By now, just about everybody knows that most LSAs are attracting older men who are afraid they can not pass a third class medical. They tend to have more disposable income; the desire for luxury and advanced avionics really isn't that much of a surprise.
I wish the situation were otherwise, but it doesn't seem to be at the moment.
It does make me wonder about the complaints about Part 23. While I agree that it needs to be reevaluated, most LSAs aren't Part 23 compliant---and yet they cost a lot of money for not that much aircraft.
Aviation (GA and otherwise) and especially flight training is something that America still does better than anyone else. And now, thanks to continued short-sighted policy making by those in Washington, we've decided to damage that reputation and perhaps impact the safe conduct of flight.
It may even lead to some close calls, or worse, and over populated areas.
The financial impact at the state and county level—resulting from the decreased number of larger aircraft movements, fuel sales, etc. at newly non-towered airports—could also result in airport closures, further increasing the speed of the downward trend facing GA.
Our elected officials, be they conservative or liberal, have failed is in this regard.
I'm also a bit unsure of why I haven't heard much from AOPA in defense of towered operations. The NBAA and other high-buck concerns seem to receive ample lobbying attention, but I've yet to receive correspondence about this issue.
It's a complete failure, similar to a financial decision "forcing" the closure of some traffic lights at selected intersections. Would we ever put up with that? And yet, tower closure is somehow OK.
[sigh]
