It is my contention that we should never have moved away from the previous system which had worked perfectly well for a number of years in the first place.
Beagle, you are defending the indefensible. The notion that instructional skills in the air shouldn't be tested post initial test is ludicrous. The fact that there is no element of examination of flying skills post initial SEP (L) rating test is also ludicrous (for an instructor particularly).
Having re-read your previous posts I don't see your point is justified. Why not make all revalidations subject to flight tests, instead of relying on these companies springing up to run the seminars, which in itself is quite a racket. Why not press the CAA to provide the seminars as standardisation events? They probably are a very useful tool for disseminating best practice but how can you test or measure any increase in skills achieved or indeed whether the baseline skills are being retained?
You mention that your club, or any decent club will insist on a checkride every year or two; indeed your insurer may compel you to. The only problem is that this isn't a test either. Not in terms of a rigourously applied standard.
I think in cases where an instructor demonstrates skills by renewing a rating, such as the IR revalidation, that the testing on an instructor revalidation should only cover the instructional skills.
I agree with the poster who queried your reliance on an assessment of the overall standard of PPLs coming through the system. That assumes that the standard amongst examiners remains constant or that the emphasis on tests doesn't change.
As a for instance; if you were to use the test standards as a yardstick, you could say that for an average FI their basic IF teaching skills are of the same standard as the average was 5 years ago. That would be a dodgy statement because the IF syllabus in the PPL has become far more basic under JAR ie 180 on instruments and fly out of the cloud. More accurately you could say that the IF tuition has been sufficient for the student to pass the exam. This doesn't assess in any way the ability, in terms of flying skills, of the instructor.
I think you'll find that most JAA edicts get by with at best a cursory RIA. The CAA should have stuck to its guns and filed a difference.
Last edited by climbs like a dog; 11th June 2002 at 10:31.