wrote:

The real problem we should focus on are people who get their license
but then become inactive. There's no shortage of these, and they are
low-hanging fruit.

Ok. You help me find a job within an hour's drive of my home that requires less
than 60 hours a week and pays at least 60K a year (much more if I have to
commute to Manhattan). Preferably involving computers, since that's what my MS
is in. I'll be flying again soon after I find that job.

One friend of mine probably will never fly again, but you never know. He quit
because of lack of time and money, but I think he's lost interest to the point
that he wouldn't start again if he won the lottery.

Another friend of mine quit when the kids started arriving. He was also upset
because he could never find the time to study for the instrument rating (he'd
get maybe two weeks of study and then work would ramp up again). That's a man
who may be back when the kids get through college.

On second thought, maybe these people don't have to be attracted back into
actively participating in aviation. As I understand it, Jay's main issue is that
we need more flyers to allow us to apply more political pressure. It is to be
hoped that that pressure will prevent airport closings and harsh restrictions.
With a few exceptions, most former aviators are likely to be friendly to our cause.

Perhaps the way to go is to start up a non-profit that will concentrate on
informing and/or pressuring non-active pilots about political issues. Go after
people who used to fly and now don't, former AOPA members, former EAA members,
etc.. I suppose that funding would have to come from active aviators, but you
never know.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.