There is a growing realisation amongst regulators that role-related training is becoming a 'must do' rather than a 'nice to do'. In other words there are teams working to identify possible ways forward in this conundrum.
Personally I see an advantage in a role-related rating that at least recognises that some relevant basics have been delivered prior to going 'live'. The crucial benefit of that rating would be the date that it was issued. Such a rating is deliverable for SAR, HEMS, OFFSHORE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE FIGHTING and maybe CORPORATE. As Crab And HC point out there is s relationship between pilot performance and the length of time since the relevant training was delivered. Keeping track of recency is a crucial element in the equation.
My latest hobby horse is to bang on about Ebbinghaus (German psychologist in Victorian times) and his 'FORGETTING CURVE'. The trouble is we keep forgetting how fragile imparted knowledge is. In many cases 80% of imparted knowledge is lost after 2-3 weeks. That doesn't work well in our world.
I wonder how much of her technical training was the young lass in this incident able to recall when the proverbial hit the fan? Essinghaus went on to emphasise the value of continued repetition as a teaching tool. Repeat it enough times and you remember for ever. What 'post-graduate' support is offered to TR graduates - NIL. We need to look at that. If we has some intensive post-course, on-line Q&A routines with a live instructor and CBT then maybe we could hang on to the vital elements of system knowledge a little longer.
G.
