I'll pass your comments on to the College.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.....:(

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.

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.

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...???

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 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.

super aviator

You've taken that comment out of content, read the previous posts please...

By the way, have you actually seen the course materials?

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. ;)

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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

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.