Please don’t patronise me no sig with your “okay so far” comment, I thoroughly understand what you say and have done all the way through this thread.
Yes Doc 7192 is the BASIS that the CAA advise operators to teach their staff to. Yes it gives a guideline to the level of understanding, but as you quite rightly say is open to interpretation. I don’t disagree with it, but 12 hours for systems even at classroom level does not equate to 150 hours self study. What I am saying is you should have adjusted the contents of the course before sending it out and charging £1200 for the privilege.
I have a copy of the document hence the reason I know the standard requires 12 hours of study for Aircraft Indoctrination (see previous post) for which you have gone overboard.
With regards your reference to DHL AIR vs Easyjet and Heavylift, you need an understanding of aircraft performance full stop. Local arrangements would be in place to explain the difference from ”the norm”. I have worked for airlines with modern and “older” aircraft and never had a problem understanding any of the information with the training I was given.
I have not seen modules 2 and 3 yet because I seem to have paid for a course that is not yet finished, but I would be quite happy for it to go into great depths on such subjects that are needed. In fact I would much prefer the course to allocate twice the time on meteorology and subjects that I consider (yes subjectivley) important.
“My point FG is that what you think you need and what others need may be two different things. So, we have ICAO guiding us to a general standard of knowledge and the object of the course if to give you that knowledge”
Of course that’s your point, your promoting the course, but that’s why the CAA states and I quote again:
“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.”
Operators decide what you need to know and the syllabus is only a guideline. You couldn’t possibly put a course together that covers all requirements, so teach BASIC Aircraft systems - 12 hours (or if you so wish double or treble that as you previosuly stated for the fact it is distance learning), but not 150 hours worth.
Which brings me onto another point, you quite clearly state from your previous post and I quote:
“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”
okay lets put this statement into the perspective you mention above.
ICAO 7192 Aircraft Indoctrination = 12 hours GCNS study time 150 Hours
(even with the maths I haven’t used since school that isn’t two or three times greater due to distance learning more like 12.5 times – jeez I can still remember how to divide)
ICAO 7192 Air Law = 30 hours GCNS study time = 30 hours
Meteorology = 42 hours GCNS study time =55 hours
Communications = 18 hours GCNS study time = 20 hours
Pretty close to the recommended ICAO study time you might think, but what happened to the 2 or 3 times longer because of distance learning. You can’t quote a rule to win an argument and then change the goal posts. Which I’m afraid suggests you’ve padded out this part of the course to justify ripping off £1200 from the students.
When I say too many errors to mention I mean TOO MANY ERRORS to mention. Would you care for me to list them for you. Considering only the Met book and Air law are the only bits to be left as is, you can I suppose discount all the errors found in the remaining books. Even so, I don’t intend to list them here, but as a prime example take a close look at the Met book, has the Stratosphere been burnt off to such an extent that the Mesophere now borders the Tropopause ?? Take a little more time to read it CAREFULLY. If your struggling its in Chapter 1 !!
“Listen guys, I'm not going to ram this course down your throats. If you don't want to do the course then don't.”
A bit late for that we’ve already paid for the course.
I’m not going to bother posting again, mainly for two reasons, It’s quite obvious I’m hitting my head against a brick wall, but you’ve certainly given me all the info I needed to know. Secondly no sig, you appear to be wearing blinkers. I think comments made by super aviator appear spot on, very astute my friend.
And by the way, have a little “off the record” chat with some of your Easyjet bods and see if they ARE happy with the course?
Any future students should view the course material BEFORE they buy into it and see if it meets their requirements, if you’ve ever studied at University level before you will find the quality of reproduction poor at best and explanation of theory awful, especially when you consider it is supposedly designed for a novice to learn.