![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Stadt" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:cEt9e.3672$WI3.540@attbi_s71... you also have a population of 250 or 300 million. Do you want to say that every other nation with a smaller population is also irrelevant? Man, you are so ignorant. Did you even READ my post, Martin? Man, you are SO ignorant. ;-) Apparently not, so I will sum up. It's the relative PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft, and airports that is out of whack in France. If aviation weren't dead in France, they should have the same PROPORTION of pilots, aircraft and airports as the US. Math is not your strong subject is it Jay? If aviation in France was dead then the proportion of pilots is irrelevant. The statement you made at the start of this debate was that the incontrovertible truth was that GA in France was dead. That is just not true. There is no logical reason why there should be the same proportion of pilots aircraft and airports as in the US. That would assume the same population make up, the same cultural make up, the same everything. Well, buddy, France and the US are not the same. This may come as a bit of a shock to you but they are different. Hence different approaches to aviation. If you believe GA is in good shape in France and other parts of the EU go to the AOPA WEB site and read about the new liability insurance requirements the EU has placed on GA aircraft. $119 million in liability insurance required for a 182. Doesn't sound healthy to me. That is rubbish. Our insurance liability requirements have gone to £3m. We were already insured for $2m. The insurers have increased the cover for no cost. So what's the deal? $119m for a 182 what a joke read this Flying Fortress plea Elly Sallingboe wrote to Alastair Darling yesterday regarding the aircraft's categorisation under new European insurance regulations for aircraft which come into force on 1 May. She wrote: Dear Mr Darling New Euro charges threaten to ground Britain's last Flying Fortress As the operator of the UK's last remaining airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress G-BEDF Sally B, I am writing to you to ask for your help. New EC Regulation 785/2004 (effective from 1 May 2005) has introduced specified minimum levels of insurance cover for aircraft. Its effect on this aircraft, which is an important and well-loved living piece of national heritage, based at the Imperial War Museum Duxford, will be permanently to ground it, unless an exemption on this European requirement of third party insurance covered by aircraft operators can be granted, or a new category introduced. In 2005, this aircraft will have been flying in the UK for an incredible 30 years without any official funding, thanks to a dedicated team of volunteer professionals (see enclosed press release). It should be a year of celebration, but instead Sally B's future in this country is imminently and seriously threatened, and this is why I am asking you please, as a matter of urgency, to find a solution. As you know, the new insurance requirements are based on aircraft weight. Our aircraft weighs 15,150.24kg, and therefore falls just a few thousand kg outside of Category 5 (see the chart printed below). This puts it in Category 6, the same as a commercial Boeing 737, requiring a staggering 80 million SDRs - a leap of more than four times as much in the insurance cover requirement. This new legislation will cost us another £25,000 per year, which is simply impossible. I would add that the aircraft operates at dramatically reduced weights from those of a wartime B-17. Clearly it carries no warload, nor does it fly with full tanks for long-range operations. We currently hold £25 million third party insurance. I was advised that, for the size and weight of the aircraft, this is a prudent amount of cover, and more than double what has been required in recent years for aircraft flying in air shows. This would still appear to be prudent according to the weights given in the chart, if only there was not such a vast leap in cover required between Categories 5 and 6. I am sure these new charges were not intended to destroy flying national treasures such as ours, but this is what is happening. Unlike commercial aircraft, our historic aircraft is on a British Permit to Fly, and as such:- - is not allowed to carry out commercial flights - is not allowed to fly for hire and reward - is not allowed to carry passengers - is not allowed to fly over populated areas. Despite this:- - it has its own maintenance company approved by the CAA - its pilots are all ATPLs with extensive experience on tail wheel and heavy piston AND it flies only 20-40 hours per year, between May and October. I should mention that the General Aviation Department of the CAA has been trying to do something about this on our behalf for some time. We were hopeful that the matter could be rectified, but sadly this has not been possible. This is why I am appealing to you at this late stage, in the hope that you can please do something to help. I cannot emphasise too strongly just how vital it is to rectify this situation. This year, as part of the 60th anniversary commemorations of the end of the Second World War, Sally B is due to carry out a poppy drop and, most importantly, to join in the official commemorative flypast over Buckingham Palace. High profile commemorative events such as these will be drastically affected if a way forward cannot be found. Tens of thousands of young American airmen lost their lives flying from UK bases in B-17s. This aircraft is the only living memorial to their sacrifice - a flagship of the special relationship that has existed ever since between our two countries. Its mission is to educate young and old of this important piece of our national history. There will be a massive outcry if this beloved aircraft, which represents so much to so many people, is grounded now, having flown for thirty years thanks solely to the dedication of its volunteers and supporters, and funds raised by its own charity, The B-17 Charitable Trust. If something is not done, this historic aircraft will soon cross the Atlantic to the USA. I hope you will agree that this would be a tragedy, especially when the cause is a piece of legislation that appears simply not to have taken account of historic aircraft such as Sally B. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the aircraft flies only in the UK, I ask you please to grant the Sally B an exemption so that this aircraft can continue to fly in the UK, as a matter of urgency, given that our flying season starts in May. If you would like to find out more about this unique aircraft, please do look at our website Now a 182 is not going to pick up more liability than a clapped out B17 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Soaring near Paris, France (Not Texas :-) | [email protected] | Soaring | 17 | November 13th 04 06:39 PM |
News from France | HECTOP | Piloting | 12 | April 1st 04 01:16 AM |
Russia joins France and Germany | captain! | Military Aviation | 12 | September 9th 03 09:56 AM |
France Bans the Term 'E-Mail' | bsh | Military Aviation | 38 | July 26th 03 03:18 PM |
"France downplays jet swap with Russia" | Mike | Military Aviation | 8 | July 21st 03 05:46 AM |