No Sig
See my response on your new forum topic with regard relevance. What I “interpret” this to mean is relevance to your job. Anyway a minor point compared to the topic of my concerns.
You still seem to be missing my points and going off on a tangent, we have agreed you can’t teach “all things to all men” in this sort of course to cover the requirements of each individual operator. Hence the reason I say you have to have local procedures to cover any shortfalls in BASIC training.
In my experience, much of what is covered in module one of this course is not required and never will be required by anyone performing an Operations/Dispatch function. The course should give a BASIC grounding in some subjects as a basis for the more important topics. As stated in the previous paragraph, you cannot hope to teach it all, which is why it HAS to be supplemented by the operators’ individual requirements. This is where you shoot yourself in the foot when you say:
“In suggesting that the airlines should 'supplement' training for operations officers you are moving outside of the philosophy of this type of training regime”
And in the same breath you say:
“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”
What is this if it isn’t supplementary in house training? I thought your staff were all doing this GCNS course. Surely that’s good enough ?? Obviously not, you can’t teach it ALL can you?
In further response to your new forum topic, training of operations staff is going to be included in Part D, hooo rah at last, but it will be based on RELEVANT sections of ICAO 7192, not half the drivel that this course professes to teach.
You have the experience, you have to agree that the function of an Operations controller/dispatcher (call it what you will) and his level of understanding and responsibility varies considerably from airline to airline. So the course should teach BASIC understanding and should be kept simple for the novice. Then it should be backed up by the supplementary training you say is outside this type of regime and yet proceed to adopt this approach !!
Is there anyone out there who works in Operations who has read these threads that regularly uses (as an example) electrical theory in their everyday tasks? Do you refer to circuit diagrams and advise the pilot (who I might add has done the same course content in his ATPL exam) what the problem is. OR would you refer the Captain to a “Licensed” engineer to discuss the problem. What I NEED to know is the outcome of that discussion with an engineer with regards whether the aircraft can be dispatched under the MEL/DDG and how to apply any “operational” restrictions.
Let me put this another way for those of you fortunate enough to have a crewing department 24/7. Do you need to know the CAP371 back to front inside out, a good basic knowledge or no knowledge at all? I would suggest the middle ground, the BASICS. If you find yourself needing to know more, the airline should give that to you. Same with engineering principles.
Neither ICAO 7192 nor the GCNS syllabus seems to cover crewing, but you’re more likely to discuss that with a pilot than electrical theory.
“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!”
I would also be very worried if that’s all an engineer had to know but yet again you miss my point totally.
For starters an engineer doesn’t fix for example an ASI/VSI or whatever, that is down to the manufacturers. Indeed he can’t fix them, he can replace a faulty one. I for one am not going to call an engineer and say “ the captain’s ASI is under reading in the climb, the static source must be blocked “ that’s HIS job not mine. Think of it this way, you take a car in for a fault and you tell the mechanic what’s wrong. Do you think he takes any notice? No he doesn’t, he is the “specialist” and he has his checks to perform.
In reality an engineer may well tell you where to get off if you try and do his job as well. Even engineers I have shown this course to find it incredulous the depths it goes to. Even Pilots wonder at why I would ever need such info, in fact even THEY admit they would speak to an engineer.
Recent ATPL graduates I have spoken to and shown this material to agree this course content is similar in depth to the ATPL course. SO tell me how a novice is going to understand this without the back up of hours and hours of classroom tuition to help them ??
Do me a favour and run a poll with your Captains and ask them two questions:
1/ Who would you discuss a defect on your aircraft with, an engineer or Operations?
2/ Who would you discuss “operational restrictions” with?
I’ll tell you the response I get: 1/ An Engineer 2/ Operations
Back to the course now
Yet again you’ve missed my point on the 255 hours. Yes that is for a novice, but how many of us Ops bods are a novice at most of this material – quite a few I would guess. I say and so does ICAO 7192, that we don’t need all this padding. 12 hours is their recommendation, not the 155 just for aircraft systems. Yes I know you now agree your interpretation was wrong. That still leaves us with a lot of stuff we don’t need and I still maintain it should be recalled and corrected. I’m sure Modules two and three will have more appropriate content but that still brings up the other points I have mentioned.
I could write pages on errors found in this material. We have already had three pages of hand written amendments, a supply of two missing pages and a new met book (as previously stated also still contains errors) and these only cover the first few weeks of the course. Doesn’t bode well for future studies IMHO.
Why was the course not thoroughly proof read before it was sent out, there are too many mistakes, typing errors and grammatical errors that should have been spotted by any competent proof reader. How on earth you can’t even match correct answers with questions in the self-assessment tasks is beyond belief. Maybe the course has gone so deep you don’t understand the question yourself and find the mistakes impossible to spot !!
Why am I taking this course ?
Good question – simply because I expected to be taught things I need to know to do my job. I don’t profess to know everything and I never will. What I did expect is to be TAUGHT things by way of explanation. Unfortunately this course just gives statement after statement and if you can apply them in the situation it’s given to you that’s fine. The theory is not covered sufficiently to equip you to cope in a situation that is out of context with the course.
The cut and paste methodology of the course leaves much of the material hanging and waiting for the bit you’ve cut out. It makes references to material that is no longer there, again because it’s been cut out.
As well as finally admitting there is too much content in module one, you now concur with my complaint of poor reproduction and although you only admit there are “a few errors” you WILL find more. So do the decent thing, recall it, correct it and re-issue it. If you so much want to set the standard for UK airline Operations staff, lets for Christ’s sake set a damned good one !!
Have you ever studied at University level ? I haven’t but I’ll tell you one thing, I have been to an Open University open night and looked at the quality they produce. Have a look if you can, compare the two and tell me you can’t spot the difference.
So you have the support of the majority of UK operations Managers ? I wonder how many realised the depths you intended to go into. How many have sat down and tried to read this stuff and understand it ?? Maybe you sold the idea of ICAO doc 7192, but this course ?
As I have no idea of the consultation process you had with the UKOMA, I can’t really comment further, but I will say this, I have difficulty accepting that any Operations Manager would expect this level of understanding (Aircraft systems) from their staff. I would have thought they were also expecting you to make sure the quality and content were right.
Lets face it, what qualification do GCNS have to run an Operations course? Being a JAR approved college doesn’t make them experts on airline operations, hence the reason you were brought in. So this is your baby, take some responsibility for it and get it RIGHT.
So rather than question Mister Rainbow’s agenda I find myself questioning yours. As previously stated what you are trying to achieve is commendable, but I wish you had the honesty and integrity to admit it falls short of what it should be in its current form.
Railroad into second rate training I believe Mister Rainbow said, railroad – possibly, every indication was given that THIS course was going to be the standard the CAA/JAR expected, but as you quite rightly pointed out ICAO7192 IS the standard but this course clearly isn’t. Second rate I believe Mister Rainbow said - I AGREE for all the reasons you either miss or choose to ignore.
I look at this first module and I see errors, poor quality of reproduction, lack of clarity, poor grammar, inappropriate and debateable content, lack of continuity, poor explanation and a price tag, that as super aviator says is a nice little money spinner. I wonder how much faith a novice taking this course is placing on it. You would take the person who has completed this course would you ? Well god help you, I’ll take the FAA dispatcher every time.
Although this thread is getting a little long winded and I apologise for that. I really would appreciate any feedback, as I’m sure no sig would too. Even if your not doing the course, what are your opinions or experience of what the function/duties are for an Operations controller.
Over to you, I’ve exhausted my opinion (and my fingers !!).
Best regards
FG