cessnababe - very good points as one would expect! The question was posed mainly because of certain ideas mooted by the Authority. Under EASA it's likely that there will only be a single type of PPL, a CPL and an ATPL. Whether a different type of Instructional Licence is needed or whether exisiting methods should be amended are questions which can't be answered without also holding a Regulatory Impact Assessment - and that would attract criticism from current 'hours builders' who, rightly or wrongly, would probably allege that change could threaten their livelihoods.
Regarding your FIC experience, I would certainly agree. What other profession is content to allow its least experienced members to instruct others? In the RAF, instructors are selected and only the very talented are 'creamed off' at an early stage of their career to become QFIs - the vast majority have several years of broad experience behind them before they start their CFS training. That training includes much of what you recommend with regard to the 'teaching and learning' process.
But how would a 'career' FI be attracted by the salary levels paid by flying schools? If schools employed FIs on a 1:1 ratio to aeroplanes, a training organisation with 6 aircraft employing 6 FIs at even £30K per annum would need to find £180K from somewhere. Let's say that each ac flies 600 hours per year, then that would mean an extra £50 per hour just to pay FI salaries alone - assuming that everyone shares the cost of training. In an era where we face increasing competition from overseas training providers, the idea of paying an extra £2000 - £2500 for a PPL course would be unlikely to succeed. But 3600 hr per year means a fuel bill (PA28) of around £98000. Of which over half goes to swell George's sporren.... The one single thing which would bring down UK training costs substantially would be a cut in fuel tax - perhaps RFs and FTOs could then afford to pay their 'professional' FIs rather better!
Perhaps the only way of achieving a sound standard of instruction is to make the selection and training of civil FIs far more rigorous than it is today. For it is seen by many as merely a way of building hours before they join the airlines - a fundamentally unsound concept. The airlines have a big part to paly as well - they must take a much bigger role in selecting and training their new pilots; the current, highly flawed system is, of course, very cheap for them as they can rely on increasing numbers of ex-FI 'hours builders' beating a path to their door - and who are then selected largely by psychobabblers. But better the ex-FI with a little experience than someone whose entire aviation experience consists of hours achieved by flying up and down the East coast of Florida in the cheapest C150 they can find!
I certainly share your opinions - but I just can't see a simple solution whilst the airlines show seemingly no intention of running their own training programmes and the cost of flying remains as high as it is in the UK! Perhaps aptitude selection should form part of the CPL/ATPL course and only those with sufficient skill sets rather than just money and patience should be permitted to start CPL training? Then a 'standalone' FI licence such as you propose would be appropriate for those who also have the skill sets needed for flying instruction - and who would also be selected for training only after having passed aptitude testing and assessment?
Incidentally - did you see 'Flying School' on TV yesterday? Some very interesting examples of 'instructional technique'.......