7192 D3
CUPID STUNT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere over the...
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Sig
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.....
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.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Glasgow ICAO Flight Ops / Dispatchers Course (Merged)
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.
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.
Last edited by JB007; 11th Mar 2003 at 20:14.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA,
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...???
Do not despair we will have to do the course as a mandatory requirement of JAR OPS anyway
A look at the ICAO website by the way, does not have Glasgow approved by ICAO to run course 248 ACS DIS...???
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 )
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 )
Last edited by no sig; 11th Mar 2003 at 22:42.
CUPID STUNT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO SIG
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere over the...
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Road to Somewhere
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere over the...
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ummm
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
"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
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere over the...
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBA
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.
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.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.