IO540,
Whilst some would see your arguments as harsh and unwarranted, I would have to agree wholeheartedly.
13 years ago I passed my motorcycle test and went off to buy a brand new sports bike. I had loads of near misses for the next 3 months whilst I found out on my own all of the things I feel I should have been told. It is the age old problem of instructors teaching to what the rather inadequate test requires.
I started a left hand bend, but was going too fast, only to find the bike gradually moving out to the middle of the road. On seeing an oncoming car and panicking, I grabbed a handful of front brake and found the bike sat bolt upright and tried to go in a straight line taking me ever closer to the oncoming car. So still in that split second of terror, I let go of the brake, leant the bike over as far as I dare and waited for the crash. Now I was fortunate that I responded like this and that the bike held, but many are not. Nobody had ever told me waht would happen if I used a handful of front brake in a bend, but that simple omission damn near killed me, and only luck saved my a$$.
This is my analogy of recreational GA. Once you qualify with your PPL and or IMCR you have passed a test, no more no less. Over the coming months if not years you will scare the sh1t out of yourself with many new and previously unwarned situations. Should the prospective pilot survive these scares then like me and my motorbike, they will learn and their ability to fly safely and well increase tenfold. My only concern is why it should be this way?
The NPPL was an ideal chance to review and tailor training specifically for the recreational pilot. Instead, I fear they just cut the PPL syllabus down. The hour ever 24 months with an instructor - should it not be more structured or direct?
But then maybe you can't train an idiot and there are certainly some of them out there.
Regards
Obs cop