Well, let's reverse that argument. Teach people to fly, but have no test for PPL or CPL. After all the people who hire out aeroplanes to them, or employ them, are going to ensure that they are competent, right?
Except no equivalent test exists for the PPL or CPL does it? The ATPL flight test however, does have an equivalent. The IPC. If you argue thats only the company ensuring competence and not the regulator, then you're arguing that a company should never be the arbiter of your competence and we should remove their ability to conduct the IPC/Renewals immediately.
Can your company ensure competence or not? Can't have it both ways.
Let's adopt the same strategy for heavy truck drivers or bus drivers. If they can drive a car, they will be OK with a B double or taking your kids to school because the owners will ensure that it is so.
Is the car or bus test more or less identical to the B double test? No. It tests entirely different things. IPC and the ATPL test are nearly identical.
It is a fact of life - if you do not set a standard then test people to that standard the system will be abused.
I agree. Which is why we do the ATP/sorry, IPC already. And the regulator has deemed 217 departments qualified to assess competency on their behalf. Now you argue they shouldn't?
So, for once it IS all about safety. I am no great lover of Big Brother, but CASA don't exactly make a profit out of this, so let's not wrongly accuse them of that motive.
It is just a shame that CASA did not save a lot of money by engaging NZ CAA as consultants on the whole Part 61 introduction.
They may have had good intentions, but there is a reason they've been forced into appointing a 20 something man task force to address the disaster than has been the part 61 implementation. There is a reason companies are increasing their minimum requirements, not decreasing them as was expected. I agree that consultation could have provided a vast improvement.