DfT 2007 Accident Stats

[Big Err]

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

You'd be surprised.

[MGF]

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.

Seems black and white to me. An hour with an instructor is not a test. It is important to make that distinction and not to attempt to pass it off as such.

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.

I don't dispute flying is more stringently self-regulated than driving with regards to re-tests but one is still 'allowed' to fly indefinitely on PPL without a re-test

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.

You are conflating self-regulation and practice with what is 'allowed'. Perfectly reasonable to make the point on self-regulation but unhelpful to try and argue this as meaning a holder of a PPL is not 'allowed' to maintain his licence without re-testing.

[MGF]

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.

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.

Why do you believe that would improve road safety?

Have a look at the current situation.

The vast majority of people who have passed their test recently are under the age of 25.

The vast majority of people who passed their test 20 years ago and not been re-tested since are over 40.

Now compare accident statistics for each group. I would suggest those drivers who haven't passed a test for a long time are much safer drivers than those who have passed one recently.

Re-testing sounds good but I haven't seen any evidence that it would provide us with any significant advantage in terms of road safety.

Having said that we might benefit from staged testing with wider rights gained with each stage.

[ipsg.glf]

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

You'd be surprised.

In what way do people struggle with it?

[martine]

You are conflating self-regulation and practice with what is 'allowed'. Perfectly reasonable to make the point on self-regulation but unhelpful to try and argue this as meaning a holder of a PPL is not 'allowed' to maintain his licence without re-testing.

I agree with you if you look at the precise legal position but my central point, which you may like to comment on, is trying to highlight the difference in attitude (and practice) between driving and flying. If people drove with the same attitude that is inheirant in flying I am sure we'd have safer roads. In aviation extreme safety is built in to all training, maintenance, design, methods and practise and regulation even at PPL level.

Do you agree MGF?

[crr003]

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.

Great more stuff to read!

I like this one:

102 Deposit on road (eg. oil, mud, chippings)
Include any deposit arising from human (or animal) activity which has made sections of the road surface slippery or which has caused traction control problems for a vehicle.

[crr003]

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

You can't see any chance of error with this? There's a load of stuff being asked (some of it needing measurements?).
A quick read also implies the STATS19 can be filled in after the event at a Police Station from a person reporting the incident - who can possibly verify the data? Maybe these data are ignored, but why bother taking the report then?

1.26 DID A POLICE OFFICER ATTEND THE SCENE AND OBTAIN THE DETAILS FOR THIS REPORT?
CODES
1. Yes
2. No
NOTES
A. Code 1 should be used where a police officer attended the scene of the accident and obtained the details for this report. It is not necessary for the reporting officer to have witnessed the actual accident for code 1 to be used.
B. Code 2 should be used in all other cases (eg. accident reported "over the counter" at a police station).

[waremark]

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.

Why do you believe that would improve road safety?

As a PPL holder I consider my flight with an instructor every two years makes a material contribution both to the maintenance of my skills and to my motivation to continue to fly well. Although not billed as a test, the qualified flight instructor has to sign off that the flight was conducted to an adequate standard.

I think there are proven accident reduction benefits of defensive driving courses in corporate fleets. This supports the argument that retraining for all drivers on a regular basis would improve road safety.

Of course newer drivers are less safe that experienced drivers - but the experienced drivers could be safer still. Furthermore, a culture of regular retraining would also improve the attitude of new drivers - and the quality of driving by family and friends to which they have been exposed in their impressionable pre-driving years.

I personally would like to see compulsory license renewal every ten years, with a requirement to have attended a one day refresher course. Of course this would have to be paid for by drivers, and would have to be introduced over time to allow the instructor infrastructure to be built up to cope. I would like to see a seperate instructor qualification for delivering further training to exisiting drivers, since the existing ADI qualification is widely thought by advanced driver trainers to be almost irrelevant to their work.

[daz6215]

I would like to see a seperate instructor qualification for delivering further training to exisiting drivers, since the existing ADI qualification is widely thought by advanced driver trainers to be almost irrelevant to their work.

There are already fleet qualifications to meet this need.

[ipsg.glf]

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

You can't see any chance of error with this? There's a load of stuff being asked (some of it needing measurements?).
A quick read also implies the STATS19 can be filled in after the event at a Police Station from a person reporting the incident - who can possibly verify the data? Maybe these data are ignored, but why bother taking the report then?

1.26 DID A POLICE OFFICER ATTEND THE SCENE AND OBTAIN THE DETAILS FOR THIS REPORT?
CODES
1. Yes
2. No
NOTES
A. Code 1 should be used where a police officer attended the scene of the accident and obtained the details for this report. It is not necessary for the reporting officer to have witnessed the actual accident for code 1 to be used.
B. Code 2 should be used in all other cases (eg. accident reported "over the counter" at a police station).

Am I missing something? What is difficult about viewing a RTC scene and filling in a form? Of course, there will be errors - whenever this is human interaction there will be errors but I don't understand what training a PC needs in order to be able to fill in the form.

[zadocbrown]

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.

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.

Why do you believe that would improve road safety?

Have a look at the current situation.

The vast majority of people who have passed their test recently are under the age of 25.

The vast majority of people who passed their test 20 years ago and not been re-tested since are over 40.

Now compare accident statistics for each group. I would suggest those drivers who haven't passed a test for a long time are much safer drivers than those who have passed one recently.

Re-testing sounds good but I haven't seen any evidence that it would provide us with any significant advantage in terms of road safety.

Having said that we might benefit from staged testing with wider rights gained with each stage.

Oh dear. This is a pet hate of mine.

Of course inexperienced drivers are more at risk; why should we be surprised by this? I would be horrified if 20 years experience didn't yield some safety benifit!

If we want to reduce casualties we need to act across the board. What's the point of bullying Robinson junior about his dodgy driving habits when he's only copying Robinson senior's dodgy habits?

Young drivers need good role models. They don't have any. If older drivers take a complacent attitude to their own driving, and this is sanctioned by society, youngsters will follow suit.

I think we all agree the L-test is very basic and doesn't guarantee a lifetime's safe driving. So the only options are : a) much harder L-test (not just tinkering) or b) further testing with the opportunity to attain a higher standard. I think b is a more reasonable option, unless we want to price most people off the roads.

I challenge anyone to suggest that the average 'experienced' driver wouldn't be safer if they took further training and took a pride in their driving.

[waremark]

I would like to see a seperate instructor qualification for delivering further training to exisiting drivers, since the existing ADI qualification is widely thought by advanced driver trainers to be almost irrelevant to their work.

There are already fleet qualifications to meet this need.

But at the moment the ADI qualification is a pre-requisite. I suggest that a ROSPA Diploma (or more widely available equivalent) should be sufficient to permit you to sell qualified driver training.

[vonhosen]

I would like to see a seperate instructor qualification for delivering further training to exisiting drivers, since the existing ADI qualification is widely thought by advanced driver trainers to be almost irrelevant to their work.

There are already fleet qualifications to meet this need.

But at the moment the ADI qualification is a pre-requisite. I suggest that a ROSPA Diploma (or more widely available equivalent) should be sufficient to permit you to sell qualified driver training.

That's not going to happen is it ?

The DSA will have no control over it.

[vonhosen]

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.

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.

Why do you believe that would improve road safety?

Have a look at the current situation.

The vast majority of people who have passed their test recently are under the age of 25.

The vast majority of people who passed their test 20 years ago and not been re-tested since are over 40.

Now compare accident statistics for each group. I would suggest those drivers who haven't passed a test for a long time are much safer drivers than those who have passed one recently.

Re-testing sounds good but I haven't seen any evidence that it would provide us with any significant advantage in terms of road safety.

Having said that we might benefit from staged testing with wider rights gained with each stage.

Oh dear. This is a pet hate of mine.

Of course inexperienced drivers are more at risk; why should we be surprised by this? I would be horrified if 20 years experience didn't yield some safety benifit!

If we want to reduce casualties we need to act across the board. What's the point of bullying Robinson junior about his dodgy driving habits when he's only copying Robinson senior's dodgy habits?

Young drivers need good role models. They don't have any. If older drivers take a complacent attitude to their own driving, and this is sanctioned by society, youngsters will follow suit.

I think we all agree the L-test is very basic and doesn't guarantee a lifetime's safe driving. So the only options are : a) much harder L-test (not just tinkering) or b) further testing with the opportunity to attain a higher standard. I think b is a more reasonable option, unless we want to price most people off the roads.

I challenge anyone to suggest that the average 'experienced' driver wouldn't be safer if they took further training and took a pride in their driving.

The DSA are looking at a different option. It's not the testing (an hours test is never going to tell you what someone is really like), it's the way people learn that is looking at being addressed.
The difficulty with that is it means a complete overhaul for all DSA examiners & ADIs.
It'll no doubt also mean that anyone who wants to learn is going to have to go through an ADI.

[michael769]

But at the moment the ADI qualification is a pre-requisite. I suggest that a ROSPA Diploma (or more widely available equivalent) should be sufficient to permit you to sell qualified driver training.

While a very good qualification it does not contain any elements about the particular training needs of someone who has never driven. I suspect that diploma holders would be perfectly capable of doing so, but they have never proved their ability in the way that an ADI is required to do every 2-4 years.

ADIs also now have to prove that they are a fit and proper person to be allowed to train people who may themselves in a vulnerable group. I wonder if most RoADA diploma candidates who do not plan to teach learners would be comfortable with the need to under go a criminal records check and to provide references just to get the diploma.