kanga wrote:
Several Forumites: "This could be done badly, costing us in light GA both money and freedoms, because the implementers won't understand what we do and want to do"
QUOTE REMOVED
I refer to my earlier post –
General Aviation operates largely, but not exclusively, in uncontrolled airspace
If this is how GA is viewed by the regulator, then private aviation is going to be pushed out of anywhere with a hard runway, anywhere where you might use an IR(R), anywhere with lighting after sunset.
Ian says he used to think that GA was about lunching in France, aerobatics………
General Aviation is all those things but, more importantly,
it is about much more.
If we are talking about Private Pilots flying for pleasure, then they represent a sub-set of General Aviation.
My aircraft has been based at a regional airport for over a decade, as it was before I owned it. It shares parking with both single piston and single turbine engined aircraft used for pleasure and for business.
So, if the rationalisation of airspace is for the betterment of all users, the consultation needs to be written in such a way that it clearly identifies the airspace users – not simply refer to GA operating in uncontrolled airspace. GA needs access to controlled airspace. That access must be made easier.
Unfortunately, my experience is that the policy of the CAA is being written by non-aviation people who don’t listen to advice that conflicts with their own ideas.
(Edited to remove a quote to which Cub objected.
As Cub says he is working on this project, I welcome his input and thank him for engaging with grass roots aviation. )