This thread was obviously started by a sciolist; I recommend he/she should be banned from the forum.
I merely wanted to react to the misconception of so many who see private flying as "recreational", or a "hobby", as opposed to a genuine means of private travel (for business, personal or other reasons).
I can see the wisdom of the 7 exams and 20K for driving licensing. We'd have only the very best, most serious people driving, and the income would cover highway costs excellently!
If you see the "wisdom" in that, I take it you never had a course in or read a book about economics. The point I'm trying to make is that, whilst some regulation is useful or even necessary, it has to be balanced with economic concerns and civil liberties. Their is a tendency of civil servants, fuelled by self-aggrandissement, to overregulate while abusing a safety argument. As such, the comparison with cars was ironic and meant to expose this abuse of argument.
I don't think "hobby" and aircraft size should be associated with each other.
Who on earth made that association ? What we want is to be allowed to fly from A to B at FL100-ish in a PA28-180 or similar, under IFR, and get family, friends and business associates there and back, safe and sound.
But, as long as businesses struggle to make a go of it with a few two seat trainers...
so we need protectionist regulation to subsidize the inefficient European flight training scene ? Maybe I'm missing the point you are trying to make, but shouldn't the main concern be that we get as many future pilots (professional and other) trained as the market can optimally sustain ? Doesn't the solution therefore lie in assuring the competencies of the trainer, whilst removing all unneccesary barriers to entry ? But I confess I'm struggling to grasp the idea behind your last paragraph.
PP.