Call us what you will, a union, a lobby group whatever.
Our job is to make sure that our members are not forced to subsidize a gold plated airspace system they (and 90% of others) don't need.
That is why we are giving NAS the level of support we are.
We are NOT giving anything beyond 2b our full support and will be commenting on some chart issues with 2b. The rest, we are monitoring its implimentation and taking comment from members (like triadic), considering this comment amongst the Board and working out our position.
I come here to read 'reasoned comment', when it turns unreasonable, I ignore it. Some arguments persuade me to look deeper, some just don't.
Some have accused us of being 'amateurs'. Well i suppose in airspace design, we are.
But we must represent the full gamut of AOPA members and we do that by having a representative board.
On our Board we have
1 x multi thousand hour 747 pilot.
1 x multi thousand hour ex GA RPT and charter pilot.
3 x multi thousand hour instructors and flying school owners.
1 X multi thousand hour ex instructor (ex airforce) and talented homebuilder.
2 x high time IFR PPLs who fly regularly for work.
2 x low time VFR PPLs who will have to wear all the chart changes etc.
Advising us we have another 747 driver, a charter operator and ex F28 driver, another ex RAAF instructor and anyone else we care to talk to.
None of these people is under any obligation to accept anything either NASIG, the Minister or anyone with the name Smith says. We all read the stuff, listen to the arguments from members (and some persuasive non-members), in the case of 2b we will fly the system and then we all, individually, make up our minds.
Oh yeah ....
****zu-Tonka, if you wanna get on the AOPA forum, you gotta join
AK