For fmgc, here is what I posted on 13 May 2004, which I will bet RJ Squirrell remembered. I would look the data up for you again, but I am too lazy to do your homework, so I will not:
The harsher British and European standards are born of the social concept of Government as Royal Protector, where Government knows more, and deems it satisfactory to decide what its citizens can do.
The US philosophy grew of distaste for governmental power, so the philosophy is that government only restricts where needed and only as much as can be proven to be effective. In the end, government works for us, and it shows.
Some tidbits to keep this thread alive:
In the US, airmen meet fewer requirements, so they can't memorize morse code (oh, gee!) with 7500 hours of flight, including 1000 in combat and 125 in night combat, I can't read morse code. It is a secret I have carried all these years, and I will have it carved on my headstone, "He was a crappy pilot, he couldn't read morse code"
In the US, it costs less than half the cost per hour to fly any given aircraft. That is because we don't have all those burdens that keep the CAA people employed, we actually spend it on ourselves. And on more flying, fools that we are.
The number of registered aircraft in the US is eye watering, and the number of pilots is also. Per capita it is substantially more than in Europe. And the accident rate is actually a little lower.
But the harsher training standards are "better" after all.
Here is how that harshness plays out:
Per capita, the US has 2.79 times the number of pilots and 2.9 times the number of aircraft. Accident rates are virtually identical.