When I was fighting Woods, Payton et al. over the effect that their precipitate embrace of JAR-FCL would have on GA, they refused to accept it. No - there wouldn't be any increase in costs and safety would improve. But the UK has a GA record 4 times as safe as the rest of the world, according to the head of the CAA, so why the perceived need for such absurdly expensive changes? The CAA's Regulatory Impact Assessment presented to the House was a thoroughly flawed document which conveniently omitted to explain the full impact of their Eurocracy on our industry.
Since this utter cr@p of JAR-FCL was forced upon a resentful industry, every single area of flying training has faced increased costs. Even FIs teaching farmers to PPL standard now have to meet the same medical standards as a BA Concorde captain, the BCPL was thrown away merely because there was no JAR-FCL equivalent, training for and revalidation of both FI and FE qualifications is now far more difficult and expensive and demand for training has also decreased due to the inability of the CAA to regulate 'overseas training' - which does not have to pay the high UK fuel and maintenance costs.
So we've seen more and more companies creaking and folding, most of whom were suffering long before the terrorist atrocities in the US. Virtually everything I warned the CAA suits would happen if they didn't stop their lemming-like rush over the JAR-FCL cliff has happened; the NPPL will help, but won't reduce costs substantially until far more realistic requirements are in place for PPL FIs and FEs to give anyone interested in an aviation career access to affordable, UK-based flying training.
[ 06 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]