No Sig, I offer my apologies but you have put yourself in the firing line !!
You make some useful references to FODCOMS, assuming I am reading the latest (18/01), your use of them somewhat surprises me, as I quote:
“The CAA does not believe there is a need for a formal
licence for flight operations officers or dispatchers. The
training and employment of flight operations officers or
dispatchers is a matter for the individual operator for which
ICAO Doc 7192 D3 provides a sound basis.”
I also note with interest the respondents to the initial FODCOM were sixteen, five of which could be classed as “major” UK operators, alas only one of which, Easyjet, appear on the list of course moderators. Neither BMI, DHL, nor Monarch appeared initially interested and didn’t respond to the FODCOM, along with many other notably absent operators. Yet they are now moderators for the course.
Nothing of what you have said distracts from the point that you admit there is some “overkill” in YOUR interpretation of ICAO7192 D3, yet you state:
“It is impractical to re-issue the course materials at this stage so the moderators agreed that the examination papers would be simplified in these areas to more closely reflect the Doc 7192 requirements. There are no changes to Air Law or Meteorology.
I would recommend that all students continue to, 'study everything', answer the Self Assessment Practice Papers, and complete the Progress Tests. As you are the first students on this new course all markings on the above subjects will be adjusted to take account of the above.”
I would like to ask the question, were ICAO approached at any point and asked their interpretation of their own document and the depth of study that THEY considered necessary?
I also question your statement:
“It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience”
I don’t consider some of this material could possibly be understood by people with experience let alone a novice, without some sort of classroom tuition. Indeed I feel Meteorology in particular, which you mention the material stands as is, would be hard to learn for a complete novice. I note you explain that home study takes longer than classroom study, but I wonder what depth ICAO intended when they stated 12 hours study for Aircraft Systems etc. I value your attempts to offer a distance learning package for this type of syllabus, however, not only myself, but it would appear also that others also feel the material has been put together in a rushed manner and contain many inaccuracies.
I consider this course has been put together from the basis of the ATPL course, with bits cut out that make the flow, continuity and understanding of this course, more confusing and time consuming than necessary. Judging by the FODCOM you mention, the CAA have made no mention of this course being the industry standard, indeed seem to quite clearly state that it will be down to individual operators to train their staff using the same ICAO 7192 guidelines you have used for this course. The course should have been prepared from scratch in conjunction with ICAO and 7192, with Ops Controllers and Dispatchers requirements in mind, not just sections of the ATPL course copied and pasted into new documents, which is what this course clearly is. Yes, I agree the requirements of Doc 7192 closely follow the ATPL course, but it should have been written from a Dispatchers viewpoint not a pilots view.
I thank you for your answers to my questions, but I maintain my opinion that this course is way too deep for the requirements of JAR and CAP360. As previously mentioned, I will be writing to the CAA to find out their views on this course and their interpretation of ICAO annex 1 and 6, ICAO Doc 7192 and CAP360.
Thank you for your time in attempting to argue your case, but every page I turn and every self-assessment task I attempt, throws up more errors. Which takes me back to the point that this course has been rushed and not proof read. We are now given assurances from the University that all is now in order since the re-issue of the Meteorology manual (where there are further errors) and a letter containing hand written amendments. Since then the progress tests have been issued and these are also found to be inaccurate. One question does not supply the correct answer as an option and another gives two identical options for the answer!
I re-state that I understand this is the first run of the course and the University has requested we point out the odd error, but I for one resent paying £1200 to proof read this course. If it were the “odd” error I could accept it, but unfortunately it isn’t. I also stress again, that I value the attempts of the University and yourself to obtain an industry standard via distance learning, but this course appears rushed and incomplete, with many inaccuracies and errors.
Thanks to Mister Rainbow, who from his comments, is obviously taking this course and appears to have similar misgivings. I had hoped for comment from other course students, but I fully understand their reluctance to participate in this discussion for fear of any reprisal from their own company. Free speech is a wonderful thing, is it not?
I believe that this course should be withdrawn in its entirety until it has been thoroughly proof read, checked for clarity of content and explanation, relevance and errors. We have paid, be it individually or via company sponsorship, £1200 for this course and I see no reason why I or other students need to waste our time to “study everything” (255 hours) when you clearly indicate we now don’t need it all.
Until it is accepted that a mistake has been made, I for one have no confidence in what is contained in these manuals. I will also make an analogy with cars that was made by “fcit” earlier in this thread, would you buy a car that was incomplete, unfinished and contained faults? I doubt you would. Accept that this course is not up to an acceptable standard with debateable content, withdraw it and correct it before you defeat the object for which it was surely intended.
Regards
FG