My God , guys - when did PPRuNe get so bloody angry ?
An article appears in the press which shows general aviation and, in particular helicopters, in a good light. It is obviously meant as a light read - entertainment. It glosses over the details. It is light-hearted. It was written in a newspaper and not a technical publication, least of all a flying magazine.
Yes, it is simple in its approach, but clearly by design. It is not aimed at helicopter pilots, however many thousands of hours they have, whether civil or military, however many would-be's they have "chopped."
If it makes one person think, "that sounds like fun" and pop in to enquire about lessons, at Heliair or Harry's Helis - and forgive me for sticking my neck out - isn't that a good thing? If the costs of running and maintaining a helicopter are more than quoted then I'm sure the Times reader in question will find out about that before handing over the dosh for their new helicopter, or simply head back home on their bicycle. If the skills needed are greater in fact than those needed to ride a bicycle (which I suspect was an example of the acquisistion of motor skills, rather than a direct comparison), then I'm sure he or she will discover this during the very early stages of training, as does every other PPL(H) student.
Last of all guys, if you are going to get angry, insulting, personal, and going to sit hammering vitriol into your keyboards, make it at something (with respect, Pat) a little more important than an article in Sunday paper, about a leisure activity.