the titles assigned to these people by someone external: it's about the actual skills they have that would cause you to assign such titles to them. If you know people who can design new aircraft, then they are, by definition, aircraft engineers. They may have a job as an aircraft mechanic, but that's besides the point. That doesn't mean the average aircraft engineer is capable of designing aircraft.
- oldandtired 9y agoMy point is that the aircraft fly. An awful lot of designs fail to fly and these are deigned by aeronautical engineers. My other point is that solving the problems at hand is the more important function, irrespective of what title is attributed to you.