I can't argue with bookworm who I know knows his stuff but going back to the stuff near/at the top of this thread, let me make a few observations:
All the stuff about Bernoulli, the Coanda effect etc etc etc can be derived from Newtonian mechanics. If you apply NM to each particle, you will derive all the other (more convenient, in their intended applications) principles. So, why not simply teach NM and how to apply it to each particle, using finite element simulation on a computer? All the other stuff is irrelevant. Einstein would probably have a similar view, incidentally
I have an FAA PPL/IR and have passed the CPL theory so far. The FAA stuff is not without its faults, particularly in their various FAQs. The calibre of people that respond to intelligent questions is IME generally far higher at the UK CAA than at the FAA.
But FAA flight training isn't about theory, and using massive amounts of it, A-level-style, to separate the men from the sheep which is very much the general drift in CAA/JAA-land. If one assumes, correctly IMHO, that an
airline pilot needs a reasonable technical brain, then why not teach him practical stuff he needs to know, and get him to sit a specialised engineering / mechanical aptitude/IQ test. Most members of the public fail such tests (the sort of test which shows pictures of two gears meshing and ask which way they will be turning, etc etc) pretty miserably. Then you would have airline pilots who have a very good engineering common sense. But this is not the way it is done under JAA.
On balance I think the FAA system is better for the intended purpose. Do we have 747s plummetting because of insufficient theoretical knowledge of the pilots? I fly with some working UK/JAA ATPLs and it's clear they have long forgotten most of the stuff.
As for
private pilot training for European flight, VFR/IFR, that's different. One needs a lot of stuff which is not in any syllabus: flight planning generally, IFR route planning specifically, internet weather sources and their practical interpretation, engine management principles, you name it. It is taught in the USA to a reasonable degree appropriate to their airspace system and pilot services but the material is less appropriate to flight in Europe. Nothing is perfect, but the Euro syllabus teaches the pilot fly from Goodwood to Popham on a nice day, while giving him the legal privilege to fly from Goodwood to Malaga in 3000m visibility. OTOH a graduate of the FAA syllabus can in fact fly the same distance right across the USA with what he has learnt.
I have done the JAA PPL and the CAA IMC Rating and their various exams. Much of the material is utterly irrelevant to flying and so many of the questions are ambiguous (to the point of being blatent word plays intended for faithful readers of Trevor Thom and nothing else) that if one answered them strictly correctly, or refused to answer the unclear ones, one would not pass most of the exams.
I have also closely inspected the JAA ATPL material and e.g. the depth of understanding of met theory in there is way way beyond what any pilot needs IMHO, yet it lacks so much practical stuff, which the much smaller FAA CPL syllabus does contain.
The CAA LAME exams (I've seen snippets) are word plays like I have never seen before.
Nothing is perfect.