DFC
Whilst a large amount of what you've said in this thread sounds reasonable, I agree that we should provide a thorough, professional service to our customers (students). We should indeed do proper briefings, not chop bits out of the syllabus to keep the hours (cost) down and keep proper records. You are also correct, that these days we all have to have an eye on any potential future litigation and make sure we have ourselves covered.
However, I can't see why, if there is a perceived problem, this cannot or has not been achieved under the current system. The CAA has the ability to regulate what RFs (and FTOs) are doing now if they wish to, they just seem not to very much. Even if they choose not to inspect, all FIs are tested every 3 years (or 6 with seminar) and FEs every 3 years. How often have you seen anyone not pass a revalidation or renewal? This could also be a good opportunity to check what kind of records the FI/FE keeps, I've never been asked in 18 years.
There is also the skill test, if candidates are not being taught the syllabus properly, then this is where it should be picked up. However, from what I see, there are perhaps too many FEs doing too few tests each, to get much in the way of standardisation. I have noticed over recent years that the CAA seem to be fairly happy to issue FE authorisations to anyone who meets the (low-ish) requirements and will pay the fees. Pre-JAA as some will remember, you had to have at least 1500 instructional hours before being considered for an "X" rating.
The standard of instruction will not change and nor is this process designed to change it
Well what exactly is the point then? As with everything that has come from EASA, it is just an increase in administrative bureaucracy and cost for no safety benefit. You just need to take a look at what they did to light aircraft maintenance, huge increases in cost and paperwork, but do we get a better job done on our aircraft? No. In fact, I can't think of one single thing, that EASA has done that has been a positive or beneficial change.