7192 D3

[no sig]

FG

I think we need, as you said, to agree to disagree on several points.

The few errors which have been brought to my attention were very largely down to pagination which I have addressed before, as a new course there may be a few others, but that should not detract from the value of the course overall. As I said before, you must contact the College and let them know. We have, for the most part, been discussing the aircraft systems module regarding content and in few of the illustrations

FG you wrote, 'As I have stated all along I welcome a “standard” to which all Ops/Dispatchers can work to and a broad based course that should be supplemented by the airlines individual requirements'.

In suggesting that the airlines should 'supplement' training for operations officers you are moving outside of the philosophy of this type of training regime. You are taking the FAA approach in this, nothing wrong with that if your training structure supports it, however, in the UK that is simply not the case in my experience, nor have we a regulatory requirement as they do in the States. As I've said before, few airlines pay much attention to the training of operations personnel and they cannot be relied upon to supplement the 'foundation' knowledge required by ops personnel.

On your point regarding the content and depth of material in the Aircraft Systems module, I am pleased that you agree that my last example re AC and Pressurisation is appropriate. That is the methodology we have applied throughout. However, I would be very worried if that was all an engineer had to know!

Regarding these Met diagrams and the quality of reproduction, I have looked at them, and where I was able to use them, I do agree that this is a fair comment and one you should make to the College, I have no doubt that they will send you replacements if it has been a problem for you.

Now as you keep returning to this question of 255 hours. That is the 255hrs detailed on the College recommended study plan for a complete novice, naturally it may be less for someone like yourself who has a background in the subject, no one is forcing you to study 255 hours or you fail, The object is, of course, that the student learns and understand the material, I would say the number of hours required is not really that important. This 255 hours includes MET, Air Law and JAR Regulations, Principles of Flight, Communications Radio Procedures, Instruments, Electrics, Propulsion, Systems. An average of 32hours per subject, some are a bit more, some a bit less. As I think I explained before, the modules do not exactly follow the 7192 study flow, note for example some principles of flight theory are required in Chapter 5 and this requirement covered in this first set of modules.

You comment.

5/ ‘We are left in a position now where we have to study for 255 hours, knowing not all of it is required and trying to decide which is the chaff and which is the wheat’.

FG, there may be a bit more than is strictly required by 7192 in aircraft systems, but can I ask you, why are you doing this course? Is it to learn the foundations of your trade or is it to get a certificate and do the absolute minimum? 7192 is the ‘foundation’ training. Again, I use the school analogy; you probably use what you learned in class everyday, e.g in doing this course you’ll use your physics. In an airline industry context, having completed this course, you are likely to use, say, aircraft performance, every time you go on shift.

A further example, our airline is about to purchase a new aircraft type, I would expect that all ops officers will be required to do a familiarisation course on the aircraft which will certainly cover the aircraft electrics, pneumatics, hydraulics systems, nav equipment, performance MEL/CDL etc. I argue that unless you have been ‘schooled’ in the fundamentals of fuel systems, hydraulics, performance etc. you will not understand what you are being taught. An Airbus or Boeing course assumes a level of understanding and does not set about teaching you the basic principles. If the first modules on this course have a bit more than is needed, so much the better. I would think that a few chapters less is not going to alter the price of this course very much.

‘but what about the poor individual, longing for a job in airline operations who finds himself £1200 short for a course that isn’t quite right yet’

FG, I can tell you the chances of being hired by me are increased 10 fold by the completion of this course, it says to me that the candidate has the ability, the commitment and I know if he/she has completed this course I only need to teach them the skills of airline ops control and not waste my time teaching them to read a met actual. And you say the course isn’t quite right. I say it is, and I have the support of most other Ops Managers in this country through UKOMA. Your money is well spent and I have no doubt the other 40 + people doing this course will find that to be the case. You are leading the pack! Note the JAROPS posting I put up this morning, note the subtle changing wording from the CAA CAP360 proposal, the use of the word ‘should’, and the need to describe in Part D.

IEM OPS 1.205 Yellow Paper
Training of Flight Operations Officers
(See JAR-OPS 1.205)

’If an operator employs Flight Operations Officers in conjunction with a method of Operational Control as defined in JAR OPS 1.195, training for these personnel should be based on relevant parts of ICAO Doc 7192 D3. This training should be described in sub Part D of the Operations Manual. This should not be taken as a requirement for Licensed Flight Dispatchers nor for a flight following system’

I know you think there is too much covered in aircraft system, but please look at the course overall and do not get too focused on the fact that we have given you more than you’ve asked for. The course materials, for the price and purpose I believe are good, and the few examples you have mentioned do not detract from the overall content or objective of meeting the 7192 training course.


Mister Rainbow

Have you read any of what I have written? Railroad us into second-rate training? Stand up for yourselves? I don’t know what your agenda is in posting such comments but I assure you no one is trying to railroad anyone into anything. You make you own choices in life, its up to you.


You Splitter

See the JAROPS1 post I put up, I had forgotten about this Part D reference as I was focused on CAP360, Part D is part of the JAROPS requirement.

Today, our CAA inspection finished and we also had to demonstrate our ops and crewing officer training records and training scheme, so the CAA is on a roll with this. Good for them, its about time.