Andy wrote:
On Dec 29, 7:24 am, Mike Yankee wrote:
Snip...

DG should scrap this BS plan and replace it with a simpler pay-as-you-
go.


Sensible input snipped...

I'm not defending how DG has handled this. If I owned an older DG or
LS I'd be ****ed and disappointed. I am also a bit skeptical of the
cost numbers they are quoting. That said, it makes me wonder if we all
are going to face rising costs of keeping our gliders flying -
particularly if the regulators keep piling on the administrative
requirements.

"What Andy said,"...with the following seditious (U.S.-centric)
observation regarding regulators and "safety."

Just as perfection is never an option, neither is 'perfect safety' and
no reliance on any government-based scheme (e.g. CAA/FAA-based AD's on
ATC'ed airframes, etc.) can change that fact. That said, maybe it's time
we - the aviation community as a whole - begin to look for 'the future
maintenance of safety' outside government-based bureaucracies. Certainly
a new bureaucracy (private?) will be required, but here's an aphorism
(origin unknown) that may apply to current European/U.S. realities:

"When a bureaucracy loses sight of the purpose it was originally formed
to serve, and begins to serve itself, it has outlived its usefulness."
Is it too much to append, ..."and its justification for existence)"?

Bob - living in the pipedream-created U.S. - W.