AOPA talking rubbish

On 2007-02-20, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."

The AOPA article being exaggerated. My own situation is proof that the
AOPA article is a gross exaggeration. However, AOPA is quite right to
want to lobby *against* user fees. AOPA rails against the popular press
for writing distortions and half truths - they need to apply that
standard to themselves too!

Other than that, AOPA is quite right to lobby against insane user fees.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


Stefan wrote:


Ron Rosenfeld schrieb:


Is there a need to tell such lies?
Do you guys believe it?


I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two
and
half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.


Which gives you the answer: Yes, there are people who believe this rubbish.

I've yet to see any proof that it is rubbish.

Matt


I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."

Is it the AOPA alarms?
Is it the European socialist attitude towards GA?
Is it the idea that some people are not paying their "fair share" (as
defined by those making the claims)?

I haven't read the a AOPA comments, but I think the gist of it is that
they claimed that GA was much less accessible in Europe than in the USA.
I personally believe this to be true, but admittedly haven't seen
anything even approximating data on this topic. I'd like to see the
percentages of the population in a few European countries that are GA
pilots and aircraft owners vs. the US. I haven't had time to search
much yet, but thought some of the folks who live in Europe and who were
claiming that the AOPA assertion was rubbish would step up with some data.


Matt

Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2007-02-20, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

I'm not sure what is being referenced as "rubbish."


The AOPA article being exaggerated. My own situation is proof that the
AOPA article is a gross exaggeration. However, AOPA is quite right to
want to lobby *against* user fees. AOPA rails against the popular press
for writing distortions and half truths - they need to apply that
standard to themselves too!

One data point invalidates the general assertion? Really??


Matt

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:11:29 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote:

On 2007-02-19, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
I suppose it is one reason why Europe, with a population more than two and
half times that of the United States, has a fraction of the GA activity.
--ron

Europe isn't nearly as homogenous as the United States in terms of
wealth. Europe (just the European Union) includes countries like Romania
and Bulgaria where just owning a *car* is a struggle - these countries
are still recovering from decades of Soviet rule and have economies
which are in a desperate condition even compared to France (let alone
the United States). If you look at Europe in a wider context than just
the EU, you end up with countries like Albania with a GDP per capita of
$5600 (compared with the GDP per capita of the United States which is
$43500 - almost 10 times higher).

That's very true. There are certainly areas of the US with similar
disadvantages. The inner cities and some rural areas come to mind.
Probably not as poor as Romania, though.

You can't really think of Europe in the same terms as the fifty states
of the US. Europe is pretty disparate in both wealth and culture. It's
not like an equivalent of the US where they speak funny languages.

Even if GA in Europe had no regulation whatsoever, there would be a lot
less GA activity in Europe than in the United States.

There is some good news though - the head of EASA has said he wants to
reduce the regulatory burden on GA and see it as 'healthy as it is in
the United States'. It remains to be seen whether they will actually
implement it, but over the last 18 months they have been making the
right noises. They even listened to and accepted the responses from GA
pilots over the Single European Sky which shocked the hell out of me.

That's good. My only experience with European flying is a bit of flying in
the Azores, in a Portugese registered a/c. It seemed it was more difficult
and expensive to obtain a temporary license. The flying privileges were
significantly more limited to what I have in the US. There was a lot more
control, but some of that was due to the flying club being based at Lajes
field, which is a large airport with shared military and commercial
control.
--ron

Blueskies wrote:
My annuals cost maybe 1 amu per year (knock wood!).

Whazzat? What currency is an "amu"?

Whazzat? What currency is an "amu"?

"Aviation monetary unit". It's equal to ten C-notes.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:55:49 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote in
:


And if you limit your flying, it can be affordable!

At the expense of reduced safety provided by recent practice.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:44:24 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

I haven't read the a AOPA comments, but I think the gist of it is that
they claimed that GA was much less accessible in Europe than in the USA.
I personally believe this to be true, but admittedly haven't seen
anything even approximating data on this topic. I'd like to see the
percentages of the population in a few European countries that are GA
pilots and aircraft owners vs. the US. I haven't had time to search
much yet, but thought some of the folks who live in Europe and who were
claiming that the AOPA assertion was rubbish would step up with some data.

That's because the percentage of population that are pilots in the European
countries is much less than in the US.


--ron

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:25:25 -0000, "Chris"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:24:35 -0000, "Chris"
wrote in :

The US has one ATC system, Europe has nearly 40.

Isn't the fact that they are all in compliance with International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, make that a moot point?

Not at all. They may all be in compliance with ICAO but that does not stop
the airspace systems being different,

Take Class E airspace - basically none existent in the UK but as soon as you
cross the FIR into French airspace it is class E.

Our class D is treated like the US class B and we have class down to the
surface - in fact a lot of our airspace below 19000 ft is class A.

In Sweden there is no class A or B airspace.

In the UK there is no night VFR, its either SVFR in CAS or IFR. You can fly
IFR without an instrument rating as long as the conditions are VMC. This is
not allowed in France.

You only have to go through the respective AIPs to see the differences
posted by each country from the ICAO norm.

The some countries are in a customs union and some are not so travelling
from UK to France requires a stop at a customs airfield but going from
France to Germany does not. And so it goes on.

In Germany one sets 0021 on the transponder for VFR flight below 5000' and
0022 above. In the UK it is 7000.

The of course there are the aeronautical charts - all different.

And all this for a trip no further than say Albany to Boston.


I had no idea. Thanks.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:25:25 -0000, "Chris"
wrote:

In Germany one sets 0021 on the transponder for VFR flight below 5000' and
0022 above. In the UK it is 7000.

Germany is going to replace 0021/0022 with 7000 on March 15th.

Regards
Tobias