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