Whilst I don’t want to get involved anymore especially against someone who obviously has a bone of contempt against civi pilots and/civi flying schools.
Unfortunately DTS comment about having an FI “airborne” standards check is technically correct as an instructor could revalidate their instructors certificate every other 3 years by attending a seminar instead of by a flight test.
To clarify … instructor initially gets rating… 3 yrs later revalidated by either test or seminar and experience… 3yrs later (if the previous renewal was accomplished via seminar) a flight test must be undertaken and experience.
Course its immensely boring and takes 2 days instead of a 2 hour flight, so I don’t really understand why instructors choose this option
But as you said, civi pilots are much more in practice, personally completing 571hrs last year (and that was even with various COVID restrictions. And pretty sure most flying schools will complete their own in house standardisation flights with the CFI/HoT.
Ok I’ll accept the technicality; but for the first revalidation to be signed off there is a minimum hours requirement - so you have to be “in practise” or that goes out the window.
Aside from the very valid point that there are examples where assurance is delegated down to a Wing level, and even at the Sqn level we’re ask to see 3rd party certificates of insurance or qualification
We’re not asking to assure everyone. We’re not even suggesting one per Wing.
Baby steps. Why not start with 10…a nice round number which is very close to the existing number of VGS nationally.
After 3-6 months of work the gliding opportunities could be doubled.
Once that process is smoothed out and streamlined another 3-5 could be considerdd each year. The first 10 are in key locations with poor VGS cover. In 4 years you then have one per Wing and have national coverage…
Just for clarity ACTO 010 does not class any aviation activity from QAIC and ground school activities to flying scholarships as “high risk” all can be approved in SMS at a Sqn level = low risk events
Which is ironic when you consider how it’s demonstrably the most dangerous activity we offer. We’ve lost more cadets to aviation than anything else I’d wager.
Personally, I think a direct comparison between medical standards is misleading.
Take the 2009 midair collision over Abingdon.
A medical event was a factor because the AEF pilot was attempting to perform an aerobatic maneuver, during which he was unable to perform an adequate lookout.
There is no indication that the Glider Pilot’s actions were influenced by any medical issue.
In this particular incident, the lack of RAF standard medical would not have affected the outcome at all.
With regards the Benson one the pilot had restricted movement in hos head/neck yet was signed off by an RAF Dr (who was later sacked) and so couldn’t conduct a full and proper visual all round check before doing aeros.
The Cardiff one the pilots happened to be in the same piece of air unknowingly.
It’s because of this (as i understand it) Tutors are fitted with the proximity FLARM or similar instrument indicating that there is another aircraft near by.
But in both cases there needed to be a death(s) before the fix to the contributing factor was considered.
In the meantime BGA gliders have been using FLARM for years abd years (and why it was a quick fix for the Tutors as a proven priduct) and AME are not paid by the CAA to give good results but by the pilot themselves who isn’t going to throw mot inconsiderable money at the Dr if they know they’ll fail
