Join AOPA? Pro? Con? [Archive]

proudprivate

6th Jul 2011, 21:15

I think the $60-odd annual fee is for overseas members, as opposed to $40-odd for US residents.

I joined AOPA US because my main certificate is FAA and because I fly in the US from time to time. I also like their views and explanations as regards GA advocacy (e.g. how to convince the neighbours that GA is a good thing), their training materials, their reports on adventure flying accross the world, their accident investigations, their "Never Again"-stories, the legal opinions and, not in the least, the ever humourous contributions of flight training guru Rod Machado. Everyone - at least for the moment still - is free to do with their money what they want.

I didn't join IAOPA Belgium because it was (virtually) non-existent. I notice from patowalker's reference that they still operate, which is obviously a good thing. It might be a good idea to give them a call : Finserve is, if I'm not mistaken, an aviation insurance broker based at EBAW. By talking to them, you quickly know whether there is a match with your own feelings towards GA and whether they have any significance (e.g. would they advocate improvements to EBGB, are they lobbying the Belgian BdL to reduce costs, what are they doing about the lack of proper (night) training airfields in Belgium, do they have a Etienne Schoupe's or Joke Schauwvliege's mobile, etc, etc...). Please report with feed back, I'm sure the Belgians on this forum would be interested.

I have mixed feelings about the various IAOPA's across Europe. They certainly deserve some slack, doing a lot of good work on an almost purely voluntary basis, not being able to benefit from a 400,000 strong membership and $100 Million balance sheet like AOPA US. On the other hand, they have been a bit quick to claim credit in this EASA-story (or in the Italian case cited above, about the fuel situation on Italy's regional airfields), without a lot to substantiate for. This in contrast to an AOPA US, which lists several politicians and their stance on general aviation and who (up until now) has rebutted all attempts at introducing user fees into the FAA's budget. But again, life is easier when you have reams of permanent staff at your disposal, which the European IAOPA's have not.

I stand corrected on DUAT(S). I recall joining them while clicking through from the AOPA website (I think in the AOPA flight planner), and although they advertise regularly in AOPA magazine, they are most likely completely independent. And yes, they are only useful when flight planning in the US.

Mike Cross

7th Jul 2011, 07:05

I'm a Director of AOPA UK and a member of US AOPA.

The overarching body is IAOPA, the International Council of Aircraft Owner & Pilot Associations, to which all national AOPAs are affilliated.

You should contribute to the AOPA covering where you fly. I am a member of both UK and US AOPA's because my life is currently split between UK and US and I fly in both places. The subscription is minimal and so are the overheads so little of the money that comes in goes on administration. My own work for AOPA UK is entirely voluntary, I don't take any fees or expenses. It's my way of giving something back to an activity that I have enjoyed for many years.

AOPA differs from many organisations in that its work goes to benefit all aviators, not just its members. In the US they recognisee this and the uptake of membership as a proportion of flyers is much higher than in Europe where a "what's in it for me" mentality pervades and many seem happy to sit on the sidelines and not support the work that's being done on their behalf.

Nowadays, when the European National CAA's no longer control the regulation of their own State's aviation activity it's essential that we have representation at European level. Like it or not that costs, even if it's just travel and accommodation.

Anyone who flies should contribute.

IO540

7th Jul 2011, 07:50

421C

7th Jul 2011, 10:27

Speaking as an N-reg aircraft owner, UK AOPA did not do themselves any favours with a large number of owner pilots by their very ambivalent stance on the N-reg issue over the years.

At one point it got so bad that somebody did a Freedom of Information Act request on the CAA to try to get copies of correspondence, IIRC, between them and AOPA.

I think this may be in the past now, looking at recent UK AOPA statements on the stupidity of the EASA proposals, but it has taken them an awfully long time.

Like it or not, this kind of thing sticks for a long time, and the apparent reason for it (a large number of flying schools, traditionally anti N-reg, are AOPA corporate members) has not changed.

I am a member of US AOPA

I believe that to be false. AOPA were actively opposing N-reg restrictions in the UK as long ago (IIRC) 2004. That's at least 7 years of consistent pro-N work. How long can one hold a grudge? I don't even believe there is any substance to that grudge. Give me one example, EVER, of AOPA being anti N-reg?

The problem for AOPA is the cluelessness of the community of pilots in Europe who expect tiny voluntary organisations to be like big commercial enterprises, vigorously competing for their membership. Sort of like mobile companies endlessly trying to sell you your perfect membership plan, with the perfect balance of people representing exactly the things you are interested in, in exactly the style you want and with every interaction and communication meeting your high expectations. Well, it ain't like that. They are small voluntary organisations, with all the imperfections inherent in that, in the big European countries. Even tinier in the small countries. Nevertheless, the critical battles are often at a European level, and every national AOPA and every last member helps that.

Forgive my bluntness. I generally despair about the over-regulated, over-taxed, over-restricted misery of European GA. When I read some of the ways people think about (not) supporting the representative organisations (and compare that to the US), I think we deserve it.

Fuji Abound

7th Jul 2011, 11:44

The problem for AOPA is the cluelessness of the community of pilots in Europe who expect tiny voluntary organisations to be like big commercial enterprises, vigorously competing for their membership.

That is true, as far as it goes.

AOPA UK is a tiny voluntary organisation because it has a history of being unable or unwilling to work with any of the other representative organisations in the UK. That my be apocryphal, but is a comment I hear all to frequently that would lead me to suspect their is more than some truth there.

Unfortunately they also seem to have perfected the art of sitting on the fence on a raft of important issues and when they finally come off the fence they also manage to totally misrepresent matters. The IMCr is close to my heart as but one example. AOPA couldnt make up their mind whether to support the IMCr or not and when they finally felt they should support the IMCr they managed to issue a number of press releases that were real howlers. Large or small their is no excuse for some of the technical inaccuracies they have put their name to, nor to their vindicative campaign regarding the 61.75 and certain individuals.

They claim to be a tiny organisation run by volunters but their proliferate spending on offices in London does not support their claim.

Finally, Martin is past his sell by date. I have heard far too often that he has simply been in the post too long - the organisation badly needs fresh blood and fresh ideas and it might be at the forefront of representing UK GA again, although I fear Martin has already done too much damage and their are wounds that cannot be readily healed. That is what I have been told anyway.

From personal experience I have had some dealings with Martin over the IMCr which unfortunately supported earlier apocryphies, so I feel there is more to this than the GA population being particularly clueless. More to the point while this is an often made assertion my experience is other. Most pilots I meet are reasonably wealthy and reasonably savy (not that the two necessarily go together). I dont think on the whole they have the wool pulled over their eyes that easily and I think there is a reason most in the UK dont join AOPA and most in the US do.

When you drill down into the numbers I think AOAP UK reprsents something around 5% of the total UK GA population (and even that may be generous given the corporate membership). That in itself speaks volumes and if nothing else does leave them as a tiny organisation which attempts to hide behind AOPA US with the claims they make on their UK website. They should face reality and do something about it!

421C - why do I get the impression we are going to disagree. ;)

proudprivate

7th Jul 2011, 12:01

Forgive my bluntness. I generally despair about the over-regulated, over-taxed, over-restricted misery of European GA. When I read some of the ways people think about (not) supporting the representative organisations (and compare that to the US), I think we deserve it.

That is indeed a very blunt statement. First of all, given the good work performed by Mike Cross and Martin Robinson, if you're living in the UK, there is a clear case to join AOPA UK for the reasons both Mike and yourself mention. Especially Martin is actively lobbying the UK MEP's to get them to reject the FCL draft proposal when the translation reaches them around July 15th.

On the other hand, some "representative" organisations have been extremely ambivalent about the N-reg stance. I would like to cite PPL/IR Europe as an example, with Jim Thorpe not really defending our case vigourously enough so as to avoid mishaps like FCL Annex II. As an FAA IR pilot, joining PPL/IR and contributing to them would be a natural thing to do, especiallly because their Belgian arm is particularly small and could use not just the contribution but also the active support. But when he accepts statements like "The FAA IR is insufficient to navigate the UK airways" at face value, I run a mile.

I hope you do not qualify this behaviour as cluelessness or a tendency for unrealistic expectations. By contrast, when Alexandra started her campaign of the N-flyers, I jumped on it and contributed "to keep the aspidistra flying".

Generally, people are willing to join organisations that seem credible to them and that provide a service (at the very least open and regular communication, pilot goodies as an extra).

In the current situation, we have to play with the cards we got dealt. That doesn't exclude vigourous activism : calling MEP's offices and writing letters; writing to the Commission to complain; applying to the Transport minister; and for us Belgians, calling Finserve and see how they feel about losing out on about half of their insurance premiums.

avionimc

7th Jul 2011, 12:39

Jan: yes you should join AOPA (http://www.aopa.org) USA. I have been a member since 1984 and do not regret it. If nothing else, the AOPA Pilot magazine (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/) is good enough a reason.

Also, if you fly in Europe, you should consider joining PPL/IR Europe (http://www.pplir.org/). PPL/IR is a great organization for private IFR flying, tries helping European based N-reg GA aircraft, provides excellent resources, a color newsletter and web site (including forums).

And, EAA - The Spirit of Aviation - Oshkosh, WI (http://eaa.org) of course (and participate at the AirVenture Convention taking place there at the end of every July).

You will not regret attending the AirVenture (http://www.airventure.org/)convention, that's for sure!

All three are well worth joining.

Good Luck! Happy & Safe Flying,

421C

7th Jul 2011, 13:19

I am sorry ProudPrivate, but you are illustrating exactly my point in your comment on PPL/IR.

In general, it is not true that PPL/IR hasn't opposed the N-reg restrictions. A significant effort went into this. Thousands of words were written in consultation responses and endless meetings attended. We even wrote to US manufacturers and associations warning them of the outlook on the N-reg. I can say that because I wrote a lot of those words and attended many of the meetings. PPL/IR doesn't have the resources or specialised skills to do the political lobbying at the European Parliament and Commission level. We know a lot about IFR and little about politics. So our focus tends to be input at the regulatory level. That didn't work during the EASA FCL process, because, frankly, it was a political issue way beyond the scope of the regulation-drafting process. AOPA and Europe Air Sports are big organisations with good Brussels-level lobbying machines, (so we have helped them behind-the-scenes). Also, the N-Flyers group seem to have done excellent lobbying work.

On the other hand, some "representative" organisations have been extremely ambivalent about the N-reg stance. I would like to cite PPL/IR Europe as an example, with Jim Thorpe not really defending our case vigourously enough so as to avoid mishaps like FCL Annex II
Specifically, this also isn't true. PPL/IR was not ambivalent. Jim Thorpe was involved in meetings in Cologne and the UK pushing back on the original FCL draft. Detailed comments were made on Annex II in the CRT process. Like every other stakeholder, we found zero flexibility on this topic from the "powers that be". The best we could do was, in concert with other stakeholders, was to get FCL008 to review the overall instrument flight topic, but not the FAA IR restriction. No-one knows what the FCL008 outcome will be, but if there is a more accessible European instrument rating as a result of it, I believe Jim Thorpe would have been more responsible for that than any person in Europe.

The choice to specialise in areas we could make an impact on (ongoing regulatory work with EASA) rather than ones we couldn't (lobbying in Brussels) was made knowing that good organisations like AOPA, EAS and N-Flyers were doing the latter; whereas a lot of the specialised IFR regulatory work is something no other GA body is likely to be capable of doing. Stuff like this paper on GPS approaches:http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/pplir_files/easa%20rnav%20approvals%20v2.1.pdf

But when he accepts statements like "The FAA IR is insufficient to navigate the UK airways" at face value, I run a mile
The problem is you have chosen to ignore a mass of useful stuff supporting the N-reg and GA IFR in Europe in general, and pick on an anecdotal thing I don't even believe is true. In what way did Jim Thorpe "accept" such a statement and in what context?

I hope you do not qualify this behaviour as cluelessness or a tendency for unrealistic expectations.
It's not for me to criticise any fellow poster about any decision he makes. It's perfectly natural not to support anything that doesn't meet whatever criteria one chooses.....but yes, your decision does illustrate my general point that people don't join representative organisations for reasons of "perceived slight" which are sadly inherent in having small voluntary organisations. You do realise no-one gets paid a cent for any of this lobbying stuff? It achieves no personal benefit except annoying spouses with the time it takes up. People generally volunteer to do work that they think they are capable of doing. It doesn't deserve a witch-hunt mentality of "on occassion X, in year Y, Mr Z wasn't zealous enough in a specific topic that interests me, therefore the whole organisation is heretical and opposed to my interests". I don't intend this last remark personally, it is a general one directed at the reasons I read, on occassion, for people not joining GA organisations.

Finally, there is a sense in which GA organisations are rivals to be selected for your single membership. They are not, they're generally complementary. It's hard to have one mega-organisation - even in the US, AOPA is complemented by many type-specific organisations that do specialised representation and lobbying. No-organisation is big enough to please everyone. The problem with "specific issue XYZ" is that if one organisation doesn't do enough lobbying, a certain cadre of people won't join. If they do, another cadre will leave, because they were doing too much. So you need more than one organisation......
brgds
421C

421C

7th Jul 2011, 13:31

421C - why do I get the impression we are going to disagree. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
Sorry, read your post after PPs, and no time to reply. So let me leave it as, yes, we disagree 100%!

Genghis the Engineer

7th Jul 2011, 14:12

I think that every pilot (or engineer for that matter) should join at-least one significant representative organisation - we very much need them.

Which organisation depends very much upon where you are and what you fly.

For me, in the UK, I belong to two national representative organisations: LAA and BMAA. Both do a superb job of representing their members interests and organising things I want to be a part of.

AOPA UK is small, heavily influenced by its corporate members, and for many of us a lot less relevant than the big three: LAA, BMAA and BGA.

AOPA US, if I lived there, I would certainly join - it is extremely impressive.

Regarding Belgium - I really don't know, but it can't be that hard to look and see what impact the one or more organisations present there - then make your own mind up.

AOPA US does some great magazines and may well be worth joining for that alone, but I can't see they're going to help you much as a Belgian pilot.

If there is no equivalent in Belgium, you could do worse as a new microlight owner than join the BMAA. There is much information and advice available through them, even if you don't fly a British registered microlight.

G

Miroku

7th Jul 2011, 16:39

After speaking to representatives of the LAA at Sywell recently I was converted from AOPA to themselves.

The reason being that as an NPPL holder I feel that their organisation looks after my interests better than AOPA.

To reiterate some earlier posts, whatever you do join one of the flying organisations. It's clearly too much to hope that they would ever get together unfortunately!

Jan Olieslagers

7th Jul 2011, 17:33

Thanks for all responses. I just requested joining information from AOPA Belgium by e-mail - will see what comes next.

@Genghis: we do have a Belgian ULM federation, and I do am be a member and even occasional collaborator, but they have repeatedly disappointed me with their enthusiastic lack of earnest. Even if we are amateur fliers, our publications - on paper and on the www - should have a certain level of professionalism. Your suggestion of joining the BMAA merits consideration, at the least.

Fuji Abound

7th Jul 2011, 22:18

Jan - the bmaa definitely warrants consideration. As topics such as this routinely demonstrate aopa in the uk and europe has sadly lost its way and is taken seriously by few. Sadly when you can claim to count not much more than a handful of the flying community amoung your membership that isnt surprising.

Jan Olieslagers

8th Jul 2011, 07:34

What came next was brief: "AOPA Belgium ceased activities in 2010."

Mike Cross

8th Jul 2011, 07:36

I'd like to try and clear up some myths.
AOPA UK is small, heavily influenced by its corporate members, and for many of us a lot less relevant than the big three: LAA, BMAA and BGA.

I attend meetings of the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and the Members' Working Group of AOPA UK and can assure you that you are 100% wrong in the assertion that AOPA is heavily influenced by its corporate members. If you operate an aircraft administered by LAA or BMAA you heve to be a member and if you are a glider pilot you will be a member of a club that is affiliated to and pays dues to BGA. There is no such imperitive for membership of AOPA. Your opinions are usually well considered Ghengis but on this you're wrong. You're no doubt aware that I am also a member of LAA and have served on their National Council.

AOPA couldnt make up their mind whether to support the IMCr or not

Where does one start with a statement like that? AOPA UK in the person of the late Ron Campbell invented the IMCR. AOPA UK has always supported it.

their vindicative campaign regarding the 61.75 and certain individuals.
No idea where you get that from Fuji. I hold a 61.75 and have never come across any antipathy towards it from AOPA UK. I attend Board Meetings, the Exec Committee and the Members Working Group meetings and have never heard such a thing. If your reference to individuals refers to a DPE operating in Europe there was a situation where FAA Head Office in Oklahoma City said one thing, which was accurately reported in our magazine but subsequently found not to refelect what was happening in the field. That situation persists. Oklahoma City says one thing and the New York District Office actually does something different. In the UK we're used to there being one right answer. In the US the federal system seems to introduce some variation. For example FAA Head Office will tell you that you have to make an appointment and visit a FSDO in person. We now know that you can obtain or renew it outside the US without having to visit a FSDO and in my own case I was able to renew mine by meeting an FAA official at a local airport without the need to visit the FSDO. What was accurately reported in the AOPA UK magazine was what the editor had been told at the time by FAA Head Office.

their proliferate spending on offices in London does not support their claim.
Eh? AOPA UK owns that building, it was a gift from a benefactor and was not paid for by members. You've clearly not visited it. There's a shop on the ground floor which is let to Transair and produces some income, one office with room for 3 people on the first floor and two small offices and a toilet on the second. Palatial it ain't. There's no room to hold meetings. We used to hold them in an upstairs room at the pub next door, now we do it at the Victoria Charity Centre. The accounts are in the public domain, go have a look at them and you'll see you are talking nonsense. (I think you meant to say "profligate")

a history of being unable or unwilling to work with any of the other representative organisations in the UK. A much peddled piece of misinformation. AOPA UK does indeed work with the other representative organisations, for example the NPPL is administered by NPPL Ltd, a joint venture between AOPA UK and other UK representative organisations. This particular misconception arises from EASA's "rules of audience". EASA will not talk directly to national representative bodies such as AOPA UK, BMAA, BGA, LAA etc. They will only talk to European representative organisations. AOPA UK is affilliated to an international organisation, IAOPA, the International Council of Aircraft Owner & Pilot Associations and together with the other European AOPA's is represented at EASA by IAOPA (Europe).
The other UK organisations were not part of an international organisation and have had to join together into European organisations to be heard. The fact that UK interests are represented by more than one organisation is a benefit, not a drawback. The suggestion that this separate representation indicates a difference of opinion between AOPA UK and the rest of the representative bodies is totally untrue.

I hope this helps to dispel some of the misconceptions.

Mike

IO540

8th Jul 2011, 14:26

The conflict concerning 61.75 etc is fairly obvious when you see things like this (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-172000.html) written. Old history, but this is old history being discussed here too.

Difficult to put a finger on this, but I do think UK AOPA needs fresh and more dynamic leadership. I have met the present leadership on a number of occassions at various events around Europe and each time it was sitting there, comfortably, eyes more or less closed and in one case gently snoring, apparently after a very good lunch.

In some instances a clear opportunity to question some proposal was missed. I recall two events, both involving very damaging Eurocontrol proposals, when no questions were fielded, presumably because it was shortly after lunch. Both were mega opportunities to question policy and do so openly. We all know the Euro regulators absolutely hate any kind of open discussion; it sets them back months because of the ridicule attracted.

Now, obviously, I have no idea of what great work goes on behind the scenes, and maybe the leadership really is highly effective, but it isn't readily apparent.

UK AOPA have historically been unwilling to work with PPL/IR, which is not good because a lot of unwanted regulation is proposed and implemented from the top and then works its way down the GA food chain. 8.33 is one example.

And, as this thread shows, and from many I know personally, there is a lot of historical baggage which prevents great many pilots joining.

So it may be time for someone new who can present a new dynamic face, and enable a break with the past which alone might open new doors.

421C

8th Jul 2011, 17:03

I happen to think the present leader does a very good job, and works hard beyond the call of duty, at all hours and weekends.

Think about the scale of AOPA US. Then think about the scale of their regulatory task. 14 CFR Part 91 and Part 61 for the most. Barely changes from year to year. The odd issue pops up from time to time. Of course they are on top of all the key regulatory issues. Now think of the much smaller national AOPAs in Europe - dealing with all the local airport issues through to NAA issues through to the thousands of pages of new regulation EASA churn out. Of course AOPA is going to miss something or get something wrong from time to time.

And, as this thread shows, and from many I know personally, there is a lot of historical baggage which prevents great many pilots joining. That is exactly what I am criticising. The pilots who let their pet peeves and perceived slights "prevent" them from joining AOPA. Come on, dragging up some thread from 2005?

I am not saying anyone should join AOPA because it won't ever do something that annoys them or upsets them in the future. I am saying that it does an awful lot of good amongst doing the things that irritate some people and have them hold grudges for years, it seems. On balance, it's net effect is significantly positive. It could be more positive if more than a small proportion of pilots joined.

I stand by my earlier statement that we get the regulation we deserve if these are the reasons people are "prevented" from joining their representative organisations.

IO540

8th Jul 2011, 17:19

I referred to that old thread re the point posted by someone else about the 61.75 issue. It would be historically inaccurate to say it never existed, and of course all those involved are still in the same positions as then.

The USA has about 10x as many pilots as the UK, and most of Europe has little or no GA, so it's hard to know where to start fixing this.

421C

8th Jul 2011, 18:53

The USA has about 10x as many pilots as the UK, and most of Europe has little or no GA, so it's hard to know where to start fixing this.

True. So the choices are

a) wish for a parallel universe in which Europe has loads more pilots

b) have significantly more existing pilots join AOPA, perhaps overlooking the various grudges some seem to hold for years on end and recognising that, net net, AOPA is a good thing. Good lord, may be it's even improved in some ways over the years. I happen to think so.

What d'you reckon?

The problem is that only 5%-10% of UK PPLs join AOPA vs 50% or more of US pilots. AOPA UK doesn't need $100m or its own Citation. Even a tiny, rather shabby office in a slightly down-at-heel corner of Pimlico, donated by a benefactor, is enough to provoke forum "grudge myths" about its flashy, profligate London premises....it just needs more resources for lobbying work. period.

421C

8th Jul 2011, 18:57

Silvaire,

The way the system has settled in Europe is that "sport" aviation is represented by national aeroclubs, microlight clubs, gliding clubs, etc. They are collectively represented at a European level by an excellent organisation called Europe Air Sports (EAS). AOPA has its "centre of gravity" in the certified powered flying world. AOPA is the second of the two bodies directly accredited to the European regulator.

The system works pretty well, and for all the myths, the two organisations work amicably and effectively together.

brgds
421C

wsmempson

8th Jul 2011, 21:59

Indeed, PPL/IR had one of their members - Jim Thorpe - on the FCL008 committee (albeit representing a different body ?european air sport?) who made a vigorous and thoroughly poisonous attempt to torpedo the IMCR.

Largely based on this performance, I have found the prospect of joining PPL IR thoroughly resistible and joined AOPA instead.

If we ever manage to get easy access to the Channel Islands again, the AOPA card gives you a 5% discount on fuel which, in the case of my Saratoga, paid for itself in the first fueling.

Mike Cross

8th Jul 2011, 22:00

IO540

I thought that's what you were referring to.

What Martin said and Pat wrote was quoting a written reply from the FAA Head Office in Oklohoma City to questions put to them by AOPA UK.

Tom Hughston and his supporters objected vehemently to what was said but did not furnish any reference to support their claim that what we had reported was wrong, such as a reference to an FAA document. You'll notice that Tom's post does not provide any such reference. If FAA Head Office says X is true and Tom says it is not then without any supporting evidence what should we do?

As I indicated in my earlier post it was subsequently found out that the information furnished by FAA Head Offiice was incorrect. I'm not about to go through the whole thing again but I personally researched the issue and discovered that although the Oklohoma City letter and the FAA's own website stated that you had to appear in person at a FSDO and that was the only way to do it There was indeed a way to do it through someone such as Tom, working out of the New York Field Office. The FAA documentation indicating this was not provided to us by FAA, Tom, or any of his supporters, I personally dug it out by diligent research. There was a certain amount of correspndence about this at the time on the then AOPA Forum and I published the results of my research on there.

This was certainly not a case of AOPA campaigning against anyone, it was straightforward reportage of answers to questions put to the FAA.

Tom suggests that AOPA were peddling misinformation regarding N Reg and said in the post you quote "The CAA and the DFT are not cracking down on N reg and GA". Presumably you believe the concerns raised in this post (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=67462) do not indicate that AOPA's warnings were well founded?

Mike Cross

8th Jul 2011, 22:03

One would hope that EAS and IAOPA (Europe) can cooperate to combat the current threats

That's precisely what they do. They sit in the same meetings, providing two voices rather than one in support of GA.

Fuji Abound

8th Jul 2011, 22:23

Chaps the worst of this is you defend AOPA, you close your hearts and minds to criticism while watching the membership dwindle and the support ebb away. For what ever reason what creditable organisation can claim to have the support of less than 10% of the ga population? Why dont you ask what can we do to address the issues, even those that you believe are ill informed?

A very good example is the mentoring scheme. I recall i, io540 and others set out why it was ill conceivec, and ill conceived for exactly those reasons it proved to be. It has finally been launched and i wish it every success by why oh why did aopa manage to make such a complete mess. Does it matter; yes it does because it damages their creditability and leaves us wondering whether they are a safe pair of hands.

So tell me what percentage of the uk pilot population belong to aopa and how has that percentage changed over recent years? How many student members sign up in year 2, and what percentage of aopas income is from corporate organisations? And since it is a members organisation whats the ceo's remuneration.

Fuji Abound

8th Jul 2011, 22:39

And catching up with earlier posts it is all very well excusing every criticism as myth, pet peeve or worse but the reality is simple create an enviroment for what ever reason of myth, pet peeve and worse and it will spread. Aopa badly needs a shake up, a breath of fresh air because in times to come it is vital we have the backing of an organisation with its finger on the pulse which can really claim to muster the support of at least a majority of the flying community.

Why do aopa persist in their main about banner in claiming to be part of an organisation of 430,000 world wide pilots when the readef wants to know who, what and how many uk pilots they represent.

Where are their accounts. They say they are a non profit making organisation so why not publish their accounts on the web site so it is transparent to the prospective member how their hard earned subs will be spent? It is
transparent, its good governance and if the money is well spent it is good pr.

Take a look at the aopa forum. Many many moons ago i started a thread - the silnce is deafening. Well it still is, it is top of the charts with about one post since.

Make no mistake i have the highest regard for people like mike cross, stevec and timothy. Mikes work at lee was nothing short of brilliant, seems to me stevec genuinely tried to shake life into a corpse and timothy worked long and hard for mentoring. The problem is not one of the committment of certain individuals but of an organisation that in everyones minds and hearts has lost the plot.

Genghis the Engineer

8th Jul 2011, 22:52

I'd like to try and clear up some myths.

I attend meetings of the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and the Members' Working Group of AOPA UK and can assure you that you are 100% wrong in the assertion that AOPA is heavily influenced by its corporate members. If you operate an aircraft administered by LAA or BMAA you heve to be a member and if you are a glider pilot you will be a member of a club that is affiliated to and pays dues to BGA. There is no such imperitive for membership of AOPA. Your opinions are usually well considered Ghengis but on this you're wrong. You're no doubt aware that I am also a member of LAA and have served on their National Council.

I'd prefer to think that we just see it differently - I've never owned an LAA aeroplane, but have been a member for many years because I have a very high regard for the work it does for the GA community as a whole. I have owned several aeroplanes, and found BMAA and LAA represent me well as an aircraft owner.

I'm not disputing that AOPA has done some good stuff - for example coming up with the concept of the NPPL and nursemaiding it to fruition. That said, when I used to sit on GACC it did seem to me that AOPA was never enthusiastic enough about changes that would reduce aviation costs at the expense of the training industry/its corporate members (why DO NPPL(SSEA) applicants have to pass the JAR exams instead of the simpler but perfectly aedequate microlight exams for example?)

But, I'm afraid that in the UK I still believe that the BMAA/BGA/LAA are the big players and I will probably remain an LAA and BMAA member whatever I'm flying.

However, we have too many aviation organisations in the UK of which AOPA is just one. For aircraft classes we have competent single organisations in the BMAA, LAA, BGA and BBAC, for the professionals we have RAeS; RAeC seem to fulful a useful function in records and racing as well as co-ordinating all the sport flying organisations lobbying efforts - but I remain after that to be convinced that AOPA-UK, and the Air League aren't just splitting and duplicating effort; for that matter why do PPL/IR, Flying Farmers, Lawyers Flying Association, HAA exist other than as divisions of LAA. Why isn't GASCo a committee of the RAeC or RAeS? The voice of UK light aviation would be stronger with less organisations not more and UK-AOPA as a small national player would be better merging into a big national player whilst maintaining the international AOPA engagement.

(Whilst at it, I'd also merge BRA into LAA, BHAB and HCGB together, GAA and GAAC into RAeC, ALAE(1981) into RAeS like the previous ALAE, and force GASCo to actually pay attention to microlights given that BMAA is its single biggest funder. One result of this would be that a lot of people could free up time currently spent on committees and go flying instead, another would be organisations with vastly more clout than at present which can be used for all our benefit.)

G

Genghis the Engineer

8th Jul 2011, 23:07

N.B. The OP asked about AOPA in Belgium, and I think we answered that sometime ago - it isn't there, and can't be joined anyhow.

G

Flying Lawyer

8th Jul 2011, 23:22

Lawyers Flying Association

It was disbanded a few years ago, after about 20 years, and was a social association of lawyer PPLs rather than a lobbying group.

Genghis the Engineer

9th Jul 2011, 07:02

Thanks for that update FL (although I think they're still listed on the GACC members list).

One hopes that all of these organisations are *primarily* about flying rather than lobbying anyhow - and LFA presumably must have had some lobbying function if it was attending GACC, GASCo, etc.?

G

bookworm

9th Jul 2011, 09:23

Whilst at it, I'd also merge BRA into LAA, BHAB and HCGB together, GAA and GAAC into RAeC, ALAE(1981) into RAeS like the previous ALAE, and force GASCo to...

Y'know, I've never come across a "Genghis" who was comfortable with loose federations... :)

Genghis the Engineer

9th Jul 2011, 13:08

Y'know, I've never come across a "Genghis" who was comfortable with loose federations... :)

Or management by committee !

G

soaringhigh650

12th Jul 2011, 12:40

The rumors I keep hearing are that a few notable figures in AOPA UK aren't the brightest around town and past their sell by date. Yet they are pretty self-satisfied and that no-one has a higher opinion of them than they do themselves.

Rod1

12th Jul 2011, 13:11

“a few notable figures in AOPA UK aren't the brightest around town and past their sell by date.”

I would like to say that Mike C is a very bright guy, no comment on his sell by date…:}

In the UK the alliance works very well and has combined just about every aviation lobby group you can think of except AOPA. The important thing is that you join one, not which one.

Rod1

Fuji Abound

12th Jul 2011, 15:04

In the UK the alliance works very well and has combined just about every aviation lobby group you can think of except AOPA.

Does that say volumes?

Mike Cross

12th Jul 2011, 15:04

Mike C is way past his sell by date, his only consolation is that his aeroplane was built before he was.

maximus610

26th Aug 2012, 16:47

Any info about AOPA Germany?
It worth joining them being faa pilot and flying N-regs in Germany?
Thanks
Maxms

proudprivate

26th Aug 2012, 20:53

A German friend of mine who also flies N-reg is a member of AOPA Germany. He says they are a reasonably well connected group and do a lot of good for private aviation in Germany.

If you ever want to convert to a german license and need a level 6 certificate for English Language Proficiency, the AOPA Germany seminars and exam sessions are very good.

But instead of asking on a forum, why don't you give them a call ?

Mike Cross

26th Aug 2012, 23:53

I'm a member of both AOPA UK and AOPA US because I fly in both. All of the AOPA's are members of IAOPA and work in concert. This is particularly true in Europe, where EASA is imposing common standards and lobbying at the European rather than National level is essential. By joining AOPA Germany you would be supporting that lobbying effort. While AOPA US has a clear interest in N Reg operations in Europe it is IAOPA Europe that is doing the grunt work.

Miroku

27th Aug 2012, 09:49

I would just like to add that I had a problem last week when an engineering company had carried out work on an aircraft which had not been authorised, and were refusing to hand the aircraft back until they were paid in full.

I got on the phone to Martin who couldn't have been more helpful in explaining the legal situation together with other helpful advice.

The situation was eventually resolved by further negotiation but was certainly helped by Martin.

rats404

27th Aug 2012, 09:49

I'm a member of AOPA UK because I want to support their activities in the UK. Nick Wilcock has been extremely helpful in keeping people up to speed regarding developments regarding the IMC rating, and I was very grateful, so voted with my wallet.

I'm also a member of AOPA US, not because I expect to be flying in the States any time soon, but because the online training courses, videos and AOPA Pilot magazine represent extremely good value for money in terms of what you get.

peterh337

27th Aug 2012, 10:24

On a positive note I have noticed US AOPA getting involved, via "IAOPA", in European matters.

This is very good news since the European AOPAs never had any power or funding to do anything much on the big picture.

Mike Cross does great work :ok: Look at Lee on Solent; an amazing achievement.

Fuji Abound

27th Aug 2012, 10:37

Agreed, Mike a real success for Lee and wonderful it was preserved.

Bob Upanddown

28th Aug 2012, 10:45

AOPA UK relies on people like Mike Cross.
The problem why more people don't get involved are the few at the very top who dont recognize they are past their sell-by date. Few very young people have the time for AOPA whilst also building their careers and their lives so who replaces the old duffers?
How do you grow AOPA UK into an organisation anything like AOPA USA??

Mike Cross

28th Aug 2012, 14:12

While I certainly put in a lot of work on Lee I was only part of a team. Other people started the Lee Flying Association and raised the funding for the legal challenge.
How do you grow AOPA UK into an organisation anything like AOPA USA??
You can't, we don't have enough potential members in the UK to fund the same level of staff and marketing that they do in the US. We have a paid CEO (Martin) and a part time admin person. Everyone else is an unpaid volunteer.

The ethic in the US is also different to UK, I can say that because I'm living there at the moment. In the US there is more willingness by individuals to fund activities on a voluntary basis, where in UK there's a tendency for it to be done on a commercial or local government basis. For example if the local residents in the US want a swimming hole or some beach facilities they'll band together to do the work and raise the funding. In the UK we'd probably lobby the local council to do it or the facility would be provided by a commercial concern. This isn't a criticism, it's just pointing up a difference in attitude.

You need to go back to the inter-war years to find local government funding airports in the UK. It's still happening in the US although pressure for user fees is now rising.