Who Rustled your keyboard then?
Anyway, back to a serious subject for some that for once doesnt warrant the usual PPRuNe fun and games. Please can we not get sidetracked in this silly way.
I apologised if you bothered to read the posts for using larger characters in the first place but I thought this was really an issue worthy of catching peoples attention. If you dont like my style that is tough.
We shouldnt get too involved in DFCs points because whilst as always they have merit, the world of GA will change over the next ten if not twenty years.
For one thing many airprots throughout Europe will have GA style airports. The percentage of aircraft that are adequately fitted out to fly in IMC will increase. Also, if you believe global warming is takingh place conditions that warrant flying at least part of the time on instruments will become more common at the same time as the forecasts contain a greater element of variability.
It is a fallacy that most GA pilots either want or are capable of operating in upper airspace. This is neither the place for aircraft that are not pressurised or lacking in performance. The lower airways throughout Europe are a grave yard - hardly anyone is their and certainly none of the commercial traffic wants to use this airspace.
It is also a fallacy that GA pilots want to be held in the holding stacks (twit these hardly ever occur these days in conditions when GA aircraft are likely to be flying anyway). GA pilots dont want to as a whole operate out of the larger regional airports if for no other reason than the charges are so steep and the convenience is so poor. (In Frankfurt recently I waited half a lifetime for fuel and the other half dealing with security).
No, GA pilots have a very different agenda.
The IMCR, and for that matter the old CAA route to an IR, were introduced by very wise men against great opposition at the time. In both cases they stood the test of time. Their record as significant contributors to safety and their effectiveness in meeting the goals setout I dont beleive can be disputed.
To change something that works well and has a long proven record is very dangerous, a principle again enshrined in Governments recognising the need for regulatory impact assessments.
With anything of this nature the earlier people make their views known the better. We need to get our views noticed.
For all of these reasons these are matters crucial to the future of GA and very worth while fighting for.