ICAO Annex 6 Amendment Proposal Flt Ops Officer/Flýght Dispatchers

[no sig]

OpsBod brought this to my attention and I thought perhaps it needed a wider audience, this is an ICAO proposal only but for those interested I will cut and paste a selection of the document here.

Dated: 12 August 2005

Subject: Proposal for the amendment of Annex 6, Parts I
and 111 concerning operational issues and the critical elements of a State regulatory system

Action required (by the State): Comments to reach Montreal by
30 November 2005

1. I have the honour to inform you that the Air Navigation Commission, at the eighth and twelfth meetings of its 169th Session on 7 and 16 June 2005, considered a proposal for the amendment of Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft, Part I - International Commercial Air ~rans~o-rt A eroplanes and
Part I11 - International Operations - Helicopters relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, and the critical elements of a State regulatory system, and authorized its transmission to Contracting States and appropriate international organizations for comments.

2. The amendment to Annex 6, Part I relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, and the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, stems from a proposal by the United States which will assist accident prevention. The amendment proposal,
presented in Attachment A, introduces Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) that clarify the responsibility of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher, in conjunction with that of the pilot-in-command, for the safe dispatch and operation of a flight.

The proposal also ensures that an operator's method of operational control and supervision of flight operations specified in Standard 4.2.1.3 is adequate, by requiring operators to delegate operational control responsibility to flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, as well as to the pilot-in-command.

This,is necessary to avoid dispersion of operational control
and supervision functions among various personnel who may be in different departments of the operator's organization, without provision for coordination. Additionally, to ensure that appropriate and timely action is taken when a flight operations officerlflight dispatcher first becomes aware of an emergency situation, the amendment clarifies the actions expected of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher in such circumstances. Finally, the amendment ensures that all persons involved in the operational control and supervision of flights successfully complete an operator specific training course that addresses all
components of the operator's method of control and supervision of operations, whether or not those personsare the holders of licences issued in accordance with Annex 1 -Personnel Licensing.

This aspect of the amendment may suggest a review of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher licensing provisions specified in Annex 1. Consequential amendments to Annex 6, Part 111, Section 11, are proposed in Attachment B to align Parts I and III of the Annex.

The amendment introduces:

a new definition of flight operations oftkerfflight dispatcher that applies to persons who are responsible for supervision of flight operations, whether those persons are licensed or not;

a new Standard in Chapter 3 that requires operators to assign operational control responsibility to a flight operations officerlflight dispatcher. Also a new Standard in Chapter 3 that details actions required of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers when they are the first to become aware of emergency situations. This provision parallels existing Standard 3.1.4 which specifies comparable requirements for pilots-incommand;

a new Standard in Chapter 10 that specifies minimum requirements to be met by personnel who are engaged in the supervision of flight operations but who are not holders of licences issued in accordance with Annex 1;
the upgrading of existing Recommendation 10.2 to a Standard 10.3, requiring flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, whether licensed or not, to successfblly complete
an operator specific training course that addresses all elements of the operator's method of control and supervision of flight operations; a new Appendix 5 which specifies the critical elements of a regulatory system needed for implementation of the Annexes;

10.3 A flight operations officer/flight dispatcher shall not be assigned to duty unless that person has:
a) satisfactorily completed an operator-specific training course that addresses all the specific components of its approved method of control and supervision of flight operations specified in
4.2.1.3;

Note.— Guidance on the composition of such training syllabi is provided in ICAO Doc 7192, Part D-3 — Flight Operations Officers/Flight Dispatchers.

b) made within the preceding 12 months, at least a one-way qualification flight in the flight crew compartment of an aeroplane over any area for which that individual is authorized to exercise flight supervision. The flight should include landings at as many aerodromes as practicable;

Note.— For the purpose of the qualification flight, the flight operations officer/flight dispatcher must be able to monitor the flight crew intercommunication system and radio communications, and be able to observe the actions of the flight crew.

c) demonstrated to the operator a knowledge of:

1) the contents of the operations manual described in Appendix 2;

2) the radio equipment in the aeroplanes used; and

3) the navigation equipment in the aeroplanes used;

d) demonstrated to the operator a knowledge of the following details concerning operations for which the officer is responsible and areas in which that individual is authorized to exercise flight
supervision:

1) the seasonal meteorological conditions and the sources of meteorological information;

2) the effects of meteorological conditions on radio reception in the aeroplanes used;

3) the peculiarities and limitations of each navigation system which is used by the operation; and

4) the aeroplane loading instructions;

e) demonstrated to the operator knowledge and skills related to human performance relevant to dispatchduties; and

f) demonstrated to the operator the ability to perform the duties specified in 4.6.

[Opssys]

No Sig.
It will be interesting to see how this progresses.
DIH

[L-H]

Me too. I can really see BALPA embracing this!

[Seaton Approach]

OK, assuming that legislation has changed, and we are all now LICENSED professionals, do you think that that will then be reflected in our salaries?

Other licensed folk in this industry (e.g. ATCO's / Engineers / Pilots) earn more money than Operations / Dispatch staff, normally quite a bit more, so it would seem a fair principle that we all slide up the earnings ladder.

Also, do you think that new licensing requirements would go any way to ironing out the vast variations in job titles and salaries throughout the JAA states:

e.g. What IS the difference between an Ops Officer, and Ops Controller, and an Ops Assistant - I've seen Assistants doing what I consider a Controller's work, and I've seen Controllers effectively being little more than glorified Admin assistants. And salaries can range from anything between GPB15K pa up to late 20's, maybe even more!

In a nutshell, will licensing standardise much of this? Any thoughts please chaps......

[no sig]

Well if adopted as a standard that the UK accepts, then our aircrew colleagues would have little choice in the matter. BALPA would, I hope, support any move that enhances flight safety and improves the training standards of one of their closest working groups.

Just how this will pan out for ops salaries is another matter, but I suspect it would be like any other walk of life, some Companies pay more than others. In the States licenced flight dispatchers earn different saleries with different airlines, as do pilots for that matter. As I have been saying for sometime now, ops bods out there should be getting the ICAO flt ops officer licence/course under their belt in preparation for the above or any EASA changes. My take on this is that if you hold the ticket then you get the top dollar!

The proposal above works toward a clear definition of who is and who isn't exercising operational control, something Seaton Approach is right to point out as being an area that can be confusing.

[Opssys]

No Sig, has eloquently summed the situation up.
The only element of the post that need to emphaised is the need for those who want a career in Operations, not just a job, to study and attain the ICAO flt ops officer licence.

Maybe your company will assist maybe not, but getting this qualification makes your professional status undeniable. Add the ticket to your experience and you have an edge in the Promotion and Job Change stakes.

[no sig]

'but getting this qualification makes your professional status undeniable'


OpsSYS, you have hit the nail on the head with that comment. Ýt is absolutely at the heart of what we have been saying for years. Now how do we get that message across to this generation of ops officers?

[bacardi walla]

Does all this apply purely to Airline Ops or does it cover Ops in GA and also those companies who manage aircraft, provide an Ops service i.e. flight planning, but operate none themselves ? These latter companies have Ops staff too :suspect:

[Opssys]

no sig.
Your question

Now how do we get that message across to this generation of ops officers?

The short answer is as individuals we can only keep the message
alive.
The slightly longer answer is, if this and related threads have encouraged 5, or more people to motivate themselves to do the existing courses, then that is a win!

The real challenge is not individual operations staff, but getting the UK Industry to realise the writing on the wall that certification will become manadtory is no longer paint, but actually 20 feet tall neon signs which say OPERATIONS CERTIFICATION IS COMING - ACT NOW - ACT TOGETHER TO PREPARE FOR IT!

Unfortunately some will just buy smoked glasses to avoid seeing it and will go into corporate denial!

If this seems cynical, I am reminded of an Airline that was given two years to prepare for a massive IT change. They then failed to attend any meetings on the change, but updates were sent to them. When the time came they had 'forgotten' it was happening that month. It them took one year more get it done! 16 Other Airlines were changed on schedule. This was not a person, but an entire organisation, that had gone into denial!

DIH

[Seaton Approach]

Gents,

Alongside the professional status attained by way of a standard operational qualification or license as required by the State, operators / individuals will also become more responsible and therefore more accountable. With that normally comes a requirement from those concerned to have some kind of protection. I'm talking about union representation - most licensed professions have it, right? BALPA, IPMS, etc.

Is it feasible that this might transpire once our profession becomes more regulated? Can you see such a thing happen as Ops Controllers / Flight Disptachers working hours become more strictly controlled, as in the case of pilots, engineers and ATCO's? What happens in the States under FAA? I vividly remember that, very early in my training days at CATC, we (i.e. the entire course of 48 people) were soon bundled off to some hotel in Bournemouth one evening to meet with the Union reps,and to sign up if so desired...

Please forgive me, I'm not up to scratch on union issues and how they work (nor indeed how, if at all, unions presently feature in what we ops guys do back home in Blighty these days) - I'm just thinking about some of the more diverse possibilities and consequences.

Cheers,
SA! :ok:

[Opssys]

bacardi walla.
Good points raised!

As to the GA element of your post, I don't know!
As to the provision of Flight Planning and on the day Operations Control Services, then I believe these staff would fall into the requirments.

Having 'slept on it', the problem is not quite as awful as I originally thought. The Operator Specific element training and subsequent check/test is going to be a cost both in time and for both the service provider and operator money, but is NOT insurmountable.

The only real problem is the FAM requirement Which in some cases is going to be a logsitical nightmare, getting staff to an operators route station, doing the FAM and then getting them back. Plus as Service Providers tend (not always) to be used by smaller operators and include operators with 'small' aircraft
This could result in a Person by arrangement arriving for their FAM only to discover that for Operational reasons they cannot do the Flight Arranged due Operational problems (no pun intended).
Which if you have just travelled several hundred miles, is not just disappointing, but from your companies viewpoint expensive waste of time and an exercise that has to be repeated.

Worse still an exercise that needs to be done for each operator!
But I suspect there would be some accommdation within any regulation and if there isn't, then it would have be factored into costs of staff and contracts with operators!
DIH

Seaton Approach.
Whilst in the UK we have UKOMA for the Operations Managers, I can see your point as regards a Professional Association for Certified Operations Staff and indeed the general thread of your arguement.

Purely for personal reasons, whilst not totally anti, the idea of Unions being involved in any Profession does not give me a good feeling.
DIH

[FEBA]

NoSig,
Not wishing to be a kill joy I note, from icao.org, that this proposal was first raised as follows [PDF] Agenda Item 2: Safety Oversight US INITIATIVES FOR THE AMENDMENT ...
... Agenda Item 2: Safety Oversight. US INITIATIVES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ICAO ANNEX
6, PART 1, OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT. (Presented by the United States of America). ...
www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/nacc/meetings/2002dcacar1/cardca1-ip09.pdf - 2002-09-30 - Text Version.
Have I missed something?

[silly walks]

Seaton Approach
Under FAR Part 61, Dispatchers are limited to 8 hours duty. If over 8 hours they must receive at least 8 hours rest, but if they work out side of the US they are allowed to work up to 10 hours.
Thats what the regulations say but my company have obtained a waiver, from the FAA, allowing us to work 12 hour shifts as long as we have one complete 24 hour period off duty every 7 days. Hope that is as clear as mud.

[Seaton Approach]

Opssys,

Have to agree with you on the subject of unions. I'm more interested in seeing how the regulation side of it is going to pan out though. Thanks for the feedback! :ok:

silly walks,

Thanks also. Aye, all as clear as mud! I'm sure that regulation of hours will be one of many areas where JAA differs from FAA; 12 hour shifts 4-on-4-off seems to be pretty much standard format for most operators in Europe, and I can't see that changing......:\

[no sig]

Hi FEBA

I see where you are coming from with 2002 documents you linked us to. Ýt perhaps is the origins of this document sent to member states in August of this year. But it is clear that ICAO are proposing changes and we are also aware that EASA has the matter under consýderation, although I am a tad out of touch with where they (EASA) are at present on the matter.

Ýt would be great if some of the IFALDA people involved could update us on their position on the matter froma US perspective.

Bacardý Walla

Ýf the operator has an AOC which requires a system of operational control then I would assume it must. Also, if an operator uses an agency then they still retain responsibility for operational control and as such I would presume they would want to ensure the service provider is using appropriate qualififed personnel, as is indeed the case today for US operators who insist on an FAA licence for handling agent flýght dispatch staff.

[Epsilon minus]

scanning through my handy pocket sized copy of JAR Ops 1 I notice: JAR ops 1 subpart D 1.195 says " An operator shall;
a) establish and maintain a method of excercising operation control approved by the authority; and
b) Exercise operational control over any flight operating under the terms of his (sexist) AOC"
Doesn't tell you very much does it?
Doesn't define what it means by Operational control either does it?

Call me cynical but the boys in Holland seemed to have left this deliberately woolly, probably at the behest of large authorities like the CAA who in turn are singing off a hymn sheet written for them by the likes of BA.

I take my hat off to all you guys who seek to professionalise your trade and take safety right to the forefront and do all of this off your own backs. The trouble is you will be pi$$ing against the wind unless you can support your arguements and methods with cost, and in this case it will mean cost savings rather than expenditure. You will also need a powerful lobby group, possibly the FAA in this case, to blow your trumpets far louder than you can, who will insist that a method of flight control and operational supervision by staff qualified by a regulatory authority must be applied to all AOC holders on a pan European basis who intend or are operating flights into US airspace. The same can then be applied to AOC holders from any where on the planet who wish to operate flights into European airspace and if they dont have a method of operational control then one shall be imposed upon them from within JAR land.
With FANS in the offing there is an even greater emphasis for acceeding to your advocacy.

Somehow I think that global warming will get sorted long before this one does. I hope I'm wrong.
Epsilon Minus

[Opssys]

Hi Epsilon minus.
The long and rocky road to improving the professional status has never been one for those who believed it would be easy.
I started around 1979 in the Airline I then worked for, about 6 Months after I stopped being in the Operations front line.
At various times since I have come back to the problem (often with long gaps of years) , with sometimes localised success, but often none!

I am not sure when 'no sig' began his quest, but he has been a lot more proactive on a larger stage than I and has been more consistent in 'banging the drum'.

In the last couple of years and certainly NOT due any effort on my part, the situation is slowly swinging in favour of professionalisation. But like any rocky road it always gets steeper the nearer the top you get.

What perhaps is a surprise is WHEN the summit is reached I won't get any tangible benefit (too long in Aviation Systems and Telecoms to go back to the front line) and I think 'no sig' also will not directly benefit (although if he does not get a large number of free beers then there is no justice).

My guess is that unlike Global Warning, there is a good chance that in five years time there will be meaningful professional standards in place for Operations Control staff across the EU.

So if in five years I get a PM from you with Ha Ha on it, I'll know I guessed wrong!
DIH

[Epsilon minus]

Opssys. Read your pm mate
Epsilon Minus

[no sig]

OpsSys

Too long ago I'm afraid (1970 as it happens) and I finished working the ops desk many years ago. I can tell you though that even back in the 1970,s and 1980 the BGFOO (British Guild of Flight Operations Officers) were trying to push the UK licence issue and improve training for ops people, laterly in the 1980's UKOMA also started training. Like you I do now believe there is a strong likelihood that some form of ops qualification based on ICAO 7192 D3 will make its way into our regulatory framework. Credit also goes to IFALDA and EUFALDA for their work with ICAO on the matter.

There is simply no reason for the UK CAA or JAA/EASA to reject a proposal that places a requirement on airlines to ensure their operational control staff have an appropriate qualification/training based on an ICAO recommendation and an operators requirements. The present system fails miserably in that regard so it is time to change it, and JAR have indeed introduced the training standard of 7192 D3, we now need the next step.

[Epsilon minus]

Chaps
Without doubt this thread will do more to ring bells in the airline boardrooms across Europe than Stellios ever did. This has got significant cost growing all over it and given that:
:yuk: Fuel is about $2.60 a usg
:yuk: The environmental greenies are convincing the execs to stay in the office and press the video conference buttons instead of crashing out on the flat beds
:yuk: All your y class pax want to fly for nothing as per MOL's dreams.
And then along come you guys demanding dispatcher licences, a working day as per FAR61 and a pay packet the size of a North West dispatcher's Cadillac. Somehow I dont think that the Willie Wonkers of BA and the other big players are going to give this scheme their blessing. Quite the opposite, they will be loading their big guns to blow this out of the water. You better get ready.
So what are the cost considerations?
Increased salary with licence pay would probably put the average UK dispatcher on £36 - 40 K pa.
Increased pension contributions.
Increase the number of staff maybe as much as two fold, in some cases, to meet the requirements of an 8hr roster.
Increased training cost both recurrent and initial. Note FAA dispatchers do extensive ground school and type training.
How much does all this add up to?
AOC with 20 aircraft maybe as much as 47% more to run the department. So is this cost justified and is the increase in flight safety that it will undoubtbly bring, worth it?
Well you all know what Willie Wonker will say.
So there's the cons side of the arguement. I would think the pro side of it unconvincing. Even the loss of a hull once in every x number of years and x millions of flights would fail to support the case for licenced dispatchers.
So if I was a FOD and an FAA dispatch licence holder, which I am. How would you convince me that I should pick up the phone and tell SRG to get the arses in to gear?
Your starter for 10, no conferring.

[no sig]

Epsilon minus

Well EM, you do make some valid points and worthy of discussion. But for a start lets quash the notion that anyone is demanding licenses or FAR 121 style dispatch, they are not (at least I am not, nor as I read it are ICAO) but I agree it includes a review of the ICAO recommendations. Incidentally, EASA have been doing this for some time. Just to remind us I post the ICAO para here;

(quote

2. The amendment to Annex 6, Part I relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, and the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officers and flight dispatchers, stems from a proposal by the United States which will assist accident prevention. The amendment proposal,
presented in Attachment A, introduces Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) that clarify the responsibility of the flight operations officer or flight dispatcher, in conjunction with that of the pilot-in-command, for the safe dispatch and operation of a flight.

unquote)


The initiative here is not to be sniffed at, it is one that has its origins in ICAO, an organisation which has, since its inception, moved global aviation to the high standards of safety we now all enjoy - so what they propose requires due diligence by all member states in the interests of flight safety not cost. I think we can all agree on that and, need it even be said, that we all put safety top of the agenda, most particularly Stelios (when he was there) and the other low cost carriers who know only too well the consequences that would follow were there to be an accident in LCC sector.

Having been a LCC ops manager, I know well the implications of cost. You might be interested to know that when I started an initiative to train my ops bods to the ICAO standards I had the full support of the CEO, who also recognised the need to have well qualififed people running his airline, both from a safety perspective but also on the basis that experience AND qualifications go hand in hand when it comes to making the best operational decision for his customers. I would agree however, that airlines who have tough union issues to contend with might take another stand, but in the UK that isn't too much of a problem.

The agrument for having well qualified and experienced operational control staff has an economic argument running parallel to the one of enhanced flight safety. I generalise here of course, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the operations officer or flight dispacther who has a qualification combined with experience on the job, will offer an airline more that one who has a shallow on the job training level of knowledge. The decisions ops officers now make have high value price tags and if I were running an airline in todays environment I would want the best qualified people Ý can find managing my daily flying program. The costs might well be saved by one well considered decision which uses the knowledge gained in training.

I can't enter into the very cynical discussion of hull losses, it is irrelevant. What I will say however, is that our (the UK) industry really would benefit in both areas of safety and business by the introduction of the proposal. Anyone who doubts that ops officers and flight dispatchers have an influenece on flight safety hasn't ever worked as one.

The CAA will consult no doubt, but in the end there will need to be a reason for NOT adopting a proposal which seeks to enhance flight safety.

[Epsilon minus]

FLIGHT SAFETY FLIGHT SAFETY
Dear NoSig,
How's the SE European (nearly europe) weather mate?

Look at the above head lines. Everybody wants safer transportation; the bean counters want it, the CEO's want it, the Lutine bell ringers want it too. But no one wants to pay more for it especially when it looks increasing likely that ultra high DOC's are here to stay. I'm still not convinced.

Most airlines EZY included have schemes that require some form of formal training for Ops officers, DLH KLM have dispatch facilities that mirror FAA systems and highly trained staff. This has been done inspite of the savage ovine regulations that are 1.195 and 1.205 and still we are able to send off our loved ones to far and near places in highly safe conditions.

So why do airlines need to be forced to do something which they are already doing voluntarily?

The standard of safety in commercial aviation continues to maintain very high levels, please explain to me how a regulated system of training for Ops staff will make it safer?

If I read your post correctly the real emphasis for good training lies more with making sound commercial decisions than safety related ones. If the majority of decisions that an Ops officer will make whilst on duty are commercially related and that the quality of judgement is directly proprtional to the training that that person has undergone then the requirement for ICAO JAA EASA to be involved is negated. And the need for airline management to recognise this is compelling.

If as you suggest that airlines are smart enough to recognise the value of proper training for their Ops staff and are pro-actively involved in it, why do they need to be told that they've got to do it?

QED? maybe not. I await responses with interest.
Regards
Epsilon minus

[no sig]

Hello EM

Weather down here is great, save for a bit of a drop in the temp.

What you say about everyone wanting safety is true and I agree with you. The problem is EM, that most airlines don't have a scheme for 'adequate' training of their ops staff and the standard of training varies considerably. Voluntarily hasn't ever worked in the UK, a very few airlines have paid for some of their ops bods to go on the FAA licence courses most others have done nothing.

Cýty & Guilds (Avtech) has gone some of the way to fill the gap and NVQ's have never really hit the ops mark. Try recruiting a dozen or so experienced ops officers in the UK and you will find very few with any ops qualification whatsoever, many with a shallow technical knowledge of a complex subject matter with which they work every day.

The problem has been that the UK has never adopted ICAO 7192 D3, I think for fear it would lead to a license. Therefore, the level of training requýred for an operations officer who exercises operational control has never been defined, the CAA prefering to leave it to the airline to decide for themselves, and of course very few have. Check your nearest Part D for your ops officer training syllabus and see what you find, despite the recent JAROPS changes.

Your question

'So why do airlines need to be forced to do something which they are already doing voluntarily?'

Answer; Because many are not and won't otherwise.

European aviation is safe under the current arrangement without a FAR121 style dispatch system, I quite agree. However, safety doesn't stand still and we work continually to improve our systems and training standards. ICAO have seen fit to propose changes to the Annex 6 in the interests of enhanced flight safety and I for one support this proposal, based on my in depth knowledge of the job both under European and FAR systems.

Will adoption of the ICAO proposal leading to regulated training make European aviation safer? Personally, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it will make us even more safe than we are at present.

My first emphasis is on the contribution to flight safety trained and experienced operations officers/flight dispatchers can make. However, it does indeed make sound commercial sense and those who will make the decision whether or not to adopt this proposal should consider that point as a pro to supporting ICAO on this one.

[Epsilon minus]

NoSig, Effendi.
Some very good points but your rowing this boat with only one oar. Where's the rest of your colleagues to support your valid claims?
My earlier ovine observations seem pertinent. You all share the rebellious lust for change as do a flock of sheep.
So where's the professional association that will lobby senior officials on your behalf?
Where are the plans to have Flight dispatchers/Ops Controllers formally educated in accordance with 7192D3 before embarking on an aviation career?
Where is the EU/JAA state sponsorship for such training?
Use this site to spread the news of change rather than the requirement for it.
Read Henry V
St Crispins day speech to gird the loins of change

Over heard in my local this summer:
Good looking lady talking to her friend "One swallow does not a summer make"
"It would make mine" said the bloke standing next to her.
Cheers
EM

[no sig]

Indeed EM, where are they? I have long realised that the old saying, 'you can take the horse to water, but you can't make him drink' , applies here.

I trust UKOMA are working on it and I would hope those who frequent these fora are asking the questions of their ops managers, and as you say, it would indeed, be nice to read of the change here rather than requirement. But it is now for others to take this forward and I do know there are many doing so. PPRUNE is useful but it can present a distorted picture of what is really happening outside of the contributors on these pages, time will tell.

[Epsilon minus]

Nosig
Supine Sir.
The fat cats of the airline industry will smile at the lack of organisation and maybe even motivation that oils the wheels of change in this sector of the industry.

http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2004-01-07%20Re-regulation%20live%20sheep%20exports%20200226.JPG

Epsilon Minus

[Opssys]

Hi EM.
I have avoided interrupting the exchange between 'no sig' and yourself, but now it appears to have reached a breakpoint :-)
I would like to comment on some points at random.
I have been fortunate in the last 8 years to have spent quality time in a large number of operations centres across the world.
Some follow the model familiar to us in the UK, others the USA Model and two although they have significantly diverged, are based on the Soviet Model.

In all cases the level of training of Operations Officers /Dispatchers has been very high as the carriers see this as a positive investment that has benefits for the carrier not just in a persons current job (a good decision costs less than a bad one, even if both are operationally safe), but as something that benefits the company in the future.

In the UK this doesn't seem to be the case and it should be!
Ensuring Operations Officers are of high standard ought to be a priority as the: 'Safe, Economic implementation of the companies flying programme, whilst maintaining a high level of customer service' actually keeps costs down.

In many Carriers Operations is viewed as a cost overhead. Really it should be viewed as ensuring safety, service quality and cost control.

Certification forces the Carriers to invest in Operations Staff and as no sig points out in most cases this is going to be the only way they will.

Will certification have a direct impact on salaries, yes, but I believe not as much as you indicate.

I am now rambling so that's it
DIH

[Epsilon minus]

There's startlingly little response to this thread. Are you all waiting for someone to change it all for you? Or are you prepared to stand up and be counted??

[no sig]

Ýt would indeed be nice to hear from the rank and file of the ops world on these proposals.

[Epsilon minus]

VIR A340 LHR-HKG FUEL MANAGEMENT INCIDENT (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/special_bulletins/s1_2005___airbus_a340_642__g_vatl.cfm)

To those of you that take a pro-active and serious approach the the work that you undertake in Operations or Flight Dispatch, I urge you all to read this.

I believe that an extra set of eyes from the ground, monitoring inflight events via ACMS could have made this occurence avoidable.

The safety enhancement that regulated flight dispatch or operations control can bring are now too compelling for Aviation Authorites and Airlines operators to ignor in areas of both safety and financial impact.

It is argueable that had this flight been subject to FAA regulations this event may never have happened at all. Maybe others could have been avoided ..............Avianca JFK ............ A300 VIE .............. Incorrect power settings DC10 PIK etc etc.
Regards
EM

EM

[no sig]

Very good point, and well made EM.

[Opssys]

Whilst I don't want to be a no_sig echo, but EM has made a good point (again :-)

I notice with regret, but unfortunately little surprise that a previous EM post, in fact almost a plea for 'lurkers' and regulars in this thread to post their views on regulation, certification, licencing, whatever, has gone unanswered. So the little Trio of no_sig, Epsilon minus and yours truly are talking among ourselves. Except over a few pints (insert Beer of choice here) this is hardly a healthy situation.
DIH Opssys

[Seaton Approach]

Opssys / no sig / Epsilon minus,

I am sure that the multitudes who read your posts here in silence, do so with interest. Indeed, quite a few of my colleagues (myself included) feel that the time is nigh to get on and get the ball rolling so far as qualifications are concerned.

Just thought (and for the benefit of others reading who might be interested) I'd post some of my own personal experience of this quest thus far:

1) Decided to go the FAA route as this appears to still be the most established and the most definitive bench mark. Booked up for a 4-week accelerated course with Sheffield in Florida last Sep/Oct, which was subsequently cancelled due to lack of instructors (NB. Sheffield handled the whole thing as professionally as they could have, and full monies were re-imbursed, so no shame on them).

2) Have more recently been looking at the Jeppesen option - they have been rather slow and difficult to deal with, and they want to charge over a THOUSAND dollars more for their 2-week fast-track course in LON/FRA/DXB than it would cost to do the same course with them in the States!!!!

3) So now I revert back to my two last options: GCNS and AVTECH. Neither of these have featured for me up until now because quite frankly, GCNS has had (and may still have?) teething problems, and many regard the AVTECH couse as the poor man's cousin - this might be unfair, I just don't know enough about AVTECH to comment.

I'm quite sure that there are MANY more individuals out there who are trying their best to get started on an Ops/Dispatch course but are coming up against similar hurdles. Firstly, the cost is coming out of OUR back pockets, so the difference between a thousand USD here and there really DOES make a difference. Secondly, we are trying to co-ordinate our leave with others to be able to get the time off for the two/four/six weeks it takes to study the syllabus. And lasty (and probably most importantly) there is perceived to be this 'fear' that if the wrong course is studied now, that when JAA imposes it's regulations, folk will have to go and re-study the 'approved' syllabus.

In a nutshell, the reason why I think you are not getting much feedback from elsewhere on this topic, is because the REAL onus for such training and qualification must surely rest with the EMPLOYER, and they know that, and for now they are burying their heads in the sand!!!! Well I truly hope that these proposed regulations are soon firmed up and passed, and that that is a real wake-up call for employers globally to sit up and start to take an interest in their under-valued, under-recognised, over-utilised and over-abused Operations Teams! :mad:

Exception of course to the above those more conscientious, forward thinking employers who are already providing in-house training and support.

Sorry for the rant, but you wanted feedback! :ok:

[Epsilon minus]

Seaton Approach
Thanks for your post. I have to disagree with you though. The main thrust of my posts is to try and galvanise you lot into forming pressure/lobby groups to force the CAA to recognise and take action (in conjunction with JAA), not to get you all running to your nearest college, waving your credit cards and chanting, "TEACH ME TEACH ME".
Have a read of the VIR AAIB report, show it to your colleages and your boss (if you want), point out how you could A) enhance safety B) Save money. All for the paltry sum of £2000. A pi$$ in the ocean for the sort you work for.
Best wishes
EM

[Seaton Approach]

Hi EM,

Know the posted AAIB report well, and the point you make is a good one.

Would like to know from anyone else out here reading this thread, exactly how much success they have had in getting together the aforementioned pressure/lobby groups within their own organisations; I may well be wrong, but I'll hazard a guess and say that the silence speaks volumes....

Hence, the exodus of the more responsible (forward thinking) Ops Controllers out there towards getting off their a*ses and getting the qualification themselves! Most, like me, already have significant academic grounding and experience in this industry, be it ATCO / ATPL or whatever - so it's not that we want to be 'taught', but rather that we want to become compliant, and to show that we are professional and safety-conscious, and to set an example to our employers. Perhaps also THAT kind of pressure will work better than lobby groups (not holding my breath).

Maybe slightly different in my case, as one day I'll no doubt leave this part of the world and make a move back to Blighty or anywhere else for that matter. And given that possibility, I want to keep on the ball to make sure I have the best chance of a good job whenever and wherever I decide to move.

For the record, it ain't all a bed of USD's out here. Just because you're working with the Big Boys that make the Big Bucks, doesn't necessarily follow that you will get second-to-none support - quite the opposite in fact, unless you're a local here, Senior management just do not want to know. Sad but true.

As in the case of the VS incident you posted, nothing ever gets sorted until it's nearly too late (sometimes unfortunately TOO late). I fear the same will be the case here - the majority of operators will only 'play ball' when they are eventually forced to listen to their respective State Regulatory bodies, and not a moment before. Not saying I agree with that, it's just the way it is.

Brgds,
SA.

[no sig]

Seaton; I'd apreciate an PM on your experience with GCNS, I have been in contact with them recently and had the feeling that the earlier teething problem were sorted a long time ago. It may be that those who frequent this forum may still harber the discussions about the earlier problems with the formatting of the first clutch of study materials.

On the matter of lobby groups, 'we are few and little understood', save for those who have worked in ops, I have found that many in the industry still do not really understand the nature of the ops officers role. Any lobby group would be small and I suspect rather ineffectual- not that it wouldn't be worth a try EM. I do think however, that this is a perfect example of where UKOMA should be mixing it with the CAA and their FOI's and, as a group, speaking with a collective voice in their airlines response to formal questýonaires from the CAA on the matter (if indeed they haven't already done so, perhaps OpsBod or one of the other UKOMA members can update us).

[Opssys]

Hi Seaton.
I applaud your efforts in trying to get some form of certification and deeply regret that the FAA Dispatch course was cancelled.

In my early career (a very long while ago) I was fortunate that the Airline I (mis)spent my youth in was Training oriented. Even when I took external courses they were supportive (refunding after completion of the course).

I have long been aware of how extremely lucky I was.
Although in later years as a Consultant had to fund my own training/development and therefore understand the problem of both funding a course and also the loss (or at least potential loss) of income whilst attending it, which further increases my admiration in your 'going it alone'.

Throughout this thread EM and I have to a large extent been reading from the same page. However I think he may be using a later edition :-)

Whilst I would like to see a professional association of Operations Officers, I believe this would be a fall out of Certification, not a prelude to it.

I also believe that despite, on occasion, my implied (OK sometimes direct :-) criticism of UKOMA, that they need to be the single industry voice pushing this forward.

Forming a 'grassroots' pressure group is not in my opinion going to get the momentum necessary to be a factor in assisting change.

So although some form of regulatory certification is nearer today than it has ever been, unfortunately your approach of:
If the company won't do it
If the company won''t assist me.
Then I'll do it myself
is to the shame of the industry currently the last resort for those who want their abilities formally recognised.

DIH