TW "Out of Time" question

[Lindley]

In the Torchwood episode "Out of Time", a big deal was made about how Diane's pilot's license was no longer valid 50 years later.

Now, in the US, a pilot's license has no specific expiration date. It doesn't need to, because the biannual flight review requirement ensures reasonable skill currency. The reason for separating the two is because the license checkride must be performed with an FAA Examiner, but the BFR can be done with any Certified Flight Instructor, which is generally a much cheaper option.

Now sure, it might take some explaining how a young woman was using a pilot's license from 50 years before, but legally speaking they were talking nonsense.

At least by US rules. So I was wondering, does anyone here know if things are different in the UK in this regard?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

"Feel the sunshine on your face
It's in a computer now
Gone to the future, way out in space"

Now I've got that song stuck in my head.

Back to your question, I think that whoever wrote the episode was trying to hit a particular emotional note, and didn't really care about the biannual flight review requirement.

 

[Lindley]

Maybe, but they could have done an equally effective note with the "how the heck are you going to explain this to anyone" approach and been more accurate.

The episode just felt like it was written by someone who didn't really know flying but was trying to pretend they did. Right down to the bit about how "flying is all pushing buttons, in my time we had to sense the wind," etc. Anyone who was really a pilot would know there's no comparison between a jetliner and a small Cessna, and even a '50s pilot would realize the difference rather than waxing morose about it.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The episode just felt like it was written by someone who didn't really know flying but was trying to pretend they did.

It was. Most of the time, that's what fictional writing is about. It's about pretending.

Given the choice, I'd rather watch something written by someone who can write but can't fly a plane than something written by someone who has no idea how to convey basic human emotions on paper but gets all the technical minutiae right.

 

[Lindley]

I've always been a big believer in the notion that accuracy is always a big boon to a story. If the mistakes keep pulling you out of the experience, it doesn't matter how well the "mood" is set.

Especially when accuracy would not have prevented presentation of the same basic feeling. Just use what I pointed out---her license was issued way too early for her age. That it wouldn't pass more than a cursory inspection, and she'd have to get a new one.

The bit about Cessna 172s having hardly changed since the '50s was right, at least externally. I can appreciate it when they mention little details like that, if they take the time for a bit of research.

 

[DarkHorizon]

From my brief research, it appears that pilot licences here in the UK do have an expiry date. Here's the renewal request form from the Civil Aviation Authority. Note the "Date of Expiry" line in section 2.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I've always been a big believer in the notion that accuracy is always a big boon to a story. If the mistakes keep pulling you out of the experience, it doesn't matter how well the "mood" is set.

On the other hand, if the story is cluttered with endless winks, explanations and references just because it makes the nitpickers happy, most viewers will probably be pulled out of the experience. It's a matter of balance.

 

[Lindley]

From my brief research, it appears that pilot licences here in the UK do have an expiry date. Here's the renewal request form from the Civil Aviation Authority. Note the "Date of Expiry" line in section 2.

Interesting. I wonder what prompted the difference in laws between the US and UK.

I've always been a big believer in the notion that accuracy is always a big boon to a story. If the mistakes keep pulling you out of the experience, it doesn't matter how well the "mood" is set.

On the other hand, if the story is cluttered with endless winks, explanations and references just because it makes the nitpickers happy, most viewers will probably be pulled out of the experience. It's a matter of balance.

All I really ask is that they don't say anything that's outright wrong. Beyond that, the number of "winks" isn't all that important.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, there have been some obvious advancements in aircraft in the past 50 years. Maybe they just didn't consider her qualified to fly a modern-day plane?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

All I really ask is that they don't say anything that's outright wrong.

Then you're asking for too much, because they will, they always will. The only thing writers know really well is their craft, anything else they have to research on their own, and they usually have tight schedules. They always get minor details wrong, and they always will, and it doesn't matter.

 

[Lindley]

And when they do, it is our right and responsibility as viewers to call them on it, so that maybe they won't make the same mistake again. I realize the unlikeliness of any single internet post affecting anything, but if enough people point something out, they do notice.

I'm not even sure if this was a mistake, to be honest. I don't know UK laws. But it was an eyebrow-raiser.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

And when they do, it is our right and responsibility as viewers to call them on it, so that maybe they won't make the same mistake again.

I think they will, because they don't really care, and prefer to focus on things that matter like dialogue, structure, characterization, emotional impact, etc. What you're asking for here is anatomically-correct jelly babies. No one cares. "Right and responsibility?", come on, it's not the civil rights movement.

 

[Lindley]

And what you're asking for is more movies like "The Core", because nobody cares about plausibility.

Yes, that's hyperbole, but I'm not quite sure why you're so dead-set on insisting that accuracy doesn't matter. It's not the most important aspect of a story, sure, but it's still relevant. Especially when we're talking about Wikipedia-level stuff. Hardly rocket science.

If you're going to write about a particular subject, you should do some basic research. Anything less is unprofessional.

Again, I'm not sure if this is an actual error or not since I don't know the UK laws.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Yes, that's hyperbole, but I'm not quite sure why you're so dead-set on insisting that accuracy doesn't matter.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I probably overreacted. My frustration stems from reading lots and lots of opinions and amateur movie reviews on imdb and everywhere on the web, really, written by clueless kids who have absolutely no concept of basic stuff like story, plot, dialogue, or even, you know, frickin' human behavior and emotions, and who seem to think that getting one tiny bit of trivia wrong can ruin entire movies.

After a while, it becomes a game, right? It's a challenge. The first who finds a flaw in a movie is the smartest kid and has the right to nitpick it to death. Unfortunately, by focusing on minor logical flaws and inconsequential factual errors, these people are missing the whole point of movies - the whole point of fiction actually - to such an extant that they can't connect with characters, they can't be moved by stories, they can't immerse themselves in fictional universes. Their suspension of disbelief threshold is so low that they can no longer process fiction. Really, go on imdb, pick any film that deals with recognizable human emotions and see how it works. Or don't, because it's painful.

Which I guess is ironic, considering that "Out of Time" is a story about people who can't adapt to their new situation and all find different ways to escape. That's what ultimately is relevant, that's what stays with you after you've seen it. Whether the pilot's license should be valid or not in real life or not doesn't really matter: it's just a plot point to move the story forward. The real Richard III was not physically deformed.

 

[Lindley]

I can understand that.

I suppose the reason I brought it up is because there are any number of other ways they could have imposed the same basic restriction on the story. Say her medical certificate is out of date, and while Owen would love to "examine" her, he isn't a rated aviation examiner. Same story, but with some instant innuendo thrown in. And TW does so love to do that....

 

[diankra]

From my brief research, it appears that pilot licences here in the UK do have an expiry date. Here's the renewal request form from the Civil Aviation Authority. Note the "Date of Expiry" line in section 2.

Interesting. I wonder what prompted the difference in laws between the US and UK.

Reversing that, isn't it more likely that when flight started to get licenced each country came up with its own rules, and that they've never been standardised?
I'd guess that there must be some checking mechanism for people flying between countries, but rules for driving licences vary massively, but most countries accept most overseas licences, for temporary visitors at least.

 

[captcalhoun]

i suspect that is the case.