UK ATC Initial Training

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by ex82watcher

alfaman,It may be a generalisation,but I was merely commenting based on my own experience.In my medical certificate for my PPL,there was always a phrase stating that second pair of spec's must be carried.The class 1 which related to my ATCO licence never had this provision.
It's quite a while since I held either licence or medical certificate,so things may have changed,and I bow to your more current experience.

Sure, your experience, but unfortunately it read as fact: SARG take a dim view of people who don't fully comply with that requirement, I know a couple who've learned that the hard way.

[Gonzo]

Likewise. During an audit I’ve had to show SRG, as was, my spare pair in my locker at work.

[ex82watcher]

alfaman,I remember when on one of the early courses at CATC,either the initial course,or more likely the licence course,one of the instructors specifically referring to this issue,and saying the reason why there was no stamp on med,certs requiring a 2nd pair of spec's to be carried was because the CAA,would have been required to stump up for the cost of a second pair (remember,they were also our employers in those days,as well as the regulators ) and they had ,or would have ,baulked at this.As I said,I never had such a stamp on my class 1 med cert,though always did on my class 3 for my PPL,and which was issued at the same time,by the same doctor that carried out my annual ATC medical.I always complied with this stipulation ( and of course,in those 'good old days',the CAA used to subsidise our flying ! ).
I never lost or broke my spec's when at work,and presumably anyone having the 'stamp' having done so,would not be able to continue working until they had obtained another 2nd pair 'in order to comply with the privileges of their licence'.I did however, once have a dental-crown,which had been fitted the day before,fall out on to the polehill radar screen,but I managed to work through that,though probably with a bit of a whistle included in my transmissions.



PS,just managed to find my licence,and the med.cert relating thereto..On the back,under conditions is a stamp: VALID ONLY WHILE WEARING CORRECTING SPECTACLES FOR ATCO LICENCE.
No mention of a second pair,but as I alluded to earlier, your knowledge is more current,and requirements are likely to change over time.

[alfaman]

Originally Posted by ex82watcher

alfaman,I remember when on one of the early courses at CATC,either the initial course,or more likely the licence course,one of the instructors specifically referring to this issue,and saying the reason why there was no stamp on med,certs requiring a 2nd pair of spec's to be carried was because the CAA,would have been required to stump up for the cost of a second pair (remember,they were also our employers in those days,as well as the regulators ) and they had ,or would have ,baulked at this.As I said,I never had such a stamp on my class 1 med cert,though always did on my class 3 for my PPL,and which was issued at the same time,by the same doctor that carried out my annual ATC medical.I always complied with this stipulation ( and of course,in those 'good old days',the CAA used to subsidise our flying ! ).
I never lost or broke my spec's when at work,and presumably anyone having the 'stamp' having done so,would not be able to continue working until they had obtained another 2nd pair 'in order to comply with the privileges of their licence'.I did however, once have a dental-crown,which had been fitted the day before,fall out on to the polehill radar screen,but I managed to work through that,though probably with a bit of a whistle included in my transmissions.



PS,just managed to find my licence,and the med.cert relating thereto..On the back,under conditions is a stamp: VALID ONLY WHILE WEARING CORRECTING SPECTACLES FOR ATCO LICENCE.
No mention of a second pair,but as I alluded to earlier, your knowledge is more current,and requirements are likely to change over time.

We may well have listened to the same guy, however, that's not normally the case now - it may well be a function of the break between regulator & provider, I wouldn't know, but makes sense. I'm keen to make sure none of our younger readers take it as gospel, & leave with the wrong idea. As you've ably demonstrated, that wrong idea can persist for a considerable period of time after the rules change