FG
Forgive the 'OK so far' bit, no intent to patronise just a level of frustration coming through at midnight just as your appears to be at 0437 hrs. This is a useful discussion and I don't wish it to degenerate as some on this forum can do so, if we keep it on a even keel we will hopefully all benefit, your input here can influence as we develop this course. I too feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall, that means we have not made ourselves understood.
But please, I am making nothing out of this course so please keep the cash side out of the discussion, my only objective here is to get a course to 7192 that provides a standard training course for UK ops officers. That to is the objective of UKOMA group who is working with me on this. I am promoting the need for better training and this course on the basis that I believe we have an opportunity now to get airlines in the UK to recognise the need for ops officer training, on that we agree. This is on the back of the CAA adopting 7192 in the recent changes and the impetuous this can provide.
I 've covered the point regarding the CAA many times and to address your comment, 'Operators decide what you need to know and the syllabus is only a guideline', that may of course be the case. If your airline wishes to use 'only those sections of doc 7192 as they see fit’, then the CAA provides for that. But this is not the USA and I know many airlines do not take Ops officer training seriously, so there can be no assumption further training will be made available. However, a college does not have that luxury, it is a 'general' course aimed at providing foundation knowledge to a given syllabus.
You argue that there is too much depth.
I agree, in some areas of aircraft systems we have and I explained in the next modules we are guarding against that very point by having the moderators independently agree we have held to 7192.
Study hours:
This GCNS course is aimed at meeting 7192 in an overall sense, by that I mean at the end of this course having gone through all the materials you will have met the learning objective defined in 7192. We are agreed too much time is set to aircraft systems.
And yes I take your point regarding 7192 42 hours classroom study for Met. equating, by my rule, should be to 84 or 126 respectively. But, my view is that, what is important here is not how many hours either side of the 7192 'recommendations' are but that the objective is that the student should learn Met to the appropriate level.
As you said in your last, ' I would much prefer the course to allocate twice the time on meteorology and subjects that I consider (yes subjectively) important'. What would say to the student out there who said, 'I would much prefer the course to allocate twice the time on 'aircraft systems' and subjects that I consider (yes subjectively) important'. I'm sure you can see the difficulty anyone who is preparing a course has.
Without wishing to labour the point or dissect the course on the pages of PPRUNE, I do think it might be helpful for you see the approach taken. For example, Doc 7192 page, D3-22 Aircraft systems 4.6 requires a training objective of ‘the trainee is expected to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the basic systems and satisfactorily explain the effects of their failure on aircraft performance’, on the next pageD3-23 its covers:
Pneumatic systems:
Planning - take off mass restrictions
In-flight – air conditioning and pressurisation problems
Requirements for alternative power sources
Possible requirements to descend to a lower altitude
Increased runway length requirements
The course module dedicates 6 and a bit pages with illustrations to Air Conditioning (Chapter 5.1) and 11 pages and illustrations (5.2) to pressurisation. This is the ‘foundation’ knowledge to enable the student to progress to a level of understanding, which provides the basis for an ‘adequate understanding’. Chapter 5.2 covers ; Introduction, normal cabin altitude, passenger comfort, basic principles, cruise, descent, pressure hull, differential, pneumatic control, valves, operation, safety valves, electronic controllers, ditching and decompression. This now enable the student to move on all the other elements of flight operations which might need this foundation knowledge, for example, drift down and ETOPS.
Few airlines have the time or resource to develop a course of this magnitude from scratch, so we set about finding a cost effective and affordable way of meeting the intent of 7192. We did consider from the onset the cost of the course and its affordability to the average ops officer. As the College had the basic materials already available is was a case of tailoring them to suit this course. This is a new course and although all of the study materials have been edited, the College are refining it in light of input from the students with our help. It is one of the reasons I am spending the time on these pages and why I encourage you to contact the college directly with any problems you may find.
For my part, the experience I have had of airline operations and dispatch over many years has influenced my input to the course, just as yours is influencing your views. When helping the college filter the materials for aircraft systems I referenced 7192 and applied the general principles I mention above and that, if I were new to airline operations and wanted a general course to provide me the foundation knowledge that would serve me throughout my career, what do I need to know. There is inevitably, a subjective element in this. This was one of the reasons why UKOMA involvement was sought to balance ones subjective views. The only way we are going to get a standard of training which is recognised by all UK airlines is to try and work together as the CAA will not require a licence.
I am truly sorry that you are dis-satisfied with the course content and feel the materials are not up to scratch. I dis-agree with you regarding the materials and your suggestion for student to ask the college for example is a good one, let the buyer judge them. Also, I have indeed consulted many of the easyJet staff particularly those who are new to ops studies, I am not blinkered at all.
After writing this epistle, I think perhaps you’re right maybe we have exhausted this subject, however, I‘ll continue to read these pages and your input here will be taken on board and I will forward it to the college and the UKOMA group.
Regards
no sig