Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
By cockney steve
#1406287
@ KANGA Whilst all ciuvil serpent and Whitehall edifices are supposed to produce different results, their structure and organisation appears to follow the same fundamentals.

Few, if any, have any true answerability (that falls to the sacrificial Pollie who may well fall off the gravy train at the next election, anyway)
there is a rigid heirarchy and pecking order for pay, perks and rank....keep your nose clean, you've a job for life , early retirement and a pension the private sector envy.

daughter worked for a Consultancy and was seconded to Defence procurement....the money we, the taxpayers, were paying , was obscene.
BUT...she was producing 3 or 4 times more work than the direct employees, and hers was good and valid (theirs was too little , too late and not fit for purpose.) - the taxpayer actually got better value per £ spent! She came across people who could not use their internal computer system to, for instance, request a new printer-cartridge....they had only been there for about 8 years......daughter taught them how,- she'd had a fortnight to learn that!

Some of it is firmly in the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" category, but a lot of Public employees are below par for private industry and only interested in perpetuating their cushy number to pension.

Of necessity, this is a sweeping generalisation.. just ask yourself how this mind-boggling convoluted self-contradicting pseudo legalese Carp ever gets to bacome law....written by fools. checked by fools, passed by fools...don't rock the boat. but don't worry, you will NEVER be held personally responsible, unless you are a doctor (medics at the sharp end are one of the rare exceptions) and kill somebody.

blimey! even Shipman was able to top himself before being struck off and thus his ghastly wife gets his pension !

rant off....I think I've made my point.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1406316
Could I just point out that this discussion is in the Red Tape section which is meant for the CAA to view? I would suggest that the discussion be moved (Mods?) away from here and carried on elsewhere, with the initial post(s) remaining.
#1406327
I still don't really know what other people think the two yearly thing is supposed to do in principle.
As stated, I think it OUGHT to be a means of spotting unacceptable deterioration, and/or fill previous gaps that are seen as really important, and/or improve or show better techniques, always be a communication vehicle on latest problem trends, and a time to catch up with recent and future changes for those who don't spend half their lives reading magazines, forums and information notices. Any big disagreement?
In other words, I think the intention should be to gradually bring up the overall level of skill and knowledge of the SEP or TMG population, whilst keeping a communication channel open to every sep/tmg pilot.... A very measurable percentage have dropped off the radar by not updating addresses, so the authorities can't even talk to them by letter!
At the moment, I think some instructors see it like that (above) but only have an hour in the aircraft, and no guidance or regulation that encourages them to do anything but an hour's flight. Sadly, it seems clear to me that some other instructors do see it is a paperwork process and nothing else. Their goal is merely to get the pilot's paperwork signed up for another two years as that is what regulation requires, and if all that is preventing that only is an hour dual of nothing other than doing something not relevant, with no value add, then so be it. They have no vision or ambition on what could be achieved over the whole sep/tmg population generally.
Hence, my point that the instructor OUGHT to feel responsible for the pilot once released back into the wild as "pic capable" and this might mean much more than an hour in air and lots on the ground, or it might mean a chat about time to consider hanging up the flying helmet or always flying with another pilot before anyone gets hurt.
There is no need to bring in who taught them to fly, where and when, other than perhaps to log it to see if there were any trends later, the latest instructor is the key, and if they don't want that responsibility -hey... Don't do biennials! After an incident for the pilot, I don't mean the "latest instructor" is automatically suspected of something, but I think if instructors were drawn in to discussion after any future incident, more would be interested in what their work and standards looked like with hindsight.
I really sorry to say, unless I am wrong and the whole concept is meant to be just a paperwork process, I think there is little chance of a good majority of UK instructors joining in such a scheme that I outlined unless there is a chance that hindsight will reveal something less than desirable in their own knowledge or attitude.
By cockney steve
#1406376
Whilst I see the benifits of Mr. Lees' proposal, I see one fatal flaw,- that is ,the subjective appraisal is in the hands of a Commercial examiner who has a vested interest in "remedial instruction"
I would like to think that all such people are totally objective and detatched from the commercial realities of "closed shop" exploitation.

I do like the idea of a one-hour flight once avery 2 years, 1/2 hour to be appraisal, 1/2 hour to be coaching...perhaps an option to sign off as OK, or " licence restricted to instructor-acompanied , until satisfactory standard demonstrated in x,y,z, A bit like getting an eye-test,but the prescription is handed to theexamined, who is free to shop around for corrective requirements.....having said that, funny how the "free market" comes up with very, very closely matched prices.
By bookworm
#1406448
cockney steve wrote:Whilst I see the benifits of Mr. Lees' proposal, I see one fatal flaw,- that is ,the subjective appraisal is in the hands of a Commercial examiner who has a vested interest in "remedial instruction"
I would like to think that all such people are totally objective and detatched from the commercial realities of "closed shop" exploitation.


This is a problem in principle with any assessment or examination carried out by industry rather than government. Many of us have annual LPCs for instrument ratings and/or MEPs, where the market is smaller and potentially open to much greater abuse. In practice, such abuse is almost completely unknown -- the vast majority of GA examiners do not do what they do to exploit a market opportunity, they do it because they know that if they and others like them don't, then the activity for which they have a passion will eventually wither and die.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1406483
Irv wrote:I would make the instructor more 'responsible'. Have a ground element where the current hot topics and relevant GA accidents and incidents (eg: infringements, preflight planning, landings, etc) have to be discussed and training (both ground and flight) given on mitigation measures. The list of compulsory topics could be produced on a regular basis by involved organisations.


My bold

Irv, you suggest making the instructor more responsible, but then suggest that all sorts of organisations get involved in telling the instructor how to do his or her job. This stuff really isn't difficult - why do any more than adopt the FAA's BFR system?

Ian
By low&slow
#1406498
G-BLEW wrote:This stuff really isn't difficult - why do any more than adopt the FAA's BFR system?

Because we already have it.

If you like the idea of a biennial check flight then just revalidate by proficiency check. From the punter's point of view the qualifications of the person in the right seat are irrelevant, the punter is still expected to take off & fly around for a bit to show that he or she is safe to act as PIC for another 2 years.

The practical effect of copying the FAA is to remove the opportunity to substitute the biennial review with some useful training that might actually improve a pilot's skills.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1406502
The practical effect of copying the FAA is to remove the opportunity to substitute the biennial review with some useful training that might actually improve a pilot's skills.


Not sure I understand where the 'remove' but comes from - surely it would result in

- A simple system understood by all
- At least an hour's worth of ground discussion to cover regulatory change/current hot topics
- At least an hour's worth of flight where an appropriate skill level is demonstrated

Ian
User avatar
By kanga
#1406686
cockney steve wrote:@ KANGA Whilst all ciuvil serpent and Whitehall edifices are supposed to produce different results, their structure and organisation appears to follow the same fundamentals.

Few, if any, have any true answerability ..

.. daughter worked for a Consultancy .

....I think I've made my point.


<trying really hard not to make this personal .. :roll: >

my only initial challenge (which remains unanswered) was to the phrase 'job-creation'. For that to be sustainable in the context of this thread, I reckon that one should have sincerely to believe, and preferably to have supporting evidence, that a group of regulators or their managers had got together and said 'we could make this really simple, but if we make this unnecessarily complicated we can hire more people'. I am reluctant (without evidence) to believe this happened, nor even to believe it or its equivalent happens elsewhere. I have not observed it anywhere in a career which has encompassed civil and military, public and private sector, aviation and other, lowly to senior management.

I have, however, observed systematic inefficiencies in practice and attitudes in all sorts of workplaces; but they often seem to have been the result of failures in (often very senior) management, in both discipline and training; not among the 'workers'. This has been exaggerated and aggravated in recent decades (since '80s) precisely by the increasing presence of external 'consultants' (in both public and private sector, including in military). These are often engaged in the name of 'efficiency', but they can lead to the imposition of outsourcing in the same name, and this can create its own inefficiencies. Thus, very senior managers (Board or, in public sector, Ministers) engage 'Consultants' who recommend the outsourcing of functions. Contracts are agreed at those very senior levels with outsourcing contractors (in the public sector, drawn from a very small list whose expertise is in drafting tender documents which meet Treasury standards, but whose record in delivery thereafter is often dismal; this poor track record appears not to disqualify them from future bids. Those contracts may specify that all functions within a category must be carried out only by those outsourced contractors, and any crossing of lines would imperil the contracts. This is filtered out from the very top through properly (with experience of Board/Ministers' attitudes) cautious middle managers to the workers. So what might have started as 'all IT support must be referred to the Contractor' at the top becomes 'only Contractor personnel may change a print cartridge' at the bottom. Within a short time lowly managers have not dared to teach new even lowlier workers how to do the change. Then along comes a conscientious outsider (such as the cited daughter, whom I have no reason to doubt nor disparage, and do not do so) who shows them how easy it is, but mentally blames them for their incompetence or wilful indolence. This I have seen happen (yes, over print cartridges) in (others') workplaces. There are analogous media tales of similar things in PFI hospitals saddled with building maintenance contracts over changing light bulbs.

When this sort of 'demarcation dispute' led to industrial unrest in British factories, the media were quick to blame blinkered Trades Unions attitudes. I fear that there are now equally, perhaps more, dangerous blinkers at very senior management levels. Perhaps there always were.

The good news is that (as I read in business page articles) some important UK companies are bringing support services back 'in-house'. Presumably they can thus be made both better value and more responsive. The bad (to me) news is that there is little sign that Ministers (and those seconded at senior levels from the City into Treasury) have done much to change their shibboleth of the inevitably greater efficiency of the private sector and outsourcing; although there were some stories that the former Business Secretary, stung by the City 'advice' which the Treasury received over a privatisation, had come to look askance at such advisors. But he is no longer in post.

.. I hope I've made my point :oops:
By Emerald Islander
#1406731
My earlier post was slightly incorrect. FAA instructors cannot fail a pilot undergoing the biennial, but they can refuse to endorse the license; however the pilot can simply find another instructor.
US pilots who complete a wings module (usually 3 hours training) are exempt for the biennial.

The key issue regarding revalidation is whether the instructor should have a role in evaluating the pilots proficiency and if so to what extent. Given the high number of pilots opting to go the experience route its clear most GA pilots don’t want a formal proficiency evaluation.

The real problem for EASA PPL revalidation is the whole scramble in the last 3 months of the second year before the rating expires and the consequences of getting it wrong. In comparison the US pilot can take the flight review with an expired rating to regain currency.
User avatar
By Irv Lee
#1406862
G-BLEW wrote:
Irv wrote:I would make the instructor more 'responsible'.

My bold

Irv, you suggest making the instructor more responsible, but then suggest that all sorts of organisations get involved in telling the instructor how to do his or her job. This stuff really isn't difficult - why do any more than adopt the FAA's BFR system?
Ian

We have had fifteen years of seeing what having "a training hour" does in practice, I think standards, airmanship and knowledge in the general "reval by experience" population have crashed.
A lot of the guidance I am talking about from organisations is, for example, relevant discussion and exploration of the Significant Six http://www.gasco.org.uk/safety-evenings ... ening.aspx - When the organisations think these significant six need changing to the fatal four or the accidental eight as the hot safety topics of the year, then these become the ones to discuss, along with other things seen to be needed, eg does the pilot understand his own licence. (A lapl holder flying to Ukraine is my favourite in the past 12 months.. "But it is Europe...").
So whatever are seen to be the things causing or helping prevent accidents, airproxes, regulation problems, mitigate infringements, plus common "fails" in understanding, etc, guess what, within two years, everyone with sep/tmg will have heard about them and maybe learned from knowing about them, and had the opportunity for face to face discussion about them rather than trying to read something they can't understand. It is hard to beat face to face for the confusing stuff.
Due to the required meeting of instructor/pilot every two years, we have a communication and safety enhancement opportunity available to us, yet this has not been enthusiastically and voluntarily exploited much beyond a goal of meeting the regulation word for word... If it says an hour flight training, that is all most get.
On the flying side, I am against the "hour" being specified as such. It should be whatever is necessary to get the instructor to let the guy loose again as pic, and because the guy faced with being told he really needs more training than an hour could go to an instructor who is a mate and get signed off, it needs the idea that this sign off decision may be examined later.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1406867
I think this thread is conflating two separate but important issues:

1. The current process is complex, confusing and ineffficient. It is barely understood by many, and as a consequence many may be flying illegally.

2. The Revilidation by Experience concept does little to improve pilot skills or knowledge.

It would, I think, be good to split the two since 1 is discussing a process improvement whilst 2 is an entirely new process. Waiting for 2 (which is a fundamental shift and won't therefore happen for many years (because EASA)) will stymie any impovement in 1 which could happen faster (but EASA... however CAA has some local clout) and would itself be valuable.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1406915
We have had fifteen years of seeing what having "a training hour" does in practice, I think standards, airmanship and knowledge in the general "reval by experience" population have crashed.

Irv, a literal translation of this statement seems to suggest that from an initial high point of not having to have any revalidation flight whatsoever, the introduction of the revalidation requirements has subsequently led to a "crash" in standards, airmanship and knowledge.
All this despite the CAA's own safety review showing no improvement in safety statistics since the introduction of the revalidation flight in 2000.
Last edited by flybymike on Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1406916
Irv Lee wrote:A very measurable percentage have dropped off the radar by not updating addresses, so the authorities can't even talk to them by letter!


There was a thread on change of address recently...
User avatar
By peter272
#1406923
Just a few points

1) Please can we dispense with the 'don't need to fly in the first year, then 12 the second'. Couldn't we insist on 6 per year?

2) I've seen evidence of instructors forcing pilots into additional hours of instructional flying and clubs who don't understand the rules themselves

3) A lot of pilots are simply terrified of doing the proficiency test and will give up rather than face this

4) Personally I have no problem in doing the instructional hour and fly it in the sense it is meant - a way of refreshing skills. But I would not want to follow a pre-defined menu favoured by an instructor. I've seen that abused by certain instructors

On the other hand I do know my main weaknesses and would want to concentrate on those during the flight.