Lgv instructor debate

So as not to completely ‘hijack’ another thread, I thought this might be a good idea - we shall see…

Smart Mart:
Lots of questions there!

I was 45 when i took my vocational licences, and found no problem getting UK work at least. Go for artic as that is the most popular, and u can drive draw-bar anyway if needs be. I personally think that it is easier to convert to draw-bar from artic rather than the other way around.

Training companies in Northampton will be the same as everywhere else - we all think we are the best, but at the end of the day its up to you to pass the test. Try to get an instructor who is DSA registered as this shows that he/she has attained the standard required to instruct.

Hope this helps

ROG:
A DSA registered instructor is no better or worse than one who is not - doing the DSA instructor test does not teach an instructor how to teach/train - it is a method used by training companies to ‘look good’ to clients.

Smart Mart:
Don’t want to fall out with you Rog about registered or not. Of course the ability to train is not dependant on being registered. Registration purely indicates a commitment and ability to train - but given a choice between registered and not and the choice should be registered - after all you don’t learn to drive a car with non-registered professional instructors!

ROG:
The teaching of non road wise car learners is completely different to that of teaching a driver to upgrade their licence.
I am not DSA registered but there are others on here that are - an opinion from one of them will usually be the same as mine.
The DSA instructor test proves that an instructor can pass that test - it does not teach training ability.
I could name a few DSA LGV instructors in my local area that are crap at the job, so it proves nothing.
THE ONLY TRUE TEST OF AN LGV INSTRUCTORS’ ABILITY ETC IS TO GET A VIEW FROM THOSE THEY HAVE TRAINED

Mothertrucker:

The DSA instructor test proves that an instructor can pass that test - it does not teach training ability.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement Rog. I began instructing over 20 years ago and was taught to teach. i was also taught that everyone was different and you had to adapt your teaching methods to suit.

I had been instructing for 15 years when the voluntary register came out and as my pass rate was over 75% on first time passes I decided not to go for it. I did have a conversation with the chief examiner who was trying to talk me into it and I quoted the DSA wording that the ‘applicant was expected to achieve the minimum standard required by the DSA to be accepted onto the register’. I told him I had no intentions of lowering my standards to the DSA minimum and he accepted my argument.

However I also agree that having some sort of standard as set by the DSA register is not a bad idea as it does give new instructors something to work on.

I have never agreed with schools who employ and old ex trucker to sit in the shotgun seat and pass on bad habits to learners and never get them to test standard.

Pass rates speak for themselves and I believe that recommendation is the best advert any school will ever have, and in fact most of our clients come via recommendation, but if prospective trainees prefer to choose a registered instructor then it is their choice. It is their money that they are spending so they are entitled to feel secure in their choice of training school.

Smart Mart:
I’m not wanting to continue this thread (which we seem to have hi-jacked) but it seems to me that non DSA registered instructors seem to feel the need to be-little the register, for which there is no justification.

True there are different standards of instructors, registered or not (or at least we each have our opinion about others). This must be true because we all have the ‘best pass rates’ in the industry, and when talk starts about pass-rates i just start to smell bull-[zb]. Particularly as we all know how low the national average is - we can’t all be so far above it!

One benefit if every instructor was registered would be for the DSA to have available and publish pass rates for us all - then we could see who got the best pupils and who didn’t, because we all know its not us that takes the test, but our pupils.

By the way I keep a spreadsheet of all my pupils and am sorry to say that last year their pass rates only made a 52.8% first time! However that was something like 14% above the test centre average and 7% above the national average for all tests. I’m quite happy to share my spreadsheet with anyone who cares to come and see it.

Lets all agree to have different opinions and leave the prospective pupils to ask around, because as Rog says ‘THE ONLY TRUE TEST OF AN LGV INSTRUCTORS’ ABILITY ETC., IS TO GET A VIEW FROM THOSE THEY HAVE TRAINED’

This is interesting.
So far we all seem to agree that doing the CE training in an artic is the best way to go.
We also seem to agree that ‘pass rates’ do not mean a lot but can give an indication of a driving school or instructors success and I suspect that we would probably agree that it is down to the individual general driving ability of the trainee that makes the difference. Mothertrucker and I have said in the past that ‘give us a trainee who can drive a car in the same style & manner in which they need to drive a lorry’ and they will be more likely to pass the LGV test.

The ‘voluntary DSA LGV instructor register’ seems to be a point to which we have different takes on - GOOD I see no harm on this point being debated as it may affect the decision of those looking for their first training school.
My personal view is that if this was used to TRAIN lgv instructors from LGV driver to LGV instructor then I would welcome it fully - but it does not.
An example I can give is of one instructor who had just passed his part 3 at Weedon DTC and came out to the T-bar and told me that he had just done it but in the very next breath said

“and it has made me no better than before I started it - the company wants us all to do it because they can put ‘DSA registered instructors’ on the training vehicles which looks good to punters”

Views from yourselves or any other LGV instructors or interested parties greatly welcomed

My view is that the register does help to train LGV drivers to become LGV instructors - but not entirely - there is no substitute for experience.

I did feel that to take the register test showed a knowledge of the subject by doing the theory test, proof that I could still drive to test standard with part two and therefore knew what was expected from my trainees when they were tested, and with part three, verified that I had good instructional techniques.

As regards the comment of the instructor at Weedon - of course he was no better, but he just had confimation that he was up to or above the standard required. Indeed some companies like to have the DSA logo on their trucks and do pay more money to qualified instructors. However I think it is just a personal thing, and wanted to be qualified as it’s a yardstick by which to be judged.

The register is a good thing and should be mandatory.

It will help get rid of the truck drivers passing themselves of as instructors and helps customers in making their decisions.

Does it not give the instructor some recognition of his or her skill?

Does it also give the instructors employer some piece of mind that the instructors have reached a standard?

I take it that Rog has not taken the DSA tests, if noy why not?

I take it that Rog has not taken the DSA tests, if not, why not?

Fair question.
Not taken the DSA instructor test for 2 reasons.

Firstly, what could it do for my trainees and for me - nothing - I can get them to test standard and if they are willing to go further if they have reached the standard early in training then I can start putting in some advanced driving tips which, I’m afraid, seems to be beyond the comprehension of the average DSA examiner. (mention advanced driving to the DSA and they change the subject very quickly )

Secondly, my brain (not eyes) has probs with 3D moving images on 2D screens (HPT) and the DSA will not accept (but they are looking into relaxing their draconian rules) the fact that I can commentate on all hazards whilst driving - the advanced way. This is a very long story that has run it’s course via my MP and the DfT/DSA.

I had to join the register as i worked for a DSA accredited school - i passed with a clean sheet and achieved 6s and 5s with one 4 on part three. I did part 2 and three back to back and left the center with personal satisfaction of a job well done. It may not be the be-all and end-all for the candidates but i got something from it. We perhaps could do it for ourself if only to prove we can drive to DSA standard and seperate us from the commercial drivers that think they can do it.

my opinion only

To be or not to be on the voluntary register will b e a question that runs for a long time.
There are lots of points for the register and lots against…
I stated my views fully in my previous post so no need to repeat here.
I will add though that instructing is a vocation and not a job and as in any form of teaching the person opting for this career should be totally dedicated to improving his/her skills constantly. As in any job one learns little things daily that can be put to good use and as long as there is a good grounding in the knowledge of the subject then one can only enhance ones subject as time goes on.
Although I agree in principal that a register of approved instructors is a good thing for the reason stated below

It will help get rid of the truck drivers passing themselves of as instructors

I dont agree with a set standard of training.
First day you teach subject A
Second day subject B
then third day C and so on.
What if you have a pupil that Cannot grasp subject A on day one?
I personally have never let my trainees struggle with any of their training. If they are finding a particular manoeuvre difficult or hard to grasp we go on to something they feel comfortable with so that the day ends on a positive note. We can always return to the problem turns or maneouvres later with more confidence. This has worked for me over the years and I always had a good pass rate with happy trainees which is important I believe.
I always prided myself in the fact that I never trained a guy simply to pass a test but trained them in the basics to be a working trucker.
Being semi retired (and hopefully by this time next year fully retired ) I will certainly not be taking the DSA test now and was happy to feel myself fully qualified via ‘Grandfathers rights’ but I applaud the dedication of those who are willing to go for it.

Should the route to be LGV instructor be the same as that to be an ADI car instructor
Perhaps an ADI car instructor can explain that route for comparison

Should the route to be LGV instructor be the same as that to be an ADI car instructor
Perhaps an ADI car instructor can explain that route for comparison

That should be interesting Rog - Good idea.

I do believe that car driving instruction should be done by professionals and not the man next door.

The main difference between the two is that the car instructor is taking a complete novice, a pedestrian and putting him/her behind the wheel for the first time and teaching them everything from scratch.

With LGV instructing we asre taking an experienced driver who already holds a full car licence and simply (well in theory anyway) instructing them in the safe handling of a vehicle that is larger than they are used to.

In theory we do not need to explain speed limits as they are experienced drivers and well versed in the rules within the pages of the highway code right
We dont have to explain which lane to be in on the approach to roundabouts because they are good car drivers and would never be in the wrong lane etc etc…yeah OK I know… but you get my meaning.

Mothertrucker:
I do believe that car driving instruction should be done by professionals and not the man next door.

The main difference between the two is that the car instructor is taking a complete novice, a pedestrian and putting him/her behind the wheel for the first time and teaching them everything from scratch.

Whereas I am old enough to remember the days when Driving Instruction, for what it was, was primarily an ‘after work’ activity for someone wanting a bit of extra income.

One comment that I would take issue with is

One benefit if every instructor was registered would be for the DSA to have available and publish pass rates for us all - then we could see who got the best pupils and who didn’t, because we all know its not us that takes the test, but our pupils.

a topic which, over several years has been covered in the Training press. League tables, whilst helpful, inevitably, in an active market, result in ‘cherry picking’. It is not so much an issue for the Vocational side of things, but from an ADI standpoint, should they wish to develop a specialisation for the training of persons with disabilities or learning difficulties, then they are immediately at a disadvantage in the ‘league table’ scenario. Such a practice has the untended consequence of disfavouring (is that a word?) less able persons.

We have already heard from MT of the Dole queue sofa lizard, who had no intention of passing a test. And I have heard of others. What, in those circumstances, is a Vocational trainer to do. Kick their arse and return the money? They are there to make a profit, and have a significant investment in equipment that must be earn its keep on a weekly/monthly basis. It’s not the same as an ADI who has a car that is, essentially, an extension of domestic life. You don’t take an 18 tonner to do the supermarket shopping, or to visit some far off relative. Well. Most don’t.

Vocational trainers profit or fall by their reputations. As opposed to the ADI market. Whilst, unfortunately, we continue to have new members with bad experiences, they will have been of an age where they should have been researching the market and making informed decisions. Sadly, many have not. It is not meant as a criticism of the individuals. Morelike a criticism of the teaching capacity of our educational system that fails to prepare individuals for adult life.

The DSA is, and will continue to be, an organisation that is expected to be ‘cost neutral’, in that it is expected to pay for itself. On that basis it has an inherent interest in introducing Regulations that require trainers to undertake fee paid testing to a standard determined by themselves, whilst at the same time, not being subject to scrutiny as to the standards they set.

What other organisation would be allowed to get away with that?
.

To be fair, I’d have to start off by saying I’m not a DSA fan, because IMHO, they haven’t yet demonstrated to me that, as an organisation, they’re capable of joined-up thinking. That opinion is NOT directed at the examiners and station managers, who I’m sure we can all agree do a difficult job to the best of their ability.

My comment is aimed at the DSA as an organisation, which has been placed in charge of tests/exams. In just about any other educational field, the awarding body sets compulsory standards for teachers/instructors. This seems to be conspicuously missing in the field of LGV tuition. However, I do take Mothertrucker’s point about a prospective LGV driver already holding a car licence. IMHO, it’s only a question of time until the “voluntary” register becomes the “compulsory” register. Have any of the LGV training providers considered the implications of the Corporate Manslaughter law??

As has been (rightly) pointed out, almost anybody with a valid LGV licence can buy a truck and set up as an LGV instructor. By the same token, almost anybody with a valid LGV licence can work for such an organisation either as “staff,” or self employed as I did. When the DSA finally gets around to telling us where the goalposts are with the driver CPC, who will do the required driving assessments and what, if any, qualifications will they need for this??

This is just a shot at chipping something in to the debate, it’s not a swipe at instructors who do a perfectly legal job, without being on the DSA register. The next thing I’d comment on is that in almost any other educational field, there’s a system of teacher training AKA “train the trainer.” The DSA “voluntary” regisration scheme doesn’t seem to set any quality standard for tuition, nor does it teach an instrctor how to instruct. It seems to me that the DSA voluntary registration scheme in its present form is arguably insufficient in some respects.

Do any of you think the DSA voluntary registration scheme needs a bit of a revamp??

Do any of you think there needs to be a benchmarked instructor training course to be passed before a new wannabe LGV instructor is let loose??

How would you all feel if there were to be a requirement for a compulsory instructor training course which led to DSA registration in the same way that doctors get to practice medicine??

IMHO, if there were this as a requirement, that would set professional LGV instructors apart from a person with an LGV licence who just fancies the idea of instructing.

My own opinion is that there needs to be some changes to a system which doesn’t set quality standards for instructional ability, or which gives no credit for prior learning or experience.

One more thought on ‘pass rates’ - does the instructor or their boss get to say who they train??
When I started with my current employer the majority of trainees we had at that time were given FREE LGV courses as part of their redundancy package from a major employer in the area who had dramatic cutbacks etc. Most of these were not bothered whether they passed or not so the outcome was a dramatic fall in the company and instructor ‘pass rates’.
Would it be fair to judge an instructor on these figures??

…given FREE LGV courses as part of their redundancy package from a major employer in the area who had dramatic cutbacks etc. Most of these were not bothered whether they passed or not so the outcome was a dramatic fall in the company and instructor ‘pass rates’.

Every instructors nightmare. I have to admit that some of the guys I have taken on these ‘free’ courses were keen to learn and happy to look forward to a change in career - but the ones that were sent from the job centre - especially those job seekers who had not long been in the country were often a different ball game.
Once again a minority were keen to learn, but the majority only took the course to satisfy the requirement then be happy to fail the test and re-claim their Giro’s

Well it seems that we have all had the ‘dead legs’ to train. Isn’t it frustrating when we are paying through our taxes for them to pay us to do something they don’t want to doin the first place!

Still they are fortunately in the minority.

confused - The route to being a ADI is :

1. Extended HPT

2. Extended driving test with a senior examiner

3. test of instructional ability on the road by means of role play with a senior examiner.

DSA LGV Register :

1. Extended HPT

2.Extended driving test with senior examiner ( no more than 6 minor faults )

3. Test of instructional ability on the road by means of role play with a senior examiner. Must be renewed every 4 years.

If the test is a benchmark for ADIs then it is also a benchmark for LGV instructors. Who has the professional qualification ADI or LGV instructor?

Are those that pass the DSA test for the LGV instructor voluntary register allowed to teach car drivers as well
I ask because the two routes and tests in the previous post seem to me to be the same

It has been mentioned that there seem to be inconsistencies on parts of the LGV, B+E & PCV tests.
Getting out to have a look when backing into the reversing box is one of them and if doing so should the engine be on or off is another.
Signalling to exit mini roundabouts also comes to mind as well as scuffing a kerb as opposed to hitting one which makes the vehicle rock.
Are there any more variations that we could discuss and perhaps compose an e-mail to the DSA for some definitive answers

The processes are virtually identical except that for an ADI, a Test Check can be carried out at an irregular period whereas, for the LGV Register, there is a fixed period. The other main difference being that in the re-qualification process for the LGV Register, the Senior Examiner will stipulate the topic(s) whereas, for an ADI with a student, it will be very up to the ADI to specify the subject area in which they wish to concentrate the pupil.

Krankee:
The processes are virtually identical except that for an ADI, a Test Check can be carried out at an irregular period whereas, for the LGV Register, there is a fixed period. The other main difference being that in the re-qualification process for the LGV Register, the Senior Examiner will stipulate the topic(s) whereas, for an ADI with a student, it will be very up to the ADI to specify the subject area in which they wish to concentrate the pupil.

As I see it then, with very little ‘tweaking’, the LGV one could be used for the car one which would then allow car instruction - or am I missing something

ADI can only instruct cars

LGV VOL REG can only instruct lgv - same strick sylabus but VOL REG has to be re-taken every 4 years.

ADI just get instruction check tested no driving ability test - odd format i think.

instucted many ADIs for LGV all say that LGV is hardest thing they have had to do - so why is the vol reg not recognised as a proffessional qualification and why is it not compulsary.

ROG:
or am I missing something

You certainly are, or would be. Cancelled appointments at short notice. Interferring parents who know better because they have been driving since the year dot. Late payments, or non-payments. Bounced cheques, etc.

Would you have the patience to teach elementary subjects such as basic ‘clutch control’. I wouldn’t.

D. Did you ever get involved in the Fleet Driver Training side, which I know Rollright’s were involved in? I remember it becoming quite popular in the early 90’s when it was recognised that the Sierra Scorcher, the forerunner to Mondeo Man, became recognised for his/her personal relationship with their customers and having them immobile due to RTA injuries was detrimental to a business in general.

We then had an economic downturn, and the practice fell out of favour.

Following the issue of the HSE document ‘Driving at Work’ in 2003, I would have thought that it may have rekindled interest in the subject but, as it now looks like we are in for another economic downturn, and with the expansion of Electronic communication in business applications, I’m beginning to view it as a limited market.