ADUK Archive

vonhosen wrote:

MGF wrote:

zadocbrown wrote:Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

Flying a plane?

You need check tests for a plane don't you ?

Certainly in gliding you would expect to have an annual check flight - and if you don't keep "current" - ie fly regularly - then you'll be given a check flight too.

Driving is another strange on in that you could have passed your test 20 years ago, not driven for 19, and then go out and try to carry on where you left off. Another discrepancy is that in aviation you'd expect additional training for every different type of aircraft you fly - so you couldn't learn in a cessna, then go and hop in a learjet. But (insurance aside) there's nothing to stop you learning to drive in a 1l Corsa then going out and buying a 911 after passing your test.

vonhosen wrote:

MGF wrote:

zadocbrown wrote:Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

Flying a plane?

You need check tests for a plane don't you ?

Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

zadocbrown wrote:Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

Having a baby?

waremark wrote:Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

Indeed plus regular medicals decreasing in interval as you get older. Aircraft insurance often specifies regular flights (to keep your hand in) + many aero clubs insist on flights within 4-6 weeks - if not then your first flight must be a 'check flight' with an instructor.

Aviation is very safe but potentially very dangerous - it's regulated much more than cars/driving to keep it that way but some think it's over the top.

waremark wrote:

vonhosen wrote:

MGF wrote:

zadocbrown wrote:Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

Flying a plane?

You need check tests for a plane don't you ?

Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

But that's not a test is it?

Would it be enough just to ask drivers to have a lesson with a driving instructor every few years as well as declare they have been driving recently?

jont wrote:Certainly in gliding you would expect to have an annual check flight - and if you don't keep "current" - ie fly regularly - then you'll be given a check flight too.

Not by law you wouldn't. Indeed there is no legal requirment to pass any test in the first place to fly a glider.

martine wrote:Indeed plus regular medicals decreasing in interval as you get older.

The quote didn't refer to medicals merely post-test training and assessment and I think it reasonable to state that there is not much difference between a standard DL and a PPL in that respect

MGF wrote:

waremark wrote:

vonhosen wrote:

MGF wrote:

zadocbrown wrote:Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

Flying a plane?

You need check tests for a plane don't you ?

Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

But that's not a test is it?

Would it be enough just to ask drivers to have a lesson with a driving instructor every few years as well as declare they have been driving recently?

I think that is more realistic than demanding that all drivers be formally re-tested every five or ten years, because even an hour of tuition/assessment every few years would still entail a considerable increase in the work load on ADIs.

It shouldn't be necessary to seek a declaration that a person has been driving recently. The hour of assessment would surely yield more reliable verification of that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

MGF wrote:

waremark wrote:Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

But that's not a test is it?

Not a 'test' in the sense that you can fail but it is a legal requirement to have the flight with an instructor every 2 years and it's syllabus is defined.

MGF wrote:Would it be enough just to ask drivers to have a lesson with a driving instructor every few years as well as declare they have been driving recently?

I think insisting every driver has some feedback from an ADI on a regular basis would be a good start...perhaps make it a pass/fail once the idea is accepted?

MGF wrote:The quote didn't refer to medicals merely post-test training and assessment and I think it reasonable to state that there is not much difference between a standard DL and a PPL in that respect

Oh I disagree - the whole 'safety' ethos in aviation for both man and machine is much more embedded. It is accepted that all pilots have regular monitoring, training and testing after initial qualification for different aircraft (single engine, mult-engine, jet, retractable, weights etc) and types of flight (poor weather, night, aerobatics etc). It's unusual for any pilot (even a PPL) not to have been formally tested for any period of time for one reason or another.

martine wrote:

MGF wrote:

waremark wrote:Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

But that's not a test is it?

Not a 'test' in the sense that you can fail but it is a legal requirement to have the flight with an instructor every 2 years and it's syllabus is defined.

That's not a test in any sense is it? Holders of a PPL are not required to have regular tests to maintain their licence.

martine wrote:It's unusual for any pilot (even a PPL) not to have been formally tested for any period of time for one reason or another.

But it's not a legal requirement is it? Therefore it must be 'allowed'. You can hold a PPL indefinately without any further assessment and only 1 hour of flying with an instructor every two years.

That seems to me to be a good example of what zadocbrown was referring to.

MGF wrote:

martine wrote:Not a 'test' in the sense that you can fail but it is a legal requirement to have the flight with an instructor every 2 years and it's syllabus is defined.

That's not a test in any sense is it? Holders of a PPL are not required to have regular tests to maintain their licence.

Not quite as black and white as that.

If you own your own aircraft and have a super-friendly insurance company then yes you could do the 1 hour with an instructor every 2 years and be legal...

But in practice if you belong to a flying club they will insist you have regular 'check' flights (often annually) and if you are not up to the required standard, you will not be allowed by the club to use their aircraft - so that's a true test in your words but not a legal requirement.

There is a legal requirement if you wish to take passengers, to have done 3 landing/take-offs in the preceeding 90 days...so if you did the minimum as above, you wouldn't be legally allowed to fly with passengers for 21 out of the 24 months.

Also, as I said, many insurance companies (all?) insist on regular flights to maintain 'currency' and this can be as short as 4 weeks - so if you don't fly during this period, your next must be a check flight.

MGF wrote:

martine wrote:It's unusual for any pilot (even a PPL) not to have been formally tested for any period of time for one reason or another.

But it's not a legal requirement is it? Therefore it must be 'allowed'. You can hold a PPL indefinately without any further assessment and only 1 hour of flying with an instructor every two years.

That seems to me to be a good example of what zadocbrown was referring to.

No not really - what's 'allowed' is not practical for all the pilots I have ever come across. Training, checks, tests and safety are inheirant in aviation - quite different to the situation for non-professional car drivers.

The corporate manslaughter bill is pushing company's to take added responsibility for their staff driving on company business, involving regular assessments of driving competency and highway code knowledge to keep them up to date, and there is also CPC coming in for bus and LGV, things are changing in the work place regarding driving and hopefully it will filter through onto the roads given time.

MGF wrote:

martine wrote:

MGF wrote:

waremark wrote:Flight with an instructor every two years as well as 12 hours in the year up to renewal to keep a PPL alive. Excellent idea.

But that's not a test is it?

Not a 'test' in the sense that you can fail but it is a legal requirement to have the flight with an instructor every 2 years and it's syllabus is defined.

That's not a test in any sense is it? Holders of a PPL are not required to have regular tests to maintain their licence.

martine wrote:It's unusual for any pilot (even a PPL) not to have been formally tested for any period of time for one reason or another.

But it's not a legal requirement is it? Therefore it must be 'allowed'. You can hold a PPL indefinately without any further assessment and only 1 hour of flying with an instructor every two years.

That seems to me to be a good example of what zadocbrown was referring to.

I think it's clear that, in practice, pilots do keep up to date. If it didn't happen, and there were accidents as a result, I think we'd soon see people compelled to take more training. Which is exactly what I would like to see happen for driving.

Private flying is a whole different ball game from private driving. I imagine PPL holders are mostly enthusiasts who don't need to be beaten with a stick to realise they're vulnerable (surely not hard to appreciate when you're in a tin can x thousand feet up in the air!) .

I think a comparison with professional airline pilots would be more revealing. Drivers and airline pilots are in both cases engaged in activities which will seem to them routine, even boring at times; and yet many lives depend on their actions. I'd bet my house and car that pilots who fly every day are not just left to their own devices for years on end! And in any case, the training is much more rigorous in the first place.

StressedDave wrote:I'm not convinced personally by the STATS19 figures as I know how they're collected (from a form filled out by any Tom, Dick or Harry PC who may or may not have appropriate training) and as such could be a subjective opinion.

Bobby turns up to RTC, hears verbal account from witnesses about how the accident occured and fills in appropriate forms. Job done.

Isn't everything Plod does largely open to subjective opinion?

Does every PC need to be a Collision Investigator or Forensic Scientist in order to work out that Joe Bloggs pulled out in front of a double decker and got squashed in the process.

zadocbrown wrote:I think a comparison with professional airline pilots would be more revealing. Drivers and airline pilots are in both cases engaged in activities which will seem to them routine, even boring at times; and yet many lives depend on their actions. I'd bet my house and car that pilots who fly every day are not just left to their own devices for years on end! And in any case, the training is much more rigorous in the first place.

Indeed.

I'm struggling to think of something that is comparable to driving yet doesn't have regular testing/checks etc as per your original post.

It would however be fair to argue that since 'only' 2800 people die every year yet millions do it, it is indeed safe and doesn't need further regulation.

I suppose the difference is it's not a hobby or so called 'dangerous sport' or holiday pastime that you might expect to have risk - driving is treated as routine and part of ordinary life and comparable to sitting at home watching TV in it's mundaness. I'm trying to justify further regulation to perhaps compulsory re-testing...what do others think?

ipsg.glf wrote:

StressedDave wrote:I'm not convinced personally by the STATS19 figures as I know how they're collected (from a form filled out by any Tom, Dick or Harry PC who may or may not have appropriate training) and as such could be a subjective opinion.

Bobby turns up to RTC, hears verbal account from witnesses about how the accident occured and fills in appropriate forms. Job done.

Isn't everything Plod does largely open to subjective opinion?

Yes and no.... The issue with filling in the STATS 19 is not so much the definitive details such as time of day, light conditions, surface conditions and vicinity of junctions (although there are mistakes that get made here), it is the causation factors / collision factors and how the details are entered.

Take a look at :

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... thecom5094

Go to Page 84 and work your way through the causation factors and consider how they can be applied. Now consider the mountain of information that gets collated and how the statistics roll out.......

Big Err wrote:

ipsg.glf wrote:

StressedDave wrote:I'm not convinced personally by the STATS19 figures as I know how they're collected (from a form filled out by any Tom, Dick or Harry PC who may or may not have appropriate training) and as such could be a subjective opinion.

Bobby turns up to RTC, hears verbal account from witnesses about how the accident occured and fills in appropriate forms. Job done.

Isn't everything Plod does largely open to subjective opinion?

Yes and no.... The issue with filling in the STATS 19 is not so much the definitive details such as time of day, light conditions, surface conditions and vicinity of junctions (although there are mistakes that get made here), it is the causation factors / collision factors and how the details are entered.

Take a look at :

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... thecom5094

Go to Page 84 and work your way through the causation factors and consider how they can be applied. Now consider the mountain of information that gets collated and how the statistics roll out.......

Seems fairly straight forward to me. I can't imagine our BiB's having any difficulty with it.