scania245:
knew you would get back to me but its what ive been taught on a standard ADR course 
Honestly scania245, the only way I’d “get back” to you is to offer an explanation. You’ve just hit the nail on the head mate, because you had a “standard ADR course,” exactly as you said. You only repeated what you’d heard. The ADR course is designed to meet the Regs as they affect drivers, it’s not designed to turn a driver into an instructor or a DGSA. IMHO, that would take at least two more weeks to achieve. (With an extra couple of hours nasty homework per evening
) I can’t imagine firms doing without their drivers for that long, let alone standing for the extra costs. (Guesstimate = £1500 - £2000 per candidate.)
I’ve seen your other posts and noticed that you’re experienced with ADR. If you remember the earlier courses you took, there wasn’t anything on tunnels or security, for instance. Now there’s a requirement on us to show a film and give an explanation on both, but with no increase in the timetable or syllabus.
So something had to give. That “something” was that the course had to be speeded-up. Personally, I don’t like it but that’s the ruling from SQA,
Training providers and instructors have no say in the matter, because SQA’s authority over us comes directly from the Department for Transport. SQA also tells us which areas/subjects/topics to cover and at what depth.

I reckon that you’d easily remember that it was a driver’s duty to know whether the Regs applied or not, but that changed on 10/05/04. Without going into technicalities, the responsibility is now mostly on the consignor and the owner of the vehicle. (The “carrier.”) Your memory of TC 0 wasn’t wrong, it was only incomplete, because it’s not possible for an instructor to have fully explained it in the time allowed. I’d say that’s because your instructor isn’t required to expand any further than he/she did. Some of the answers that I give on here are from memory, but most have to be referenced in my ADR books. The reason is that a lot of the exemptions are specific to a particular substance. There are approx 3,200 “things” authorised for carriage. You’ve got me on one of my soapbox subjects now, but I’ll keep it to saying that I wish there was more time allowed, so that better explanations could be given. My problem then would be that some of the guys would want a “word” with me for overloading them with excess info not needed for the exams. It’s impossible to please all of the people for all of the time.
Here’s a thought: How would you have reacted, if the instructor told you that you had to stay half-an-hour over and above the published timetable so that you could have the better explanations??
Just so you get a balanced view, here’s my take on this**:** If I extend the day, I’ll either get strung-up by the guys, or the training provider would ask me to account for why I did it . If I shorten the day, I’d get it in the neck from SQA. Either option leaves both me and the training provider open to some sort of disciplinary action. BTW, I’m self-employed, so any problems would follow me around for a while. Ultimately, SQA could remove me from the list of approved instructors. Now that’s what I call a rock and a hard place, but I’m not complaining because it keeps me sharp. 