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/...als%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