Oh, I hear you Mach and I am very familiar with 'other' systems; good and bad.
Mach.E. "[all] Instrument Rating Examiners to attend a two week standardisation course at the CAA facility at Stansted."
Which is a long march away from the Weeks version of 'Professional Development' designed specifically to enforce basic aero club 101 ab-initio OWT, home made rules and the "how I do it" philosophy into the professional 'flight test arena'; not to mention the art of framing of open ended 'tricky' questions to trap the unwary. Now, we get big, important sounding words slotted into the wrong place (syntax), ludicrous 'statements' and flawed 'procedure' (have a look at 'stalls' in the MoS) being foisted on a yawning audience of those who simply want the CASA stamp, in the log book, bugger off to the pub, and forget the clap-trap dished out, a.s.a.p. until the next round. But I digress;
The wording of 61, in the hands of a testing officer, on a predetermined mission sets up the 'Chop ride' syndrome with ease. Then you have CASA FOI who will, quite happily lie (until the subpoena arrives) to suit the circumstances. Part 61 wording provides unlimited scope for just such events. Doesn't happen you all cry: Oh, but it does children, it does. Ask Bill, he'll tell you (MMTF).
If Skidmore does nothing else at all, except get a rope on this Part 61 prat-fall he will go down as legend. The more I look into it, I'm sad to say, the worse it becomes – in the wrong hands. Weeks is another who has just a little more to answer for than the seriously ducked up 'rules' for choppers.
Mach E "Of course giving the Director some discretion in these matters assumes that the right person sits in such high office. One who listens to his minions but has the intestinal fortitude to overrule them when they are being unduly obstructive.....or just plain bloody minded."
Spot, again......
Sorry mum, I've ran out coins.