Bookworm
Well, I have enjoyed the debate with you and everyone else. Thank you.
There have been some very good points made (from both sides of the fence).
The one thing about which none of us can be entirely certain is what will actually come out of EASA. They have the opportunity of rewriting the rule book which does not come along very often. Either they will grasp that opportunity and really produce a worth while change or they will fail in their mission.
As I think I have made very clear the early signs are not very good. To be fair they have not been helped by co-opting advisors who clearly wouldnt know and IMC rating if they flew into one (as but one example). As is so often the case with this sort of process if you are hijacked by all the usual bad eggs before you even get started dont be surprised if you end up with a result they wanted but no one else did.
Rather like an episode from Yes, Minister, if you co-opt the "right" people to any committee you can get whatever result you want. What is far more dangerous is when you dont really know what result you want so you put people in charge who havent got a clue, other than their own interests. Then the lunatics are really running the asylum
Anyway, that really is me done.
We shall just have to wait and see.
I have no doubt we will return to the debate when there are any more developments.
What I have found interesting is there are some contributors to this thread that I would have had on my committee before the thread started and would not now, and others for whom the reverse very definitely applies. It does at least just show how difficult it can be to get the measure of people.
(I know thank goodness it is not my committee, hat, coat etc.
)