7192 D3

[Penguin124]

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

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

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

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

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

No Sig

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

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

Cheers
P124

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

[JB007]

Penguin124

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

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

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

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

[Penguin124]

JB007

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

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

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

Cheers
P124

[no sig]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer

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

[Penguin124]

No Sig

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
P124

[no sig]

P124

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

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

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

[Mister Rainbow]

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

[famous grouse]

Mister Rainbow

Have to agree with you 100% there dear chap.

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

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

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

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

Best regards
FG

[no sig]

FG

Will keep you posted on progress.

Mister Rainbow

your comment...

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

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

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

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

[Penguin124]

No Sig

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

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

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

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

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

Enough said
Cheers
P124

[no sig]

P124

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

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

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

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

[Penguin124]

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

That's what I just said in my previous.

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

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

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

cheers
P124

[no sig]

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