The impression comes in part from your trivialising the debate on cost benefit with making dismissive remarks style "So it has to be the FAA way, huh, well that just doesn't wash" that convey an impression of anti-americanism. The impression was fuelled many months ago with your rants about US congressional protectionism.
For what it's worth, I remain convinced that the EU needs an independent regulatory system, because the FAA has the dual mission of both regulation and promotion of US aviation interests. To allow the FAA to dictate regulation globally would be akin to allowing the Yankees to write the MLB rulebook (Home runs now count double -- because the fans want it, of course, not because it favors the Yankee lineup, no sir
)
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't learn the lessons of a much larger aviation market, particularly for GA. But there are social, political, economic and structural factors that affect the insights gleaned.
The topic of this discussion is IAOPA seemingly accepting a need for annual re-examination, which I find difficult to understand, let alone underwrite.
Cost-benefit rears its head not just in optimal regulation, but also in optimal lobbying. There's an element of realpolitik, and it might be better to strive to drive down the cost of examination rather than try to change the examiner/instructor roles. I also remain convinced that there is merit in separation, but not at the expense of creating, as you put it, an oligopoly.
I hope you're not questioning my competence here. Having demonstrated my competence to a JAA examiner in the past, I didn't find the experience particularly nerve racking.
I was questioning your confidence, not your competence. I think you make too much of the difference between a prof check and a flight review.
This is, as I've already told you, a bogus argument. Why do you think there are so few JAA IR private pilots ? Because the theoretical part of the training is expensive and to a large extent irrelevant. And because the maintenance is such a bother. In fact, if it weren't for the 700 hour conversion in the old days, the proportion of the private flying population affected would even be tinier.
The disincentives are the TK and the very long flight training course for those who may already have good skills. Maintenance costs (beyond the sensible requirement to stay current) are minimal in the context of most EU-based IR pilot's flying spend.
In conclusion, I continue to find it strange that IAOPA, which would have more members if it took a more principled stance on trying to minimize regulatory burdens in the absence of valid evidence of a regulation requirement and on trying to harmonize Aviation Regulation worldwide, seems to accept annual examinations and air law exams as if it were the normallest thing in the world.
I don't think you'd say that if you'd read the joint EAS/IAOPA submission on regulation of GA and the corresponding working group paper for the EASA Management Board (which is being finalised today I think). But if I were running such an organisation, I'd be thinking about the value to my members of a principled loss compared to a compromised win based on the art of the possible.