[flybymike]

ANd your statistics showing it does not contribute are where?

The introduction in 1999 of new revalidation requirements contained within JAR-FCL had no significant effect on the number of serious incidents and accidents involving fixed-wing GA (Single Engine Piston) aircraft for both private pilots and instructors.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Paper200705.pdf

[PaulB]

.... and comparing with the FAA system?

ISTR a stat here the other week showing that the UK had a lower fatal accident rate than the US.

[GrahamB]

The current system may have had no significant effect on the number of serious incidents and accidents but that doesn't doesn't mean it may not have had any effect at all.

After all, RTF muppetry has all but disappeared, and infringements are at an all time low.

[flybymike]

infringements are at an all time low.

They almost certainly are.

They are just including an infringement of everyone’s back garden in the statistics these days.....

[Pilot Pete]

I won't claim to be a great pilot but I don't have any issue flying with an instructor at any time for a proficiency check, or otherwise (in the context of underperforming).
I'm quite sure the instructor will have some comments, positive and constructively critical.
I have been witness to more than one pilot who dreaded the thought.
I will happily say that I know why (in the case of the individuals I'm thinking of), It's because they were on the side of very sketchy their general skill set.
I Can't be the only one who has witnessed/known a pilot, who they would fly with, but wouldn't get in a back seat if the guy didn't have another 'better' pilot up front.
That to me is something that needs careful consideration.

[flybymike]

I’ve only met one pilot I wouldn’t fly with and that was because he was a blithering idiot and a pillock.

He didn’t worry about instructor flights in the slightest, because he didn’t bother having any.

Idiots don’t become sensible after receiving instruction. It’s a way of life for them.

[Pilot Pete]

Yes, idiots will be idiots but when the suff hits the whirry thing will they have the skills to deal with it.
In my speculation (after all, who am I to judge) none of the pilots have been idiots.
They have just not been willing see a 'threshold of skill level' that they had perhaps now fallen below.
It seems clear to me that in their circumstances, various instructors have been quite lenient (trying to be helpful)
and signed them off for another 2 years.
IMHO it should be a little easier for the instructor to steer such individuals toward improvement by some mechanism.
It occurs for IR(r) and IR. If you're not good enough, you're not good enough.
Some pilots will readily and happily see that for themselves. Others need a push.

[foxmoth]

It seems clear to me that in their circumstances, various instructors have been quite lenient (trying to be helpful)
and signed them off for another 2 years.

That is part of the problem, the instructor is supposed to sign their logbook whatever their standard, he does not have to sign the licence (may not even have the dispensation to do so) but they can they just go to an examiner for that and there is no requirement for the examiner to fly with them.

[JAFO]

Aren't we all trying to make this seem a little more difficult than it is? VFR bimbling and bacon butty runs are not rocket trips to the moon.

Instrument flying is a different skill, commercial aviation different again. These need regular checking but light aviation the way most private pilots go about it ain't really that complex as long as you're in reasonable practice and try not to be a complete buffoon.

Perhaps the reason the instructor hour hasn't had an impact on the accident rate is that the accidents there are are just the ones which will always just crop up anyway.

[Crash one]

The instructor is only obliged to sign the log book in order to confirm that instruction has been given.
He is not signing anything involving the pilot’s capabilities.
The examiner is only signing the licence having “examined” the instructor’s signature.
The CAA will then revalidate after confirming the signatures and licence numbers are genuine, I would hope!
Although, in the case of the NPPL, no paperwork is sent to CAA or anyone else.

[Dave W]

The CAA will then revalidate after confirming the signatures and licence numbers are genuine,

Surely Revalidation occurs at the instant of the Examiner's/FCL.945 Instructor's signature on the licence?

CAA Central are not involved at that point as to whether RbyE occurs.

[Pilot Pete]

Aren't we all trying to make this seem a little more difficult than it is? VFR bimbling and bacon butty runs are not rocket trips to the moon.

I don't disagree entirely, but my personal baseline is set approximately around whether I would happily sit in the back on said bacon butty run.
So if I fly with a guy 4 up in a cherokee and he seems flustered by a recurring stall warner on climbout or approach, or confused as to which runway is to the left of him after entering the ATZ, I shouldn't hope an instructor has the power to encourage him to improve?
Some people will unhappily operate at that level long term. Yes I mean unhappily, as I believe they often know that they are struggling slightly but won't make the effort directly themselves.
So I do believe that the hour with an instructor is worthless or requires a little bit of a tweek.

[PaulB]

So if I fly with a guy 4 up in a cherokee and he seems flustered by a recurring stall warner on climbout or approach, or confused as to which runway is to the left of him after entering the ATZ, I shouldn't hope an instructor has the power to encourage him to improve?

... but they don't necessarily, because the training hour is what the pilot wants to do.

[johnm]

For reasons of aircraft maintenance and holidays I will probably not have flown for 3 months come March. My first flight will therefore be with an instructor and I'll be seeking criticism and reminders of areas I need to brush up on.....I will brush up in his company and then make sure I have the requisite 3 take offs and 3 landings and hopefully return to normal activities.

[Kemble Pitts]

Having started the previous thread on this topic, I've not got the will to try to add anything more to the 'how else to do it' debate; valid debate as that is.

However, as an instructor, I actually enjoy providing the '1 hour' to pilots. Its quite satisfying to gently prod a slightly nervous or ham-fisted pilot into doing things better, to show them that they can be a more proficient pilot. Maybe even inspire them to aim higher?

Many of the pilots I fly with never, of their own volition, practice S&L stalls, turning stalls, PFLs, EFATO, non-GPS navigation, glide approachs, cross-wind operations, wheeler landings (taildraggers). Some do all of this, and more, on their own anyhow.

So, is the current system of any use at all?
To me? Yes, as I enjoy it.
To the pilots? Hopefully. They at least get told "your doing things very nicely indeed" which we all like to hear, or they get some instruction and demonstration on how to do things better, and some of these (most actually) seem to take some of that on board.

I'd suggest 'better than nowt', as some Northern git once said.