I've come across very few other people on PPrune who not only personalise the debate but also make fallacious assertions about the motivation of other contributors to the discussion.
I notice that your assertions trivialise the debate. Some of your previous interventions do not mark you as particularly stupid. It's therefore only logical to question your motives.
Now tell me, are you or are you not making money from Aviation Regulation in Europe, be it as a consultant to the UK CAA on regulatory matters, a temporary agent at EASA, or a similar occupation ?
So why does the system bother with examiners at all then? Why not just get the hour-building kid who just qualified to teach students to assess your competence to do something that you've been doing for the last 20 years, and take that privilege away from you on a whim?
Again, you trivialise the debate.
First, notice the absence of any safety statistic in your argument.
A system with examiners for initial check rides and instructors on a biannual basis has been tried and tested. The safety record of such a system per flown hour certain beats yours. Furthermore, it is cheaper on the pilot community. Therefore, it is superior.
Next, you propose to do away with examination altogether, and in the same sentence you question the competence of an instructor of your choice.
Finally, you describe the threat of an hour building kid to take away your flying privileges. This threat doesn't exist. You cannot "fail" a biannual flight review. The kid might refuse to sign you off, but if it is the kid of your choice, I would assume the dialogue and debrief would give you a clue as to why he would refuse this. But that is not "taking away flying priveleges". After some proper review, you would probably get the sign off. If the original examination was anything to go by, remedies are likely to be light.
Why do examiners cost more than instructors?
I don't have a definite answer to that one. Some possibilities could be:
a) because the examiner is usually a more senior pilot
b) because sometimes the local CAA charges add-on fees
c) because they have an oligopoly which they exploit
Well why stop there? If I made it to the end of my PPL course alive, and did a few take-offs and arrivals (some of which might be described as landings), why both with a checkride? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community. Come to think of it, if I make it up the stairs to my AME's office without having a heart attack, why bother with the medical examination? You shouldn't be tested at all, it's as simple as that. It saves time and money for the pilot community.
Again, you are purposely trivialising the debate. An intial check ride ensures that you have performed up to test standards. Just ignoring your drivel on the PPL and the medical, let me try to enlighten you on the Instrument Currency :
You've been thoroughly tested on various procedures, which at that time you knew how to fly within private or commercial standards. By regularly flying approaches and holds, you retain a sufficient level of competence. Sufficient studies in comparable educational domains prove that. The advantage is that the basic instrument skill set can be logged and verified by a competent authority (on its own behalf or on behalf of an insurance company for example).
The whole point of the debate lies in a cost/benefit balance, where the benefit is safety. It is certainly worthwile doing an impact study (a real one, not an EASA one where you twist assumptions to suit your needs) about the need of a medical for private flight, but that is not the issue here.
By contrast, FAA studies show deteriorating pilot skills with inexperienced PPLs, which is their main motivator for a BFR. I would guess that, based on the skills affected (some are affected more than others, and some are more safety related than others), an impact study would reveal a statistically significant accident increase in the absence of a BFR. This should then be weighed against the alternative of having pilots log particular exercises in lieu of a BFR. The conclusion would probably be that, systematically logging a bunch of unverifiable items would not outweigh a one off cost of a BFR.
@ Pace :
You should not have an instructor who teaches you builds a relationship with you and then examines you.
Why not ? I happen to have a long standing relationship with my instructor. He would not sign me off if he felt I were deficient, and the BFR would certainly be a good learning experience.
Nothing we do get from EASA will be what we want as there is little common sense in how they operate.
I find that completely unacceptable. A friggin publicly funded €100 million+ budget a year organisation should show common sense and should operate to serve the community.