And I think we will see the difference between a proficiency check and flight rewiew come into play here. You are not training when you conduct a proficiency check. You are assessing their ability.
It's all well and good to say they won't need any training, but how often do you find a PPL who is due for a review who does
everything without needing a tune-up here or there.
Honestly, how many instructors who are assuming they don't need a 141/142 are going to say, "we need to stop the review because I now need an approval which I don't have"?
The school who has paid for the exposition and time to get their training approval are going to be pretty pissed off at an instructor who moonlights their work.
Not unrealistic to say, "I'll just fudge the record that you didn't need any training", and that is a problem.
I agree CASA need to clarify this, (which I hope they will), but it's going to be a lot simpler to just do it under a 141/142.
Again, how many independants are carrying their own liability insurance? A school covers you. Alone, you've got your arse hanging out in the breeze. Sure many old hands remember the dramas Alan D. went through in SE QLD a few years back and he was covered!