Hi again
Many thanks to “No Sig and Mister Rainbow” for your time and trouble in responding to my posts
I certainly thank Mister Rainbow for actually reading my initial posting and realising I am NOT new to Operations, quite the contrary, I have 27 years experience, like yourself I too welcome a “standard” for the industry we serve.
I also accept “teething” problems in a new course, but a few comments made by “no sig” give me even more cause for concern.
Firstly you state that Easyjet have issued a statement to its staff taking this course regarding the “overkill” in certain aspects of module 1. I am somewhat surprised that the University has not issued this to ALL people taking the course, I for one have not received this information. As the “meeting” was on the 7th Jan, I expect to receive this information ASAP.
Secondly you state that certain “major” airlines will be involved in the moderating of modules 2 and 3, which begs the question why were they not involved in moderating module 1 ?
I was given the impression from the University when I started this course that the airlines had been approached with reference the content, but this now appears not to be the case.
It is quite obvious from your posting that you are in some way involved with the production of this course and I find myself also concerned on a moral issue, I fail to understand how the University can “sell” a course that doesn’t satisfy the requirements of its students and is clearly not complete.
I seem to have unintentionally opened a can of worms, my initial concerns were the errors, teething or otherwise that appear to be cropping up and to discuss the depth of content of the course.
Like Mister Rainbow, I feel I can speak with authority when I say I have never used, nor likely to use much of the content of this course, whether dispatching light twins or wide bodies, I really don’t need this depth of understanding and I continue to challenge anyone that says I do.
I shall be writing to the CAA shortly on this subject, because if this were the level of understanding you consider an Ops Dispatcher needs, it would appear that I should take the ATPL exam on completion of this course and go flying for a living. Maybe the idea is for Ops jobs to be taken by pilots ? As far as I can see, and I stress in my opinion, the University have re-titled their ATPL course an “Operations/Flight Dispatchers course” with little or nothing taken out.
I have no problem with my limited understanding of aircraft systems and dispatching under the MEL/DDG, surprisingly these documents quite clearly state what you can and what you can’t dispatch with regards aircraft systems. By all means teach us what an Altimeter is and what it does, but the intricate workings of its internals, too deep. Circuit diagrams for AC Generators – I don’t think so either. Engineers and Pilots get classroom lessons to understand this sort of depth.
ICAO Doc 7192 part D-3 page D3-5 states the recommended study time for someone without previous experience will need 12 hours to cover Aircraft indoctrination (systems, propulsion, theory of flight etc). This course allocates a massive 150 hours!! Now tell me the content is not too deep. ATPL syllabus? I think so.
I thank you both once again for you time and trouble in discussing your views, I would be interested to see if anyone else taking this course has any views on what has been discussed.
Very best regards
FG