No Sig
I’m pleased to see that you now admit that there is NO legal requirement (nor likley to be in the near future) for Operations/Dispatcher training.
“JAROPS 1.205 requires that an airline, 'shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground operations 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”
As I’ve said all along, I welcome a course of formal training for our job as long as it’s the RIGHT course. Never once have I said or implied we don’t need a standard.
My only gripe is the manner with which this course has been presented to us, the lack of continuity and its contents, the errors and slap dash way its been “cobbled together”.
As there is no immediate requirement for licenesed staff in this country, you had and still have the time to get this course right.
Whether you are on commission or if it’s a money spinner for the College is not important to me, but what Super Aviator says certainly rings alarm bells when you see the course and the quality it represents. What is really important is that a quality course is put together and well supported by whoever presents it.
I agree with splitter when he says a lot of information we acquire is “passed on”, we all gain invaluable knowledge this way, but a formal course with the basics would certainly enhance our understanding of the knowledge that invariably gets passed on.
I also agree with you No Sig with regards in house training, most companies cannot spare the time not the money to send staff away for a disaptchers licence, but when you compare that course with this one, I know which I’d rather have spent my money on !!
If I’d needed such in depth knowledge of aircraft systems I could have bought a good quality book from the library or borrowed the company ENGINEERING manuals. I understand we need to know about aircraft systems etc, but as stated before it is the depth that is worrying. I really don’t want to waste my time AND money learning unessessary details in this parrot fasihon manner.
I can converse with aircrew at their level without knowing the ins and outs (literally) of ASI/VSI/IVSI or whatever, but that is based on knowledge, experience and hours on a quite shift (when do you get one of those you might ask!) reading the manuals and asking questions. But at the end of the day that is my choice, I don’t need or ever will need to know half of what I learn.
What aircrew need from me is an understanding of the aircraft performance, the ATC system, Navigation, Weight(mass) and balance, effects of degraded aircraft performance (As written in the MEL/DDG) and how to apply this degredation. He wants to discuss handling, he wants to discuss alternates. He doesn’t want to discuss with me what will happen if his ASI developes a blockage will the thing underread or overread in the climb, simply because the engineers will telll him its BROKEN and the MEL will tell him (and me) whether the aircraft can be dispatched. OR maybe your expecting the crew to call ops and say “ hey my ASI has broken, will it overread or underrad when I climb ?”
You make no reference in your response to my last posting because you know I’m right, this course is inaccurate, contains errors too numerous to mention and much of the content is unnecessary. Write the course from the perspective of what a dispatcher does, what he needs to know and cut out the crap he doesn’t need. Base it on the GUIDELINES in doc 7192. You ought to know, you say you’ve been there and done it, so surely you can accept this course is overkill beyond belief.
Good on you Mister Rainbow, maybe we should all package the manuals up and send them back, maybe we could approach one of the course moderators (DHL) and get them sent back free of charge !!!!!!!!!!!!
regards FG