Petition page and PPRUNE

[Pace]

With all the talks of EASA meddling with aviation on subjects like the IMCR the formation of the EIR and now its attack on the N reg their operators and pilots what role could PPRUNE have in helping lone pilots who post here to have a stronger voice.

Topics generated in the forums can go into many thousands of hits. There must be a way of PPRUNE offering a service which allows individuals to sign letters of support for various topics where we need a collective voice.

Obviously such letters of support would have to have personal details but those could be kept invisable to browsers.

Such letters of support even if electronic could be then sent to the relevant bodies.

It seems a shame that a site like PPRUNE which brings so many thousands of people involved in aviation into forums cannot use that ability to help fight our causes and protect our interests and freedoms.

Pace

[soaringhigh650]

Maybe worth taking up with your AOPA?

See AOPA Online: Government Advocacy (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/)

[Pace]

I agree totally with making those concerns to AOPA but even with AOPA one solitary letter will not get the attention that a petition signed by thousands will.
In turn those petitions can be sent by maybe AOPA to the regulating authorities to further strengthen the case they are making on our behalf.
PPRUNE is a collection point of views.

The biggest problem we have is collecting people with aviation interests and opinions together. Here we have it. Why not use it?

Earlier in the year when we discussed the Volcanic Ash issue that thread generated 40,000 hits.

Pace

[Rod1]

Have a look at this one;

LAACan (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/Consultation/LAACan.html)

Rod1

[Pace]

Rod excellent site for especially LAA aircraft issues and one that could be linked here if PPRUNE doesnt consider a conflict of interest.

Totally agree with their motives and what they say on the site.

Pace

[soaringhigh650]

AOPA can send out official communications to the pilot community - to gather results via its own forums, surveys or online voting booths where the people who fill these in can be identified and who are genuine.

Since this is an anonymous rumour board, quoting something gathered on a rumour board to further a cause can be difficult to justify.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I think you have a super idea.

It would not be difficult to create an on line petition (much as the old No 10 petition). I think it would need to record and display certain public information, but also should record the creditials of the pilots - I would suggest a license number and license origin would suffice. I was involved with the petition to No 10 with regards the IMC rating which attracted over 5,000 signatories. Unfortunately (and sadly not surprisingly) a few pr*ts decided to sign in false names and, to the extent there was a legitimate challenge to the validity of the petition, it was from those who claimed the creditials of some of the signatories could be called into question. Mind you I dont think the petition should only be open to pilots, but it would be as well to be able to divide the petitioners between pilots and others.

I know beyond any doubt the last petition had a very significant impact on the regulatory process so depsite those who claimed it was a waste of time it served a valid purpose. Indeed in recent months we have seen AOPA come out very firmly in favour of retaining the IMCr.

That is not to devalue the contribution of AOPA on this issue. However sadly they represent very few of the pilot community (something around 5% I think, and that is just in the UK). In fact we collected more support for the IMCr than if the whole of the AOPA membership had come out in favour - which demonstrates well the power of PPRuNe and the darker side.

This is exactly what GA needs. It needs pilot knocking on EASA door with force, with the backing of thousands of names, with petitions that end up at the doors of Euro MPs - otherwise as ever, it is all to easy for them to say - well we gave you the chance to comment, albiet we made the process so tortuous that it is hardly surprising almost no one bothered.

So Pace - what are you going to do about it. :)

and so IO540, 421C and the rest of you who say you dont like / or support the proposals - what do you have in mind?

[soaringhigh650]

However sadly they represent very few of the pilot community (something around 5% I think, and that is just in the UK). In fact we collected more support for the IMCr than if the whole of the AOPA membership had come out in favour - which demonstrates well the power of PPRuNe and the darker side.

I don't understand? It has over 400,000 members around the globe? What other organization beats it?

[Pace]

Fuji

I envisaged a petition page with links. Yes you would have to add your name and address but that would not connect you to your stage name at PPRUNE.
It is not just pilots who may be interested in supporting petitions but people from all walks of aviation.

The Biggest problem we have is fragmentation. If you have a gathering of 500 people at a meeting and ask them to put their name to a petition on their way out concerning something which effects them greatly chances are you may get 400 signatures.

Make an announcement and ask people to write to their local MP and out of those 500 you would probably get 10 who would bother to do so.
Pilots here moan about the same topics coming up and how boring it all is so why not connect the masses of people who use this site to do something constructive for a change instead of just talking and moaning.

We have had warnings from posters here who are close to the regulatory bodies and about what we are about to recieve yet there is a sad apathy about doing anything.

Pace

[A and C]

I think that they moved the constituency boundery to give my MP a rest!..............High time I got the new MP working for me.

[Fuji Abound]

I don't understand? It has over 400,000 members around the globe? What other organization beats it?


I am not going to "bash" AOPA but the fact is AOPA UK in a practical sense does not work with AOPA USA and it is doubtful AOPA USA has any interest on European matters (they have enough on their plate in the US.)

AOPA UK is relatively speak a small stretched organisation, a reflection of the fragmentation of GA interests in the UK (and Europe). AOPA's representation in Europe is even smaller.

Pace

I agree but what are you and the other forumites who have posted actually going to do?

[IO540]

U.S. AOPA would not be directly interested but its big political influence members would well be very interested in hearing that Europe is screwing its US licensed pilots in this way, while trying to sell Airbuses to the U.S. military, with the "allegedly" "interesting" "methods" used to sweeten the deal already causing much controversy....

Very simple really.

The sale of a single Airbus is worth more than doing anything about the whole European FRA scene. Airbus = EASA = France = EU in practical political terms. 1 phone call would be enough to kill off any EASA proposal, especially a purely "political envy" one like FRA controls which has no safety angle whatsoever.

Look at this on a "regulator human" level. Most political moves make some people happy, even if they upset some groups. Banning handguns was supported by many people (like it or not). The EASA proposals are not going to make anybody happy - except a few politicians, and a few elitists, and a few axe grinders like EU FTOs hoping to pick up business but none of these people would be willing to stand up and openly admit to their leanings because they would be too ashamed of having chased business in such an underhand way.