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
ICAO Annex 6 Amendment Proposal Flt Ops Officer/Flęght Dispatchers
OpsBod brought this to my attention and I thought perhaps it needed a wider audience, this is an ICAO proposal only but for those interested I will cut and paste a selection of the document here.
Dated: 12 August 2005
Subject: Proposal for the amendment of Annex 6, Parts I
and 111 concerning operational issues and the critical elements of a State regulatory system
Action required (by the State): Comments to reach Montreal by
30 November 2005
1. I have the honour to inform you that the Air Navigation Commission, at the eighth and twelfth meetings of its 169th Session on 7 and 16 June 2005, considered a proposal for the amendment of Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft, Part I - International Commercial Air ~rans~o-rt A eroplanes and
Part I11 - International Operations - Helicopters relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, and the critical elements of a State regulatory system, and authorized its transmission to Contracting States and appropriate international organizations for comments.
2. The amendment to Annex 6, Part I relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, and the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, stems from a proposal by the United States which will assist accident prevention. The amendment proposal,
presented in Attachment A, introduces Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) that clarify the responsibility of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher, in conjunction with that of the pilot-in-command, for the safe dispatch and operation of a flight.
The proposal also ensures that an operator's method of operational control and supervision of flight operations specified in Standard 4.2.1.3 is adequate, by requiring operators to delegate operational control responsibility to flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, as well as to the pilot-in-command.
This,is necessary to avoid dispersion of operational control
and supervision functions among various personnel who may be in different departments of the operator's organization, without provision for coordination. Additionally, to ensure that appropriate and timely action is taken when a flight operations officerlflight dispatcher first becomes aware of an emergency situation, the amendment clarifies the actions expected of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher in such circumstances. Finally, the amendment ensures that all persons involved in the operational control and supervision of flights successfully complete an operator specific training course that addresses all
components of the operator's method of control and supervision of operations, whether or not those personsare the holders of licences issued in accordance with Annex 1 -Personnel Licensing.
This aspect of the amendment may suggest a review of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher licensing provisions specified in Annex 1. Consequential amendments to Annex 6, Part 111, Section 11, are proposed in Attachment B to align Parts I and III of the Annex.
The amendment introduces:
a new definition of flight operations oftkerfflight dispatcher that applies to persons who are responsible for supervision of flight operations, whether those persons are licensed or not;
a new Standard in Chapter 3 that requires operators to assign operational control responsibility to a flight operations officerlflight dispatcher. Also a new Standard in Chapter 3 that details actions required of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers when they are the first to become aware of emergency situations. This provision parallels existing Standard 3.1.4 which specifies comparable requirements for pilots-incommand;
a new Standard in Chapter 10 that specifies minimum requirements to be met by personnel who are engaged in the supervision of flight operations but who are not holders of licences issued in accordance with Annex 1;
the upgrading of existing Recommendation 10.2 to a Standard 10.3, requiring flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, whether licensed or not, to successfblly complete
an operator specific training course that addresses all elements of the operator's method of control and supervision of flight operations; a new Appendix 5 which specifies the critical elements of a regulatory system needed for implementation of the Annexes;
10.3 A flight operations officer/flight dispatcher shall not be assigned to duty unless that person has:
a) satisfactorily completed an operator-specific training course that addresses all the specific components of its approved method of control and supervision of flight operations specified in
4.2.1.3;
Note. Guidance on the composition of such training syllabi is provided in ICAO Doc 7192, Part D-3 Flight Operations Officers/Flight Dispatchers.
b) made within the preceding 12 months, at least a one-way qualification flight in the flight crew compartment of an aeroplane over any area for which that individual is authorized to exercise flight supervision. The flight should include landings at as many aerodromes as practicable;
Note. For the purpose of the qualification flight, the flight operations officer/flight dispatcher must be able to monitor the flight crew intercommunication system and radio communications, and be able to observe the actions of the flight crew.
c) demonstrated to the operator a knowledge of:
1) the contents of the operations manual described in Appendix 2;
2) the radio equipment in the aeroplanes used; and
3) the navigation equipment in the aeroplanes used;
d) demonstrated to the operator a knowledge of the following details concerning operations for which the officer is responsible and areas in which that individual is authorized to exercise flight
supervision:
1) the seasonal meteorological conditions and the sources of meteorological information;
2) the effects of meteorological conditions on radio reception in the aeroplanes used;
3) the peculiarities and limitations of each navigation system which is used by the operation; and
4) the aeroplane loading instructions;
e) demonstrated to the operator knowledge and skills related to human performance relevant to dispatchduties; and
f) demonstrated to the operator the ability to perform the duties specified in 4.6.
Dated: 12 August 2005
Subject: Proposal for the amendment of Annex 6, Parts I
and 111 concerning operational issues and the critical elements of a State regulatory system
Action required (by the State): Comments to reach Montreal by
30 November 2005
1. I have the honour to inform you that the Air Navigation Commission, at the eighth and twelfth meetings of its 169th Session on 7 and 16 June 2005, considered a proposal for the amendment of Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft, Part I - International Commercial Air ~rans~o-rt A eroplanes and
Part I11 - International Operations - Helicopters relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, and the critical elements of a State regulatory system, and authorized its transmission to Contracting States and appropriate international organizations for comments.
2. The amendment to Annex 6, Part I relating to the operational control responsibilities of operators, and the responsibilities, functions and training of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, stems from a proposal by the United States which will assist accident prevention. The amendment proposal,
presented in Attachment A, introduces Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) that clarify the responsibility of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher, in conjunction with that of the pilot-in-command, for the safe dispatch and operation of a flight.
The proposal also ensures that an operator's method of operational control and supervision of flight operations specified in Standard 4.2.1.3 is adequate, by requiring operators to delegate operational control responsibility to flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, as well as to the pilot-in-command.
This,is necessary to avoid dispersion of operational control
and supervision functions among various personnel who may be in different departments of the operator's organization, without provision for coordination. Additionally, to ensure that appropriate and timely action is taken when a flight operations officerlflight dispatcher first becomes aware of an emergency situation, the amendment clarifies the actions expected of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher in such circumstances. Finally, the amendment ensures that all persons involved in the operational control and supervision of flights successfully complete an operator specific training course that addresses all
components of the operator's method of control and supervision of operations, whether or not those personsare the holders of licences issued in accordance with Annex 1 -Personnel Licensing.
This aspect of the amendment may suggest a review of the flight operations officerlflight dispatcher licensing provisions specified in Annex 1. Consequential amendments to Annex 6, Part 111, Section 11, are proposed in Attachment B to align Parts I and III of the Annex.
The amendment introduces:
a new definition of flight operations oftkerfflight dispatcher that applies to persons who are responsible for supervision of flight operations, whether those persons are licensed or not;
a new Standard in Chapter 3 that requires operators to assign operational control responsibility to a flight operations officerlflight dispatcher. Also a new Standard in Chapter 3 that details actions required of flight operations officerslflight dispatchers when they are the first to become aware of emergency situations. This provision parallels existing Standard 3.1.4 which specifies comparable requirements for pilots-incommand;
a new Standard in Chapter 10 that specifies minimum requirements to be met by personnel who are engaged in the supervision of flight operations but who are not holders of licences issued in accordance with Annex 1;
the upgrading of existing Recommendation 10.2 to a Standard 10.3, requiring flight operations officerslflight dispatchers, whether licensed or not, to successfblly complete
an operator specific training course that addresses all elements of the operator's method of control and supervision of flight operations; a new Appendix 5 which specifies the critical elements of a regulatory system needed for implementation of the Annexes;
10.3 A flight operations officer/flight dispatcher shall not be assigned to duty unless that person has:
a) satisfactorily completed an operator-specific training course that addresses all the specific components of its approved method of control and supervision of flight operations specified in
4.2.1.3;
Note. Guidance on the composition of such training syllabi is provided in ICAO Doc 7192, Part D-3 Flight Operations Officers/Flight Dispatchers.
b) made within the preceding 12 months, at least a one-way qualification flight in the flight crew compartment of an aeroplane over any area for which that individual is authorized to exercise flight supervision. The flight should include landings at as many aerodromes as practicable;
Note. For the purpose of the qualification flight, the flight operations officer/flight dispatcher must be able to monitor the flight crew intercommunication system and radio communications, and be able to observe the actions of the flight crew.
c) demonstrated to the operator a knowledge of:
1) the contents of the operations manual described in Appendix 2;
2) the radio equipment in the aeroplanes used; and
3) the navigation equipment in the aeroplanes used;
d) demonstrated to the operator a knowledge of the following details concerning operations for which the officer is responsible and areas in which that individual is authorized to exercise flight
supervision:
1) the seasonal meteorological conditions and the sources of meteorological information;
2) the effects of meteorological conditions on radio reception in the aeroplanes used;
3) the peculiarities and limitations of each navigation system which is used by the operation; and
4) the aeroplane loading instructions;
e) demonstrated to the operator knowledge and skills related to human performance relevant to dispatchduties; and
f) demonstrated to the operator the ability to perform the duties specified in 4.6.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Plastic Paradise
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetical Question...
OK, assuming that legislation has changed, and we are all now LICENSED professionals, do you think that that will then be reflected in our salaries?
Other licensed folk in this industry (e.g. ATCO's / Engineers / Pilots) earn more money than Operations / Dispatch staff, normally quite a bit more, so it would seem a fair principle that we all slide up the earnings ladder.
Also, do you think that new licensing requirements would go any way to ironing out the vast variations in job titles and salaries throughout the JAA states:
e.g. What IS the difference between an Ops Officer, and Ops Controller, and an Ops Assistant - I've seen Assistants doing what I consider a Controller's work, and I've seen Controllers effectively being little more than glorified Admin assistants. And salaries can range from anything between GPB15K pa up to late 20's, maybe even more!
In a nutshell, will licensing standardise much of this? Any thoughts please chaps......
Other licensed folk in this industry (e.g. ATCO's / Engineers / Pilots) earn more money than Operations / Dispatch staff, normally quite a bit more, so it would seem a fair principle that we all slide up the earnings ladder.
Also, do you think that new licensing requirements would go any way to ironing out the vast variations in job titles and salaries throughout the JAA states:
e.g. What IS the difference between an Ops Officer, and Ops Controller, and an Ops Assistant - I've seen Assistants doing what I consider a Controller's work, and I've seen Controllers effectively being little more than glorified Admin assistants. And salaries can range from anything between GPB15K pa up to late 20's, maybe even more!
In a nutshell, will licensing standardise much of this? Any thoughts please chaps......
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if adopted as a standard that the UK accepts, then our aircrew colleagues would have little choice in the matter. BALPA would, I hope, support any move that enhances flight safety and improves the training standards of one of their closest working groups.
Just how this will pan out for ops salaries is another matter, but I suspect it would be like any other walk of life, some Companies pay more than others. In the States licenced flight dispatchers earn different saleries with different airlines, as do pilots for that matter. As I have been saying for sometime now, ops bods out there should be getting the ICAO flt ops officer licence/course under their belt in preparation for the above or any EASA changes. My take on this is that if you hold the ticket then you get the top dollar!
The proposal above works toward a clear definition of who is and who isn't exercising operational control, something Seaton Approach is right to point out as being an area that can be confusing.
Just how this will pan out for ops salaries is another matter, but I suspect it would be like any other walk of life, some Companies pay more than others. In the States licenced flight dispatchers earn different saleries with different airlines, as do pilots for that matter. As I have been saying for sometime now, ops bods out there should be getting the ICAO flt ops officer licence/course under their belt in preparation for the above or any EASA changes. My take on this is that if you hold the ticket then you get the top dollar!
The proposal above works toward a clear definition of who is and who isn't exercising operational control, something Seaton Approach is right to point out as being an area that can be confusing.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Sig, has eloquently summed the situation up.
The only element of the post that need to emphaised is the need for those who want a career in Operations, not just a job, to study and attain the ICAO flt ops officer licence.
Maybe your company will assist maybe not, but getting this qualification makes your professional status undeniable. Add the ticket to your experience and you have an edge in the Promotion and Job Change stakes.
The only element of the post that need to emphaised is the need for those who want a career in Operations, not just a job, to study and attain the ICAO flt ops officer licence.
Maybe your company will assist maybe not, but getting this qualification makes your professional status undeniable. Add the ticket to your experience and you have an edge in the Promotion and Job Change stakes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'but getting this qualification makes your professional status undeniable'
OpsSYS, you have hit the nail on the head with that comment. Ęt is absolutely at the heart of what we have been saying for years. Now how do we get that message across to this generation of ops officers?
OpsSYS, you have hit the nail on the head with that comment. Ęt is absolutely at the heart of what we have been saying for years. Now how do we get that message across to this generation of ops officers?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ask the tower !
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does all this apply purely to Airline Ops or does it cover Ops in GA and also those companies who manage aircraft, provide an Ops service i.e. flight planning, but operate none themselves ? These latter companies have Ops staff too 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no sig.
Your question
The short answer is as individuals we can only keep the message
alive.
The slightly longer answer is, if this and related threads have encouraged 5, or more people to motivate themselves to do the existing courses, then that is a win!
The real challenge is not individual operations staff, but getting the UK Industry to realise the writing on the wall that certification will become manadtory is no longer paint, but actually 20 feet tall neon signs which say OPERATIONS CERTIFICATION IS COMING - ACT NOW - ACT TOGETHER TO PREPARE FOR IT!
Unfortunately some will just buy smoked glasses to avoid seeing it and will go into corporate denial!
If this seems cynical, I am reminded of an Airline that was given two years to prepare for a massive IT change. They then failed to attend any meetings on the change, but updates were sent to them. When the time came they had 'forgotten' it was happening that month. It them took one year more get it done! 16 Other Airlines were changed on schedule. This was not a person, but an entire organisation, that had gone into denial!
DIH
Your question
Now how do we get that message across to this generation of ops officers?
alive.
The slightly longer answer is, if this and related threads have encouraged 5, or more people to motivate themselves to do the existing courses, then that is a win!
The real challenge is not individual operations staff, but getting the UK Industry to realise the writing on the wall that certification will become manadtory is no longer paint, but actually 20 feet tall neon signs which say OPERATIONS CERTIFICATION IS COMING - ACT NOW - ACT TOGETHER TO PREPARE FOR IT!
Unfortunately some will just buy smoked glasses to avoid seeing it and will go into corporate denial!
If this seems cynical, I am reminded of an Airline that was given two years to prepare for a massive IT change. They then failed to attend any meetings on the change, but updates were sent to them. When the time came they had 'forgotten' it was happening that month. It them took one year more get it done! 16 Other Airlines were changed on schedule. This was not a person, but an entire organisation, that had gone into denial!
DIH
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Plastic Paradise
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly aside....
Gents,
Alongside the professional status attained by way of a standard operational qualification or license as required by the State, operators / individuals will also become more responsible and therefore more accountable. With that normally comes a requirement from those concerned to have some kind of protection. I'm talking about union representation - most licensed professions have it, right? BALPA, IPMS, etc.
Is it feasible that this might transpire once our profession becomes more regulated? Can you see such a thing happen as Ops Controllers / Flight Disptachers working hours become more strictly controlled, as in the case of pilots, engineers and ATCO's? What happens in the States under FAA? I vividly remember that, very early in my training days at CATC, we (i.e. the entire course of 48 people) were soon bundled off to some hotel in Bournemouth one evening to meet with the Union reps,and to sign up if so desired...
Please forgive me, I'm not up to scratch on union issues and how they work (nor indeed how, if at all, unions presently feature in what we ops guys do back home in Blighty these days) - I'm just thinking about some of the more diverse possibilities and consequences.
Cheers,
SA!
Alongside the professional status attained by way of a standard operational qualification or license as required by the State, operators / individuals will also become more responsible and therefore more accountable. With that normally comes a requirement from those concerned to have some kind of protection. I'm talking about union representation - most licensed professions have it, right? BALPA, IPMS, etc.
Is it feasible that this might transpire once our profession becomes more regulated? Can you see such a thing happen as Ops Controllers / Flight Disptachers working hours become more strictly controlled, as in the case of pilots, engineers and ATCO's? What happens in the States under FAA? I vividly remember that, very early in my training days at CATC, we (i.e. the entire course of 48 people) were soon bundled off to some hotel in Bournemouth one evening to meet with the Union reps,and to sign up if so desired...
Please forgive me, I'm not up to scratch on union issues and how they work (nor indeed how, if at all, unions presently feature in what we ops guys do back home in Blighty these days) - I'm just thinking about some of the more diverse possibilities and consequences.
Cheers,
SA!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bacardi walla.
Good points raised!
As to the GA element of your post, I don't know!
As to the provision of Flight Planning and on the day Operations Control Services, then I believe these staff would fall into the requirments.
Having 'slept on it', the problem is not quite as awful as I originally thought. The Operator Specific element training and subsequent check/test is going to be a cost both in time and for both the service provider and operator money, but is NOT insurmountable.
The only real problem is the FAM requirement Which in some cases is going to be a logsitical nightmare, getting staff to an operators route station, doing the FAM and then getting them back. Plus as Service Providers tend (not always) to be used by smaller operators and include operators with 'small' aircraft
This could result in a Person by arrangement arriving for their FAM only to discover that for Operational reasons they cannot do the Flight Arranged due Operational problems (no pun intended).
Which if you have just travelled several hundred miles, is not just disappointing, but from your companies viewpoint expensive waste of time and an exercise that has to be repeated.
Worse still an exercise that needs to be done for each operator!
But I suspect there would be some accommdation within any regulation and if there isn't, then it would have be factored into costs of staff and contracts with operators!
DIH
Seaton Approach.
Whilst in the UK we have UKOMA for the Operations Managers, I can see your point as regards a Professional Association for Certified Operations Staff and indeed the general thread of your arguement.
Purely for personal reasons, whilst not totally anti, the idea of Unions being involved in any Profession does not give me a good feeling.
DIH
Good points raised!
As to the GA element of your post, I don't know!
As to the provision of Flight Planning and on the day Operations Control Services, then I believe these staff would fall into the requirments.
Having 'slept on it', the problem is not quite as awful as I originally thought. The Operator Specific element training and subsequent check/test is going to be a cost both in time and for both the service provider and operator money, but is NOT insurmountable.
The only real problem is the FAM requirement Which in some cases is going to be a logsitical nightmare, getting staff to an operators route station, doing the FAM and then getting them back. Plus as Service Providers tend (not always) to be used by smaller operators and include operators with 'small' aircraft
This could result in a Person by arrangement arriving for their FAM only to discover that for Operational reasons they cannot do the Flight Arranged due Operational problems (no pun intended).
Which if you have just travelled several hundred miles, is not just disappointing, but from your companies viewpoint expensive waste of time and an exercise that has to be repeated.
Worse still an exercise that needs to be done for each operator!
But I suspect there would be some accommdation within any regulation and if there isn't, then it would have be factored into costs of staff and contracts with operators!
DIH
Seaton Approach.
Whilst in the UK we have UKOMA for the Operations Managers, I can see your point as regards a Professional Association for Certified Operations Staff and indeed the general thread of your arguement.
Purely for personal reasons, whilst not totally anti, the idea of Unions being involved in any Profession does not give me a good feeling.
DIH
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoSig,
Not wishing to be a kill joy I note, from icao.org, that this proposal was first raised as follows [PDF] Agenda Item 2: Safety Oversight US INITIATIVES FOR THE AMENDMENT ...
... Agenda Item 2: Safety Oversight. US INITIATIVES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ICAO ANNEX
6, PART 1, OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT. (Presented by the United States of America). ...
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/nacc/...rdca1-ip09.pdf - 2002-09-30 - Text Version.
Have I missed something?
Not wishing to be a kill joy I note, from icao.org, that this proposal was first raised as follows [PDF] Agenda Item 2: Safety Oversight US INITIATIVES FOR THE AMENDMENT ...
... Agenda Item 2: Safety Oversight. US INITIATIVES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF ICAO ANNEX
6, PART 1, OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT. (Presented by the United States of America). ...
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/nacc/...rdca1-ip09.pdf - 2002-09-30 - Text Version.
Have I missed something?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: moe's
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seaton Approach
Under FAR Part 61, Dispatchers are limited to 8 hours duty. If over 8 hours they must receive at least 8 hours rest, but if they work out side of the US they are allowed to work up to 10 hours.
Thats what the regulations say but my company have obtained a waiver, from the FAA, allowing us to work 12 hour shifts as long as we have one complete 24 hour period off duty every 7 days. Hope that is as clear as mud.
Under FAR Part 61, Dispatchers are limited to 8 hours duty. If over 8 hours they must receive at least 8 hours rest, but if they work out side of the US they are allowed to work up to 10 hours.
Thats what the regulations say but my company have obtained a waiver, from the FAA, allowing us to work 12 hour shifts as long as we have one complete 24 hour period off duty every 7 days. Hope that is as clear as mud.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Plastic Paradise
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opssys,
Have to agree with you on the subject of unions. I'm more interested in seeing how the regulation side of it is going to pan out though. Thanks for the feedback!
silly walks,
Thanks also. Aye, all as clear as mud! I'm sure that regulation of hours will be one of many areas where JAA differs from FAA; 12 hour shifts 4-on-4-off seems to be pretty much standard format for most operators in Europe, and I can't see that changing......
Have to agree with you on the subject of unions. I'm more interested in seeing how the regulation side of it is going to pan out though. Thanks for the feedback!
silly walks,
Thanks also. Aye, all as clear as mud! I'm sure that regulation of hours will be one of many areas where JAA differs from FAA; 12 hour shifts 4-on-4-off seems to be pretty much standard format for most operators in Europe, and I can't see that changing......
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi FEBA
I see where you are coming from with 2002 documents you linked us to. Ęt perhaps is the origins of this document sent to member states in August of this year. But it is clear that ICAO are proposing changes and we are also aware that EASA has the matter under consęderation, although I am a tad out of touch with where they (EASA) are at present on the matter.
Ęt would be great if some of the IFALDA people involved could update us on their position on the matter froma US perspective.
Bacardę Walla
Ęf the operator has an AOC which requires a system of operational control then I would assume it must. Also, if an operator uses an agency then they still retain responsibility for operational control and as such I would presume they would want to ensure the service provider is using appropriate qualififed personnel, as is indeed the case today for US operators who insist on an FAA licence for handling agent flęght dispatch staff.
I see where you are coming from with 2002 documents you linked us to. Ęt perhaps is the origins of this document sent to member states in August of this year. But it is clear that ICAO are proposing changes and we are also aware that EASA has the matter under consęderation, although I am a tad out of touch with where they (EASA) are at present on the matter.
Ęt would be great if some of the IFALDA people involved could update us on their position on the matter froma US perspective.
Bacardę Walla
Ęf the operator has an AOC which requires a system of operational control then I would assume it must. Also, if an operator uses an agency then they still retain responsibility for operational control and as such I would presume they would want to ensure the service provider is using appropriate qualififed personnel, as is indeed the case today for US operators who insist on an FAA licence for handling agent flęght dispatch staff.
Last edited by no sig; 29th Oct 2005 at 16:20.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scanning through my handy pocket sized copy of JAR Ops 1 I notice: JAR ops 1 subpart D 1.195 says " An operator shall;
a) establish and maintain a method of excercising operation control approved by the authority; and
b) Exercise operational control over any flight operating under the terms of his (sexist) AOC"
Doesn't tell you very much does it?
Doesn't define what it means by Operational control either does it?
Call me cynical but the boys in Holland seemed to have left this deliberately woolly, probably at the behest of large authorities like the CAA who in turn are singing off a hymn sheet written for them by the likes of BA.
I take my hat off to all you guys who seek to professionalise your trade and take safety right to the forefront and do all of this off your own backs. The trouble is you will be pi$$ing against the wind unless you can support your arguements and methods with cost, and in this case it will mean cost savings rather than expenditure. You will also need a powerful lobby group, possibly the FAA in this case, to blow your trumpets far louder than you can, who will insist that a method of flight control and operational supervision by staff qualified by a regulatory authority must be applied to all AOC holders on a pan European basis who intend or are operating flights into US airspace. The same can then be applied to AOC holders from any where on the planet who wish to operate flights into European airspace and if they dont have a method of operational control then one shall be imposed upon them from within JAR land.
With FANS in the offing there is an even greater emphasis for acceeding to your advocacy.
Somehow I think that global warming will get sorted long before this one does. I hope I'm wrong.
Epsilon Minus
a) establish and maintain a method of excercising operation control approved by the authority; and
b) Exercise operational control over any flight operating under the terms of his (sexist) AOC"
Doesn't tell you very much does it?
Doesn't define what it means by Operational control either does it?
Call me cynical but the boys in Holland seemed to have left this deliberately woolly, probably at the behest of large authorities like the CAA who in turn are singing off a hymn sheet written for them by the likes of BA.
I take my hat off to all you guys who seek to professionalise your trade and take safety right to the forefront and do all of this off your own backs. The trouble is you will be pi$$ing against the wind unless you can support your arguements and methods with cost, and in this case it will mean cost savings rather than expenditure. You will also need a powerful lobby group, possibly the FAA in this case, to blow your trumpets far louder than you can, who will insist that a method of flight control and operational supervision by staff qualified by a regulatory authority must be applied to all AOC holders on a pan European basis who intend or are operating flights into US airspace. The same can then be applied to AOC holders from any where on the planet who wish to operate flights into European airspace and if they dont have a method of operational control then one shall be imposed upon them from within JAR land.
With FANS in the offing there is an even greater emphasis for acceeding to your advocacy.
Somehow I think that global warming will get sorted long before this one does. I hope I'm wrong.
Epsilon Minus
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Epsilon minus.
The long and rocky road to improving the professional status has never been one for those who believed it would be easy.
I started around 1979 in the Airline I then worked for, about 6 Months after I stopped being in the Operations front line.
At various times since I have come back to the problem (often with long gaps of years) , with sometimes localised success, but often none!
I am not sure when 'no sig' began his quest, but he has been a lot more proactive on a larger stage than I and has been more consistent in 'banging the drum'.
In the last couple of years and certainly NOT due any effort on my part, the situation is slowly swinging in favour of professionalisation. But like any rocky road it always gets steeper the nearer the top you get.
What perhaps is a surprise is WHEN the summit is reached I won't get any tangible benefit (too long in Aviation Systems and Telecoms to go back to the front line) and I think 'no sig' also will not directly benefit (although if he does not get a large number of free beers then there is no justice).
My guess is that unlike Global Warning, there is a good chance that in five years time there will be meaningful professional standards in place for Operations Control staff across the EU.
So if in five years I get a PM from you with Ha Ha on it, I'll know I guessed wrong!
DIH
The long and rocky road to improving the professional status has never been one for those who believed it would be easy.
I started around 1979 in the Airline I then worked for, about 6 Months after I stopped being in the Operations front line.
At various times since I have come back to the problem (often with long gaps of years) , with sometimes localised success, but often none!
I am not sure when 'no sig' began his quest, but he has been a lot more proactive on a larger stage than I and has been more consistent in 'banging the drum'.
In the last couple of years and certainly NOT due any effort on my part, the situation is slowly swinging in favour of professionalisation. But like any rocky road it always gets steeper the nearer the top you get.
What perhaps is a surprise is WHEN the summit is reached I won't get any tangible benefit (too long in Aviation Systems and Telecoms to go back to the front line) and I think 'no sig' also will not directly benefit (although if he does not get a large number of free beers then there is no justice).
My guess is that unlike Global Warning, there is a good chance that in five years time there will be meaningful professional standards in place for Operations Control staff across the EU.
So if in five years I get a PM from you with Ha Ha on it, I'll know I guessed wrong!
DIH
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OpsSys
Too long ago I'm afraid (1970 as it happens) and I finished working the ops desk many years ago. I can tell you though that even back in the 1970,s and 1980 the BGFOO (British Guild of Flight Operations Officers) were trying to push the UK licence issue and improve training for ops people, laterly in the 1980's UKOMA also started training. Like you I do now believe there is a strong likelihood that some form of ops qualification based on ICAO 7192 D3 will make its way into our regulatory framework. Credit also goes to IFALDA and EUFALDA for their work with ICAO on the matter.
There is simply no reason for the UK CAA or JAA/EASA to reject a proposal that places a requirement on airlines to ensure their operational control staff have an appropriate qualification/training based on an ICAO recommendation and an operators requirements. The present system fails miserably in that regard so it is time to change it, and JAR have indeed introduced the training standard of 7192 D3, we now need the next step.
Too long ago I'm afraid (1970 as it happens) and I finished working the ops desk many years ago. I can tell you though that even back in the 1970,s and 1980 the BGFOO (British Guild of Flight Operations Officers) were trying to push the UK licence issue and improve training for ops people, laterly in the 1980's UKOMA also started training. Like you I do now believe there is a strong likelihood that some form of ops qualification based on ICAO 7192 D3 will make its way into our regulatory framework. Credit also goes to IFALDA and EUFALDA for their work with ICAO on the matter.
There is simply no reason for the UK CAA or JAA/EASA to reject a proposal that places a requirement on airlines to ensure their operational control staff have an appropriate qualification/training based on an ICAO recommendation and an operators requirements. The present system fails miserably in that regard so it is time to change it, and JAR have indeed introduced the training standard of 7192 D3, we now need the next step.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps
Without doubt this thread will do more to ring bells in the airline boardrooms across Europe than Stellios ever did. This has got significant cost growing all over it and given that:
Fuel is about $2.60 a usg
The environmental greenies are convincing the execs to stay in the office and press the video conference buttons instead of crashing out on the flat beds
All your y class pax want to fly for nothing as per MOL's dreams.
And then along come you guys demanding dispatcher licences, a working day as per FAR61 and a pay packet the size of a North West dispatcher's Cadillac. Somehow I dont think that the Willie Wonkers of BA and the other big players are going to give this scheme their blessing. Quite the opposite, they will be loading their big guns to blow this out of the water. You better get ready.
So what are the cost considerations?
Increased salary with licence pay would probably put the average UK dispatcher on Ł36 - 40 K pa.
Increased pension contributions.
Increase the number of staff maybe as much as two fold, in some cases, to meet the requirements of an 8hr roster.
Increased training cost both recurrent and initial. Note FAA dispatchers do extensive ground school and type training.
How much does all this add up to?
AOC with 20 aircraft maybe as much as 47% more to run the department. So is this cost justified and is the increase in flight safety that it will undoubtbly bring, worth it?
Well you all know what Willie Wonker will say.
So there's the cons side of the arguement. I would think the pro side of it unconvincing. Even the loss of a hull once in every x number of years and x millions of flights would fail to support the case for licenced dispatchers.
So if I was a FOD and an FAA dispatch licence holder, which I am. How would you convince me that I should pick up the phone and tell SRG to get the arses in to gear?
Your starter for 10, no conferring.
Without doubt this thread will do more to ring bells in the airline boardrooms across Europe than Stellios ever did. This has got significant cost growing all over it and given that:
Fuel is about $2.60 a usg The environmental greenies are convincing the execs to stay in the office and press the video conference buttons instead of crashing out on the flat beds All your y class pax want to fly for nothing as per MOL's dreams.And then along come you guys demanding dispatcher licences, a working day as per FAR61 and a pay packet the size of a North West dispatcher's Cadillac. Somehow I dont think that the Willie Wonkers of BA and the other big players are going to give this scheme their blessing. Quite the opposite, they will be loading their big guns to blow this out of the water. You better get ready.
So what are the cost considerations?
Increased salary with licence pay would probably put the average UK dispatcher on Ł36 - 40 K pa.
Increased pension contributions.
Increase the number of staff maybe as much as two fold, in some cases, to meet the requirements of an 8hr roster.
Increased training cost both recurrent and initial. Note FAA dispatchers do extensive ground school and type training.
How much does all this add up to?
AOC with 20 aircraft maybe as much as 47% more to run the department. So is this cost justified and is the increase in flight safety that it will undoubtbly bring, worth it?
Well you all know what Willie Wonker will say.
So there's the cons side of the arguement. I would think the pro side of it unconvincing. Even the loss of a hull once in every x number of years and x millions of flights would fail to support the case for licenced dispatchers.
So if I was a FOD and an FAA dispatch licence holder, which I am. How would you convince me that I should pick up the phone and tell SRG to get the arses in to gear?
Your starter for 10, no conferring.