It is argued that there is a safety benefit but I can find no credible evidence to support this. The data is pretty inadequate with no record of hours flown and often no record of the licence held by pilots involved in accidents or incidents.
Please go ahead and post the next sentence in the letter and explain to us why you chose to exclude it. The fact is he has allowed that the opposite point of view could be true and there there is a lack of data to support either case!
Let’s ignore the largest population if ICAO IR holders in the world which are subject to far less frequent renewals than IMCr holders.
In fact, the largest population of IR holders have to pass a biennial flight review (that's every 24 months), but you have conveniently missed the currency requirements that must be met to legally fly in IMC as pilot in command. They are; 6 approaches to landing within the last 6 months, as well as intercepting and tracking a course through the use of navigation systems, and holding. Are there currency requirements for the IMCR?
Your logic and arguments remind me of my opposition in the old union busting days in Canada. Reliance on half truths and ignorance. THAT is boring.
FREDAcheck. I'm afraid your reasoning doesn't explain all the vitriol aimed at Jim Thorpe. We must look elsewhere for that and find it in ignorance, misunderstanding, and perhaps guilt. Yes, guilt by those who have been caught unaware by their lack of attention and diligence. I'm not in the aviation business and pretty busy with my work and family, and yet have not been surprised by much of what I read the last few weeks at all. How can that be? Glad I'm not in the AOPA UK. I respect what you have said, and maybe Mr. Thorpes' judgement can be debated. I am very grateful for his decision to share insight and comments on the process he took part in though, else we would have no news whatsoever.