This whole thread is not, or shouldn't be, about whether pilots are monkeys and can or cannot do a preflight inspection.
The whole thing is about the claim that the removal of engineers to do preflight inspections is UNSAFE.
I guess that the first thing to do is have a look at overseas markets and see if any aeroplanes that were not inspected by an engineer preflight have crashed as a result of an engineering fault that was evident prior to flight. A look closer top home to check the low capacity RPT aeroplanes where the PILOT does the daily as well as preflight inspection, and see what the accident rates are like for engineering related fatalities and injuries - and hull losses.
If the answer is no - then there is NO demonstrable reduction in safety.
There may well be a percieved reduction in safety but is it real?
We would be having this arguement if we previously had 12 hourly inspections rather than 24 hourly inspections - and then decided to go to 24 hr inspections only. It is the same thing
It appears on the face of it to be a reduction of safety - but as we all know - 24 hr inspection - ie the daily - are perfectly reasonable and safe.
The same applies to pilot inspections. There is NO regulatory requirement to have an engineer conduct the preflight inspection. There is no quantifiable safety benefit to having the engineer conduct the preflight inspection.
So WHY do it?
Is it better - most likely yes.
Would I like to have an extra set of eyes look over the aeroplane? - Yes
Do I feel uncomfortable doing the inspection by myself as the captain of the aeroplane? - NO
The majority of pilots are smart enough monkeys to get someone else in for a second opinion if there is any question about something - I know I do.
I reckon that the ALAEA should be keeping its powder dry to fight the fights that NEED fighting, not running a scare campaign designed to retain a work practice.
This is primarily an industrial issue NOT a safety issue.
But then I am a monkey with 4 bars - not a grease monkey!