"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:cEt9e.3672$WI3.540@attbi_s71...
you also have a population of 250 or 300 million. Do you want to say
that
every
other nation with a smaller population is also irrelevant? Man, you
are
so
ignorant.

Did you even READ my post, Martin? Man, you are SO ignorant.

;-)

Apparently not, so I will sum up.

It's the relative PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft, and airports that is
out
of whack in France. If aviation weren't dead in France, they should
have
the same PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft and airports as the US.


Math is not your strong subject is it Jay? If aviation in France was dead
then the proportion of pilots is irrelevant. The statement you made at
the
start of this debate was that the incontrovertible truth was that GA in
France was dead. That is just not true.

There is no logical reason why there should be the same proportion of
pilots
aircraft and airports as in the US.

That would assume the same population make up, the same cultural make up,
the same everything. Well, buddy, France and the US are not the same.
This
may come as a bit of a shock to you but they are different. Hence
different
approaches to aviation.


If you believe GA is in good shape in France and other parts of the EU go
to
the AOPA WEB site and read about the new liability insurance requirements
the EU has placed on GA aircraft. $119 million in liability insurance
required for a 182. Doesn't sound healthy to me.

That is rubbish. Our insurance liability requirements have gone to £3m. We
were already insured for $2m. The insurers have increased the cover for no
cost. So what's the deal? $119m for a 182 what a joke read this

Flying Fortress plea




Elly Sallingboe wrote to Alastair Darling yesterday regarding the aircraft's
categorisation under new European insurance regulations for aircraft which
come into force on 1 May. She wrote:




Dear Mr Darling




New Euro charges threaten to ground Britain's last Flying Fortress




As the operator of the UK's last remaining airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress
G-BEDF Sally B, I am writing to you to ask for your help. New EC Regulation
785/2004 (effective from 1 May 2005) has introduced specified minimum levels
of insurance cover for aircraft. Its effect on this aircraft, which is an
important and well-loved living piece of national heritage, based at the
Imperial War Museum Duxford, will be permanently to ground it, unless an
exemption on this European requirement of third party insurance covered by
aircraft operators can be granted, or a new category introduced.




In 2005, this aircraft will have been flying in the UK for an incredible 30
years without any official funding, thanks to a dedicated team of volunteer
professionals (see enclosed press release). It should be a year of
celebration, but instead Sally B's future in this country is imminently and
seriously threatened, and this is why I am asking you please, as a matter of
urgency, to find a solution.




As you know, the new insurance requirements are based on aircraft weight.
Our aircraft weighs 15,150.24kg, and therefore falls just a few thousand kg
outside of Category 5 (see the chart printed below). This puts it in
Category 6, the same as a commercial Boeing 737, requiring a staggering 80
million SDRs - a leap of more than four times as much in the insurance cover
requirement. This new legislation will cost us another £25,000 per year,
which is simply impossible. I would add that the aircraft operates at
dramatically reduced weights from those of a wartime B-17. Clearly it
carries no warload, nor does it fly with full tanks for long-range
operations.




We currently hold £25 million third party insurance. I was advised that,
for the size and weight of the aircraft, this is a prudent amount of cover,
and more than double what has been required in recent years for aircraft
flying in air shows. This would still appear to be prudent according to the
weights given in the chart, if only there was not such a vast leap in cover
required between Categories 5 and 6. I am sure these new charges were not
intended to destroy flying national treasures such as ours, but this is what
is happening.




Unlike commercial aircraft, our historic aircraft is on a British Permit to
Fly, and as such:-


- is not allowed to carry out commercial flights

- is not allowed to fly for hire and reward

- is not allowed to carry passengers

- is not allowed to fly over populated areas.




Despite this:-


- it has its own maintenance company approved by the CAA

- its pilots are all ATPLs with extensive experience on tail wheel and heavy
piston


AND it flies only 20-40 hours per year, between May and October.




I should mention that the General Aviation Department of the CAA has been
trying to do something about this on our behalf for some time. We were
hopeful that the matter could be rectified, but sadly this has not been
possible. This is why I am appealing to you at this late stage, in the hope
that you can please do something to help.



I cannot emphasise too strongly just how vital it is to rectify this
situation. This year, as part of the 60th anniversary commemorations of the
end of the Second World War, Sally B is due to carry out a poppy drop and,
most importantly, to join in the official commemorative flypast over
Buckingham Palace. High profile commemorative events such as these will be
drastically affected if a way forward cannot be found.




Tens of thousands of young American airmen lost their lives flying from UK
bases in B-17s. This aircraft is the only living memorial to their
sacrifice - a flagship of the special relationship that has existed ever
since between our two countries. Its mission is to educate young and old of
this important piece of our national history.


There will be a massive outcry if this beloved aircraft, which represents so
much to so many people, is grounded now, having flown for thirty years
thanks solely to the dedication of its volunteers and supporters, and funds
raised by its own charity, The B-17 Charitable Trust. If something is not
done, this historic aircraft will soon cross the Atlantic to the USA. I
hope you will agree that this would be a tragedy, especially when the cause
is a piece of legislation that appears simply not to have taken account of
historic aircraft such as Sally B.



In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the aircraft flies only in
the UK, I ask you please to grant the Sally B an exemption so that this
aircraft can continue to fly in the UK, as a matter of urgency, given that
our flying season starts in May. If you would like to find out more about
this unique aircraft, please do look at our website



Now a 182 is not going to pick up more liability than a clapped out B17