Accreditation Handbook

ACCREDITATION HANDBOOK

Version 17.1 Dated 1 March 2017

Please note: this Handbook is a live document, under continuous review. Check the RAeS website for the latest version

CONTENTS

Section 1 General Introduction ...... 3

Section 2 Academic Accreditation ...... 4 2.1 Guidance notes ...... 4 2.2 Why seek accreditation of an academic qualification? ...... 4 2.3 What qualifications are considered for accreditation? ...... 4 2.4 Overview of the accreditation process ...... 5 2.5 A typical academic visit programme: ...... 7 2.6 Accreditation visits to EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS outside the uk ...... 7 2.7 Other professional engineering institutions and EAB ...... 7 2.8 International Agreements ...... 8 2.9 Output standards ...... 8 2.10 What the Society expects to see in a programme submitted for accreditation ...... 9 2.11 MEng Programmes ...... 13 2.12 MSc programmes and engineering doctorates...... 13 2.13 Compensation ...... 15 2.14 Higher National Diploma (HND) and Foundation Degree (FD) ...... 15 2.15 The process ...... 17

Section 3 Accreditation of Professional Development AND APPRENTICESHIP Schemes ...... 19 3.1 Guidance notes ...... 19 3.2 Why seek accreditation of a professional development scheme? ...... 19 3.3 What is an accredited/approved scheme? ...... 19 3.4 The criteria for accreditation/approval ...... 19 3.5 Overview of the accreditation/approval process ...... 19 3.6 Joint accreditation visits ...... 20 3.7 A typical PD scheme/APPRENTICESHIP SCHEME visit programme: ...... 20 3.8 Competence and commitment ...... 21 3.9 What the society expects to see in a scheme submitted for accreditation ...... 21 3.10 The process ...... 22

Section 4 Training of Accreditors ...... 25

Section 5 Appeals Procedures ...... 26

SECTION 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Accreditation Handbook has been produced for:

• members of the Society’s Accreditation Committee, • organisations seeking accreditation of academic and professional development programmes including approval of apprenticeship schemes and • candidates seeking to meet the academic requirement for registration, including those needing further learning.

1.2 The Accreditation Handbook covers:

• Accreditation of academic qualifications: Section 2. • Accreditation of professional development and apprenticeship schemes offered in a variety of employing organisations: Section 3. • Training of accreditors: Section 4. • Appeals procedure: Section 5. • Supporting information is given in a separate Appendices document.

1.3 All three levels of engineer registration awarded by the Engineering Council are covered in this Handbook:

• Chartered Engineer (CEng). • Incorporated Engineer (IEng). • Engineering Technician (EngTech).

1.4 Included are:

• details of the information and data to be submitted by the organisation; • guidance for assessors when reviewing submission documentation; • flowcharts to describe the individual processes; • guidance for panel chairs and members when on visits; • information and guidance on the further learning options available to applicants and • guidance on further learning requirements and assessment for the Individual Assessment Panel.

1.5 The Society carries out its accreditation activities in accordance with Engineering Council Regulations and seeks to ensure that the requirements for accredited academic programmes and professional development schemes, as set out in UK-SPEC are met.

1.6 The Society charges a small fee for accreditation visits; exemption is granted to RAeS Corporate Partners (DELETE: in certain circumstances). Please apply to the Professional Standards Department for further information.

1.7 The Accreditation Committee reports to the Professional Standards Board (PSB) and the Individual Assessment Panel reports to the Accreditation Committee. There are a number of other committees that report to the Board and the PSB Handbook contains the terms of reference for each one. Committee members should be familiar with the PSB Handbook and the Membership and Registration Handbooks, as well as this Accreditation Handbook.

1.8 Withdrawal of accreditation/approval: The Society reserves the right to withdraw accreditation/approval in the event that the content, delivery or assessment or any other significant aspect of an accredited course or professional development scheme has been altered without due notification and agreement.

1.9 A list of commonly used acronyms, including those occurring in this Handbook, is available from the Professional Standards Department.

1.10 The Society’s Membership and Accreditation Manager retains control of this Handbook and appendices. The version posted on www.aerosociety.com is the in-use master copy and the site should be checked for the most up to date version.

SECTION 2 ACADEMIC ACCREDITATION

2.1 GUIDANCE NOTES

1.1.1 These guidance notes are the key guide to academic accreditation for all concerned with the process: professional establishments seeking accreditation of schemes, and the Society’s Accreditation Committee. They include sections on what the Society expects to see in a programme submitted for accreditation, what is involved in a visit, what assessors need to look for and the procedure for accreditation.

2.2 WHY SEEK ACCREDITATION OF AN ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION?

2.2.1 Accreditation of programmes by the Society and other professional engineering institutions has been in existence for over 25 years. Within the current quality assurance regime operated by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), professional and statutory accreditation is recognised as an important way of demonstrating that the programmes concerned are likely to meet QAA standards. In the case of engineering and technology, the rigour of the process operated by the Society is well recognised, and surveys of engineering academics have attested to the marketing advantage that accreditation provides, both in the UK and overseas.

2.2.2 When an educational establishment believes it has a programme that would benefit from accreditation, it should first consider whether the specialism or underlying content meet that expected by the Society – see paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 below. The establishment should then contact the Society’s Accreditation Officer. There is a small fee for accreditation visits but accreditation is currently free of charge to the Society’s Corporate Partners.

2.2.3 Graduates from accredited programmes have a distinct advantage if they decide in due course to seek professional recognition, and many employers will take this into account when recruiting graduate engineers. Also, the advantages of independent professional accreditation are being recognised internationally.

2.2.4 The Society participates in several major international accords that establish the “tradeability” of engineering and technology degrees. These accords are assuming growing importance with employers as the globalisation of engineering products and services demands greater confidence in the skills and professionalism of the engineers involved. Please refer to section 2.8 below.

2.3 WHAT QUALIFICATIONS ARE CONSIDERED FOR ACCREDITATION?

2.3.1 CEng registration:

• MEng degree: considered, normally, for meeting the requirement in full. • BEng Honours degree: considered for meeting the requirement in part. Graduates with an accredited BEng Honours degree have to complete Further Learning to bring them up to the level required for CEng registration. • MSc degrees with engineering and technology content: considered for meeting the further learning requirement component for holders of accredited BEng Honours degrees. • Engineering Doctorate.

2.3.2 IEng registration:

• BEng/BSc ordinary or Honours degree in engineering or technology: considered, normally, for meeting the requirement in full. • Foundation Degree in engineering and technology: considered for meeting the requirement in part. Applicants with an FD have to demonstrate further learning to bring them to first degree standard. • HND in engineering and technology: considered for meeting the requirement in part. Applicants with an HND have to complete further learning to bring them to first degree standard. • HNC in engineering and technology, commenced prior to 2010: considered for meeting the requirement in part. Applicants with an HNC have to complete further learning to bring them to first degree standard.

2.3.3 EngTech registration: the exemplifying qualifications accepted for EngTech are not normally subject to the accreditation process as they are nationally validated. For details of accepted qualifications, see Appendix 14. However, awarding bodies may seek approval for programmes, aimed at EngTech level, which can then be entered on the Engineering Council’s database of EngTech approved programmes.

In the event that a programme were to be presented for accreditation, the procedures outlined in this handbook would be adhered to.

2.3.4 For undergraduate programmes related to all sections of the Engineering Council’s Register of engineers, the Society will consider for accreditation programmes with aeronautical, aerospace, avionics and aerospace systems themes. It will also consider for accreditation other engineering programmes which do not have a specific aerospace theme, but the graduates from which regularly find aerospace employment. For these programmes the specific requirements of 2.10.4, 2.10.5 and 2.10.6 do not apply.

2.3.5 In the case of MSc programmes, the Society recognises that there will be a wide range of possible themes for these programmes that it will consider for accreditation. In addition to aeronautical, aerospace, avionics and aerospace systems programmes, it will also consider other engineering programmes which do not have a specific aerospace theme, but the graduates from which regularly find aerospace employment. The Society does not publish specific course content guidelines for MSc programmes.

2.3.6 With regard to Foundation Degrees, the Society will follow the general guidelines in UK-SPEC with regard to the QAA descriptors: www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Framework-Higher- Education-Qualifications-08.pdf

2.3.7 and the established Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) level: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/awarding-organisations-understanding-our-regulatory- requirements#requirements-for-all-awarding-organisations-and-all-regulated-qualifications.

2.3.8 Accreditation of new programmes. Previously, Institutions were able to award ‘provisional’ accreditation to new courses, effectively recognising one or two intakes before a full throughput was available for review. Whilst UK-SPEC does not allow for so called provisional accreditation, new courses may be accredited in order not to stifle innovation. The following guidance is given to accrediting Institutions:

• Paragraph 28 of the Regulations states that programmes which do not have an output cohort at the time of accreditation may be accredited. This would be on the basis of their anticipated output standards. Licensed Members must however monitor the output and review their accreditation accordingly, and they may accredit a new programme for a shorter period. Should they decide to withdraw the accreditation, the first graduates and those students already on the programme would still have accredited degrees. This maintains the previous practice; it is simply the term ‘provisional accreditation’ which has been withdrawn, thus providing clarity regarding the status of new programme cohorts. • The Registration Standards Committee (RSC) encourages ‘Licensed Members to work with degree awarding institutions during new programme development, offering on-going advice and support to help to ensure that UK-SPEC requirements are understood and that innovative provision is encouraged.’ The Society would encourage any educational establishment considering the development of new aerospace programmes to contact the Professional Standards Department.

2.3.9 The Society adheres fully to EngC requirements on accreditation. Advisory documents including Guidance Note on Academic Accreditation and The Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes, in support of UK-SPEC can be found on the EC website: www.engc.org.uk/professional- qualifications/standards/uk-spec.

2.4 OVERVIEW OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS

2.4.1 No later than twelve weeks before a desired visit, the educational establishment contacts the Society to request an accreditation visit, indicating the courses to be considered. Form ACC1 may be used (see Appendix 1).

2.4.2 No later than six weeks before the visit, the educational establishment submits to the Society the ACC2 (the main submission form: see Appendix 2) and all the supporting documentation to include: the programme specifications, external examiners reports and a short statement with regard to General Learning Outcomes and a review of actions taken to address recommendations made at the previous visit, where appropriate.

2.4.3 The Society and the educational establishment agree a date for the visit during term time then the Society establishes a panel of accreditors (the composition of which can vary depending on the size and nature of the visit but would normally include representation from both academia and industry) and informs the educational establishment. Where programmes are offered collaboratively with other

academic institutions, or on a franchised basis, the Society might visit partners involved in delivering the programme. If not, all partner academic institutions must be represented on the day of the visit.

2.4.4 A signed copy of form ACC2 and four copies on USB (or by other appropriate electronic means) of ACC2 and all supporting documentation are to be submitted.

2.4.5 Society staff forward the documentation to visiting panel members who need to review it and inform staff if they have any concerns.

2.4.6 The visit programme is agreed and the visit carried out accordingly. General feedback is given to senior staff at the conclusion of the visit but recommendations on accreditation are not formally disclosed as decisions on accreditation are taken by the Accreditation Committee. Following the visit, a report is prepared by the visiting panel which is submitted to the educational establishment for factual checking only. The report plus the Panel’s recommendations are submitted to the Accreditation Committee and their decision is communicated to the educational establishment within two weeks of the committee meeting.

2.4.7 The Committee may decide that accreditation is subject to receipt of an Action Plan to address the concerns identified in the report. In this case, staff will email the template for the plan to the educational establishment.

2.4.8 There is a standard format for the letters that confirm the Committee’s decision to educational establishments. It contains a list of the programmes, the period of accreditation, a statement regarding achievement of UK-SPEC threshold output standards, an acceptance (if appropriate) of the Action Plan that addresses issues of concern and a list of commendable features and any concerns that were addressed by the Action Plan. The Society also issues a certificate to confirm accreditation.

2.4.9 Gaining accreditation will result in the qualification appearing in the EngC list of accredited academic programmes at www.engc.org.uk. Accredited qualifications will normally also appear in the FEANI Index of recognised European qualifications, www.feani.org, and will lead to international recognition under the Washington Accord, Sydney Accord or Dublin Accord. For details, see www.engc.org.uk/international-activity. See also paragraph 2.8 below.

2.4.10 If an educational establishment has programmes accredited by other engineering institutions and wishes the Society also to accredit those programmes, prior to a full visit by the accrediting institutions, a shortened visit can be carried out by a reduced panel. The Society will then participate in a joint visit at the appropriate time. Documentation to be provided should include, where possible, the ACC2 (or equivalent) and supporting documents submitted for the previous accreditation exercise, updated where necessary, and examples of student work and examiners’ reports to be made available on the visit.

2.4.11 Backdating accreditation: the Society adheres to EngC Regulations which state that accreditation shall be for a fixed period of no more than five years, except that accreditation may be backdated to allow cohorts whose work had been reviewed as part of the programme accreditation exercise to benefit from the decision.

2.4.12 Conflict of interest: an assessor will not normally participate in an accreditation visit if they are an external examiner for the educational establishment or have been employed by or a consultant to the organisation within the past 5 years.

2.5 A TYPICAL ACADEMIC VISIT PROGRAMME:

Day 1

13:30-15:00 Private meeting of visiting panel and review of course materials, project work etc.

15:00-15:30 Meeting with senior staff. University presentation: i) an overview of the department structure and how the requirements of UK-SPEC have been addressed in course design and operation; ii) action taken to address recommendations from previous visit; iii) Details of the information provided by the university in their Key Information Statement (KIS).

15:30-16:30 Private meeting with students: the group should include representation from the staff/student liaison committee and a cross-section of the student population.

16:30-17:00 Private meeting of visiting panel.

Day 2

09:00 Visiting panel arrives at the University.

09:15-10:15 Tour of department, focusing on laboratory and workshop facilities.

10:15-11:45 Meeting with academic and support staff. General discussion of aims and objectives of the degree programmes; meeting UK-SPEC requirements: • Science and mathematics. • Engineering analysis. • Design. • Economic, legal, social, ethical and environmental context. • Engineering practice. • Additional general skills. to include industrial awareness, coverage of project management, health, safety and risk assessment (to include personal and product risk and safety), and sustainable development; project work and assessment mechanisms etc.

11:45-12:30 Private meeting of visiting panel.

12:30-13:30 Feedback to the University.

13:30 Visiting panel departs.

NB: This is an indicative timetable; it is subject to change especially for joint / Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB) visits.

2.6 ACCREDITATION VISITS TO EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS OUTSIDE THE UK

2.6.1 The process and forms used for UK visits will form the basis of the visit. All aspects of the visit will be conducted in English. The educational establishment will meet all reasonable travel, accommodation, health and incidental expenses for the visit. The timetable and arrangements for such visits will be based on that for UK visits. See also EngC Guidance on the accreditation of degree programmes outside the UK, available on request from [email protected]

2.7 OTHER PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTIONS AND EAB

2.7.1 The committees often take part in joint visits with two or more professional institutions. The educational establishment decides which one should lead the visit and that institution agrees which panel member should chair the visit and a timetable for the visit, their application forms are used

2.7.2 The Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB) is managed by the EngC on behalf of a number of professional engineering institutions. It organises accreditation visits where several institutions have been asked to review a variety of programmes (mixed discipline, unified or integrated programmes). EAB staff arrange the visit, act as the point of contact between the institutions and the educational establishment and take responsibility for the visit report. It has a website, www.engab.org.uk, on which

can be found their submission forms. The EAB meets 4 times a year and does not accredit programmes in its own right.

2.8 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

2.8.1 The Bologna Agreement. This is an agreement between European governments, signed in 1999 in Bologna (Italy), which aims to place higher education on a more ‘European’ level through constructing a European Higher Education Area. The Agreement also aims to set up a Europe-wide system of comparable degrees to establish a system of transferable academic credits, to develop European co- operation in quality assurance, to promote student mobility and to improve training opportunities for them.

2.8.2 The Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords. The Washington Accord was signed in 1989 to provide the recognition at CEng level of accreditation systems of organizations holding signatory status and the engineering education programmes accredited by them. Current members are Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, the UK and the USA.

2.8.3 The Sydney Accord was signed in 2001 to provide joint recognition of academic programmes accredited at IEng level. It operates in a similar way to the Washington Accord. Current members are the national engineering organisations of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the USA.

2.8.4 The Dublin Accord was signed in 2002 by the national engineering organisations of UK, Ireland, South Africa and Canada to mutually recognise the qualifications that underpin the granting of EngTech titles in the four counties. It operates in a similar way to the above.

2.8.5 For more information on these agreements visit: www.ieagreements.org

2.9 OUTPUT STANDARDS

2.9.1 An important aspect of an accreditation visit is an assessment of whether graduates are achieving the output standards established by the EngC in its Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) document. An output standards matrix for each programme has to be completed before an accreditation visit. It should show how academic programmes demonstrate through teaching and assessment methods that graduates have reached the desired threshold level of the learning outcomes; an exemplar is available to assist with completing the matrix.

2.9.2 Undergraduate programmes must provide two different categories of output standards, also known as learning outcomes, in order to be accredited:

• General Learning Outcomes will be general in nature and will apply to all programmes, irrespective of registration category or qualification level (see Appendix 2: Form ACC2 Annex A for details). ./ • Specific Learning Outcomes take as a reference point the output standards expected from a BEng (Hons) degree for CEng, with modifications to them for an MEng degree and for a BEng degree accredited for IEng (see Form ACC 2 Annex B for details). It is important that each specific learning outcome relating to a particular degree programme is satisfied, and that no outcome depends solely on an optional module.

2.9.3 These two categories of outcome will be inter-related, with the general learning outcomes being embodied to a greater or lesser extent within the various specific learning outcomes. It is important to note that the different learning outcomes do not imply a compartmentalised or linear approach to learning and teaching. Throughout each programme, a number of different learning outcomes are likely to be delivered concurrently, though, for example, project work.

2.9.4 The level at which these outputs will be delivered is that expected from the relevant qualifications as described by the QAA in the Qualifications Framework for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Framework-Higher-Education-Qualifications-08.pdf and for the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework see: www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/An- introduction-to-The-Scottish-Credit-and-Qualifications-Framework.pdf .

2.9.5 MEng Programmes:

2.9.5.1 Graduates from an accredited MEng programme should have some of the specific learning outcomes to enhanced and extended levels. Crucially they will have the ability to integrate their knowledge and understanding of mathematics, science, computer-based methods, design, the economic, social and environmental context, and engineering practice to solve a substantial range of engineering problems, some of a complex nature.

2.9.5.2 MEng programmes usually share Years 1 and 2, and sometimes Year 3, with BEng (Hons) programmes (see also paragraph 4) but Year 4 should not be constructed as a stand-alone top up to a BEng (Hons) programme. The specific learning outcomes expected by each group of graduates must be specified.

2.9.5.3 With regard to the classification of MEng programmes, the Society is of the view that as long as the programme meets the learning outcomes below, all graduates from it will be considered as having an accredited degree irrespective of the level of classification achieved.

2.9.6 Bachelor Programmes for IEng:

2.9.6.1 The specific learning outcomes for graduates from an IEng accredited BSc/BEng programme should focus on the application of developed technology and give greater weighting to developing a knowledge and understanding of engineering practice and processes, and to have a lesser focus on analysis. Design will still be a significant component, especially in integrating a range of knowledge and understanding, but the emphasis will be on designing products, systems and processes to defined needs.

2.9.6.2 Similar learning outcomes will apply to accredited Foundation degrees and Higher National programmes, with particular strengths emphasised in any Further Learning programmes undertaken to satisfy the academic requirements for IEng registration.

2.9.7 Post-Graduate Programmes:

2.9.7.1 An accredited Master’s degree or Engineering Doctorate provides a CEng applicant with an accredited BEng (Hons) with the total exemplifying academic qualifications for CEng registration. UK-SPEC does not provide dedicated output standards for these programmes, because of their range and variety; there are two principal reference points:

• The QAA qualification descriptor. This is crucial in determining whether the programme is delivering knowledge, understanding and skills at the appropriate level; • The competence statements which accrediting Institutions have adopted under UK-SPEC.

2.9.7.2 Form ACC 2 Annex C gives details of these for reference.

2.10 WHAT THE SOCIETY EXPECTS TO SEE IN A PROGRAMME SUBMITTED FOR ACCREDITATION

2.10.1 General (BEng and MEng):

2.10.1.1 The Society does not prescribe what undergraduate programmes should contain, but the following topics, which are neither exhaustive nor exemplifying, are expected in all programmes submitted for accreditation:

• Application of mathematics to identify and solve problems. • Engineering drawing / Computer Aided Drafting / Computer Aided Design. • Elements of mechanics, aerodynamics, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. • An introduction to materials, their properties, fabrication and application. • Elements of control engineering. • Elements of electrical and electronic engineering. • Elements of structural analysis. • Application of systems integration. • An introduction to structured programming and experience in the use of computer software relevant to the discipline. • Application of engineering principles to the analysis and solution of practical engineering design, development, manufacture and maintenance tasks (both individual and as a member of a team). • Experience in the use of contemporary measurement techniques. • The extraction and evaluation of data from multiple sources, such as journals, manufacturers’ data sheets, specifications, the internet and technical manuals to achieve engineering objectives.

• Teaching of project management skills. • Instruction in and practice of presentation skills. • Introduction to engineering management topics such as finance / legal / marketing / cost / resource / risk management and health and safety. • Introduction to responsibilities expected of engineers to society such as the impact of engineering on the environment. • Application of engineering principles and design. • Safety and certification issues.

2.10.1.2 Programmes that include non-engineering subjects, such as language options or periods of study in other countries or practical flying studies, of not more than one academic year are encouraged provided the core of engineering subjects is maintained. To be accredited by the Society, programmes with non-engineering subjects need to satisfy the following criteria:

• The programme allows the students to satisfy our required learning outcomes. • The material presented satisfies our guidance notes on academic accreditation. • The title of the programme properly describes the content.

2.10.1.3 The Society does not encourage undue specialisation, for example in aerodynamics, aircraft structures or mechanical systems.

2.10.1.4 In addition to aeronautical, aerospace, avionics and aerospace systems programmes featured above, the Society will also consider for accreditation other programmes with a bias towards the aerospace industry in the broadest sense.

Within these programmes, degree titles may be considered for accreditation where aircraft maintenance engineering dominates the programme structure – for example, named degrees such as Aerospace Engineering (Aircraft Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul), Aircraft Engineering, Aircraft Maintenance Management, Aircraft Maintenance & Airworthiness and Aircraft Maintenance Engineering. These programmes will have strengths in a number of the six key areas of learning, particularly in Engineering Practice. However, the Society would still expect to see adequate evidence of programme content in all the key areas of learning by continuing to focus on the necessary areas of Science & Mathematics, Engineering Analysis and Design, even though aircraft maintenance engineering is the major theme within a programme.

2.10.1.5 The Society recognises the importance of appropriate interaction with the aerospace industry and strongly encourages strong links with local and national industries.

2.10.1.6 An appropriate laboratory programme should support all programmes accredited by the Society to provide students with experience of contemporary experimental techniques.

2.10.1.7 All degrees accredited by the Society should include a major investigative project (normally individual). The project may have an experimental, theoretical or computational basis, but should not be purely descriptive or of a review type nature. It may be research based to test a student’s ability for independent study, and in an aeronautical discipline or cognate area. In exceptional cases, where a degree is accredited that includes a shared project (say by students working in pairs on a particular topic), the university must ensure that distinct aspects of the topic are assigned to each student and that all project reports and other forms of assessment are prepared independently and are separately assessed.

2.10.1.8 It is advisable that MEng courses should be structured to include an individual project in Year 3 with a group project in Year 4 or, in Scotland, Year 4 and 5 respectively, thus allowing for the possibility of students graduating with an acceptable BEng after 3/4 years.

2.10.1.9 With the introduction of UK-SPEC, a 3 + 1 structure, whereby Levels 1, 2 and 3 of a BEng and MEng are common, is acceptable to the Society and to the EngC, however, the Society would not wish to see a one-year MEng being offered separately.

2.10.1.10 Overall, academic programmes should provide the basis for the development of independent learning skills and of a life-long learning ethos. They should also provide the environment in which students develop the ability to be innovative and to deal effectively with new and unfamiliar problems.

2.10.1.11 The Society is not prescriptive about the average contact hours experienced by students on a typical engineering course, since it recognises the variety of methods by which courses are delivered. It does, however, require that the necessary academic staff expertise and direct contact with students exist, appropriate to the programme delivery and assessment arrangements, to fully meet the programme learning outcomes.

2.10.1.12 One measure of this which the Society requires is the overall student/staff ratio in the resource group which is the programme provider, as defined by the overall FTE student number (both undergraduates and post graduates) divided by the total number of FTE academic staff in the resource group (excluding external lecturers, part-time lecturers and those providing service taught courses from outside the resource group). Also of importance is the number of staff with the expertise and availability to support students in achieving the learning outcomes appropriate to the specific theme of the course being offered.

2.10.1.13 Academic institutions are required to provide information on staffing levels to include details of full and part-time staff, to include also academic and technical support staff.

2.10.2 Engineering principles (BEng and MEng):

2.10.2.1 Engineering principles are the cornerstones of engineering enhancement. They are an essential component and they should interface with much of the rest of the programme and incorporate the following aspects, as appropriate for the chosen specialisation:

• Relationship of material properties to their structure and use. • Materials in an aeronautical context, including metals, metal alloys, polymers, ceramics, adhesives, composites and those materials used for electronic and avionic applications. • There should be some hands-on experience of hand tools, bench fitting, component dismantling / assembly, elementary machine tools, and pneumatic, hydraulic and electronic circuitry. The aim is for students to obtain a physical appreciation of handling different materials and artefacts and assessing their behaviour during manufacture/fabrication, rather than just to acquire craft skills. • Optimisation of material costs and efficiency, should be emphasised when considering the fabrication of various materials into artefacts. • Circuit build, design and test. • Scientific measurement and interpretation of engineering parameters (physical, mechanical, electrical or otherwise). • Application of computer simulation packages to the design, development, manufacture and maintenance of aircraft engineering components, structures and systems.

2.10.3 Design (BEng and MEng):

2.10.3.1 Throughout the programme there should be emphasis on practical relevance and applications that should be reflected in the programme’s assessment strategy. Design should be a focus of much of the technical instruction combined with commercial and economic factors as follows:

• There should be individual detailed design exercises of simple components, circuits or systems. • A team design exercise should be used to raise awareness of how people work together, preferably in an interdisciplinary context. • Instruction should include use of data sheets, handbooks and software packages, including an introduction to computer aided engineering. • There should be an interface between design and the choice of materials / components. • Cost aspects of initial design and life-cycle should be emphasised. • A simple design-build-test exercise, to include the writing of a report.

2.10.4 Aeronautical / aerospace engineering programmes (BEng and MEng):

2.10.4.1 In addition to the topics listed in paragraphs 2.10.1/2/3 above, a programme entitled Aeronautical Engineering or Aerospace Engineering should include:

• Basic quantitative subsonic and supersonic aerodynamics. • Computational methods in the teaching of aerodynamics. +++ • Aircraft performance, with emphasis placed on flight mechanics, aircraft manoeuvres and loading regimes.

• Introduction to aero-elasticity in which elements of aerodynamics, structural dynamics and vibration are brought together. +++ • Introduction to the science, properties and application of aerospace materials, with a bias towards structurally efficient light alloys and composites. • Analysis of aerospace structures that includes finite element analysis. +++ • Elements of aircraft propulsion science and technology • Elements of aircraft fluid power and electrical power systems technology, e.g. hydraulic systems, environmental control systems and electrical power and distribution systems. • Aircraft control and stability with an introduction to aircraft flight systems and automatic flight control systems. • Courses including, helicopters, missiles and spacecraft are encouraged, in addition to fixed wing. • A practical flight test course supplemented by simulation. +++

+++ = NOT expected in programmes submitted for IEng accreditation, nor are aeronautics programmes expected to cover aircraft loading and performance in any real depth.

2.10.5 Avionics or aerospace systems programmes (BEng and MEng):

2.10.5.1 In addition to the topics listed in paragraphs 2.10.1/2/3 above, a programme entitled Avionics or Aerospace Systems should include:

• Introductory course(s) in aeronautics covering elementary ideas of: external and internal aircraft anatomy, including the cockpit, design features, aerodynamics, structures, flight control, propulsion, electrical, fluid and mechanical systems, including the role of digitally driven design within these processes. • Safety and certification issues. • Introduction to principles of systems design and integration. • A practical flight test course supplemented by simulation. +++

+++ = NOT expected in programmes submitted for IEng accreditation.

2.10.5.2 Avionics programmes should also include:

• Elements of materials-science / solid-state-physics and its relationship to the properties and use of materials, for electrical / electronic applications. • More advanced electrical and electronic theory. • Avionic systems, including: electrical power and distribution, instrumentation, sensors, communication, navigation and integrated flight control systems. • Control system theory and its application to the power, control and interfacing of specified integrated avionic systems.

2.10.5.3 Aerospace Systems programmes should also include:

• Introduction to flight, engine and other airframe systems including sensors and instrumentation. • Introduction to fuel / hydraulic / pneumatic / electrical / environmental and avionics systems. • Control system theory and application to flight and engine control systems.

NB. The Society recognises that there are several different possible themes within the broad titles of Avionics and Aerospace Systems and although all of such courses should make reference to the elements of these topics, in particular emphasis should reflect the stated aims and objectives of the programmes offered.

2.10.5.4 It may be appropriate for students to take some of their electrical and electronic courses with students in a department of electrical / electronic engineering or with those enrolled on an electronically biased programme.

2.10.6 Notes concerning the practical flight test requirement in BEng (Hons) and MEng:

2.10.6.1 The Society recognises that the capability provided by flight simulators is expanding and that it is possible to make use of such devices in aircraft design courses to ensure satisfactory handling qualities and also to cover a wide range of quite realistic flight simulation that complements practical flight test. With regard to the latter however, it is the Society’s view that practical flight test and associated flight briefings provide students with experience that is not attainable from simulation alone. Therefore, the Society believes all students on accredited programmes in aerospace engineering and

related topics should experience elements of practical flight test and it accepts that it may be possible to reduce the extent of the practical aspect within a carefully integrated programme involving both practical flight experience and simulation.

2.10.6.2 The Society also welcomes innovative alternative approaches which address the same learning outcomes. An example could be the use of a remotely controlled aircraft with comprehensive instrumentation, whereby the students are directly involved in the test flights and undertake the subsequent data analysis and reporting.

2.11 MEng PROGRAMMES

2.11.1 MEng programmes differ from BEng (Hons) programmes in having a greater range of project work, including a group project. These programmes should also provide the student with a greater range and depth of specialist knowledge, within a research and industrial environment, as well as a broader and more general educational base, to provide both a foundation for leadership, and a wider appreciation of the economic, social and environmental context of engineering.

2.11.2 Graduates from an accredited MEng programme should have the ability to integrate their knowledge and understanding of mathematics, science, Information Communication Technologies (ICT), design, the economic, social and environmental context and engineering practice to solve a substantial range of engineering problems, some of a complex nature. In many cases these topics could be linked with the major team design project.

2.11.3 MEng programmes may be ‘in-depth’ or ‘broad-based’. ‘In-depth’ programmes will provide the opportunity for greater in-depth study than in the corresponding BEng (Hons) programmes. These programmes may emphasise a specific aerospace discipline and would be expected to contain some post-graduate modules. ‘Broad-based’ programmes will provide some in-depth study opportunity at MEng level but with a greater bias towards broadening professional engineering subjects.

2.11.4 In addition to the major individual project, students will be expected to carry out a major team design project involving interdisciplinary activities and, where possible, industrial inputs and relevance, normally in the last year of the programme. Design / Systems integration studies should be significantly enhanced over those in BEng (Hons) programmes and before graduation, students should have obtained some experience of working in an industrial environment.

2.11.5 Since a well-integrated programme is a cornerstone of MEng programme design, it will be expected that all graduates should normally complete at least the last two years of study at the establishment which awards the degree.

2.11.6 Guidance on M level modules in the final year of an MEng programme: EngC is not prescriptive about the number of modules or (the credit value attached to them) that must be at M level in the final year of MEng courses. The following extract from the EngC guidance note is helpful in this respect. It is the learning outcomes of the programme that are the main consideration – not those of individual modules:

’Which should take priority – programme or module learning outcomes? The decision to accredit should be based on programme learning outcomes. Thus the expectation is that accrediting panels will look at learning outcomes at the programme level. Consideration of learning outcomes at the module level may prove to be useful if further information is required but these should not be the prime source of evidence.’

2.11.7 However, in order to satisfy the required learning outcomes, in practice most of the final year modules would need to be at M level. The link to the guidance indicating this is: www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/Website/Guidance Note on Academic Accreditation Issue 2 Website.pdf .

2.11.8 Regarding the learning outcomes that need to be satisfied by the programme, these are defined in the following document: www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/Website/Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes third edition collated learning outcomes.pdf.

2.12 MSc PROGRAMMES AND ENGINEERING DOCTORATES

2.12.1 The Society also adheres to EngC guidance on the accreditation of MSc and Engineering Doctorate programmes as further learning for CEng. See Accreditation of Masters Degrees other than MEng: www.engc.org.uk/professional-qualifications/standards/uk-spec. For Guidelines on what is required in a

Masters level qualification, other than MEng, see the relevant to this Handbook. For more information on EngDs, see also ‘Doctoral degree characteristics’ Level 8: www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Doctoral_Characteristics.pdf.

2.12.2 MSc programmes:

2.12.2.1 MSc degrees accredited for the purposes of registration vary in nature and purpose. Some offer the chance to study in greater depth particular aspects or applications of a broader discipline in which the graduate holds an honours degree. Others bring together different engineering disciplines or sub- disciplines in the study of a particular topic, or engineering application, while a further category may be truly multi-disciplinary. MSc programmes also provide an opportunity to integrate the technical and non- technical aspects of engineering and to develop a commitment to professional and social responsibility and ethical codes. Please see further information in the Appendices to this Handbook.

2.12.2.2 While recognising the diverse range of topics that MSc courses cover, the Society wishes to ensure that an adequate balance between technical and non-technical aspects exists. The minimum technical content should normally be represented by at least 60 credits from technically deepening modules, which may include the credits from the technically based dissertation (see section 2.12.2.4).

2.12.2.3 General Learning Outcomes: the range of general learning outcomes described for graduates from Bachelors programmes will also apply to graduates from MSc programmes. In respect of general transferable skills, the following enhanced outcomes should be expected of MSc graduates:

• The ability to develop, monitor and update a plan, to reflect a changing operating environment; • The ability to monitor and adjust a personal programme of work on an on-going basis, and to learn independently; • The ability to exercise initiative and personal responsibility, which may be as a team member or leader; • The ability to learn new theories, concepts, methods etc and apply these in unfamiliar situations.

2.12.2.4 Specific Learning Outcomes: in respect of the specific learning outcomes, MSc graduates will also be characterised by some or all of the following (the balance will vary according to the nature and aims of each programme):

Underpinning science and mathematics, etc: • A comprehensive understanding of the relevant scientific principles of the specialisation. • A critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of the specialisation. • An understanding of concepts relevant to the discipline, some from outside engineering, and the ability to critically evaluate and apply them effectively.

Engineering analysis: • The ability to use fundamental knowledge to investigate new and emerging technologies; • The ability to apply appropriate models for solving problems in engineering, and the ability to assess the limitations of particular cases; • The ability to collect and analyse research data and use appropriate engineering tools to tackle unfamiliar problems, such as those with uncertain or incomplete data or specifications, by the appropriate innovation, use or adaptation of engineering analytical methods.

Design: • The ability to apply original thought to the development of practical solutions for products, systems, components or processes.

Economic, social and environmental context: • Knowledge and understanding of management and business practices, and their limitations, and how these may be applied appropriately, in the context of the particular specialisation; • The ability to make general evaluations of risks through some understanding of the basis of such risks.

Engineering practice: • A thorough understanding of current practice and its limitations, and some appreciation of likely new developments; • Advanced level knowledge and understanding of a wide range of engineering materials and components;

• The ability to apply engineering techniques taking account of a range of commercial and industrial constraints.

2.12.2.5 Technical project: It is expected that MSc programmes will include a technical project, the credit value for which may vary from programme to programme. The candidate should demonstrate the capability of analysing in depth a technical problem or design using the application of engineering, and/or physical and/or mathematical principles as all, or part, of the project report. A report based solely on project management of a technical problem alone, would not be in accord with the Society’s requirement.

2.12.3 Engineering Doctorates: There are several different models of Engineering Doctorate, but they all include taught modules at M level, a significant management element (which in some cases is part of a MBA programme) and doctoral-level research which may be a single 3 – 4-year project, or may comprise a portfolio of smaller projects. The research projects include a significant (at least 25%) element of management topics.

2.12.3.1 The Society expects that the taught element will mainly comprise technical modules. Applications with Management biased EngDs will be considered on an individual case basis. In accrediting these courses the Society looks for:

• sufficient M-level learning in engineering disciplines to supplement in breadth and depth the student’s first degree learning; • that the management content does not overwhelm the engineering learning; • the integration of this learning with the research project objectives and application; • evidence of soft skills development through presentations, written reports, group working etc. • learning outcomes consistent with those for CEng, in particular MSc programmes.

2.12.3.2 If the research element of an EngD is to be carried out in industry, while the student is in full- time employment, details of the arrangements for supervision must be provided.

2.13 COMPENSATION

2.13.1 Compensation for failure to meet individual module pass marks when the overall average mark has been achieved will be permitted, subject to the following guidance statements that have been agreed by EAB:

• Compensation should be allowed. • The individual project should not be compensated*. • Normally only up to 20 out of 120 credits, in the final year, could be compensated. • Compensation should not undermine the overall learning outcomes of the programme(s).

In addition, the Society will critically examine the minimum module mark for which compensation is allowed.

* The main individual project may be repeated and passed but not compensated. Where university policy permits compensation, the department must be advised that any student whose project has been compensated will not be deemed to hold an accredited qualification and should notify the Society of such students.

2.14 HIGHER NATIONAL DIPLOMA (HND) AND FOUNDATION DEGREE (FD)

2.14.1 An HND or FD programme entitled ‘Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering’ should, within the framework of the topics outlined in paragraphs 2.10.1/2/3 above, include:

• Basic subsonic and supersonic aerodynamics. • Introduction to aircraft performance, with emphasis placed on; flight mechanics, aircraft manoeuvres and loading regimes. • Introduction to the science, properties and application of aerospace materials, with a bias towards the structurally efficient light alloys and composites. • Elementary thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. • Elements of aircraft propulsion science and technology. • Elements of aircraft fluid power and electrical power systems technology, e.g. hydraulic systems, environmental control systems and electrical power and distribution systems. • Aircraft control and stability with an introduction to, aircraft flight systems and automatic flight control systems.

• A focus on fixed-wing aircraft, though the Society encourages programmes with a wider context involving helicopters, missiles and spacecraft.

2.14.2 The above subjects, where appropriate, should be dealt with quantitatively, while at the same time emphasising the new/emerging technology being applied to aircraft structures, systems and equipment.

2.14.3 An HND and FD programme entitled Avionics or Aerospace Systems should, within the framework of the topics outlined in paragraphs 2.10.5 above, include:

• Introductory course(s) in aeronautics covering elementary ideas of aircraft anatomy, design features, aerodynamics, structures, flight control, propulsion, fluid and mechanical systems. • Elements of materials science/solid state physics and its relationship to the properties and use of materials, for electrical applications. • More advanced electrical and electronic theory. • Avionic systems, including: electrical power, instrumentation, communication, navigation and integrated flight control systems. • Control system theory and its application to the power, control and interfacing of specified integrated avionic system.

2.14.4 A satisfactory experimental programme should support the lecturing programme, and appropriate work experience should be undertaken to enhance the student learning experience.

2.14.5 All programmes should provide an introduction to topics such as finance, legal, marketing, cost, project management and risk. Engineer’s responsibility to society, including risk assessment, health and safety issues, and sustainability issues, should be addressed. Also, programmes should encourage students to continue to develop their knowledge and understanding further after they graduate.

2.14.6 In view of the fact that HND / FD programmes require the equivalent of just 2 years of full-time study, the Society appreciates that there will not always be the opportunity to provide the broadening skills and knowledge normally found within IEng degree programmes. However, the design of these programmes should be such that direct entry to the second or third year of an appropriate IEng Degree is possible. Thus, students will have the opportunity of undertaking the further learning necessary to meet the required educational base for IEng registration. During this further learning period, students would be expected to undertake their individual project and group design work, so that they meet the mandatory requirements for successful completion of their chosen IEng degree.

2.15 THE PROCESS

2.15.1 Below is a summary flowchart to show how academic accreditation is handled:

1 Provide advice & establish point of contact &

2 Yes Fix details with other PEI Joint visit?

3 12 weeks before visit Form ACC1 received Agree visiting panel

4 6 weeks before visit Form ACC2 received

Documentation pack Sent to visiting panel

Send out queries & Yes Points of pass answers to panel clarification?

6 Set discussion topics, agree agenda & book accommodation

7 Visit – review all aspects

Yes Points of Discussion with HEI staff clarification? 8 No

Prepare draft report

No HEI agree Discussion with HEI staff factual accuracy?

Yes 10

HEI Informed with weakness 12 Conditional Accreditation No HEI informed with details of 11 report & Action Plan decision? appeals process requested

Yes

13 Issue certificate Inform EngC Update website 17

Notes: 1. Once the initial contact has been made staff directs the Higher Education Institute (HEI) to the relevant accreditation information and application form on the Society’s website. NB: If the HEI has not had an accreditation visit before, an advisory visit by an experienced Committee member is offered to give further advice on the accreditation process. 2. Staff fix a date for the accreditation visit and ask Committee members to volunteer to join the visiting panel. Joint visits may be made in conjunction with other Professional Engineering Institutions, arranged independently or through the Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB). Staff select academic and industrialist members for the visiting panel, the composition of which will depend on the nature of the visit. 3. No later than 12 weeks before a desired visit, the HEI requests an accreditation visit, indicating on ACC1 the courses to be considered. 4. 6 weeks before the visit, the HEI submits the Form ACC2 and support documentation to the Society. Staff forward the documentation and previous visit report and decision letter and an Accreditor’s Report Form (for their personal use) to Panel members. 5. Staff send the preliminary submission to the Panel for an initial review and, if appropriate, request further clarification on points raised by the HEI. 6. The Panel reviews the submission and compiles a list of topics for discussion during the visit. Staff inform the academic institution of any comments made by the Panel, forward the Handout for Students and start making arrangements for the visit, including agreeing the visit timetable and booking the hotel. 7. The visit takes place in accordance with these Guidance Notes. Staff make arrangements to ensure sufficient evidence is collected during the visit so that a fair and objective report can be written. 8. If, during the review, the Panel require further clarification, regarding any observations noted, the HEI may be asked for further information. 9. Following the visit, a report with a draft decision letter is written by staff. If there were no staff present, panel members write the report and staff draft the letter. If it was an EAB organised visit, a summary of the RAeS findings may be produced to attach to the report written by EAB. The academic institution is asked to check the report for factual accuracy. If any factual statements are disputed, Visiting Panel members are asked to decide how to proceed. 10. Panel members present the report and draft decision letter to the next Accreditation Committee meeting for a decision. 11. If the Committee decides not to accredit the programmes and the academic institution does not accept the decision, staff instigate the appeals procedure. 12. If the Committee agrees to accredit the programmes subject to receipt of a satisfactory action plan, staff send the decision letter and an Action Plan template to the academic institution. Once completed, staff ask panel members to comment on it. If they accept it, staff ask the Committee Chair to take Chairman’s action. If the Chair agrees, staff write to the academic institution with the accreditation certificate and update EngC website of accredited courses. 13. If the Committee agrees to accredit the programmes, staff send the decision letter and an accreditation certificate to the academic institution and update EngC website of accredited courses.

END OF ACADEMIC ACCREDITATION SECTION

SECTION 3 ACCREDITATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND APPRENTICESHIP SCHEMES

3.1 GUIDANCE NOTES

3.1.2 These guidance notes are the key guide to the accreditation of Professional Development Schemes for all concerned with the process: Professional Establishments seeking accreditation of Schemes, the Society’s Accreditation Committee. They include sections on what the Society expects to see in a Scheme submitted for accreditation, what is involved in a visit, what assessors need to look for and the procedure for accreditation. The same process also applies to Apprenticeship Schemes though this normally leads to approval. Throughout this Handbook, where recognition of Apprenticeships is referred to it should be borne in mind that the outcome of the process will normally be referred to as approval and not accreditation. This is to comply with Engineering Council requirements.

3.2 WHY SEEK ACCREDITATION OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME?

3.2.1 Accreditation of Professional Development Schemes by the Society and other professional engineering institutions has been in existence for over 20 years. The rigour of the process operated by the Society is well recognised, and the advantages of independent accreditation are acknowledged by many employers across the UK.

3.2.2 For most employers, one of the most effective ways of attracting and retaining competent and committed people is to encourage and assist them to undertake structured professional development at all stages of their careers. Although an individual is responsible for their own learning and development, the employer will obviously benefit from any growth in an employee’s competence and it is in the employer’s best interest to guide and support such growth through some form of structured professional development.

3.2.3 Accreditation indicates to:

• potential recruits that they will be given the best opportunity available for achieving career development and professional status; • existing employees that there are good reasons to stay committed and to maintain their development throughout their career; • managers that the technical team will be able to sustain and improve its capability and performance over time; • Human Resources staff that the processes and content of the scheme compare positively with similar interventions for technical staff in other organisations; • clients, customers and other interested parties that the organisation’s employees are trained to professional and exacting standards of competence.

3.3 WHAT IS AN ACCREDITED/APPROVED SCHEME?

3.3.1 An independently assessed quality assured pathway for apprentices and graduates who wish to work towards professional registration at all levels. It is a partnership between the employer, the employee and the professional engineering institutions such as the Society. Individuals build a targeted profile of competence, quickly enabling them to become highly productive employees as well as professionally recognised as soon as possible.

3.4 THE CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION/APPROVAL

3.4.1 The process of accreditation will include an assessment of how the Society’s accreditation criteria are addressed by your Scheme. The application form is structured around the criteria, which are derived from the output standards established by Engineering Council (EngC) - see PD 1 and PD1AS 10

3.5 OVERVIEW OF THE ACCREDITATION/APPROVAL PROCESS

3.5.1 When a Professional Establishment believes it has a Scheme that would benefit from accreditation, it should first consider whether the Scheme covers that expected by the Society – see paragraph 3.9 below. The Professional Establishment should then contact the Society’s Accreditation Officer. There is a small fee for accreditation visits but accreditation is currently free of charge to the Society’s Corporate Partners.

3.5.2 The Society and the Professional Establishment agree a date for the visit, then the Society establishes a Visiting Panel of assessors and informs the Professional Establishment.

3.5.3 The Professional Establishment will complete the application form and together with the supporting documents, send a signed hard copy and, on USBs (or by other electronic means) a PDF plus all supporting documents, to the Society no later than four weeks before the visit.

3.5.4 Society staff forward the documentation to visiting Panel members who need to review it and inform staff if they have any concerns.

3.5.5 Where Schemes operate across more than one site, the Society will either visit each site or expect staff and young engineers to come to the main site on the day of the visit, unless a videoconference facility can be arranged.

3.5.6 The visit programme is agreed and the visit carried out accordingly. General feedback is given to senior staff at the conclusion of the visit but recommendations on accreditation are not disclosed as decisions on accreditation are taken by the Accreditation Committee. Following the visit, a report is prepared by the Visiting Panel which is submitted to the Professional Establishment for factual checking only. The report plus the Panel’s recommendations are submitted to the Accreditation Committee and their decision is communicated to the Professional Establishment within two weeks of the Committee meeting. Details of all accredited Professional Development Schemes are posted on the Society’s website.

3.5.7 The Committee may decide that accreditation is subject to receipt of an Action Plan to address the concerns identified in the report. In this case, staff will email the template for the plan to the Professional Establishment.

3.5.8 There is a standard format for the letters that confirm the Committee’s decision to Professional Establishments. It contains a list of the programmes, the period of accreditation, a statement regarding achievement of UK-SPEC threshold output standards, an acceptance (if appropriate) of the Action Plan that addresses issues of concern and a list of commendable features and any concerns that were addressed by the Action Plan. The Society also issues a certificate to confirm accreditation.

3.5.9 Schemes are normally accredited or re-accredited for three years. However, accreditation may be for a shorter period where specific circumstances apply, e.g. for new Schemes.

3.5.10 Conflict of interest: an assessor will not normally participate in an accreditation visit if they have worked for the organisation within the past 5 years – either as an employee or a consultant.

3.6 JOINT ACCREDITATION VISITS

3.6.1 The Society often takes part in joint visits with one or more other professional institutions. The Professional Establishment decides which one should lead the visit and that institution agrees which panel member should chair the visit and a timetable for the visit, all fellow institutions use the same application forms.

3.7 A TYPICAL PD SCHEME/APPRENTICESHIP SCHEME VISIT PROGRAMME:

10:15-10:30 Panel arrives for private meeting - a separate room should be provided by the host organisation.

10:30-10:45 Introductions. Presentation on overall aims, philosophy and structure of the scheme by, if possible, the Chief Executive and senior staff (to include the Engineering Director with ultimate responsibility for the Scheme and, normally, the Human Resources Director).

10:45-11:30 Discussions based on the submission document and an update on issues raised at the previous visit. Review and discuss various aspects of the scheme. Staff attending should be those best able to deal with questions across the spectrum.

11:30-12:15 Private meeting with a representative group of mentors to discuss their roles and responsibilities. Names of participants should be supplied on the final agenda for the visit.

12:15-13:00 Private meeting with a representative group of developing engineers/apprentices from all stages, including a sample of those who have completed the programme, and representing a

cross-section of the intake. Each should bring a copy of their professional development record for consideration. Names of participants should be supplied on the final agenda for the visit.

13:00-13:30 Lunch with staff and developing engineers/apprentices.

13:30-14:30 Either one or two short presentations given by developing engineers/apprentices or, where appropriate, a company tour hosted by the developing engineers/apprentices. The panel will expect developing engineers/apprentices to lead this session and show evidence of their contribution to the business. 14:30-15:00 Private panel meeting.

15:00-15:30 Panel meets staff, including if possible the Chief Executive, for debriefing session. Feedback will be given on good points and issues to be addressed. The recommendation will not be formally communicated.

15:30 Panel departs.

3.8 COMPETENCE AND COMMITMENT

3.8.1 The Engineering Council has identified generic competence standards for registration under its UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC). These standards have widespread support and are based on occupational standards developed for the main industries in which engineers/apprentices are employed. The competences, and the sub-sets for each one, have to be demonstrated by candidates in order to achieve registration. For the competence standards for CEng, IEng and EngTech for registration go to: www.engc.org.uk/professional-qualifications/standards/uk- spec.

3.9 WHAT THE SOCIETY EXPECTS TO SEE IN A SCHEME SUBMITTED FOR ACCREDITATION

3.9.1 The Society does not prescribe what Schemes should contain. However, there are a number of basic principles that the Society expects to see in a Scheme submitted for accreditation. The following are areas to probe to ensure the Scheme meets the required standard: – the sub-points are not exhaustive and are indicators from experience. There may be other indicators evident. The forms are to be found in the Appendices.

3.9.1.1 Management support:

• Are senior management committed to the effective delivery of the Scheme? • Do departments bid for young engineers to work in their departments or sections? • Does the Establishment invest through placing the developing engineers/apprentices on a central budget and if so, for how long? • Does the employer use succession planning? • Has the employer completed a job analysis to find what skills, knowledge and attitudes are required for the job? • Do management support the attainment of further academic qualifications where necessary, e.g. MSc modules for DEs with a BEng?

3.9.1.2 Scheme management:

• Is there a Training & Development Manual that outlines the Scheme and the duties of all concerned? • How is the quality of the Scheme monitored, for example, is there a Training & Development Review Committee (or equivalent) to oversee the scheme? • What is the duration of the scheme? • Is it a 2 + 2 scheme (i.e. 2 years IPD + 2 years CPD)? If yes, the employer should note that UK-SPEC promotes a more integrated approach. • Does the employer provide attitude and teamwork training? • Are group projects given? • Is there a ‘Buddy’ scheme for new starters? • Are Development Action Plans used and does the employer encourage Continuing Professional Development (CPD)? • Does the employer have a suite of training courses and do the young engineers receive the appropriate training at the right time? • Do developing engineers/apprentices have short placements in, for example, finance and marketing?

• Do the developing engineers/apprentices participate in outreach activities such as linking with local schools etc.? • Do the developing engineers/apprentices give presentations at the end of placements etc.? • When required, is workshop training provided for the developing engineers?

3.9.1.3 Individual development support:

• Are the Mentors Chartered, Incorporated Engineers or Engineering Technicians? • Have the Mentors received training in their duties? • Do Mentors have ‘mentor gatherings’ or forums to exchange ideas and experiences? • Are any of the Mentors in line management of the developing engineers/apprentices?

3.9.1.4 UK SPEC breadth:

• Are competency statements comparable to those in UK-SPEC? If not, the employer is encouraged to align them. • Are communications skills taught, e.g. report writing and presentation skills? • Are training objectives / learning outcomes established for placements?

3.9.1.5 Record keeping:

• Do the developing engineers/apprentices maintain logbooks or use the Society’s on-line MyCareerPath recording system, and who authenticates the records? If not, the employer should introduce such an activity.

3.9.1.6 Trainee feedback.

3.9.1.7 Professional Institution encouragement.

• Do the developing engineers/apprentices belong to a relevant professional engineering institution and do they attend local meetings etc.? • Does the employer encourage employees to belong to institutions and to proceed to registration? • Does the employer pay Institution and/or registration fees for its employees?

3.10 THE PROCESS

3.10.1 Below is a summary flowchart to show how a PD/Apprenticeship Scheme accreditation is handled:

1 Provide advice & establish point of contact &

2 Yes Fix details with other PEI Joint visit?

4 Weeks before visit Application Form received

Documentation pack sent to review team

Send out queries & Yes Points of pass answers to panel clarification?

5 Set discussion topics, agree agenda & book accommodation

6 Visit – review all aspects

Yes Points of Discussion with staff clarification? 7 No

Prepare draft report

No Agree factual Discussion with staff accuracy?

Yes 9

Establishment informed with 11 Conditional Accreditation No Establishment Informed with 10 weakness report & Action Plan decision? details of appeals process requested

Yes

12 Issue certificate

Notes:

1. Once the initial contact has been made, RAeS staff directs the Professional Establishment to the relevant Professional Development (PD) accreditation information and application form on the Society’s website. NB: If the Establishment has not had an accreditation visit before, an advisory visit by an experienced Committee member is offered to give further advice on the accreditation process. 2. Staff fix a date for the accreditation visit and ask Accreditation Committee members to volunteer for the visiting panel. Joint visits may be made in conjunction with other Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs). Staff select members, normally industrialists, for the visit. 3. No later than four weeks before the visit, the Establishment sends the completed application form for distribution to Panel members. 4. Staff also send Panel members a documentation pack containing the previous Visit Report, Decision Letter, together with an Accreditor’s Report Form (for their personal use) and if appropriate the Action Plan and associated questions. 5. The Panel reviews the documentation pack and, if appropriate, request further clarification on points raised by the Establishment. These are passed back to the Establishment. 6. The Panel reviews the submission and compiles a list of topics for discussion during the visit. Staff inform the Establishment of any comments made by the Panel, forward the Handout for Young Engineers and start making arrangements for the visit, including agreeing the visit timetable and booking the hotel. 7. The visit takes place in accordance with these Guidance Notes. Staff make arrangements to ensure sufficient evidence is collected during the visit so that a fair and objective report can be written. 8. If, during the review, the Panel require further clarification, regarding any observations noted, the Establishment may be asked for further information. 9. Following the visit, a Visit Report with a draft Decision Letter is written by staff. If there were no staff present, Panel members write the report and staff draft the letter. If it was a joint visit, a summary of the RAeS findings may be produced to attach to the joint report written by the lead PEI. The Establishment is asked to check the report for factual accuracy. If any factual statements are disputed, visiting Panel members are asked to decide how to proceed. A copy of the Society Report is sent to other participating PEIs. 10. The Visit report and draft decision letter are distributed to the members of the Accreditation Committee for comment. The panel should respond to any queries. If there are no outstanding points, the Establishment is informed. If there are contentious points, these should be discussed and resolved at the next Accreditation Committee meeting. 11. If the Committee decides not to accredit the programme(s) and the Establishment does not accept the decision, staff instigate the Appeals Procedure. 12. If the Committee agrees to accredit the programme(s) subject to receipt of a satisfactory Action Plan, staff send the Decision Letter and an Action Plan template to the Establishment. Once completed, staff ask Panel members for comments. If accepted, staff ask the Committee Chair to take Chairman’s action. If the Chair agrees, staff write to the Establishment and include the Accreditation Certificate and update EC website of accredited courses. 13. If the Committee agrees to accredit the programme(s), staff send the Decision Letter and an Accreditation Certificate to the Establishment

END OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACCREDITATION SECTION

SECTION 4 TRAINING OF ACCREDITORS

4.1.1 The Society recognises that many members have received formal training in assessment for their job. For such members, this Section will be a useful reminder of what is needed. Where members are new to assessment, they should read it carefully and ask other accreditors or staff for clarification where required.

4.1.2 Accreditation by the Society is guided by EngCs Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP): www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/Website/Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes third edition.pdf and that the accreditation process is essentially one of peer review; it is applied to individual programmes not to the department or institution overall.

4.1.3 All new accreditors undertake the following stages:

• Read the training material. This includes this Handbook, AHEP, UK-SPEC and the other documentation involved in the accreditation process. • Attend Training Sessions. These focus on best practice and feedback from accreditors on experience gained from both CEng and IEng accreditation visits. • Participate as an Observer. This is essential and provides on-the-job-training. Observing a visiting panel over the course of an accreditation visit is usual. Additional observations can be arranged if required. The observer may be asked to undertake some tasks by the Panel Chairman so as to get more involved. • Trainee Accreditor. Work with a visiting panel of experienced accreditors. • Final Approval. After attending / witnessing at least two visiting panels (one as Observer and one as a trainee Accreditor) and having demonstrated an understanding of the processes and learning outcomes, the member will be rostered with other experienced accreditors. • Be a Panel Chair. A Panel Chair is one who has actively participated in the accreditation process and is experienced and has not been subject to a negative audit report.

4.1.4 A trained accreditor should be capable of:

• Identifying appropriate general and specific learning outcomes from all the forms and documents within the process against AHEP. • Identifying appropriate discussion topics and points for clarification, from documents supplied by the establishment seeking accreditation. • Responding to an establishment’s answer with additional questions in order to probe or clarify, recognising when to ‘close’ a particular topic, based on either a satisfactory or unsatisfactory response, as well as one reflecting a lack of output standards. • Distilling, from evidence provided, whether or not the applicant satisfies the requirements in AHEP. • Identifying and seeking additional evidence to support an establishment’s submission. • Supporting the completion of the Visit Report, adding relevant, specific and constructive comments (particularly where accreditation is not to be recommended). • Understanding the need to disclose where advice has been offered to an establishment and to which of the standards this should apply. • Understanding the importance of making a correct recommendation and being prepared to justify this at audit, or additional scrutiny, such as an Appeal.

4.1.5 When volunteering to carry out an accreditation visit, accreditors should ensure:

• They are paid up registered members of the Society (usually at least in the category equivalent or higher to that being sought by the establishment. • They have completed appropriate training as outlined above. • They are not formally associated to or work with the establishment. It may be acceptable for the assessor to know the staff in the establishment but they must declare the capacity in which they know the staff and declare any conflict of interest. 10 • There is, where possible, a reasonable ‘match’ between the fields of expertise of the accreditor and the programmes / schemes to be accredited.

4.1.6 All accreditors should attend the regular seminars for new and existing members which are run by the Society and Engineering Council to ensure they are kept up to date on developments.

SECTION 5 APPEALS PROCEDURES

5.1.1 Introduction. All appeals against registration decisions shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure below. The Accreditation Committee will endeavour to ensure that issues resulting from any decision relating to an application for accreditation are resolved satisfactorily with the establishment without the need to resort to the following review procedure, the aims of which are to ensure that:

• The establishment has been able to present all the relevant information to the Accreditation Committee. • The correct procedures have been followed. • The original decision has been carefully reviewed. • The Appeal Review Panel reaches a fair decision based upon all evidence available. Grounds for appeal:

• Evidence of administrative, procedural or other irregularity in the conduct of the accreditation visit. • Evidence of administrative, procedural or other irregularity in the conduct of Committee meeting responsible for reaching an accreditation decision. • Evidence of new information available which could influence the accreditation decision.

5.1.2 Procedure for lodging an appeal:

• Written notice of intent to lodge an appeal should be sent to the Membership and Accreditation Manager within 30 working days of receipt of the accreditation letter from the Society. • A detailed written submission stating the grounds for seeking a review, together with a fee of £200, should be submitted to the Membership and Accreditation Manager within 60 working days of receipt of the accreditation letter from the Society. This fee will be returned if the appeal is successful, and may otherwise be returned at the discretion of the Appeal Review Panel. • Appeals submitted outside the timescales specified above will normally be ruled invalid.

5.1.3 Preparation for the Appeal Review Panel Meeting:

• Receipt of the appeal submission will be acknowledged. • The Accreditation Committee Chairman and one other member of the committee, not directly involved in the accreditation in question will consider the appeal. If the grounds for the appeal appear to fall within the criteria outlined above, the Membership and Accreditation Manager will convene a meeting of the Appeal Review Panel. • An appeal can be withdrawn at any stage.

5.1.4 The suggested composition of the Appeal Review Panel is as follows:

• Two or three Corporate RAeS members, knowledgeable about the accreditation process, with one member nominated to act as Chair. • The Membership and Accreditation Manager will act as Secretary to the Appeal Review Panel, but is not eligible to vote and does not count towards the quorum. • Members of the Appeal Review Panel must not have been involved in the original accreditation visit nor have any involvement with the appellant establishment. • The appellant will be notified in writing of the composition of the Appeal Review Panel. Any objection to the composition of the Panel should be supported in writing. • The Quorum shall be three Appeal Review Panel Members, excluding the Secretariat Officer.

5.1.5 Additional representation at the Appeal Review Panel Meeting:

• Two representatives from the appellant academic or professional establishment will be invited to attend the meeting. • The Accreditation Committee will normally be represented by the Committee Chair (or nominee) and the Chair of the visit team.

5.1.6 Written evidence:

• Papers for the meeting of the Appeal Review Panel will be made available only to Panel members, the Professional Standards Manager, the Chair of the Accreditation Committee, the Chair of the accreditation visit team, and to the representatives of the appellant academic or professional establishment. • The Papers will include:

o the Accreditation Handbook. o the letter of appeal from the appellant establishment together with any supporting documentation. o the original request for accreditation. o the visit report and decision letter. o additional information supplied by the Chair of the Accreditation Committee concerning the original decision of the Accreditation Committee. • Further evidence tabled at the meeting will not normally be considered.

5.1.7 Suggested procedure for the Appeal Review Panel Meeting:

• Private discussion by the Appeal Review Panel and consideration of the written evidence. • Oral evidence from the appellant establishment. • Oral evidence from the Chair of the Accreditation Committee. • Joint question and answer session. • Private discussion by the Appeal Review Panel on the evidence provided. • All decisions of the Appeal Review Panel shall be by majority vote of the members. • Recommendation is therefore that the Panel is made up of an odd number of members.

5.1.8 Possible outcomes of the Appeal:

• The original accreditation visit decision is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. • The appellant establishment’s appeal is allowed and the Accreditation Committee is asked to reconsider its decision with the following possible outcomes: o The Accreditation Committee changes its original decision in line with the recommendations of the Appeal Panel. o The Accreditation Committee reaffirms its original decision and this is upheld by the Professional Standards Board. o The Professional Standards Board takes action to annul the decision of the Accreditation Committee and changes the decision in line with the recommendations of the Appeal Review Panel.

5.1.9 Once the decision has been made the Membership and Accreditation Manager will notify the appellant establishment. If the decision is to allow the appeal an amended accreditation decision letter will be reissued. There is no further right of appeal against the decision of the Appeal Review Panel.

5.1.10 It is a requirement that all those involved in the appeals process, including the Accreditation Committee and, where necessary, the Professional Standards Board, treat all the information as confidential.