Professional Assessment & Evaluation

How this package satisfies ME-102

ME-102 is graded S/U on a prior-learning portfolio. The evaluator is not looking for a résumé dump. Each optional waiver needs a cover letter, justification, self-assessment, supervisor documentation, and evidence that matches the catalog outcome. The Garmin CAD files from South Carolina Avionics Services are that evidence for ME 101. They do not, by themselves, satisfy ME 201, ENGR 200, or the required forms.

Syllabus rule this package is built around

Entry 3 (ME 101) requires regular CAD as a content generator. Occasional CAD use does not qualify. Two independent CAD streams are in this package: (1) eight Garmin 2D install packages from South Carolina Avionics Services, and (2) Autodesk Fusion 3D work — a coil enclosure solid and a Mt. Katahdin terrain mesh — plus manufacturing DXFs (N40SY flight-certified aircraft panel; PC-12 simulator overhead/pedestal/skirt) and the EM therapy “smartwatch” device (PCB, Faraday-coil gerbers, enclosure, firmware). Both streams were produced as work product, not homework sketches.

What each Garmin file proves

Honest limits — do not overclaim

How to read this PDF

1. Entry 1 / Appendix A — the three required forms (not the Dragg Wrap slides).
2. Entry 2 / Appendix D — ME 397 co-op report (CFII/BGI + PC-12 primary; SEAS photo flying supporting) + supervisor-eval request.
3. Entry 3 / Appendix C — ME 101 cover letter, 1-page justification, supervisor placeholder, CAD evidence, self-assessment.
4. Entries 4–6 — ME 201 team design (including Dragg Wrap), ENGR 200 regular coding, Appendix E ethics.
5. Appendix A-06 — all 19 Garmin CAD sheets at readable size.
6. Appendix credentials — résumé, medical, logbook, certificates.

Zahui F26 syllabus checklist

ME-102 is S/U. One credit. One PDF on Blackboard by the end of finals week (18 December 2026). Entry 1 is required. Entries 2–6 are optional waiver packages; each optional waiver must include every syllabus item in its row or the evaluator can treat that waiver as incomplete.

Do not upload this PDF as “done” until Entry 1 is signed and at least one supervisor letter is attached for each waiver you actually want Zahui to grant. Unsigned supervisor slots are labeled so the evaluator is not asked to invent them.

Preparation and Submission of Forms

Required · Target weeks 1–2 · Appendix A

Syllabus items: Release of Information, Correspondence Release Form, Statement of Academic Integrity.

Student identification

These three statements are the student’s Appendix A packet for ME-102. They are not a UND seal or registrar form. If Blackboard provides official Release / Correspondence / Integrity PDFs, print, sign, and replace these pages with those scans. The 16-slide Dragg Wrap deck that used to sit here is not an Appendix A form; it is Entry 4 / A-12 conception evidence.

Identity verification (not a syllabus form)

Co-op Experience — ME 397 Waiver

Optional · Target weeks 3–4 · Appendix D technical report + supervisor evaluation

Technical Experience Report (Appendix D format)

Syllabus week 3 asks for a co-op / professional-practice report. The supervised technical work that maps to ME 397 is CFII + BGI instruction and PC-12 PIC. Current SEAS photography flying is listed last as supporting employment only.

1. Organization & mission

The instruction and Part 135 sites were FAA-regulated flight operations: train and evaluate pilots to ACS/FAR standards, and fly paying passengers in a pressurized single-engine turboprop. South East Aerial Systems is a Midlands drone-photography operation. My job there is to fly the aircraft and take the pictures—not to design airframes, run an SMS program, or plan medical/agricultural/emergency logistics.

2. Duties (photography + pilot skills on drones)

• Aerial stills and video for clients.
• Apply manned-pilot airspace habits to small UAS: chart/class reading, NOTAM/TFR checks, and staying out of airspace I am not authorized to use.
• Weather go/no-go (visibility, wind, ceiling) before launching a camera flight.
• See-and-avoid and traffic scan—the same lookout discipline as in a PC-12 or training airplane.
• Radio / CTAF when the photo site is near an airport or other traffic.
• Refuse a shot that would require busting airspace, flying IMC/night without authorization, or losing visual line of sight.

3. Prior co-op–equivalent experience (aviation pathway)

Before SEAS, my professional practice included full-time work as an Instrument Flight Instructor (CFII) with Basic Ground Instructor (BGI) authority (Sunrise Flight Academy / Upper Limit Aviation, 2018–2020; Greenville Aviation, 2018–2019) and Part 135 PIC duties on Pilatus PC-12 aircraft (Boutique Air, 2019–2021). CFII is in-aircraft instrument instruction. BGI is FAA ground-school authority for knowledge-test subjects (regulations, weather, aerodynamics, navigation). Combined, these roles required the same competencies ME 397 emphasizes: supervised technical work, standards-based evaluation, documentation, and progressive responsibility.

4. Outcomes & measurable results

• As CFII/BGI, instrument and ground students under my instruction achieved a documented 100% FAA knowledge and practical exam pass rate.
• As PC-12 captain, consistently arrived ~2 hours early for preflight to protect on-time performance during pandemic surge operations.
• Re-engaged ≥5 stalled trainees at Greenville Aviation with 100% completion of written and practical exams.
• SEAS: current drone photography flying using the same airspace and go/no-go judgment as manned PIC. Supporting only — ME 397 rests on CFII/BGI and PC-12, not on SEAS as a design shop.

Supervisor evaluation (syllabus week 4 — not yet signed)

Zahui requires a supervisor evaluation of the co-op / professional-practice experience. No signed letter is in this PDF. Do not invent a name or signature. Ask a real supervisor from CFII/BGI, Boutique Air, or SC Avionics to complete the block below on letterhead and insert the scan. Boutique Air PRIA replies are records, not this eval — see records appendix.

Supporting evidence — flight credentials & logbook excerpts

ME 101 Waiver Package

Optional · Target weeks 5–6 · Appendix C · Regular CAD as content generator required

Cover letter

Ethan Jeffrey Collins
1929 Leander Dr, West Columbia, SC 29172
October 3, 2026

Djedje-Kossu Zahui, Ph.D.
ME-102 Professional Assessment & Evaluation
University of North Dakota

Dear Dr. Zahui,

I respectfully request evaluation for waiver of ME 101 based on sustained professional use of technical graphics and design communication in avionics integration and unmanned systems work. From 2012–2015 I was primary designer of avionics integration diagrams and work-order documentation at South Carolina Avionics Services (Orangeburg, SC). I authored install-ready CAD packages for Garmin GTX 345, GTR 205, GTN 750Xi, GFC 500, G5, G3X PFD, and GMA 345 systems—wiring harness layouts, rack/panel cutouts, antenna routing, and pin-out sheets that technicians used as the primary install deliverable, not occasional sketching.

I continue CAD practice in independent Fusion and electronics projects (coil enclosure, N40SY panel, PC-12 simulator DXFs, therapy-device PCB)—not as SEAS employment. My aircraft maintenance technician role (2023–2025) further required reading and annotating engineering diagrams during inspections. I understand ME 101 emphasizes regular CAD use; the avionics diagram set and Fusion/DXF files demonstrate that standard.

Enclosed: one-page justification, supervisor documentation placeholder, and self-assessment. I welcome guidance on any gap between shop documentation and UND’s SolidWorks-centric outcomes.

Sincerely,
Ethan Jeffrey Collins

One-page justification

Honest limit: Shop CAD is 2D avionics integration drafting (panel/rack/wiring), not parametric SolidWorks mechanical parts. I am prepared to complete a targeted UND skills demonstration if required.

Avionics integration CAD — South Carolina Avionics Services

Between 2012 and 2015 I was the primary author of Garmin integration drawing sets used on the shop floor. Each package documents physical placement, electrical interconnect, and installation constraints so A&P technicians and avionics installers could execute STC/337 work without design rework. Representative systems below (customer identifiers redacted in filenames).

Original CAD PDF exports included in Appendix A-06. These satisfy ME 101 “regular CAD as content generator” — each drawing set was produced as a primary job deliverable for paying install work orders.

Supervisor documentation (syllabus week 6 — not yet signed)

Entry 3 requires supervisor documentation of regular CAD use. Ask a South Carolina Avionics Services lead or shop manager to confirm that I was the primary author of install drawing packages (2012–2015) and that those drawings were shop deliverables. Unsigned here on purpose.

ME 101 self-assessment

1. I regularly produced technical drawings as a primary job duty, not occasionally — eight Garmin packages, Fusion solids, N40SY cut file, PC-12 sim DXFs.
2. I can read and interpret aircraft wiring diagrams, IPC excerpts, and system schematics and turn them into install-ready sheets.
3. I document design intent so other technicians can install without verbal rework.
4. I use CAD as a manufacturing input (laser-cut N40SY panel), which is the syllabus “content generator” test.
5. Gap I own: shop files are 2D / Fusion / DXF, not UND SolidWorks part/assembly standards. I will sit a skills demo if required.

Autodesk Fusion 3D projects (A-11)

These files were exported from Autodesk Fusion (STL headers read STLB ATF — Autodesk Transfer Format). They show 3D CAD as a regular content generator, not 2D shop drawings only. The manufacturing DXFs are two different classes: N40SY is a flight-certified aircraft panel cut file; the PC-12 set is simulator training hardware only.

EM therapy / “smartwatch” device (A-11c)

Independent wearable/therapy electronics package (not a SEAS employment deliverable). I designed this device as a team with an electrical engineer — conception of the PCB, coil, and enclosure was shared, not a solo homework sketch. I also ran the custom-part research and buy: neodymium magnets from China, electromagnets from South Dakota, and custom quartz optics from California. Those parts were sized to the geometric constraints of the laser diodes. Production times were not equal — some vendors needed about 2 weeks, others about 6 weeks — so I had to place orders in a specific sequence so the long-lead items were not the ones that sat the build. Deliverables: custom PCB (USB-C, TQFP-32 MCU, OLED/I2C header, coil/laser driver connectors), 6-layer Faraday coil gerbers, Fusion-printed coil enclosure, and ATmega328P firmware v1.8 (May 2026) with scope-verified timing calibration. Manufacturing kit dated 10 January 2026 (schematic, BOM, gerbers, pick-and-place).

N40SY instrument panel — flight-certified aircraft (A-11d)

Fusion/AutoCAD DXF (AC1027) used as the cut file for the instrument panel installed on flight-certified aircraft N40SY. 211 entities (158 lines, 46 circles, 3 arcs) on Sketch layers named Panel v13. Envelope ≈ 1223 × 328 mm (about 48 × 13 in) — glareshield outline, perimeter fasteners, instrument and avionics cutouts. The laser cutter ran this file; the finished panel went on a certificated airplane. That is a stronger ME 101/201 claim than training hardware.

Pilatus PC-12 simulator panels (A-11e)

Fusion DXF set (AC1027, $INSUNITS inches) for a PC-12 simulator cockpit: overhead panel, center pedestal, and lower skirt. These files are training hardware only — they are not flight-certified metal and are not the N40SY panel. They still close a loop with Entry 2/4 PC-12 PIC systems knowledge: the overhead and pedestal the author flew as PIC are being reproduced as sim shop files.

Center pedestal DXF is retained (empty Fusion model-space export — no LINE/CIRCLE/ARC in ENTITIES; re-export with the sketch visible for a preview). Lower skirt is a 62.6 in linear Fusion sketch strip (9 coincident Y=0 lines), typical of an in-progress panel length definition.

ME 201 Waiver Package

Optional · Target weeks 7–8 · Appendix C · Team mechanical projects with light conception/design

Cover letter

Ethan Jeffrey Collins
1929 Leander Dr, West Columbia, SC 29172
October 3, 2026

Djedje-Kossu Zahui, Ph.D.
ME-102 Professional Assessment & Evaluation
University of North Dakota

Dear Dr. Zahui,

I request evaluation for waiver of ME 201. UND ME 201 is Student Design — team mechanical projects with light conception and design — not thermodynamics. The work in this entry is conceived, documented, and built with other people: an electrical engineer on the EM therapy device; A&P staff on Garmin rack/panel installs; and shop/laser work on the N40SY flight-certified instrument panel.

I also include Dragg Wrap (A-12), my own vehicle-film conception: dimple-pattern CAD, a physical prototype, and classroom CFD slides. That is light conception/design, not a certificated aero product. Midlands EGR-266 (C) is attached only as possible ME 341 transfer evidence. It is not this waiver.

Enclosed: one-page justification, supervisor-documentation placeholder, self-assessment, and A-12 slides. I welcome a skills or team-project demonstration if the artifacts are not enough.

Sincerely,
Ethan Jeffrey Collins

One-page justification

Honest limit: ME 201 is Student Design, not thermo. EGR-266 is proven (C). Do not treat that C as an automatic ME 341 waiver or as ME 201 credit. Dragg Wrap CFD numbers are the inventor’s classroom slides, not an independent wind-tunnel report.

Supervisor documentation (syllabus week 8 — not yet signed)

Ask the electrical engineer on the smartwatch, or the shop lead on the N40SY panel, to confirm team role and dates. Unsigned here. Primary ask: Bob Young (coil housing).

ME 201 self-assessment

1. I have produced team mechanical hardware, not solo homework: smartwatch with an EE, N40SY flight panel, Garmin installs with A&P staff.
2. I have done light conception/design (Dragg Wrap dimple pattern and prototype) and manufacturing planning (2- vs 6-week custom-part sequence).
3. I can explain constraints (laser-diode geometry, laser-cut panel envelope, sim vs flight metal) to a teammate.
4. I completed MTC EGR-266 with a C. That is a different course (possible ME 341 transfer), not ME 201.
5. Gap I own: no UND-style team-design report with Gantt and gated reviews. Supervisor letters are still unsigned.

A-12 · Dragg Wrap — conception / prototype (not Appendix A)

These 16 slides were scanned 24 August 2026. They were previously dumped under Entry 1 as “forms.” They are not Release, Correspondence, or Integrity forms. They are an inventor presentation for a dimpled drag-reducing film (Dragg Wrap): problem statement, dimple-pattern CAD, a physical prototype, and classroom CFD screenshots. Inventor named on the title slide: Ethan Collins.

The slides claim Cd ≈ 0.31 without film and Cd ≈ 0.11 with film, and a 25–35% drag cut (hand-corrected from 25–55%). Those are the inventor’s own classroom numbers. I am not submitting a wind-tunnel lab report or a granted patent. The slide writes “Patent #513111387 Pending.” Treat that as the inventor’s pending-claim note, not a verified USPTO grant.

ENGR 200 Waiver Package

Optional · Target weeks 9–10 · Appendix C · Regular coding required (not CNC/PLC)

Cover letter

Ethan Jeffrey Collins
1929 Leander Dr, West Columbia, SC 29172
October 3, 2026

Djedje-Kossu Zahui, Ph.D.
ME-102 Professional Assessment & Evaluation
University of North Dakota

Dear Dr. Zahui,

I request evaluation for waiver of ENGR 200. The syllabus requires regular coding. CNC, PLC, or machine-tool programming does not count. My primary code artifact is EM therapy device firmware v1.8 written in C for an ATmega328P: frequency table, coil square-wave timing, SSD1306 OLED over I2C, DRV8837 drive, and RC-oscillator calibration from oscilloscope captures. That is general-purpose embedded C, not a CNC post-processor.

Supporting — not a substitute for code — are MTC EGR-275 (B) and the training-record systems I kept as a CFII/BGI. Garmin CAD and SEAS photography are not coding evidence. PIC go/no-go judgment is decision-making, not software.

Enclosed: one-page justification, supervisor placeholder, self-assessment, and firmware/schematic figures (A-11c).

Sincerely,
Ethan Jeffrey Collins

One-page justification

• Regular coding (syllabus test): ATmega328P C firmware v1.8 — timers, I2C display, coil drive, scope-based calibration. Source and schematic in Appendix A-11c.
• Coursework: MTC EGR-275 Intro to Engr/Comp (B, 2023FA). AAS not awarded as of 10/03/26 (95 cr). EGR-266 C is ME 341 transfer evidence, not ENGR 200.
• Documentation (supporting): CFII/BGI training records; avionics work-order packages. These show problem-solving write-up, not code.
• Explicitly not claimed as coding: CNC/PLC, Garmin CAD, SEAS photography, PIC weather go/no-go.

Supervisor documentation (syllabus week 10 — not yet signed)

Ask the electrical engineer on the smartwatch team to confirm that I authored the ATmega firmware and that it is C, not a CNC or PLC program. Unsigned here. Asks: Sahdev (email) and Khuram Abbasi (Fiverr only).

ENGR 200 self-assessment

1. I write and debug general-purpose C (timers, I2C, GPIO drive) and check timing on a scope. That is the syllabus “regular coding” bar.
2. I do not treat CNC, PLC, or CAD as a substitute for that bar.
3. I document assumptions and results (firmware comments, schematic, BOM dated 10 January 2026).
4. Gap I own: this is embedded C, not a large UND-style software project with version control history printed in the appendix. I can show the .ino file on request.

Professional Engineering Ethics

Optional · Target weeks 11–12 · Appendix E · Ethics self-assessment + “The Virtual Staff” + 1–2 page hypothetical paper

Ethics self-assessment

1. I prioritize public safety over schedule pressure (see Case 1).
2. I maintain honest evaluation of trainees even when uncomfortable (Case 2).
3. On drone photo jobs I will not take a shot that busts airspace, weather, or line-of-sight just because the client wants the picture (Case 3).
4. I understand an ethics waiver does not replace Essential Studies credit requirements (120 total credits).

Reflection on “The Virtual Staff”

The Virtual Staff illustrates how distributed teams blur accountability when roles are ambiguous. In flight instruction and PIC flying, the same failure mode is assuming “someone else signed off.” My practice as CFII/BGI and as PIC is to name who endorses, who is PIC, and who can cancel the flight—and to refuse a launch I have not personally judged safe. That is the same habit I use on SEAS photo flights.

Ethics paper — hypothetical scenarios only (Appendix E · 1–2 pages)

Syllabus week 12: write 1–2 pages on “The Virtual Staff,” using hypothetical cases only. These three cases are invented. They are not reports of named flights, students, or clients.

The Virtual Staff shows how a distributed team can lose the person who is actually responsible. Engineering work has the same failure: a drawing, a firmware tag, or a dispatch release that “someone” approved. The habit I take from the reading is to name the accountable person before the work ships — and to refuse work I have not personally judged safe.

Case 1 — Schedule pressure vs. airworthiness (hypothetical)

Scenario: A Part 135 operator asks a captain to depart with a deferred ice-protection test incomplete because VIP passengers are waiting.

Analysis: The public is the client, not the scheduler. Duty is to refuse departure until minimum equipment standards are met. Correct action: document the deferral, notify operations control, and offer delay or cancellation. Signing for a system I did not verify would be the Virtual Staff failure mode — accountability without a name.

Case 2 — Evaluation integrity in flight training (hypothetical)

Scenario: A long-term student fails an instrument approach standard for the third time; the school suggests “soft passing” to retain tuition.

Analysis: Instructors are gatekeepers for national airspace competence. Inflating an evaluation trades public safety for a tuition check. Ethical response: document deficiencies, prescribe remedial training, and endorse only when standards are met. A 100% pass rate is only ethical if it came from remediation, not from a lowered bar.

Case 3 — Client photo vs. legal airspace (hypothetical)

Scenario: A photography client wants a dusk shot near an airport or over a crowd. Doing it would mean flying without the required authorization, or losing visual line of sight to keep the camera on the subject.

Analysis: A paid photo does not suspend airspace rules. Harm lands on other aircraft and people on the ground. Correct action: refuse or re-scope. Same go/no-go duty as a manned PIC who will not depart into ice.

Closing: across all three cases the rule is the same as The Virtual Staff. Name who is accountable. Do not hide behind a team, a client, or a schedule. An ethics waiver, if granted, still does not replace Essential Studies credit toward 120 total hours.

Competency Map & Individualized Curriculum Plan

Waiver summary

Remaining UND plan (high level)

• Complete B.S. Aerospace Engineering (online/hybrid track beginning Fall 2026).
• Retake differential equations: MTC MAT-242 was W then F — this is UND MATH-266 this term.
• Still missing MTC/UND equivalents of dynamics (EGR-262 W) and solids (EGR-264 W).
• Ask the registrar whether EGR-266 C transfers as UND ME 341. ME-102 cannot waive ME 341.
• ME 201 only if Zahui declines the design-waiver evidence.
• Complete Essential Studies to 120 credits regardless of ethics reflection (SPC-205 Public Speaking is F on the MTC record).
• Advisor review with Dr. Zahui office hours after portfolio feedback.