Says who? You’ve got nothing to back that up.
Can’t just come and make random statements and expect people to swallow them without question.
1 Like
And let’s cancel the ability to book a driver with a coach when we book white fleet whilst we’re there. If its not a military driver, then how can we prove that they are up to the required standard…?
Ok, medicals.
Following a tragic accident where medical oversight was a factor, all AEF and VGS pilots must have annual written disclosure of GP medical history and interactions.
CAA medical examiners have no visibility of GP medical events at all. Pilots can (and some do) lie their head off in their aviation medical. BGA pilots don’t even have a medical exam, they self declare.
So come on then … without saying “it doesn’t matter” (it does) … how does does the duty holder today demonstrate the equivalent medical standard …?
I can smell something unpleasant that’s coming from the bad end of a bull.
Bore off
3 Likes
So you can’t explain the different standards and procedures so resort to insult? Think that proves the point quite nicely
I know your thing is trolling, which is why nobody else bothers to engage with your pointless, antagonistic, and melon-headed rants, but when you suggest all the pilots will be lying on their medicals, you’ve lost any credibility you like to pretend you have. Adding you to the ignore list now, CBA with your nonsense.
6 Likes
I’m sure a small minority will lie, but the RAFAC way only helps if they are honest with their GP. If they lie to the GP then it makes no difference. But I agree with you. I’m adding him to the ignore list. A great function
1 Like
Stating public domain facts about different medical oversight standards and the fact that BGA pilots don’t have a medical examination is hardly trolling. I gave just one example of how the Duty Holder cannot demonstrate equivalence to accept risk to life safety mitigations for ACTO35. Shall we move onto FI airborne standards checks, once every 6 years for civilian FIs?
It is a fair point @Drainingtheswamp - there is increased risk.
It’s worth considering that the CAA has decided, considering the risk, that self-declaration is an acceptable risk for SPL holders.
They’ve decided that to hold a Class II medical, there is an acceptable risk is that an individual must visit an AME and act with integrity during the examination.
We must remember that the term is ALARP - As Low as Reasonably Practicable.
The RAFAC have decided (while considering risk) that for many other “high risk to life” activities there is an acceptable risk when using external providers.
The RAFAC have concluded that it is not reasonably practicable to inspect all possible BGA sites.
However, RAFAC could instead say that sites must be BGA, instructors must hold an appropriate FI (S) rating, and impose a requirement that instructors must hold a Class II medical (or even Class I, if deemed necessary). These would be reasonably practicable control measures which could be implemented while still allowing the activity to go ahead.
All of the above are things that can be demonstrated by the DDH, should an accident occur. Let us not forget there would also be an AAIB investigation.
We need to remember (not just here, but across the organisation) that the aim is not to eliminate risk. If the aim is to eliminate risk, we must stop all activity.
7 Likes
Enter RC SW…!
9 Likes
Sorry, this is not correct.
An FI rating is valid for three years, in year three the instructor has to revalidate by a number of means…
But you’ve just made the figure of 6 years up. So I’m not confident you have much credibility.
Also the suggestion that a flying club FI would have poorer flying standards is laughable. An average FI will likely be flying many more hours than an average aef pilot… and so therefor would be more current, and likely safer. And also probably more up to date with the latest flying regulation.
The insinuation that aef or military pilots are “hot stuff” and civvie instructors are hillbillies Is offensive. These instructors are teaching the next generation of airline pilots.
It’s a bit like military air traffic controllers, many have little understanding of how light GA works, or grasp what instructions they can or cannot give to civvie GA, because they are so consumed in their narrow field (not a criticism), but just because they’re military doesn’t make them better or safer than anyone else.
2 Likes
An airborne assessment of competence is only required every alternate revalidation = 6 years. FCL 940 FI if you want the legal reference.
I have never said civilian standards, pilots or FIs are worse. The point is that there are differences that a duty holder has to assess and justify and accept (or decide not to).
(Mod edit to remove the hyperlink to nothing.)
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.
1 Like
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Edited because I highlighted the wrong section, mainly because DTS didn’t give the right reference, but I realised the error when I checked it again.
Always happy to admit I’m wrong.
Carry on debating.
That’s a refreshing attitude. Debating on here is often like playing chess with a pigeon.
It’s thick as two planks, will knock over all the pieces, crap on the board then strut around like it owns the place anyway.
3 Likes
If you admit when you’re wrong it makes the times you’re right all the more worthwhile.
I also argue for a living, and in my job we lose about 50% of the time. If we took it to heart we wouldn’t last.
4 Likes
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…
1 Like
Undoubtedly. I see two reasonable routes to consider that matches up with what you’re saying:
- Plug the geographic holes to increase total output
- Use clubs to provide initial experience and then provide higher level/more specialised/tailored training at VGSs with full weekends and extra content
You could even try option 1 and if successful increase the number of clubs and progress into option 2.
1 Like