On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:00:42 -0800, Matt Whiting wrote
(in article ):

Chris wrote:
Read the following in the February edition of AOPA magazine by Thomas
Haines
the editor in chief.

"General aviation of the future may look like that in Europe today -
where user fees have existed for years. There only the ultrawealthy fly
anything. The wealthy fly microlights and non of them enjoy the robust
infrastructure that we enjoy in this country."

If ever the cause against user fees gets undermined it is by rubbish like
this being written by so called intelligent people.

European GA is full of ordinary people who love flying, sure it is
expensive
(gas at $9 a gallon) but I defy anyone to say that they don't have to make
some sacrifices somewhere to fund their flying especially if you have a
family.

As for the robust infrastructure - well for the most part we don't need it.
Enough people on this forum say FSS is a waste of time and money.

Go to any car park at a local airfield and you will see a range of cars
from
the smart to the beat up testifying to the breath of people who fly. Same
here in Europe.

To say that flying in Europe is only for the ultra wealthy is not only
wrong, it is silly.

Has the user fees debate got to the stage of throwing out such crass
propaganda? Is there a need to tell such lies?

Do you guys believe it?

What is the percentage of pilots in major European countries? How does
that compare to the US? Do you have any data to refute the AOPA comments?

I lived in England for several months back in the mid 80s and it didn't
appear to me that GA hardly existed compared to the US. And the folks I
worked with in the plant thought I must be pretty wealthy when I told
them I was a pilot.

Matt

I remember reading somewhere that there were more active pilots in Orange
County in California than in all of Europe. But I can't remember where it
was. Anyone remember that article?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor