AOPA claim 70% drop out rate
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does this prove that we don't need an IMCR then? It never ceases me the circular arguments that appear on here with one contradicting the other.
In the same vain different people have different reasons for starting flying and giving up...cheaper, more exciting planes are obviously part of the solution (someone feel like designing a Tiger Moth II perhaps?) but for different reasons and different people a more accessible IR would be a solution for them as well. The two are not necessarily contradictory, they just represent different views on what aviation means to people.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aylesbury,Bucks
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is an interesting analogy, but it has one flaw. It is entirely possible to fly aircraft like the PA28R out of strips. There is one based on the strip with me. In time the smaller licensed airfields will probably abandon paying huge money to the CAA and become unlicensed. This will have zero impact on the VFR side of flying, apart from reducing the costs, but it will, unfortunately, be a problem for IFR
Whilst I agree there is some overlap I know lots of pilots (and passengers) that are very wary of grass strips and as we are on the subject of increasing flying numbers...
I am sure the new rules will help a lot of un-licensed fields but to me I find it very worrying that we are creating an even stronger seperation between "recreational flying" and "private flying" and "commercial flying". Have you tried southern spain recently - VFR is all but banned most of the week. I can see that getting stronger when lots of "even less qualified" pilots start turning up, and can see the middle ground airfields going bust once they loose training to cheaper airfields and loose the commercial hour builders.
We are in danger of creating a great void between (recreational flying) and commercial (ATPL only) flying. Continuing my analogy this leaves us with trailer launching and shipping ports - all of the marina's going bust or diminishing to such a small number their utility disappears.
This "utility" is important as it is the significant funding that comes with it that is needed. I agree IFR is more affected - but I would like to think that an enlightened EASA will start to allow GPS approaches with A/G or AFIS at small airfields all over Europe - thus keeping IFR 2nd class (IMCR) more away from Air Transport IFR commercial traffic. ( I can but dream
)Create a serious utility - for business and holiday touring then more wealth will appear and help prop the infrastructure up. I witnessed many a marina transition from a run down operation with all low value vessels to thriving social scene with a great mix of high and lower value vessels. In principle given some foresight I can see the newer generation of planes being used in this way.
PS. I am not being a snob about value - but on the whole the spend an airfield and surrounding area can expect is somewhat proportionate to the quality of the aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I am not being a snob about value - but on the whole the spend an airfield and surrounding area can expect is somewhat proportionate to the quality of the aircraft.”
I guess it depends how you define quality. A selection of almost new composite 912 powered super ships in immaculate condition parked with a selection of lovingly cared for vintage machines housed in modern buildings against a ratty old fleet of tiered spam cans worth a lot less but costing a fortune in maintenance and fuel, parked in WW2 hangers with rust falling from the roof. One bit of GA is in crisis, guess which bit…
Bose, you fly IFR from a strip. If the CAA allowed IFR GPS approaches to strips how much would that help you? Or have you already got your solution programmed in, just for “practice”. I am not knocking IFR flight, I just think my guess on the direction UK GA is going is more at the fun-flying end. If technology can cope with a lack of approach aids on the airfield then IFR will continue. There is no need for the number of landing places to decrease, it has increased over the last 10 years and just because some airfields become unlicensed does not mean the runways shrink.
Rod1
I guess it depends how you define quality. A selection of almost new composite 912 powered super ships in immaculate condition parked with a selection of lovingly cared for vintage machines housed in modern buildings against a ratty old fleet of tiered spam cans worth a lot less but costing a fortune in maintenance and fuel, parked in WW2 hangers with rust falling from the roof. One bit of GA is in crisis, guess which bit…
Bose, you fly IFR from a strip. If the CAA allowed IFR GPS approaches to strips how much would that help you? Or have you already got your solution programmed in, just for “practice”. I am not knocking IFR flight, I just think my guess on the direction UK GA is going is more at the fun-flying end. If technology can cope with a lack of approach aids on the airfield then IFR will continue. There is no need for the number of landing places to decrease, it has increased over the last 10 years and just because some airfields become unlicensed does not mean the runways shrink.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aylesbury,Bucks
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends how you define quality. A selection of almost new composite 912 powered super ships in immaculate condition parked with a selection of lovingly cared for vintage machines housed in modern buildings against a ratty old fleet of tiered spam cans worth a lot less but costing a fortune in maintenance and fuel, parked in WW2 hangers with rust falling from the roof. One bit of GA is in crisis, guess which bit…
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the 'marina' model is somewhat time limited.
I moved away from it with my flying over 15 years ago. With my boating however I'm still involved with it. Why?
Boating wise in the North ar least, the costs and complications are still affordable and not inconveninet. Compare and contrast versus the majority of GA fields - fences, security, hangarage at astronomic rates - and that is before you try and run a C of A machine under the highly regarded and much awaited PArt M.........................
My permit aircraft have lived on strips and I've toured much of Europe VFR - at pretty modest cost. Could I have done it 'properly' in an IFR machine - not if I'd worked for wages - the costs are literally an order of magnitude larger - is the satisfaction thast mcuh greater? Nope!
I largely fly strip to strip - unless overseas. And that is the key - in the UK GA is about high costs and difficulties - that is why so many people like me have effectively opted out. I do what I want to and live with the overspill of rules which thankfully do not hurt me too much but which really hurt the 'marina' market.
In 10 years time I have no expectation of being able to fly into any UK large regional airfields. But it will not have any real effect. In France none of this will occur and I'll continue to fly into their regional fields. Here at home I'll find strips to replace the over blown and high cost 'International' airports.
Will I support any of the marina stuff - nope. The fragmentation of GA in the UK has largely lead to the divide and rule approach - with us whimps leaving first. If you want to hang on and fight - best of luck, but there are financial interests which make success highly unlikely.
And you do not help your own interests with the them and us stuff. If we're bimblers or puddlejumpers fine - but that is not my view. We are well clear of the ATPL types and the PPL sausage machine. I much enjoy my biennial with an instructor who has never seen the far side of the hills, flown taildraggers, landed on a strip etc etc.
Do you have any convincing arguments to why GA flying should be 'subsidised' by regional airfields? I can think of none and I doubt you can either! This sort of flying simply complicates a simpe business of processing passengers - given the 'quality' of most airfield managements you can see why GA is unwelcome.
IFR touring in expensive, lead burning, thirsty and expensive machinery? I'd suggest most things have a brighter future.
I moved away from it with my flying over 15 years ago. With my boating however I'm still involved with it. Why?
Boating wise in the North ar least, the costs and complications are still affordable and not inconveninet. Compare and contrast versus the majority of GA fields - fences, security, hangarage at astronomic rates - and that is before you try and run a C of A machine under the highly regarded and much awaited PArt M.........................
My permit aircraft have lived on strips and I've toured much of Europe VFR - at pretty modest cost. Could I have done it 'properly' in an IFR machine - not if I'd worked for wages - the costs are literally an order of magnitude larger - is the satisfaction thast mcuh greater? Nope!
I largely fly strip to strip - unless overseas. And that is the key - in the UK GA is about high costs and difficulties - that is why so many people like me have effectively opted out. I do what I want to and live with the overspill of rules which thankfully do not hurt me too much but which really hurt the 'marina' market.
In 10 years time I have no expectation of being able to fly into any UK large regional airfields. But it will not have any real effect. In France none of this will occur and I'll continue to fly into their regional fields. Here at home I'll find strips to replace the over blown and high cost 'International' airports.
Will I support any of the marina stuff - nope. The fragmentation of GA in the UK has largely lead to the divide and rule approach - with us whimps leaving first. If you want to hang on and fight - best of luck, but there are financial interests which make success highly unlikely.
And you do not help your own interests with the them and us stuff. If we're bimblers or puddlejumpers fine - but that is not my view. We are well clear of the ATPL types and the PPL sausage machine. I much enjoy my biennial with an instructor who has never seen the far side of the hills, flown taildraggers, landed on a strip etc etc.
Do you have any convincing arguments to why GA flying should be 'subsidised' by regional airfields? I can think of none and I doubt you can either! This sort of flying simply complicates a simpe business of processing passengers - given the 'quality' of most airfield managements you can see why GA is unwelcome.
IFR touring in expensive, lead burning, thirsty and expensive machinery? I'd suggest most things have a brighter future.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Aylesbury,Bucks
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The marina comparison is exactly that, a comparison not an exact replication.
But since you raise the issue of cost one example I can give is my own marina down south - got more and more expensive. Did it empty - NO it got fuller with more expensive vessels and raised even more money. Is this right? - probably not. But cost is not the end of it. The cost needs to be appropriate the to perceived benefit. The whole thriving boating scene on the south coast makes piston planes seem very cheap. The ford fiesta end of the market will always be price driven but there are other cars that generate lots of revenue. The problem is that when you buy a nice car you dont want to keep it in a crap place.
I am not the one creating the "them and us" - I am worried that it is happening - but it appears many in the LAA land seem to want to dis-associate and let it all die. This is a shame as many of the landing sites around the uk cannot survive on a pittance and would surely loose out the "brown field" development pressure.
What makes you think that. In a unified EASA world all the rules will be the same - controlled French airspace would operate the same rules as the UK - so either both open or both closed. I suspect the later to the LAPL non IFR tourers. Spain is already becoming harder for the VFR flyer. Sure many smaller airfields will continue outside of this , but many important stop off points may become in-accessible. Not good for any of us.
I can see why flying has such a difficult time representing itself - it is so fragmented. Pity we don't have and RYA equivalent fighting on all fronts. Perhaps if the associations worked to together then perhaps we might get somewhere.
Compared to what? - with 4 up mine competes well with my car, and is massively less that the Motor Yachts successfully touring the south coast. Been there got the tee-shirt - flying with friends is much cheaper 
I am all for light aircraft aswell and would love more and more landing sites, but letting the core infrastructure die will ultimately affect any touring/utility capability. Remember our regional airports have grown from existing infrastructure - imagine if that had already died - 10 lane motorways
loss of employment etc.etc.
Do you really want all the mid sized airfields to close?
But since you raise the issue of cost one example I can give is my own marina down south - got more and more expensive. Did it empty - NO it got fuller with more expensive vessels and raised even more money. Is this right? - probably not. But cost is not the end of it. The cost needs to be appropriate the to perceived benefit. The whole thriving boating scene on the south coast makes piston planes seem very cheap. The ford fiesta end of the market will always be price driven but there are other cars that generate lots of revenue. The problem is that when you buy a nice car you dont want to keep it in a crap place.
I am not the one creating the "them and us" - I am worried that it is happening - but it appears many in the LAA land seem to want to dis-associate and let it all die. This is a shame as many of the landing sites around the uk cannot survive on a pittance and would surely loose out the "brown field" development pressure.
In 10 years time I have no expectation of being able to fly into any UK large regional airfields. But it will not have any real effect. In France none of this will occur and I'll continue to fly into their regional fields. Here at home I'll find strips to replace the over blown and high cost 'International' airports.
I can see why flying has such a difficult time representing itself - it is so fragmented. Pity we don't have and RYA equivalent fighting on all fronts. Perhaps if the associations worked to together then perhaps we might get somewhere.
IFR touring in expensive, lead burning, thirsty and expensive machinery? I'd suggest most things have a brighter future.
I am all for light aircraft aswell and would love more and more landing sites, but letting the core infrastructure die will ultimately affect any touring/utility capability. Remember our regional airports have grown from existing infrastructure - imagine if that had already died - 10 lane motorways
loss of employment etc.etc.Do you really want all the mid sized airfields to close?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see why flying has such a difficult time representing itself - it is so fragmented. Pity we don't have and RYA equivalent fighting on all fronts. Perhaps if the associations worked to together then perhaps we might get somewhere.
I have been an RYA member for 25 years as well as an Instructor etc, and I know few people who are not members and a I know many who complain about what the RYA do but still retain membership as they are pragmatic enough to understand there is no such thing as a magic carpet.
GA in terms of us as light aircraft flyers (rather than the bizav) has had the death knell sounding for a long time. It will tear itself apart saving the Eurocrats the job. You only have to look at the forums to see this.
To be honest I think I am done now, I have nothing to lose ratings wise and am prepared to meet the rules as the come along (been Mode S for a long time etc.) and see where it goes from there. I will leave the rest to destroy from within.
Have fun!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“but it appears many in the LAA land seem to want to dis-associate and let it all die.”
I do not think this is really the case. The LAA want less regulation, less cost and to get more pilots into the sport. I do not think the LAA want the IFR end to die, or would encourage this to happen as a deliberate policy. We see growth in real recreational flying for fun. We have the advantage of much lower cost for the same or better capability for VFR flight. In time we may get IFR, but that is another story. The PFA has renamed itself to the Light Aircraft Association in an attempt to appeal to the majority of the GA community.
The strips are not “no go arrears” for C of A aircraft. I fly from 600m of well drained grass; this is soon to be extended to 725m. The runway is longer, wider and better drained than two of the near by licensed airfields. The point I was trying to make is that with strips growing in number every year there are more places to land, not less. Popom is not licensed, but it is a thriving aviation community where C of C aircraft fly alongside permit and micro types. I see licensed airfields becoming more Popom like, not closing down.
The other advantage of strips keeping pilots flying is convenience. Because there are so many around you will probably find one much closer to home than you local licensed airfield. I am now 13 miles from my aircraft (by car), I was 47. As the strip has no restrictions I can fly in the summer until quite late and this will more than make up for loosing some time in the winter.
“In a unified EASA world all the rules will be the same - controlled French airspace would operate the same rules as the UK”
I hope that was a joke. I do a huge amount of business in Europe. The French may sign up to the same rules as us but we implement them to the letter and the French ignore the ones they do not like. GA in French regional airports will survive far longer than in the UK.
“Do you really want all the mid sized airfields to close?”
I am not sure what a mid size airfield is. If you mean a regional airport, then they are doing very well, but are going to kick GA out, which is a big threat for PPL IR as 24 hour operation with full approach aids is what is really required if you have to fly. If you mean the small club airfields, then I hope these will adapt and continue.
Rod1
I do not think this is really the case. The LAA want less regulation, less cost and to get more pilots into the sport. I do not think the LAA want the IFR end to die, or would encourage this to happen as a deliberate policy. We see growth in real recreational flying for fun. We have the advantage of much lower cost for the same or better capability for VFR flight. In time we may get IFR, but that is another story. The PFA has renamed itself to the Light Aircraft Association in an attempt to appeal to the majority of the GA community.
The strips are not “no go arrears” for C of A aircraft. I fly from 600m of well drained grass; this is soon to be extended to 725m. The runway is longer, wider and better drained than two of the near by licensed airfields. The point I was trying to make is that with strips growing in number every year there are more places to land, not less. Popom is not licensed, but it is a thriving aviation community where C of C aircraft fly alongside permit and micro types. I see licensed airfields becoming more Popom like, not closing down.
The other advantage of strips keeping pilots flying is convenience. Because there are so many around you will probably find one much closer to home than you local licensed airfield. I am now 13 miles from my aircraft (by car), I was 47. As the strip has no restrictions I can fly in the summer until quite late and this will more than make up for loosing some time in the winter.
“In a unified EASA world all the rules will be the same - controlled French airspace would operate the same rules as the UK”
I hope that was a joke. I do a huge amount of business in Europe. The French may sign up to the same rules as us but we implement them to the letter and the French ignore the ones they do not like. GA in French regional airports will survive far longer than in the UK.
“Do you really want all the mid sized airfields to close?”
I am not sure what a mid size airfield is. If you mean a regional airport, then they are doing very well, but are going to kick GA out, which is a big threat for PPL IR as 24 hour operation with full approach aids is what is really required if you have to fly. If you mean the small club airfields, then I hope these will adapt and continue.
Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Because we have so many organisations serving there own needs. Then there are the people who don't like the way someone else does it and go off and start there own campaign. This is the mentality of aviation. Rather than accept that representatives are not perfect, just run them down and tell everyone why you won't join and then go and start your own campaign, then just sit and bicker with everyone else.
Well that is obviously directed at me.
Let me give you what I intend to be a constructive reply.
In my opinion you have chosen a very good example in the RYA.
I agree there is pretty wide consensus that they do a good job.
They are active in every aspect of boating from dingy clubs, to the training schools, to offshore power boating, to wind surfers as much to the guy who wants to sit on his yacht in a marina somewhere drinking G and Ts. In fact their web site goes over board to inform you that they are the UK's national organisation representing the interests of everyone who goes voting for pleasure.
Their web site is modern and full of useful information. The message clearly comes across they are concerned with legislative restrictions being imposed on their members. For example “campaigns and lobbying” is at the very top of their web site. They tell us:
“The RYA campaigns on an enormous variety of issues that affect boaters. Our expert staff work to represent members’ views and interests at local, regional, national, European and global level. They do so to keep our watersports and pastimes free of costly bureaucracy and unwarranted interference. Thanks to their knowledge, experience and enthusiasm, as well as the support and backing of our 100,000-plus membership, boating in Britain, uniquely in Europe, remains free from major legislation and open for all to enjoy.”
Whether it is just words or not the immediate impression is of an organisation that is trying to represent everyone and inform everyone of the good working they are doing.
The aviation representative bodies are fragmented. I don’t know how this came about, although one frequently reads that they are not prepared to work together. Unfortunately, if that is so, it is to their detriment. The funding of each diminishes, they have to compete to attract membership and they become less effective because they are each no longer perceived to be representative. It is up to them to work together - no one else is going to do it for them.
The problem with your stance set out above is that unless a point comes at which people feel the job they are doing is inadequate then things will only get worse, not better.
Each of the representative bodies will tell you they need more money, they need more volunteers, they need more professional time and each is right. Unfortuntaly that is the result of their decline not the symptom. Treat the symptom and you will cure the disease.
Work together, pool your existing resources, volunteers, professional contributors and you will be perceived as all having a common goal together with resources to present a persuasive shop front to your members.
So to sum up on the single issue of the IMC rating I felt that the various representative bodies were not doing enough to educate everyone what we were / are about to lose and what we might try and do about it. That was my assessment, rightly or wrongly. I decided that I would try and do something about this single issue.
I would have loved one of the representative bodies to have got in contact and ask “can we work together on this” or “can we take over this campaign” or something along those lines. In reality the calls have come from everyone but.
Some of the remarks made by some have come over as increasingly bitter. I frankly have no idea why this should be so. However, it is not something I want to be involved with any further. I shall do my very best with this campaign. As much as I have enjoyed and learnt from this forum over the years I now chose to not contribute further (other than on this one issue) and once the campaign is over, that will be my lot.
Because we have so many organisations serving there own needs. Then there are the people who don't like the way someone else does it and go off and start there own campaign. This is the mentality of aviation. Rather than accept that representatives are not perfect, just run them down and tell everyone why you won't join and then go and start your own campaign, then just sit and bicker with everyone else.
Well that is obviously directed at me.
Let me give you what I intend to be a constructive reply.
In my opinion you have chosen a very good example in the RYA.
I agree there is pretty wide consensus that they do a good job.
They are active in every aspect of boating from dingy clubs, to the training schools, to offshore power boating, to wind surfers as much to the guy who wants to sit on his yacht in a marina somewhere drinking G and Ts. In fact their web site goes over board to inform you that they are the UK's national organisation representing the interests of everyone who goes voting for pleasure.
Their web site is modern and full of useful information. The message clearly comes across they are concerned with legislative restrictions being imposed on their members. For example “campaigns and lobbying” is at the very top of their web site. They tell us:
“The RYA campaigns on an enormous variety of issues that affect boaters. Our expert staff work to represent members’ views and interests at local, regional, national, European and global level. They do so to keep our watersports and pastimes free of costly bureaucracy and unwarranted interference. Thanks to their knowledge, experience and enthusiasm, as well as the support and backing of our 100,000-plus membership, boating in Britain, uniquely in Europe, remains free from major legislation and open for all to enjoy.”
Whether it is just words or not the immediate impression is of an organisation that is trying to represent everyone and inform everyone of the good working they are doing.
The aviation representative bodies are fragmented. I don’t know how this came about, although one frequently reads that they are not prepared to work together. Unfortunately, if that is so, it is to their detriment. The funding of each diminishes, they have to compete to attract membership and they become less effective because they are each no longer perceived to be representative. It is up to them to work together - no one else is going to do it for them.
The problem with your stance set out above is that unless a point comes at which people feel the job they are doing is inadequate then things will only get worse, not better.
Each of the representative bodies will tell you they need more money, they need more volunteers, they need more professional time and each is right. Unfortuntaly that is the result of their decline not the symptom. Treat the symptom and you will cure the disease.
Work together, pool your existing resources, volunteers, professional contributors and you will be perceived as all having a common goal together with resources to present a persuasive shop front to your members.
So to sum up on the single issue of the IMC rating I felt that the various representative bodies were not doing enough to educate everyone what we were / are about to lose and what we might try and do about it. That was my assessment, rightly or wrongly. I decided that I would try and do something about this single issue.
I would have loved one of the representative bodies to have got in contact and ask “can we work together on this” or “can we take over this campaign” or something along those lines. In reality the calls have come from everyone but.
Some of the remarks made by some have come over as increasingly bitter. I frankly have no idea why this should be so. However, it is not something I want to be involved with any further. I shall do my very best with this campaign. As much as I have enjoyed and learnt from this forum over the years I now chose to not contribute further (other than on this one issue) and once the campaign is over, that will be my lot.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 4th Jan 2008 at 11:42.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I now chose to not contribute further (other than on this one issue) and once the campaign is over, that will be my lot.
I was aiming nothing at you, I was giving a general opinion of the situation. But the fact is in my opinion all you have done is further fragment the situation with no clear direction on resolution. I have tried to stir up a bit of debate to create a non emotive response about why the IMCR should stay. The original AOPA submission was clear and non emotive. This was obviously not good enough hence starting another campaign so I am just interested to hear the alternative views. A lot of effort has been put into telling us what others have done wrong, but nothing into how you are going to do it right.
The RYA is well funded, none of the GA organizations are and non of them are prepared to give up there place at the table and merge. This goes equally for AOPA. When we have a single AVIATION body we will have a unified voice and monetary power. But the fact is GA will be long gone before everyone wakes up and smells the coffee.
We are never going to agree no matter how much you try and brow beat me because I think your approach and argument are flawed. To much time spent on self congratulation of how you managed to get 1,000/40,000 (including the fakes) to sign a petition that just states the IMCR must be saved but not how or why.
Others like myself have tried to play devils advocate with counter arguments that are exactly the same as have already been heard from EASA or that we believe you will hear. Some of us have more experience at the committee table on these matters and know how it works. It is not he who shouts loudest but he who can make a balanced and sensible argument.
So far I have seen none of this in the counter arguments.
I however am still prepared to stand and listen to them when they are formulated without resort to personal attacks.
THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU FUJI IT IS A VIEW ON THE GENERAL SITUATION. Try and resist a personal response.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU FUJI IT IS A VIEW ON THE GENERAL SITUATION. Try and resist a personal response.
When we have a single AVIATION body we will have a unified voice and monetary power. But the fact is GA will be long gone before everyone wakes up and smells the coffee.
It is not he who shouts loudest but he who can make a balanced and sensible argument.
The representative bodies were hopefully always going to present reasoned arguments. That is excellent work on their part and if AOPA are the prime movers I take my hat off to them. You may recall that you were good enough to set out for us all AOPAs stance on this issue which was the first time I had read that "document".
However I think I have explained that I felt there was a wide misunderstanding about how important an issue this was. Whilst I know you took it as an "attack" on some of the representative bodies it was intended as valid crticism that if you do not tell people in a very public way what is going on you cant expect them to be aware, or do anything about it. I am certainly guilty of falling into that category. Until you or Rustle said something like - "you have been warned, and arent doing anything abou it - did it dawn on me what we were about to lose". I cant remember whether it was you or someone else who disagreed and commented that it was up to us to stay abreast of proposed changes in legislation. Whilst that may well be so, I doubt many people have the time or inclination.
If the campaign has done nothing more than bring this matter to the forefront of everyones attention, enabled the issues to be widely discussed and reflected the strength of feeling then I beleive it has achieved something. The fact that many more people I believe will now write to their Euro MPs forms part of the representative process. I could be completely wrong and I bow to your greater knowledge but never the less if I were a Euro MP and received a 1,000 letters I think I might sit up and take note.
I am sorry if any of it has appeared self congratulatory. That has never been my purpose. In fact I am not sure how you can use a forum such as this to be self congratulatory if most people dont know who you are. Sometimes that may be a bad thing but I have absolutely no interest in personally putting myself forward, but I do believe reminding us all that we are really gaining a load of support is very much part of the campaigning process and very much part of imparting that this issue is important and we each need to get involved with it.
Yeah, I know I have taken on board your warning, and it is well made. I am just in the process of buying a new aircraft and I want to spend more time flying than I am currently managing and plan on doing as much touring as I can. However, times move on, so if I do fall into that trap please remind me and I will put in a quick tack and head over the horizon again. These forums seem to have changed over the years as well, or perhaps I have, so there it is.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare and contrast my boat and my plane.
I can walk into a well equipped, pleasant and helpful marina. I need no licence, no certified maintenance, no radio. I cast off and the world is my oyster. If the government comes up with daft legislation - such as the drinking / sailing stuff I have an organisation which actually has a good chance of making them see sense.
At my strip its not quite so good. The facilities are pretty limited, I have a bunch of rules about my licence and currency. I'm on a permit so the maintenance is affordable and can be done with a high degree of flexibility - places, people, costs. The LAA will try (and in association with the rest of the alphabet soup) may succeed in delaying things but nothing much more.
If I go to my local regional airfield in my old C of A machine? Couple of hundred a month to park, £12.50 per landing for resident machines, maintenance at a limited number of places at high costs. 'Security' which means taking apassenger is a near nightmare experience. And all this is getting more difficult because Part M, CAMOs, Part 66 etc. Plus if I go to another regional airfield I have a whole new nightmare to work my way through - whilst paying £1.30 or more per litre for the pleasure. I might be represented by AOPA who will tell me what a great job they're doing whilst not talking to all the others (but that is another thread entirely!!!)
If the latter scenario has a real future I cannot see it.
Will EASA make everything the same - absolutely not. The EU directive gold plating is a UK phenomena, look at the comparison between the DGAC and CAA over Mode S....
The third scenario means I'll never go back to a C of A machine whilst the present arrangements exist.
I hope that the LAA, BGA, BMAA in accord with the EU organisations will end up with a sensible training, currency, recreational pilots licence pilots licence and aircraft rules for European LSA aircraft which might work all across the EU. That might offer scenario 2 a real future.
Would even that stop the high dropout rate? Probably not but I suspect it would reduce it somewhat. Like it or not costs and aggravation do have a real effect - look at the comparative demographies of microlight versus traditional flying clubs.
I can walk into a well equipped, pleasant and helpful marina. I need no licence, no certified maintenance, no radio. I cast off and the world is my oyster. If the government comes up with daft legislation - such as the drinking / sailing stuff I have an organisation which actually has a good chance of making them see sense.
At my strip its not quite so good. The facilities are pretty limited, I have a bunch of rules about my licence and currency. I'm on a permit so the maintenance is affordable and can be done with a high degree of flexibility - places, people, costs. The LAA will try (and in association with the rest of the alphabet soup) may succeed in delaying things but nothing much more.
If I go to my local regional airfield in my old C of A machine? Couple of hundred a month to park, £12.50 per landing for resident machines, maintenance at a limited number of places at high costs. 'Security' which means taking apassenger is a near nightmare experience. And all this is getting more difficult because Part M, CAMOs, Part 66 etc. Plus if I go to another regional airfield I have a whole new nightmare to work my way through - whilst paying £1.30 or more per litre for the pleasure. I might be represented by AOPA who will tell me what a great job they're doing whilst not talking to all the others (but that is another thread entirely!!!)
If the latter scenario has a real future I cannot see it.
Will EASA make everything the same - absolutely not. The EU directive gold plating is a UK phenomena, look at the comparison between the DGAC and CAA over Mode S....
The third scenario means I'll never go back to a C of A machine whilst the present arrangements exist.
I hope that the LAA, BGA, BMAA in accord with the EU organisations will end up with a sensible training, currency, recreational pilots licence pilots licence and aircraft rules for European LSA aircraft which might work all across the EU. That might offer scenario 2 a real future.
Would even that stop the high dropout rate? Probably not but I suspect it would reduce it somewhat. Like it or not costs and aggravation do have a real effect - look at the comparative demographies of microlight versus traditional flying clubs.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<quote>
Would even that stop the high dropout rate? Probably not but I suspect it would reduce it somewhat. Like it or not costs and aggravation do have a real effect - look at the comparative demographies of microlight versus traditional flying clubs.
</quote>
Isn't bringing them all into line (in terms of cost and legislation) the purpose of EASA/CAA ?
Then all aspects of aviation will be equally expensive and difficult to pursue! :-(
Looking at the main topic though, additional factors to consider regarding the dropout rates:
Cost - keeping a PPL soon adds up, particularly if you want to keep progressing
Rationale - Many people take up flying just to go solo and gain a licence....and once they've achieved it where do the go next ? There's several threads in this forum on "where can I go, what can I do". At leaast in gliding (like the scouts) ther's badges to gain and competitions to fly in
Career - Many people take up GA as a path towards becoming a professional plane driver
Changing priorities - family, job, etc. gets in the way
Weather - UK weather doesn't lend itself to 365 day flying does it ?
It would defintiely be interesting to know what the two areas of GA that are growing (microlighting and helicopters) are doing differently.
Would even that stop the high dropout rate? Probably not but I suspect it would reduce it somewhat. Like it or not costs and aggravation do have a real effect - look at the comparative demographies of microlight versus traditional flying clubs.
</quote>
Isn't bringing them all into line (in terms of cost and legislation) the purpose of EASA/CAA ?
Then all aspects of aviation will be equally expensive and difficult to pursue! :-(
Looking at the main topic though, additional factors to consider regarding the dropout rates:
Cost - keeping a PPL soon adds up, particularly if you want to keep progressing
Rationale - Many people take up flying just to go solo and gain a licence....and once they've achieved it where do the go next ? There's several threads in this forum on "where can I go, what can I do". At leaast in gliding (like the scouts) ther's badges to gain and competitions to fly in
Career - Many people take up GA as a path towards becoming a professional plane driver
Changing priorities - family, job, etc. gets in the way
Weather - UK weather doesn't lend itself to 365 day flying does it ?
It would defintiely be interesting to know what the two areas of GA that are growing (microlighting and helicopters) are doing differently.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
bose-x and Fuji Abound et al,
Please let me try and put forward a couple of positive arguments in favour of the retention of the IMCr.
I am an instructor. A part of the PPL syllabus (Ex 19) currently requires us to teach students how to handle unexpected bad weather by maintaining altitude, initially maintaining Straight and Level on instruments, then promptly executing a 180 turn back into VMC. A minimum of 1 hour is presently required to be flown at this task. I need a suitable qualification in addition to the work done during the Instructor course to enable me to a) teach this exercise and b) continue a safe flight whilst doing so. Whilst the initial stages of the instruction can be carried out in VMC under a hood or foggles, we are encouraged to get the student to fly into IMC to teach them how difficult it is in real conditions (just into the base of teh cloud layer, where it's nice and bumpy is ideal). The IMCr is fit for this purpose.
As one or two others have also said (BEagle etc) occasionally an instructor might choose to momentarily fly below VMC minima for other purposes. Again, the IMCr is fit for this purpose, also.
In all my 25 years of flyig, what I've NEVER needed and DON'T want is a rating that will permit me to fly IFR in Class A airspace. My personal limits for advanced planning for an approach are around about what would be legal for a non-rated pilot anyway, though I do try and practice when I can down to mimima when I've a safety pilot with me, just in case. Occasionally, when touring, I might encounter wx which will force me down below MSA to maintain VMC. Then I choose to maintain altitude/climb to a better FL and fly IMC, outside CAS but with suitable RADAR cover. I build such a contingency into the flight plan. The IMCr is fit for this purpose, too.
The JAA-IR and the FAA-IR are FAR in excess of what I need to safely accomplish all of the above.
There, I hope this is positive stuff and an encouragement to those who have stuck their heads above the parapet, well done for doing that; you'll always get stuff thrown at you!
I also sit on committees/councils representing sporting aviation. I do try and be careful to only express views that a) represent those of my Association who have sent me along and b) are relevant to my sport. There never can be a 'one-stop shop' that will accurately reflect everyone's needs and aspirations because they are all different and sometimes mutually exclusive. You can't blame those who put the time and effort into going to Cologne and putting the case for their sport; they do try an make a general representation for other groups, too. The GA Alliance is a fair attempt to unify disparate groups but is inevitably slanted towards the day-VFR market, considering where the majority of its support lies.
I also support AOPA, I'm a member twice! Once for myself and our little Group is also a corporate member. I'm afraid I do find that their 'house' attitude does seem to be 'glass half empty' rather than 'half full', more 'I told you so' than 'can-do'. However, they are very hard-working, when you read M's diary in the mag he's very active on our behalf.
TheOddOne
Please let me try and put forward a couple of positive arguments in favour of the retention of the IMCr.
I am an instructor. A part of the PPL syllabus (Ex 19) currently requires us to teach students how to handle unexpected bad weather by maintaining altitude, initially maintaining Straight and Level on instruments, then promptly executing a 180 turn back into VMC. A minimum of 1 hour is presently required to be flown at this task. I need a suitable qualification in addition to the work done during the Instructor course to enable me to a) teach this exercise and b) continue a safe flight whilst doing so. Whilst the initial stages of the instruction can be carried out in VMC under a hood or foggles, we are encouraged to get the student to fly into IMC to teach them how difficult it is in real conditions (just into the base of teh cloud layer, where it's nice and bumpy is ideal). The IMCr is fit for this purpose.
As one or two others have also said (BEagle etc) occasionally an instructor might choose to momentarily fly below VMC minima for other purposes. Again, the IMCr is fit for this purpose, also.
In all my 25 years of flyig, what I've NEVER needed and DON'T want is a rating that will permit me to fly IFR in Class A airspace. My personal limits for advanced planning for an approach are around about what would be legal for a non-rated pilot anyway, though I do try and practice when I can down to mimima when I've a safety pilot with me, just in case. Occasionally, when touring, I might encounter wx which will force me down below MSA to maintain VMC. Then I choose to maintain altitude/climb to a better FL and fly IMC, outside CAS but with suitable RADAR cover. I build such a contingency into the flight plan. The IMCr is fit for this purpose, too.
The JAA-IR and the FAA-IR are FAR in excess of what I need to safely accomplish all of the above.
There, I hope this is positive stuff and an encouragement to those who have stuck their heads above the parapet, well done for doing that; you'll always get stuff thrown at you!
I also sit on committees/councils representing sporting aviation. I do try and be careful to only express views that a) represent those of my Association who have sent me along and b) are relevant to my sport. There never can be a 'one-stop shop' that will accurately reflect everyone's needs and aspirations because they are all different and sometimes mutually exclusive. You can't blame those who put the time and effort into going to Cologne and putting the case for their sport; they do try an make a general representation for other groups, too. The GA Alliance is a fair attempt to unify disparate groups but is inevitably slanted towards the day-VFR market, considering where the majority of its support lies.
I also support AOPA, I'm a member twice! Once for myself and our little Group is also a corporate member. I'm afraid I do find that their 'house' attitude does seem to be 'glass half empty' rather than 'half full', more 'I told you so' than 'can-do'. However, they are very hard-working, when you read M's diary in the mag he's very active on our behalf.
TheOddOne
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Advocate mode.... What do they do in Europe to meet the same requirements?
Cheers,
TOO
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOO
Can you give an example where they are mutually exclusive?
There never can be a 'one-stop shop' that will accurately reflect everyone's needs and aspirations because they are all different and sometimes mutually exclusive
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Can you give an example where they are mutually exclusive?”
Yes
When the PFA, BGA, BMAA and AOPA were negotiating the NPPL the first three wanted training to be allowed from unlicensed strips. AOPA were dead against it as it was not in the interests of its corporate members. Fortunately we got a second bite at this, as the Europeans do not a comparable licensing requirement.
Rod1
Yes
When the PFA, BGA, BMAA and AOPA were negotiating the NPPL the first three wanted training to be allowed from unlicensed strips. AOPA were dead against it as it was not in the interests of its corporate members. Fortunately we got a second bite at this, as the Europeans do not a comparable licensing requirement.
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA were dead against it as it was not in the interests of its corporate members
Any other examples, anybody?
I am thinking of examples which relate to pilots and their requirements, not preferences of representative bodies. The latter will always have some curious vested interests.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Any other examples, anybody?
The FAI recently introduced the concept of drug testing to sporting aviation. Now some groups were strongly in favour of this, in order to clean up their image, notably the parachutists where there is a history of recreational drug taking in some parts of the world. Those taking part in World Championships wanted to prove that they weren't a part of this scene and were clean and wanted the external requirements of testing to demonstrate this. Other groups were implacably against what they saw as an unwarranted intrusion and a slur on their good character. In fact, there probably aren't any performance-enhancing drugs that would help say, a balloonist or glider pilot but those taking prescription beta-blockers for hypertension might well get called in.
TheOddOne