The whole continuation training argument is flawed.
Actually look at the data. The US introduced the requirement many years ago - that accident rate did not improve.
JAR introduced the requirement - the accident rate ( over admitedly a short period) has got worst.
But the 'flight training industry' is solidly behind the requirement on safety grounds - yeah right!!! I think we can see what grounds they actually support.
It is a sensible argument - but one that is simply not supported by the evidence. Perhaps that is because simply re-tracing parts of the original training syllabus does not add much value, perhaps having the least experinced pilots (in real world terms, i.e. frozen ATPLs), as instructors is wholly flawed. Whatever the problem the present continuation training is not reducing the accident rate.
So when GAPAN state the BMAA must 'get onside' with the financial vested interests where is the evidence that safety is being improved?
To be blunt light aviation would be much better off if it followed the BMAA approach rather than the 'we all want to be airline pilots' approach that most of the GA organisations seem to have.