Search

Aeronautical Engineering Technology (AET) of Purdue University’s School of Aviation and Transportation Technology offers its students a comprehensive and holistic approach to engineering in an applied fashion. Students’ learning outcome includes an application of technical knowledge and hands-on skills in areas of aerospace design, operations, and manufacturing. The curriculum of the program includes a course in which students must learn advanced maintenance concepts and practices including the overhaul of reciprocating engines. This study examined the relationship between engine operational vs. non-operational statuses, time spent to finish a task, and student perceived workloads regarding the maintenance procedures. The tests followed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for the practical test questions from the Airframe and Powerplant Certificate (A&P) Exam. Students were also required to fill out a task perceived load index developed and used by NASA.

A commercially available thermoset polymer liquid coating reinforced with ceramic particles was applied on the surface of an additively manufactured carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites to improve its surface characteristics for composite mold application. The mold demonstrated herein was fabricated via material extrusion additive manufacturing (MEAM) and served for the fabrication of autoclave-cured laminated composite structures. Test specimens used in this investigation were additively manufactured with Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) reinforced with 50% by weight of carbon fiber. Following the printing process, the surface of the specimens was finished in a numerical controlled milling machine. The effect of machining parameters such as the surface speed and the chip load on the surface roughness was investigated. The machining parameters that yielded the lowest surface roughness were used to machine the specimens used in this work. Following machining, an approximately 10 μm thick coating based on a thermoset resin reinforced with ceramic particles was applied on the surface of flat specimens via the liquid spray coating technique and cured at elevated temperature. Surface characteristics relevant to molds used in composite manufacturing such as surface roughness, abrasion resistance, hardness, friction, and vacuum integrity were assessed for the coated and noncoated specimens. The results showed that the coating decreased the abrasion wear index by about 89%, decreased the vacuum loss by about 95%, and lowered the static and kinetic friction by about 40% and 38%, respectively, compared to the non-coated printed material. However, the coated surface did not improve hardness nor roughness of the surface.

In the current global business environment, the ability of engineering and engineering technology graduates to work effectively in virtual teams becomes an important part of educational objectives for universities and colleges around the world. The virtual team is a relatively new phenomenon, where many advantages exist for companies and its employees. A team could be assembled on short notice, employing the best specialists around the globe. It can be extremely flexible, inexpensive, and could improve resource utilization. It is possible to accomplish a goal and to disband a team as quickly as it appears. However, the concept comes with challenges, such as communication, which is less effective than face-to-face meetings. It is also harder to manage virtual teams. Time differences, lack of socialization, coordination, technical issues, and technological proficiencies are among other potential problems. This paper describes a series of international collaborative projects between US and Danish students, the challenges they faced, possible solutions, and lessons learned.

Capstone courses have become more widely employed in engineering and engineering technology curricula in the US and around the world in the last thirty years. The courses use a problem-based learning approach and are team-based. Students are tasked to form teams, define their projects’ purpose and goals, investigate concepts of solving problems, and finally implement the most feasible solutions. There are many variations in these courses. Some are offered in one semester, others take place in two or more consecutive semesters. The courses exist in many different engineering branches with a variety of specific requirements. However, the main idea of capstones remains the same: students must take an active role in their own learning and demonstrate proficiency in learning outcomes of their respective programs. In many cases, however, students are not ready to perform well, not because they lack technical knowledge in their respective field, but because they don’t understand the major philosophical contradiction between the ambiguous nature of engineering projects and the need for defining explicit goals of these undertakings. This issue creates stress and frustration, not just for students, but also for instructors, who often don’t recognize the problem of ambiguity that the students encounter. This is also true in many cases because engineering faculty members are experts in their technical fields, not in the philosophy of engineering education. This paper looks at the complexities of the issue in order to help students and instructors improve learning and reduce unnecessary anxiety.

The days of the specialized engineer, toiling away in his cubicle or laboratory and focusing exclusively on solving prevailing technical challenges, are fast dwindling. Modern economic realities require a whole new model and mindset for the modern engineer. In the era of ‘‘right-sized’’ corporations, the engineer must assume more responsibilities and wear more occupational hats than ever before. Of all of them, perhaps the one role he or she is least equipped to fulfill is that of project manager. Irrespective of the individual engineer’s preparedness for this additional responsibility, there is no escaping that this is the role today’s engineering field has in store for him or her. One of the prevailing causes behind the typical engineer’s relative inability to perform as a de facto project manager is the widely-held belief that, while engineering requires a rigid roster of ‘‘hard’’ skills and formal education, project management is more of a ‘‘soft’’ science that requires no additional structured training. This conception is firmly ensconced both in the corporate environs and in the modern academic institution. The latter point is easily demonstrated by a quick perusal of the typical engineering or engineering technology curricula: A brief review will reveal that the number of courses with titles or subject matters such as budgeting, time management, work planning, negotiation, etc., is extremely limited. Yet such preparatory training is essential if the engineer is to be ultimately responsible for all aspects of the final project delivery, and not simply the technical efficacy of the project. By its nature, engineering has an intrinsic framework imposed by the laws of physics, structural and material limitations, etc. By contrast, project management can be much more nebulous and is often permitted to remain so during the course of many modern corporate and industrial engineering efforts. This ambiguous state of the project management effort often results in a ‘‘sink or swim’’ approach, wherein the engineer attempts to deliver all budgetary, administrative, and personnel requirements associated with a project while simultaneously trying to concentrate on the essential technical details of engineering development. The need for integration of project management training and non-technical ‘‘real world’’ scenarios into undergraduate engineering and engineering technology education becomes still more apparent when one considers the ever more prevalent consultant or contract engineering business model, which lives or dies by the accuracy and accountability of its project management methods. The authors of this paper undertook to introduce certain key project management fundamentals and tools into portions of Purdue University’s Aeronautical Engineering Technology program.

The Aviation Technology Department in the College of Technology at Purdue University has been effective at graduating students who have mastered the technical knowledge and concepts taught in traditional academic settings. Through a well-established combination of courses, the program has also exposed its students to a variety of materials and processes that gives them practical knowledge about aerospace materials, sheet metal fabrication and repair, corrosion, heat treatment, and painting. Over the years, this approach has provided graduates with the knowledge and skills they’ve needed as they entered the job market after graduation. However, in recent years the program has gone through an extensive curriculum change designed to produce graduates who have the skills needed to be immediately productive in entry-level positions, and to move quickly to higher-level positions. This is accomplished by introducing project-based courses in which students are tasked to solve industry-like problems using Six Sigma tools, work in teams, and collaboration with companies and with instructors and students at other universities. Under this new paradigm, students do not just follow their professors’ instructions - they attempt to solve real-world open-ended problems with a range of possible solutions. This paper will provide some details and outcomes of this approach.

Leaving the team experience unevaluated during collaborative student projects leaves the educational banefit of student peer feedback unrealized. Performance feedback between student teams and among individual team members adds a valuable educational component during applied learning projects. Faculty in the Aviation Technology program at Purdue University piloted the w e of team and individual student peer evaluation tools as performance feedback and learning mechanisms in two maintenance technology courses engaged in collaborative team projects. Use of peer performance reviews among the students during team-based projects resulted in willmgness to engage in proactive problem solving and communication among students while individual scores ia these mas increased. IntMduCtion Many technolog and engineering instructors u t i l i i hands-on student team design projects for at least a portion of the classroom or laboratory exprisnce. A targeted outcome for these immersive learning projects is student exposure to the dynamics of achieving technical deliverables within the COPtW Of a realistic team environment. In addition to practicing baselie technical skill sets, students integrate key communication, negotiation, problem solving and planning skills, which are as important as technical skills for praducmg a delivmble in industry. Although the use of team-centered learning projects is quite common, students can miss an important dimension of learning if such projects are natdebriefed and evaluated. In addition to the actual project experience, significant educational value and insight can be gained through detailed review and peer feedback among student teams involved. This feedback can be facilitated by a structured team and peer review process. Method In the Spring and Fall semesters of 2007, students in two Purdue University aviation maintenance technology courses were inbnduced to the concept of being evaluated by their peers. The two courses each have specific technical content designed to build aircrafl maintenance skills and knowledge. The students in these courses engaged not only in a team-based immemive learning approach on specific technical design projects, but were introduced to performance feedback tools requiring them to provide and receive constructive peer review of their participation and pwfmance during team-based projects. l h k g Spring, students in two techno lo^ courses began evaluating each other withii their own course laboratory technical projects. In Fall of 2007, the two courses using the peer evaluations collaborated on selected projecw requiring them to interact between the two CQWeS. and then evaluate peer interaction performance between the two student teams. While the classroom laboratory environment has l i tat ions in replicating all w e d of a fill scale working environment, the dynamics of working in teams with the added dimension of peer to pew evaluations resulted in student communication and problem-solving being more "proactive" in n w e . In both cases of student projects withii a single course laboratory and in collaborative projects between two courses, student teams were observed looking for, identifying and resolving unforeseen problems during their technical design projects. Prior to implementation of the peer evaluation and feedback component, this fomd-looking p u p effort was not