MICHAEL RHANEY ’04, seated in the cockpit of a friend’s plane, smiles as he heads to Stanford for his freshman year
MICHAEL RHANEY ’04 Aerospace Engineer Advatech Pacific
E “I loved to build, to find out how things work, and to understand not just the ‘what’ but the ‘why.’” — MICHAEL RHANEY ’04
18
R avenscroft magazine
VEN BEFORE HE WAS ONE of four engineering students at Stanford University who designed their own concentration in aeronautics and astronautics, Michael Rhaney ’04 was a bit of an innovator. Take Chris Kelly’s physics class at Ravenscroft, for example. One project challenged students to build a device to protect dropped eggs from breaking. “The boys in our class wanted to build trebuchets instead, and Mr. Kelly said yes,” Rhaney remembered. “We had an amazing time flinging small weights across the room, but even better, we were far more engaged in a project we could take ownership of.” Kelly remembers Rhaney’s curiosity and drive: “The trebuchet project highlighted Michael’s desire to use science to find the most effective building techniques. He did a superb job and was a leader in the class,” he said. That practical application of knowledge is what drew Rhaney to engineering. “I loved to build, to find out how things work, and to understand not just the ‘what’ but the ‘why,’” he said. “One of my favorite professors told us that engineering, more than memorizing formulas or searching through tables in textbooks, was a way of thinking about the world — a way of looking at a problem, breaking it up into what you know and what you don’t, and methodically using the information you have to come up with a solution.” Today, Rhaney partners with the fuel team at Parker Hannefin, a Californiabased company that designs, manufactures and tests components for commercial and military aircraft. He is often tasked with investigating product failures — which Rhaney says can be frustrating but also are among “some of the most interesting things I’ve worked on in my professional life.” “We know the way parts are supposed to behave, but given the sometimes incomplete information of the conditions under which it failed, we have to try to recreate that environment and show that under the same conditions the valve will, or won’t, fail again,” he said. “Teasing out the answer often turns out to be one of the more rewarding parts of the job.”