AOPA - is it worth joining?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The fairy tale Land of Uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£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
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: St Albans,UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! 
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snowdonia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ]
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 ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snowdonia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
