-273
I think you have actually answered your own point about the quality of UK training, in agreement with me. You believe there are too many 250-hour pilots FO of large aircraft. That is in your experience of the people put out by the US training system with 250 hours. Yet the safety record here is almost identical for these operations. In fact our largest traditional user of pilots starting on type-rating courses with typically only 170 hours from a UK integrated course is BA (not now, as they don't sponsor, but for the period relevant to accident statistics) which has always, and even more so in the last 18 years, had an excellent safety record. The CAA and European airlines and their insurers are far more qualified to judge the output of European schools than either you or I are. They allow these pilots to fly.
That suggests to me that the UK system trains very good pilots who make safe FOs. The training received on the job is always what makes a good Captain. You don't expect that of your training system, I do of the one of which I am part, as do the regulators and airlines. Suggests to me which is better.
As one of my students said, "I've got an Aussie CPL. That's about like a UK PPL".
Hardly really an ATPL skills test, BB, even if it is described as that at one point. If you read what you quote it is generally just the revalidation test for a multi-crew type, a regular event for the FO of such an aircraft. Hence there is no real, specific ATPL test. Not an accurate description of a test equally applicable to a CPL holder who wishes to retain privileges as FO of such an aircraft.
P.S. I can suggest a couple of good CRM instructors. You need the training.