PDA

View Full Version : Licencing Operations Staff


Mr Proach
8th May 2017, 01:09
Given the ten of thousands of pages of manuals, operating handbooks, AIPS and regulations that a pilot is tested on initially and on a recurring basis (as deemed by the regulator), then why is that people can work in the critical area of operations free of any requirement for the regulator to assess if he/she has an adequate knowledge of the legislative requirements that encompass the position?
I believe it is very easy for operations' personnel to set up a pilot which may result in an adverse outcome for which the powers to be will ultimately hold the pilot responsible for. There are a few words in the rule books where it states the "the operator shall ensure..." , however, in my view, that does not translate into anything of substance in the real world. I believe there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that view. There is many a comment of a person involved with operations who is bereft of any knowledge of the basic requirements (or chooses not to know). I believe people in these positions should be licenced and subject to an equivalent level of initial and recurrent testing that flight crew are, or conversely, remove all references in all of the rule books that refer to the "pilot in command will be responsible...." and replace with "the operator.
What is your view?

B772
8th May 2017, 01:28
Good luck with that.

alphacentauri
8th May 2017, 01:56
Halle - fu**ing - lujah!


But what B772 said...unfortunately :(

parabellum
8th May 2017, 04:45
The American FAA have had Licensed Dispatchers for years. They sit exams very similar to the ATPL. The Licensed Dispatcher has the authority in some companies to monitor fuel reports from an aircraft and, when appropriate, release that aircraft to continue to scheduled destination or tell it to divert to a pre planned alternate.

compressor stall
8th May 2017, 09:47
It's on its way in the new regs I believe.

TWOTBAGS
8th May 2017, 23:09
The draft for part 121 come out as this.....

121.115 Operational control
(1) An aeroplane operatorís exposition must include procedures for determining how operational control for a flight of the aeroplane is to be exercised and by whom.

Now go ask your friendly FOI, WTF this means as a means of compliance and they scratch their heads.

Does this mean that they want US style licenced dispatchers for part 121 operators??? Ive worked under that system and its pretty good if you have a good one (dispatcher that is). Ive also worked under the European and Australian method where people kind of fall into the ops job but its not the same. Other operators send there their staff to do ATPL Met and Nav to get an understanding but not knowing their OM do they have the power to override the captain and not authorise dispatch.

Where I am now we use ARINC flight planning for domestic and international ops, our own ops team source landing and overflights as required but the buck stops with the PIC regards fuel and routing. Arinc does a great job, back it up with Windy for a good overview and do you need it.

Next question is..... whats the exam for that licence in this country..... I hear nothing but crickets

Checklist Charlie
9th May 2017, 09:06
There is a very big difference between Operations Control and Operational Control.
Do not confuse the very different roles, responsibilities and authorities of each.
The 2 roles are in a mature organisation, complementary.

CC

AerialPerspective
9th May 2017, 12:51
Given the ten of thousands of pages of manuals, operating handbooks, AIPS and regulations that a pilot is tested on initially and on a recurring basis (as deemed by the regulator), then why is that people can work in the critical area of operations free of any requirement for the regulator to assess if he/she has an adequate knowledge of the legislative requirements that encompass the position?
I believe it is very easy for operations' personnel to set up a pilot which may result in an adverse outcome for which the powers to be will ultimately hold the pilot responsible for. There are a few words in the rule books where it states the "the operator shall ensure..." , however, in my view, that does not translate into anything of substance in the real world. I believe there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence to support that view. There is many a comment of a person involved with operations who is bereft of any knowledge of the basic requirements (or chooses not to know). I believe people in these positions should be licenced and subject to an equivalent level of initial and recurrent testing that flight crew are, or conversely, remove all references in all of the rule books that refer to the "pilot in command will be responsible...." and replace with "the operator.
What is your view?
What precisely are you talking about though... Load Controllers are licensed and at least in QF have been for 30 or more years, CASA however, only in the last few decades has stepped up and started enforcing regulation of Load Control in other airlines using Qantas as a model. Movement Control or AMCO??? They are just communications junction points and they do have training and re-current training on aspects of their role that are critical but they generally don't make critical decisions which are deferred to other departments who are qualified.
If you are talking about Operations Control then that is a different matter and would tend to agree but there are aspects of ground handling that are critical too where Pilots have jurisdiction so should pilots be required to learn check in for example - I agree there are critical aspects of the 'operation' that persons in a position to have an impact (no pun intended) detrimentally or otherwise should have some minimum level of training but this would need to be examined and more specifics offered.
US may have licensed dispatchers but some US airlines are among the worst in the world so I'd much prefer we didn't base our standards on theirs.

TWOTBAGS
10th May 2017, 01:21
CC, you are very much correct and this is in fact the problem with the way our regulations are written...... everything is open to interpretation and zero guidance fro the powers that be.... because they don't know themselves, or if there is guidance material its not readily available....

Hence the way every one get screwed over here, someone comes along and presents an acceptable means of compliance that one FOI says yep good to go. The next audit that happens the next FOI says.... but that's not the way we did it in Big Airship Co Ltd... you don't comply.... do not pass go, collect and NCN for your trouble......

:ugh::{

AerialPerspective
10th May 2017, 05:14
CC, you are very much correct and this is in fact the problem with the way our regulations are written...... everything is open to interpretation and zero guidance fro the powers that be.... because they don't know themselves, or if there is guidance material its not readily available....

Hence the way every one get screwed over here, someone comes along and presents an acceptable means of compliance that one FOI says yep good to go. The next audit that happens the next FOI says.... but that's not the way we did it in Big Airship Co Ltd... you don't comply.... do not pass go, collect and NCN for your trouble......

:ugh::{
This of course side-steps the stupidity of some organisations who continue to employ people with no experience whatsoever. One company I heard of was NCNd by CASA because they had apparently written in their Ops Manual that a safety cone "...SHALL be placed 1m from the wingtip and engine intakes..."
A CASA person took out a tape measure and found the cones on just about every aircraft they checked were more or less than 1m, sometimes by mm but they raised an NCN because of the way the Ops Manual was written.
Now, people might say that's petty on the part of CASA if it's true, but it's not really. It is not a regulatory requirement to put cones in front of engines and wingtips, it is just good safety practice. Presumably CASA was highlighting the fact that what you say you must do... using the word 'shall' gives zero room for movement... "... should be placed approximately 1m or three steps from..." might have been a better wording. Thing is, if the company concerned didn't employ people just out of high school virtually and got some people experienced in regulatory requirements and authoring manuals, they wouldn't have had to go through that experience.
There is a tendency for CASA people to say "that's the way we did it at..." but in my experience, those people are retiring mostly now and I have found many CASA people good to deal with in the last few years, very practical in many respects.

Buster Hyman
10th May 2017, 13:00
As a Load Controller, I held licences for every (foreign) airline we handled, bar our own (AN) as it wasn't required. Even trained overseas for some airlines. I think that we held a certain level of responsibility up to an altitude of 500ft. After that, it was generally not a trim problem, or so I've been told.

When working in Flight Ops, I held a licence for Ground to Air & even had an ARN. In my current role, we're required to attend the same ground schools as the crews, to a certain extent.

There's probably an argument there about 'risk vs reward' but, if CASA were to mandate similar testing to key roles, I'd have no objection.

AerialPerspective
11th May 2017, 13:56
As a Load Controller, I held licences for every (foreign) airline we handled, bar our own (AN) as it wasn't required. Even trained overseas for some airlines. I think that we held a certain level of responsibility up to an altitude of 500ft. After that, it was generally not a trim problem, or so I've been told.

When working in Flight Ops, I held a licence for Ground to Air & even had an ARN. In my current role, we're required to attend the same ground schools as the crews, to a certain extent.

There's probably an argument there about 'risk vs reward' but, if CASA were to mandate similar testing to key roles, I'd have no objection.
In QF it was similar except that the QF Load Controllers were all licensed as well. The GM of Airport Ops was the 'CASA Delegate' who signed the licenses. I always wondered why AN didn't do the same as it wasn't an international vs domestic thing (talking when QF was INTL only), but rather I think a case of QF implementing it in the 70s and CASA just not being bothered to police it at other airlines and TN didn't either. I have no objection to regular testing, I think to have the rigor of a Pilot would be a little too much but areas like AMCO, Movement Control, etc should at the very least have classes on problem-solving and multi-disruption planning. You would have had an ARN because the Part 64 licensing equivalent required it for what was then called a ROC required an ARN. It is now covered by Part 64 and requires recency and while areas like AMCO and Movement Control used to get away with it because they weren't communicating 'safety critical information' (e.g. they weren't transmitting fight data, etc.) now they are required to have it just to communicate on an 'aeronautical frequency' which are covered in the Reg.