Crossing Borders–6 Years of International Aerospace Student Design Projects

Abstract

The globalisation of the engineering workplace has elevated the importance of preparing engineering students for an international working environment. This paper reports on the development and results of an international aerospace design exercise, organised for students from Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. Six years of experience has demonstrated that if properly managed, taking into account learning styles and cultural dimensions, international design exercises such as these are extremely worthwhile and provide students with a number of additional competencies not readily encountered in most engineering degree courses, such as the abilities to work with teams of different cultures/learning styles, and to deal with the challenges of long distance communication.

Full text

CROSSING BORDERS – 6 YEARS OF INTERNATIONAL
AEROSPACE STUDENT DESIGN PROJECTS
G.N. Saunders-Smits1, P.C. Roling1, J.A. Melkert1,
R. Curran2, R.K. Cooper2, J. M. Early2
1 Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology,
Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft, the Netherlands,
(G.N.Saunders@tudelft.nl, P.C.Roling@tudelft.nl, J.A.Melkert@tudelft.nl)
2 School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast,
Stranmillis road, Belfast BT9 5AH, Northern Ireland
(R.Curran@qub.ac.uk, R.Cooper@qub.ac.uk, J.Early@qub.ac.uk)
Abstract
The globalisation of the engineering workplace has elevated the importance of preparing
engineering students for an international working environment. This paper reports on the
development and results of an international aerospace design exercise, organised for students from
Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, and Delft University of Technology in the
Netherlands. Six years of experience has demonstrated that if properly managed, taking into
account learning styles and cultural dimensions, international design exercises such as these are
extremely worthwhile and provide students with a number of additional competencies not readily
encountered in most engineering degree courses, such as the abilities to work with teams of
different cultures/learning styles, and to deal with the challenges of long distance communication.
Keywords: active learning, international design projects, cultural dimensions, group work
1. INTRODUCTION
The current aerospace market has seen a shift in the way aircraft design is approached.
Design, development and manufacture have become largely international activities – for
instance, Japan was a risk-sharing partner in the design and development of the Boeing
777, and the current development of the new Airbus A380 has involved partners from all
over Europe. On a grander scale, the design and development of the International Space
Station was elevated to a global level. The scale and risk associated with these projects has
driven the need for distribution, and is shaping the aerospace companies of the future.
The multidisciplinary nature of these design activities poses a core challenge in the field of
aerospace engineering in understanding the complex relationships which exist between the
individual disciplines (such as aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, etc). The design of
air- and spacecraft is a highly demanding due to the often conflicting requirements which
exist, arising from factors such as safety, performance and environmental risk assessment,
driven by regulations and customer demand which often have differing priorities. The
designer is required to integrate the diverse disciplines, and develop a solution which will
satisfy a multitude of constraints. With this in mind, design should be considered as a
central discipline in any Aerospace Engineering educational programme.

Universities are tasked to prepare their students for a career in the society of the future.
Students that start their education now will enter the labour market in the beginning of the
2010s and will stay active until at least the 2050s. Based on the observations given above,
it is expected that more and more design projects will have an international nature. In
response to this need, two aeronautical schools with a long standing working relationship -
Delft University of Technology (TUD) and Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) - conceived
the idea to perform an international design exercise based on the existing Design-Synthesis
Exercise (DSE) as run in Delft since 1999 [1]. Instead of developing a student exchange
programme between the two universities, 3rd and 4th year students from both universities
are selected to conduct a joint design synthesis exercise, with the support of staff on both
sides.
This paper reports on the experience gained in the project over the years, the lessons
learned and improvements made. It is hoped that this work will encourage more
universities to develop co-operations, and highlight the advantages (and the pitfalls) of
such an undertaking.
2. HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL DESIGN EXERCISE
Based on an existing long-term relationship between TUD and QUB, a joint design
synthesis exercise was developed in which six students who had advanced to the third year
of their degree were selected from each university to participate. In order to facilitate the
exercise, educational conflicts between the curricula of both institutes were resolved in
order to produce what appeared to be a workable solution, and supporting infrastructure
was put in place, including student access to videoconferencing, international phone
privileges and their own electronic learning environment (Blackboard). To supplement
this, the use of such technologies as internet chat, file exchange and Skype™ have been
encouraged. The first international design synthesis exercise (IDSE) ran during the first
half of 2002 [2].
2.1 Set-up of the exercise
A number of learning objectives were initially developed by the staff from the two
universities, aimed at enhancing the student skills in a number of key areas:
• Design Skills
• Application of Knowledge
• Communication Skills (discussion, presentation, reporting)
• Team Working Skills
• Sustainable Development
Although the use of technologically-based solutions to facilitate communication is
adequate, it has been found useful to ensure there are opportunities for ‘face-to-face’
contact between the students to promote team-building among the group. There are three
such opportunities embedded in the exercise – an initial ‘ice-breaking’ session at the start
of the exercise, a review at the final concept selection phase and at the design exercise
symposium in Delft at the end of the exercise.
In order to compliment the exercise, there are courses on Systems Engineering, Project
Management and Oral Presentations integrated into the module design, and the formal
assessments required for each are incorporated into the exercise - for example, all the
reviews are also graded for oral presentation skill level, and the project plan is graded for

the integrated application of system engineering and project management tools in their
design process.
2.2 The Designs
Over the past six years, there has been a number of challenging design problems
undertaken within the International Design Synthesis Exercise. While a full description of
each of the exercises has been published in the Delft Aerospace Design Projects booklet
series [3], a brief outline of these is given below to demonstrate the successes associated
with this exercise.
2.2.1 LARES (2002) – An ultra-long range reconnaissance aircraft
The 2002 assignment was to design an ultra-long range reconnaissance aircraft with the
ability to fly around the world with one refuelling, capable of performing long range or
long duration earth observation missions. The final design developed by the students was a
twin boomed aircraft constructed from composite materials incorporating a turbo-fan
engine.
2.2.2 SUPERGROVER (2003) – 50-seat lifting-wing fuselage aircraft
In 2003 the students were tasked with the development of a 50-passenger lifting-wing
aircraft, capable of performing both passenger and cargo transport missions. In this is type
of aircraft the cabin is wider and thus offers more flexibility for interior lay-out. The final
design is capable of carrying 50 passengers/luggage or 6000 kg of cargo. The fuselage was
designed in order to only generate lift during take-off and landing so as to shorten the
required runway length. Students also made a model of the aircraft with a view to wind
tunnel testing.
2.2.3 HORIZON (2004) – a solar powered aircraft for flight around the world
This assignment was inspired by a request from Bertrand Picard, the famous balloonist. He
is intending to fly around the world non-stop in a solar powered aircraft as part of a record
attempt. The students showed in their design the current technical limits of renewable
energy and challenges faced during the record attempt. The report was presented to
Bertrand Picard’s project team.
2.2.4 HERA (2005) – Humanitarian Emergency Relief Aircraft
In this exercise, students were asked to design a civilian cargo aircraft for humanitarian aid
missions who were clearly distinguishable from the military aircraft, with an increased
attention to ‘fit-for-purpose’. The design resulted in a 4-engined turboprop aircraft capable
of landing and take-off from any terrain under almost any conditions which was cheap to
operate and to purchase.
2.2.5 Hyperworks Hyperion (2006) - Interception Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.
For 2006, the object was to develop an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) meant primarily
for interception of civil aircraft, with an emphasis on reduction of cost compared to current
solutions. To look at the usefulness of the design, operational concepts for EU coverage
were taken into account. The final design includes, among many other things, multiple
cameras with allow the user to look almost everywhere around the aircraft. Though the
estimated production costs, at 1.3 million euros was slightly higher than expected, the
altitude, speed, range and endurance were all better than required, allowing for better
operational capabilities and coverage.

2.2.6 Neutral carbon emissions trainer aircraft
The current design project for the TU Delft and QUB combined assignment is to design a
four-seat aircraft which will provide general aviation users with an acceptable and
affordable environmentally friendly alternative. This alternative aircraft must be suited for
flight training, PPL and instrument rating, normal private use and have neutral carbon
emissions and a restricted noise level. The design should be primarily driven by
environmental considerations. Whilst work is currently still ongoing, the design chosen
from multiple concepts, uses electric propulsion with lithium power cells and is expected
to meet all the requirements.
3. DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING STYLES AND CULTURES IN GROUP WORK
3.1 Student Learning Profiles
The make-up of the team (effectively two sub-teams of QUB and TUD) presents a number
of challenges in accounting for student learning profiles, and the potential differences in
the manner in which the students have been trained to ‘learn’. In order to assess the variety
of learning styles, and to assist in the delivery of material to best suit the needs of the
diverse group of students, a learning style profile was developed for each of the students.
This was supplemented with a ‘behavioural’ profile, and together they can be used to give
an overview of the group dynamics, assisting in highlighting any potential difficulties
which may arise due to conflicting needs within the group.
To this end, a VARK questionnaire, developed at Lincoln University [4] was given to all
students and staff. The VARK test is focussed on eliciting information pertaining to the
preference for ‘taking in’ and ‘putting out’ information in a learning context. While some
parts of the learning process are difficult to influence, preferred learning modes allow
flexibility for students to modify their behaviours associated with their learning, if not their
preference. The questionnaire was designed not to necessarily improve learning styles, but
to inform and highlight the issues surrounding learning preferences to students and
educators. It is based on Stirling’s [5] three modal categories of visual, aural and
kinaesthetic, but was further developed in light of research which indicated that the
categories were insufficient to describe all student preferences. The categorisations were
Average Stud ent Profiles
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3 4
Learning Style M odes
Average Student Response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
QUB
TUD
V
A
R
K
Figure 1: Average Student Profile for VARK questionnaire

updated to include visual (V), aural (A), read/write (R) and kinaesthetic (K), although an
additional category of multimodal (MM) also exists. The questionnaire consists of 13
multiple choice questions which allow for an expression of three or four modal
preferences, offered as alternative actions in response to each of the questions. Each
question places the ‘reader’ in a situation and asks for a perception of their preferred
action.
The responses to the questionnaire by the students undertaking the project in the 2006-
2007 sessions indicated that there are distinctive differences in the learning profiles
displayed by the students from the two universities (Figure 1). While the students from
QUB displayed a preference for a kinaesthetic learning style (requiring ‘multi-sensory’
experiences, in which learning is facilitated through application), there was no such
obvious preference displayed by the students from TU Delft, where a tendency towards a
‘multi-modal’ preference (i.e. requiring an even range of styles of learning) was indicated.
This was also reflected in the responses obtained from the academics and researchers who
are associated with the project.
3.2 Cultural Dimensions to Team Working
Next to differences in learning styles, working in intercultural groups adds a new
dimension to cooperation in student teams. To make students aware of this, they were
introduced to Hofstede’s theory [6], [7] on culture as mental software. He defines 4
cultural dimensions which can be used to explain the difference in working methods of
people in general. These four dimensions are listed in Table 1 together with their results for
the Netherlands and Ireland.
Cultural Dimension
Ireland
The
Netherlands
World
Average
Power Distance (PD)
28
38
55
Individualism vs.
Collectivism (IC)
70
80
43
Uncertainty
Avoidance (UA)
35
53
64
Masculinity vs.
Femininity (MF)
68
14
50
Table 1: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
The low PD in both countries accounts for the ability to work in group design projects
where more informal exchanges with staff members occur. Also, there are no class
differences within the group of students to overcome, which makes working together
easier. The high IC score is both a blessing and a curse. While it means the students will
bond more easily as a team, it also indicates that individual pride and respect are highly
held values – ‘degrading’ a person is not well received, accepted, or appreciated, and care
has to be taken in putting across views or opinions.
However, there are also differences in the two outlooks. The countries score differently on
UA - Ireland has a relatively low-ranking score, while the Netherlands is more mid-range.
This would be indicative of a potential for the Delft students to tend towards ‘rulebook’
thinking, and possibly encounter problems with out-of-the-box design problems. The most
distinct difference between the Ireland and the Netherlands is the score on MF. The

Netherlands scores very low on this, indicating a low level of differentiation and
discrimination between genders. This leads to a straight forwardness from the Dutch
students, which can potentially be misunderstood.
4. DIFFERENCES IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND DESIGN APPROACH
Systems Engineering (SE) is about effective communication between disciplines at the
right times to facilitate some engineering process [7]. This aspect of teamwork at a reduced
scale is a key feature of the IDSE Systems Engineering component. The complexity of the
teamwork element is increased for the students due to the international nature of the
exercise, but that thereby increases the learning outcome by better simulating some of the
challenges experienced in industry. It has been evident since the beginning of the IDSE
that the SE component has provided a facilitating role in getting the two teams to interact
on a more open while yet technical level. Obviously, the core aim of the SE process is to
deliver a fully integrated product relative to its value over the life cycle; however
communication and the passing of data, information and knowledge is the activity which
realises this.
4.1 Differences in SE Teaching at TUD and QUB and its Consequences on Students
The main cultural differences that were evident through the SE component tended to be the
higher confidence levels in the TUD members, and the subtle differences in the approach
to the relation of SE to design. The TUD team tends to be the more forward in wanting to
drive the project forward as quickly as possible to the technical phases while the QUB
team tends to take the more pragmatic role, while also embracing a top-down approach in
putting the SE components in place as a framework for more effective design. The latter is
particularly evident in the earliest stages, beginning when the two teams have the kick-off
week collocated at TUD. Subsequently, the teams can be seen to build their technical,
organisational and personal relations and this leads to a mutual and comparative learning
process that is readily evident as one of the key outcomes from the IDSE.
In addition to any cultural differences that influence the teams, it is significant that QUB
teaches design from the outset of the undergraduate course, design forming the spine of the
course, with SE as an integrated facilitating component, gradually moving from concept to
preliminary to detailed design as the course unfolds. On the other hand TUD tends to teach
design as the ultimate culmination of the course material, like in the US approach, with SE
as a formalised process with associated tools, taught as a discipline in its own right.
Although there is a basic need to have analytical skills in order to verify the design intent,
there is now a heightened recognition of the need for the teaching of design theory and
practise in conjunction with SE in a facilitating role. The SE component, including process,
methods and tools, helps to manage the technical process in progressing to a well balanced
design, which has been developed with the help of analytical decision making tools rather
than being driven by any one discipline that is allowed to have too much influence [8]. The
practical recognition of this has led to the establishment of a more collaborative and
innovative approach to the effective integration of SE into the design synthesis process by
staff who now deliver the same SE material together as part of the IDSE to provide this
collaborative framework. This is then supported by the appropriate analysis methods and
tools when and where they are required in the design process. Additionally, individuals get
to know counterparts well in a facilitating technical environment while the two teams are

exposed to either’s cultures in an international multi-team environment in a way that leads
to enhanced learning and a more realistic simulation of industrial practise and challenges.
In the teaching associated specifically with the IDSE, TUD had a more formalised
approach to SE implementation, while QUB tended to have a more flexible approach.
Again, it has been evident that a more balanced joint approach has evolved where delivery
of theory is matched by applied workshop and collaborative support, the latter facilitated
by weekly video-conferencing. These types of teaching practises have cross-fertilised and
translated to other relevant modules in the courses. In particular, it has been evident that
the Requirements and Functional Analysis, Project Management, and Design Trade-Off
phases are particularly good at ensuring both organisational and technical integration. In
the assessment procedure, the SE components are decomposed into a number of required
stages with associated implementation requirements that are governed by a check list. The
assessment of the relevant reporting by the students is rated according to the inclusion,
content and quality of the SE elements and their presentation, consistency, quality and
ultimate integration.
4.2 Value of SE in the International Design Synthesis Exercise
Through the years of the exercise, all of the staff involved have developed a better
understanding of the role of SE in design education and recognise that the collaborative
engagement in the IDSE has validated the value of a SE approach, while exposing the
students and staff to some of the more practical implementation challenges faced in
industry. Consequently, the students end up having a much deeper understanding of the
true nature of SE, the teaching of which is only effectively delivered through experiential
methods. SE forms a methodology for the rationalisation of the design process. Therefore,
the SE component facilitates both the individual understanding of the design process and
the team implementation. However, it is important to note that SE is being delivered as a
facilitating approach that ultimately allows the collaborative team to direct more of their
effort towards design innovation, given that the basic requirements have already been
satisfied in an effective and formalised manner through SE. Ultimately, design synthesis is
being achieved more effectively through SE education, providing the students with a
model that they can take into their industrial careers, where the challenges are greatly
magnified due to the complexity and magnitude of prevailing global aerospace design
practise.
5. LESSONS LEARNED
After two years a formal evaluation of the exercise was made [9]. The most important
observation was that while the results did not differ from the other national design
exercises, the students did spend considerably more time on communication, hence why it
took the team more effort than the equivalent one-nation teams to reach the same level.
Even though the English language is being used throughout the Delft curriculum, some
language problems did arise, largely in part to colloquialisms and context which can cause
problems in understanding.
Apart from the communication issues, it was found that the exercise ran like a normal
design exercise, with the students encountering the problems that would be expected in any

design exercise - finding the necessary data, getting hold of the appropriate software, team
organisation, timely delivery of reports, and coping with last minute changes in the design.
A second evaluation after three years reaffirmed the initial findings, and found that
although the general cooperation and end result were great, it had not yet reached its full
potential. The following problems were identified:
• Difference in number of ECTS and hours required
• Learning objectives on systems engineering, oral presenting and reporting were
not quite aligned
• Lack of a common team spirit between students on both sides
• Communication problems due to cultural and learning style differences
• Difference in semester systems used in Delft and Belfast causing scheduling
issues
These issues were resolved by aligning the learning objectives, scheduling and the number
of ECTS. Each side now had exactly the same deliverables and were required to spend the
same number of hours on the exercise.
The lack of team spirit was resolved by having the students stay together in one building
during the first start-up week allowing for bonding, including an instructor-led
teambuilding session at the start of the exercise. In this team building session [10]
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are tackled in a workshop highlighting the issues which
could occur. Also students use VARK questionnaires and Belbin [11] tests to find out
about their learning styles and natural team roles which they then further explore in team
challenges. The teambuilding also addresses the challenges of long-distance
communications. In addition to this, the students were encouraged to socialise and cultural
visits/events were added to the exchange experience to foster mutual understanding of each
other’s culture.
6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
International design exercises are an excellent opportunity for students to gain valuable
insight into working in an international environment.
Despite the extra communication hurdles the students have had to overcome, the results
from the exercise have been of a consistently high standard. There is no distinction
between the nature of the local and international projects, with the IDSE tackling problems
which are both highly challenging and topical within the aerospace industry. The added
bonus of an international design project is that it teaches students additional competencies
such as working with different cultures, different learning styles and the ability to
communicate effectively over long distances.
Important points to take into account however are:
• Initial teambuilding and creating an understanding of cultural and learning style
dimensions are essential to overcome the ever recurring communication problems.
• The schedule and number of hours to be spent must be aligned to avoid delays and
misalignment in the progress of the team.
• Using SE as an integrated tool in an international design project highlights its use
and importance as a tool in design cooperation for students in their future career.
• The learning objectives and student deliverables of the exercise must be aligned
and defined according to the SMART principle (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Realistic and Time-Constraint), so that no communication problems can exist
between students and staff no matter from which side.
Finally the authors would like to point out that an IDSE is not just a fantastic learning
experience for students, it is also an incredible learning experience for staff and a good
way of exchanging educational views and methods between staff on an international level.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Educational Renewal fund of TUD for their support in
starting the International Design Exercise, as well as all the students and staff at Delft
University of Technology and Queen’s University Belfast who have taken part in this
exercise over the past six years.
References
[1] Brügemann, V., Brummelen, H. van, Melkert, J., Kamp, A., Reith, B., Saunders-
Smits, G.N., Zandbergen, B.: “An example of active learning in Aerospace
Engineering. Research and Practice of Active Learning in Engineering Education”,
Editors: E. de Graaff, G.N. Saunders and M.R. Nieweg, Amsterdam University
Press, 2005, p. 156-164.
[2] Melkert, J.A., Gibson, A., Hulshoff, S.J., “An International Design-Synthesis
Exercise in Aerospace Engineering”, Global Journal of Engineering Education,
Volume 7, Number 1, 2003, pp. 121-130
[3] J.A. Melkert (editor), “Delft Aerospace Design Projects 2006 and earlier editions”,
Het Goede Boek, Huizen, 2006.
[4] Stirling, P. (1987) “Power Lines”, NZ Listener, pp13-15, June 1987
[5] Fleming, N. & Baume, D. (2006) “Learning Styles Again: VARKing up the right
tree!” Educational Developments, SEDA Ltd., Issue 7, no. 4., Nov. 2006, pp4-7
[6] Hofstede, G. “Culture's Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations”, Newbury Park, Sage Publications; 2nd Ed.
[7] Curran, R, Castagne, S, Early, J, Price, M, Raghunathan, S, Butterfield J & Gibson,
A., “Aircraft Cost Modelling using the Genetic Causal Technique within a Systems
Engineering Approach”, The Aeronautical Journal, Royal Aeronautical Society, in
press 2007.
[8] Price, M, Raghunathan, S and R. Curran, “An Integrated Systems Engineering
Approach to Aircraft Design”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, in press 2007.
[9] Melkert, J.A., M.A.F.M. Jacobs, “The “Global Design” project: distance co-
operation & learning, Description of an Evaluation” , 6th UICEE Annual
Conference on Engineering Education, Cairns, Queensland, Australia, Feb 2003.
[10] Saunders-Smits, G.N., Bogaard, M.E.D. van den and de Graaff, E., “Teambuilding
in International Design Projects”, Proceedings of 7th International Active Learning
in Engineering Education, Toulouse June 2007 (in press).
[11] Belbin, R.M. (1981) “Management Teams - Why They Succeed or Fail”
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1981

Curriculum Vitae (CV)
Gillian N. Saunders-Smits
Gillian N. Saunders-Smits obtained a MSc. in Aerospace Structures and Computational
Mechanics from the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at TUD in 1998. After a short
period in industry, she returned to the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering in 1999 as an
assistant professor. Since 2000 she is the faculty’s project education coordinator. She also
teaches Mechanics and is currently doing a PhD in engineering education.
Paul C. Roling
Paul C. Roling obtained an MSc in Flight Mechanics and Propulsion from the Faculty of
Aerospace Engineering at TUD in 2004. After his graduation, he remained on and is
currently an associate researcher in the field of strategic airport planning. He also teaches
courses in strategic airport planning and flight mechanics and propulsion and is involved in
coordinating and teaching multiple educational design projects.
Joris A. Melkert
Joris Melkert is assistant professor at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering of TU Delft.
He lectures in aircraft design, aircraft systems and sustainable development. Next to that he
is responsible for the DSE. In the period 2001-2004 he held the position of Head of the
Bureau of Strategic Development of the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. In this position
he was, amongst others, responsible for the international activities of the Faculty.
Richard Curran
Richard is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and
the Assistant Director of the Centre of Excellence for Integrated Aircraft Technology
(CEIAT). He has been involved in the IDSE from its conception and is responsible for
Programme Management and on a technical level the Systems Engineering, Manufacture
and Costing components.
Richard K. Cooper
Richard K. Cooper is an Aeronautical Engineering graduate from University of Sydney
and was awarded his PhD in 1972. He worked for British Rail Research, Derby, from
1975-80; Short Brothers Belfast 1980-81 and Queen’s University Belfast from 1981 to
present. His recent research topics are: Investigation of novel Thrust Reverser technology
for Bombardier Aerospace, Belfast; LES methods for cavity flows; development of
improved methods for overturning of trains in cross winds; generator set noise reduction
for F G Wilson Ltd., Larne; propeller design for transonic aircraft.
Juliana M. Early
Juliana M. Early is a Research Fellow at Queen’s University Belfast, pursuing interests in
the fields of integrated aircraft design technologies and lifecycle modelling. Prior to
joining Queens in 2003, she conducted an experimental research programme in the field of
helicopter interactional aerodynamics, for which she was awarded her Ph.D. from the
University of Glasgow. She is currently involved with the teaching of Aircraft Systems
Engineering, and is completing a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Teaching.