Would it be an idea to have a list of current LGV instructors who use this site on the NEW AND WANNABE DRIVERS forum?
It would be, of course, up to those instructors to add their names to the list.
I believe it would allow those who are asking for advice to know from where their TRAINING advice is coming from.
I don’t think that it is necessary.
There are varying ‘levels’ of instructor on this site; Wendy (Mothertrucker) is a full time instructor, I am a DSA registered instructor but don’t actually instruct that often nowadays, there may well be others who don’t even identify themselves as instructors. Bearing in mind that virtually any vocational licence holder can be deemed to be an ‘instructor’ (for like licence categories), you could say that 99% of site users are instructors.
Irrespective of a posters ‘official qualifications’, they may well be providing good quality advice to the newbies. It’s better that a clear and easy to understand reply is posted by a non-instructor than a muddle of difficult to understand waffle by a ‘qualified instructor’.
The title (usually self-given) of Driving Instructor does not give that person the carte blanche on good ideas & explanations!! 
I agree with marcustandy, it’s totally unnecessary.
We have had experts give advice on the aspect of the job they are paid to do which has turned out to be totally wrong. Just because someone has a title or a specific job doesn’t mean they actually know what they are talking about.
One other reason why NO
if anyone is put up as an “official” expert and give wrong advice then there could be “some” comeback if it all goes horribly wrong, whereas a member giving an opinion cannot be deemed expert advice
Coffeeholic:
I agree with marcustandy, it’s totally unnecessary.We have had experts give advice on the aspect of the job they are paid to do which has turned out to be totally wrong. Just because someone has a title or a specific job doesn’t mean they actually know what they are talking about.
Look out, look out - there’s a thief about 
Stolen the exact ( how did you do that?) words straight out of my mouth. 
I think if, like you ROG, instructors want to identify themselves that is information enough for advice seekers.
I see what you all mean - points taken
thanks
I’ve read the contributions to this topic so far, and I’d like to say that there are some very valid points made.
Marcustandy: there are different levels of LGV instructor- how very true.
Coffeeholic: “Just because someone has a title or a specific job doesn’t mean they actually know what they are talking about” How very true.
In my experience as a consultant, I continually find “managers” for this, that or the other- just a job title, nothing more. Many of these so-called “managers” manage on the basis of “I’m the boss, so you’ll do as you’re told.” Is that the best way of doing things?
Rikki-UK: “if anyone is put up as an “official” expert and give wrong advice then there could be “some” comeback if it all goes horribly wrong, whereas a member giving an opinion cannot be deemed expert advice.” See below.
Now my own comments, and widening this topic to include all advice:
#1 The ONLY place in the UK qualified to interpret law is a court.
#2 Anybody offering any form of advice, qualified or not, is merely giving their opinion. Strange, but true- that also applies to solicitors and barristers. They use the same set of facts and present their case- one of them ends up losing the argument. Where does this happen? Refer to #1 above.
#3 Having regard to #1 and #2 above, it is for the recipient of advice to come to a decision based on that advice, or ask for a second opinion as they might when considering medical advice. They then decide what to do, but they should and do have a choice at all times.
My point here is that any advice should be impartial, given in good faith, and seen in context. Even in a court, two experts are often pitted against each other.
So, I beg to differ just slightly, Rikki-UK Sir, I’d say that a member’s advice is capable of being considered as “expert” as long as it is qualified advice.
However, I feel that your decision of “NO” is correct, but I’d say that your suggestion of “some comeback” should actually be the overriding reason for it in my opinion. There are public liability issues at stake with “expert” advice, against which the “expert” should insure, but that’s not to the point, because I’m not seeking a review of your decision.