7192 D3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Warwickshire, UK.
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glasgow ICAO Flt Ops & Dispatchers Course
Hi
Having just received the first package from Glasgow, I am interested in knowing who else from the forum has signed up.
Having just received the first package from Glasgow, I am interested in knowing who else from the forum has signed up.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signed up and paid for(mega skint now!), waiting for the packup.
Out of interest what kind of financial support are the airlines giving students? The RAF offers a grand total of £175, chislers! Ironically there are some in the service who don't see this as a specialisation related course and therefore are unwilling to stump up any extra financial assistance.
Also Q for no sig.
Any chance that the college could be encouraged to accept either staged payments or even payment per module? For individuals like myself who are totally self financing 1200 squid is a lot to stump up in one go and also justify to ones nearest and dearest. At present the college appears unwilling to countenance these suggestions.
Out of interest what kind of financial support are the airlines giving students? The RAF offers a grand total of £175, chislers! Ironically there are some in the service who don't see this as a specialisation related course and therefore are unwilling to stump up any extra financial assistance.
Also Q for no sig.
Any chance that the college could be encouraged to accept either staged payments or even payment per module? For individuals like myself who are totally self financing 1200 squid is a lot to stump up in one go and also justify to ones nearest and dearest. At present the college appears unwilling to countenance these suggestions.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MilOps
I'm afraid that question that is outside of my area, I sympathise but the College obviously sets their own policy in this regard. To answer your other question. In our Company (EZY) all ops/Crewing staff training is covered by the Company.
I'm afraid that question that is outside of my area, I sympathise but the College obviously sets their own policy in this regard. To answer your other question. In our Company (EZY) all ops/Crewing staff training is covered by the Company.
sully 182 yes i have signed up, I just got my coursework through, glad to see you can do it over 18 months if need be.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be very interested to hear the views on the study materials from those doing the course. We have tried to keep to the ICAO 7192 requirements, but did retain much of the JAROPS content being European based course.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SouthWest UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dispatchers' Course
Hi
I am considering taking this course but wondered if anyone can advise on a couple points:
Is the Glasgow ICAO Flt Ops & Dispatchers course truly distance learning or is there a classroom element in Glasgow. What exams are there? & where can they be taken?
Has anyone that has started this course also taken the JAR FCL ATPL theory exams? I am curious if there is much repetition.
Is there an alternative course to consider?
Good luck with the studies all
I am considering taking this course but wondered if anyone can advise on a couple points:
Is the Glasgow ICAO Flt Ops & Dispatchers course truly distance learning or is there a classroom element in Glasgow. What exams are there? & where can they be taken?
Has anyone that has started this course also taken the JAR FCL ATPL theory exams? I am curious if there is much repetition.
Is there an alternative course to consider?
Good luck with the studies all
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corvus
The course is developed around the ICAO Fly Ops Off licence Doc. 7192 which is is close to ICAO ATPL level but with quite a few simplifications and removal of some of the more arcane studies of the ATPL. If you have done the FCL ATPL then no need to do this course you'll have covered 95% of the material.
It is a distance learning course but as a new course we'll be considering tutorials. Exams there will be but the format of this part of the course has yet to be defined. The study period is over 18 months but may be completed sooner.
The course is developed around the ICAO Fly Ops Off licence Doc. 7192 which is is close to ICAO ATPL level but with quite a few simplifications and removal of some of the more arcane studies of the ATPL. If you have done the FCL ATPL then no need to do this course you'll have covered 95% of the material.
It is a distance learning course but as a new course we'll be considering tutorials. Exams there will be but the format of this part of the course has yet to be defined. The study period is over 18 months but may be completed sooner.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone help ??
Hi, I am new to the forum, but not a novice in the Operations field, but I have a few concerns on this course and I wondered if anyone else had similar thoughts.
I have started the Operations/Flight Dispatcher course run by GCNS and I am finding the content of the course somewhat daunting. There seems to be a lot of information that an Ops Dispatcher/Controller is highly unlikely to ever need to know. I have spoken to FAA dispatchers and pilots, both of whom consider this course material to be of ATPL standard (but without the classroom tuition).
I have also completed a number of the “self assessment” tasks that appear regularly throughout the manuals and find myself having to return to the text of the manuals to find out why I got answers wrong. On examination of the manuals it appears I was not wrong, but in fact the assessment papers give the wrong answers.
Although the amount of information in the course looks impressive at first sight, I am also left wondering how on earth ICAO would deem it necessary for a person on the ground dispatching an aircraft for flight, would need to know R/T phraseology, rules of the air, in depth maintenance theory (for airframes, engines, systems, electrics and instruments) and many other topics covered that appear to be ATPL and NOT operations orientated.
I am mystified, does anyone else feel the same ??
Hi, I am new to the forum, but not a novice in the Operations field, but I have a few concerns on this course and I wondered if anyone else had similar thoughts.
I have started the Operations/Flight Dispatcher course run by GCNS and I am finding the content of the course somewhat daunting. There seems to be a lot of information that an Ops Dispatcher/Controller is highly unlikely to ever need to know. I have spoken to FAA dispatchers and pilots, both of whom consider this course material to be of ATPL standard (but without the classroom tuition).
I have also completed a number of the “self assessment” tasks that appear regularly throughout the manuals and find myself having to return to the text of the manuals to find out why I got answers wrong. On examination of the manuals it appears I was not wrong, but in fact the assessment papers give the wrong answers.
Although the amount of information in the course looks impressive at first sight, I am also left wondering how on earth ICAO would deem it necessary for a person on the ground dispatching an aircraft for flight, would need to know R/T phraseology, rules of the air, in depth maintenance theory (for airframes, engines, systems, electrics and instruments) and many other topics covered that appear to be ATPL and NOT operations orientated.
I am mystified, does anyone else feel the same ??
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FG,
since I haven`t seen the material, I usually should not comment. However, you mentioned a couple of topics that "may not be important" to OPS people and I must say that I disagree.
R/T phraseology is quite important. If you ever had the pleasure to do flight following via HF you will soon find out that you won`t get very far with the usual colloquial talk common on company frequencies. Personally, I also find it quite helpful, when dealing with ATC in Asia, since the English of some controllers tends to be a little limited. I agree that it may appear a little out of place for the usual LGW-EDI run.
As far as rules of the air and "in depth" maintenance theory is concerned. You may also say that as a car dealer you don`t need a drivers license nor knowledge about the inside of a car (yet most dealers I know tend to have this knoweldge - and usually with reason). The systems are important, so that you can find your way across the MEL a little easier and also to judge as of how serious a mx defect may be that is reported to you.
Since you mentioned the FAA Dispatcher License. The study of the theory for this course is done from the same book as the ATPL as well.
Cheers
fcit
since I haven`t seen the material, I usually should not comment. However, you mentioned a couple of topics that "may not be important" to OPS people and I must say that I disagree.
R/T phraseology is quite important. If you ever had the pleasure to do flight following via HF you will soon find out that you won`t get very far with the usual colloquial talk common on company frequencies. Personally, I also find it quite helpful, when dealing with ATC in Asia, since the English of some controllers tends to be a little limited. I agree that it may appear a little out of place for the usual LGW-EDI run.
As far as rules of the air and "in depth" maintenance theory is concerned. You may also say that as a car dealer you don`t need a drivers license nor knowledge about the inside of a car (yet most dealers I know tend to have this knoweldge - and usually with reason). The systems are important, so that you can find your way across the MEL a little easier and also to judge as of how serious a mx defect may be that is reported to you.
Since you mentioned the FAA Dispatcher License. The study of the theory for this course is done from the same book as the ATPL as well.
Cheers
fcit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi fcit
thanks for your response to my post
On the whole I agree with what you say, however you really ought to see the depth of content of the course.
As an example, R/T phraseology has 40 pages of communications procedure between pilot and Tower/Radar and Area Radar !! Nothing I am ever going to use. This is only one example.
You would have to agree, this is not something as a dispatcher I'm ever likely to require. I agree a basic knowledge of phonetics and procedure is required, especially in HF comms, but this depth is unbelieveable.
The topics covered I agree, are required as a basis, but to ATPL standard, I'm not so sure. A friend of mine is an FAA dispatcher and he did cover all the topics in this GCNS course, but not to the same depth. I am led to believe that an FAA dispatchers course is six weeks (240 hours at 40 hours per week). Module one of this course is 255 hours study. Modules 2 and 3 are yet to be released. This gives you some indication of how deep they have gone. IMHO a little too far.
Thanks again for you comments, look forward to any other views.
regards
FG
thanks for your response to my post
On the whole I agree with what you say, however you really ought to see the depth of content of the course.
As an example, R/T phraseology has 40 pages of communications procedure between pilot and Tower/Radar and Area Radar !! Nothing I am ever going to use. This is only one example.
You would have to agree, this is not something as a dispatcher I'm ever likely to require. I agree a basic knowledge of phonetics and procedure is required, especially in HF comms, but this depth is unbelieveable.
The topics covered I agree, are required as a basis, but to ATPL standard, I'm not so sure. A friend of mine is an FAA dispatcher and he did cover all the topics in this GCNS course, but not to the same depth. I am led to believe that an FAA dispatchers course is six weeks (240 hours at 40 hours per week). Module one of this course is 255 hours study. Modules 2 and 3 are yet to be released. This gives you some indication of how deep they have gone. IMHO a little too far.
Thanks again for you comments, look forward to any other views.
regards
FG
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
famous grouse et al
I think I can explain. There follows a cut & paste of a letter to easyJet candidates on the course, which I hope answers most of your questions.
famous grouse, you confess you are new to airline ops. As the others have mentioned, - you need to know this stuff if you wish to be a competent ops bod.
Your discussions with your FAA licenced friends may lead you to believe you don't need this level of study what they perhaps haven't explained is the FAA dispatcher intial and recurrent training the airlines they are dispatching for teach them about aircraft systems etc. Having dispatched in the states myself I can tell you the first place I went was the class room before getting anywhere near the desk. Take a minute and ask them to explain the performance or Ops spec for their airline, you'll find they have an in depth understanding of their trade.
The requirements of the ICAO FOO/FD couse syllabus, are in many areas close to ATPL level studies.
extract of an update letter to easyJet course candidates..
1. Course Materials
There were a number of pagination errors in a few of the books which has led to a bit of confusion, the College has apologised for the printing error and have re-issued the documents where necessary. Also, one or two errors have been found and I'd ask you to contact the College directly if you suspect you have found one.
2. Course Content
As you know, this course has been designed to meet the requirements of ICAO Doc 7192, however, I have had some feedback from some of the students indicating to me, and the course moderators, that perhaps we have gone into too much depth in a few areas. The course moderators met this week (jan 7th) to review this matter and found that indeed, in a few areas, the course did exceed the 7192 study requirements to a limited degree. The areas identified where in the Aircraft Systems - Electrical and Instrumentation. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing as the aim of the course is to ensure you gain a thorough understanding of aircraft operations, however, we do recognise that we must adhere to the 7192 syllabus as closely as we can achieve.
It is impractical to re-issue the course materials at this stage so the moderators agreed that the examination papers would be simplified in these areas to more closely reflect the Doc 7192 requirements. There are no changes to Air Law or Meteorology.
I would recommend that all students continue to, 'study everything', answer the Self Assessment Practice Papers, and complete the Progress Tests. As you are the first students on this new course all markings on the above subjects will be adjusted to take account of the above.
3. Future Modules
The next set of modules will be ready for publication towards May. The moderators are doing an independent review of the next modules to ensure that we do not exceed the ICAO Doc. 7192 requirements. This entails an independent review against the ICAO Syllabus and then reconciliation by the College before publication.
The moderators are:
British Midland International
Monarch Airlines
DHL Air
EasyJet
end..
For those on or considering this course, let me reassure you that the College and the airline moderators are working very hard to keep this to the ICAO syllabus which is the future standard for CAA and JAA operations training. The course is comprehensive, we make no apologies for that, however, it is the first term for this new course and we are refining it as we go along.
There has been a long felt need for an Ops training standard in the UK, now we have it. It isn't easy, neither it should be, we work in a very technical and flight safety related field. We conduct our trade by offering operational control to highly trained pilots who we are expected to converse with, generally at their level or near to, of technical knowledge; we speak to them over radios in their language and often communicate information to them which they use to make decisions. Of course our training has to be an appropriate level and comprehensive.
This course is all things to all men, whether you work for a small regional airline flying light twins to the western isles, or for one of the majors plying trans-polar routes to the west coast of the states. It, just like the ATPL, covers everything so you can operate in any environment.
Hope the above helps.
regards
no sig
I think I can explain. There follows a cut & paste of a letter to easyJet candidates on the course, which I hope answers most of your questions.
famous grouse, you confess you are new to airline ops. As the others have mentioned, - you need to know this stuff if you wish to be a competent ops bod.
Your discussions with your FAA licenced friends may lead you to believe you don't need this level of study what they perhaps haven't explained is the FAA dispatcher intial and recurrent training the airlines they are dispatching for teach them about aircraft systems etc. Having dispatched in the states myself I can tell you the first place I went was the class room before getting anywhere near the desk. Take a minute and ask them to explain the performance or Ops spec for their airline, you'll find they have an in depth understanding of their trade.
The requirements of the ICAO FOO/FD couse syllabus, are in many areas close to ATPL level studies.
extract of an update letter to easyJet course candidates..
1. Course Materials
There were a number of pagination errors in a few of the books which has led to a bit of confusion, the College has apologised for the printing error and have re-issued the documents where necessary. Also, one or two errors have been found and I'd ask you to contact the College directly if you suspect you have found one.
2. Course Content
As you know, this course has been designed to meet the requirements of ICAO Doc 7192, however, I have had some feedback from some of the students indicating to me, and the course moderators, that perhaps we have gone into too much depth in a few areas. The course moderators met this week (jan 7th) to review this matter and found that indeed, in a few areas, the course did exceed the 7192 study requirements to a limited degree. The areas identified where in the Aircraft Systems - Electrical and Instrumentation. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing as the aim of the course is to ensure you gain a thorough understanding of aircraft operations, however, we do recognise that we must adhere to the 7192 syllabus as closely as we can achieve.
It is impractical to re-issue the course materials at this stage so the moderators agreed that the examination papers would be simplified in these areas to more closely reflect the Doc 7192 requirements. There are no changes to Air Law or Meteorology.
I would recommend that all students continue to, 'study everything', answer the Self Assessment Practice Papers, and complete the Progress Tests. As you are the first students on this new course all markings on the above subjects will be adjusted to take account of the above.
3. Future Modules
The next set of modules will be ready for publication towards May. The moderators are doing an independent review of the next modules to ensure that we do not exceed the ICAO Doc. 7192 requirements. This entails an independent review against the ICAO Syllabus and then reconciliation by the College before publication.
The moderators are:
British Midland International
Monarch Airlines
DHL Air
EasyJet
end..
For those on or considering this course, let me reassure you that the College and the airline moderators are working very hard to keep this to the ICAO syllabus which is the future standard for CAA and JAA operations training. The course is comprehensive, we make no apologies for that, however, it is the first term for this new course and we are refining it as we go along.
There has been a long felt need for an Ops training standard in the UK, now we have it. It isn't easy, neither it should be, we work in a very technical and flight safety related field. We conduct our trade by offering operational control to highly trained pilots who we are expected to converse with, generally at their level or near to, of technical knowledge; we speak to them over radios in their language and often communicate information to them which they use to make decisions. Of course our training has to be an appropriate level and comprehensive.
This course is all things to all men, whether you work for a small regional airline flying light twins to the western isles, or for one of the majors plying trans-polar routes to the west coast of the states. It, just like the ATPL, covers everything so you can operate in any environment.
Hope the above helps.
regards
no sig
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere over the...
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no sig
I, like FG if you read the post again, am not a novice to airline operations. I have spent the whole of my working life in the industry, this being quite a few years now - I am in my late thirties. I won't bore you with the details, but during this time I have worked for a number of companies, large and small, at varying levels from the very bottom to management. I do not profess to know everything about the business, but I do believe my time served thus far enables me to speak with a certain degree of knowledge.
I have long believed that a formal qualification should be put in place in the UK to ensure that the ops room is always staffed by competent professionals. It is therefore quite understandable that I was looking forward to this course. Unfortunately though, my expectations have so far not been met.
Let me begin by saying that the cut and paste method with which the manuals appear to have been assembled would be at the root of my concern. I'm afraid that, to me, much of the text simply does not "read right", it lacking continuity. Also, whilst I appreciate there is always room for a printing error or two, I find the number of mismatched questions and answers, ambiguities, debatable statements and plain mistakes contained within quite alarming.
Again, like FG, I too have friends who hold FAA licences. You quite correctly state "they have an in depth understanding of their trade." The question is then, if the FAA qualification is the yardstick which it seems to be, why does this course take so many times longer to attain the same level of understanding?
As you have also stated in your posting, you accept that the course content exceeded the requirements of ICAO 7192-AN857 and the next modules have been ammended accordingly. However, The ICAO document is, like any other, open to intepretation. I for one would question whether the course attains the levels of explanation leading on to thorough understanding as required by ICAO.
It would be harsh not to expect the odd teething trouble during the first year of a new course. However, I find myself questioning the integrity of this course as it stands. The errors and dubious content I have found thus far do not bode well for the remaining study period, IMHO.
Best regards,
Mr R
I have long believed that a formal qualification should be put in place in the UK to ensure that the ops room is always staffed by competent professionals. It is therefore quite understandable that I was looking forward to this course. Unfortunately though, my expectations have so far not been met.
Let me begin by saying that the cut and paste method with which the manuals appear to have been assembled would be at the root of my concern. I'm afraid that, to me, much of the text simply does not "read right", it lacking continuity. Also, whilst I appreciate there is always room for a printing error or two, I find the number of mismatched questions and answers, ambiguities, debatable statements and plain mistakes contained within quite alarming.
Again, like FG, I too have friends who hold FAA licences. You quite correctly state "they have an in depth understanding of their trade." The question is then, if the FAA qualification is the yardstick which it seems to be, why does this course take so many times longer to attain the same level of understanding?
As you have also stated in your posting, you accept that the course content exceeded the requirements of ICAO 7192-AN857 and the next modules have been ammended accordingly. However, The ICAO document is, like any other, open to intepretation. I for one would question whether the course attains the levels of explanation leading on to thorough understanding as required by ICAO.
It would be harsh not to expect the odd teething trouble during the first year of a new course. However, I find myself questioning the integrity of this course as it stands. The errors and dubious content I have found thus far do not bode well for the remaining study period, IMHO.
Best regards,
Mr R
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again
Many thanks to “No Sig and Mister Rainbow” for your time and trouble in responding to my posts
I certainly thank Mister Rainbow for actually reading my initial posting and realising I am NOT new to Operations, quite the contrary, I have 27 years experience, like yourself I too welcome a “standard” for the industry we serve.
I also accept “teething” problems in a new course, but a few comments made by “no sig” give me even more cause for concern.
Firstly you state that Easyjet have issued a statement to its staff taking this course regarding the “overkill” in certain aspects of module 1. I am somewhat surprised that the University has not issued this to ALL people taking the course, I for one have not received this information. As the “meeting” was on the 7th Jan, I expect to receive this information ASAP.
Secondly you state that certain “major” airlines will be involved in the moderating of modules 2 and 3, which begs the question why were they not involved in moderating module 1 ?
I was given the impression from the University when I started this course that the airlines had been approached with reference the content, but this now appears not to be the case.
It is quite obvious from your posting that you are in some way involved with the production of this course and I find myself also concerned on a moral issue, I fail to understand how the University can “sell” a course that doesn’t satisfy the requirements of its students and is clearly not complete.
I seem to have unintentionally opened a can of worms, my initial concerns were the errors, teething or otherwise that appear to be cropping up and to discuss the depth of content of the course.
Like Mister Rainbow, I feel I can speak with authority when I say I have never used, nor likely to use much of the content of this course, whether dispatching light twins or wide bodies, I really don’t need this depth of understanding and I continue to challenge anyone that says I do.
I shall be writing to the CAA shortly on this subject, because if this were the level of understanding you consider an Ops Dispatcher needs, it would appear that I should take the ATPL exam on completion of this course and go flying for a living. Maybe the idea is for Ops jobs to be taken by pilots ? As far as I can see, and I stress in my opinion, the University have re-titled their ATPL course an “Operations/Flight Dispatchers course” with little or nothing taken out.
I have no problem with my limited understanding of aircraft systems and dispatching under the MEL/DDG, surprisingly these documents quite clearly state what you can and what you can’t dispatch with regards aircraft systems. By all means teach us what an Altimeter is and what it does, but the intricate workings of its internals, too deep. Circuit diagrams for AC Generators – I don’t think so either. Engineers and Pilots get classroom lessons to understand this sort of depth.
ICAO Doc 7192 part D-3 page D3-5 states the recommended study time for someone without previous experience will need 12 hours to cover Aircraft indoctrination (systems, propulsion, theory of flight etc). This course allocates a massive 150 hours!! Now tell me the content is not too deep. ATPL syllabus? I think so.
I thank you both once again for you time and trouble in discussing your views, I would be interested to see if anyone else taking this course has any views on what has been discussed.
Very best regards
FG
Many thanks to “No Sig and Mister Rainbow” for your time and trouble in responding to my posts
I certainly thank Mister Rainbow for actually reading my initial posting and realising I am NOT new to Operations, quite the contrary, I have 27 years experience, like yourself I too welcome a “standard” for the industry we serve.
I also accept “teething” problems in a new course, but a few comments made by “no sig” give me even more cause for concern.
Firstly you state that Easyjet have issued a statement to its staff taking this course regarding the “overkill” in certain aspects of module 1. I am somewhat surprised that the University has not issued this to ALL people taking the course, I for one have not received this information. As the “meeting” was on the 7th Jan, I expect to receive this information ASAP.
Secondly you state that certain “major” airlines will be involved in the moderating of modules 2 and 3, which begs the question why were they not involved in moderating module 1 ?
I was given the impression from the University when I started this course that the airlines had been approached with reference the content, but this now appears not to be the case.
It is quite obvious from your posting that you are in some way involved with the production of this course and I find myself also concerned on a moral issue, I fail to understand how the University can “sell” a course that doesn’t satisfy the requirements of its students and is clearly not complete.
I seem to have unintentionally opened a can of worms, my initial concerns were the errors, teething or otherwise that appear to be cropping up and to discuss the depth of content of the course.
Like Mister Rainbow, I feel I can speak with authority when I say I have never used, nor likely to use much of the content of this course, whether dispatching light twins or wide bodies, I really don’t need this depth of understanding and I continue to challenge anyone that says I do.
I shall be writing to the CAA shortly on this subject, because if this were the level of understanding you consider an Ops Dispatcher needs, it would appear that I should take the ATPL exam on completion of this course and go flying for a living. Maybe the idea is for Ops jobs to be taken by pilots ? As far as I can see, and I stress in my opinion, the University have re-titled their ATPL course an “Operations/Flight Dispatchers course” with little or nothing taken out.
I have no problem with my limited understanding of aircraft systems and dispatching under the MEL/DDG, surprisingly these documents quite clearly state what you can and what you can’t dispatch with regards aircraft systems. By all means teach us what an Altimeter is and what it does, but the intricate workings of its internals, too deep. Circuit diagrams for AC Generators – I don’t think so either. Engineers and Pilots get classroom lessons to understand this sort of depth.
ICAO Doc 7192 part D-3 page D3-5 states the recommended study time for someone without previous experience will need 12 hours to cover Aircraft indoctrination (systems, propulsion, theory of flight etc). This course allocates a massive 150 hours!! Now tell me the content is not too deep. ATPL syllabus? I think so.
I thank you both once again for you time and trouble in discussing your views, I would be interested to see if anyone else taking this course has any views on what has been discussed.
Very best regards
FG
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
famous grouse, I beg your pardon, I didn't read your posting closely enough- I note your experience and have no doubt you are competent, my comment was made in the context of the post and the need for training in general.
First of all, the airlines were involved in the first modules. The UK Ops Mgr Assoc. UKOMA, has been involved from the beginning and this was to ensure that the course had an industry input.
Regarding study time, the requirements of Doc 7192 specify class room hours of training, for an open learning course these need to be doubled if not trebled. We checked this against the 7192 and found the college study plan not too far off the mark. Also, it is also one of the reasons the UKOMA group pushed the course to 18 months.
Now to the content, doc 7192 requires interpretation as is not so rigidly defined as the JAR FCL exams. However, this is the training standard the CAA has adopted as an ICAO country and the aim of the course is meet that requirement.
The Glasgow College has the advantage of being a JAA approved training organisation, a respected nautical college and very experienced tutors who have had many years providing aviation training for aircrew. It is true that the course was developed from the JAR ATPL materials, as the ICAO 7192 content is so very closely aligned with it in many areas, but was edited with much deleted. The ATPL study materials offered a sound basis for the development of the course. We had to remove much of the 'pilot' content to meet the 7192 requirements. However, it was also important to ensure there was sufficient depth remaining to enable the 'no experience candidate' to complete the rest of the course and develop an understanding of the subject. E.g. without a clear understanding of principles of flight and aircraft systems, how can you progress onto performance and flight planning? The content must be viewed in the context of the course requirements as a whole and not as an isolated subject.
So in reviewing the 7192 syllabus, and if you have a copy you can see that the training goals are not always clear as to how much depth to go into. E.g. Power plant and Propulsion - requires a 'thorough understanding' in the training goal. So, in compiling this course, we had to ensure that sufficient depth was covered to ensure a 'thorough understanding'. The guidelines as to how much depth can be taken from the 7192 study hours required, which define the minimum for 'with experience and for those without experience. This is a general course and obviously must be targeted at students with little or no experience of aviation.
f grouse you wrote...
"It is quite obvious from your posting that you are in some way involved with the production of this course and I find myself also concerned on a moral issue, I fail to understand how the University can “sell” a course that doesn’t satisfy the requirements of its students and is clearly not complete."
I am involved as an airline representative in the development of this course and have worked closely with the College from the beginning. You are wrong in suggesting this course doesn't meet the requirements, we have from the start adhered strictly to the 7192 syllabus. We did however, add JAA/JAR’s as this is a European based course, JAR is not a 7192 requirement but how could it be deleted from an Ops course these days. What you seem to be saying is that the course materials have exceeded the requirements! Perhaps it has in a few areas as I mentioned before and I have no doubt the College will be writing to you all in due course, but give em a break the meeting was only held on Tuesday last. Further, the College with the UKOMA group, is working to ensure we match study material as closely as we can for the next modules, I confessed, we feel ourselves that we have too much depth in some areas.
On your point about the CAA, if you read back through the FODCOMS available on the CAA SRG website, you’ll see what the CAA’s views are in the response to industry comments.
Mister Rainbow
You are a student of the Glasgow College so I would recommend you contact them with your concerns and observations on the course. I have no doubt they will take you comments on board and would want to hear from you.
In your post you mention the FAA licence as yardstick, it is not in this course, nor is it the standard which the CAA (and soon the JAA) have chosen to adopt. The syllabus for this course is an ICAO recommended syllabus of training. ICAO as the global standard has always been more comprehensive than the FAA who approach their requirements in a different way, placing much more onus on the airline to complete training. Also, the course overall, and remember this is the first set of modules, will not exceed the ICAO 7192 requirements. Only these few modules may and as I explained account will be made for this.
May I reassure you all that the object of my colleagues and I is to assist the College in offering a distant learning course which meets the future training requirement of ICAO Doc 7192 and is relevant and comprehensive. It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience. The course must be viewed as a general course of flight ops studies aimed a giving the student an in depth knowledge of the technical and regulatory requirements of our industry. It is not airline specific nor is it the ATPL course renamed, as Mr Grouse suggests. However, you must appreciated that much of the content is the same and required by 7192. I personally deleted dozens and dozens of pages from the initial syllabus so I know!
My personal view is that we have waited for a very long time for our Authority to set the standard for the training of Ops officers, they now have. We need to provide a training platform for the future and this course is the first. We need, as an industry, to raise the level of technical competence and I have no doubt those doing this course will not regret it. It should equip you with the level of knowledge you will need whichever airline you work for.
.
First of all, the airlines were involved in the first modules. The UK Ops Mgr Assoc. UKOMA, has been involved from the beginning and this was to ensure that the course had an industry input.
Regarding study time, the requirements of Doc 7192 specify class room hours of training, for an open learning course these need to be doubled if not trebled. We checked this against the 7192 and found the college study plan not too far off the mark. Also, it is also one of the reasons the UKOMA group pushed the course to 18 months.
Now to the content, doc 7192 requires interpretation as is not so rigidly defined as the JAR FCL exams. However, this is the training standard the CAA has adopted as an ICAO country and the aim of the course is meet that requirement.
The Glasgow College has the advantage of being a JAA approved training organisation, a respected nautical college and very experienced tutors who have had many years providing aviation training for aircrew. It is true that the course was developed from the JAR ATPL materials, as the ICAO 7192 content is so very closely aligned with it in many areas, but was edited with much deleted. The ATPL study materials offered a sound basis for the development of the course. We had to remove much of the 'pilot' content to meet the 7192 requirements. However, it was also important to ensure there was sufficient depth remaining to enable the 'no experience candidate' to complete the rest of the course and develop an understanding of the subject. E.g. without a clear understanding of principles of flight and aircraft systems, how can you progress onto performance and flight planning? The content must be viewed in the context of the course requirements as a whole and not as an isolated subject.
So in reviewing the 7192 syllabus, and if you have a copy you can see that the training goals are not always clear as to how much depth to go into. E.g. Power plant and Propulsion - requires a 'thorough understanding' in the training goal. So, in compiling this course, we had to ensure that sufficient depth was covered to ensure a 'thorough understanding'. The guidelines as to how much depth can be taken from the 7192 study hours required, which define the minimum for 'with experience and for those without experience. This is a general course and obviously must be targeted at students with little or no experience of aviation.
f grouse you wrote...
"It is quite obvious from your posting that you are in some way involved with the production of this course and I find myself also concerned on a moral issue, I fail to understand how the University can “sell” a course that doesn’t satisfy the requirements of its students and is clearly not complete."
I am involved as an airline representative in the development of this course and have worked closely with the College from the beginning. You are wrong in suggesting this course doesn't meet the requirements, we have from the start adhered strictly to the 7192 syllabus. We did however, add JAA/JAR’s as this is a European based course, JAR is not a 7192 requirement but how could it be deleted from an Ops course these days. What you seem to be saying is that the course materials have exceeded the requirements! Perhaps it has in a few areas as I mentioned before and I have no doubt the College will be writing to you all in due course, but give em a break the meeting was only held on Tuesday last. Further, the College with the UKOMA group, is working to ensure we match study material as closely as we can for the next modules, I confessed, we feel ourselves that we have too much depth in some areas.
On your point about the CAA, if you read back through the FODCOMS available on the CAA SRG website, you’ll see what the CAA’s views are in the response to industry comments.
Mister Rainbow
You are a student of the Glasgow College so I would recommend you contact them with your concerns and observations on the course. I have no doubt they will take you comments on board and would want to hear from you.
In your post you mention the FAA licence as yardstick, it is not in this course, nor is it the standard which the CAA (and soon the JAA) have chosen to adopt. The syllabus for this course is an ICAO recommended syllabus of training. ICAO as the global standard has always been more comprehensive than the FAA who approach their requirements in a different way, placing much more onus on the airline to complete training. Also, the course overall, and remember this is the first set of modules, will not exceed the ICAO 7192 requirements. Only these few modules may and as I explained account will be made for this.
May I reassure you all that the object of my colleagues and I is to assist the College in offering a distant learning course which meets the future training requirement of ICAO Doc 7192 and is relevant and comprehensive. It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience. The course must be viewed as a general course of flight ops studies aimed a giving the student an in depth knowledge of the technical and regulatory requirements of our industry. It is not airline specific nor is it the ATPL course renamed, as Mr Grouse suggests. However, you must appreciated that much of the content is the same and required by 7192. I personally deleted dozens and dozens of pages from the initial syllabus so I know!
My personal view is that we have waited for a very long time for our Authority to set the standard for the training of Ops officers, they now have. We need to provide a training platform for the future and this course is the first. We need, as an industry, to raise the level of technical competence and I have no doubt those doing this course will not regret it. It should equip you with the level of knowledge you will need whichever airline you work for.
.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Sig, I offer my apologies but you have put yourself in the firing line !!
You make some useful references to FODCOMS, assuming I am reading the latest (18/01), your use of them somewhat surprises me, as I quote:
“The CAA does not believe there is a need for a formal
licence for flight operations officers or dispatchers. The
training and employment of flight operations officers or
dispatchers is a matter for the individual operator for which
ICAO Doc 7192 D3 provides a sound basis.”
I also note with interest the respondents to the initial FODCOM were sixteen, five of which could be classed as “major” UK operators, alas only one of which, Easyjet, appear on the list of course moderators. Neither BMI, DHL, nor Monarch appeared initially interested and didn’t respond to the FODCOM, along with many other notably absent operators. Yet they are now moderators for the course.
Nothing of what you have said distracts from the point that you admit there is some “overkill” in YOUR interpretation of ICAO7192 D3, yet you state:
“It is impractical to re-issue the course materials at this stage so the moderators agreed that the examination papers would be simplified in these areas to more closely reflect the Doc 7192 requirements. There are no changes to Air Law or Meteorology.
I would recommend that all students continue to, 'study everything', answer the Self Assessment Practice Papers, and complete the Progress Tests. As you are the first students on this new course all markings on the above subjects will be adjusted to take account of the above.”
I would like to ask the question, were ICAO approached at any point and asked their interpretation of their own document and the depth of study that THEY considered necessary?
I also question your statement:
“It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience”
I don’t consider some of this material could possibly be understood by people with experience let alone a novice, without some sort of classroom tuition. Indeed I feel Meteorology in particular, which you mention the material stands as is, would be hard to learn for a complete novice. I note you explain that home study takes longer than classroom study, but I wonder what depth ICAO intended when they stated 12 hours study for Aircraft Systems etc. I value your attempts to offer a distance learning package for this type of syllabus, however, not only myself, but it would appear also that others also feel the material has been put together in a rushed manner and contain many inaccuracies.
I consider this course has been put together from the basis of the ATPL course, with bits cut out that make the flow, continuity and understanding of this course, more confusing and time consuming than necessary. Judging by the FODCOM you mention, the CAA have made no mention of this course being the industry standard, indeed seem to quite clearly state that it will be down to individual operators to train their staff using the same ICAO 7192 guidelines you have used for this course. The course should have been prepared from scratch in conjunction with ICAO and 7192, with Ops Controllers and Dispatchers requirements in mind, not just sections of the ATPL course copied and pasted into new documents, which is what this course clearly is. Yes, I agree the requirements of Doc 7192 closely follow the ATPL course, but it should have been written from a Dispatchers viewpoint not a pilots view.
I thank you for your answers to my questions, but I maintain my opinion that this course is way too deep for the requirements of JAR and CAP360. As previously mentioned, I will be writing to the CAA to find out their views on this course and their interpretation of ICAO annex 1 and 6, ICAO Doc 7192 and CAP360.
Thank you for your time in attempting to argue your case, but every page I turn and every self-assessment task I attempt, throws up more errors. Which takes me back to the point that this course has been rushed and not proof read. We are now given assurances from the University that all is now in order since the re-issue of the Meteorology manual (where there are further errors) and a letter containing hand written amendments. Since then the progress tests have been issued and these are also found to be inaccurate. One question does not supply the correct answer as an option and another gives two identical options for the answer!
I re-state that I understand this is the first run of the course and the University has requested we point out the odd error, but I for one resent paying £1200 to proof read this course. If it were the “odd” error I could accept it, but unfortunately it isn’t. I also stress again, that I value the attempts of the University and yourself to obtain an industry standard via distance learning, but this course appears rushed and incomplete, with many inaccuracies and errors.
Thanks to Mister Rainbow, who from his comments, is obviously taking this course and appears to have similar misgivings. I had hoped for comment from other course students, but I fully understand their reluctance to participate in this discussion for fear of any reprisal from their own company. Free speech is a wonderful thing, is it not?
I believe that this course should be withdrawn in its entirety until it has been thoroughly proof read, checked for clarity of content and explanation, relevance and errors. We have paid, be it individually or via company sponsorship, £1200 for this course and I see no reason why I or other students need to waste our time to “study everything” (255 hours) when you clearly indicate we now don’t need it all.
Until it is accepted that a mistake has been made, I for one have no confidence in what is contained in these manuals. I will also make an analogy with cars that was made by “fcit” earlier in this thread, would you buy a car that was incomplete, unfinished and contained faults? I doubt you would. Accept that this course is not up to an acceptable standard with debateable content, withdraw it and correct it before you defeat the object for which it was surely intended.
Regards
FG
You make some useful references to FODCOMS, assuming I am reading the latest (18/01), your use of them somewhat surprises me, as I quote:
“The CAA does not believe there is a need for a formal
licence for flight operations officers or dispatchers. The
training and employment of flight operations officers or
dispatchers is a matter for the individual operator for which
ICAO Doc 7192 D3 provides a sound basis.”
I also note with interest the respondents to the initial FODCOM were sixteen, five of which could be classed as “major” UK operators, alas only one of which, Easyjet, appear on the list of course moderators. Neither BMI, DHL, nor Monarch appeared initially interested and didn’t respond to the FODCOM, along with many other notably absent operators. Yet they are now moderators for the course.
Nothing of what you have said distracts from the point that you admit there is some “overkill” in YOUR interpretation of ICAO7192 D3, yet you state:
“It is impractical to re-issue the course materials at this stage so the moderators agreed that the examination papers would be simplified in these areas to more closely reflect the Doc 7192 requirements. There are no changes to Air Law or Meteorology.
I would recommend that all students continue to, 'study everything', answer the Self Assessment Practice Papers, and complete the Progress Tests. As you are the first students on this new course all markings on the above subjects will be adjusted to take account of the above.”
I would like to ask the question, were ICAO approached at any point and asked their interpretation of their own document and the depth of study that THEY considered necessary?
I also question your statement:
“It must also be able to be completed by a student with no previous experience”
I don’t consider some of this material could possibly be understood by people with experience let alone a novice, without some sort of classroom tuition. Indeed I feel Meteorology in particular, which you mention the material stands as is, would be hard to learn for a complete novice. I note you explain that home study takes longer than classroom study, but I wonder what depth ICAO intended when they stated 12 hours study for Aircraft Systems etc. I value your attempts to offer a distance learning package for this type of syllabus, however, not only myself, but it would appear also that others also feel the material has been put together in a rushed manner and contain many inaccuracies.
I consider this course has been put together from the basis of the ATPL course, with bits cut out that make the flow, continuity and understanding of this course, more confusing and time consuming than necessary. Judging by the FODCOM you mention, the CAA have made no mention of this course being the industry standard, indeed seem to quite clearly state that it will be down to individual operators to train their staff using the same ICAO 7192 guidelines you have used for this course. The course should have been prepared from scratch in conjunction with ICAO and 7192, with Ops Controllers and Dispatchers requirements in mind, not just sections of the ATPL course copied and pasted into new documents, which is what this course clearly is. Yes, I agree the requirements of Doc 7192 closely follow the ATPL course, but it should have been written from a Dispatchers viewpoint not a pilots view.
I thank you for your answers to my questions, but I maintain my opinion that this course is way too deep for the requirements of JAR and CAP360. As previously mentioned, I will be writing to the CAA to find out their views on this course and their interpretation of ICAO annex 1 and 6, ICAO Doc 7192 and CAP360.
Thank you for your time in attempting to argue your case, but every page I turn and every self-assessment task I attempt, throws up more errors. Which takes me back to the point that this course has been rushed and not proof read. We are now given assurances from the University that all is now in order since the re-issue of the Meteorology manual (where there are further errors) and a letter containing hand written amendments. Since then the progress tests have been issued and these are also found to be inaccurate. One question does not supply the correct answer as an option and another gives two identical options for the answer!
I re-state that I understand this is the first run of the course and the University has requested we point out the odd error, but I for one resent paying £1200 to proof read this course. If it were the “odd” error I could accept it, but unfortunately it isn’t. I also stress again, that I value the attempts of the University and yourself to obtain an industry standard via distance learning, but this course appears rushed and incomplete, with many inaccuracies and errors.
Thanks to Mister Rainbow, who from his comments, is obviously taking this course and appears to have similar misgivings. I had hoped for comment from other course students, but I fully understand their reluctance to participate in this discussion for fear of any reprisal from their own company. Free speech is a wonderful thing, is it not?
I believe that this course should be withdrawn in its entirety until it has been thoroughly proof read, checked for clarity of content and explanation, relevance and errors. We have paid, be it individually or via company sponsorship, £1200 for this course and I see no reason why I or other students need to waste our time to “study everything” (255 hours) when you clearly indicate we now don’t need it all.
Until it is accepted that a mistake has been made, I for one have no confidence in what is contained in these manuals. I will also make an analogy with cars that was made by “fcit” earlier in this thread, would you buy a car that was incomplete, unfinished and contained faults? I doubt you would. Accept that this course is not up to an acceptable standard with debateable content, withdraw it and correct it before you defeat the object for which it was surely intended.
Regards
FG
CUPID STUNT
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FUTURE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
The whole course is a money spinner for Glasgow college !!!
Its aimed at future requirments for CAA approval !!!
If and when the CAA requires Dispatchers and Ops bods to be licensed then they will create there own training requirments, probably called something like.....CAA Ops/Dispatch licence.
The college offers a course........Great, it shows future employers you are interested and are willing.
I think the course is a good idea for beginners in avaition, but any ops/Dispatcher man in the know would go with the FAA everytime. The FAA is tried and tested and respected the world over, once you have the official licence in your hand you can work anywhere in the world.
Glasgow do not even issue you with a licence and are HOPING that the CAA will endorse it !!!
The Fact is they want your money and no sig is probably on commision, thats why he rates it so highly !!!
What would you rather have FAA ??? government approved and respected the world over !!!
ICAO Glasgow college certificate.........no one has really heard of it and it is respected by no sig.
Its aimed at future requirments for CAA approval !!!
If and when the CAA requires Dispatchers and Ops bods to be licensed then they will create there own training requirments, probably called something like.....CAA Ops/Dispatch licence.
The college offers a course........Great, it shows future employers you are interested and are willing.
I think the course is a good idea for beginners in avaition, but any ops/Dispatcher man in the know would go with the FAA everytime. The FAA is tried and tested and respected the world over, once you have the official licence in your hand you can work anywhere in the world.
Glasgow do not even issue you with a licence and are HOPING that the CAA will endorse it !!!
The Fact is they want your money and no sig is probably on commision, thats why he rates it so highly !!!
What would you rather have FAA ??? government approved and respected the world over !!!
ICAO Glasgow college certificate.........no one has really heard of it and it is respected by no sig.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: S.E England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok heres something to throw into the works.
Super aviator you say
Agreed. But what if you have no desire to work all over the world then surely going to the states with the cost of accomdation and course fees is a hell of a lot more money than the home study course at Glagow, irrespective of it's critics on this forum.
Maybe one day JAA will look at standardising the sytem over Europe and writing their own syllabus based on ICAO with which you will need a licence for. If it's going to happen it wont be for a while.
I've been working in the industry for about ten years now. I would like to think I have a broad knowledge of most of these subjects discussed but would have to admit to still having a lot I can learn. Whilst I would love to take a course like this I can't justify spending £1000's of pounds on something I dont need, no matter how beneficial I would find it personally. Working for a small company means work sponsership is out of the question.
I learned what I know by having it passed down to me. When I was an Ops asissistant the Ops controllers imparted knoweldge to me in quiet moments. When I was an Ops Controller the Supervisors passed down knowledge to me and so on and so on!
I would like to learn those things I have not had the chance to have proper training on, if only to pass on correct and useful knoweldge to those coming through behind me.
It's a shame because unless the industry does standardise its training requirements we are going to be left with a two teir system.
I wonder if when someday a licence is required there will be some sort of Grandfather rights for those who have benn around since the day dot. Will they have to take a full course from scratch or would there be a basic syllabus and exam to prove the knowledge is already there?
Super aviator you say
The FAA is tried and tested and respected the world over, once you have the official licence in your hand you can work anywhere in the world.
Maybe one day JAA will look at standardising the sytem over Europe and writing their own syllabus based on ICAO with which you will need a licence for. If it's going to happen it wont be for a while.
I've been working in the industry for about ten years now. I would like to think I have a broad knowledge of most of these subjects discussed but would have to admit to still having a lot I can learn. Whilst I would love to take a course like this I can't justify spending £1000's of pounds on something I dont need, no matter how beneficial I would find it personally. Working for a small company means work sponsership is out of the question.
I learned what I know by having it passed down to me. When I was an Ops asissistant the Ops controllers imparted knoweldge to me in quiet moments. When I was an Ops Controller the Supervisors passed down knowledge to me and so on and so on!
I would like to learn those things I have not had the chance to have proper training on, if only to pass on correct and useful knoweldge to those coming through behind me.
It's a shame because unless the industry does standardise its training requirements we are going to be left with a two teir system.
I wonder if when someday a licence is required there will be some sort of Grandfather rights for those who have benn around since the day dot. Will they have to take a full course from scratch or would there be a basic syllabus and exam to prove the knowledge is already there?