7192 D3

[Sully182]

Hi

Having just received the first package from Glasgow, I am interested in knowing who else from the forum has signed up.

[no sig]

I understand that the course has a total of 50 candidates so far, so I expect you'll find others here.

[MilOps]

Signed up and paid for(mega skint now!), waiting for the packup.
Out of interest what kind of financial support are the airlines giving students? The RAF offers a grand total of £175, chislers! Ironically there are some in the service who don't see this as a specialisation related course and therefore are unwilling to stump up any extra financial assistance.

Also Q for no sig.
Any chance that the college could be encouraged to accept either staged payments or even payment per module? For individuals like myself who are totally self financing 1200 squid is a lot to stump up in one go and also justify to ones nearest and dearest. At present the college appears unwilling to countenance these suggestions.

[no sig]

MilOps

I'm afraid that question that is outside of my area, I sympathise but the College obviously sets their own policy in this regard. To answer your other question. In our Company (EZY) all ops/Crewing staff training is covered by the Company.

[walla]

:) sully 182 yes i have signed up, I just got my coursework through, glad to see you can do it over 18 months if need be.
:eek: :eek:

[opsbod]

Had mine delivered on Friday, there is a lot of it, but it looks to be really detailed and worth the price.

Like Walla, glad you can take the 18 months, I'm sure I will be.:cool:

[whose ya daddy!]

Started the couse too. Glad we have upto 18mnths!
Very comprehensive though and i am looking forward to getting started.

[no sig]

I'd be very interested to hear the views on the study materials from those doing the course. We have tried to keep to the ICAO 7192 requirements, but did retain much of the JAROPS content being European based course.

[CorvusCorax]

Hi
I am considering taking this course but wondered if anyone can advise on a couple points:

Is the Glasgow ICAO Flt Ops & Dispatchers course truly distance learning or is there a classroom element in Glasgow. What exams are there? & where can they be taken?

Has anyone that has started this course also taken the JAR FCL ATPL theory exams? I am curious if there is much repetition.

Is there an alternative course to consider?

Good luck with the studies all




:D

[no sig]

Corvus

The course is developed around the ICAO Fly Ops Off licence Doc. 7192 which is is close to ICAO ATPL level but with quite a few simplifications and removal of some of the more arcane studies of the ATPL. If you have done the FCL ATPL then no need to do this course you'll have covered 95% of the material.

It is a distance learning course but as a new course we'll be considering tutorials. Exams there will be but the format of this part of the course has yet to be defined. The study period is over 18 months but may be completed sooner.

[famous grouse]

Can anyone help ??

Hi, I am new to the forum, but not a novice in the Operations field, but I have a few concerns on this course and I wondered if anyone else had similar thoughts.

I have started the Operations/Flight Dispatcher course run by GCNS and I am finding the content of the course somewhat daunting. There seems to be a lot of information that an Ops Dispatcher/Controller is highly unlikely to ever need to know. I have spoken to FAA dispatchers and pilots, both of whom consider this course material to be of ATPL standard (but without the classroom tuition).

I have also completed a number of the “self assessment” tasks that appear regularly throughout the manuals and find myself having to return to the text of the manuals to find out why I got answers wrong. On examination of the manuals it appears I was not wrong, but in fact the assessment papers give the wrong answers.

Although the amount of information in the course looks impressive at first sight, I am also left wondering how on earth ICAO would deem it necessary for a person on the ground dispatching an aircraft for flight, would need to know R/T phraseology, rules of the air, in depth maintenance theory (for airframes, engines, systems, electrics and instruments) and many other topics covered that appear to be ATPL and NOT operations orientated.

I am mystified, does anyone else feel the same ??

[fcit]

FG,

since I haven`t seen the material, I usually should not comment. However, you mentioned a couple of topics that "may not be important" to OPS people and I must say that I disagree.

R/T phraseology is quite important. If you ever had the pleasure to do flight following via HF you will soon find out that you won`t get very far with the usual colloquial talk common on company frequencies. Personally, I also find it quite helpful, when dealing with ATC in Asia, since the English of some controllers tends to be a little limited. I agree that it may appear a little out of place for the usual LGW-EDI run.

As far as rules of the air and "in depth" maintenance theory is concerned. You may also say that as a car dealer you don`t need a drivers license nor knowledge about the inside of a car (yet most dealers I know tend to have this knoweldge - and usually with reason). The systems are important, so that you can find your way across the MEL a little easier and also to judge as of how serious a mx defect may be that is reported to you.

Since you mentioned the FAA Dispatcher License. The study of the theory for this course is done from the same book as the ATPL as well.

Cheers
fcit

[famous grouse]

Hi fcit

thanks for your response to my post

On the whole I agree with what you say, however you really ought to see the depth of content of the course.

As an example, R/T phraseology has 40 pages of communications procedure between pilot and Tower/Radar and Area Radar !! Nothing I am ever going to use. This is only one example.

You would have to agree, this is not something as a dispatcher I'm ever likely to require. I agree a basic knowledge of phonetics and procedure is required, especially in HF comms, but this depth is unbelieveable.

The topics covered I agree, are required as a basis, but to ATPL standard, I'm not so sure. A friend of mine is an FAA dispatcher and he did cover all the topics in this GCNS course, but not to the same depth. I am led to believe that an FAA dispatchers course is six weeks (240 hours at 40 hours per week). Module one of this course is 255 hours study. Modules 2 and 3 are yet to be released. This gives you some indication of how deep they have gone. IMHO a little too far.

Thanks again for you comments, look forward to any other views.
regards
FG

[no sig]

famous grouse et al

I think I can explain. There follows a cut & paste of a letter to easyJet candidates on the course, which I hope answers most of your questions.

famous grouse, you confess you are new to airline ops. As the others have mentioned, - you need to know this stuff if you wish to be a competent ops bod.

Your discussions with your FAA licenced friends may lead you to believe you don't need this level of study what they perhaps haven't explained is the FAA dispatcher intial and recurrent training the airlines they are dispatching for teach them about aircraft systems etc. Having dispatched in the states myself I can tell you the first place I went was the class room before getting anywhere near the desk. Take a minute and ask them to explain the performance or Ops spec for their airline, you'll find they have an in depth understanding of their trade.

The requirements of the ICAO FOO/FD couse syllabus, are in many areas close to ATPL level studies.

extract of an update letter to easyJet course candidates..


1. Course Materials

There were a number of pagination errors in a few of the books which has led to a bit of confusion, the College has apologised for the printing error and have re-issued the documents where necessary. Also, one or two errors have been found and I'd ask you to contact the College directly if you suspect you have found one.

2. Course Content

As you know, this course has been designed to meet the requirements of ICAO Doc 7192, however, I have had some feedback from some of the students indicating to me, and the course moderators, that perhaps we have gone into too much depth in a few areas. The course moderators met this week (jan 7th) to review this matter and found that indeed, in a few areas, the course did exceed the 7192 study requirements to a limited degree. The areas identified where in the Aircraft Systems - Electrical and Instrumentation. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing as the aim of the course is to ensure you gain a thorough understanding of aircraft operations, however, we do recognise that we must adhere to the 7192 syllabus as closely as we can achieve.

It is impractical to re-issue the course materials at this stage so the moderators agreed that the examination papers would be simplified in these areas to more closely reflect the Doc 7192 requirements. There are no changes to Air Law or Meteorology.

I would recommend that all students continue to, 'study everything', answer the Self Assessment Practice Papers, and complete the Progress Tests. As you are the first students on this new course all markings on the above subjects will be adjusted to take account of the above.


3. Future Modules

The next set of modules will be ready for publication towards May. The moderators are doing an independent review of the next modules to ensure that we do not exceed the ICAO Doc. 7192 requirements. This entails an independent review against the ICAO Syllabus and then reconciliation by the College before publication.

The moderators are:

British Midland International
Monarch Airlines
DHL Air
EasyJet

end..


For those on or considering this course, let me reassure you that the College and the airline moderators are working very hard to keep this to the ICAO syllabus which is the future standard for CAA and JAA operations training. The course is comprehensive, we make no apologies for that, however, it is the first term for this new course and we are refining it as we go along.

There has been a long felt need for an Ops training standard in the UK, now we have it. It isn't easy, neither it should be, we work in a very technical and flight safety related field. We conduct our trade by offering operational control to highly trained pilots who we are expected to converse with, generally at their level or near to, of technical knowledge; we speak to them over radios in their language and often communicate information to them which they use to make decisions. Of course our training has to be an appropriate level and comprehensive.

This course is all things to all men, whether you work for a small regional airline flying light twins to the western isles, or for one of the majors plying trans-polar routes to the west coast of the states. It, just like the ATPL, covers everything so you can operate in any environment.

Hope the above helps.

regards

no sig

[Mister Rainbow]

I, like FG if you read the post again, am not a novice to airline operations. I have spent the whole of my working life in the industry, this being quite a few years now - I am in my late thirties. I won't bore you with the details, but during this time I have worked for a number of companies, large and small, at varying levels from the very bottom to management. I do not profess to know everything about the business, but I do believe my time served thus far enables me to speak with a certain degree of knowledge.

I have long believed that a formal qualification should be put in place in the UK to ensure that the ops room is always staffed by competent professionals. It is therefore quite understandable that I was looking forward to this course. Unfortunately though, my expectations have so far not been met.

Let me begin by saying that the cut and paste method with which the manuals appear to have been assembled would be at the root of my concern. I'm afraid that, to me, much of the text simply does not "read right", it lacking continuity. Also, whilst I appreciate there is always room for a printing error or two, I find the number of mismatched questions and answers, ambiguities, debatable statements and plain mistakes contained within quite alarming.

Again, like FG, I too have friends who hold FAA licences. You quite correctly state "they have an in depth understanding of their trade." The question is then, if the FAA qualification is the yardstick which it seems to be, why does this course take so many times longer to attain the same level of understanding?

As you have also stated in your posting, you accept that the course content exceeded the requirements of ICAO 7192-AN857 and the next modules have been ammended accordingly. However, The ICAO document is, like any other, open to intepretation. I for one would question whether the course attains the levels of explanation leading on to thorough understanding as required by ICAO.

It would be harsh not to expect the odd teething trouble during the first year of a new course. However, I find myself questioning the integrity of this course as it stands. The errors and dubious content I have found thus far do not bode well for the remaining study period, IMHO.

Best regards,
Mr R

[famous grouse]

Hi again

Many thanks to “No Sig and Mister Rainbow” for your time and trouble in responding to my posts

I certainly thank Mister Rainbow for actually reading my initial posting and realising I am NOT new to Operations, quite the contrary, I have 27 years experience, like yourself I too welcome a “standard” for the industry we serve.

I also accept “teething” problems in a new course, but a few comments made by “no sig” give me even more cause for concern.

Firstly you state that Easyjet have issued a statement to its staff taking this course regarding the “overkill” in certain aspects of module 1. I am somewhat surprised that the University has not issued this to ALL people taking the course, I for one have not received this information. As the “meeting” was on the 7th Jan, I expect to receive this information ASAP.

Secondly you state that certain “major” airlines will be involved in the moderating of modules 2 and 3, which begs the question why were they not involved in moderating module 1 ?
I was given the impression from the University when I started this course that the airlines had been approached with reference the content, but this now appears not to be the case.

It is quite obvious from your posting that you are in some way involved with the production of this course and I find myself also concerned on a moral issue, I fail to understand how the University can “sell” a course that doesn’t satisfy the requirements of its students and is clearly not complete.

I seem to have unintentionally opened a can of worms, my initial concerns were the errors, teething or otherwise that appear to be cropping up and to discuss the depth of content of the course.

Like Mister Rainbow, I feel I can speak with authority when I say I have never used, nor likely to use much of the content of this course, whether dispatching light twins or wide bodies, I really don’t need this depth of understanding and I continue to challenge anyone that says I do.

I shall be writing to the CAA shortly on this subject, because if this were the level of understanding you consider an Ops Dispatcher needs, it would appear that I should take the ATPL exam on completion of this course and go flying for a living. Maybe the idea is for Ops jobs to be taken by pilots ? As far as I can see, and I stress in my opinion, the University have re-titled their ATPL course an “Operations/Flight Dispatchers course” with little or nothing taken out.

I have no problem with my limited understanding of aircraft systems and dispatching under the MEL/DDG, surprisingly these documents quite clearly state what you can and what you can’t dispatch with regards aircraft systems. By all means teach us what an Altimeter is and what it does, but the intricate workings of its internals, too deep. Circuit diagrams for AC Generators – I don’t think so either. Engineers and Pilots get classroom lessons to understand this sort of depth.

ICAO Doc 7192 part D-3 page D3-5 states the recommended study time for someone without previous experience will need 12 hours to cover Aircraft indoctrination (systems, propulsion, theory of flight etc). This course allocates a massive 150 hours!! Now tell me the content is not too deep. ATPL syllabus? I think so.

I thank you both once again for you time and trouble in discussing your views, I would be interested to see if anyone else taking this course has any views on what has been discussed.

Very best regards
FG

[no sig]

famous grouse, I beg your pardon, I didn't read your posting closely enough- I note your experience and have no doubt you are competent, my comment was made in the context of the post and the need for training in general.

First of all, the airlines were involved in the first modules. The UK Ops Mgr Assoc. UKOMA, has been involved from the beginning and this was to ensure that the course had an industry input.

Regarding study time, the requirements of Doc 7192 specify class room hours of training, for an open learning course these need to be doubled if not trebled. We checked this against the 7192 and found the college study plan not too far off the mark. Also, it is also one of the reasons the UKOMA group pushed the course to 18 months.

Now to the content, doc 7192 requires interpretation as is not so rigidly defined as the JAR FCL exams. However, this is the training standard the CAA has adopted as an ICAO country and the aim of the course is meet that requirement.

The Glasgow College has the advantage of being a JAA approved training organisation, a respected nautical college and very experienced tutors who have had many years providing aviation training for aircrew. It is true that the course was developed from the JAR ATPL materials, as the ICAO 7192 content is so very closely aligned with it in many areas, but was edited with much deleted. The ATPL study materials offered a sound basis for the development of the course. We had to remove much of the 'pilot' content to meet the 7192 requirements. However, it was also important to ensure there was sufficient depth remaining to enable the 'no experience candidate' to complete the rest of the course and develop an understanding of the subject. E.g. without a clear understanding of principles of flight and aircraft systems, how can you progress onto performance and flight planning? The content must be viewed in the context of the course requirements as a whole and not as an isolated subject.

So in reviewing the 7192 syllabus, and if you have a copy you can see that the training goals are not always clear as to how much depth to go into. E.g. Power plant and Propulsion - requires a 'thorough understanding' in the training goal. So, in compiling this course, we had to ensure that sufficient depth was covered to ensure a 'thorough understanding'. The guidelines as to how much depth can be taken from the 7192 study hours required, which define the minimum for 'with experience and for those without experience. This is a general course and obviously must be targeted at students with little or no experience of aviation.

f grouse you wrote...

"It is quite obvious from your posting that you are in some way involved with the production of this course and I find myself also concerned on a moral issue, I fail to understand how the University can “sell” a course that doesn’t satisfy the requirements of its students and is clearly not complete."

I am involved as an airline representative in the development of this course and have worked closely with the College from the beginning. You are wrong in suggesting this course doesn't meet the requirements, we have from the start adhered strictly to the 7192 syllabus. We did however, add JAA/JAR’s as this is a European based course, JAR is not a 7192 requirement but how could it be deleted from an Ops course these days. What you seem to be saying is that the course materials have exceeded the requirements! Perhaps it has in a few areas as I mentioned before and I have no doubt the College will be writing to you all in due course, but give em a break the meeting was only held on Tuesday last. Further, the College with the UKOMA group, is working to ensure we match study material as closely as we can for the next modules, I confessed, we feel ourselves that we have too much depth in some areas.

On your point about the CAA, if you read back through the FODCOMS available on the CAA SRG website, you’ll see what the CAA’s views are in the response to industry comments.


Mister Rainbow

You are a student of the Glasgow College so I would recommend you contact them with your concerns and observations on the course. I have no doubt they will take you comments on board and would want to hear from you.

In your post you mention the FAA licence as yardstick, it is not in this course, nor is it the standard which the CAA (and soon the JAA) have chosen to adopt. The syllabus for this course is an ICAO recommended syllabus of training. ICAO as the global standard has always been more comprehensive than the FAA who approach their requirements in a different way, placing much more onus on the airline to complete training. Also, the course overall, and remember this is the first set of modules, will not exceed the ICAO 7192 requirements. Only these few modules may and as I explained account will be made for this.


May I reassure you all that the object of my colleagues and I is to assist the College in offering a distant learning course which meets the future training requirement of ICAO Doc 7192 and is relevant and comprehensive. It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience. The course must be viewed as a general course of flight ops studies aimed a giving the student an in depth knowledge of the technical and regulatory requirements of our industry. It is not airline specific nor is it the ATPL course renamed, as Mr Grouse suggests. However, you must appreciated that much of the content is the same and required by 7192. I personally deleted dozens and dozens of pages from the initial syllabus so I know!

My personal view is that we have waited for a very long time for our Authority to set the standard for the training of Ops officers, they now have. We need to provide a training platform for the future and this course is the first. We need, as an industry, to raise the level of technical competence and I have no doubt those doing this course will not regret it. It should equip you with the level of knowledge you will need whichever airline you work for.
.

[famous grouse]

No Sig, I offer my apologies but you have put yourself in the firing line !!

You make some useful references to FODCOMS, assuming I am reading the latest (18/01), your use of them somewhat surprises me, as I quote:

“The CAA does not believe there is a need for a formal
licence for flight operations officers or dispatchers. The
training and employment of flight operations officers or
dispatchers is a matter for the individual operator for which
ICAO Doc 7192 D3 provides a sound basis.”

I also note with interest the respondents to the initial FODCOM were sixteen, five of which could be classed as “major” UK operators, alas only one of which, Easyjet, appear on the list of course moderators. Neither BMI, DHL, nor Monarch appeared initially interested and didn’t respond to the FODCOM, along with many other notably absent operators. Yet they are now moderators for the course.

Nothing of what you have said distracts from the point that you admit there is some “overkill” in YOUR interpretation of ICAO7192 D3, yet you state:

“It is impractical to re-issue the course materials at this stage so the moderators agreed that the examination papers would be simplified in these areas to more closely reflect the Doc 7192 requirements. There are no changes to Air Law or Meteorology.

I would recommend that all students continue to, 'study everything', answer the Self Assessment Practice Papers, and complete the Progress Tests. As you are the first students on this new course all markings on the above subjects will be adjusted to take account of the above.”

I would like to ask the question, were ICAO approached at any point and asked their interpretation of their own document and the depth of study that THEY considered necessary?

I also question your statement:

“It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience”

I don’t consider some of this material could possibly be understood by people with experience let alone a novice, without some sort of classroom tuition. Indeed I feel Meteorology in particular, which you mention the material stands as is, would be hard to learn for a complete novice. I note you explain that home study takes longer than classroom study, but I wonder what depth ICAO intended when they stated 12 hours study for Aircraft Systems etc. I value your attempts to offer a distance learning package for this type of syllabus, however, not only myself, but it would appear also that others also feel the material has been put together in a rushed manner and contain many inaccuracies.

I consider this course has been put together from the basis of the ATPL course, with bits cut out that make the flow, continuity and understanding of this course, more confusing and time consuming than necessary. Judging by the FODCOM you mention, the CAA have made no mention of this course being the industry standard, indeed seem to quite clearly state that it will be down to individual operators to train their staff using the same ICAO 7192 guidelines you have used for this course. The course should have been prepared from scratch in conjunction with ICAO and 7192, with Ops Controllers and Dispatchers requirements in mind, not just sections of the ATPL course copied and pasted into new documents, which is what this course clearly is. Yes, I agree the requirements of Doc 7192 closely follow the ATPL course, but it should have been written from a Dispatchers viewpoint not a pilots view.

I thank you for your answers to my questions, but I maintain my opinion that this course is way too deep for the requirements of JAR and CAP360. As previously mentioned, I will be writing to the CAA to find out their views on this course and their interpretation of ICAO annex 1 and 6, ICAO Doc 7192 and CAP360.

Thank you for your time in attempting to argue your case, but every page I turn and every self-assessment task I attempt, throws up more errors. Which takes me back to the point that this course has been rushed and not proof read. We are now given assurances from the University that all is now in order since the re-issue of the Meteorology manual (where there are further errors) and a letter containing hand written amendments. Since then the progress tests have been issued and these are also found to be inaccurate. One question does not supply the correct answer as an option and another gives two identical options for the answer!

I re-state that I understand this is the first run of the course and the University has requested we point out the odd error, but I for one resent paying £1200 to proof read this course. If it were the “odd” error I could accept it, but unfortunately it isn’t. I also stress again, that I value the attempts of the University and yourself to obtain an industry standard via distance learning, but this course appears rushed and incomplete, with many inaccuracies and errors.

Thanks to Mister Rainbow, who from his comments, is obviously taking this course and appears to have similar misgivings. I had hoped for comment from other course students, but I fully understand their reluctance to participate in this discussion for fear of any reprisal from their own company. Free speech is a wonderful thing, is it not?

I believe that this course should be withdrawn in its entirety until it has been thoroughly proof read, checked for clarity of content and explanation, relevance and errors. We have paid, be it individually or via company sponsorship, £1200 for this course and I see no reason why I or other students need to waste our time to “study everything” (255 hours) when you clearly indicate we now don’t need it all.

Until it is accepted that a mistake has been made, I for one have no confidence in what is contained in these manuals. I will also make an analogy with cars that was made by “fcit” earlier in this thread, would you buy a car that was incomplete, unfinished and contained faults? I doubt you would. Accept that this course is not up to an acceptable standard with debateable content, withdraw it and correct it before you defeat the object for which it was surely intended.

Regards
FG

[super aviator]

The whole course is a money spinner for Glasgow college !!!

Its aimed at future requirments for CAA approval !!!

If and when the CAA requires Dispatchers and Ops bods to be licensed then they will create there own training requirments, probably called something like.....CAA Ops/Dispatch licence.

The college offers a course........Great, it shows future employers you are interested and are willing.

I think the course is a good idea for beginners in avaition, but any ops/Dispatcher man in the know would go with the FAA everytime. The FAA is tried and tested and respected the world over, once you have the official licence in your hand you can work anywhere in the world.

Glasgow do not even issue you with a licence and are HOPING that the CAA will endorse it !!!

The Fact is they want your money and no sig is probably on commision, thats why he rates it so highly !!!

What would you rather have FAA ??? government approved and respected the world over !!!

ICAO Glasgow college certificate.........no one has really heard of it and it is respected by no sig.

[You splitter]

Ok heres something to throw into the works.

Super aviator you say

The FAA is tried and tested and respected the world over, once you have the official licence in your hand you can work anywhere in the world.

Agreed. But what if you have no desire to work all over the world then surely going to the states with the cost of accomdation and course fees is a hell of a lot more money than the home study course at Glagow, irrespective of it's critics on this forum.

Maybe one day JAA will look at standardising the sytem over Europe and writing their own syllabus based on ICAO with which you will need a licence for. If it's going to happen it wont be for a while.

I've been working in the industry for about ten years now. I would like to think I have a broad knowledge of most of these subjects discussed but would have to admit to still having a lot I can learn. Whilst I would love to take a course like this I can't justify spending £1000's of pounds on something I dont need, no matter how beneficial I would find it personally. Working for a small company means work sponsership is out of the question.
I learned what I know by having it passed down to me. When I was an Ops asissistant the Ops controllers imparted knoweldge to me in quiet moments. When I was an Ops Controller the Supervisors passed down knowledge to me and so on and so on!

I would like to learn those things I have not had the chance to have proper training on, if only to pass on correct and useful knoweldge to those coming through behind me.

It's a shame because unless the industry does standardise its training requirements we are going to be left with a two teir system.

I wonder if when someday a licence is required there will be some sort of Grandfather rights for those who have benn around since the day dot. Will they have to take a full course from scratch or would there be a basic syllabus and exam to prove the knowledge is already there?

[no sig]

super aviator

College Money spinner?, probably on commission? Clearly, you haven't taken the time consider the previous comments I have made on this forum, nor I suspect have you bothered to read the CAA's view in the relevant FODCOM's try 18/2001. Read back for the history.

Refresher in JAROPS1...

JAROPS 1.205 requires that an airline, 'shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground operations and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole'

The CAA's published view is that training is the responsibility of the airline and that ICAO Doc 7192 provides a sound basis for that training. Forget any idea of a licence; the above is as good as you're going to get for the foreseeable future. Why not instead, recognise an opportunity exists here for airline's to align their ops training with international standards. It also provides wannabes with a starting place.

Few airlines in the UK have the capabilities to set up a training course to meet Doc 7192, nor have they the resource to send people off for months at a time - so a distance learning course is a good way to go. Compare prices as you splitter suggests and you'll find it’s not that expensive compared with full time courses. However, if you want to work for a US or FAA based carrier then off you go, do and FAA licence. But, as good as it is, it is not as comprehensive as doc 7192 and it does not cover JAROPS.

Airline's have the above responsibilities, but YOU out there also have a choice, either sit back and wait for your airline to train you or not as the case may be, or grasp the mettle and take responsibility for improving the standards in your trade and push for the training to doc 7192 however you get it.

The fact is that because the UK CAA in the past has never set a standard for your training you have been left out in the cold in this respect. Little test, hands up all those who can point to an ops officer training syllabus in Part D of your ops manual? Not many I suspect, yet you work in a very technical and safety related environment and make difficult decisions day in day out which affect the operation of your airline's business. You can cost your airline dear by not having the lknowledge or experience to make the right decision or anticipate a problem arising in time to mitigate the negative consequences. There is a sound business argument for training ops staff to the 7192 level.

Also, ever wondered why you feel you are not trusted to make that decision without calling the Chief Pilot or Ops Manager? Or pilots tend to disregard your suggestions or ideas? I will tell you it is in many case because they know you guys & gals haven't had any formal training in flight ops subjects and are not in a position to make the best informed decision because you lack the knowledge to do so. Sorry, but that’s the truth of it. And please, I’ve been around too long to argue the above - call me arrogant if you wish.

super aviator, I have nothing to gain here except the satisfaction of seeing ops standards improve in the UK. I've worked as a flight dispatcher in the US and know the benefits of a licence; I know that dispatchers are respected because they are trained to the same level of the aircrew. I also know that if you have completed the 7192 syllabus, wherever you do it, that you will be able to work in the flight ops environment competently and with the foundation knowledge to cope with aircrew on their level in your job, and will be able to make much better informed decisions.

I hope you splitter is wrong, we need a one-tier system, that is, all ops officer have completed the training to the above standards.

[Mister Rainbow]

FG

Well said!
I have spoken about the course to many, including pilots, engineers, management as well as other students. I too fully understand why others are unwilling to post for fear of reprisal. However, the general opinion IS the same as our own.

You splitter

I hear that there will soon be no need to go elsewhere to obtain an FAA licence as Jeppesen will soon be offering just that in at least two locations in the UK.

No sig

I certainly SHALL be writing to the college. The letter wil be in the box with the manuals.

[famous grouse]

No Sig

I’m pleased to see that you now admit that there is NO legal requirement (nor likley to be in the near future) for Operations/Dispatcher training.

“JAROPS 1.205 requires that an airline, 'shall ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground operations and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole”

As I’ve said all along, I welcome a course of formal training for our job as long as it’s the RIGHT course. Never once have I said or implied we don’t need a standard.

My only gripe is the manner with which this course has been presented to us, the lack of continuity and its contents, the errors and slap dash way its been “cobbled together”.

As there is no immediate requirement for licenesed staff in this country, you had and still have the time to get this course right.

Whether you are on commission or if it’s a money spinner for the College is not important to me, but what Super Aviator says certainly rings alarm bells when you see the course and the quality it represents. What is really important is that a quality course is put together and well supported by whoever presents it.

I agree with splitter when he says a lot of information we acquire is “passed on”, we all gain invaluable knowledge this way, but a formal course with the basics would certainly enhance our understanding of the knowledge that invariably gets passed on.

I also agree with you No Sig with regards in house training, most companies cannot spare the time not the money to send staff away for a disaptchers licence, but when you compare that course with this one, I know which I’d rather have spent my money on !!

If I’d needed such in depth knowledge of aircraft systems I could have bought a good quality book from the library or borrowed the company ENGINEERING manuals. I understand we need to know about aircraft systems etc, but as stated before it is the depth that is worrying. I really don’t want to waste my time AND money learning unessessary details in this parrot fasihon manner.

I can converse with aircrew at their level without knowing the ins and outs (literally) of ASI/VSI/IVSI or whatever, but that is based on knowledge, experience and hours on a quite shift (when do you get one of those you might ask!) reading the manuals and asking questions. But at the end of the day that is my choice, I don’t need or ever will need to know half of what I learn.

What aircrew need from me is an understanding of the aircraft performance, the ATC system, Navigation, Weight(mass) and balance, effects of degraded aircraft performance (As written in the MEL/DDG) and how to apply this degredation. He wants to discuss handling, he wants to discuss alternates. He doesn’t want to discuss with me what will happen if his ASI developes a blockage will the thing underread or overread in the climb, simply because the engineers will telll him its BROKEN and the MEL will tell him (and me) whether the aircraft can be dispatched. OR maybe your expecting the crew to call ops and say “ hey my ASI has broken, will it overread or underrad when I climb ?”

You make no reference in your response to my last posting because you know I’m right, this course is inaccurate, contains errors too numerous to mention and much of the content is unnecessary. Write the course from the perspective of what a dispatcher does, what he needs to know and cut out the crap he doesn’t need. Base it on the GUIDELINES in doc 7192. You ought to know, you say you’ve been there and done it, so surely you can accept this course is overkill beyond belief.

Good on you Mister Rainbow, maybe we should all package the manuals up and send them back, maybe we could approach one of the course moderators (DHL) and get them sent back free of charge !!!!!!!!!!!!

regards FG

[no sig]

FG
Your last posting and my last must have crossed as this is the first I've seen of it, I wasn't avoiding your comments. What I have said, is that the CAA have specified Doc 7192 as the training standard for flight operations officers. OK so far? That is the standard for UK operators. The syllabus is the syllabus, it defines the subject matter and the level of understanding required by the student. If we deviate from this course then we move away from the reference standard. In the begining UKOMA agreed that the only way to approach this was to stick to the 7192 requirements.

I have also said that the first modules may have been more than is needed by 7192, we acknowledged that a long time ago. Next set of models will be better aligned with 7192 requirement, first course and we're working to get it fine tuned.

You are making the judgement that you don't need all of this knowledge, subjectively. Standards are set to remove that. I didn't write Doc 7192, disagree with it if you like. But, as with a flight crew licence they don't get a choice, because it's a standard. In due course ICAO may adjust the requirement, but for the time being this edition we have to work to.

The ICAO doc requires you to understand the operation of almost all of the aircraft systems, if you haven't got a copy email me with your address and I'll send you a copy and you can judge the syllabus for yourself. What you are saying though is that you don't need to know as much as a pilot, in some areas that may be true, but on the other hand you are saying

"What aircrew need from me is an understanding of the aircraft performance, the ATC system, Navigation, Weight(mass) and balance, effects of degraded aircraft performance (As written in the MEL/DDG) and how to apply this degredation"

So pray tell me, what level of understanding do you need at say DHL Air versus easyJet? is it the same or is it more? If you happen to work for say, Heavylift (as they once were) and you needed to derive your performance from the flight manual graphs of an older aircraft, how much depth do you need to go into. Does the MEL teach you to go to the 'reference line first'? No it doesn't. Why is it that aircrew licencing applies a 'one size fits all philosophy'? Answer that and you can find the answer to why ICAO define a similar standard for Ops training.

My point FG is that what you think you need and what others need may be two different things. So, we have ICAO guiding us to a general standard of knowledge and the object of the course if to give you that knowledge.

I do not for one minute accept that this course is overkill for the Ops bod who wishes to have an in depth understanding of aircraft systems and airline operations, or that it is 'slap dash' as you call it. Several of the modules have not required any editing at all. I will accept that in the aircraft system modules in this first pass we may have included more than is required by 7192, many would consider that a benefit. Yes, the college had some pagination difficulties as I mentioned before and they re-issued the met section as a result. I said before, you must contact the College with your comments if you have found problems. I have not been made aware of 'errors too numerous to mention' by any of the 20 odd easyJet bods on the course, a few yes, but not too many to mention.

Listen guys, I'm not going to ram this course down your throats. If you don't want to do the course then don't. All I can try and do here is explain its origins, give you my personal view and try and foster a new standard of training which, our Authority recommends, and which I believe to be what our industry needs.

But, if you take the time to study the 7192 course, you will see that the objective is to give the candidate a level of technical competence to enable him/her to do his or her job. I have at least three ops bods in easyjet who did their ATPL studies in about 9 month or so each. Why because they want to fly and be pilots. I say, if you want a career in airline flight ops then do the studies to the 7192 syllabus. Of course you won't use it all, but then again do you use all of the Maths you studied at school? probably not. Same, same the more you know about aircraft, the systems and flight operation the better you'll understand the industry and I would argue, the better ops officer you'll be.

[famous grouse]

Please don’t patronise me no sig with your “okay so far” comment, I thoroughly understand what you say and have done all the way through this thread.

Yes Doc 7192 is the BASIS that the CAA advise operators to teach their staff to. Yes it gives a guideline to the level of understanding, but as you quite rightly say is open to interpretation. I don’t disagree with it, but 12 hours for systems even at classroom level does not equate to 150 hours self study. What I am saying is you should have adjusted the contents of the course before sending it out and charging £1200 for the privilege.

I have a copy of the document hence the reason I know the standard requires 12 hours of study for Aircraft Indoctrination (see previous post) for which you have gone overboard.

With regards your reference to DHL AIR vs Easyjet and Heavylift, you need an understanding of aircraft performance full stop. Local arrangements would be in place to explain the difference from ”the norm”. I have worked for airlines with modern and “older” aircraft and never had a problem understanding any of the information with the training I was given.

I have not seen modules 2 and 3 yet because I seem to have paid for a course that is not yet finished, but I would be quite happy for it to go into great depths on such subjects that are needed. In fact I would much prefer the course to allocate twice the time on meteorology and subjects that I consider (yes subjectivley) important.

“My point FG is that what you think you need and what others need may be two different things. So, we have ICAO guiding us to a general standard of knowledge and the object of the course if to give you that knowledge”

Of course that’s your point, your promoting the course, but that’s why the CAA states and I quote again:

“The CAA does not believe there is a need for a formal
licence for flight operations officers or dispatchers. The
training and employment of flight operations officers or
dispatchers is a matter for the individual operator for which
ICAO Doc 7192 D3 provides a sound basis.”

Operators decide what you need to know and the syllabus is only a guideline. You couldn’t possibly put a course together that covers all requirements, so teach BASIC Aircraft systems - 12 hours (or if you so wish double or treble that as you previosuly stated for the fact it is distance learning), but not 150 hours worth.

Which brings me onto another point, you quite clearly state from your previous post and I quote:

“Regarding study time, the requirements of Doc 7192 specify class room hours of training, for an open learning course these need to be doubled if not trebled. We checked this against the 7192 and found the college study plan not too far off the mark”

okay lets put this statement into the perspective you mention above.

ICAO 7192 Aircraft Indoctrination = 12 hours GCNS study time 150 Hours

(even with the maths I haven’t used since school that isn’t two or three times greater due to distance learning more like 12.5 times – jeez I can still remember how to divide)


ICAO 7192 Air Law = 30 hours GCNS study time = 30 hours

Meteorology = 42 hours GCNS study time =55 hours

Communications = 18 hours GCNS study time = 20 hours

Pretty close to the recommended ICAO study time you might think, but what happened to the 2 or 3 times longer because of distance learning. You can’t quote a rule to win an argument and then change the goal posts. Which I’m afraid suggests you’ve padded out this part of the course to justify ripping off £1200 from the students.

When I say too many errors to mention I mean TOO MANY ERRORS to mention. Would you care for me to list them for you. Considering only the Met book and Air law are the only bits to be left as is, you can I suppose discount all the errors found in the remaining books. Even so, I don’t intend to list them here, but as a prime example take a close look at the Met book, has the Stratosphere been burnt off to such an extent that the Mesophere now borders the Tropopause ?? Take a little more time to read it CAREFULLY. If your struggling its in Chapter 1 !!

“Listen guys, I'm not going to ram this course down your throats. If you don't want to do the course then don't.”

A bit late for that we’ve already paid for the course.

I’m not going to bother posting again, mainly for two reasons, It’s quite obvious I’m hitting my head against a brick wall, but you’ve certainly given me all the info I needed to know. Secondly no sig, you appear to be wearing blinkers. I think comments made by super aviator appear spot on, very astute my friend.

And by the way, have a little “off the record” chat with some of your Easyjet bods and see if they ARE happy with the course?

Any future students should view the course material BEFORE they buy into it and see if it meets their requirements, if you’ve ever studied at University level before you will find the quality of reproduction poor at best and explanation of theory awful, especially when you consider it is supposedly designed for a novice to learn.

[You splitter]

fg,

dont go mate. not been such a good debate on this forum for a long time1;)

Just a bit of info for you all. Yearly Flight ops inspection recently.
FOI took an intrest in Ops staff and traning like never seen before, which personally I thought was good.
28 days to draw up a structured schedule of training with records for all staff invovled in ground ops. This will be part of the company manuals (but no sig you're right probably wont be Part D).

I ordered a copy of doc 7192 a couple of days ago. waiting to see what it's like!

[no sig]

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

[famous grouse]

No Sig, by popular demand (you splitter) I thought I WOULD respond to your last.

As you say lets not degenerate the forum, but we will continue to agree to disagree.

Let me re-state and summarise what I consider we have established so far:

1/ ICAO have produced a document that gives a guideline for Ops/Dispatching

2/ The CAA have Advised this is a sound basis for a level companies need to teach there staff
3/ GCNS have produced a course that in their interpretation follows the ICAO Doc 7192

4/ The course has been issued to students at a cost of £1200 pounds

I don’t think any of the above can be argued against.

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. As we also agree it would be impossible to produce a course to meet ALL requirtements, hence the need for supplementary in house training.

Now lets summarise my compalints:

1/ The course has been issued at said cost and DOES contain errors, for which I understand are teething problems BUT – a little more care taken before sending this out (proof reading) would have alleviated this fault. As previously mentioned I can list further faults but I don’t intend to do so any further on this forum.

2/ As you already agree there is some overkill in the systems element of the course, I won’t go into this again. Modules 2 and 3 I understand will also be trimmed down by the moderators. I would however like to quote your last thread:

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.

Yes, but I would argue that anyone who needed twice the amount of instruction on aircraft systems would be best suited to a job as an engineer not an operations dispatcher. I certainly wouldn’t argue about the information required on the subjects you quoted in your last, I would deem those vital:

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

But lets get the aircraft systems etc into the perspective of operational “performance” and not a lesson in engineering principles. Lets leave the engineers to do their job.

3/ The quality of reproduction of the documents for the price is of poor standard. I am going to ask you to look at the Met manual again, as an example the diagrams on pages 1.2 /3.3 and 4.2. These are very poor quality reproductions. In fact the diagram on page 4.2 should have been left out, its pointless and it loses everything its trying to convey because its quite obviously a colour diagram in black and white !! I could go on but I won’t.

4/ We are being asked to be proof readers and point out errors to the College.

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.

All of the above points begs the question that a moderated and slimmed down version of this course should also have a slimmed down price !!!

As previosuly stated and Iin my opinion, a novice would have difficuly understanding some of this material and the price tag considering my complaints is a hefty one. I’m sure Easyjet can afford to shell out 20 x £1200 for this course and not even bat an eyelid, 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.

I still maintain module one should now be withdrawn until it has been moderated in a similar fashion to your plans for module 2 and 3 and then re-issued to the poor souls who have spent a great deal of their hard earned cash !!

Rgds
FG

[Mister Rainbow]

FG

I fully agree with you and I firmly believe that the organisers of this course are attempting to railroad the UK airline ops community into accepting it. There never has been, and sincerely hope never will be, room in our industry for a second rate standard. Speaking to colleagues and others on the course has bolstered my own opinion that the course is nothing but. However long no sig makes his responses to our postings, he and his ilk will cannot alter this fact, and the sooner we stand up for ourselves the better.

[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.

[famous grouse]

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

[Mister Rainbow]

FG

Couldn't have said it better myself if I wasn't so busy with my agenda!

[DH98]

Afternoon gentlemen,

I've been observing the content of this thread with mounting interest and now feel compelled to add my tuppance worth.

I too am studying this course. My motives? As a Flight Operations Manager in the RAF my knowledge is gained through osmosis, currently I am the FOM on a Jag Sqn and have to interact with pilots and engineers throughout my day. I felt my trade knowledge required bolstering and subsequently enrolled on the course, at my own expense as the RAF won't subsidise me sufficiently.

On receiving module one I was amazed at the volume of documentation, however not being in civil aviation I felt it was not up to me to question this as there are quite clearly fundamental differences to military and civil aircraft ops and anyway maybe you need this stuff in civvie street. Furthermore my intention for the future is to depart Aunty Betties finest and pursue a career with an airline at Stansted so I am keen to prepare and display my motivation to any potential employers.

Up until now I have been studying this course with mounting frustration, the quality of the product is appalling, I have actually studied two OU courses and concur that the quality of their study materials is far, far superior!

The poor grammer makes for trying reading, the quality of the diagrams does not make comprehension easier and the numerous mistakes in the text and the self assessment tests have all resulted in my complete loss of faith in the integrity of this course, or put another way, how do I know that what I am reading and trying to understand is indeed the case?

The cost of £1200 I consider to be prohibitive, especially when you compare the cost of the entire ATPL syllibus from Oxford Aviation, around £540, and the qulaity of the product is extremely high.

As I am serving in the RAF I am not covered by ICAO/JAR/JAA so the correspondence on these subjects is outside my knowledge, however as my intention is to pursue a career in civil aviation I am interested and if anyone can point me in the right direction of Doc 7192 I would be very grateful.

To summarise, I am rather dissapointed in the course so far, not so much the content but more the qulaity of the product, however on the plus side, my cred on the Jag Sqn I am the FOM for has risen hugely, not only with the two winged master race but also the 'ginger beers'. Whether I need to know the intricacies of a pressure ASI, radio theory or aircraft structure is not the point, the simple fact that I understand them and can make informed decisions based on that knowledge is what matters. I am enjoying expanding my knowledge and the fact that I am potentially gaining an industry recognised qualification ensures that my time is being spent productively. If No Sig and his mates in the recruitment side of airline ops value this course then I am prepared to slog it out because the benefits outweigh any shortcomings.

I await your responses.

Mosquito.

[no sig]

FG

I feel I have exhausted my input to this thread with respect to our debate. There isn’t much more that I can add that I haven’t said before in my previous posts.

I’ve come to the conclusion that your experience of airline ops and mine is sufficiently different that we are probably not going to resolve the issue regarding how much one needs to teach in a foundation knowledge course. But for the benefit of others on this thread, once again, this is the first module and I have agreed we have, in aircraft systems, included more than is strictly necessary. I also assured you that in the next modules we are guarding against that by a more critical review before publication by the airline moderators group.

Regarding supplementary training, I am afraid you seem to be missing my point as well. The simplest analogy I can use is with respect to a pilot. When an airline hires a pilot and puts him through a type conversion there is a natural assumption that that individual has the ‘foundation’ technical knowledge to understand the ‘operating principles’ of his aircraft. He does not go into the classroom to study the principles of aircraft systems, he did that already in his ATPL studies, rather he goes in to study the manufacturer approach to and operation’ of, the systems of that particular aircraft. Likewise, in this course the ops officer is learning about aircraft systems, not, I hasten to add, to ATPL level, but to a generally slimmed down version to doc 7192. Therefore, when our ops officers go to do the Airbus familiarisation course, which is a slimmed down version of the pilot’s Airbus course, they will more readily understand the ‘operation’ of the system on the Airbus.

In your comments regarding the level of knowledge an ops officer is required to have regarding CAP371, I fail to see how an ops officer can do his job without a thorough understanding of his airlines FTL scheme (CAP371). And incidentally, crewing and FTL’s will be covered on this course in the Flight Monitoring section.

This is a distance learning course and has been designed as such, if a student needs help he contacts the college. The course was outlined to UKOMA in a presentation by the college around a year or so ago at which time a working group was formed, it continues as I have explained before.

FG, we’ve both spent a great deal of time on this subject and despite our disagreements regarding the content of the first modules of this course, your input is appreciated and be assured that I will take what you and others have said to the airline moderators. I will ask, via the UKOMA group, for a review of the aircraft systems modules against the course learning objects and for those starting the course at a later date we will have more closely aligned these modules with 7192 in due course.

However, there is now little to be gained by me going over old ground and I'll leave it at that.


DH98

Mosquito

I note your comments regarding the course and would ask you to speak with the college directly, as you clearly feel there is room for improvement then they must know and I have no doubt they will want your input. You have encapsulated a great deal of what I have been trying to say in your last paragraph regarding the credibility gained etc., this is the case in civilian airline ops as well. Be assured that the materials you will study in this course will provide you with the foundation knowledge for a career in civilian airline ops and significantly increase you chances of employment. (see your pprune pvt. messages re doc 7192)

[famous grouse]

Well readers, looks like the end of the line on this one

I will of course leave you to draw your own conclusions, you have 3 people who have reported here they are unhappy with the course. Only ONE, the course moderator thinks its the "standard". But of course he would. I would suggest there are others that are unhappy but will not comment as they are "known".

We also seem to have a moderator who now seems to be passing his "baby" and the buck back to the College. Lets forget defining an Ops Controllers job, maybe we should start a new thread and define a course moderators job ?? what do you reckon ?

"I fail to see how an ops officer can do his job without a thorough understanding of his airlines FTL scheme (CAP371)."

A little out of context No Sig but I quite frankly don't care anymore, I said with a crewing dept operating 24/7. I didn't say I didn't know the CAP371 inside out, I said I didn't need to with a crewing dept. For christ sake why have a crewing department and an engineering department when the ops controller knows it all !!!!! Is that not what a team is for ??

Distance learning is just that, it requires a great deal or CAREFUL explanation to understand it, this course fails, sorry those are the facts.

Good luck to all of you unfortunate enough to have paid £1200 for this course, I hope you do as well as possible. On a personal note I haven't quite decided what I am going to do with mine, I can't really afford to ditch it, but hey, it'll keep me supplied in toilet paper for a while.

Cheers and signing off
FG

[no sig]

FG

I was going to leave it at that, but your comments have become personally directed, I find that disappointing, I thought that perhaps we had reached an agreement to disagree.

No one is passing the buck on anything- I have said from the begining your are students of the GCNS and of course you must contact them directly. I am but one of 4 moderators, I just happen to be a bit of a PPRUNE'r hence I respond here where the others may not.

What's all this about then?

'I would suggest there are others that are unhappy but will not comment as they are "known".

... for fear of retribution of some kind?

I am now begining to wonder what your agenda is FG with comments like that, perhaps you would care to explain. I thought I was engaged in an honest debate, I wonder now.

[famous grouse]

No Sig

I too was going to "leave it at that" but you have now also got my back up. So I will explain.

'I would suggest there are others that are unhappy but will not comment as they are "known".

If you had actually read my previous posts you would understand what I meant. But I'll explain again in the context it was meant, out of your 20 or so Easyjet students taking this course, if you actually asked them "off the record" what they thought of the course you might be surprised, Yes possible retribution. As you so rightly pointed out, some are novices and any of your staff not complying with your standard and also "happen to be a bit of a PPRUNE'r" are hardly likely to speak out if they are "known" to you. Nothing sinister intended, I was just asking you to maybe accept there is room for improvement.

On the same hand, if your staff all thought this was the all singing all dancing course you say it is, why don't they defend it. In fact why does no-one defend it other than yourself. I also accept maybe there are no other "Pruner's" that are taking htis course that are reading this thread, but your 3-0 down at present. Get all your happy staff to sign up and post on here.

"No one is passing the buck on anything- I have said from the begining your are students of the GCNS and of course you must contact them directly."

I refer the honerable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier about the function of a course moderator. As I said earlier, GCNS are not, as far as I'm concerned, qualified to present this course or be blamed for its content. "hence the reason you were brought in". Quality of reproduction etc can be attributed to them but a course moderator is responsible for the content, in the same way a moderator moderates these forums. I'm still awaiting a letter from GCNS with the results of your moderators meeting (without going back to find it, I think you said the 7th of Jan). That's almost two weeks ago. I believe you told your students at Easyjet that module one contained some overkill. I still haven't had anything like that from GCNS. Or is that information just for Easyjet students and the rest of us are kept in the dark ??

Alas I digress, this isn't the reason I am responding.

I too am disappointed in you sir

"I am now begining to wonder what your agenda is FG with comments like that"

Go back and read what I have said all along and I'll tell you my agenda.

I want an accurate course, a good standard at a fair price and not feel ripped off. At the moment I feel I am being ripped off along with 50 or so other people. All I am saying and have said all along, not enough time has been put into the quality or the checking of the course material. Three people have taken the trouble to point out their feelings but you have ducked and dived all the way through in true politician style.

I accept we obviously come from varying backgrounds regarding operations, but that brings up the whole point again of how far this course should go with regard "relevant" material. It all boils down to interpretation and what you feel the job is. I have noted all along you only respond to items in my posts that you feel you can put up an arguement and by pass the rest - a true politician.

My post before last took me hours to prepare and to try and get my points across but you hardly addressed any of them. If I wanted to give you a few lines and just say the course is s**t, I could have done, but I have tried to give you honest opinion of what I consider to be wrong. Others have agreed, I accept only three have complained on here, but no-one has supported you.

I haven't asked for the course to be scrapped, far from it, I have said all along the idea is commendable and welcomed. But there are too many errors in its current form. It needs looking at.

as you said earlier lets not degenerate further.

regards
FG

[no sig]

FG

Dear oh dear FG, if you but knew the way we have approached this course in easyJet you would not suggest that anyone might be in 'fear of retribution'. For a start easy pays for anyone who is committed and signs up for the course, it has held breifings meetings prior to the course to let everyone know that this is a course of 'robust study' and explain the content, it has a forum on our inside easyjet website for help and we have held support follow up meetings for those on the course, and we intend to hold more in the near future. We are also attemping to find 'homegrown' ops talent and those in the company who complete the course will stand a very good chance of a job in ops/crewing in the future. It is also, linked to promotion for those in the ops room. What you also clearly don't know, is that none of these people report to me as I have moved job in the past few months, even before I did, most of them did not report to me as many are from other departments in easyJet not just ops/crewing. Those outside ops are managed, with respect to the course, through our 'People people development group who are a sort of personnel department.

FG, I have read every one of you comments and spents hours, answering you to, but also also for those reading this forum in general.

please read back, I repeat from my second but last posting...

"FG, we’ve both spent a great deal of time on this subject and despite our disagreements regarding the content of the first modules of this course, your input is appreciated and be assured that I will take what you and others have said to the airline moderators. I will ask, via the UKOMA group, for a review of the aircraft systems modules against the course learning objects and for those starting the course at a later date we will have more closely aligned these modules with 7192 in due course".

Now please, lets call it a day.

[famous grouse]

No Sig

I agree let's call it a day, I think we’ll just leave it to the readers to decide BUT:

Once again you have taken me out of context with regards asking Easyjet staff to comment "off the record" so let’s take a slightly different approach but along the same lines, let me offer you a challenge in true aviation style with a “howgozit” questionnaire.

It isn't just the relevance that I have complained about its the quality and errors etc etc,

Ask the college to send out a mid course critique to ALL students taking the course to return without names attached covering the following topics

Quality of materials
“Relevance”
Clarity of explanation
Ease of understanding
Would you recommend this course to a novice?

Most courses would run something similar to this at the end anyway, but as it’s a new course, let’s have one now. Publish the results on this forum and of course to the students that don’t come on here. If you get everybody apart from the three who have complained in here in favour, I will apologise and forever hold my peace.

It wouldn’t cost much to do, 5 minutes to knock up a form and 50 or so stamps and envelopes. It would also show your commitment to the course as you see it. Come on, you are a course moderator, let’s see you moderate and take the challenge.

Best regards
FG

[Mister Rainbow]

FG

Excellent idea! Just talked to a couple of the chaps and they're up for it as well.

Brgds Mr R.

[no sig]

I'll pass your comments on to the College.

[super aviator]

FG,

Why not report No SIG to Trading Standards???? You could have him under false descriptions act!!!


On another note why did you all not come up with a plan? like all chip in a quid and buy one course, photocopy it and send it out, then just pay for the exams?

[famous grouse]

Super Aviator

"Why not report No SIG to Trading Standards???? You could have him under false descriptions act!!! "

Good idea, maybe that's a better approach eh ??

"buy one course, photocopy it and send it out"

another good idea, wouldn't want to infringe copyright though would we ?? Anyway the quality of photocopy reproduction wouldn't be very good now would it ;)

regards
FG

[Penguin124]

FG

don't know whether this is any help or not, but rumour has it a certain "major" subscriber to this course has sent the lot back to Glasgow. The reason quoted are most of the points you have mentioned previously, too much content, too many errors, poor quality etc etc.

So power to you mate for highlighting your concerns, I read this thread with great interest, but did not post as I had no opinion one way or the other, but I felt you all ought to be in on the rumour - assuming you don't already know of course.

Cheers
P124

[famous grouse]

Hi Penguin

Many thanks for the info, I had heard a pretty substantial rumour myself along the same lines, but this is now apparently confirmed. A major UK airline has in fact returned the whole shooting match back to Glasgow. I won’t name names, but I’ve now heard another is apparently going through the motions of withdrawing its students.

I’m not in the market for “I told you so” remarks, so I am not going to make any. No Sig was quite certain I had ulterior motives, but my concerns all along were that this course was too much content for the requirements of ICAO 7192, it contained too many inaccuracies and that the whole thing was sub standard. At least now we can see that others have also expressed these views.

Best regards
FG

[no sig]

FG et al

I am not deaf to the comments made here and I am of course aware of the issues one of the other airlines has had with the course. Clearly, you the students, still have an issue which isn't going away and it needs addressed by the College.

But, 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water', this is the first module which has a few issues, we've learned from that as I have explained before, I trust the College to put it right, but you the students need to let them know also.

Please don't lose sight of the fact that this course is about your job, airline ops/dispatch and that you now have a standard to aspire to in 7192, the College has been working with your airline to ensure industry imput that meets the overall requirement of ICAO 7192 and I have no doubt we'll get there. At least there are people trying to get a course that is for you, that hasn't always been the case. So, rather than malign the course here, why not look to the benefits for you and your Company and let the college know of your concerns but stick with it.

And as a reminder to everyone who hasn't read the previous, I do not work for the College nor and I on a retainer from them!

I simply believe that we now have an opportunity to get a training standard for you guys which has been a long felt want in the UK and the efforts of the UKOMA group and the College is to try and deliver on that.

FG, Pvt message coming your way.

[Mister Rainbow]

First, let me say I whole heartedly support 7192 and a resulting long-overdue formal qualification for UK airline operations personnel.

However:

1) The GCNS course is a set of cut-and-paste ATPL manuals with new covers. That has been confirmed to me times many by people who have done ATPL ground school. As a result I have a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Further proof of this is available by doing a quick comparison of timescales as recommended in 7192 against the GCNS timetable.

2) The amount of errors contained in the first module is inexcusable, especially when the cost of the thing is taken into consideration. It simply should never have been issued until properly proof read and this does not inspire confidence in future material.

This is not a case of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Our industry simply demands a far better standard. That is the issue here. As far as I am concerned, the GCNS thus far has been a disgrace and your argument, Sir, holds no water.

Glasgow have already and deservedly had coursework returned to them by one operator. Watch this space chaps.
It's the guys who have shelled out their own hard-earned I feel sorry for.....:(

[FEBA]

Rainbow
Your intemperate use of language and the manner in which you gloat over the failings of the GCNS course do not do you credit.
The course syllabus offers an excellent opportunity for Operations officers to match if not better the much prized FAA dispatch system.
Sadly the course material has been hurried (not sure about the cutting and pasting) lacks continuity and is not compatible with home study. It is error strewn and difficult to understand, does not follow the 7192D3 syllabus, tutorial support is non existant.
This is a great pity and it is understandable that many if not all of you have lost faith and doubt the credibility and accuracy of the GCNS literature.
Do not despair we will have to do the course as a mandatory requirement of JAR OPS anyway. What we need here is useful suggestions as to how we can put this course back together, possibly with a different provider, so that we all can benefit. Acrimonious prattle serves no purpose and the I told you so attitude is childish. All of you get your thinking caps on and come up with some sensible suggestions please.
Knowledge is power (DH Lawrence) lets get some there's bound to be pay rewards attached to this.

[no sig]

Mister rainbow

No need to call me sir, this is an informal forum.

However, let me explain a few things.

It is true that the GCNS course is derived from the ATPL study materials. The reason for this is that much of the requirements of the 7192 document requires an understanding of the subject matter at or close to this level, met is a very good example. however, in other areas, much has been removed. If you wanted to, one might argue that the PPL is close to the ATPL if you're consider fundemental areas of knowledge like the 'rules of the air' or the Air navigation order.

We embarked upon this route of using the edited down GCNS ATPL material, which is a JAROPS approved college, as a way of delivering a course at a reasonable cost. The development of the 7192 syllabus from scratch would have priced this course outside of the pockets of most airlines let alone individuals. Bear in mind, there are not that many ops officers in the UK and any organisation investing in a course clearly has to make a return.

The course materials are not a disgrace and you exaggerate that point, admittedly, there were pagination errors and I am aware that some confusion has arisen, but I have the course beside me and also from discussion with students on the course who have worked through those problems. However, having said that, I acknowledge that there are some out there who are dissatisfied and as I have said all along take your comments to the College so they can put them right.

Please also remember this is the first modules of a new course and 2/3rd's of the course is to follow. The cautious approach to editing used in the first module has been tightened up to bring it to 7192 for the next modules, which will also be 'drip fed' rather then sent all at once as was the case in the first modules.

Also, although this course is based on the 7192 requirement as a distance learning course we have had to adjust the format of study, this is because the 7192 study format as detailed in the 7192 document is for a full time classroom course, therefore subjects may be covered in more depth earlier on then they would be if you were in a classroom environment. More time is also required.

Having finally gained a declared standard for ops training in 7192, which will need to be incorporated in Part D of your ops manual and increase the status of ops officers in this country, I think it behoves us all to do our best to support the efforts of a College who has taken this on board. Hence my point about ensuring taking you points back to them so they meet the needs of the student. They of course have no lee way in altering 7192 requirements, but if students are struggling due to the study materials then they need to put it right.

There is much more right with the first modules then there is wrong. Further, I do think some have been surprised at the level of study required by 7192, one must look at this course syllabus in an overall sense. I agree with your comments that our industry should demand high standards and believe me, UKOMA and the College are working towards that. I regret that some of you feel the course isn't what you need and we'll be working to remedy that.

[JB007]

FEBA,

Do not despair we will have to do the course as a mandatory requirement of JAR OPS anyway

JAR-OPS/Europe do not have a requirement to make this course mandatory for Ops staff nor have they in the foreseeable future...

A look at the ICAO website by the way, does not have Glasgow approved by ICAO to run course 248 ACS DIS...???

[no sig]

JB007

No licence will come out of this, but the CAA and the JAA have identified 7192 as a training standard and of course JAROPS1 requires the training of operational personnel. For those of us who have in the years past tried to get a recognised training standard for UK ops bod's it is great news and it is an opportunity which many will want to embrace.

As far as I am aware, GCNS has not approached ICAO until they have the course complete which is reasonable on their part. UKOMA have agreed to support them on the Crewing and Flight monitoring parts of the course which comes towards the end of the syllabus.

But the crux of this matter is that in the UK ops officer training (BA perhaps excepted) has been hap hazard and rarely offered to an appropriate level. As a result we have a culture of on the job training, piece meal courses or worse no training at all. UKOMA took things into their own hands back in 1988ish and started the UKOMA introductory courses which still run today. A few of those founder members of that course (me included) are working on this course also to try and build on that long felt need.

For those of you who have worked in the States or where a licence is required, you will recognise the stark difference between ops/dispatchers who are held in respect by crews and who have, in general, a much higher standing in our industry and command higher wages. We really do need to make that our goal.

We have a great opportunity here and I have no doubt we'll get this course together. (meaning, we'll address the concerns expressed )

[super aviator]

YOU QUOTE: We have a great opportunity here and I have no we'll get this course together.


Maybe you should of ''got the course together'' before charging people over a grand for the prototype!!!

You know I was thinking of doing the course untill I read some of the comments on here !!! I will save my money and do a proper course in Florida.

[no sig]

super aviator

You've taken that comment out of content, read the previous posts please...

By the way, have you actually seen the course materials?

[Mister Rainbow]

No, sorry.

I've just read my last posting again and I do not see any "intemperate use of language", "acrimonious prattle" or an "I told you so attitude." I have however called a spade a spade.
I apologise if I have upset you by my refusal to pussyfoot around, but I do feel that the world in general would be a far better place with a bit more honesty and openness and a few less politicians.

Whilst others may be quite happy to accept mediocrity, short term or otherwise, I am not. I am involved in an industry that quite rightly demands high standards at all times. I will not repeat myself further here but would appreciate your reading the first sentence of my last posting should you deem a reply appropriate.

If I considered it important I would refer your post to the moderator of this forum on the grounds of personal attack.
I don't though, so I won't. ;)

[famous grouse]

Dear all

I do not want to cover old ground, if you are new to this thread and have the time or the inclination then please read the previous posts regarding the complaints made about the course.

However recent developments and recent postings have dictated that I should summarise and clarify some of the points I have made in previous postings.

As we know a major UK operator has pulled out of the course, I’m sure the decision was not taken lightly, but nevertheless it was taken. There are inaccuracies in the coursework, some of the content (as you have seen debated here) is dubious and the quality of the study materials and its delivery style is questionable.

Having said that the motives behind producing this course are honourable and I have to admit I welcome the opportunity to see a formal course for Ops staff. But that is where, with respect to this course, that I have to differ.

FEBA

If you had actually read into Mr Rainbow’s remarks then you would realise that he has also offered his misgivings about this course whist maintaining a need for its substance. Your attack on his style of reporting is unnecessary and not welcome in this debate. How can you ask?

“Acrimonious prattle serves no purpose and the I told you so attitude is childish. All of you get your thinking caps on and come up with some sensible suggestions please.”

And then expect anyone to respond to your request.

“We will have to do the course as a mandatory requirement of JAR OPS anyway”

As I have mentioned to No Sig in a private message, I will say again to you now for the benefit of others. (I think this might be along the lines that JB007 has interpreted the JAR OPS requirement, if not I’m sure he will correct me!!).

Operations staff should be trained in accordance with the (and here’s that word again) “relevant” parts of ICAO DOC 7192 D3. In other words they will expect to see an initial and recurrent training plan based on this document and incorporated in Part D of the Ops manual. As you well know, as we have discussed it here at great length, the operations function differs from airline to airline. Some Operations departments may not be directly involved with certain aspects of ICAO 7192 and have separate departments, let’s say for example “aircraft performance”. With that in mind, the CAA won’t expect Ops staff for that particular airline to be fully conversant with Aircraft Performance.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t know about aircraft performance, a course for operations staff should indeed cover ALL aspects of the ICAO document. A long time ago and new to the Ops profession, a Captain said to me and I quote “what do you know sonny, I have been a Captain for 30 years and I know what I’m talking about”.
A formal course would certainly go a long way to remove this sort of attitude and give more confidence to Ops staff and gain respect when dealing with this sort of occurance.


SUPER AVIATOR

Although I wouldn’t recommend at present that you see the course notes as advised by No Sig, if you viewed them in their current form you would be on the first plane to Florida.

But I do believe the motivation behind this course is good and in time it will be put right, so I would recommend you hang in there for a while and see what develops.

I have mentioned to No Sig in a PM that providing a distance-learning course is much different to providing classroom tuition.

Given time I’m sure things will be put right, however what disappoints me the most is the fact that this course was released to the industry too quickly. I hate to agree with FEBA, but the course does appear hurried. I’m sure No Sig has taken up a lot of his valuable time in his efforts, but sadly and maybe through no fault of his own, the College have not done him justice.

Et Al

I am also guilty of “jumping” in, in so much as I was ready to do this course as soon as I knew of it, I should have taken my own advice when spending that sort of money and had a look at the materials first.

So, as you requested, let me put a suggestion your way FEBA and maybe to you too No Sig. Let’s all get our heads together and produce a course ourselves that will follow the ICAO Doc requirements. We have enough expertise in the UK to do this, it won’t be easy and will mean many people giving their time freely. The UKOMA managed to produce a basic grounding course, let’s move it up and gear and go intermediate and advanced level, we don’t need a college to do this for us.

Best regards FG

[FEBA]

FG
There have been many a sagacious comment from an old captain, one I remember overhearing and directed at a junior F/O " Just remember that you are my sexual advisor; when I want your F****** advice I'll ask for it"
I, like yourself, am a keen advocate for the recognition of the importance of an airline operations officer and the best way of achieving this recognition is by legislating the standards required by an aviation authority in a similar manner to that of the FAA. I confess to thinking that the 7192D3 syllabus and the course offered by GCNS was a step in just that direction, at last a validation of our efforts. The course material, when it arrived, was woefully poor and I discussed this with my colleagues and management and the course notes were reprinted redistributed along with a whole raft of amendments. It still wasn't much good was it.
What disappoints me is that the quality of the course work gave vent to the doubters and sceptics who have chosen to question the purpose and the motive of much of the subject matter. I wonder if the sheer weight and complexity of the material is beyond the ability of some of the enrolled, I hope that not to be true because if it is and the subject material was diluted then we'd all be going down the same route as the government did with the A levels.
Further disappointment is that I recognise that some individuals have put in an enormous personal effort into getting this course going. The ingratitude that is a plenty in this thread directed at poor old No Sig has made me angry which is why I could stay silent no longer.
FG
The clause in JAROPS 1.205 makes a mockery of the 7192 syllabus and dashes continuity and standardisation against the rocks. It is of paramount importance, and I reiterate, that we need sensible suggestions here as to the way forward. Quit the college bashing now, lets all get together as one united front get the course material improved into something far more professional than it is (we shouldn't rule out a different provider). To this end we should all stop studying and insist that the problems are rectified to our satisfaction before we are prepared to start again. May be it would be helpful to put a time frame around this, but above all recognise the mutual benefits that 7192D3 will bring to us and our employers. CARPE DIEM

[Mister Rainbow]

FG

Well said, Sir! You are obviously a man of honesty, integrity and high standards.

FEBA

I doubt very much that these days anyone with insufficient intelligence, would last more than a few days in any ops environment, large or small. To imply that anyone placed on this course by their employer, or who has subscribed to it individually, would be frightened off by it's depth or volume, would be pure and simple arrogance.
That said, I do hold a similar opinion to your own. Let us rid ourselves of this debacle, quit the bitching and get on with producing a qualification which is of a standard worthy of our profession.

Best regards.

R.

[FEBA]

Rainbow
"I doubt very much that these days anyone with insufficient intelligence, would last more than a few days in any ops environment, large or small"
Your having a laugh aren't you! The very fact that there hasn't been any legislated standards in this sector of the industry has encouraged employers to employ cheap labour. Time to sort the wheat from the chaff. What do you reckon! Lets talk serious and start to plot the future
Brgds
FEBA

[Mister Rainbow]

I am sure your opinion will be viewed with great interest, even if it is not responded to. I have come to know my colleagues, and also those from my previous lives in the main, as professional, knowledgable and hard working, day and night.

We all had to start somewhere. Even your good self. Please
remember, to claim the high ground through experience is not only easy, but also (self?) destructive. We have all heard the tale of your old captain which is unfortunately still apparent today.
Knowledge is power, but at what cost?

Wheat from the chaff? Bring it on bro. Let's get a qualification we can all be proud of.

And I'll bet next months' salary there's a whole sh!tload of wheat.

R. Out.

[no sig]

FEBA, thanks for the support and the suggestion which I will bring to the attention of the College and may I ask you to do also.

Frankly, and I've said it many times, but I'll say it again, the requirements of 7192 require robust study. The syllabus is defined by ICAO not the College, however, 7192 is not the study material - it is only the syllabus and there is inevitably a degree of subjective analysis required to determine how much in depth a course needs to go to ensure the student understands the learning objects of the course.

For example, and I quote;

7192 D3-29 5.7 Buffet Boundary speed limitations

Standard of accomplishment required

'Effects of low and high speed buffet for a wide range of, mass, altitudes and normal accelerations must be thoroughly understood and the trainee must be able to determine the speeds at which buffets are encountered'


So, the task we set the College, with the support of the UKOMA group, was to tailor their study materials to meet 7192 course, and this next point is important, in a 'distance learning environment'. I know this material can be successfully studied by distance learning, ask a few ATPL's who more likely as not, did the course this way. But it does require dedication. The source materials the GCNS ICAO FOO course are the same materials they use for their ATPL course, which holds JAA approval.

Now, there have been problems with the pagination etc. and errors and rightly some may be indignant and disappointed. But, hold off lets see what we can do with the College to address these issues and get the course back on track.

Please read carefully my previous explanations about the first modules, (and remember these are only the first modules not the whole course) and the depth of content; perhaps too much in a few areas I acknowledge, but over all these first modules are not far off the mark, don't take my word for, read 7192 cover to cover with someone who has an appreciable technical knowledge and ask what study material you will need to study to meet the standards of accomplishment set by the ICAO syllabus.

The standard has been set by the CAA/JAA, we've have a College who's prepared to support our industry, and we have industry input to the course from the UKOMA group. You out there have a brighter and more rewarding future in airline ops if this course find favours and is adopted and you take the time to gain the certification from an accedited establishment.

Your concerns have been heard, now give it some time, but keep this alive within your airlines.

[Penguin124]

FEBA, it's not often I feel compelled to put pen to paper, but you are not only arrogant but a hypocrite too. I have not seen the course nor do I wish too, however I find your attitude toward your fellow workers quite insulting.

You are a hypocrite because you come on here, months after the thread starts, slate the course to bits and then ask people to leave poor old no sig alone and not have a go at him. Which do you want to do, rip the course apart or support no sig ?? You obviously have access to the materials, so why did you not speak before now if you also agree with the misgivings we have seen stated here ? Or maybe its because you are another of the moderators or maybe from the college itself and have chosen to bury your head in the sand because it is now being sent back?

I am making an educated guess from your comments that you hold the "prized" FAA dispatch licence, but to belittle and malign the people who work hard and are willing to learn is pure arrogance. They probably have not had the same opportunities as yourself.

I, like Mr Rainbow, have worked alongside professional and "educated" people, who work damned hard and under great pressure, for you to suggest they are cheap labour is pure arrogance and totally insulting. You also suggest they may not capable of passing the course, again pure arrogance as you have already admitted here you find the materials clearly contain faults.

Get off your high horse or whatever else it is that is firmly stuck up your a**e, apologise to the people you malign, who work dammed hard. Otherwise simply BUTT OUT !!

No Sig

I would suggest you take a re read of the postings from FEBA because the way I read it he/she more or less follows the same opinions as FG and others.

It also seems apparent from the previous threads that you had a good opportunity to get the errors, some of which you now seem to accept, sorted out. Unfortunately you don’t appear to have taken this opportunity and it took a major subscriber to withdraw before you realised just how bad the situation was becoming and from what I read here, all confidence now appears to have been lost. I hope you manage to recover the situation, as the idea is a good one.

Cheers
P124

JB007 as moderator, I apologise if this posting goes beyond the rules of this forum.

[JB007]

Penguin124

I actually read FEBA's posting in the same way as yourself. I've worked with the best of the best in Ops guys (some of which work for FEBA!!) and I turned my nose up at most of his comments - "wheat from the chaff" and "cheap labour"

His comments were in no way supportive of no sig but of a huge put down to young , new ops staff everywhere.

Experience and how they fit into my team (and a fanbloodytastic sense of humour) will count for everything as far as i'm concerned when it comes to employing Ops/Crewing staff....and this country is full of these guys WITHOUT an Ops course behind them and they are certainly not chaff or cheap labour.

I'm all for an Operations Officers UK Qualification and I am prepared to do what is required to make a credible course available as I strongly believe it is required but the above will always stand way ahead.

[Penguin124]

JB007

I'm glad someone agree's with my observation of FEBA's attitude to our profession. With People like that running the helm, jeez are we in a sorry state. :(

I too support a formal course for Ops staff, but from what I've read here, in its current form this one just doesn't quite fit the bill. That's not to say that it won't in the future, maybe it forms the foundation for something better. Let's hope so.

In the meantime, to all the hard working ops/crewing staff out there, who hopefully still have a sense of humour, keep 'em flying.

Cheers
P124

[no sig]

I'm going to stick my neck on the block here, because I think perhaps FEBA's comments, although a bit blunt, might not have been completely understood, but before I do let me start with a preamble.

We have an excellent bunch of ops bods working in this country and I have had the pleasure of working with many of them. We have dedicated staff who throw their hearts and souls into the job, work to the best of their abilites and demonstrate a high degree of professionalism. However, what we don't have is an even standard of technical and aeronautical knowledge amongst those super people.

Those of you who have had to recruit and hire staff will know that there is a wide range of experience and technical knowledge ranging from very shallow, to PPL's, FAA Dispatchers, right up to frozen ATPL's and degree level candidates. We find people with years of experience in ops, street wise and great ops controllers, but lacking any real depth of technical knowledge, which can limit their ability to make the best decisions. It has also led to a general lack of trust by the aircrew in the technical competence of ops officers. The lack of a formal accreditation to a professional standard has meant that airlines have been able to hire people who don't have an adequate understanding of flight operations but who are placed in job which can affect flight safety and the commercial success of of an airline. Previously, there was no legislative requirement to train them to a given standard, pleased to say this is changing.

The way UK airlines have managed this is, and again I'm speaking generally here, is to limit the scope and authority of the ops bods. Hands up all those who have to call the Chief, Duty Pilot or Ops Manager when you have a problem?

I do think its getting better as more and more Companies are training their staff and indeed more ops bods are taking training into there own hands, but we have a way to go.

This will be case until the JAA/CAA 'require' a minimum training standard before an operations officer can be allowed to exercise operational control over a commercial operation - we ain't there yet but I hope the first steps are being taken.

Disclaimer

and please, my comments are general in nature and may not apply to you, or your airline

[Penguin124]

No, I'm afraid on reading FEBA's comments again and again I come to the same conclusions as I posted previously, arrogance and hypocrisy.

A recurring theme I do note however, is that EVERYONE (myself included) recognises the need for a formal (good quality) course for Operations/crewing staff.

As previously stated by others (no comment from me as I have not seen the course) who doubt the integrity of the course, feel this one needs withdrawing in its current form.

I re-state that I hope you take the concerns voiced here on board and get this course into the shape that is required. Everybody can't be wrong and enough people now seem to be voting with their feet.

So let's play a different record now, this one is severely scratched, has dropped out of the charts and needs replacing.

Cheers
P124

[no sig]

P124

You're probably right we do need to move on, but let me say with respect to your previous post, the course is working for many students both in this country and others. So, as I've said many times, it is only in parts that the Colleges needs to tidy up these first few modules.

There is no question as to the integrity of the course, it's sound in principle, but is clearly not meeting the expectations of many and that needs sorted. Depending on your attitudes to training, some airlines will consider it over the top for 'their particular operation', and it may well be. But, as this course is aimed at a very wide audience it has to cover all aspects of the 7192 syllabus. Foundation level training, which it is, must necessarily cover a wide range of basic subjects.

Everyone's support for the principle behind a minimum training standard for UK ops is great and significant step in the right direction, grasp this chance to elevate the issue within your airlines.

[Mister Rainbow]

Let's not forget that new knowledge needs to be applied correctly and procedures for this application should be carefully considered. To my mind this is one area where the GCNS course failed completely. Learning fact after fact is not hard with a good memory. What one then does with that knowledge is another matter entirely.
NO operations course can ever replace the experience of a pilot, chief or otherwise. For an ops bod to assume the responsibility of making a decision previously referred to the CP, on the basis that said bod read about it once, could well be on the way to raising safety issues.

[famous grouse]

Have to agree with you 100% there dear chap.

I've heard the phrase "knowledge is power" banded about on here, but a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing when incorrectly applied.

Its all very well to consider this course close to ATPL standard, but is the ATPL course a vote for Joe type exam at the end, I don't beleive it is.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, learning facts parrot fashion serves no purpose if the understanding is not there, very dangerous in my opinion.

I shall look forward to seeing the "sorted" version No Sig, any ideas when that might be available ???

Best regards
FG

[no sig]

FG

Will keep you posted on progress.

Mister Rainbow

your comment...

'NO operations course can ever replace the experience of a pilot, chief or otherwise. For an ops bod to assume the responsibility of making a decision previously referred to the CP, on the basis that said bod read about it once, could well be on the way to raising safety issues.'

You missed my point, it's not about ops bods assuming a flight ops responsibility with respect to flying operations, but there being an understanding by your managers that ops officers have a given level of knowledge and understanding appropriate to the environment in which they work. If an ops officer needs the advice of a pilot then he must of course ask, however, to action that advice he must be capable of understandings the issue and be able to follow through on instruction, to do that you need the foundation knowledge.

Completion of this course does not mean you go back to your airline and change everything and I am not suggesting we move to a US style flight dispatch system. The procedures you have in your airline are what you should operate to.

The case for all training is to provide the knowledge base to enable you to do your job as well as you can, and from your company's perspective, to enable you to make the best decisions operationally and economically. Most professions require a recognised minimum standard of training defined by either a regulator body or some other exam board. Pilots to JAROPS, Doctors to the BMA, Firemen to Home Office guidelines. UK airlines now have a standard for Ops officers, 7192. This will, in time be recognised across the industry and the Ops Officers role will take on a much enhanced status as a result and an increased level of trust by the flight ops fraternity.

[Penguin124]

.........."You missed my point, it's not about ops bods assuming a flight ops responsibility with respect to flying operations, but there being an understanding by your managers that ops officers have a given level of knowledge and understanding appropriate to the environment in which they work. If an ops officer needs the advice of a pilot then he must of course ask, however, to action that advice he must be capable of understandings the issue and be able to follow through on instruction, to do that you need the foundation knowledge."

OK, but surely your not saying that Ops bods don't already have this level of knowledge. Agreed we need a level of understanding, but from what I can gather the level required is and has been open to debate. Even the requirements/guidlines in ICAO 7192 appear debatable. I am sure there are many out there who feel quite comfortable with what they do and how they achieve the end result, as are their management (otherwise they would be out of a job !!).

I don't really see the point in continuing this debate until the CAA decide once and for all and lay down the rules for engagment. As of now, it seems the "relevant" parts of the ICAO doc need to be covered. I refer back to FG when he says it will - under the present interpretation - be down to individual operators.

Until someone approves a course that fulfills the CAA's requirements for UK operator's and is approved by the authorities to fullfill that requirement, any further comment is purely subjective.

One question that doesn't appear to have been asked here, has the CAA seen the Glasgow course ?? I would have thought that if your training standards are going to be incorporated into Part D of the Ops manaul, then surely this should be approved by the CAA as it is now for Flight Training.

Enough said
Cheers
P124

[no sig]

P124

In general, I am afraid I am. The simple fact is that without a 'standard' of training then we naturally have a wide range of technical and operational knowledge. That is not to say that people can't fulfil their tasks in the airline they work for, of course not. But, in the absence of a minimum standard of training for the job the above is inevitable. Its why we have licensing and qualification boards, they set minimum standard of training.

The CAA/JAA say that ICAO 7192 or parts thereof, is the recommended standard of training. Each airline must establish what they need to do to ensure they meet their JAROPS responsibilities with respect to the training and competence of operational personnel. There is however, a problem there that is not recognised; by 'cherry picking' those parts of 7192 that suits you may leave large gaps in knowledge. It might be possible for example to exclude ETOPS planning, but I doubt you would want to leave out aircraft performance. If you include performance then you need to include the fundementals of flight etc., it not as simple as it sounds when you actually get down to it.

I am arguing for a common standard of training, the GCNS is not airline specific so has to cover all of the elements of 7192. As the course is not linked to a JAR license there is no need for the CAA/JAA to approve the course. However, the college is accredited to provide JAR pilot courses.

Meeting this standard is a long term goal and it will not be acheived overnight, but it is worth fighting for.

[Penguin124]

"The CAA/JAA say that ICAO 7192 or parts thereof, is the recommended standard of training. Each airline must establish what they need to do to ensure they meet their JAROPS responsibilities with respect to the training and competence of operational personnel. "

That's what I just said in my previous.

But if you want to include this course into your part D, then any amendment to your Ops manuals must be CAA approved - check the FODCOM on Ops manual amendments.

Therefore, if you are stating that this GCNS course is your method of complying with the JAROPS requirement for ICAO 7192 training, then surely the CAA must see the course and approve it as that standard, otherwise you could put any old c**p in the Part D and say it complies with 7192. I don't think the CAA would wear that somehow.

As i said before I am all for the training, but the standard needs better interpretation of 7192, than this course "appears" to offer from what has been said previously.

cheers
P124

[no sig]

I see where you're coming from Penguin, it may well be that the Authority might wish to see your training materials. However, I suspect they'll do that on an airline to airline basis rather than through the College directly.