Lets look at your assumptions:
1. 'It *could* make a difference...' etc etc
Except the demonstrated risk ie what has actually happened, shows no additional safety benefit. Ergo, it's effort & cost that is irrelevent.
2. 'Training flights are much more at risk.'
Again the demonstrated risk shows training as one of the safer aspects of GA flight, not riskier.
These are both arguments against the necessity for a fire service.
For all the arguments about 'could', 'might', 'conceivably', 'remotely' and so on down the likelyhood scale, aviation safety is, and has always been, a matter of proportional response to the level of risk and type of operation, not absolute safety.
Even the safest of aviation activities - jet airline operations - has probability applied, not absolutes, to determine acceptable safety rates as a result of design, planning & procedural interventions.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 26th November 2004 at 22:37.