ipsg.glf wrote:Seems fairly straight forward to me. I can't imagine our BiB's having any difficulty with it.
You'd be surprised.
martine wrote: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.
martine wrote: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.
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.
martine wrote: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.
zadocbrown wrote: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.
MGF wrote: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.
Big Err wrote: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.
ipsg.glf wrote:Seems fairly straight forward to me. I can't imagine our BiB's having any difficulty with it.
MGF wrote:zadocbrown wrote: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?
waremark wrote: 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.
crr003 wrote:ipsg.glf wrote: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).
MGF wrote:zadocbrown wrote: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.
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.
daz6215 wrote:waremark wrote: 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.
waremark wrote:daz6215 wrote:waremark wrote: 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.
zadocbrown wrote:MGF wrote:zadocbrown wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests