famous grouse, I beg your pardon, I didn't read your posting closely enough- I note your experience and have no doubt you are competent, my comment was made in the context of the post and the need for training in general.
First of all, the airlines were involved in the first modules. The UK Ops Mgr Assoc. UKOMA, has been involved from the beginning and this was to ensure that the course had an industry input.
Regarding study time, the requirements of Doc 7192 specify class room hours of training, for an open learning course these need to be doubled if not trebled. We checked this against the 7192 and found the college study plan not too far off the mark. Also, it is also one of the reasons the UKOMA group pushed the course to 18 months.
Now to the content, doc 7192 requires interpretation as is not so rigidly defined as the JAR FCL exams. However, this is the training standard the CAA has adopted as an ICAO country and the aim of the course is meet that requirement.
The Glasgow College has the advantage of being a JAA approved training organisation, a respected nautical college and very experienced tutors who have had many years providing aviation training for aircrew. It is true that the course was developed from the JAR ATPL materials, as the ICAO 7192 content is so very closely aligned with it in many areas, but was edited with much deleted. The ATPL study materials offered a sound basis for the development of the course. We had to remove much of the 'pilot' content to meet the 7192 requirements. However, it was also important to ensure there was sufficient depth remaining to enable the 'no experience candidate' to complete the rest of the course and develop an understanding of the subject. E.g. without a clear understanding of principles of flight and aircraft systems, how can you progress onto performance and flight planning? The content must be viewed in the context of the course requirements as a whole and not as an isolated subject.
So in reviewing the 7192 syllabus, and if you have a copy you can see that the training goals are not always clear as to how much depth to go into. E.g. Power plant and Propulsion - requires a 'thorough understanding' in the training goal. So, in compiling this course, we had to ensure that sufficient depth was covered to ensure a 'thorough understanding'. The guidelines as to how much depth can be taken from the 7192 study hours required, which define the minimum for 'with experience and for those without experience. This is a general course and obviously must be targeted at students with little or no experience of aviation.
f grouse you wrote...
"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 am involved as an airline representative in the development of this course and have worked closely with the College from the beginning. You are wrong in suggesting this course doesn't meet the requirements, we have from the start adhered strictly to the 7192 syllabus. We did however, add JAA/JAR’s as this is a European based course, JAR is not a 7192 requirement but how could it be deleted from an Ops course these days. What you seem to be saying is that the course materials have exceeded the requirements! Perhaps it has in a few areas as I mentioned before and I have no doubt the College will be writing to you all in due course, but give em a break the meeting was only held on Tuesday last. Further, the College with the UKOMA group, is working to ensure we match study material as closely as we can for the next modules, I confessed, we feel ourselves that we have too much depth in some areas.
On your point about the CAA, if you read back through the FODCOMS available on the CAA SRG website, you’ll see what the CAA’s views are in the response to industry comments.
Mister Rainbow
You are a student of the Glasgow College so I would recommend you contact them with your concerns and observations on the course. I have no doubt they will take you comments on board and would want to hear from you.
In your post you mention the FAA licence as yardstick, it is not in this course, nor is it the standard which the CAA (and soon the JAA) have chosen to adopt. The syllabus for this course is an ICAO recommended syllabus of training. ICAO as the global standard has always been more comprehensive than the FAA who approach their requirements in a different way, placing much more onus on the airline to complete training. Also, the course overall, and remember this is the first set of modules, will not exceed the ICAO 7192 requirements. Only these few modules may and as I explained account will be made for this.
May I reassure you all that the object of my colleagues and I is to assist the College in offering a distant learning course which meets the future training requirement of ICAO Doc 7192 and is relevant and comprehensive. It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience. The course must be viewed as a general course of flight ops studies aimed a giving the student an in depth knowledge of the technical and regulatory requirements of our industry. It is not airline specific nor is it the ATPL course renamed, as Mr Grouse suggests. However, you must appreciated that much of the content is the same and required by 7192. I personally deleted dozens and dozens of pages from the initial syllabus so I know!
My personal view is that we have waited for a very long time for our Authority to set the standard for the training of Ops officers, they now have. We need to provide a training platform for the future and this course is the first. We need, as an industry, to raise the level of technical competence and I have no doubt those doing this course will not regret it. It should equip you with the level of knowledge you will need whichever airline you work for.
.