Which Distace Course Is Better? AGS or Sheffield?

[emorris]

I guess he is no longer a DADE now, correct?

I am only saying this because according to emorris in this thread he is using no discretion and in another thread, he is "pretty much done".....


I would like to get a DADE outside the state of Florida to give us their take on the PTS for dispatchers......

Mr. "I-Hate-Sheffield and I didn't even attend there" is inaccurately referring to a December 12, 2012 post of mine. Anyone can easily locate it.

<Moderator-edited to remove insulting content.>

Eric Morris-Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

 

[LawDXer]

Please see below, especially the bold...

False.
FAA-S-8081-10C (with Changes 1 & 2), bottom of page 7:
"NOTE: Where appropriate, the applicant should be allowed to use printed reference material commonly available to a company dispatcher."
Even my own FAA inspector agrees that it is INAPPROPRIATE to allow an applicant to look up regulation answers, and other information that is to be LEARNED. Note the words: "where appropriate." The PTS was initially written decades ago and is based on an applicant seeking out an examiner, who knows little or nothing about the applicant's school and it's specific materials. Sheffield applicants receive (at least) weather charts, airport charts, approach plates, MEL, CDL, en route charts, OPSPECS, takeoff and landing limitations, etc.. during their examination. We DO NOT allow the freedom to reference any and everything, and the FAA agrees with that. Any examiner allowing this method of testing is welcome to disagree - just state your name here, and send your letter of authority with examiner card to the FAA because you're done at that point. If I'm wrong, feel free to petition the FAA to allow that ADX "Knowledge" exam to be open book. Well, why not, right?!
I am likely the active leader in AD practical exams with 966. My father administered over 2,650. We have a clue about rules and proper test procedures. So if still unsure, the next time you're asked for your birth date, just tell them "gimme a minute - gotta find my birth certificate." I'm sure active working dispatchers might agree that if a dispatcher is working the Northeast U.S. in the winter and can NOT remember what the symbol is for FREEZING rain, but rather calls it rain showers to the PIC, that could be a problem, with or without a working anti-ice system. If the dispatcher has to interrupt his/her briefing to go look it up within the Aviation Weather Services, that requires time. Ignorant dispatching is bad. Sloth-like, ignorant dispatching is worse. And yes, I was blamed by one applicant for his exam failure for not allowing him to look up everything, including the difference between a shower of water drops and an icing hazard, something that is common rote knowledge for any dispatcher or legitimate dispatcher school graduate. I suppose I am a true monster...if fact, I've got a few people in class currently reviewing regulations. I'm going to march into that classroom right now, and tell them to close those silly books since we can just look up all our answers. We can use the time to fill out their 8400 application. Gosh, I hope they brought their birth certificates, tape measures, and weight scales...it would save time.
Eric Morris - President
Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

I don't see how I am misquoting you...okay, I added the word pretty...but did you or didn't you basically say the are done?

 

[BSUbronco]

I think I will have some fish and water for lunch before I comment....I want to make sure I comprehend the above before I comment.

 

[emorris]

Please see below, especially the bold...

I don't see how I am misquoting you...okay, I added the word pretty...but did you or didn't you basically say the are done?

The key line was right before the bold part: "We DO NOT allow the freedom to reference any and everything, and the FAA agrees with that."

We have always been informed that it is incorrect and inappropriate to allow, as a designated examiner, the applicant to look up answers to everything. We DO allow the applicant to answer "where" he or she may find an answer, if it is something a bit convoluted, odd, or cryptic. But we also don't require direct recitations of many regulations or long definitions. An applicant may be jumbling their words trying too hard to spit out an answer, and I'll just say "talk to me - describe what you want to say, or how would you apply the rule." I'm not wacky about asking what the exact definition of 'night' is, but they all know it's in FAR Part 1. I will occasionally ask where they can find twilight times, and the effects of a position light inoperative and the effects of delays coupled with an alternate lying east of the destination as opposed to west. They reference an MEL, perhaps glance at a web site printout for "night" at a certain location, then we go from there.

Anyway, if other examiners are given the ability to be a bit relaxed with referencing, so be it. But when a 28-year dispatcher at Delta is barked at by a PIC for not filing a departure alternate because of L1011-500 landing weight issues (it happened), what do you do? Do you follow the FARs? Do you follow suggestions or requirements from other more conservative resources? When a PIC claims he requires a takeoff alternate due to VV001 at departure, do you actually file it for him/her regardless of the RVR value? I used to cover this type of stuff when I instructed and it can't be easily referenced sometimes - I told that Delta dispatcher that based on an ICAO Annex at that time, the pilot's request had merit. Is there a required fuel for landing? Does the 1-2-3 rule apply en route? List an example of why the domestic 1-2-3 application does not always work. Are regulations authored in the permissive sense? Does the IAF location have any legal bearing on the declaration of a fuel emergency? (that is from small carrier experience.) If your flight diverts to the alternate without informing you, and after not responding to your multiple requests for contact, do you declare an emergency? (PIC was nearly canned within 2 weeks of retirement.)

I'm not asking for answers here, just pointing out that referencing has it's limits, and every airline manual I've ever reviewed or was asked to edit, had errors. Often those references are copied from another airline or AFM. You may encounter boost pump math errors on extra fuel, 121.613 with incorrect time frames to check weather, etc..

If any of you are wondering about this, or whether we teach every little thing outside of the requirements - no. We do however, feel a need to push it sometimes. Why? The FAA has drafted multiple documents in which they plan to force examiners to fail any applicants if ONE regulation is misapplied or possibly incorrect. I have written hundreds of pages about this and other questionable proposals, and things have been held up for quite a while. Think about it: When are 2 destination alternates required? The examiner gives you the appropriate weather. Will your definition or interpretation of 'marginal' match his/hers? And if not, it's...over? Not right. I wrote dozens of other examples to the FAA on why it is far too harsh. And respectfully, those claiming all this instruction you received during your practical... this is bludgeoned in multiple areas of recent drafted DADE documents. There is to be NO instruction during a practical exam. If you need the docs, email me, and I'll try to email them if the PDFs aren't too large. Please accept this as advice or just another FYI, and nothing else. Thanks.
EM/SSoA

 

[FlightController]

The DADE is still active within the CVG FSDO.

 

[womanpilot73]

And respectfully, those claiming all this instruction you received during your practical... this is bludgeoned in multiple areas of recent drafted DADE documents. There is to be NO instruction during a practical exam. If you need the docs, email me, and I'll try to email them if the PDFs aren't too large. Please accept this as advice or just another FYI, and nothing else. Thanks.
EM/SSoA

I believe I specifically stated that it was during my oral that my examiner taught me some things...not my practical. And it was after I had passed my oral. But he did use some time afterwards to have me open up the FAR/AIM to some things that were not necessarily touched upon in school. It was a teaching experience in that way. Again...not the extreme in which you seem to keep going back to. (A student looking up EVERYTHING).

 

[emorris]

Referencing too many materials vs. instruction during a practical exam may be considered 2 different things because the FAA addresses each issue separately and distinctly. Also, an FAA Practical exam is typically viewed as a 2-part exercise: a written (flight plan) & an oral, as indicated in the Practical Test Standards, which describes both parts, as well as the 8900.1. Parts can be overlapped, but instruction during either part will be scrutinized heavily in the future.
My apologies, but when I read the following from you earlier:
"I think everyone knows that what's being discussed is the practical application as well as the teaching experience received from an examiner during an oral by being able to reference "all available resources",
I understood that to be "during an oral" you were taught something. I was not targeting you. In fact, I find you to be someone we wish we had at our school, but you must admit that when at least 1-2 others wrote that they received instruction during their practical, then they may have actually received it. If some of you received some helpful advice here and there, but true instruction following a completed exam, then you've got an examiner who cares. Good for everybody. All I'm saying at this point is, in order help future students/graduates and FAA designated examiners, is that whether using references or not, any instruction "during the practical" and "after a practical", are 2 different things. The difference is the DADE losing their examiner authority or keeping it, respectively. Just trying to help, not hurt.
EM/SSoA

 

[womanpilot73]

Referencing too many materials vs. instruction during a practical exam may be considered 2 different things because the FAA addresses each issue separately and distinctly. Also, an FAA Practical exam is typically viewed as a 2-part exercise: a written (flight plan) & an oral, as indicated in the Practical Test Standards, which describes both parts, as well as the 8900.1. Parts can be overlapped, but instruction during either part will be scrutinized heavily in the future.
My apologies, but when I read the following from you earlier:
"I think everyone knows that what's being discussed is the practical application as well as the teaching experience received from an examiner during an oral by being able to reference "all available resources",
I understood that to be "during an oral" you were taught something. I was not targeting you. In fact, I find you to be someone we wish we had at our school, but you must admit that when at least 1-2 others wrote that they received instruction during their practical, then they may have actually received it. If some of you received some helpful advice here and there, but true instruction following a completed exam, then you've got an examiner who cares. Good for everybody. All I'm saying at this point is, in order help future students/graduates and FAA designated examiners, is that whether using references or not, any instruction "during the practical" and "after a practical", are 2 different things. The difference is the DADE losing their examiner authority or keeping it, respectively. Just trying to help, not hurt.
EM/SSoA

I appreciate the clarification on your part. This is how it went with my examiner at Jeppesen. I received about a five hour oral in which I was literally grilled on material my examiner chose from the PTS. I did not reference materials during this and felt I did quite well. After he was done grilling, he did some teaching. For the practical portion (flight plan, etc...) I just did the work on my own, not being interrupted and at times he stepped out for a break. At no time did I reference materials for the testing portion of the O&P, but afterwards we did look some additional things up and I learned some new things not taught at Jepp. It was a great experience and I felt my examiner truly did care. I definitely never felt like he was just there to put me through 8 hours of hell... ;-) Actually, of the 3 "check rides" I've passed, this one was the very best experience.

I have heard about some examiners that rake you through the coals and are jerks in the process, making you feel like an idiot at every turn. I don't think these people should be doing that job. There's enough pressure and stress going into an O&P - having that type of examiner is just pointless. IMO.

 

[MikeD]

Reading through this thread and its back and forth regarding checkrides, I figure Ill toss some 2 cents into here that should be of help.

I can't imagine that an FAA checkride for a dispatcher would be light years easier or worse than one for an aircrew member, so as someone with a good number of checkrides, both military and FAA, to date, my comments should have practical application here, primarily regarding the "referencing materials" idea.

Remember that a checkride is an evaluation session, not an instruction session. While there is somewhat wide latitude for an examiner to instruct or have "teachable moments" during a checkride, there is NO requirement for them to. You as the person being evaluated NEED to be ready for the worst case scenario: an examiner who's there to evaluate only and teach nothing. One who is completely black and white....either the person being evaluated knows his stuff, or doesn't. What does that mean? It's means KNOW the material as best as possible. It means that while you can reference publications to find something you might not remember, so long as you know where to find it, make the number of times you do this to be the exception, not the norm. This is a knowledge-based evaluation, NOT a "line-check" evaluation where you're being watched as you do the day-to-day job. In the day to day job, you can reference things here and there because it's assumed you have the baseline knowledge already. In an evaluation, it's not known whether you have the baseline knowledge or not, that's what's being checked. And the baseline knowledge isn't where to find everything, it's what the information actually is.

So go into a checkride and show the evaluator that you know your stuff. Because he/she is going to look for any reason to dig and ask more questions on items that it appears you're weak on, and those are items that you are "looking up". MINIMIZE those opportunities for the evaluator to do so by not giving him the rope to hang yourself with. Preferably, ELIMINATE those opportunities.

 

[Hondo Calrissian]

During my retake practical - it was very intense but also a big learning experience during and after my exam. My examiner gave me a lot of job-related scenarios and wanted me to apply when and how I would apply the regulation. He also showed WX charts and asked me what I would do with a line of storms to see what I would do and to also see where I could find regulations in the FAR book and also in OpsSpecs.

I took a lot out of that practical and grew from it.

 

[F9DXER]

Im surprised they let you look in the OPSPECS. Why? That is not part of any course or a requirement to be taught.

 

[Hondo Calrissian]

Im surprised they let you look in the OPSPECS. Why? That is not part of any course or a requirement to be taught.

I disagree with you as FAA-8081-10c pages 3 and 4, under "Other" states Operations Specifications and we had OPSSPECS as part of our training at Sheffield and was used during our practical to determine a few items such as if an alternate was legal to use or not. I know FAR 65 subpart C doesn't specifically state that it is mandatory.

 

[Hondo Calrissian]

During my retake practical - it was very intense but also a big learning experience during and after my exam. My examiner gave me a lot of job-related scenarios and wanted me to apply when and how I would apply the regulation. He also showed WX charts and asked me what I would do with a line of storms to see what I would do and to also see where I could find regulations in the FAR book and also in OpsSpecs.

I took a lot out of that practical and grew from it.

Just for the record, I was not able to look up regulations answer, after I gave the regulation, he would ask me where I would find such as 121 subpart T or U.

As for the OPSPECS, he wanted to see how I would think on me feet if there was a deviation that the FAA would allow but to be 100% honest, I don't remember my practical all too well...just remembering that passed!

 

[womanpilot73]

Im surprised they let you look in the OPSPECS. Why? That is not part of any course or a requirement to be taught.

I had the same experience as Todd Weber, where Jeppesen had their own op specs for training purposes and we had to use them as appropriate both during school an the O&P.

My oral sounds similar to Todd's as well in that in addition to being grilled on the material, my examiner also gave me multiple scenario based questions in which I had to apply regs and Jepp's op specs.

 

[womanpilot73]

Reading through this thread and its back and forth regarding checkrides, I figure Ill toss some 2 cents into here that should be of help.

I can't imagine that an FAA checkride for a dispatcher would be light years easier or worse than one for an aircrew member, so as someone with a good number of checkrides, both military and FAA, to date, my comments should have practical application here, primarily regarding the "referencing materials" idea.

Remember that a checkride is an evaluation session, not an instruction session. While there is somewhat wide latitude for an examiner to instruct or have "teachable moments" during a checkride, there is NO requirement for them to. You as the person being evaluated NEED to be ready for the worst case scenario: an examiner who's there to evaluate only and teach nothing. One who is completely black and white....either the person being evaluated knows his stuff, or doesn't. What does that mean? It's means KNOW the material as best as possible. It means that while you can reference publications to find something you might not remember, so long as you know where to find it, make the number of times you do this to be the exception, not the norm. This is a knowledge-based evaluation, NOT a "line-check" evaluation where you're being watched as you do the day-to-day job. In the day to day job, you can reference things here and there because it's assumed you have the baseline knowledge already. In an evaluation, it's not known whether you have the baseline knowledge or not, that's what's being checked. And the baseline knowledge isn't where to find everything, it's what the information actually is.

So go into a checkride and show the evaluator that you know your stuff. Because he/she is going to look for any reason to dig and ask more questions on items that it appears you're weak on, and those are items that you are "looking up". MINIMIZE those opportunities for the evaluator to do so by not giving him the rope to hang yourself with. Preferably, ELIMINATE those opportunities.

I agree - be ready, and know your stuff as if you would NOT be allowed to reference any materials. But if you have to, it should be at an absolute minimum. MikeD is right in that the examiner will likely seek to find your weakness and help you dig your own grave. This is what we were told anyway by our Jepp instructors. They said, "answer ONLY what they are asking and don't elaborate because if you volunteer additional info, they'll dig deeper and watch you hang yourself". I'd imagine they'd do the same if someone was looking stuff up - pick at your weakness. If you find that you are having to look things up several times, you are not ready...IMO.

Having the ability to reference your books should NOT be used as a crutch or a reason to not study as much as you should. I showed up as ready as I could possibly be. I studied my ass off! But also feel lucky in that my examiner took the time to teach me a few things afterwards. Also, now that I think about it, there were a few times where he asked me to show him where in the FAR/AIM and our O&P specs I would find something specific he was asking me about. He did want me to show him I knew exactly where to look.

Bottom line, whether your examiner chooses to fall on the side of allowing you to reference your materials or he chooses not to allow that - know your stuff and you'll get through it!

 

[jose1337]

I had the same experience as Todd Weber, where Jeppesen had their own op specs for training purposes and we had to use them as appropriate both during school an the O&P.

My oral sounds similar to Todd's as well in that in addition to being grilled on the material, my examiner also gave me multiple scenario based questions in which I had to apply regs and Jepp's op specs.

Ditto at IFOD. After about an hour of oral questions, she told me I passed then spent about 15-30 mins. teaching me about Jepp charts (since IFOD doesn't teach them)...

 

[ljg]

Ditto at IFOD. After about an hour of oral questions, she told me I passed then spent about 15-30 mins. teaching me about Jepp charts (since IFOD doesn't teach them)...

That's a disgrace.

 

[womanpilot73]

Ditto at IFOD. After about an hour of oral questions, she told me I passed then spent about 15-30 mins. teaching me about Jepp charts (since IFOD doesn't teach them)...

An hour?!?! Wow... I'm sure I'd have initially been happy with only an hour, thinking "thank God it's over!", but I think ultimately I'd have felt cheated. Mine was five hours and he tested my knowledge in numerous areas as well as multiple scenario based questions. It took forever but I'm glad we went over so much.

 

[jose1337]

I got 2.5 hours to do my practical and finished it in one, had to wait about 2 hours for her to finish the oral with another student, and then my oral lasted about 1.5 hours. Frankly, I'm glad it was quick because I didn't get the temporary license until almost 8pm, since she didn't arrive from work until about 3pm...

 

[FLTLEVEL180]

My first post……I attended AGS. Not sure about other dispatch schools but one thing to remember is that the designated examiners giving the practical/oral are not employees of AGS, they are independent and working for the FSDO and most have full time jobs as dispatchers. AGS has no control over what examiner you get for your test. You could be paired with one of many examiners.
My opinion is that there’s simply not enough time to look up answers during the oral because the examiner is required to cover all required subject tasks in the PTS. My examiner was top notch and by the book (PTS) and there to test me, not instruct me or watch me look up answers. You don’t have to be perfect but you do have to know your stuff, if you don’t you won’t pass and you’ll have to do some more training and retake the practical/oral but I think AGS does a great job with the training and prepares you very well to pass the first time. If you want to know what’s required for the practical/oral study the Dispatcher Practical Test Standards carefully and thoroughly.
For anyone interested in becoming a dispatcher I recommend contacting each of the schools and talking to them. I contacted AGS, Sheffield, Ifod and Jeppesen and I liked all of them, they were all very nice and helpful. I actually couldn’t decide between the four so I put all four school names on pieces of paper in a hat and picked AGS then I got busy studying. Don’t weigh your decision to heavily on comments here because only a small percentage of people who attend these schools actually post comments compared to the hundreds of people who attend each of these schools every year and never post any feedback.