You are entitled to your opinion, of course. The old FI retest included some really pointless items - for example you had to fly a 'pilot-interpreted approach' and to demonstrate to a FIE that you could recover from a spin and complete a safe off-aerodrome PFL. Something which any FI should be able to do at any time and which was probably the result of CFS-inspired heritage in the CAA FIE world. But very little of which had the slightest thing to do with a check of instructional ability in the air.
Now, however, you have to demonstrate your flying skills during a 2-yearly 'dual training flight' no matter who you are - so the pure flying skill set is routinely tested in any case. But your instructional methods and knowledge may be refreshed at a seminar; instead of pretending that the FIE is a basic student to whom you are giving a single basic lesson - usually something very simple like medium turns or stalling, certainly never navigation - at a seminar (which is not dependent upon a suitable combination of ac availability, dubious UK weather and FIE availability), you are refreshed on a whole range of topics and brought up to date. This is a far more useful standardisation method.
But what would happen to someone who didn't pass this proposed 6-yearly revalidation? Would all his previous 6 years of instruction be declared null and void? Would all his students be recalled for further training?
No - this NPA is a nonsense. Unless there is clear and present evidence that the current system is unsafe, it should be left well alone.
The devious and underhand way it was proposed is another story.........
Last edited by BEagle; 2nd Jun 2002 at 13:25.