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.
No. In the absence of statistical evidence or relevant anecdotal evidence (such as documented accidents or incidents), you choose the most cost effective way. I don't care whether that is my way, or Whopity's way, or 421C's way or Goudot's way, or even Seebohm's way.
I give what feel like copious amounts of my own time to attempt to protect the interests of pilots like you.
Sorry I got that wrong. I must say you have a great cover.
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?
No. Because I make it my personal rule to always land with an hour of fuel on board, even when VFR.
I'm sure you can find other differences where 14 CFR is more restrictive than LARS. They're just not very relevant to the discussion here.
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.
I haven't done the impact study. If there isn't a significant impact, there is a case for getting it scrapped. My guess was based on
- some FAA statistics on accident rates vs pilot hours
- an FAA study about deteriorating skill sets in low hour PPLs (but admittedly, that study was more qualitative and certainly not normalized for minimum logged hours)
But if the BFR isn't even necessary, why are you then advocating annual sessions with an examiner ? I would be in favour of a minimum logged hours regulation in lieu of a BFR or an annual check ride.
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?
Because that is an ICAO requirement, with a powerful medical lobby; much more powerful than the flight school lobby at EASA. Why don't you suggest your contacts at EASA to table it ? I'm sure the GA community would welcome it.
But in absolute money terms, the annual IR proficiency check is much more expensive than even an annual medical. We're talking a factor 3-4 here. The fact that there are so few IR rated JAA private pilots in Europe (why would that be ?) shouldn't distract us from the fact that the maintenance cost of this privelege, which is essential if you want to go places by plane, is simply much to high.