I do think the requirements on PPL has insidiously crept up over the years. The bureaucratic standards get added to and added to without anything ever taken away. A PPL today is what a commercial license was only 20-30 years ago. It's a PPL, a license to learn, not an ATPL. It's exactly the reason why we have fewer and fewer pilots joining our ranks and why we have no collective voice and bargaining power and hence why all regulators walk all over us - there's none of us left! Flying isn't that hard, it's the crap that surrounds it that is. We could keep loading even more demands, proficiency and safety req's onto todays pilots and sure, maybe they would be slightly safer, but there would be only 3 left to drag through all these proficiencies! All three of them stinking rich to boot, because no normal person could afford it. Why not demand FlightSafety recurring training in Tampa on C172's for all PPL's? Learn to navigate by astrolab or sextant. Be safer no?
It's the wrong way to go.
Drop medicals for PPL, make the PPL a true license to learn, not just empty words. Make it easier, not harder.
The first breath of fresh air on the thread. GA is being regulated out of existence just to support the gravy train of EASA and other regulators and enforcers with vested interests who are cutting their noses off to spite their faces. AOPA US states that 80% of students drop out before qualifying. In the UK 70% of PPLs pack it in at first licence renewal. The plethora of increased regulation introduced by JAA in 2000 did nothing whatsoever for safety, it just increased costs and hassle and created more nails for the coffin of GA. The CAA's own analysis in 2007 of the impact of BFRs, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests, etc showed no improvement in safety as a result of these changes just , as I said, more hassle and cost and disincentive to obtainand keep a licence. We all managed just as safely for decades before all this stuff came in. Bookworm will be along in a minute to say that the CAA analysis was flawed because there are so few accidents on which to base conclusions but then this simply tells its own story about the need for extra regulation in the first place and I have not seen any subsequent analysis to contradict the earlier one.
Make it easier, reduce regulation, reduce costs, reduce hassle, inconvenience, and provide an incentive to learn and progress instead of placing obstacles in the name of safety. It is alway possible to argue a safety case for increased regulation but impossible to get rid of it once it has arrived. The best safety regulator is a natural sense of self preservation , and the last thing we need is Genghis's suggestions for ruining the industry overnight!