AOPA Personal Accident Policy

[Cusco]

Marsh UK, the insurance company based in Kent who administer the AOPA personal accident policy, wrote to me this morning to tell me that the AOPA Master policy was being discontinued from 1st February this year (less than 2 weeks time) and inviting me to make alternative insurance arrangements elsewhere.

Kinda 'So long its been good to know ya')

This is not the first time the former AOPA 'Wings' policy has dumped me unceremoniously at short notice.

In their letter Marsh UK said that the Policy was being discontinued 'after discussions with AOPA' so AOPA clearly knew about this before today, yet not a peep to Members

Nothing on the AOPA website (which I might add only recognised my membership number this evening after rejecting me all day).

So: do I sweat it out to see if AOPA comes up with an alternative?

Or can PPRuNeRS out there recommend a basic accident policy to me.

I 've been paying about 48 squids per month for either GBP100k life cover or GBP200 a week for 2 years temporary total disablement cover.

I don't want any bolt-ons like critical illness cover or mortgage cover just the plain vanilla cover like I had before.

I should add that I already have some cover from long standing Life Insurance Policies, but 'er indoors needs a bit more if I shuffle off this mortal coil in my spam can.

Any ideas gratefully received.

Martin R -- you out there?

Or even any AOPA members in the same situation.


Safe (and well insured ) flying

Cusco

[BEagle]

Have copied this thread to AOPA for you.

The whole question of GA insurance really needs looking at, in my opinion!

[aiglon]

Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply from AOPA. Unless it involves them hob-nobbing it on quasi important committees they're not really interested. And as for Mr Robinson ...

Aiglon

[BEagle]

No doubt AOPA is equally as surprised at the actions of the insurer as their members are. Hopefully alternative arrangements will soon be forthcoming.

There's a lot of behind the scenes work which AOPA does (mainly digging their members out of their own poo!) which receives little public notice or comment. Cudgels are taken up against those who would restrict GA activity and the industry should be grateful for their efforts.

Lastly, whilst I have no qualms about people moaning about various organisations, to make comments about specific individuals which could reasonably be construed by those individuals or others as being derogatory or defamatory is wholly unacceptable on a public forum and is bordering on the libellous....

[Mike Cross]

to make comments about specific individuals which could reasonably be construed by those individuals or others as being derogatory or defamatory is wholly unacceptable on a public forum and is bordering on the libellous....

I think the comment was "" or are you objecting to the fact that he censored himself?

WRT to AOPA and what they do there are unfortunately always many more people who will tell you how you should be doing it than those who will actually get off their backsides and do something. See this thread if you want to see AOPA doing something.

Mike

[Pat Malone]

My understanding is that Marsh has been taken over by another company and doesn't want to continue the policy because their priorities have changed and the numbers involved are small. They therefore asked AOPA for £50,000 to keep it going, which AOPA will not pay. Without telling AOPA, Marsh's agents wrote to policyholders saying their coverage would be chopped from Feb 1. The first AOPA heard about it was on Saturday.
If you want the full SP, why not call AOPA? They're on 0207 834 5631. You can email Martin Robinson at [email protected]. He's very angry about this.
As to offers from the new Marsh for coverage, I know how I'd react.

PS: Aiglon - sounds like you've got some unresolved issues there, mate.

[aiglon]

AOPA

BEagle,

to make comments about specific individuals which could reasonably be construed by those individuals or others as being derogatory or defamatory is wholly unacceptable on a public forum and is bordering on the libellous....

I didn't make any comments, I left that bit blank - you simply filled in the blanks in your mind

There's a lot of behind the scenes work which AOPA does (mainly digging their members out of their own poo!) which receives little public notice or comment.

OK, so why don't they talk about it more openly. I have tried explaining in the past that if AOPA wants to attract members, not only do they need to act on their behalf but they need to be seen to do so.


Mike,

there are unfortunately always many more people who will tell you how you should be doing it than those who will actually get off their backsides and do something

I have been a member of AOPA for many years and have tried to engage "them" on issues which I feel are important to GA pilots (based upon, of course, my own views but also those of fellow pilots I talk to). Needless to say, I have found them to be uninterested in "mundane" issues.

I am no longer prepared to be a member of an organisation that will not engage in dialogue and at least attempt to tackle issues which are important to me (and, as I said above, others). I think this is a very sad state because GA needs a strong voice representing it and I am more than willing to be a part of that. However, I am no longer convinced that AOPA UK, as it currently operates, can provide that voice.

Aiglon

[Mike Cross]

Aiglon

Thanks for the reply.

AOPA has the representation, the authority, the voice, and the channels of communication with the regulatory authorities to do the job. Most of the others (PFA, BMAA, BGA etc) cover a particular segment rather than the whole scene. Therefore I think AOPA has the ability to make us heard. If it's not doing that job properly then we need to sort it out, rather than walk away and let it die.

Philip Whiteman is doing a good job with "General Aviation", in the pages of which it is possible to see quite a lot of what is going on, however its a small organisation with few sources of income.

Mike

[Philip Whiteman]

Nearly all the points I would have raised in response to Cusco's rushed posting have come from others - thank you, chaps.

I must ask why people keep on popping up on various internet forums to bash AOPA as first rather than last resort, giving people like Martin absolutely no chance of taking action before being condemned.

One other little thing; I do enjoy the positive comment so many people have made about AOPA's General Aviation magazine, but please give credit to the publisher, himself a helicopter instructor and an excellent writer - because the publication simply wouldn't exist in its current form if he'd not taken over (and renamed it) in 2002.

At the risk of sounding like a Golden Globe winner, David Tarbutt does a nice job with the look and we're lucky to have contributors like Mike Jerram and others keeping us awash with quality copy.

Of course, if you'd prefer a freebie watch to AOPA's constant lobbying on behalf of pilots and legal back-up...

[Pat Malone]

Aiglon:
As I took over publishing AOPA's magazine General Aviation almost two years ago I suppose I'm largely responsible for spreading AOPA's message, so if it's not getting through, the blame is mostly mine.

The question is, have you read the magazine? I have written dozens of articles on AOPA's work - and it never ceases to amaze me just how much work they do, with badly limited resources. The magazine is hardly unreadable. I have had many compliments on its design, its content and its news value. Since Philip Whiteman joined he has added his own particular strengths to the mix, and I submit that it stacks up well with any other magazine in the sector.

AOPA is the only organisation that is independent of the CAA or any other external influence, and has the lobbying power to make a difference. In the UK and in Europe, it punches way above its weight. Martin Robinson is IAOPA's European vice chairman and is on the EASA advisory body, where with Mark Wilson of GAMTA he fights off some of the crazier nonsense that would otherwise be enshrined in law. Ask Mark Wilson about that. Through Pam Campbell AOPA is also fighting on the JAA level. An enormous amount of work goes into simply watching out for bright ideas coming down the pipe from these organisations, working out what it means in the real world, and heading it off.

AOPA's voice is listened to at the CAA, where it speaks up for general aviation as well as for countless individuals who run foul of the authority, and who are grateful for AOPA's backing when they are called in. We have published several letters in my time from such people. Sometimes their livelihoods were at stake.
AOPA has backed members who were faced with major criminal prosecutions, and we have helped to win their cases. I wrote recently about Donald Campbell, who ran out of fuel and crashed at Shoreham... the CAA went after him, and AOPA helped get him off.

AOPA was instrumental in establishing the NPPL and in running it. Thanks to Mike Cross, it has helped to improve the Notams delivery system. AOPA has taken up members' complaints about engineering organisations and has won rebates in many cases. I have written about a well-known rock star who won a £15,000 payback through AOPA for work on his plane. AOPA and GAMTA are establishing a joint approach to such problems, for mutual benefit.

Through Ian Perry and others, AOPA has restored the licences of many members who had their tickets pulled by the CAA on medical grounds. AOPA's Charles Strasser has fought and largely won a campaign to wipe out landing fees for emergency diversions. And of course, always, always, there is the battle for airfields, with literally dozens under threat over the past few years. David Ogilvy and Anna Bloomfield have fought and won almost as many as they have fought and lost. But they fight, and over the decades they have built up an unparalleled store of experience with which to do down the planner and the Nimby.

AOPA is engaged with the country's security agencies (at their request) trying to make sure common sense prevails in any anti-terrorism action that affects GA. Enormous effort is going into staving off things like compulsory Mode S transponders or the proposal that GA pay for LARS, but it's difficult to present "nothing happening" as a result. But believe me, it is. And if you think sitting on committees and listening to all this is fun, you should go and sit on one of these committees.

Uninterested in "mundane" issues? That's crap. AOPA people are buried to their necks in bureaucratic minutiae, fighting for breath under the pressure of CAA change, JAA change, EASA change, security issues, airfield closures, members' problems. This industry is under pressure as never before, and only AOPA is doing a decent, cohesive job of fighting for the rights of people like me. And you.

AOPA is not always doing all this work alone, but it is the only major organisation that does not rely on a CAA dispensation for its revenue, and when you don't pay the piper, you don't call the tune.

Finally, let me compare AOPA UK with AOPA US. AOPA US has almost exactly 100 times as many members as AOPA UK. Virtually every US pilot is a member, private or professional. It has enormous lobbying power and financial muscle, and partly as a result, US GA is in much better shape than it is in the UK. Here, we have the GAAC, hosted largely by AOPA in the hope of getting everyone to speak with one voice. The GAAC has, count 'em, 73 member organisations. All talking at once, and none being heard.

In the last year I have interviewed people as diverse as the Met Police commissioner Sir John Stevens and Cessna's Russ Meyer II, Cabair's Steve Read and the CAA's John Hills, and they all say one thing. Join AOPA. Speak with one voice, loudly.

If I knew a better hole, I'd go to it. But there isn't one. Get in, stay in, pay your money, and read the magazine.
Pat Malone

[aiglon]

AOPA

Pat,

Get in, stay in, pay your money, and read the magazine

I've been in for about 10 years - but not any longer, I'm sorry but I am simply disillusioned. OK maybe I have been a bit harsh but from where I sit, my direct dealings with AOPA have left me distinctly unimpressed. Thankfully, I have never needed to ask AOPA for help in dealing with a legal problem or in getting me a £15,000 refund for servicing - but then I'm not a rich rock star. I have, however, had cause to approach AOPA for more general help in dealing with issues that affect all GA pilots on a daily basis.

I'm sorry, Pat but I feel I have given AOPA more than a fair chance.

Aiglon

[Pat Malone]

Aiglon:
Want to tell us about it? I've been a member of AOPA since 1984 and I know of no-one who's been gratuitously ill-treated, ignored or unneccesarily badly served by the organisation. Lack of resources cause problems, misunderstandings arise, people feel aggrieved for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps it's not too late. AOPA needs you, and you need AOPA.
PS: You don't have to be a rock star to get AOPA on your side. I mentioned that only because it was especially interesting. Pay your dues, and you'll get the rock star treatment.
Pat

[Cusco]

I'm sorry that my request has degenerated into yet another slanging match aimed at AOPA.

As it happened Martin contacted by email me first thing this morning:

AOPA new nothing about the decision to scrap the policy,: the decision was taken for business reasons: it wasn't making the company any money.

Martin has made several very good suggestions which I am following up and will certainly be fixed up by the time current policy ceases.

So please lay off AOPA/Martin R I'm perfectly happy with his response:

Interesting that no-one came up with any alternative insurance companies: Do you all fly uninsured out there?

Safe (and well covered ) flying

Cusco.

[chrisN]

Pat Malone wrote [snip] "The GAAC has, count 'em, 73 member organisations. All talking at once, and none being heard." [snip]

Pat, your defence of AOPA is entirely justified and well meant as well as largely well said, but there is no need IMHO to overblow it.

The BGA, PFA, Parachutists, Balloonists, etc. also have their voices - for which AOPA does not speak - and they are heard at least some of the time on issues peculiar to their aspects of GA.

Even the GAAC has made some difference, e.g. to PPG 13, and is working on other things.

Each to their own.

Let's work together on what needs common cause, in our own corners on issues that are appropriate to only one sector, and and not rubbish the others' efforts as negligible or worthless when they are not.

And next time I or my successors at the BGA are defending the BGA corner on an airspace issue, kindly don't have the AOPA rep telephoning BGA clubs and claiming to speak for them against me, when I have already contacted them and am putting their case as they have asked me to.

Best regards for all the hard work, and good luck with the campaign to get more AOPA members.

Chris N. (BGA, RAeC, and GAAC person.)

[Pat Malone]

Chris, I don't want to hog this thread but your little dig there at someone who's apparently made a phone call that rubbed you up the wrong way exemplifies the unneccesarily competitive and negative relationship that often exists between these 73 bodies.
It is a political minefield, full of delicate sensibilities that once trodden on, cause wounds that fester for decades. I'm aware that some GAAC members "don't get on" because of something that was said or done in the 1950s or 1960s. We're like a church that fragments into ever-shrinking sects, each arguing over how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, ignoring the fact that the congregation has drifted away.
You represent the glider fraternity, and make an excellent job of it. But someone needs to represent aircraft owners and pilots across the board, and nobody can do that but AOPA.
If I was a glider pilot I'd be a member of the BGA, but I'd also join AOPA.
Pat

[chrisN]

Pat, you made an unnecessary and inaccurate statement "All talking at once, and none being heard" which threatens to spoil a good case. Good cases don't need exaggeration or mis-statements to support them.

I don't need lessons in how to manage the sores of old which could affect the GAAC or other fora in which bodies come together - I have been one of those most involved in trying to overcome such things, having chaired the first sessions of joint RAeC and AOPA on planning and environmental endeavours, and overseen production of the first overall aviation planning guidance for GA. My point of illustration was to show what can happen if people step outside their own arena into somebody else's, not to rub more salt into old wounds.

I repeat my hope that people involved will work together in the most constructive way, and not repeat the mistakes of the past by trying to pretend that AOPA has an all-encompassing role while disparaging other bodies which have their own, clearly defined and supported, flying interests for which AOPA has neither expertise nor mandate. AOPA has enough to do to convince its power flying doubters that it is doing a good job for them - which is what this thread is about. Each to his/her own. All power to AOPA's elbow for its part of the larger GA constituency.

As there are some private messages going on, I propose to say no more at present.

Regards - Chris N.

[Pat Malone]

Chris: In the interests of harmony I will withdraw, with one last fundamental thought... to support AOPA is not to disparage anybody else.
Pat

[aiglon]

AOPA

Oh, when will I learn to just walk away

I've re read the posts on this thread and it is clear that, to some, any criticism of the god AOPA is a serious crime.

to support AOPA is not to disparage anybody else.

No, but then neither is to not support it.

I must ask why people keep on popping up on various internet forums to bash AOPA as first rather than last resort, giving people like Martin absolutely no chance of taking action before being condemned

Philip, lets be clear, first, I am not "bashing" AOPA, merely expressing my opinion - that is OK with you, is it? Second, my comments are not in any way made as a first resort, I have attempted to engage in dialogue with several people in AOPA on issues which are important to me but vested interests seemed to get in the way. At least, that is the way it appeared to me.

someone needs to represent aircraft owners and pilots across the board, and nobody can do that but AOPA.

Pat, can't argue with the first part of that sentence but the problem with your conclusion is that AOPA doesn't adequately represent aircraft owners and pilots because it has other powerful vested interests.

I'm genuinely sorry that so many people seem to find any negative view on AOPA as heresy. Well, that is unfortunate because, IMHO, a variety of opinion is a healthy thing. As far as I am concerned, I am as entitled to my views as you are and I am just as entitled to express them.

Like any member based organisation, AOPA needs the support of its members but it must realise that it has no absolute right to expect that support automatically, it must work with and for its members.

Aiglon

[Pat Malone]

Aiglon:
I've invited you to set out your case, but you haven't done so.
You're starting to sound paranoid. What "powerful vested interests" govern AOPA?
Nobody says criticising AOPA is apostasy. But if you were to set out the grounds for your criticism, perhaps it would help us understand it.