ICAO Annex 6 Amendment Proposal Flt Ops Officer/Flęght Dispatchers
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Epsilon minus
Well EM, you do make some valid points and worthy of discussion. But for a start lets quash the notion that anyone is demanding licenses or FAR 121 style dispatch, they are not (at least I am not, nor as I read it are ICAO) but I agree it includes a review of the ICAO recommendations. Incidentally, EASA have been doing this for some time. Just to remind us I post the ICAO para here;
(quote
2. The amendment to Annex 6, Part I relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, and the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officers and flight dispatchers, stems from a proposal by the United States which will assist accident prevention. The amendment proposal,
presented in Attachment A, introduces Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) that clarify the responsibility of the flight operations officer or flight dispatcher, in conjunction with that of the pilot-in-command, for the safe dispatch and operation of a flight.
unquote)
The initiative here is not to be sniffed at, it is one that has its origins in ICAO, an organisation which has, since its inception, moved global aviation to the high standards of safety we now all enjoy - so what they propose requires due diligence by all member states in the interests of flight safety not cost. I think we can all agree on that and, need it even be said, that we all put safety top of the agenda, most particularly Stelios (when he was there) and the other low cost carriers who know only too well the consequences that would follow were there to be an accident in LCC sector.
Having been a LCC ops manager, I know well the implications of cost. You might be interested to know that when I started an initiative to train my ops bods to the ICAO standards I had the full support of the CEO, who also recognised the need to have well qualififed people running his airline, both from a safety perspective but also on the basis that experience AND qualifications go hand in hand when it comes to making the best operational decision for his customers. I would agree however, that airlines who have tough union issues to contend with might take another stand, but in the UK that isn't too much of a problem.
The agrument for having well qualified and experienced operational control staff has an economic argument running parallel to the one of enhanced flight safety. I generalise here of course, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the operations officer or flight dispacther who has a qualification combined with experience on the job, will offer an airline more that one who has a shallow on the job training level of knowledge. The decisions ops officers now make have high value price tags and if I were running an airline in todays environment I would want the best qualified people Ę can find managing my daily flying program. The costs might well be saved by one well considered decision which uses the knowledge gained in training.
I can't enter into the very cynical discussion of hull losses, it is irrelevant. What I will say however, is that our (the UK) industry really would benefit in both areas of safety and business by the introduction of the proposal. Anyone who doubts that ops officers and flight dispatchers have an influenece on flight safety hasn't ever worked as one.
The CAA will consult no doubt, but in the end there will need to be a reason for NOT adopting a proposal which seeks to enhance flight safety.
Well EM, you do make some valid points and worthy of discussion. But for a start lets quash the notion that anyone is demanding licenses or FAR 121 style dispatch, they are not (at least I am not, nor as I read it are ICAO) but I agree it includes a review of the ICAO recommendations. Incidentally, EASA have been doing this for some time. Just to remind us I post the ICAO para here;
(quote
2. The amendment to Annex 6, Part I relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, and the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officers and flight dispatchers, stems from a proposal by the United States which will assist accident prevention. The amendment proposal,
presented in Attachment A, introduces Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) that clarify the responsibility of the flight operations officer or flight dispatcher, in conjunction with that of the pilot-in-command, for the safe dispatch and operation of a flight.
unquote)
The initiative here is not to be sniffed at, it is one that has its origins in ICAO, an organisation which has, since its inception, moved global aviation to the high standards of safety we now all enjoy - so what they propose requires due diligence by all member states in the interests of flight safety not cost. I think we can all agree on that and, need it even be said, that we all put safety top of the agenda, most particularly Stelios (when he was there) and the other low cost carriers who know only too well the consequences that would follow were there to be an accident in LCC sector.
Having been a LCC ops manager, I know well the implications of cost. You might be interested to know that when I started an initiative to train my ops bods to the ICAO standards I had the full support of the CEO, who also recognised the need to have well qualififed people running his airline, both from a safety perspective but also on the basis that experience AND qualifications go hand in hand when it comes to making the best operational decision for his customers. I would agree however, that airlines who have tough union issues to contend with might take another stand, but in the UK that isn't too much of a problem.
The agrument for having well qualified and experienced operational control staff has an economic argument running parallel to the one of enhanced flight safety. I generalise here of course, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the operations officer or flight dispacther who has a qualification combined with experience on the job, will offer an airline more that one who has a shallow on the job training level of knowledge. The decisions ops officers now make have high value price tags and if I were running an airline in todays environment I would want the best qualified people Ę can find managing my daily flying program. The costs might well be saved by one well considered decision which uses the knowledge gained in training.
I can't enter into the very cynical discussion of hull losses, it is irrelevant. What I will say however, is that our (the UK) industry really would benefit in both areas of safety and business by the introduction of the proposal. Anyone who doubts that ops officers and flight dispatchers have an influenece on flight safety hasn't ever worked as one.
The CAA will consult no doubt, but in the end there will need to be a reason for NOT adopting a proposal which seeks to enhance flight safety.
Last edited by no sig; 1st Nov 2005 at 10:16.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLIGHT SAFETY FLIGHT SAFETY
Dear NoSig,
How's the SE European (nearly europe) weather mate?
Look at the above head lines. Everybody wants safer transportation; the bean counters want it, the CEO's want it, the Lutine bell ringers want it too. But no one wants to pay more for it especially when it looks increasing likely that ultra high DOC's are here to stay. I'm still not convinced.
Most airlines EZY included have schemes that require some form of formal training for Ops officers, DLH KLM have dispatch facilities that mirror FAA systems and highly trained staff. This has been done inspite of the savage ovine regulations that are 1.195 and 1.205 and still we are able to send off our loved ones to far and near places in highly safe conditions.
So why do airlines need to be forced to do something which they are already doing voluntarily?
The standard of safety in commercial aviation continues to maintain very high levels, please explain to me how a regulated system of training for Ops staff will make it safer?
If I read your post correctly the real emphasis for good training lies more with making sound commercial decisions than safety related ones. If the majority of decisions that an Ops officer will make whilst on duty are commercially related and that the quality of judgement is directly proprtional to the training that that person has undergone then the requirement for ICAO JAA EASA to be involved is negated. And the need for airline management to recognise this is compelling.
If as you suggest that airlines are smart enough to recognise the value of proper training for their Ops staff and are pro-actively involved in it, why do they need to be told that they've got to do it?
QED? maybe not. I await responses with interest.
Regards
Epsilon minus
Dear NoSig,
How's the SE European (nearly europe) weather mate?
Look at the above head lines. Everybody wants safer transportation; the bean counters want it, the CEO's want it, the Lutine bell ringers want it too. But no one wants to pay more for it especially when it looks increasing likely that ultra high DOC's are here to stay. I'm still not convinced.
Most airlines EZY included have schemes that require some form of formal training for Ops officers, DLH KLM have dispatch facilities that mirror FAA systems and highly trained staff. This has been done inspite of the savage ovine regulations that are 1.195 and 1.205 and still we are able to send off our loved ones to far and near places in highly safe conditions.
So why do airlines need to be forced to do something which they are already doing voluntarily?
The standard of safety in commercial aviation continues to maintain very high levels, please explain to me how a regulated system of training for Ops staff will make it safer?
If I read your post correctly the real emphasis for good training lies more with making sound commercial decisions than safety related ones. If the majority of decisions that an Ops officer will make whilst on duty are commercially related and that the quality of judgement is directly proprtional to the training that that person has undergone then the requirement for ICAO JAA EASA to be involved is negated. And the need for airline management to recognise this is compelling.
If as you suggest that airlines are smart enough to recognise the value of proper training for their Ops staff and are pro-actively involved in it, why do they need to be told that they've got to do it?
QED? maybe not. I await responses with interest.
Regards
Epsilon minus
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello EM
Weather down here is great, save for a bit of a drop in the temp.
What you say about everyone wanting safety is true and I agree with you. The problem is EM, that most airlines don't have a scheme for 'adequate' training of their ops staff and the standard of training varies considerably. Voluntarily hasn't ever worked in the UK, a very few airlines have paid for some of their ops bods to go on the FAA licence courses most others have done nothing.
Cęty & Guilds (Avtech) has gone some of the way to fill the gap and NVQ's have never really hit the ops mark. Try recruiting a dozen or so experienced ops officers in the UK and you will find very few with any ops qualification whatsoever, many with a shallow technical knowledge of a complex subject matter with which they work every day.
The problem has been that the UK has never adopted ICAO 7192 D3, I think for fear it would lead to a license. Therefore, the level of training requęred for an operations officer who exercises operational control has never been defined, the CAA prefering to leave it to the airline to decide for themselves, and of course very few have. Check your nearest Part D for your ops officer training syllabus and see what you find, despite the recent JAROPS changes.
Your question
'So why do airlines need to be forced to do something which they are already doing voluntarily?'
Answer; Because many are not and won't otherwise.
European aviation is safe under the current arrangement without a FAR121 style dispatch system, I quite agree. However, safety doesn't stand still and we work continually to improve our systems and training standards. ICAO have seen fit to propose changes to the Annex 6 in the interests of enhanced flight safety and I for one support this proposal, based on my in depth knowledge of the job both under European and FAR systems.
Will adoption of the ICAO proposal leading to regulated training make European aviation safer? Personally, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it will make us even more safe than we are at present.
My first emphasis is on the contribution to flight safety trained and experienced operations officers/flight dispatchers can make. However, it does indeed make sound commercial sense and those who will make the decision whether or not to adopt this proposal should consider that point as a pro to supporting ICAO on this one.
Weather down here is great, save for a bit of a drop in the temp.
What you say about everyone wanting safety is true and I agree with you. The problem is EM, that most airlines don't have a scheme for 'adequate' training of their ops staff and the standard of training varies considerably. Voluntarily hasn't ever worked in the UK, a very few airlines have paid for some of their ops bods to go on the FAA licence courses most others have done nothing.
Cęty & Guilds (Avtech) has gone some of the way to fill the gap and NVQ's have never really hit the ops mark. Try recruiting a dozen or so experienced ops officers in the UK and you will find very few with any ops qualification whatsoever, many with a shallow technical knowledge of a complex subject matter with which they work every day.
The problem has been that the UK has never adopted ICAO 7192 D3, I think for fear it would lead to a license. Therefore, the level of training requęred for an operations officer who exercises operational control has never been defined, the CAA prefering to leave it to the airline to decide for themselves, and of course very few have. Check your nearest Part D for your ops officer training syllabus and see what you find, despite the recent JAROPS changes.
Your question
'So why do airlines need to be forced to do something which they are already doing voluntarily?'
Answer; Because many are not and won't otherwise.
European aviation is safe under the current arrangement without a FAR121 style dispatch system, I quite agree. However, safety doesn't stand still and we work continually to improve our systems and training standards. ICAO have seen fit to propose changes to the Annex 6 in the interests of enhanced flight safety and I for one support this proposal, based on my in depth knowledge of the job both under European and FAR systems.
Will adoption of the ICAO proposal leading to regulated training make European aviation safer? Personally, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it will make us even more safe than we are at present.
My first emphasis is on the contribution to flight safety trained and experienced operations officers/flight dispatchers can make. However, it does indeed make sound commercial sense and those who will make the decision whether or not to adopt this proposal should consider that point as a pro to supporting ICAO on this one.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoSig, Effendi.
Some very good points but your rowing this boat with only one oar. Where's the rest of your colleagues to support your valid claims?
My earlier ovine observations seem pertinent. You all share the rebellious lust for change as do a flock of sheep.
So where's the professional association that will lobby senior officials on your behalf?
Where are the plans to have Flight dispatchers/Ops Controllers formally educated in accordance with 7192D3 before embarking on an aviation career?
Where is the EU/JAA state sponsorship for such training?
Use this site to spread the news of change rather than the requirement for it.
Read Henry V
St Crispins day speech to gird the loins of change
Over heard in my local this summer:
Good looking lady talking to her friend "One swallow does not a summer make"
"It would make mine" said the bloke standing next to her.
Cheers
EM
Some very good points but your rowing this boat with only one oar. Where's the rest of your colleagues to support your valid claims?
My earlier ovine observations seem pertinent. You all share the rebellious lust for change as do a flock of sheep.
So where's the professional association that will lobby senior officials on your behalf?
Where are the plans to have Flight dispatchers/Ops Controllers formally educated in accordance with 7192D3 before embarking on an aviation career?
Where is the EU/JAA state sponsorship for such training?
Use this site to spread the news of change rather than the requirement for it.
Read Henry V
St Crispins day speech to gird the loins of change
Over heard in my local this summer:
Good looking lady talking to her friend "One swallow does not a summer make"
"It would make mine" said the bloke standing next to her.
Cheers
EM
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed EM, where are they? I have long realised that the old saying, 'you can take the horse to water, but you can't make him drink' , applies here.
I trust UKOMA are working on it and I would hope those who frequent these fora are asking the questions of their ops managers, and as you say, it would indeed, be nice to read of the change here rather than requirement. But it is now for others to take this forward and I do know there are many doing so. PPRUNE is useful but it can present a distorted picture of what is really happening outside of the contributors on these pages, time will tell.
I trust UKOMA are working on it and I would hope those who frequent these fora are asking the questions of their ops managers, and as you say, it would indeed, be nice to read of the change here rather than requirement. But it is now for others to take this forward and I do know there are many doing so. PPRUNE is useful but it can present a distorted picture of what is really happening outside of the contributors on these pages, time will tell.
Last edited by no sig; 4th Nov 2005 at 16:30.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nosig
Supine Sir.
The fat cats of the airline industry will smile at the lack of organisation and maybe even motivation that oils the wheels of change in this sector of the industry.
Epsilon Minus
Supine Sir.
The fat cats of the airline industry will smile at the lack of organisation and maybe even motivation that oils the wheels of change in this sector of the industry.
Epsilon Minus
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi EM.
I have avoided interrupting the exchange between 'no sig' and yourself, but now it appears to have reached a breakpoint :-)
I would like to comment on some points at random.
I have been fortunate in the last 8 years to have spent quality time in a large number of operations centres across the world.
Some follow the model familiar to us in the UK, others the USA Model and two although they have significantly diverged, are based on the Soviet Model.
In all cases the level of training of Operations Officers /Dispatchers has been very high as the carriers see this as a positive investment that has benefits for the carrier not just in a persons current job (a good decision costs less than a bad one, even if both are operationally safe), but as something that benefits the company in the future.
In the UK this doesn't seem to be the case and it should be!
Ensuring Operations Officers are of high standard ought to be a priority as the: 'Safe, Economic implementation of the companies flying programme, whilst maintaining a high level of customer service' actually keeps costs down.
In many Carriers Operations is viewed as a cost overhead. Really it should be viewed as ensuring safety, service quality and cost control.
Certification forces the Carriers to invest in Operations Staff and as no sig points out in most cases this is going to be the only way they will.
Will certification have a direct impact on salaries, yes, but I believe not as much as you indicate.
I am now rambling so that's it
DIH
I have avoided interrupting the exchange between 'no sig' and yourself, but now it appears to have reached a breakpoint :-)
I would like to comment on some points at random.
I have been fortunate in the last 8 years to have spent quality time in a large number of operations centres across the world.
Some follow the model familiar to us in the UK, others the USA Model and two although they have significantly diverged, are based on the Soviet Model.
In all cases the level of training of Operations Officers /Dispatchers has been very high as the carriers see this as a positive investment that has benefits for the carrier not just in a persons current job (a good decision costs less than a bad one, even if both are operationally safe), but as something that benefits the company in the future.
In the UK this doesn't seem to be the case and it should be!
Ensuring Operations Officers are of high standard ought to be a priority as the: 'Safe, Economic implementation of the companies flying programme, whilst maintaining a high level of customer service' actually keeps costs down.
In many Carriers Operations is viewed as a cost overhead. Really it should be viewed as ensuring safety, service quality and cost control.
Certification forces the Carriers to invest in Operations Staff and as no sig points out in most cases this is going to be the only way they will.
Will certification have a direct impact on salaries, yes, but I believe not as much as you indicate.
I am now rambling so that's it
DIH
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMPORTANT VIR A340 HKG-LHR
VIR A340 LHR-HKG FUEL MANAGEMENT INCIDENT
To those of you that take a pro-active and serious approach the the work that you undertake in Operations or Flight Dispatch, I urge you all to read this.
I believe that an extra set of eyes from the ground, monitoring inflight events via ACMS could have made this occurence avoidable.
The safety enhancement that regulated flight dispatch or operations control can bring are now too compelling for Aviation Authorites and Airlines operators to ignor in areas of both safety and financial impact.
It is argueable that had this flight been subject to FAA regulations this event may never have happened at all. Maybe others could have been avoided ..............Avianca JFK ............ A300 VIE .............. Incorrect power settings DC10 PIK etc etc.
Regards
EM
EM
To those of you that take a pro-active and serious approach the the work that you undertake in Operations or Flight Dispatch, I urge you all to read this.
I believe that an extra set of eyes from the ground, monitoring inflight events via ACMS could have made this occurence avoidable.
The safety enhancement that regulated flight dispatch or operations control can bring are now too compelling for Aviation Authorites and Airlines operators to ignor in areas of both safety and financial impact.
It is argueable that had this flight been subject to FAA regulations this event may never have happened at all. Maybe others could have been avoided ..............Avianca JFK ............ A300 VIE .............. Incorrect power settings DC10 PIK etc etc.
Regards
EM
EM
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I don't want to be a no_sig echo, but EM has made a good point (again :-)
I notice with regret, but unfortunately little surprise that a previous EM post, in fact almost a plea for 'lurkers' and regulars in this thread to post their views on regulation, certification, licencing, whatever, has gone unanswered. So the little Trio of no_sig, Epsilon minus and yours truly are talking among ourselves. Except over a few pints (insert Beer of choice here) this is hardly a healthy situation.
DIH Opssys
I notice with regret, but unfortunately little surprise that a previous EM post, in fact almost a plea for 'lurkers' and regulars in this thread to post their views on regulation, certification, licencing, whatever, has gone unanswered. So the little Trio of no_sig, Epsilon minus and yours truly are talking among ourselves. Except over a few pints (insert Beer of choice here) this is hardly a healthy situation.
DIH Opssys
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Plastic Paradise
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opssys / no sig / Epsilon minus,
I am sure that the multitudes who read your posts here in silence, do so with interest. Indeed, quite a few of my colleagues (myself included) feel that the time is nigh to get on and get the ball rolling so far as qualifications are concerned.
Just thought (and for the benefit of others reading who might be interested) I'd post some of my own personal experience of this quest thus far:
1) Decided to go the FAA route as this appears to still be the most established and the most definitive bench mark. Booked up for a 4-week accelerated course with Sheffield in Florida last Sep/Oct, which was subsequently cancelled due to lack of instructors (NB. Sheffield handled the whole thing as professionally as they could have, and full monies were re-imbursed, so no shame on them).
2) Have more recently been looking at the Jeppesen option - they have been rather slow and difficult to deal with, and they want to charge over a THOUSAND dollars more for their 2-week fast-track course in LON/FRA/DXB than it would cost to do the same course with them in the States!!!!
3) So now I revert back to my two last options: GCNS and AVTECH. Neither of these have featured for me up until now because quite frankly, GCNS has had (and may still have?) teething problems, and many regard the AVTECH couse as the poor man's cousin - this might be unfair, I just don't know enough about AVTECH to comment.
I'm quite sure that there are MANY more individuals out there who are trying their best to get started on an Ops/Dispatch course but are coming up against similar hurdles. Firstly, the cost is coming out of OUR back pockets, so the difference between a thousand USD here and there really DOES make a difference. Secondly, we are trying to co-ordinate our leave with others to be able to get the time off for the two/four/six weeks it takes to study the syllabus. And lasty (and probably most importantly) there is perceived to be this 'fear' that if the wrong course is studied now, that when JAA imposes it's regulations, folk will have to go and re-study the 'approved' syllabus.
In a nutshell, the reason why I think you are not getting much feedback from elsewhere on this topic, is because the REAL onus for such training and qualification must surely rest with the EMPLOYER, and they know that, and for now they are burying their heads in the sand!!!! Well I truly hope that these proposed regulations are soon firmed up and passed, and that that is a real wake-up call for employers globally to sit up and start to take an interest in their under-valued, under-recognised, over-utilised and over-abused Operations Teams!
Exception of course to the above those more conscientious, forward thinking employers who are already providing in-house training and support.
Sorry for the rant, but you wanted feedback!
I am sure that the multitudes who read your posts here in silence, do so with interest. Indeed, quite a few of my colleagues (myself included) feel that the time is nigh to get on and get the ball rolling so far as qualifications are concerned.
Just thought (and for the benefit of others reading who might be interested) I'd post some of my own personal experience of this quest thus far:
1) Decided to go the FAA route as this appears to still be the most established and the most definitive bench mark. Booked up for a 4-week accelerated course with Sheffield in Florida last Sep/Oct, which was subsequently cancelled due to lack of instructors (NB. Sheffield handled the whole thing as professionally as they could have, and full monies were re-imbursed, so no shame on them).
2) Have more recently been looking at the Jeppesen option - they have been rather slow and difficult to deal with, and they want to charge over a THOUSAND dollars more for their 2-week fast-track course in LON/FRA/DXB than it would cost to do the same course with them in the States!!!!
3) So now I revert back to my two last options: GCNS and AVTECH. Neither of these have featured for me up until now because quite frankly, GCNS has had (and may still have?) teething problems, and many regard the AVTECH couse as the poor man's cousin - this might be unfair, I just don't know enough about AVTECH to comment.
I'm quite sure that there are MANY more individuals out there who are trying their best to get started on an Ops/Dispatch course but are coming up against similar hurdles. Firstly, the cost is coming out of OUR back pockets, so the difference between a thousand USD here and there really DOES make a difference. Secondly, we are trying to co-ordinate our leave with others to be able to get the time off for the two/four/six weeks it takes to study the syllabus. And lasty (and probably most importantly) there is perceived to be this 'fear' that if the wrong course is studied now, that when JAA imposes it's regulations, folk will have to go and re-study the 'approved' syllabus.
In a nutshell, the reason why I think you are not getting much feedback from elsewhere on this topic, is because the REAL onus for such training and qualification must surely rest with the EMPLOYER, and they know that, and for now they are burying their heads in the sand!!!! Well I truly hope that these proposed regulations are soon firmed up and passed, and that that is a real wake-up call for employers globally to sit up and start to take an interest in their under-valued, under-recognised, over-utilised and over-abused Operations Teams!
Exception of course to the above those more conscientious, forward thinking employers who are already providing in-house training and support.
Sorry for the rant, but you wanted feedback!
Last edited by Seaton Approach; 23rd Nov 2005 at 07:49.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seaton Approach
Thanks for your post. I have to disagree with you though. The main thrust of my posts is to try and galvanise you lot into forming pressure/lobby groups to force the CAA to recognise and take action (in conjunction with JAA), not to get you all running to your nearest college, waving your credit cards and chanting, "TEACH ME TEACH ME".
Have a read of the VIR AAIB report, show it to your colleages and your boss (if you want), point out how you could A) enhance safety B) Save money. All for the paltry sum of Ł2000. A pi$$ in the ocean for the sort you work for.
Best wishes
EM
Thanks for your post. I have to disagree with you though. The main thrust of my posts is to try and galvanise you lot into forming pressure/lobby groups to force the CAA to recognise and take action (in conjunction with JAA), not to get you all running to your nearest college, waving your credit cards and chanting, "TEACH ME TEACH ME".
Have a read of the VIR AAIB report, show it to your colleages and your boss (if you want), point out how you could A) enhance safety B) Save money. All for the paltry sum of Ł2000. A pi$$ in the ocean for the sort you work for.
Best wishes
EM
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Plastic Paradise
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi EM,
Know the posted AAIB report well, and the point you make is a good one.
Would like to know from anyone else out here reading this thread, exactly how much success they have had in getting together the aforementioned pressure/lobby groups within their own organisations; I may well be wrong, but I'll hazard a guess and say that the silence speaks volumes....
Hence, the exodus of the more responsible (forward thinking) Ops Controllers out there towards getting off their a*ses and getting the qualification themselves! Most, like me, already have significant academic grounding and experience in this industry, be it ATCO / ATPL or whatever - so it's not that we want to be 'taught', but rather that we want to become compliant, and to show that we are professional and safety-conscious, and to set an example to our employers. Perhaps also THAT kind of pressure will work better than lobby groups (not holding my breath).
Maybe slightly different in my case, as one day I'll no doubt leave this part of the world and make a move back to Blighty or anywhere else for that matter. And given that possibility, I want to keep on the ball to make sure I have the best chance of a good job whenever and wherever I decide to move.
For the record, it ain't all a bed of USD's out here. Just because you're working with the Big Boys that make the Big Bucks, doesn't necessarily follow that you will get second-to-none support - quite the opposite in fact, unless you're a local here, Senior management just do not want to know. Sad but true.
As in the case of the VS incident you posted, nothing ever gets sorted until it's nearly too late (sometimes unfortunately TOO late). I fear the same will be the case here - the majority of operators will only 'play ball' when they are eventually forced to listen to their respective State Regulatory bodies, and not a moment before. Not saying I agree with that, it's just the way it is.
Brgds,
SA.
Know the posted AAIB report well, and the point you make is a good one.
Would like to know from anyone else out here reading this thread, exactly how much success they have had in getting together the aforementioned pressure/lobby groups within their own organisations; I may well be wrong, but I'll hazard a guess and say that the silence speaks volumes....
Hence, the exodus of the more responsible (forward thinking) Ops Controllers out there towards getting off their a*ses and getting the qualification themselves! Most, like me, already have significant academic grounding and experience in this industry, be it ATCO / ATPL or whatever - so it's not that we want to be 'taught', but rather that we want to become compliant, and to show that we are professional and safety-conscious, and to set an example to our employers. Perhaps also THAT kind of pressure will work better than lobby groups (not holding my breath).
Maybe slightly different in my case, as one day I'll no doubt leave this part of the world and make a move back to Blighty or anywhere else for that matter. And given that possibility, I want to keep on the ball to make sure I have the best chance of a good job whenever and wherever I decide to move.
For the record, it ain't all a bed of USD's out here. Just because you're working with the Big Boys that make the Big Bucks, doesn't necessarily follow that you will get second-to-none support - quite the opposite in fact, unless you're a local here, Senior management just do not want to know. Sad but true.
As in the case of the VS incident you posted, nothing ever gets sorted until it's nearly too late (sometimes unfortunately TOO late). I fear the same will be the case here - the majority of operators will only 'play ball' when they are eventually forced to listen to their respective State Regulatory bodies, and not a moment before. Not saying I agree with that, it's just the way it is.
Brgds,
SA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seaton; I'd apreciate an PM on your experience with GCNS, I have been in contact with them recently and had the feeling that the earlier teething problem were sorted a long time ago. It may be that those who frequent this forum may still harber the discussions about the earlier problems with the formatting of the first clutch of study materials.
On the matter of lobby groups, 'we are few and little understood', save for those who have worked in ops, I have found that many in the industry still do not really understand the nature of the ops officers role. Any lobby group would be small and I suspect rather ineffectual- not that it wouldn't be worth a try EM. I do think however, that this is a perfect example of where UKOMA should be mixing it with the CAA and their FOI's and, as a group, speaking with a collective voice in their airlines response to formal questęonaires from the CAA on the matter (if indeed they haven't already done so, perhaps OpsBod or one of the other UKOMA members can update us).
On the matter of lobby groups, 'we are few and little understood', save for those who have worked in ops, I have found that many in the industry still do not really understand the nature of the ops officers role. Any lobby group would be small and I suspect rather ineffectual- not that it wouldn't be worth a try EM. I do think however, that this is a perfect example of where UKOMA should be mixing it with the CAA and their FOI's and, as a group, speaking with a collective voice in their airlines response to formal questęonaires from the CAA on the matter (if indeed they haven't already done so, perhaps OpsBod or one of the other UKOMA members can update us).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Seaton.
I applaud your efforts in trying to get some form of certification and deeply regret that the FAA Dispatch course was cancelled.
In my early career (a very long while ago) I was fortunate that the Airline I (mis)spent my youth in was Training oriented. Even when I took external courses they were supportive (refunding after completion of the course).
I have long been aware of how extremely lucky I was.
Although in later years as a Consultant had to fund my own training/development and therefore understand the problem of both funding a course and also the loss (or at least potential loss) of income whilst attending it, which further increases my admiration in your 'going it alone'.
Throughout this thread EM and I have to a large extent been reading from the same page. However I think he may be using a later edition :-)
Whilst I would like to see a professional association of Operations Officers, I believe this would be a fall out of Certification, not a prelude to it.
I also believe that despite, on occasion, my implied (OK sometimes direct :-) criticism of UKOMA, that they need to be the single industry voice pushing this forward.
Forming a 'grassroots' pressure group is not in my opinion going to get the momentum necessary to be a factor in assisting change.
So although some form of regulatory certification is nearer today than it has ever been, unfortunately your approach of:
If the company won't do it
If the company won''t assist me.
Then I'll do it myself
is to the shame of the industry currently the last resort for those who want their abilities formally recognised.
DIH
I applaud your efforts in trying to get some form of certification and deeply regret that the FAA Dispatch course was cancelled.
In my early career (a very long while ago) I was fortunate that the Airline I (mis)spent my youth in was Training oriented. Even when I took external courses they were supportive (refunding after completion of the course).
I have long been aware of how extremely lucky I was.
Although in later years as a Consultant had to fund my own training/development and therefore understand the problem of both funding a course and also the loss (or at least potential loss) of income whilst attending it, which further increases my admiration in your 'going it alone'.
Throughout this thread EM and I have to a large extent been reading from the same page. However I think he may be using a later edition :-)
Whilst I would like to see a professional association of Operations Officers, I believe this would be a fall out of Certification, not a prelude to it.
I also believe that despite, on occasion, my implied (OK sometimes direct :-) criticism of UKOMA, that they need to be the single industry voice pushing this forward.
Forming a 'grassroots' pressure group is not in my opinion going to get the momentum necessary to be a factor in assisting change.
So although some form of regulatory certification is nearer today than it has ever been, unfortunately your approach of:
If the company won't do it
If the company won''t assist me.
Then I'll do it myself
is to the shame of the industry currently the last resort for those who want their abilities formally recognised.
DIH
