If I don't agree with you, proudprivate, the only conceivable explanation is that I'm corrupt and self-serving, right?
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.
So if I don't agree with you, proudprivate, the only conceivable explanation is that I'm
either stupid or corrupt and self-serving, right? Sorry I got that wrong first time.
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 ?
I am not. I give what feel like copious amounts of my own time to attempt to protect the interests of pilots like you. I have to confess that occasionally I wonder why.
You keep trotting out the statistics thing:
First, notice the absence of any safety statistic in your argument.
Aviation accidents are fortunately sufficiently rare that it's almost impossible to find any statistically significant result, particularly when comparing systems with many other differences. Your default seems to be to suggest that in the absence of statistical significance, everyone must do it
your way. I'm afraid that doesn't wash.
The UK for example has a much more flexible approach to fuel planning than the FAA's 91.151 etc., and you'll find that the incidence of fuel exhaustion accidents is no higher in the UK than in the US. Will you petition the FAA for repeal of 91.151 then?
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.
In pre-JAA days, there was no "BFR" in the UK for PPLs, just a bi-annual requirement for a few logged hours. The CAA has
analysed the "statistics", and of course demonstrate that there is no significant difference in safety since the introduction of the requirement for a bi-annual instructional flight. Yet you seem to be content with the idea of a BFR as being a reasonable and cost-effective safety measure taken by the FAA, and you "guess" it has an impact. I think you "guess" wrong.
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.
Let me end by agreeing with you. The cost of a medical affects vastly more pilots in the EU than an IR prof check. There is precious little evidence of its efficacy as a safety measure in private aviation. Why don't you focus some effort there?