fire cover - do we really need it?

[Tinstaafl]

No, training is *NOT* more risky. That's supported by the in-service accident rate, and not just a perception of things. That's the problem with a large part of your contention. Your presuming a case that is contradicted by in-service, demonstrated experience.

As for '...it MAY just make the difference.'......or in fact, as is borne out by demonstrated safety rates and not just supposition, it makes no, or negligable, difference.

You're arguing that just because something *MIGHT* make a difference then it should be done - nevermind that it's been shown to make little or no difference. To follow this logic, then we shouldn't be using these aircraft at all. They have no ability to continue flight if an engine fails (care to consider light twin certification?), no redundant load path requirement, parts retirement based on some buffer against the population failure rate average, etc etc ad nauseum. Changing these and many more factors in the design & operating philosphy might make a difference too. Shall we scrap these 'unsafe' contraptions? It MIGHT make a difference (in fact, it's arguable that only operating FAR25 or equiv, under public transport type rules, using airline transport pilots would make a difference. The cost, however, has never been acceptable).

The problem is that you're insisting on services that are largely irrelevent to typical GA operations, that impose restrictions on operations (what if they're not there when you need, or wish, to fly?), add cost (who pays for the equipment, maintenance & training? What about when some can't attend on that day/weekend?) yet make negligable difference to safety rates.

Whilst I have no problem with a voluntary scheme - if someone feels they like to do such a thing then good luck to them. But to insist on it based on supposition & fallacious argument is not acceptable. IF you can show a significant change in safety rates AND the resources wouldn't be better used elsewhere AND any restrictions as a result are not unnaceptable THEN youy have a point.