AOPA - is it worth joining?

[bcfc]

With my license came an application form to join the AOPA. Is it worth joining?..it seems pretty steep at £102.

I understand they do a lot to promote and protect GA which I certainly support but after the most expensive months flying so far, another £100 will be hard to justify.

[JetAgeHobo]

Is the auto club worth joining? Take a look at their website. Then decide, Duats, approach plates, safety education, plus the fact they are the one of the ONLY organizations supporting GA at the moment make it worthwhile to join.

Otherwords, if you don't belong, and fly an aircraft, you should belong.

[GoneWest]

JetAge - and bcfc...

There is a World of difference between AOPA (USA) and AOPA (UK).

The web stuff of which JetAge speaks is truly excellent - the stuff from AOPA UK (when I was a member) was little to nothing.

Maybe times have changed but I was speaking to a colleague last June who told me that he got nothing from his UK membership - but quite a lot from a USA membership.

[TheSilverFox]

Short answer - NO!!!

[Vfrpilotpb]

AOPA Uk is , it seems to me to be the only org that speaks up for the GA flyers, therefor if you are GA and not Commercial it makes a lot of sense to be a member, if you are a flyer, £100 or so is not the end of the earth, or your wallet!

[A7E Driver]

Is anyone a member of IAOPA? Is that different from UK AOPA?

[Tricky Woo]

There's a lot to be said for joining the US AOPA: Great (private) website, great magazine, professionally run. I joined as a 'foreign member' athough I can't for the life of me remember how much it costs.

As for the UK AOPA: Don't make me laugh.

TW

[bludger]

Sounds like 28p per day is small price to pay for a dedicated GA organisation. Sure, the US version has the membership muscle to turn out a good product but what would UK GA look like at the hands of the regulators with no goalkeeper?
If you come home in the evening and dump the small change in your pocket into a jar on the sideboard and you dont miss that money the next day, chances are you can squeeze out the investment in AOPA.

[poetpilot]

Depending on where you place yourself in aviation - eg if your interest is primarily in recreational aviation - you might want to consider joining the Popular Flying Association (www.pfa.org.uk). For around £40 a year, they may represent your interests - I believe they may have links with AOPA but I'm not totally sure about that.

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: poetpilot ]

[Tricky Woo]

Anyone else out there of the opinion that the PFA and UK AOPA should merge? The UK simply doesn't have the critical mass to properly support two such organisations, IMHO.

TW

[IFollowRoads]

Join Up!

I have no idea what you value your time at, but say you like your free time as much as the national minimum wage. Then the annual fee buys about thirty hours of your time, and if you can honestly say you are going to spend that thirty hours a year or more, writing letters to the planners, government departments and nimby's etc, then you have a case for skipping the membership.

If you're not going to spend that time protecting the future of flying, and not going to pay anybody else to do it, then don't winge when you can't fly anymore 'cos theres nowhere to fly from, or the only place will charge you 500 quid for a landing & mandatory handling

puts on tin hat and nomex suit!

[Cahlibahn]

AOPA UK 'represents' a constituency of less than 28,000 PPLs (not including balloonists)and I think their membership is around the 3000 mark. That equates to a subscribtion revenue of only, lets say, £175,000. From that they must fund their staff, premises etc etc. They may not appear to do much but they are very active where it matters. (How effective their activity is I leave for others to judge). If more pilots were members perhaps they might be able to afford to do more. In the meantime they are the de-facto organisation defending and promoting GA (along with the PFA) and have the ear of the regulators. At the end of the day it isn't much money we are talking about so I'd earnestly ask you to consider joining both AOPA and PFA.

[SKYYACHT]

Well, chaps, I prevaricated as much as I could, but one day, I realised that I had got sick and tired of hearing vociferous NIMBY minorities trying to prevent anyone other than themselves having a right to enjoyment...I got sick and tired of receiving my regular e-mail from the Action for Airfields group, telling me that yet another field was lost forever. I kept chatting to friends, blaming the infamous "Them" for not protecting the airfields. I realised that I finally had to put my money where my mouth was, so I coughed up the necessary greenbacks, and now get my regular magazine and as a member I have had assistance in the past from them. If you truly want to enjoy your pastime, and at least get some measure of protection from the NIMBIES and selected grey suited faceless beaureaucrats - then join. It may cost an hours flying, but together we stand, divided we fall!

ps - BIKERS ARE A MINORITY TOO, BUT THEY DO HAVE THE BMF, AND MAG WHO ACT AS LOBBYISTS WHO FIGHT THE EU-ROCRATS AGAINST UNFAVOURABLE LEGISLATION - AND WIN!

[stiknruda]

The PFA has just under 8 000 members and at £40 a pop represents exceptionally good value. The PFA is authorised by the CAA to oversee homebuilding and the issuance of permits to fly for a variety of aircraft.

The PFA also has lobbies at government level for the pursuance of General Aviation .

I don't belong to AOPA UK and don't believe that both groups should merge. I do belong to the PFA for 2 reasons - I operate a permitted aircraft and need to be a member to have my permit renewed and secondly I believe that with limited funds/membership that they do an excellent job of promoting light aviation.

Stik

[rolling circle]

First ask yourself which organisation it was that insisted the PPL be included in the JAA fiasco and was then well down the road to screwing up the NPPL before the CAA stepped in. Then ask yourself whether that same organisation is competent to represent the interests of GA. Then ask yourself if you really want to hand over all that hard-earned cash to a bunch of incompetent tossers.

[GoneWest]

Circle - just reading between the lines - am I correct in thinking that your answer is "No!!"

[bludger]

...and are you talking about the PFA? :confused:

[g-oose]

My feeling is that GA is too small a community and too easily mis-represented and mis-understood in the wider public community to allow us the luxury of not joining and supporting at least one of the representative organisations. Such organisations have the connections where it matters, most noticeably the CAA and the government, to stand our corner. ISTM that regardless of whether you feel that they have been effective in doing so, without them we would not even have those voices and I dread to think what state GA would be in as a result.

AOPA, as well as PFA and BGA, amongst others, have been instrumental in setting up, running, and supporting the GAAC (www.gaac.co.uk) which should, IMHO, be regarded as a major success story in terms of representing the interests of GA in the UK. As far as I am concerned this alone justifies the annual fee I pay as a card carrying member of AOPA.

Amongst other things the GAAC watches over local council policy and works to get GA interests represented in the planning policies that can see an airfield thrive or disappear - over 300 representations made since 1995. In that time the quantity of structure plans which have a positive reference to GA has risen from 20% to 63%. They also scored a significant victory recently in having PPG13 (which forms central govt guidance to local authorities on planning policy) re-worded more strongly in favour of GA.

If you really don't feel that you can support AOPA, PFA, or whoever by joining, then another option might be to donate to the GAAC the membership fee you think would be wasted elsewhere each year.

I would also make the plea that it is not enough simply to pay a membership each year. The value of individual expressions of support on specific issues should not be underestimated. See www.airfields.org.uk (http://www.airfields.org.uk) for info relating specifically to airfield issues.

[Fuji Abound]

I joined. I thought the concept very sound, I believe in an organisation for its members to represent GA - it is badly needed in Europe.

Then one day I phoned AOPA, and explained I was interested in the current proposals regarding NPPL instructors. It was firmly explained to me that a committee existed to consider specifically this issue, and their considerations were really no cocern of mine. I persevered, very politely I might add, but got no where. The PFA were far more forthcoming. Sad to say I got the distinct impression that all the delays in the NPPL were placed firmly at AOPAs door - but then again apparently it was all their idea so I suppose they are entitled to make a hash of it.

To be fair, it was perhaps a one off bad experience, but I was sufficiently perturbed that I will not be joining again!

[bcfc]

Well, it looks as if opinions are fairly evenly split. In the spirit of fair play, I'm going to join and give it a year. If I think they're representing my interests and doing the job well, then I'll continue. If not, I leave.

Having looked at the US AOPA site, they offer far more services and its a shame we don't get the same here but I take the point about the limited constituency they're calling on and its probably not possible with their limited resources.

Cheers.

[Yogi-Bear]

It's a bit chicken and egg, isn't it. I've been hovering for a year or so and also, like Fuji, my contact with AOPA-UK to date has been discouraging. But somebody has to represent us soon. After I've paid the flying club sub: £155, P**** mag sub £30, PPL/IR sub £30 and a few other things that momentarily escape the mind, I feel I've spent enough of my annual budget on non-flying. So for me, at the moment, considering what I perceive I would get for the money, another £102pa seems like pure altruism. Lets hope AOPA can change that! :confused:

[g-oose]

Been doing some digging on the role of AOPA relating to JAR-FCL and the PPL...

"Many people misguidedly think AOPA proposed the harmonisation of pilot training and licensing in Europe, i.e. JAR-FCL. In 1987, the late Ron Campbell, then Chairman of AOPA and Technical Co-ordinator of the European Region of IAOPA, proposed to the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Technical Committee for 'Mutual Recognition of Flight Crew Licenses between member states of the European Community'. This was before the EEC directive on mutual acceptance. After the introduction of the EU Directive (1991) the idea was introduced for the harmonisation of pilot training and licensing in Europe and in 1993 the JAA took over the work from ECAC and its Flight Crew Licensing Committee (FCL-C) began the work which has led to JAR-FCL. This project would have gone ahead, had AOPA been involved or not. The major advantage of the IAOPA's presence was that many onerous, complex and expensive requirements were eliminated or reduced through its continued efforts on behalf of GA at the Committee meetings." (From an editor's note to a letter published in the Spring 2001 Light Aviation AOPA mag).

"...in 1996, AOPA had proposed to the CAA, unsuccessfully as it turned out, a simpler private license along the lines of the NPPL that is currently being developed, having already recognised the difficulties that the JAA license was likely to present. Thus, it is inapropriate to blame the shortcomings of JAR-FCL on AOPA. In fact, it was the various national authorities who were responsible for introducing the PPL into JAR-FCL when it was realised that the PPL formed the basis for the modular route to a professional pilot license." (Letter from the AOPA UK Chairman published in Pilot magazine Sept 2001).

On what basis do people think that AOPA was responsible for having the PPL included in JAR-FCL?

BTW. Don't know where the membership fee of £102 came from. Sounds like 2 years. Annual fee for 2001 is £51. There's also a £15 joining fee (waived if joining on-line). They do operate a fixed membership year, so to join now will cost less.

[bcfc]

£102 came from their sliding scale of charges (assuming I wait until September) detailed on the application form I received. Looking at the small print, I see it runs until March 2003 and includes the £15 joining fee. Didn't know it was waived if bought online - I'll have a look now.

Cheers

[rolling circle]

"After the introduction of the EU Directive (1991) the idea was introduced for the harmonisation of pilot training and licensing in Europe and in 1993 the JAA took over the work from ECAC and its Flight Crew Licensing Committee (FCL-C) began the work which has led to JAR-FCL. This project would have gone ahead, had AOPA been involved or not."

All correct, g-oose, but ECAC and the JAR Committee were considering only professional licensing. It was only after intense lobbying by AOPA that the PPL was included in JAR-FCL. Therefore, the project would indeed have gone ahead if AOPA had not been involved, the PPL would have remained untouched and there would have been no need for the NPPL.

[Norfolk & Good]

So you are on the fence then Rolling!! One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is AOPB gives you legal support if you don something silly like bust a zone and get prosecuted. They hopefully will fight for the Mode S not to hit GA. If they win that one, it will be worth my membership! :eek:

[g-oose]

It was only after intense lobbying by AOPA that the PPL was included in JAR-FCL.

Where does this come from? Apparently it's not how AOPA see it.

[FNG]

I have hovered and havered about joining AOPA. Their naff marketing doesn't help: who wants a tacky "Aircrew card" depicting some fat bloke with a cheesy moustache, entitling you to discounts in third rate motels? I have joined the PFA. Not sure why, as my aircraft is not a permit type and I have no interest in homebuilding. It just seems like a vibrant organisation with a sense of fun. I suppose that we should all join AOPA and try to make it more like its apparently influential US counterpart. So, there, this thread has persuaded me and I'll send off my application tomorrow.

[jodeller]

The simple fact the CAA, by including their application form with the brand-spanking new PPL, invited our intrepid flyer to join AOPA UK should be enough reason to toss the paper into the waste bin. Anyone in league with that bunch of time-wasters is not worth joining. AOPA UK should instead be fighting the CAA for better facilities and privileges for PPLs and others.

[FNG]

Please tell us, Jodeller, what terrible things the CAA has done to you, that you should hate it so, or are you just one of those bar-room PPL-anarchists who says, with Bakunin, that whoever puts his hands on you to govern you is a tyrant and a thief, and declared your enemy?

You refer to better facilities. Is it the CAA's fault that airfields succumb to mismanagement, the pressures of development, nimbyism and lack of understanding and support amongst local authorities? Is it the CAA's fault that many of those that remain open are badly run and have poor quality facilities?

You refer to PPL privileges. Do you mean licence privileges? Ever heard of ICAO? Your PPL privileges you to fly all over Europe, North America, Australia etc. Isn't that enough of a privilege? Or do you mean that we should have the privilege of being saluted by airfield staff when booking in?

Who should we be regulated by? What should they do? How much of your valuable time have the current lot wasted? Do tell.

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]

[jodeller]

FNG
The CAA have done nothing to me personally but the flying mags have, in the past, been full of tales of pilots being prosecuted for the most petty of incidents like low flying. I remeber one PA28 jockey being done for speeding on the taxiway and fined.

PPLs need an organisation that maintains an arms length distance from the regulators, not a cosy, old boy's network the matter raised in this thread appears to suggest.