AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Reactions to first instructor

7th June 1968, Page 44
7th June 1968
Page 44
Page 45
Page 44, 7th June 1968 — Reactions to first instructor
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

COurse by Sam Buckley

• Two weeks was not enough. That was the concensus of opinion among the eight student instructors on Friday afternoon when I sat in at the concluding session of the first h.g.v. driving instructors training course organized by the Road Transport Industry Training Board in London. However, students recognized the economic problems that would arise for companies allowing staff long leave from normal duties.

As reported in CM May 24, this first course had a class consisting of eight selected student instructors representing six leading operators and was conducted from the Board's Wembley HQ. The course content was 40 per cent theoretical at Wembley, and 60 per cent practical at Hendon aerodrome and test routes in the London area.

The course vehicles consisted of two artics (a 32-ton Scammell and a 24-ton Bedford) and two rigids (a 22-ton sixwheeled Commer and a 10-ton BMC van). These are the main types in the Ministry of Transport h.g.v. test classification and students spent a similar period on each.

Important though modern vehicles are for this purpose, even more vital is the calibre of RTITB staff directly responsible for conducting this h.g.v. course. There are four h.g.v. instructors providing a ratio of two students to one instructor. The training

offiber in charge of this course is Mr. G. Asbury who in turn is responsible to Mr. B. B. Wilson, manager, and Mr. J. L. Marstom-, training officer, operative training.

With the implementation of the Industrial Training Act nationally, an acute problem in all industries has been the immediate need to expand the number of those qualified to do the actual training. This h.g.v. course is a typical example. Its object is to train experienced h.g.v. drivers in the instructional techniques required for them to be able to prepare drivers for the h.g.v. driving test.

Of the 90 periods in all, 36 are devoted to theoretical training. Of these nine are concerned with methods of instruction while four each are on road transport regula tions, Highway Code, theory tests and recapitulation and discussion. Single periods are given on route assessment, driver assessment, compilation of records, vehicle and load security among others.

Of the 54 periods of practical training 36 are spent in cab training and driver instructor tuition while a further nine periods are spent on staff instructors' initial assessment of a student and student familiarization with course vehicles. The other three subjects covered in practical training are vehicle checks, drivers' records and driving instructors' tests. So much for the background and objects of the course. With the first one practically completed the Board was particularly anxious to find out the reaction of the first eight students to the syllabus and general running of the course. Accordingly, Friday was devoted to just such a discussion.

At the outset Mr. Marston admitted that the present arrangement for housing vehicles inevitably involved an addition to students' overall working day. But this was only a temporary arrangement and with the anticipated opening of MOTEC (Multioccupational and Training Education Centre) at High Ercall, Shropshire, in October, this disadvantage would be removed. Incidentally, he said that by January next year a second h.g.v. course and a p.s.v. course would be set up at MOTEC.

London was not an ideal situation for such instructional centres and over the next six years or so four or five further sites would be selected as strategically placed instructional centres. However, despite the time lost in bringing the vehicles to Hendon, Mr. Marston said they considered it nevertheless worth while to obtain operational experience of such a course before going into "production" at High Ercall.

There has been some criticism of the type of vehicle selected but as they were only ordered in February it was something of a miracle that they were available in time for this course. Here he disclosed that vehicles on order for MOTEC included an AEC V-8 Mandator, Atkinson 32-ton tractive unit with Rolls-Royce engine, Ford D1000, Atkinson 24 ton six-wheeled rigid, Foden 24/26-ton eight-wheeled rigid, two BMC FJ vans and two Ford 700 platform vehicles.

Replying to Mr. Marston's query as to the division of instruction, Mr. L. R. Parsons (Reed Transport) considered an extra week would give students time to delve more deeply into some of the subjects and suggested the additional five days should be split on the basis of three on practice and two on theory. He thought there was too much stressed on lighting regulations and not enough emphasis on sheeting and stability of loads, for example, Mr. G. B. Emery (BRS), while also supporting the course in general, thought there might be a need to extend the course in future when some of the intake would include long-service drivers who needed first to polish up their own driving habits. Here Mr. Marston interposed to say that the object of the course should not be lost —namely the training of instructors and not drivers.

While a third week could provide valuable additional instruction, Mr. V. J. W. Hoban (Harold Wood) stressed that obviously the respective companies attitudes had to be considered and he doubted whether a three-week course was a commercial possibility. But Mr. Marston added that with the minimum of non-productive time which would apply at High Ercall the overall instructional time available to students at MOTEC would go some way to meeting the suggestion made during the discussion.


comments powered by Disqus