Bose-X
I agree that experienced PPL's are the ones we are after. So why don't they set the hours requirement at a higher level... say 400 hours? I think I know why: Because the establishment realise that they won't get enough instructors with this level of experience to plug the shortage which exists at the moment.
Many experienced PPL's are not interested in instructing or they would have already be instructors. Lets face it the cost of the course only amounts to around 60 hours flying in a club aircraft. Many are reluctant to do the groundschool stating that many subjects are irrellevant. Maybe some are, but, if they had a burning desire to teach, they would do the exams. After all even if the subjects are more relevant to the airline world, surely an aeroplane-head would at least find them an interesting challenge?
Regretfully in my experience most instructors see the job as a stepping stone or the only way they can afford to fly. I know some do it for the love of it, but not enough to fill the vacancies. So the establishment see the only option is to drop the standards rather than improve the terms and conditions of those who would like to remain in the profession, but can't afford to.
Interesting what Big Pistons says about experienced PPL's having poorer handling skills on checkouts. I have experienced this too. I don't think you can generalise too much, but I have seen excellent handling and capacity to absorb information from youngsters with low hours and quite the opposite from many experienced PPL's. If an experienced PPL is not regularly carrying out GH exercises as part of their flying routene, it's not surprising that they struggle on a check out. A PPL who flies for business may have a lot to offer on the navigation side of the syllabus, but if they never practice PFL's they will be less competent in that area than someone who has just qualified. No I'm not arguing to let recently qualified PPL's instruct, but, this is why I prefer the structure the CPL provides.