EASA and Flt Dispatchers

[Irv]

Is everyone aware that EASA (loosely the EU driven JAA raplacement) is asking whether it should regulate flight dispatchers and feedback to EASA has a deadline of July 31st 2004?

I'm not 'of this forum' but I'm trying to get private pilots to respond to lots of EASA questions by 31st July - but one of the 15 questions they are asking is whether they (EASA) should include Flight Dispatchers in their regulatory remit. I noticed during a search of PPRUNE that there was no mention of EASA on this forum,

Question number 15 in the current request for feedback from EASA reads as here in blue, and YOU, if you are a Flight Dispatcher, are a 'stakeholder' in their terms:

Question 15:
a) Do stakeholders agree that cabin crew should hold a licence issued on the basis of common implementing rules adopted by the Commission?
b) Do stakeholders agree that flight dispatchers should hold a licence issued on the basis of common implementing rules adopted by the Commission?


So if you've any views on whether Flight Dispatchers should be licensed by the EU, feedbaclk is needed to EASA, on their own forms, by the end of July 2004.
To find out how, have a look at:
EASA Post on Cabin Crew Forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136278)

[no sig]

Irv, well done for posting on this issue. It is very important for those in the UK aviation industry to comment on these proposals, it may well shape the future of the operations officer/flight dispatcher training/qualifications for the future, or not as the case may be.

With EASA on the rise and the JAA on the way out early yellow papers two years ago or more, on the requirements for the licencing of FOO/Dispatchers or setting of minimum training standard have been sidelined in the JAA, it appears to be re-surfacing here.

Do make a point of ensuring your Ops Managers know about this issue. Also, I have no doubt UKOMA will be commenting on this!


With credit to Irv for posting this copy of EASA comments...

Others leave it to air operators to verify that some regulatory requirements are met. It is time now to take a clear position about the way the Community shall regulate this category of workers. An option, taking into account the safety nature of their tasks, would be to attest compliance through the issuing of a licence by national authorities on the basis of common implementing rules. As far as flight dispatchers are concerned, there is also a need to decide whether the Community should create a uniform need for a licence or not.

[no sig]

Has anyone formed an opinion on whether we need a Flight Ops Officer/Flight Dispatcher licence in Europe?

It seems to me that this is an important step by the JAA and soon to be EASA towards our community. Has anyone discussed it with your Company and responded to the EASA questionaire?

[JB007]

I've "stuck" this to the top....I think it's important we try and get a response...

Thanks Irv!

[opsbod]

The discussion document and the position of licencing was discussed at last Thursday's UKOMA meeting. Individual members will be repsonding to the questionaire.

[templar]

Gd'evning all,

I think the issue of making licences mandatory for flight-ops controllers/dispatchers is long overdue. It's about time that something solid was done to make this profession on par with the way it is in the US. I've worked with too many dopes who knew s.f.a about weight/balance, how to read performance graphs/tables, had'nt a clue about met apart from a shakey decoding of a Metar or even read computerised flight plans yet claim to competent in their chosen profession! It's about time peoples cages were rattled, asses whipped into shape, training programs implemented, exams taken/passed, licences then issued.....no Grandfather rights...No Excuses...
Nuff Said !

Templar +

[no sig]

JB007 well done with the sticky thing. I am/was really surprised at the lack of response to the orignal posting. In fact it still doesn't seem to be getting the views that it deserves, perhaps a change of title?

Opsbod very pleased to hear UKOMA and the Chairman has taken hold of this one.Talk soon.


For what its worth, my view;


ICAO recommends the licensing of FOO/FD’s. Implicit in that recommendation is the recognition that the duties of FOO/FD’s have a flight safety implication and as such, there is requirement for airline operational personnel to be trained to standard which will ensure operational competence. This requirement must be part of any future European EASA regulations. It must be embodied in all Air Operators (AO) Operations and Manuals (part D).

This however, does not imply that EASA must adopt the US FAR121 style of flight release and joint dispatch authority. This is often confused with the licensing question and has led to much resistance in Europe to the licensing of FOO/FD’s.

What we need in Europe is a common standard for the training of FOO/FD’s and a means of accreditation which is recognized EASA and by each member state, it need not be in the form of a formal license. Although I personally support that, I have little hope of industry and NAA wide acceptance for such a relatively small number of operational personnel.

My recommendations can be summarized as follows:

• Establish a requirement for the qualification of FOO/FD’s to a minimum European (EASA) standard before they can exercise operational control on the behalf of a European state AOC. Accreditation or Qualification being the completion of a recognized course and the passing of exams to FCL equivalent standards and pass marks. Not a license necessarily, but a flight operations qualification which is recognized within EASA and holds that status.

• Adopt ICAO Doc 7192 D3 as the training syllabus and standard or produce an EASA equivalent, update the syllabus to include European requirements and new technologies.

• Establish a requirement for all FOO/FD training organizations to hold EASA or National Aviation Authority (NAA) approval.

• Do not leave it to the airlines to do their own training. Unless, as with TRTO’s, they have an accredited training organization approved to conduct FOO/FD training.

• As with flight crew licensing, a JAR ATPL covers all aircraft types, so the FOO/FD’s minimum standard should cover all types of air operations and not tailored to suit individual airlines requirements or operations, it must be a generic syllabus.


Flight safety is enhanced by having high levels of competence at each link in the operational chain, FOO/FD’s have long been neglected in many European states and it behooves EASA to rule in favour of a requirement which introduces a pan European standard and qualification for Flight Operations Officers/Flight Dispatchers

[Opssys]

The need for mandatory professional qualifications for Operations Control, Flight Dispatch and their Operational Support section(s), is something that I have felt necessary for a very long time (Since the early 1980's). A move to an EU wide 'licensing system' will be of benefit to not only license holder as they will be recognized as professionals in their field, but of benefit to the Airlines and Handling Agencies (Something CEO's and Bean Counters ignore).

It will be interesting how the industry responds as unfortunately in the UK Airline and Ground Handling industries, training in ground subjects and indeed ground staff development in general has been one of the first areas to be cut when money is tight (almost insultingly many companies trumpet their commitment to staff development, whilst reducing their training to purely functional, or worse on the job only)

I wonder what percentage of UK staff in Operations and Flight Dispatch have passed City and Guilds Aviation Studies part 3. Advanced Operations/Flight Dispatch?
Of those that have, how many did it without company assistance?

A regulatory requirement whether national, or international, whilst not resolving the problem, will force companies to actually put money into professional training.

I can only hope UKOMA will:
a) Support this whole wholeheartedly.
b) The members use just the threat of regulation, to force the issue of improving training for Control Centre and Flight Dispatch staff, within their own Airlines.

I only wish instead of ‘I hope’ I was confident enough in UKOMA to have written ‘I am certain’

[20-17]

Great news and something that is long overdue.

I have to agree with the points raised above re the standards of dispatch and ops around the country and into Europe. There are far too many so called fully trained and experienced staff who think that they know the business inside out, but when it comes down to dealing with irregular problems, they are the first to guess and that only makes some issues worse.

I have two points to make:

1/ Does this mean that all staff dealing with ops / dispatch need to be licenced or can it just be the supervisor / DO on duty?

2/ Will the effected staff use this to try and increase salaries and would the airlines pay an increase to cover training costs and assist in the retention of staff?

Maybe this should be sent to the Main forum to get the views of the flight crews who must see various standards throughout the country and Europe.

Thanks to all and enjoy the rest of the summer!!!:ok:

[kellmark]

This upgrade is long overdue. It should be a Europe wide requirement. There have been Europe wide incidents and accidents that relate to the vulnerability (nonexistence)of dispatch/operational control in Europe. Here are some of them.

• Maersk Air B737, Billund, Denmark, December 1999, encountered severe weather, had outdated weather information, destination and alternates closed; fuel emergency.
• Hapag-Lloyd A310, Vienna, July 2000, experienced aircraft system failure (landing gear unable to retract), flight continued, misjudgement by crew, and poor support by the company, fuel exhaustion, aircraft destroyed.
• Swiss SAAB 2000 Berlin, July 2002, encountered severe weather, destination and alternates closed, fuel exhaustion, aircraft destroyed.
• BMI A321, Over Germany, May, 2003, encountered severe weather/ hail, serious damage, aircraft continued for hundreds of kilometres before landing.
• EasyJet B737 Geneva, August, 2003, encountered severe weather/hail, serious damage.
• SAS A330, Helsinki, October, 2003, continued with no holding fuel into low visibility/missed approach at destination, insufficient fuel for alternate; fuel emergency.

None of these flights had the support of a proper operational control/dispatch system.

Many air carriers in Europe do not even track their flights and have no idea where their flights are and don't have a communication system to advise them of hazardous info if they wanted to.

What they need is:

1. A certified(licensed) and trained flight dispatcher/flight operations officer.
2. A reliable, effective ground to air communications system.
3. The necessary tools to suppprt the flight dispatcher such as information systems, and manuals, etc.
4. The regulatory framework necessary to give the flight dispatcher the responsibility and authority to do their job.

If the regulatory authority wants to prevent errors in judgment as well as errors in poor information to crews, then joint repsonsibility between the pilot-in-command and the flight dispatcher should also be applied. This would ensure a human factors double check on both the flight crew and the flight dispatcher. Similar to requiring multiple hydraulic systems and electrical systems on an aircraft. It is a proven, safer system.

Just my thoughts.

kellmark

[opsbod]

It is my opinion that the European system of Operations Control/Dispatch is overdue for an overhaul and a set of standards for training should be enforced across the region.

Both nosig and I have frequently pushed the requirement for the training of Operations staff and dispatchers and I hope that this will become a requirement.

However, I doubt licensing will become a reality, it has been lobbied for on national levels in several European countries, but the bean counters, the airlines and the pilot community at large have resisted both licensing and the concept of join responsibility. I suspect that for the airlines cost is a major issue, to train all of an airlines operations control staff to FAA licence level would run to thousands of pounds/euros. For European flight crews the concept of shared responsibility and its advantages are completely alien and totally misunderstood.

20-17

“1/ Does this mean that all staff dealing with ops / dispatch need to be licensed or can it just be the supervisor / DO on duty?”

This is one of the points up for discussion, but it is my understanding that Hapag-Lloyd had a DFS licensed dispatcher on duty as a supervisor at the time of the A310 fuel incident, and this did not prevent the incident.

My belief is that all Operations Control staff should be trained to the same level, the Supervisors should then be trained to manage.

Kellmark

“BMI A321, Over Germany, May, 2003, encountered severe weather/ hail, serious damage, aircraft continued for hundreds of kilometres before landing.
EasyJet B737 Geneva, August, 2003, encountered severe weather/hail, serious damage.”

In both instances it is highly unlikely that an FAA dispatcher could have prevented these incidents, both incidents are the result of freak weather that did not even appear on the aircraft weather radar until it was too late.

“None of these flights had the support of a proper operational control/dispatch system”

If by “proper” you mean they did not have an FAA style dispatch cover, no they did not. All of the airlines involved provide the level of operational control JAR requires, the question should be – is that level of control sufficient?

That said, despite the examples, I won’t argue with points 1 to 4.

As an individual I am pro-recognised training and qualifications for operations and dispatch staff. At present I believe joint responsibility is an unreasonable expectation for the short term, our objective as professionals should be first to have recognised and agreed standards of training and meet them.

[FEBA]

As a licenced dispatcher myself I can assure you that FAA dispatchers have been guiding aircraft around the worst wx for a good number of years now. Big airlines with extensive networks divide the contiguous states into sectors and in each sector the wx radar is monitored continously. That's domestic, internatational doesn't get monitored with such vigilance as the facilities on offer (euroland) don't stack up.
The case for JAA recognition of dispatchers, ops controllers, what ever you want to call them, is compelling. I tried to get you lot going on the subject some months earlier, sadly to no avail.
UKOMA what are you doing about this?? Stop hedging your management bets and start lobbying in earnest for what you all know is right.
Good luck to you all I hope you get what you and above all air safety deserves. There's a few bob in this too so get going now :ok:

[kellmark]

Opsbod;

I appreciate your comments. They show a strong grounding in experience and knowledge about the issues of ops control/flight dispatch. The following comments are given in acknowledgment and respect of that.

I do have to disagree on a number of issues that you raised, however.

1. Training is good, and helps, but by itself just won't do it. Without certification, authority and communications for flight dispatchers, the European system will remain crippled. Crews will not get the proper information that they need and errors of judgment will continue to be made.

2. Cost is a weak issue. A proper system with Flight dispatchers saves fuel, delays and diversions, not to mention accidents.

3. European flight crews are not much different from flight crews around the world. They all want to be PIC and many are resistant to change. But if a safer system exists then it should be implemented. The passenger's safety is more important than the "culture" of the crew. A proper dispatch system also protects the crews from management pressure.

4. Each individual flight dispatcher needs to be certified, otherwise there is no personal accountability. They might as well not be there, if they cannot take action when needed.

5. On the wx incidents. They were not "freak". They were predictable. Sometimes airborne radar is affected by "attenuation" where one return hides a more severe return behind it. But multiple ground based radar sites usually will pick it up. As FEBA points out, flight dispatchers in the US, Canada, etc do routinely route flights around this type of hazard.

With the BMI incident, not only did the aircraft hit the severe wx/hail, but then the crew continued on for hundreds of kilometres with a badly damaged aircraft, passing by many suitable airports. Not something that I would condone.

6. The Hapag Lloyd situation did have a German certified dispatcher, but this just proves my point about a complete system. He had no authority or responsibility whatsoever to intervene with the flight. In the US an exact parallel happened with an A300 with gear down, and the flight dispatcher worked with the crew, corrected errors that they had made, and the flight landed safely at its destination with reserve fuel. And the crew was thankful for it. But the German PIC is under criminal charges. Again, a proper dispatch system supports the passengers and the flight crew. The Hapag Lloyd pilot did not get the support he needed.

7. What the JAR requires for flight dispatch is basically pathetic. No certification for flight dispatchers, no authority, no communiciations. And yet there have been a significant number of accidents/incidents with fuel exhaustion/emergencies and severe weather hazards. It reminds me of the Concorde situation where that aircraft had a significant number of incidents which showed the vulnerability of the tires/fuel tanks/engines. The ops control/dispatch system in Europe is similarly vulnerable.

I just don't think that European passengers should have to accept a much lower standard of safety.

The Chinese, Emirates, Malaysians, Canadians, and the US have all adopted the higher standard.

I think that the Europeans should at least have what the Chinese have.

[Opssys]

As the closing date for submissions is now two weeks ago, I guess the next move is with EASA.

I have read with interest the opinions, concerns and recommendations of those who have posted on this subject and whilst there is a wide variance on what should be included, broadly there is agreement that some form of regulation/certification is required and that it is long overdue.

Unfortunately 12 Posts, are not a representative sample of industry opinion and therefore of no use as an indication of what was submitted (especially when, like me, the poster has no influence on any carriers submission).

The worst case scenario is that this issue is 'shelved' for the time being. In which case Opsbod will be fighting his battle for better training and standards within Operations Control, with no regulatory stick to beat opponents with (been there got the scars - but it was long enough ago for the wounds to have healed :-).

But assuming it is moved forward, with countries like Germany involved, then there is a good chance that the resulting Regulations and Certification requirement, whilst less than Kellmark believes is required (and I not saying he is wrong), will at least from a UK perspective be a giant leap forward (and only 20 years late).

[FEBA]

You need a larger audience and this thread is ample justification for moving it to another forum. JB007 can you please move this to rumours and news please, it's out grown its pesent location.
FEBA

[Celestar]

Oh Please…there’s no safety issue here!

OK we have no license, indeed less responsibilities and we don't have to sign our flight plans.

Any Pilot In Command will double check his flight planning, fuel figures, weather and alternates PRIOR to departure and will take off only when he’s happy with everything. There's absolutely no SAFETY ISSUE here.

And if indeed he goes without checking, because he believes his Licensed Dispatcher has done the work properly … then that’s where we have a serious SAFETY ISSUE.

Now, I do agree that we should find a solution in Europe in order to have at least a kind of basic Flight Dispatcher License. Being the one responsible within my company to give proper staff training, I am often loosing valuable time to have our new people up to date on the basics. I would rather spend this time giving training on more specific company procedures. The license would make the staff selection easier, would shorter the training and people would be on their own faster. But, on the other hand, it would be an obvious requirement for the company to offer higher salaries.

And to respond to the poster saying that Chinese flights are safer than Europeans ones … humm … you probably mean that’s because it’s one of the very last remaining countries in the world operating more Boeings than Airbuses ! Just kidding … I know how susceptible you Americans are :p

[kellmark]

Celestar;

“No safety issue here”. You do indeed have a sense of humour. (Notice the English spelling).

Yes, Pilots should check and double-check their flight plans, fuel figures, weather and alternates prior to departure. 99.99% of them do it properly. .01% do not. Do you want to be on that flight?

You say that these pilots would make a mistake if they had a certified dispatcher because they would rely more on the dispatcher and believe that he/she would do the work properly. That this would then create a safety issue. Let me get this straight. You think that it is less safe to have better qualified people doing preflight planning? I will let that speak for itself.

I have great respect for what pilots do. But we are all human. They do not walk on water, although some of them might think that they do. They can make mistakes. And they will continue to make mistakes, just as we will, as we are all human. And when they make a mistake it can have severe consequences. I have seen highly experienced pilots whom I greatly respected make some of these mistakes. In some cases I was able to help them and prevent an incident or accident. In other cases, they showed me where I was making a mistake, so that was prevented as well. And I appreciated their contribution, as they appreciated mine.

Let’s also not ignore the fact that most of them are under pressure to operate the flights in a deregulated, highly competitive environment. This makes it more difficult for a pilot to refuse a situation which they might not feel comfortable with. Some have been fired for refusing a flight. With a PIC/dispatcher joint responsibility system it takes away most of that pressure as each can back the other in their decision.

What you don’t talk about is perhaps the most serious problem in European ops control/flight dispatch, and that is the lack of in-flight monitoring. Many air carriers in Europe simply don’t track and don’t know where their flights are at a given time and have no one assigned to provide information to the flight crew while they are enroute. And they couldn’t communicate with them if they wanted to, as many don’t have a communication system. This at a time when the European operational situation is more dynamic and more complex than ever. The weather has become more volatile and hazardous, the ATC situation is changing, the flight crews tend to have less experience than in previous times and the security threat is more serious than ever.

It is simply not acceptable to have this situation exist and not call it a safety problem.

You want to shorten the training that is given if there would be a requirement for licensing. That makes sense on its face, but in fact the need for training at each airline is greater with a proper flight dispatch system because the flight dispatcher has much more responsibility. They are much more than simply a flight planner. They are truly a partner with the Pilot-In Command and must have a similar level of knowledge to him/her. But it is this certification and training that creates the bedrock of the system and makes it much safer and more effective. But it is also more efficient as qualified, certified flight dispatchers can flight plan more effectively, save fuel, save delays, diversions and generally provide a much more effective operational decision making process. They are very knowledgeable, and have an excellent grasp of the airline’s and the particular flight’s operational situation.

Regarding the Chinese. They have adopted a full US style system for ops control. In that aspect they are definitely safer than the European ones. Or you could talk to the Malaysians about their Ops Control Center in Kuala Lumpur. It is far superior to the European system. And it was accomplished with the support of a pilot.

As far as Boeing and Airbus is concerned, I think that the Europeans make a great aircraft, and I have no hesitation with flying on them. Note that most of the ops control accidents/incidents in Europe have happened with Airbus aircraft. But that is only because that is what the European carriers were mostly flying. The type of aircraft really had no bearing on it. When aircraft run out fuel, or declare fuel emergencies, or run into hazardous weather, they could be any type.

When it comes to this American-European thing, when someone mentions it, I usually just ignore it. I have many good friends in Europe whom I speak to and visit often. I prefer to remain professional. But those were European passengers who were frightened to death and placed in grave jeopardy on these flights which didn’t make it in safely. Just before the SAAB 2000 of Swiss crashed at Werneuchen, near Berlin in severe weather, the passengers reported that the pilot was screaming to ATC to help him find a place to land as he had only 7 minutes of fuel left “and the passengers all thought that they were going to die”. I just don’t find that humorous. Maybe I can’t take a joke after all.

I am confident that change is coming in Europe. I think it is better if we all support the best possible system we can to achieve a high standard of excellence in operational control/flight dispatch. No flight crew or passenger on any European flight should expect less. That would really make me happy. Then maybe I could take a joke.

[Celestar]

Hello Kellmark

Thanks for your reply.

Just to present myself a little further .. we are running operations dealing with flights going absolutely everywhere. I’ve been organising, and not only flight planning, flights heading to remote places such as Easter Island (IPC) or Anadyr (DYR) in northern Siberia. Those flights are requiring serious flight planning, with suitable alternates (if available) being hours away, weather not easily available (if available) . We even sometime need to have a navigator on board when over flying large non-English speaking ATC areas. You will understand that those are samples of flights that could encounter many potential hazardous issues while airborne.

Do you really think our pilots, and our management, would be ok to have the aircraft taking-off to those destinations without a professional skilful Flight Dispatcher in charge of the Ops control? Of course not, even if not a single of us has a License.

My point, the same as yours indeed, is that a Flight Dispatcher responsible of a flight should know what he’s doing. We both agree on this.

Now, you say that Europeans flights are not as safe as they could be (read: if they had adopted the US system). And here, sorry but I don’t agree.


You take, as an example, the Swiss Saab 2000 BSL-HAM flight that has diverted to Werneuchen Air Base . A short flight (EFT 1.15), with forecasted bad weather upon arrival, that went horribly wrong. I don’t think the final report has yet been published, can’t find it anywhere though, so I won’t argue on who’s to blame. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that all Crossair BSL Dispatchers were holding a FAA Dispatch License. I’ve visited myself their Control Room in late 2001, and was indeed impressed by their equipment and general organisation. I was only a visitor though, and it’s always easy to impress a visitor, but I do remember very well being told that it was a mandatory requirement for Flight Dispatchers to hold the FAA License. It’s obvious here, with a licensed Pilot and a licensed Dispatcher, that
the qualification of those involved is not to be questioned. It is analyse of the information available and the resulting decision made prior and during the flight that is the possible problem. This is called human factor, it depends of each individual involved … taking the good or bad decision. I don’t think you can blame the Europeans here, it could have happened anywhere.

On my side, I would prefer to take another relevant example. A Ryanair 737 approaching his destination on a scheduled flight, I think it was in 2003 and the airport was somewhere in France, and realising that the Tower was closed. It was written in the NOTAM …
Again, a job has not been done properly (an aircraft has departed with no one checking the NOTAM). The Dispatcher has believed that the Captain would check his NOTAM while the captain has assumed the NOTAM were checked by Operations. A dramatic example of a theoretical “double-checking” resulting in a “zero-checking”. Again, not a problem of qualification here … human factor.

The Captain is the one in command, here’s the one who will have to deal with an emergency up there, he’s the one responsible for the life of his passengers. He MUST check himself everything prior to departure, don’t assume …just check.

Now, it’s the company responsibility to make sure that

A/ Pilots and Dispatchers are trained, professionals and competent
B/ Captain and Dispatch have ENOUGH time to do all the checks prior to the flight.

We all know that this “enough time” and “enough staff” is the real problem, not only here but, basically, everywhere. That’s where something should be done asap.
Airlines can’t reduce “maintenance costs”, but they can indeed reduce “manpower” costs by offering lower salaries and hiring less people. Less people = more work, not good at all in a stressful environment.

When a fully qualified Dispatcher or a fully qualified Pilot is tired, and starts to assume rather than check, then we indeed have a safety issue. And I am not that sure that the “US Style system” would be the right answer to this problem …

[kellmark]

Hello Celestar;

Excellent comments.

It sounds like you have a professional operation, especially with the type of operations that you are conducting. I respect that you disagree with me. We can agree to disagree.

When you send those flights to Easter Island and to Anadyr, is there always someone legally responsible to provide those flights with critical changes in operational information? Is there a separate communication system with ops control/dispatch over the entire route of the flight?

One of my colleagues was speaking to a Captain for an airline that has similar long range operations that operates under similar rules that I believe your airline does. He asked them how they found out about changes enroute? He replied that they found out when they got there. That is the crux of the problem.

You make some interesting comments about the Swiss operation and the Ryanair incident. They are both interesting and I would like to respond about them.

The Swiss may have certified dispatchers, who do flight planning, but the flight from Basel to Hamburg had no flight monitoring or flight watch system. ATC vectored the flight right into the front side of the severe weather that day and the crew wound up in that severe weather with no available airports to land at as they diverted towards Berlin, which also closed. The aircraft did not have ACARS/communications capability. Just because a flight is within Europe and is less distance or time than long haul flights does not mean it should have less support.

In the US, for example, every scheduled flight with more than 9 seats is required to have a flight dispatch system with flight monitoring/communications and joint responsibility between the PIC and the dispatcher. It could be 10 minutes flight time or ten hours and that requirement applies. This also ensures that flights are routed around severe weather routinely. US flight dispatchers also have excellent tools, such as the Aircraft Situation Display, which is near real time track info from ATC, to see where their aircraft are, and the weather, airports, other flights ,etc are also superimposed on the display. As far as I know, this is not used in Europe except where some dispatchers are able to access US sites for some info on their flights. What I often find with European carriers is that they usually give more support to “long haul” flights but that intra-European flights are often given very little support at all.

An interesting issue is that if the Swiss dispatchers have FAA licenses, then the question is what is their legal responsibility? As I recall, the Swiss themselves have a flight dispatcher license. An FAA license in Switzerland provides a knowledge qualification of some value, but it is not a legal qualification recognized in Europe or Switzerland. And the problem is that JAR-OPS does not require any license/certificate. That is what this discussion is all about. So the fact that the Swiss may have FAA licenses doesn’t help the operation when it comes to legal responsibility or authority. And if they have a Swiss license, then they still have no authority or responsibility under JAR-OPS.

If there had been a Swiss dispatcher with legal authority and responsibility and communications, they could have guided the flight, supported it with critical information, or even prevented it from operating and ensured that it never got into the situation that it wound up in.

Regarding the Ryanair incident with the Notams, this is also interesting. Only the pilot is legally responsible to check them, as there is no license or certification in the UK for flight dispatchers. The company can of course assign the task to a flight dispatcher but in effect it is the pilot who is legally responsible to the national authority. This means that, as you point out, the flight dispatcher does not sign anything, as they are not responsible for anything. Therein lies the problem. I can tell you that when someone is certificated/licensed and has to sign their name to an official document, they take a very different view of their responsibility and the possible ramifications if they make an error.

I understand what you are saying about the fact that both the PIC and the dispatcher missed that Notam. This could happen even under a joint system, but it is much less likely. There was a human factors study done at Ohio State University regarding this very issue. There were several scenarios, one with severe weather/thunderstorm avoidance and one with an MEL problem. The testing was done in three ways to measure results: 1, with just the pilot making decisions, 2, with the just the flight dispatcher making decisions, and 3, with both of them making decisions together. Neither of the ones with just the pilot or dispatcher making their own decisions was nearly as effective as the one where they both made decisions together. The best and safest results by far were with a joint responsibility/decision system.

Think of it like a three-legged stool. One leg is the PIC, another is the ATC system and the 3rd is Flight Dispatch. If there are only 2 legs, then it simply cannot be as safe.

I think of it in the way everything else in aviation is done. That of redundancy. Transports must have multiple engines, multiple systems and performance margins for a very important reason. Redundancy. If one engine fails, as we know it eventually must, then there are one or more additional ones to keep the aircraft in the air. If there is a hydraulic or electrical failure, then there are multiple backups for those as well. It is called a fail-safe system, where no one failure is allowed to cause an accident. Yet, in operational control systems that do not have flight monitoring and joint responsibility, that is not the case. We know from studies and long experience, that a joint responsibility flight dispatch system with flight watch/flight monitoring definitely provides that fail-safe redundancy to operational control. Flight crews get better information, and errors in judgment are minimized. It doesn’t mean that it is perfect. It is possible, as you point out for both the PIC and the flight dispatcher to miss something. But it is also known that the two together are safer when they work together as a professional team than when they are on their own.

You mentioned the workload issue. That is a continuing concern. Airlines typically will staff for the “clear weather” day. There have been cases in the US where FAA inspectors would “encourage” the airline to make an adjustment when they saw that there was a workload problem. Duty rigs also help to lessen fatigue issues, but these are usually minimal in their effect. When workload is still a problem, however, flight dispatchers may have to make a choice between prioritizing the flight in the air versus the flight on the ground, and delays could result. I think that this will always be a problem, especially in a deregulated environment with highly competitive pressures. We agree on this.

Having said this, whether we agree or not, I think that this thread is a valuable dialogue. Your comments are very well presented.

What I would suggest is that there is an opportunity to continue this dialogue in person in October. There will be a meeting of EUFALDA, the European Federation of Airline Dispatcher's Associations, in Austria on October 19-21. Their web site is at www.eufalda.org. You can check there for information on the meeting. I think that you and other professionals in who are interested in recent developments in operational control/flight dispatch and want to participate would find it valuable to attend.

Thanks.

Kellmark

[opsbod]

Currently the European environment would not support an FAA style system.

We currently use ASD to track our aircraft within the UK region, but to date no other ECAC ATC authority has agreed to supply its data for display. Our system runs from a U.S. site using NATS data shared with the FAA and is invaluable in poor weather and for short-range flight tracking. Ironically for deliveries we can track an aircraft from departure in Seattle to landing at base here in the U.K., regrettably aircraft just past the north coast of France simply disappear.

Weather radar is another issue, we currently use between 6 and 8 sites for weather tracking in Europe, none of these is a live feed, most being at least an hour out of date.

I agree that by doubling the number of responsible individuals involved we could reduce the chances of an accident/serious incident. Unfortunately I suspect this is unlikely to happen.

[kellmark]

Opsbod.

I appreciate your concerns, but I disagree about your conclusions.

I think that Europe would support an FAA style system.

1. Remember that the dispatch system presently in use in the US was created in 1938, after several accidents demonstrated the need for it. There was no ASD back then. That is a recent development within the last ten years. Previously, flight dispatchers used other methods to track their flights. They could use position reports from the flights. Or follow the flight plan route and estimate a flight’s position according to its enroute time. Or directly speak to the crew. These methods still allowed weather and other operational information to be relayed to the flights, such as severe weather messages/Sigmets, ATC delays and airport facility status changes. Also, when flights got into a problem, the ground to air communication system, whether through phone patches or remote stations or whatever, were used to discuss the situation and work on a solution with the crew, as with a diversion or system failure.
The point is though, that flights were monitored and communicated with for more than 50 years before ASD was available.

2. New technologies allow alternatives to ATC based ASD. Satellite communications and GPS positioning provide the ability for a flight to be tracked anywhere. Systems can report the position of a flight literally every few moments.

3. Regarding the weather radar sites, is the delay in information due to the weather service of the country involved or is it because the airline may have to pay for the service in real time? Either way, there is no justifiable reason that this could not be provided in a timely manner to those who have a real need for it for aviation safety.

Even with this problem, flight dispatchers should have access to satellite images and all other weather products, reports and forecasts. This would still allow them to flight plan and monitor almost as safely as with the current radar. But I agree that the radar should be there.

4. Modern technology provides high productivity for flight dispatchers. Although workload can be an issue, with the more automated systems that are used now, it is not unusual for each flight dispatcher to be responsible for 50-70 flights per shift (For intra-European, like domestic US flights. Long haul have a higher workload, so the number is significantly less). It needs to be noted, however, that when difficult situations occur, such as bad weather, then additional staffing would be required. This still allows for effective monitoring and joint responsibility, both of which have been shown to reduce accidents and incidents.

5. Even with the problem of the lack of ASD and the radar sites, the main thing that is the obstacle to an effective operational control/flight dispatch system in Europe is the lack of legal/regulatory requirements for it. Without a requirement, there is no perceived need to track the flights and have qualified personnel with appropriate technology tools to support them. The technology and tools for the flight dispatchers will quickly follow if that requirement becomes reality.

It is simply not acceptable to have thousands of flights operating every day and not have them supported properly, in many cases not even knowing where they are. How do you feel when that flight disappears off of your screen when it goes to France? I really sympathise with that problem. Imagine if Europe experienced a 9/11 type emergency tomorrow. US flight dispatchers were key in getting their flights on the ground safely in that emergency. And we all know that the security threat to the industry continues on a world wide basis. It is not just a safety problem, but a security problem as well. I am afraid that this vulnerability will continue and that there will be additional incidents and accidents until this problem is addressed.

That is why we should do everything possible to bring about these necessary changes.

[opsbod]

Kellmark,
My concern is that without legislation and the requirement for Dispatchers then I don’t think that an FAA style system can be introduced.

1. I have used and continue to use the position reports or the flight plan route to estimate positions. CFMU’s CIA tool also offers a calculated time at certain points. My company employs both VHF and HF and more recently ACARS to allow direct communication with the crew, allowing the more proactive of us to provide crews with some form of support from the ground.

My point was that ASD is a great tool yet so far no one is interested in staring data, to allow us access to the data will require legislation – at present I am not even allowed to see what ATC is doing with most of my aircraft in mainland Europe.

2. It is true that new technologies do allow alternatives to an ATC based ASD system, but considering we are talking about major costs to carriers to introduce a dispatcher system why should we have to fit additional systems to our aircraft. As airlines we already pay expensive Navigation fees to provide ATC with the systems that could supply us data at no extra cost.

3. Regarding the weather radar sites I have not encountered anyone in Europe offering real time radar, again this could be a case of supply and demand. We have access to older radar feeds and satellite images, and charts in addition to TAFS, FC, and METAR data and do use these for planning. My point again was the need for system access and to show that at present we don’t have it.

4. I am reassured by your comments on productivity, however, for an airline such as mine we would require 10 dispatchers per day, I won’t debate the fact that experienced U.S. dispatchers command salaries of $50K plus, but say each dispatcher is paid £25K and to work a 4-on/4-off pattern we need 20 dispatchers, then you are looking at £500K per year additional costs. I don’t want to put a price on safety, but to persuade carriers to employ this method will take a considerable amount of lobbying. I wonder how many of the members of this forum actually responded to the EASA input?

5. I agree that the main obstacle to an effective operational control/flight dispatch system in Europe is the lack of legal/regulatory requirements for it. Without such a requirement there is not pressure to have qualified personnel or the appropriate technology tools to support them. Before we can go to a Flight Dispatcher system we have to supply the staff within the industry with a much higher level of training. You cannot simply introduce the system and grant grandfather rights to those already working in operations; the results given the varied experience, knowledge and skills could be a recipe for disaster.

I am curious with your 9/11 analogy, my impression was the FAA simply ordered all aircraft to land at the nearest suitable airfield, what level of dispatcher input was there?

I do fully endorse a requirement to bring legal recognition for the operational control of airliners, be that a training requirement or all the way to joint responsibility dispatching.

[kellmark]

Opsbod.

Sorry about the delay in responding. Things have been kind of busy.

Regarding 9/11 and security issues and dispatch in general.

On 9/11 in some cases individual flight dispatchers and airlines took action before the FAA regarding grounding flights. Also, when flights were ordered grounded, flight dispatchers worked with the crews to put the flights in the best possible place under the circumstances. They were a valuable resource.

In my own experience as a flight dispatcher, I had several occasions where a flight had a bomb threat during flight or had hijacking situations. In all cases the decision as to where the flight should go or what should be done was made working with flight dispatcher and the crew with the best information possible and with management input as well. We also had effective communications with the crew during those situations.

[no sig]

Interestýng exchange between you all on this topic.

I,ve worked under both for many years and there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA dispatch system enhances safety, however, in Europe we have also be operating aircraft safely for many years under our own system. So the question is can we do without it in Europe? The answer is almost certainly yes, however, that is not to say that we don't need to improve our systems and train our personnel better, we do!

Although Ý support a move to a more FAA style dispatch system, OpsBod hit it on the head, it ýs very unlikely to gain approval in Europe. Our focus at this stage must be to get EASA to adopt a requirement for some form of accreditdation for Ops/Dispatchers.
Ýt is a simple fact of life that airlines are unlikely to train their people to the required standards, it needs to be a regulated requirement. Every person exercising operational control should have to be trained to the same standard and have passed exams to gain an accreditdation.

Celestar, although it sounds like you have a well trained ops department, You and I know that the standards in many other airlines fall way below the requirement. Not every airline will take the approach yours seems to. Sadly.

The other issue not mentioned here is the motivation to learn your trade. Ýts a sad fact that many people will only study if they have to. Ýts a job that requires a depth of knowledge that cannot easily learned on the job. It really should be a closed shop, no qualification - no working in Ops.

[Frosty Hoar]

I work in one of the larger ops rooms in Europe,where we are reponsible for around 100 medium to large jet aircraft.
I work alongside a mixture of guys,some with a licence and some without, and those with a licence are normally well versed in flight planning, but are often studious types who lack the ability to think and react quickly in a given situation, in fact the very idea of some of these guys iintervening in a live operation brings me out in a cold sweat!

Whether or not our American cousins like it, I would argue that that the faa licence in Europe is irrelevant, and that FAA dispatchers are not sufficiently qualified to intervene in alive operation- if the pilot needs direct intervention then get the on call pilot involved to help out-an FAA dispatcher is not qualified to operate the aircraft, and in my opinion not best qualified to make marginal decisions.

I feel that a tailor made Euro ops officer qualification is required, as right now we have to be jacks of all trades and masters of none so to speak-if an accurate sylabus could be devised then great, as it would no doubt improve the efficiency and quality of the operations room.

rgds fh TUI OPS haj (formally Hapag Lloyd ops!!)

[opsbod]

"those with a licence are normally well versed in flight planning, but are often studious types who lack the ability to think and react quickly in a given situation; in fact the very idea of some of these guys intervening in a live operation brings me out in a cold sweat!"

I would suggest that the staff members you mention have been selected by your organisation because they have the qualifications to prove they are excellent flight planners, not necessarily good Ops Controllers. As someone who has employed staff with and without FAA licences or ATPLs I can say that generally the licensed staff have a much stronger technical understanding than their unlicensed colleagues.

Even in the States not all senior dispatchers will become operations controllers. I believe of the 80 or so dispatchers’ SouthWest employs only approx 10 are qualified to sit in the operations controllers’ seat. There are only 2 live desks and a pre-ops post per shift. At JetBlue the ratio is 4 to 1, dispatchers to ops controllers. At both airlines it is not necessary to have been a dispatcher to sit in the Ops chair, but it is a preference.

Also have you thought that the current European bias towards self-funding would lead those of a more studious nature taking the exams? These are the people who would seek the qualification because they want it as a challenge, perhaps about 50% of current European dispatchers, the other 50% are likely to be those who obtained the licence with the intention of working abroad or for carriers who required the licence as proof of technical ability.

I am not saying we should adopt the FAA licence as the European standard, just that we adopt a standard period instead of the current fudged position or total lack of.

I do disagree that the FAA licence in Europe is irrelevant; FAA dispatchers are qualified to intervene in a live operation, which is the point of joint responsibility and all in stands for, please read Kellmarks comments and those of another FAA dispatcher who spoke at length regarding the TUI Airbus crash in Rumours and News some time ago. Both can explain the advantages of shared responsibility. In Europe yes we have to rely on the Duty Pilot, but even he cannot over rule the commander of a European aircraft, sole responsibility in Europe rests with the pilot commanding. In the US an FAA dispatcher is not qualified to operate the aircraft, but is type rated, and is qualified to make marginal decisions and to assist with the decision making process.

All that said I am glad to see that you agree regarding a tailor made European ops officer qualification being required. With regards to the syllabus have you read ICAO 7192 D-3 and do you feel this is a good place to start? What do you feel we should add? What should be taken out?

[Frosty Hoar]

Sorry, I am unable to access ICAO 7192-d3 so cannot to comment. I agree that a common standard is required for operations personnel who should be qualified to carry out a job that does have a flight safety and economic implication.

I will accept the idea of joint responsibility when a device is invented that will teleport me to the flight deck in question at the right moment for our three way debate, until then I will rely upon the experience of management pilots with the thousands of flying hours to support the decision making process.

Thanks for letting me know that an FAA dispatcher has spoken at length about the Vienna incident, I suppose he was here,wasnt he on that particular day taking notes....

[kellmark]

Frosty Hoar. Interesting name, by the way.

No, I don’t have thousands of flight hours as a pilot in command. But, I do have thousands of flights dispatched safely. And I have had a number of incidents in which I know that I have made a difference in the safety of a flight. And the flight crews almost without exception thanked me for it.

No I wasn’t in the cockpit of the Hapag Lloyd flight, taking notes. But its sounds like somebody should have been helping that crew. I have spoken to the Investigator in Charge and discussed with him about an exact parallel that happened under the US joint responsibility system that DID NOT have an accident. It was an A300 with a gear down problem, fuel supply issue and the crew operating the aircraft at improper speeds, just like the Hapag-Lloyd flight. But in the US incident, the dispatcher advised the crew of the mistake and also gave the crew correct numbers for fuel burn with the gear down, plus what they should arrive with at the destination plus enroute alternates to stop at if it became necessary. That flight arrived safely at its destination with reserve fuel on board. That crew was making errors in judgment and had poor information, just as with the Hapag Lloyd flight, but the errors were corrected with the intervention of a licensed, trained, qualified flight dispatcher, unlike the Hapag-Lloyd flight.

Also, I find your comment about the licensed dispatchers being too slow to make a decision compared to the non-licensed ones simply absurd on its face. Who should the flight crew be dealing with? Someone who is knowledgeable and can really help them or someone who simply pushes buttons but has no clue what they are doing?

Multi-tasking is a natural part of the job, as is the need to make decisions in a timely manner. That is the nature of the business. But making a quick but ignorant decision is far worse. I know hundreds of flight dispatchers who are both very knowledgeable and timely in their decision making. In fact, because they are knowledgeable, they are able to make more timely decisions, as they either already know the answer or know where to look for it.

The point of joint responsibility is not to be in the cockpit. That should be obvious. But it is a clear safety check on human factors, both in errors of poor information and errors of poor judgment. You seem to think that pilots are without fault, so let’s keep dispatchers ignorant, as they are not to be trusted.

Your implication that because pilots fly the aircraft this means that dispatcher should have no decisive role in operational decision-making ignores the fact that the two functions, while having similar and to some extent overlapping knowledge bases, have distinct task and functional differences and their respective contributions to make. Dispatchers use different technologies, function in a different environment and work with many other actors in the operational environment. They often work many flights at once, but also know much more about the airline’s and the operational situation than the particular crew does, on a particular flight. But they must be certified and trained to be effective.

By having a management pilot be the source to go to instead of a flight dispatcher, you take out a fundamental safety check in the system. When a line pilot is dealing with a management pilot he/she is dealing with a superior in the chain of command. It is not an equal relationship. Management can take the pilot off flying status if they disagree with what the pilot is doing. Pressure can easily exist. We are in a deregulated environment where there is tremendous pressure to operate flights. The opposite is true in a joint responsibility system. The PIC and the flight dispatcher are jointly responsible for the safety of the flight. They must agree on the operation and that it is safe. In fact, the flight dispatcher provides a safety buffer from management pressure. This has been the case time after time.

Also, when a management pilot is brought in instead of a flight dispatcher, that pilot does not know the particular flight plan, the MEL situation, the fuel state, crew qualifications, aircraft weight, the weather, the ATC situation, airport issues, etc. of the flight involved. The flight dispatcher that planned the flight does know these things and can be of much more help in a situation such as a diversion or an emergency. Management is always available if needed, no matter which system is used, but with a joint system there is much more of a knowledge infrastructure to draw upon.

So here we have a situation in Europe as follows:
1. Many new pilots being hired with less experience than in previous years.
2. Many new air carriers, especially in the low cost model, with tremendous economic pressures due to economic deregulation on all carriers to operate every flight and get that revenue.
3. The weather patterns have changed, with generally more severe patterns than before.
4. The ATC is in flux and under pressure as it changes radically from what existed before.

Yet you are saying, in effect, that a proven, much more effective, safer system of operational control that provides much better support not just to the flight crews, but especially the passengers, should not be adopted. I think not.

PS. Opsbod. Excellent comments. But it needs the whole works.

[no sig]

Frosty Hoar, you need to look at the FAA style of operation as a whole. Kellmark has explained it well. Ýt is a system of operational control; dispatchers and pilots sit the same exam, they go through annual recurrent trainning, they generally have a mutal respect for one another and on the whole contribute to flight safety in a way we in Europe (generally) do not. No need to be on the flight deck, the US system provides for that. FAA dispatch and joint responsibility is a good system and offers benefits that ours does not.

The benefit of having a FAA Dispatchers licence in Europe has nothing to do wýth joint responsibility, but it does at least prove the holder has studied and passed examinations in operational subjects. Being a good ops controller or flight planner, its all the same, both need the knowledge. The crux of the matter, in my opinion, is that an operations officer/dispatcher who has studied to a level approaching aircrew licence requirements has a far greater appreciation of aircraft operations and can therefore offer greater support to aircrew, can anticipate operational problems earlier and in general can enhance flight safety, and thats also just good business! as we seem to agree.

Management pilots can be a subsitute for having experienced/qualified dispatchers in the ops room; Ý'm not saying that they are a bad idea- its just in my experience there is often a recognition by flight ops managment in many airlines that their ops staff simply dont have the knowledge and we need a pilot there just in case.

Ý could give you numerous examples of failings by ops officers who have worked for me over the years that boil down to a simple lack of of operational knowledge, some of them on the wrong side of safety. No, as we are agreed, our job is one that needs formal acceditdation. ÝCAO has the syllabus set out for us, perhaps a bit of updating is required, but the basic requirement is already there.

Kellmark, your case is a strong one and you make many valid comments, but Opsbod and the likes are starting at the first hurdle- a knowledge base. We have to get this in place, and if everyone who can pushes the cause Ý believe it just might happen this time. IFALDA/EUFALDA Ý hope can further this cause.

[opsbod]

The following is from the JAR OPS revision 7 effective 01 September:



Operator JAR-OPS 1.205 Competence of Operations personnel [(See ACJ OPS 1.205)]
An operator shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole.


[ACJ OPS 1.205
Competence of Operations personnel
See JAR-OPS 1.205
If an operator employs Flight Operations Officers in conjunction with a method of Operational Control as defined in JAR-OPS 1.195, training for these personnel should be based on relevant parts of ICAO Doc 7192 D3. This training should be described in Subpart D of the Operations Manual. It is not to be inferred from this that there is a requirement for Licensed Flight Dispatchers or for a flight following system.
[Amdt. 7, 01.09.04]

What's in your Part D?

[urdy gurdy]

if it means a pay rise i am up for anything

[bobdcatt]

May a thought about looking back to what we tried to do with the BGFOO !.

[no sig]

I'm curious to know if anyone out there has actually taken any steps to incorporate this new requirement into their Ops Manuals?

[G fiend]

Bit late to join the debate maybe, But...

I think that the path for Europe lies somewhere in between the two opinions- The joint responsibility approach has served well, I don't think that's in any doubt.

I'm not sure that it would work in Europe yet, simply from cultural reasons and where we're starting from- it strikes me as an awfully big chunk to swallow straight away. Especially as we haven't even got a set of standards to aim at.

I would like to see the joint responsibility approach with trained, certified and checked Ops staff, but I think it has to be introduced in stages.

First we have to introduce a common set of standards covering what should be expected of an operator's ops room and the staff within, then maybe we should introduce training, certification and recurrency standards. An 'Active Ops centre' ( by which I mean constant flight progress checking, live WX feeds and constant communication) should be next.

In my previous incarnation, whilst not all qualified dispatchers/ Ops blokes, we had a bl**dy good go at providing proper support to the crews, and making sure that they operated as safely as can be, but that company set and demanded high standards of itself and its staff, and made sure there was appropriate support and training, at least until the money men got in anyway.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it can be done without recourse to legislation, but it needs the operator to buy in to this- In todays financial climate where everything has a cost (apart from the CEO's bonus, of course) that may be difficult to do without legislative pressure.

On another point, in Europe we are still fighting some entrenched 'us and them' attitudes from some pilots. I know that's not the case in the states where pilots have every respect for good ops/ dispatchers, but it is going to be a big hurdle in Europe.

As an aside, If frosty hoar is talking about the people I think he's talking about, I agree totally with him!! I saw one in action- extremely frenzied, arm-waving, picnic-wrapper flapping action...Still makes me shudder to think on it today...It was only over a weather diversion as well, still...ho hum...bl**dy good at getting wally birds across the pond, though...

Anyway Frosty, hope the fiendling is behaving herself. rgds to all in particular SP

[FougaMagister]

VERY interesting thread! Having only been a Flight Dispatcher for a little under a year, I can say that a common set of standards, such as an EASA licence, might not be a bad idea at all to harmonise training standards. After all, we have JAA Flight Crew licences and are going towards some sort of European ATC licences (with some hiccups and national posturing along the way, as can be expected). In France and Spain, even Cabin Crew need a CAA licence, so how come Dispatch is a big free-for-all, with widely varying levels of training?

That said, whether Europe needs a US-style system of Flight Following is debatable; the current system seems reasonably well suited to the European airspace environment and the (mainly) relatively short-haul flights that go through it. Those that advocate a completely new system seem to grossly underestimate the task at hand with so many countries involved.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" - or as the French say: "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (the "best" is the ennemy of the "good").

Cheers :cool:

[no sig]

The ICAO Flight Dispatcher/Flight Operations Officer training syllabus (Doc7192 D3) defines the training standard for JAROPS1, its now up to airlines to introduce this into part D of the Ops Manual and then actually to start training to it! It will take a while to get there, but it is now a defined standard.

[Frosty Hoar]

So are we to assume that a euro ops licence is planned or that the airlines must take it upon themselves to train their staff in house with no official qualification?


PS GF hope you are well, thanks for your message.

[no sig]

Frosty Hoar

What the JAA have done is to define the ops officer training standard and in the UK's case, this brings them/us into line with the ICAO recommendation for the training of ops and flight dispatch personnel (as I understand it). EASA are reviewing the requirement for a FOO/FD licence for the future.

The clincher here, is just how far will the UK CAA and British airlines go with this new requirement. As a syllabus for the training of ops staff must now be defined in Part D, airlines must consider what they need out of ICAO Doc 7192 D3 as their training requirement. The CAA will, I presume, need to have an outline themselves as to what is required for various types of operation.

My approach, as you know, has been to try an establish the ICAO 7192 D3 course as a de facto licence in the UK, hence my efforts to get the GCNS course recognised as such and to provide a course which meets the new requirement. That is, if you have completed the course you will have met the necessary training for any operation and hopefully make yourself a much more marketable individual. No licence, but by doing the training you save the airline the trouble.

[This Charming Man]

Quote
I'm curious to know if anyone out there has actually taken any steps to incorporate this new requirement into their Ops Manuals?
Unquote

Thomas Cook , My Travel and First Choice Airways have now made it a requirement for thier Ops staff to trained in accordance
with ICAO DOC7192 part D3. Britannia (by default HLF staff already trained) also set this standard. Thomas Cook send their
staff to Sheffield in Florida and MYT and FCA are sending their staff to Jeppesen Frankfurt. Thanks to the JAA mandate, Ops Officers will now see a proper training ragime and the airlines will reap the benifits interms of more knowledgeable flightplanning and decsion making, that inturn will lead to efficiency and cost savings IMHO :ok:

[no sig]

That's good news.

[max payload]

All,

Over a decade ago I was invloved with EUFALDA/IFALDA initiatives to have FOO/FD standards in training & conduct accepted by European authorities.

This came about from a perceived requirement to have US and EU collegues perform similar duties when "handing over" each other's aircraft at 30W when the first US-EU airline partnership was taking form.
ADF was involved as well through the US counterpart, and later on the focus moved towards a professional OCC/SOC.

I have since migrated to different pastures.

It pleases me a great deal to read about recent FOO/FD standards developments in the EU/EASA arena, and where these developments are possibly leading: mature job recognition and job/ethics protection through standards & licensing.

Individual airlines have individual needs depending on company structure and company policies. Basic foundation training can be enhanced by company training to cover the various needs of companies, e.g. simple standard flightplan production and filing to long-range joint-authority flight dispatch and flight following.

History has shown that training NOT required by law and commercial aviation generally do not mix, i.e. does not happen.

Ideally, basic FOO/FD training should be undertaken by a recognised independent training facility, passing of whose exam(s) will entitle a student to a "frozen" FOO/FD ticket, to be "un-frozen" on completion of training and experience, a practice common to our industry.
Additional modules can be added as "ratings" required by operators depending on the terms of their AOC's.

Let me know how I can help.

Rgds, Max.

[swedish]

its worth noting this actuallly doesn't apply to Ops staff but rather flight planning staff - a small point, but they are not always the same people, or sit in the same location. Ops staff without flight planning have to be trained according to the company D3 manual only (and nothing to do with JAR or ICAO) - if the D3 doesn't say anything then from a complience standpoint no training is required.

[no sig]

Swedish

Can't quite see what you mean by saying this doesn't apply to ops control personnel or that it has nothing to do with JAR or ICAO. If your AOC is under JAROPS1 then the requirement for training ops staff (which will include flight planning staff if seperate from ops) must be defined in your Ops Manual Part D.

ICAO 7192 is the ICAO doc on which the relevant training must be based. Agreed ICAO or the JAA do not do the training and it is indeed the carriers responsibility, but the requirement and the syllabus originates with these two organizations.

'Ops personnel' is necessarily a broad term but must cover staff engaged in airline operational control and those engaged in flight planning- as you say sometimes the same sometimes not.


Operator JAR-OPS 1.205 Competence of Operations personnel [(See ACJ OPS 1.205)]
An operator shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole.


[ACJ OPS 1.205
Competence of Operations personnel
See JAR-OPS 1.205
If an operator employs Flight Operations Officers in conjunction with a method of Operational Control as defined in JAR-OPS 1.195, training for these personnel should be based on relevant parts of ICAO Doc 7192 D3. This training should be described in Subpart D of the Operations Manual. It is not to be inferred from this that there is a requirement for Licensed Flight Dispatchers or for a flight following system.
[Amdt. 7, 01.09.04]

[DK338]

Very interesting and informative thread. Many of the issues outlined here should be taken on board by Government agencies too, and by that I mean the RAF/FAA/DAAvn. From my experiences of Flight Operations staff in the RAF the level of training and technical knowledge is appalling and in my opinion as an aircraft operator the MoD should be looking at exactly the same issues as commercial aviation regarding training and competency.

Currently Flight Operations training in the RAF is ATC centric which although may give a useful grounding of the absolute basics of airfields and simple airspace issues actually teaches nothing on the technical issues surrounding the operation of aircraft. Sadly there is little enthusiasm for a more structured course of instruction within the service.

[Dylsexlic]

For all FOO/Dispatchers to understand the issues better, the roles must be defined. I know, for example, that some large airlines have split up the "Dispatcher" function into small jobs.

Thus you could have a flight planner, load planner, loadsheet production person, ground ops coordinator, flight ops coordinator, met manager, aircraft dispatcher (departure manager) and so on. This thread seems to relate to a job that encompasses all these things and possibly more.

Each of these functions has it's own training programme and licensing is managed internally by the airline on a "certificate of competence" basis.

From the airline point of view, this keeps training costs (and training time) to a minimum and makes it easy and cheap to replace people who leave.

Surely the first task of EASA is to define the role to be covered by a licence?

[no sig]

Dylsexlic

What you say about the job being split in many airlines is of course true, however, the point about this is to set a basic/generic training syllabus which fits most situations within the industry. It is exactly the same as for aircrew licencing, the ATPL is a generic licence which provides the basis for all types of aircraft, it is not type specific. The type rating system provides for that.

What the FOO/Flight Dispatchers (or whatever you choose to call them) training requirements are is defined by ICAO, same with aircrew. The objective must be to ensure that those working in flight safety critical areas have a 'minimum standard' of training, the airline can then build upon that. Start with a basic level of knowledge, this then in fact offer airlines the opportunity to place qualified staff where they need them with their structure.

EASA and JAR have very broadly defined the role as 'operational personnel', the airline can then define who those people are within their own Ops manual. The syllabus in 7192 D3 covers all of the basic knowledge for those individuals you've mentioned. Save those related to aircraft type and airline specific systems.

[fractional]

I take Captain101's complete posting to restate the obvious. We need to have proper legislation and it's about time "the think tank" in EASA (or JAA) look into this matter.
It is vital for pilots to understand that they must support this measure in order to have a better backup "up there".
I had email exchanges with the European Dispatcher's Association, and to be honest I saw little dynamism in their stance. They said that they had treid but there were other (stronger) forces prevailing, and? They said they'll continue to try but saw little effort.
Stay safe!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 10th March 2005 20:45

MZFW is a STRUCTURAL LIMITATION which if exceeded will mean a broken or structurally unsound aircraft.

I find it very alarming the number of dispatchers/load controllers who are unaware of this and are happily packing aircraft full of traffic load before fueling, oblivious to the damage they could be causing to the airframe.

Conveniently ZFW will tell a pilot how much fuel he can take for a given traffic load.

This is a very worrying indication of the standard of dispatch training in the UK and definatley justifies the introduction of JAA dispatch lisencing legislation. :ok:

[no sig]

fractional

You do make a good point in your posting. I'm afraid many will be sick of 'no sig's' hammering on about this subject, but I'll keep at it until the realisation dawns with a slight apology to those who have tired a bit from my posts on the subject.

Aircrew, particular those in flight ops management, could indeed help a great deal, but alas, few really understand what this is all about. Many confuse the issue with the US/FAR based flight dispatch system and joint authority with the commander for operational decisions. At one time back in the late 1970's that was the case as we pushed for a FAA style license, however, my view is that we have moved beyond that in Europe, not that the FAR dispatch system isn't a good system- it is, but I doubt very much it would be accepted in Europe as it is in the States and other countries. It is however necessary, as ICAO and the JAA recommend/require, to ensure those who support flight operations from the ground have an adequate knowledge base and specific training for the role they fulfill. Although this post refers to those in the operational control room, it is of course equally important that ramp personnel have the appropriate training.

Airline's in general, particularly in the UK, have failed miserably in providing the training of their own volition, and the recent JAROPS1 amendment detailing the ICAO 7192 D3 training seems to be very slow getting off the ground. The CAA seem never to have been convinced that ground personnel training, save for engineers, was ever a priority for them, content to leave it to the airline's to make up their own mind. Much I'm sad to say, as the recent JAROPS1 amendment has, even though it has specified that the ICAO syllabus must be the basis and the inclusion of the training requirement in Part D.

Future EASA regulations must require operational personnel in specified roles, to hold an EASA approved accreditation to a standard such as ICAO 7192 D3 or perhaps an EASA revised version. EASA may indeed turn the tables on this and embody a stricter requirement on member states, we'll see. But it will likely take support from our pilot colleagues.

[Opssys]

I have followed this thread with considerable interest since its inception. But the recent posts from 'Dylsexlic' and 'no sig' caused me to revisit my own views on this. Partly, this is because in another life (20 Years ago) myself and a gentleman known as MJET spent about six months, on and off, working through the Recruitment and training needs for future staff in Operations
Control in the Airline we then both worked for. So much of what 'Dylsexlic' and 'no sig' have written echoes our own discussions and subsequent presentation papers to 'the management'.

But the past is another Country and to reduce the 'bore factor' I will try and summarize my own views:

EASA and more specifically the CAA in the UK, need to set out a series of core requirement modules Each module is function specific (e.g. Basic Weight and Balance, Basic Met, Dangerous Goods, Basic Crewing, Basic Navigation) and much of the content can lifted from course content of the various Aviation Studies City and Guilds courses, plus the current IATA (and ATA) Recommendations (I suspect the CAA, but possibly not EASA would find this IATA involvement difficult to 'swallow')

Attainment of a sufficient number of related groups of Modules provides a basic licence enabling that person to work in Ground Operations, or Operations Control at a non-supervisory level

A series of Advanced modules provide a follow-on and again providing a person attains a sufficient number, they move up to the full licence (a sort of transition from CPL to ATPL)

These advanced modules draws their content from a wider net, for example - Institute of Transport, a more detailed knowledge of National (i.e. CAA) regulations concerning the content of Crew Licensing (e.g. Performance A, Aerodrome Safety and
Licensing) and ICAO recommendations, etc and even some of the more complex IATA recommendations (Appendix H of the SSIM springs to mind).

If an Airline, or Handling Agency where a licence holder is a specialist (e.g. Flight Planning or for a Ground Ops person Load Planning), they also hold a rating for that function and they are checked every two years
Moving from one specialist function to another, a person should obtain the required 'rating' in 90 days

For a Duty Manager Operations Control, or Duty Ground Operations Managers, who by the nature of the job has to have sufficient knowledge of many disciplines, so they are not only able to ask the right questions, but evaluate the answers
(e.g. Safety, Commercial, Crewing, Oveflights, Airport Capability etc, etc) the problem of remaining 'current' from a licensing viewpoint is a lot more problematical (and I don't have an answer that is satisfactory to me), The same difficulty applies to other more junior positions, where an across the board knowledge is required (although this tends to be more Ground Handling than Operations Control)

Finally and the highest level of all are degrees in Airport Management and Airline Operational Management Actually Cranfield at one stage did run a Masters in Airport Management (if your reading this Sarah, I am still impressed by your thesis :-), but I was thinking more of a Bachelor level.
Also this degree would have to have a vocational element of say five years practical experience!


Postions must require that candidates have the correct qualifications prior to the final selection process.
Pay must also have a qualification component, in part to encourage people to keep studying (OK here's your £1.00 a week, don't spend it all at once, won't cut it).

None of the above can be achieved without some form of regulatory enforcement. Because without being forced Airlines and Agencies without a tradition of Training and Staff Development will still work on the basis of there are plenty more people who want the job and if they can read and write, we can
hammer in the basics in a couple of weeks and they can learn the rest on shift (with a mentor for a pattern, or two if they are lucky)! For Airlines and Agencies, who do have a tradition in this area, the pressures to keep narrowing the training focus to profile an exact job function (and in some cases rank within
the job function) and curtailing the broader 'educational need for future development' is extremely difficult to resist

Unlike 'no sig' I am sorry to say I cannot see BALPA, or any
other Pilot group getting 'on side' on this (God, I hope they prove me wrong)

So this is something the current generation of Operations Professionals (unrecognised as their true worth is) are going to have to continue fight for, effectively alone, so that the next generation benefit I don't think this is a forlorn hope, but even with EASA and ICAO moving things (finally) in the right
direction, a lot of effort from the 'current frontline' is going to be
required.

Right I'll have my 'dried frog pills' now and be quiet.
DIH

[no sig]

Opssys

We're singing from the same hymn sheet on this and I agree with a great deal of what you are saying. I'm not really kidding myself on here, pilots unions are very unlikely to get involved in this one, although- properly briefed, I do believe their support for higher training standards for operational staff on the ground might be obtained. Sadly, when flight dispatcher or ops officer licensing is mentioned it usually generates the notions of the FAA dispatcher problem which I've highlighted before. Pilot managers/training managers on the other hand have a role to play, particularly if they are postholders on the AOC of the airline, and/or have responsibility for ops control and the likes.

Where I do see where you're coming from on progressive module based training system, I am inclined towards a more simplistic approach. That is, very simply, anyone engaged in exercising operational control over commercial aircraft operations must have a minimum knowledge base and be accredited in some form by holding an EASA/NAA approved ops qualification. The JAA or EASA will define the MUST hold part, the airline can then define the desirable to hold. Unless, EASA make this a clear requirement it is unlikely to take root, as we have seen in years past.

The syllabus for the training is already defined in ICAO 7192 D3 and as an ICAO international requirement/recommendation that’s the place to start I believe. Now, as I've said before, 7192 D3 could do with some updating, but the basis for a minimum level of knowledge is already there. My view is, we need a requirement for a qualification which is operationally generic and designed to cover all types of aircraft operations and be broad based. In truth the model exists already- it is directly analogous to aircrew licensing. A pilot obtains a generic license, and then is type rated on the aircraft he/she will fly. For Ops staff, airlines, would bring in new ops people with their 'ticket' obtained by passing the approved course and then receive airline specific training and recurrent training as required. The trainee should/ might sit in as part of pilot/ops officer intake and complete the initial performance and relevant training at that level. The qualification is the starting point for a career in airline operations, just as the CPL/ATPL is for a commercial pilot.

There would of course need to be a transistional period and a system for people to work under supervision, but all of that would follow. The biggest issue of course, is what's the incentive for someone who has been working in Ops for 10 years to go and work hard to pass a new qualification, for no additional pay? In my last outfit I confess I found it difficult to get them to do it for a guaranteed 11% per annum increase if they pass the exams, I had only a few takers!

So, I agree wholeheartedly, it all must be driven by the regulatory authorities if it is ever to really take hold, airlines must also do their part and raise standards and start asking for higher qualification in their ops recruitment and that means pay commensurate with ability and qualification/s. Also, we need colleges and training organisations to take this requirement on board, but I won’t go there just now!

In your last paragraph you make perhaps the most important, it isn't going to happen without those in the business pushing for and embracing the idea.

[Crossunder]

Does anyone have an electronic copy of ICAO Doc 7192 D3? Or does ICAO have som sort of avshop to buy it from?

[Opssys]

Crossunder.
I haven't bought any ICAO Publications recently, but from memory like the IATA Manuals they are expensive, so beware.
But to answer the question on sources the following courtesy of the CAA Web Site:

ICAO documents are available from:

Airplan Flight Equipment
1a Ringway Trading Estate
Shadowmoss Road,
Manchester, M22 5LH
Tel: 0161 499 0023
Fax: 0161 499 0298
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.afeonline.com

(Opssys Note: Telephone them to find out UK prices, the Web Site isn't going to be that useful on this occasion)

or can be ordered directly from:

International Civil Aviation Organization
Document Sales Unit
999 University Street
Montreal
Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada
Tel: 001 514 954 8022
Fax: 001 514 954 6769
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: www.icao.int

BRgds
Opssys

[opsbod]

The document is available at ICAO's online shop at

http://icaodsu.openface.ca/mainpage.ch2

Search for the keyword 7192...For Operations & Dispatch Part D-3 is available in English, French, Spanish & Russian for $61.

Hope this helps.

[Epsilon minus]

Operator JAR-OPS 1.205 Competence of Operations personnel [(See ACJ OPS 1.205)]
An operator shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole.


[ACJ OPS 1.205
Competence of Operations personnel
See JAR-OPS 1.205
If an operator employs Flight Operations Officers in conjunction with a method of Operational Control as defined in JAR-OPS 1.195, training for these personnel should be based on relevant parts of ICAO Doc 7192 D3. This training should be described in Subpart D of the Operations Manual. It is not to be inferred from this that there is a requirement for Licensed Flight Dispatchers or for a flight following system.
[Amdt. 7, 01.09.04]

Which of you would support the replacement of 1.205 with ACJ Ops 1.205 where the word 'if' are removed and the word 'should' replaced with 'WILL'. All you Ops Managers out there; let's hear from you.

[Opssys]

Hi Epsilon minus.
Nicely Put.
Having read the extracts a couple of times - Your proposed edits would 'force the issue'.

I do wonder how many Operations Managers (above Duty Manager) read this forum. I suspect many gave up during the 'silly phase' this forum endured.
But I for one would really like to know thier views.

As we know that this and associated threads have a relatively (for this forum) high viewing figures, but only a few contributors.
So again some of the 'lurkers' might also like to make their views known!
DIH

[ralle72]

finally...
In Germany the dispatch license has been required for ages.
Following the theoretical course there is a training on the job with an airline for several months. There, the students learn to apply their knowledge and handle the computer programs that are required due to the vast amount of data. The previous thorough training is important to guarantee that the programs are properly used and the output is correctly understood and interpreted.
Additionally, the new dispatchers get an introduction to other departments within the airline. Such, e.g. the station coordination and ramp control are visited and another jumpseat is completed, which has to be prepared and is accompanied by a trainer.

The training is finsihed with the successful completion of a theoretical and practical exam at the Luftfahrtbundesamt/LBA (the german FAA). If completed successfully the candidate is awarded a german dispatcher license.:D

[Epsilon minus]

If completed successfully the candidate is awarded a german dispatcher license.
Which,of course, is very commendable but it is not recognised by the JAA.

[routechecker]

Here we go.
I used online translators to come up with the text bellow.
Be kind, it's not perfect English (far from that) however you gan get a pretty good idea of the National legislation that applied to Portuguese flight dispatchers and their licencing.
rgds

Part I


D. R. Nº 22 SERIES II , P 1319 the 1322 of Monday 27 of January of 2003
SENDER: Ministry of the Public works, Transports and Habitation - National Institute of Civil Aviation
DIPLOMA/ACTO: Nº4/2003 regulation
SUMMARY :
Norms for officers of operations of voo (OOV) .
TEXT:
Nº4/2003 regulation , of 27 of January
Regulation n.º 4/2003. - Norms for officers of operations of voo (OOV). - In accordance with annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Convention of Chicago), relative to the operation of aircraft, the operators certifyd for commercial air transportation will have to possess, in its organic and functional structure, an area of forwarding and responsible operational control for the fulfilment of the operational requirements and of security in the totality of the operation. This area will have to be directed by officers of operations of voo duly permitted for the exercise of the respective functions. In accordance with the same attached and doc. n.º 9376 of the ICAO, "Preparation of a manual of operations", the operator will have to possess a manual of operations of voo (MOV) that it contains the methods of planning and supervision of voos that assure the fulfilment of the operational requirements and security behind related and that it assures the staff existence authorized technician for the national aeronautical authority for the exercise of the functions of officer of operations of voo. The present regulation establishes the basic rules for application of these orientações. On the other hand, one shows convenient to include in the text of the present regulation relative norms to the conditions of emission, revalidation and renewal of the licenses of officers of operations of voo, which will have to pass to be applied in substitution of published in the paragraph 4,5 of the "Norms and procedures of licensing", published as attached to Circulating of Aeronautical Information n.º 14/90, of 16 of November of 1990.
Thus:
In the terms of n.os 2 and 3 of the article 8.º of the Decree n.º 133/98, of 15 of May, modified for the Decree n.º 145/2002, of 21 of May, the advice of administration of the INAC, for deliberation of 23 of December of 2002, approved the following regulation:
CHAPTER I
Relative norms to the function of the officers of operations of voo
Article 1.º
Forwarding and operational control
1 - The operators detainers of a certificate of aerial operator (COA) must assure that none voo either initiated without that the operational information for the conduction of the voos in security have been duly analyzed all pertinent, having to be elaborated and to be presented an operational analysis (briefing) that it must be dispatched for the responsible pilot for voo.
2 - The operators must still assure, all the moment, the monitoring of the voos in the totality of the areas of its operation, through methods of operational control, with capacity to establish effective communication with any aircraft, in the eventuality of being necessary to supply to the pilot excellent information the conduction in security of voo.
3 - In the case of small operators, the foreseen operational forwarding and control in the previous numbers can be efectuados by pilots.
4 - Small operators are considered, for the ends of the previous number, those that, cumulatively:
) They possess an equal or inferior fleet the three aircraft, whose certifyd of navigability alone it allows a maximum number of 19 passengers or that they have a maximum mass to the taking off (the 10 MMD) inferior t;
b) is not detainers of any special authorization of operation;
c) they do not efectuem voos intercontinental.
5 - In the remaining cases, the operational forwarding and the control must be efectuados by officers of operations of voo duly permitted to attend the pilots in the exercise of these functions.
6 - The operator can contract the services of forwarding and operational control of another entity with staff permitted for the effect.
7 - In the case foreseen in the previous number, the operational responsibility remains with the operator, having this to establish a method of quality control of the contracted entity.
Article 2.º
Manual of operations of voo
1 - The manual of operations of voo (MOV) of the operator must contain the description of its organic and functional structure, of form to guarantee the fulfilment of the foreseen one in the previous article.
2 - The manual of operations of voo must still contain the specification of the functions, duties and responsibilities attributed to responsible for the operational forwarding and the control, in accordance with the annex To the this regulation.
Article 3.º
Officers of operations of voo
1 - An officer of operations of voo only can exert functions will be itself titular of valid license, exceptuando the period of period of training.
2 - The conditions of maintenance of the validity of the license and the form as the operator assure this maintenance must be explicitadas in the manual of operations of voo.
CHAPTER II
Licensing
Article 4.º
Requirements for the emission of licenses of officers of operations of voo
1 - The candidate the license of officer of operations of voo has to fill the following requirements:
) To have completed 21 years of age to the date of emission of the license;
b) To have completed 12.º year of escolaridade in area that includes you discipline them of Mathematics and Physics or to demonstrate to knowledge of mathematics and physics by means of approval in examinations to carry through for the INAC, having, in this last case, to have completed, at least, the obligator minimum escolaridade;
c) To demonstrate knowledge of the English language by means of approval in examination efectuado in the INAC or authorized entity for the INAC for the effect, or by means of the accomplishment of the related theoretical tests in alínea d) in English language;
d) To demonstrate theoretical knowledge on the aerial legislation, common knowledges of aircraft, calculation of the performance and procedures of planning of voo, meteorology, air travel, operational procedures, principles of voo and radiotelefónicas communications, by means of approval in written tests to carry through for the INAC;
e) To possess the demanded experience or formation, in the terms of n.º 3 of this article;
f) To have completed, with exploitation, in the six immediately previous months to the order of emission of the license, the period of training the one that if relates to the article 5.º of the present regulation;
g) To demonstrate to proficiency adjusted for the exercise of the prerogatives the one that if candidate.
2 - The knowledge of English language the one that if relates alínea c) are guided for the preparation of the voos, nominated in that if it relates to the consultation of manuals technician, to the interpretation of the international legislation and to the fraseologia used in radio communications.
3 - The candidate the license of officer of operations of voo must possess acquired experience or professional formation in the terms of one of the following alíneas:
) To have given to a total of two years of service, playing a only one or combination of two, being the experience in each one of them of at least one year, the following activities:
i) Pilot, technician of voo or navigator in air transportation;
ii) Meteorologista in an organization of operational forwarding of aircraft in air transportation;
iii) Controlling of air traffic or supervisor technician of officers of operations of voo or systems of operations of voo of air transportation;
b) To have given one year of service as assistant in the forwarding of air transportation;
c) To have completed with exploitation a course of formation homologated for the INAC and given by an entity of authorized formation for the INAC, with a program organized in the terms of doc. 7192-na/857, D-3 part, of the ICAO.
Article 5.º
Period of training
1 - The candidate the officer of operations of voo will have to carry through a period of training with the duration of at least 90 working days, under the supervision of an officer of operations of voo duly permitted and with qualification of monitor, during which efectue a minimum of 120 operational forwardings in voos of air transportation.
2 - The responsible entity for the period of training must emit a declaration of finishing of exactly, when the candidate congregates all the demanded requirements.
3 - The period of training will only be initiated after the candidate to have surpassed the theoretical tests and of English language the one that if relate alíneas c) and d) of n.º 1 of the previous article.
Article 6.º
Demonstration of proficiency
1 - The demonstration of proficiency the one that if relates the alínea g) of n.º 1 of the previous article will be made before an authorized examiner for the INAC, having the candidate to proceed:
) To the manual elaboration, or with resource the half informáticos, of a plan of voo inside of the operational limits of the aircraft and the airports of origin and destination, on the basis of the specific manual analysis;
b) To the determination, from the analysis of "notes", meteorological letters and forecasts and restrictions of air traffic, the excellent trajectory of voo for determined chunk, in terms of consumption, time of voo and meteorological conditions in all the passage;
c) To the effective monitorização of one voo, with particular incidence for the operations special, supplying actualizada information to the crews of any alterations to the initial planning.
2 - The demonstration of proficiency will include, as evaluation element, the verification of the specific knowledge of English language that allow the meeting of the necessary information to the accomplishment of voo.
3 - The order of accomplishment of the demonstration of proficiency must be efectuado by the proper one or its representative, under the form of petition (mod. n.º 20/DPA) in the Direcção de Aeronautical Pessoal of the INAC, folloied of declaration of finishing of the period of training foreseen in n.º 2 of the article 5.º
4 - With the presentation of the petition, the petitioner will have to proceed to the payment of the taxes due in the terms of the law.
Article 7.º
Petition of accomplishment of tests
1 - The order of accomplishment of the theoretical tests and English foreseen in alíneas c) and d) of n.º 1 of the article 4.º, must be efectuado by the proper one or its representative, in the Direcção de Aeronautical Pessoal of the INAC, under the form of petition (mod. n.º 20/DPA), folloied of comprovativos documents of the académicas qualifications and the fulfilling of the requirement demanded for alínea e) of n.º 1 of the article 4.º

[routechecker]

Part II
2 - in case of the candidate when official of operations of flight will not have completed the 12.th year of schooling, in area that includes the disciplines of Mathematics and Physical, there will have to still apply for the realization of the examinations predicted in the opening line b) of the n.º 1 of the 4.th article 3 - With the presentation of the request, will owe the petitioner proceed to the payment of the taxes owed in the terms of the law. 8.th article Request for emission of the license 1 - The request of emission of license of official of operations of flight will be effectuated by the own one or by his representative, in the Direction of People Aeronáutico of the INAC, under the form of request (mod. n.º 20/DPA), accompanied by the next elements: a) Token of biographical elements (mod. n.º 10/DPA); b) Two recent photographies, type passes, to colors; c) Copy of confirmatory document of identity of the petitioner. 2 - With the presentation of the request, will owe the petitioner proceed to the payment of the taxes owed in the terms of the law.
9.th article Validity and maintenance of the license 1 - A license of official of operations of flight is valid for five years, being able to be revalidated by the INAC in the term of this period. 2 - The holder of a license of official of operations of flight can practise the privileges of his license when it has been effectuating, at least, the operational dispatch of 12 flights of air transport in the last 120 days. 3 - When one checks that the holder of the license does not satisfy the requisite of recent experience told in the previous number, will owe this one, to restore the privileges of his license, to effectuate the operational necessary dispatches to the fulfilment of the requisite in question under supervision of a holder of license with the valid privileges.
10.th article Revalidation of the licenses 1 - Pará to revalidate a license of official of operations of flight, his holder will have to satisfy, cumulativamente, the next requisites: a) To have effectuated a minimum of 12 operational dispatches of flights of air transport in 90 days immediately previous to the old age of the license; b) To have carried out a program of continuous formation during the period of validity of the license or to have completed satisfactorily a course of refrescamento in 12 months previous to the old age of the license; c) To have, in the course of the validity of the license, when formation of specialization was received properly registered, for each type (or class) of aircraft which dispatch proceeds; d) To carry out, in the course of the validity of the license, three flights of familiarization (in line) of which the last thing during 12 months immediately previous to the old age of the license. 2 - The licenses will be revalidated by means of request (mod. n.º 20/DPA) signed by the own one or by his representative handed in the INAC in three months immediately previous to the date limit of the validity of the license, accompanied by declaration of the operator of which the requisites were carried out when 2 or 3 of the previous article were predicted in n.os and of the n.º 1 of the present article.
3 - with the presentation of the request, it will owe the petitioner proceed to the payment of the taxes owed in the terms of the law.
4 - it is responsibility of an operator to secure a system of register and control appropriate to the proof of the conditions of continuity of the licenses, when gave to the INAC all the necessary informations to the inspection of the fulfilment of the established one in this article and in n.os 2 and 3 of the previous article.
11.th article
Special conditions of emission of licenses
1 - the holders of licenses who have become senile there are fewer three years they can apply to the INAC for the emission of new license, since they prove what they carried out, under the supervision of an official of operations of flight properly licensed and with qualification of monitor, a traineeship with the least duration of 60 days and demonstrate proficiency adapted for the exercise of the prerogatives what they apply, we have of the 6.th article
2 - the holders of licenses who have become senile be more than three and there are fewer seven years they can apply to the INAC for the emission of new license, interim:
a) A proof, for part of the candidate, of which it effectuated, under the supervision of an official of operations of flight properly licensed and with the qualification of monitor, a traineeship with the least duration of 90 days, during which it collaborated straightly or effectuated the dispatch of, at least, 12 flights of air transport;
b) A demonstration of theoretical knowledges on air legislation, calculation of performance and proceedings of planning of flight, operational proceedings, communications radiotelefónicas and meteorology, by means of the approval in respective trials to carry out for the INAC;
c) A demonstration of proficiency in the terms of the 6.th article
3 - the request of emission of license will be effectuated by the own one or by his representative, under the form of request (mod. n.º 20/DPA) in the Direction of People Aeronáutico of the INAC, accompanied by confirmatory documents of the realization of the traineeship in the terms of the previous numbers.
4 - with the presentation of the request, it will owe the petitioner proceed to the payment of the taxes owed in the terms of the law.
CHAPTER III
Final and transitory arrangements
12.th article
Transitory arrangements
1 - the valid licenses when the date of the publication of the present regulation maintains if - ão valid even to the end of the period of validity in them appropriate, I end which they must be revalidated in accordance with the constant standards of the present regulation.
2 - the requisites predicted in the opening lines b), c) and d) of the n.º 1 of the 10.th article will be applied only by them to the revalidation of the licenses that, we in have of the previous number, should be effectuated 18 months from the date of come into force of the present regulation.
3 - the operators must hand in the INAC over the alterations to the manuals of operations of flight resulting from the fulfilment of the present regulation, in the space of four months from the date of the publication of the same thing.
4 - even to the publication of the legislation that will regulate getting the qualification of monitor, the traineeships predicted in the 4.th article, n.º 1, opening line g), in the 5.th article and in the 11.th article, n.os 1 and 2, opening line c), of the present regulation they will be carried out under the supervision of an official of operations of flight properly licensed and authorized for the effect, I marry to if, for the INAC.
13.th article
Interpretation and integration of gaps
The doubts caused by the application of the present regulation, as well as they will be decided on the integration of eventual gaps by the INAC.
14.th article
When it came into force
The present regulation comes into force the next day to that of his publication.
23 of December of 2002. - The President of the Council of Administration, José Ernesto of the Coast Queiroz.
I ANNEX To
(the one that tells to herself the 2.th article, n.º 2, of the present regulation)
The attached present contains a detailed description of the functions, duties and responsibilities of an official of operations of flight, being able to serve like element of direction and consultation for the preparation of the rules to include in the manual of operations.
1 - Functions of the official of operations of flight:
a) the pilots Assist in the preparation of each flight, supplying all the necessary documents to the execution of the totality of the flights, respecting the regulations aeronáuticas and carrying out the demanded standards of security;
b) To practise vigilance and to establish communication with any aircraft, in the totality of the areas of his operation, in order to do face to eventual necessity of supplying with a pilot commander relevant informations for the driving, in security, of the flight or of unleashing proceedings in emergency.
2 - Duties and responsibilities
- the duties and responsibilities resulting from the functions of the official of operations of flight, can be articulated in three phases:
2.1 - Phase daily pay-flight (function of supervision):
a) To analyse the meteorological conditions in route, from letters of analysis of surface, of winds in altitude, of images satellite and of spread of foresight for the alternative target airports and respective;
b) To ask for crews' substitution, case take place insuficiências of certification for determined airports;
c) To analyse the informations spread by the entities aeronáuticas about the operacionalidade of traces, helps-radios, areas and limited routes, category of the services against fire and others that could affect the flights;
d) To spread delays in the hour of exit or to proceed to the cancellation of flights for operational impediments;
e) To study alternative routes, by means of analysis of restrictions in route (slot), I marry from there benefits pass in terms of economy, punctuality and security.
2.2 - Phase daily pay-flight (function of planning):
a) To prepare a plan of operational flight, choosing to the best route from the analysis of national and international regulations, foresight and meteorological phenomena, availability of several air spaces and operational specific proceedings of the operator;
b) To check if the plan of official flight is spread correctly by the services of air traffic;
c) To integrate the calculation of fuel for transport of the useful weight of each distance, in accordance with the data of performance, time of flight and meteorological conditions;
d) To spread the least supply planned for preparation of the leaf of load;
e) To put, if the flight has beginning in scales out of the base without people accredited in operations, the whole necessary documentation for the preparation of the flight, by means of information of the above-mentioned scales.
2.3 - Phase of dispatch (function of planning):
a) commander Subjects to the approval of a pilot the next documents: meteorological information (letters of analysis and of winds in altitude, foresight of the airports including the time-tables of the operation, last observation of same), relevant information of the airports included by the distance (proceedings and facilities aeroportuárias, letters of navigation, notes and directives of the operator), I glide of operational and official flight (repetitive or placed unitariamente) and restrictions of traffic (slot);
b) To set out, by means of the foregoing information, the choice of the route, alternatives and planned fuel, when commander is gathering the signatures of the pilot and of the official of operations of flight in the plan of operational flight.
2.4 - Phase of dispatch (function of supervision):
a) To inform the pilot of any alteration to the useful weight, to the type of aircraft, to the chosen route, to the time-table of departure / arrival and respective straight or indirect causes;
b) To proceed to the hits asked by a pilot, spreading to other included sectors (supplementary supply, leaf of load) any relevant alterations for the driving of the flight;
c) To complement any information for the scales, out of the base, where the flight could have beginning.
2.5 - Phase of the flight (function of supervision):
a) To practise constant vigilance on all the flights, with special incidence on ocean areas or desérticas;
b) To maintain the active and up-to-date plans of flight, in accordance with possible alterations to the time-tables of arrival / departure;
c) To contact the pilot, if anyone takes place phenomenon that could have repercussions for the driving of the flight in security;
d) the pilot Assists in any solicitation, of operational, commercial order or of emergence;
e) To unleash all the proceedings, in case of amusement for an alternative airport.

[Epsilon minus]

Routechecker
Thank you. Some of the translation was most amusing especially the reissue of a licence after senility. However I wont trivialise the true value of this post by poking fun at it.
The most startling revalation for me was Chap 3 para C that the training syllabus for the issue of a Portugese Dispatcher licence will be in accordance with ICAO 7192 D3.
Wake up SRG you're lagging badly on this one.
EM

[Opssys]

Thank You Routechecker for posting the Translation.
Fascinating Document and whilst I had a ‘smidgen’ of knowledge of the German Licence, the Portuguese Regulations were news to me.

On the downside it is depressing that whilst people like 'no-sig' have been banging their head against the doors of official apathy in the UK, other countries have taken heed and have enacted the required legislation and put in place clear and unequivocal requirements.

[routechecker]

Routechecker
Thank you. Some of the translation was most amusing especially the reissue of a licence after senility. ..EM

Ah, the wonders of online tranlators.:D :D
The word senile here, means the licence has lapsed, because one of the requesites has not been met (e.g. number of dispatched flights).
Also, and I believe everybody got it, the often repeated word voo means flight.

rgds

[Epsilon minus]

Some interesting issues arise from Routecheckers post that no one has picked up on.

1) From a management perspective:
There is a wealth of highly qualified and state licenced flight dispatchers in Portugal all (by requirement) good English speakers that could work in your department for very good rates. No need to consider expensive training schemes for your ops officers in the USA (FAA Dispatcher licence). It's all here for you in Europe.

2) From an Ops Officer perspective:
Potentially your jobs are at threat. Simple as that. Or forget the FAA licence go to Lisbon and get a Portugese one. Again it's not recognised by JAR but it may help you get a job. Recognise that your job security has potentially been sidelined by the SRG and its refusal to sanction any formal training or licence for your job.

3) From the perspective of all of you:
Less of this :zzz: and more of this :} . Speak to your FOI now and together we can get the ball rolling