MedEwok wrote:
The government has until the end of next year to improve the 2019 Climate Protection Act so that it is sufficient to reach the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement (limiting global warming to 1.5°C)
Um, well, if whatshername wins the chancellorship, the Greens will have a field day implementing all that. Maybe you should look at buying a really nice bike rather than a plane…..
Dictatorships will need to get all cars electric before the power is hit, and, without gas home heating, we freeze.
The availability of gasoline (for petrol bombs) would aid the revolting proletariat. (Non-celebrity-status humans.)
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Um, well, if whatshername wins the chancellorship, the Greens will have a field day implementing all that. Maybe you should look at buying a really nice bike rather than a plane…..
Annalena Baerbock. And yes, the likelihood of her becoming Chancellor are significant, although nothing is decided yet. If vaccinations continue to ramp up speed and people can enjoy the summer again, complacency with the incumbent parties might set in again, and lead to a narrow CDU/CSU victory. The Greens would still be part of the government in almost any constellation imaginable though.
So far they haven’t turned their attention on GA though, when they talk about reducing air travel they are always discussing CAT.
MedEwok wrote:
The Greens would still be part of the government in almost any constellation imaginable though.
In combination with the court ruling you mentioned, that can be a quite lethal combination, particularly if they pair up with a left wing party. Their program is out there for everyone to see, but people appear to make the same mistake as some 80 years before, when the program was also there in black and white but nobody believed it…. I don’t live in Germany but I am very concerned.
MedEwok wrote:
So far they haven’t turned their attention on GA though, when they talk about reducing air travel they are always discussing CAT.
Do you have access to Pilot und Flugzeug? If so, have a read of Jan’s last editorial which came out yesterday. I fully agree with his assessment: GA will be a target, as it has big symbolism for the Left and practiaclly no lobby. The airlines will try their damnest to keep going and they always can field the argument that oh, there will be 10s of thousands of employees sacked and the proud name of Lufthansa may well disappear if they fully go through with all their ideas. GA has no such arguments and they have anti noisers and NIMBY’s on their side practically at every airfield.
Apart, it appears that some people may want to exploit the current examples of travel restrictions for the pandemic to come up with schemes to restrict travel for ecological reasons as well, under the pretext of disallowing “non essential travel”. Unfortunately that was to be expected but hopefully will cause a huge backlash. If not, you may well see things as travel authorisations for the future.
To think that GA will stay outside the focus is burying one’s head 3 ft deep in the sand.
A saw a funny thing the other day.
A planning application has gone in for an airfield in the south east of England. I can’t recall where; saw it on FB. It is for ~10 movements per day only.
The NIMBYs organised a FB page to try to organise opposition to it. It got more or less taken over by GA pilots 
The funniest thing was a comment by someone saying: I have unlimited funds for setting up new caravan sites. If this application fails, can someone let me know and I will be straight in there with my application.
For those not fully familiar with various English concepts which the BBC can’t mention (like Irish Gypsies) this is what a caravan site looks like
The tendency for every garden shed within a 10nm radius being emptied is, I am sure, entirely coincidental. The most desirable items are petrol powered tools like chainsaws, hedge cutters, etc.
So this is one approach. You may well find that the locals much prefer the airfield to continue, and that has certainly been the case with Shoreham, where the residents know perfectly well they would just get a housing estate, and nowadays it is a planning requirement for some % of “affordable housing” which basically means… your garden sheds will be regularly emptied. The nice houses along Shoreham Beach would be absolutely prime territory for getting raided at night.
GA is indeed its worst enemy. On EuroGA, there is a strong tendency for people to not write anything critical about their own country 
but I know from personal contacts these issues are the same everywhere. Most people will not stick their hands in their pocket, prefer to free-ride on the back of somebody else doing the hard work, and when the airfield shuts they hit the internet and generate gigabytes of rants about how unjust the world is. Most airfield owners, having endured decades of whingeing whining pilots moaning that a £15 landing fee increase from £10 is a FIFTY PERCENT INCREASE WHICH IS WAY ABOVE INFLATION will be quite happy to sell up to the first property shark who comes along.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Do you have access to Pilot und Flugzeug? If so, have a read of Jan’s last editorial which came out yesterday.
Sorry, but someone who reports (in that very editorial) proudly that he just did a flight with 3 children out of 3 different households in a small airplane and illustrates it with a photo that none of the 4 wore a mask on that flight can’t seriously claim that he is interested in promoting a good image for general aviation.
It’s not (only) the green parties that will give GA a hard time in the future – it is ruthless and selfish behavior by ourselves…
Peter wrote:
For those not fully familiar with various English concepts which the BBC can’t mention (like Irish Gypsies) this is what a caravan site looks like
Peter, don’t be so misleading! That is a well run holiday campsite!
This is what a typical “travellers halting site” looks like!
Yes I mixed up two concepts there
The travellers’ pic you posted doesn’t need a planning permission. The police can evict them if they forced their way in (e.g. broke some locked gates) otherwise the farmer has to hire a gang of “large men”…
The pic I posted is an established fixed caravan site which does need a planning permission. It however does roughly as much for the local area as the one mentioned above
And a lot of sites where GA airfields exist have poor road connections, so putting say 1000 houses there would be a problem.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Sorry, but someone who reports (in that very editorial) proudly that he just did a flight with 3 children out of 3 different households in a small airplane and illustrates it with a photo that none of the 4 wore a mask on that flight can’t seriously claim that he is interested in promoting a good image for general aviation.
Well, it should be the image, then. There is zero point in having three kids inside an aircraft wear standard face masks.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, it should be the image, then.
No – it’s about the meeting of people from 3 different households – simply not allowed in Germany under current regulations.
And that should not be a discussion about if that is a reasonable regulation. It is the regulation and bragging about “you see how we in GA do not care about regulations” doesn’t help to improve our image…
