Wow, I have hit a raw nerve. .......Of course as usual my comments are misinterpreted by those with the guilty conscience
Bose
It's hardly a "raw nerve". What you've said is that a significant part of the established, qualified PPL Instructor body are utterly incapable of teaching and barely fit to fly solo. You didn't only put it in some moderate way like "I think standards would be higher and GA would benefit if more instructors were XYZ". You should expect and deserve a reaction as blunt and vigorous as the tone you use in putting your own views across. This doesn't mean "raw nerve" or "guilty conscience" or you have been "misunderstood". It means you have said something pretty controversial or extreme and people disagree with you. I do.
Personally, I've trained since the early 80s with every kind of instructor - young hours builder, airline retiree, career commercial instructor, career PPL instructor. I didn't observe any pattern of the low hours builders being substandard. If anthing, their energy and motivation was sometimes the highest and compared favourably with the cynicism and grumpiness one sometimes saw in career PPL instructors (not the pro retirees). Personally, my respect today for a young person who's funded the whole fATPL thing and done all the training through to the FI Rating would be even higher than in times past, and I'd be happy if I were starting from scratch to get all the PPL training from such a person. Post-PPL, as IO540 points out, there is a lot to learn about practical use of the qualificaiton - that's a job for the AOPA Mentor scheme perhaps. The basic PPL course just doesn't leave scope to add more stuff.
I don't recall that there ever was a mythical golden age of experienced PPL Instructors dominating the instructing scene. Now, I do agree that the CPL requirement currently is too onerous and probably prohibits people who would have a lot to contribute to instructing from doing so, so the new EASA rule will be a good thing.
rgds
421C