I have no idea why whenever questions are asked about how AOPA operate you resort to these accusations.
I rather thought this was a discussion forum
Fuji,
As an ordinary member of AOPA my observation is that you seem to post an awful lot of direct accusations and various insinuating questions about AOPA - and then act surprised when people "discuss" those pretty vigorously. I rather think Bose is being very restrained (!).
You seem full of accusations that AOPA didn't publish stuff and didn't consult its members.
As I understand it, and as Bose has pointed out, none of the deliberations of the Industry Working Groups were open for discussion or consultation. This happens after they publish their results some time this year. AOPA has been working hard to my entire satisfaction as a member on these.
Now, since you have been happy to critique their approach, please tell me what yours would have been, presumably either
A. to refuse to participate in any Working Group (and therefore be shut out of the whole process)
B. to agree to participate but then breach the agreement your participation was conditional on, and disclose/publish/consult on confidential work-in-progress?..and deservedly be thrown off the Working Group
Which one? A or B? Tell us how this would have achieved more? What has been achieved to date I credit to the good intentions of EASA, the CAA and AOPA in working on this.
AOPA was doing good work when I learned to fly as a teenager 25years ago. In those last 25 years, 90% of UK PPLs have never bothered to join. AOPA has done good work that helped all of them. If more people had joined and fewer had the "I don't like X about it" (where X is any one of a myriad of personal bees-in-bonnet about AOPA) perhaps GA would be in a stronger position than it is now. I think AOPA will be around in 25 years time, but the next couple of years are critical to the EASA process. It needs the most support it can get. It will never be everyone's perfect representative - that would take as many organisations as there are members. It will never have the resources to satisfy the internet era's appetite for communication. But neither do I see any other EASA accredited "industry representative" for mainstream private GA working for us (as opposed to EAS work for Sport/Recreational GA).
I'd prefer to see campaigns working in parallel and wish them all well. I thought your petition couldn't do any harm and perhaps help raise awareness. It could potentially do a lot of good by the very fact that it is "outside the system" and therefore is free to do stuff which would compromise the credibility and good relations of someone like AOPA who depend on mutual respect with the regulators. However, your input into saving the IMC-R seems recently to consist of posting a lot, bickering about other representative organisations and trumpeting your own. Since you are not shy about giving feedback to representative organisations, I am sure you will appreciate this feedback.