Join AOPA? Pro? Con?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan - the bmaa definitely warrants consideration. As topics such as this routinely demonstrate aopa in the uk and europe has sadly lost its way and is taken seriously by few. Sadly when you can claim to count not much more than a handful of the flying community amoung your membership that isnt surprising.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to try and clear up some myths.
I attend meetings of the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and the Members' Working Group of AOPA UK and can assure you that you are 100% wrong in the assertion that AOPA is heavily influenced by its corporate members. If you operate an aircraft administered by LAA or BMAA you heve to be a member and if you are a glider pilot you will be a member of a club that is affiliated to and pays dues to BGA. There is no such imperitive for membership of AOPA. Your opinions are usually well considered Ghengis but on this you're wrong. You're no doubt aware that I am also a member of LAA and have served on their National Council.
Where does one start with a statement like that? AOPA UK in the person of the late Ron Campbell invented the IMCR. AOPA UK has always supported it.
No idea where you get that from Fuji. I hold a 61.75 and have never come across any antipathy towards it from AOPA UK. I attend Board Meetings, the Exec Committee and the Members Working Group meetings and have never heard such a thing. If your reference to individuals refers to a DPE operating in Europe there was a situation where FAA Head Office in Oklahoma City said one thing, which was accurately reported in our magazine but subsequently found not to refelect what was happening in the field. That situation persists. Oklahoma City says one thing and the New York District Office actually does something different. In the UK we're used to there being one right answer. In the US the federal system seems to introduce some variation. For example FAA Head Office will tell you that you have to make an appointment and visit a FSDO in person. We now know that you can obtain or renew it outside the US without having to visit a FSDO and in my own case I was able to renew mine by meeting an FAA official at a local airport without the need to visit the FSDO. What was accurately reported in the AOPA UK magazine was what the editor had been told at the time by FAA Head Office.
Eh? AOPA UK owns that building, it was a gift from a benefactor and was not paid for by members. You've clearly not visited it. There's a shop on the ground floor which is let to Transair and produces some income, one office with room for 3 people on the first floor and two small offices and a toilet on the second. Palatial it ain't. There's no room to hold meetings. We used to hold them in an upstairs room at the pub next door, now we do it at the Victoria Charity Centre. The accounts are in the public domain, go have a look at them and you'll see you are talking nonsense. (I think you meant to say "profligate")
A much peddled piece of misinformation. AOPA UK does indeed work with the other representative organisations, for example the NPPL is administered by NPPL Ltd, a joint venture between AOPA UK and other UK representative organisations. This particular misconception arises from EASA's "rules of audience". EASA will not talk directly to national representative bodies such as AOPA UK, BMAA, BGA, LAA etc. They will only talk to European representative organisations. AOPA UK is affilliated to an international organisation, IAOPA, the International Council of Aircraft Owner & Pilot Associations and together with the other European AOPA's is represented at EASA by IAOPA (Europe).
The other UK organisations were not part of an international organisation and have had to join together into European organisations to be heard. The fact that UK interests are represented by more than one organisation is a benefit, not a drawback. The suggestion that this separate representation indicates a difference of opinion between AOPA UK and the rest of the representative bodies is totally untrue.
I hope this helps to dispel some of the misconceptions.
Mike
AOPA UK is small, heavily influenced by its corporate members, and for many of us a lot less relevant than the big three: LAA, BMAA and BGA.
AOPA couldnt make up their mind whether to support the IMCr or not
their vindicative campaign regarding the 61.75 and certain individuals.
their proliferate spending on offices in London does not support their claim.
a history of being unable or unwilling to work with any of the other representative organisations in the UK.
The other UK organisations were not part of an international organisation and have had to join together into European organisations to be heard. The fact that UK interests are represented by more than one organisation is a benefit, not a drawback. The suggestion that this separate representation indicates a difference of opinion between AOPA UK and the rest of the representative bodies is totally untrue.
I hope this helps to dispel some of the misconceptions.
Mike
Last edited by Mike Cross; 8th Jul 2011 at 07:49.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The conflict concerning 61.75 etc is fairly obvious when you see things like this written. Old history, but this is old history being discussed here too.
Difficult to put a finger on this, but I do think UK AOPA needs fresh and more dynamic leadership. I have met the present leadership on a number of occassions at various events around Europe and each time it was sitting there, comfortably, eyes more or less closed and in one case gently snoring, apparently after a very good lunch.
In some instances a clear opportunity to question some proposal was missed. I recall two events, both involving very damaging Eurocontrol proposals, when no questions were fielded, presumably because it was shortly after lunch. Both were mega opportunities to question policy and do so openly. We all know the Euro regulators absolutely hate any kind of open discussion; it sets them back months because of the ridicule attracted.
Now, obviously, I have no idea of what great work goes on behind the scenes, and maybe the leadership really is highly effective, but it isn't readily apparent.
UK AOPA have historically been unwilling to work with PPL/IR, which is not good because a lot of unwanted regulation is proposed and implemented from the top and then works its way down the GA food chain. 8.33 is one example.
And, as this thread shows, and from many I know personally, there is a lot of historical baggage which prevents great many pilots joining.
So it may be time for someone new who can present a new dynamic face, and enable a break with the past which alone might open new doors.
Difficult to put a finger on this, but I do think UK AOPA needs fresh and more dynamic leadership. I have met the present leadership on a number of occassions at various events around Europe and each time it was sitting there, comfortably, eyes more or less closed and in one case gently snoring, apparently after a very good lunch.
In some instances a clear opportunity to question some proposal was missed. I recall two events, both involving very damaging Eurocontrol proposals, when no questions were fielded, presumably because it was shortly after lunch. Both were mega opportunities to question policy and do so openly. We all know the Euro regulators absolutely hate any kind of open discussion; it sets them back months because of the ridicule attracted.
Now, obviously, I have no idea of what great work goes on behind the scenes, and maybe the leadership really is highly effective, but it isn't readily apparent.
UK AOPA have historically been unwilling to work with PPL/IR, which is not good because a lot of unwanted regulation is proposed and implemented from the top and then works its way down the GA food chain. 8.33 is one example.
And, as this thread shows, and from many I know personally, there is a lot of historical baggage which prevents great many pilots joining.
So it may be time for someone new who can present a new dynamic face, and enable a break with the past which alone might open new doors.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I happen to think the present leader does a very good job, and works hard beyond the call of duty, at all hours and weekends.
Think about the scale of AOPA US. Then think about the scale of their regulatory task. 14 CFR Part 91 and Part 61 for the most. Barely changes from year to year. The odd issue pops up from time to time. Of course they are on top of all the key regulatory issues. Now think of the much smaller national AOPAs in Europe - dealing with all the local airport issues through to NAA issues through to the thousands of pages of new regulation EASA churn out. Of course AOPA is going to miss something or get something wrong from time to time.
That is exactly what I am criticising. The pilots who let their pet peeves and perceived slights "prevent" them from joining AOPA. Come on, dragging up some thread from 2005?
I am not saying anyone should join AOPA because it won't ever do something that annoys them or upsets them in the future. I am saying that it does an awful lot of good amongst doing the things that irritate some people and have them hold grudges for years, it seems. On balance, it's net effect is significantly positive. It could be more positive if more than a small proportion of pilots joined.
I stand by my earlier statement that we get the regulation we deserve if these are the reasons people are "prevented" from joining their representative organisations.
Think about the scale of AOPA US. Then think about the scale of their regulatory task. 14 CFR Part 91 and Part 61 for the most. Barely changes from year to year. The odd issue pops up from time to time. Of course they are on top of all the key regulatory issues. Now think of the much smaller national AOPAs in Europe - dealing with all the local airport issues through to NAA issues through to the thousands of pages of new regulation EASA churn out. Of course AOPA is going to miss something or get something wrong from time to time.
And, as this thread shows, and from many I know personally, there is a lot of historical baggage which prevents great many pilots joining.
I am not saying anyone should join AOPA because it won't ever do something that annoys them or upsets them in the future. I am saying that it does an awful lot of good amongst doing the things that irritate some people and have them hold grudges for years, it seems. On balance, it's net effect is significantly positive. It could be more positive if more than a small proportion of pilots joined.
I stand by my earlier statement that we get the regulation we deserve if these are the reasons people are "prevented" from joining their representative organisations.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I referred to that old thread re the point posted by someone else about the 61.75 issue. It would be historically inaccurate to say it never existed, and of course all those involved are still in the same positions as then.
The USA has about 10x as many pilots as the UK, and most of Europe has little or no GA, so it's hard to know where to start fixing this.
The USA has about 10x as many pilots as the UK, and most of Europe has little or no GA, so it's hard to know where to start fixing this.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USA has about 10x as many pilots as the UK, and most of Europe has little or no GA, so it's hard to know where to start fixing this.
a) wish for a parallel universe in which Europe has loads more pilots
b) have significantly more existing pilots join AOPA, perhaps overlooking the various grudges some seem to hold for years on end and recognising that, net net, AOPA is a good thing. Good lord, may be it's even improved in some ways over the years. I happen to think so.
What d'you reckon?
The problem is that only 5%-10% of UK PPLs join AOPA vs 50% or more of US pilots. AOPA UK doesn't need $100m or its own Citation. Even a tiny, rather shabby office in a slightly down-at-heel corner of Pimlico, donated by a benefactor, is enough to provoke forum "grudge myths" about its flashy, profligate London premises....it just needs more resources for lobbying work. period.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire,
The way the system has settled in Europe is that "sport" aviation is represented by national aeroclubs, microlight clubs, gliding clubs, etc. They are collectively represented at a European level by an excellent organisation called Europe Air Sports (EAS). AOPA has its "centre of gravity" in the certified powered flying world. AOPA is the second of the two bodies directly accredited to the European regulator.
The system works pretty well, and for all the myths, the two organisations work amicably and effectively together.
brgds
421C
The way the system has settled in Europe is that "sport" aviation is represented by national aeroclubs, microlight clubs, gliding clubs, etc. They are collectively represented at a European level by an excellent organisation called Europe Air Sports (EAS). AOPA has its "centre of gravity" in the certified powered flying world. AOPA is the second of the two bodies directly accredited to the European regulator.
The system works pretty well, and for all the myths, the two organisations work amicably and effectively together.
brgds
421C
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, PPL/IR had one of their members - Jim Thorpe - on the FCL008 committee (albeit representing a different body ?european air sport?) who made a vigorous and thoroughly poisonous attempt to torpedo the IMCR.
Largely based on this performance, I have found the prospect of joining PPL IR thoroughly resistible and joined AOPA instead.
If we ever manage to get easy access to the Channel Islands again, the AOPA card gives you a 5% discount on fuel which, in the case of my Saratoga, paid for itself in the first fueling.
Largely based on this performance, I have found the prospect of joining PPL IR thoroughly resistible and joined AOPA instead.
If we ever manage to get easy access to the Channel Islands again, the AOPA card gives you a 5% discount on fuel which, in the case of my Saratoga, paid for itself in the first fueling.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I thought that's what you were referring to.
What Martin said and Pat wrote was quoting a written reply from the FAA Head Office in Oklohoma City to questions put to them by AOPA UK.
Tom Hughston and his supporters objected vehemently to what was said but did not furnish any reference to support their claim that what we had reported was wrong, such as a reference to an FAA document. You'll notice that Tom's post does not provide any such reference. If FAA Head Office says X is true and Tom says it is not then without any supporting evidence what should we do?
As I indicated in my earlier post it was subsequently found out that the information furnished by FAA Head Offiice was incorrect. I'm not about to go through the whole thing again but I personally researched the issue and discovered that although the Oklohoma City letter and the FAA's own website stated that you had to appear in person at a FSDO and that was the only way to do it There was indeed a way to do it through someone such as Tom, working out of the New York Field Office. The FAA documentation indicating this was not provided to us by FAA, Tom, or any of his supporters, I personally dug it out by diligent research. There was a certain amount of correspndence about this at the time on the then AOPA Forum and I published the results of my research on there.
This was certainly not a case of AOPA campaigning against anyone, it was straightforward reportage of answers to questions put to the FAA.
Tom suggests that AOPA were peddling misinformation regarding N Reg and said in the post you quote "The CAA and the DFT are not cracking down on N reg and GA". Presumably you believe the concerns raised in this post do not indicate that AOPA's warnings were well founded?
I thought that's what you were referring to.
What Martin said and Pat wrote was quoting a written reply from the FAA Head Office in Oklohoma City to questions put to them by AOPA UK.
Tom Hughston and his supporters objected vehemently to what was said but did not furnish any reference to support their claim that what we had reported was wrong, such as a reference to an FAA document. You'll notice that Tom's post does not provide any such reference. If FAA Head Office says X is true and Tom says it is not then without any supporting evidence what should we do?
As I indicated in my earlier post it was subsequently found out that the information furnished by FAA Head Offiice was incorrect. I'm not about to go through the whole thing again but I personally researched the issue and discovered that although the Oklohoma City letter and the FAA's own website stated that you had to appear in person at a FSDO and that was the only way to do it There was indeed a way to do it through someone such as Tom, working out of the New York Field Office. The FAA documentation indicating this was not provided to us by FAA, Tom, or any of his supporters, I personally dug it out by diligent research. There was a certain amount of correspndence about this at the time on the then AOPA Forum and I published the results of my research on there.
This was certainly not a case of AOPA campaigning against anyone, it was straightforward reportage of answers to questions put to the FAA.
Tom suggests that AOPA were peddling misinformation regarding N Reg and said in the post you quote "The CAA and the DFT are not cracking down on N reg and GA". Presumably you believe the concerns raised in this post do not indicate that AOPA's warnings were well founded?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would hope that EAS and IAOPA (Europe) can cooperate to combat the current threats
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps the worst of this is you defend AOPA, you close your hearts and minds to criticism while watching the membership dwindle and the support ebb away. For what ever reason what creditable organisation can claim to have the support of less than 10% of the ga population? Why dont you ask what can we do to address the issues, even those that you believe are ill informed?
A very good example is the mentoring scheme. I recall i, io540 and others set out why it was ill conceivec, and ill conceived for exactly those reasons it proved to be. It has finally been launched and i wish it every success by why oh why did aopa manage to make such a complete mess. Does it matter; yes it does because it damages their creditability and leaves us wondering whether they are a safe pair of hands.
So tell me what percentage of the uk pilot population belong to aopa and how has that percentage changed over recent years? How many student members sign up in year 2, and what percentage of aopas income is from corporate organisations? And since it is a members organisation whats the ceo's remuneration.
A very good example is the mentoring scheme. I recall i, io540 and others set out why it was ill conceivec, and ill conceived for exactly those reasons it proved to be. It has finally been launched and i wish it every success by why oh why did aopa manage to make such a complete mess. Does it matter; yes it does because it damages their creditability and leaves us wondering whether they are a safe pair of hands.
So tell me what percentage of the uk pilot population belong to aopa and how has that percentage changed over recent years? How many student members sign up in year 2, and what percentage of aopas income is from corporate organisations? And since it is a members organisation whats the ceo's remuneration.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 8th Jul 2011 at 22:33.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And catching up with earlier posts it is all very well excusing every criticism as myth, pet peeve or worse but the reality is simple create an enviroment for what ever reason of myth, pet peeve and worse and it will spread. Aopa badly needs a shake up, a breath of fresh air because in times to come it is vital we have the backing of an organisation with its finger on the pulse which can really claim to muster the support of at least a majority of the flying community.
Why do aopa persist in their main about banner in claiming to be part of an organisation of 430,000 world wide pilots when the readef wants to know who, what and how many uk pilots they represent.
Where are their accounts. They say they are a non profit making organisation so why not publish their accounts on the web site so it is transparent to the prospective member how their hard earned subs will be spent? It is
transparent, its good governance and if the money is well spent it is good pr.
Take a look at the aopa forum. Many many moons ago i started a thread - the silnce is deafening. Well it still is, it is top of the charts with about one post since.
Make no mistake i have the highest regard for people like mike cross, stevec and timothy. Mikes work at lee was nothing short of brilliant, seems to me stevec genuinely tried to shake life into a corpse and timothy worked long and hard for mentoring. The problem is not one of the committment of certain individuals but of an organisation that in everyones minds and hearts has lost the plot.
Why do aopa persist in their main about banner in claiming to be part of an organisation of 430,000 world wide pilots when the readef wants to know who, what and how many uk pilots they represent.
Where are their accounts. They say they are a non profit making organisation so why not publish their accounts on the web site so it is transparent to the prospective member how their hard earned subs will be spent? It is
transparent, its good governance and if the money is well spent it is good pr.
Take a look at the aopa forum. Many many moons ago i started a thread - the silnce is deafening. Well it still is, it is top of the charts with about one post since.
Make no mistake i have the highest regard for people like mike cross, stevec and timothy. Mikes work at lee was nothing short of brilliant, seems to me stevec genuinely tried to shake life into a corpse and timothy worked long and hard for mentoring. The problem is not one of the committment of certain individuals but of an organisation that in everyones minds and hearts has lost the plot.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 8th Jul 2011 at 23:11.
I'd like to try and clear up some myths.
I attend meetings of the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and the Members' Working Group of AOPA UK and can assure you that you are 100% wrong in the assertion that AOPA is heavily influenced by its corporate members. If you operate an aircraft administered by LAA or BMAA you heve to be a member and if you are a glider pilot you will be a member of a club that is affiliated to and pays dues to BGA. There is no such imperitive for membership of AOPA. Your opinions are usually well considered Ghengis but on this you're wrong. You're no doubt aware that I am also a member of LAA and have served on their National Council.
I attend meetings of the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and the Members' Working Group of AOPA UK and can assure you that you are 100% wrong in the assertion that AOPA is heavily influenced by its corporate members. If you operate an aircraft administered by LAA or BMAA you heve to be a member and if you are a glider pilot you will be a member of a club that is affiliated to and pays dues to BGA. There is no such imperitive for membership of AOPA. Your opinions are usually well considered Ghengis but on this you're wrong. You're no doubt aware that I am also a member of LAA and have served on their National Council.
I'm not disputing that AOPA has done some good stuff - for example coming up with the concept of the NPPL and nursemaiding it to fruition. That said, when I used to sit on GACC it did seem to me that AOPA was never enthusiastic enough about changes that would reduce aviation costs at the expense of the training industry/its corporate members (why DO NPPL(SSEA) applicants have to pass the JAR exams instead of the simpler but perfectly aedequate microlight exams for example?)
But, I'm afraid that in the UK I still believe that the BMAA/BGA/LAA are the big players and I will probably remain an LAA and BMAA member whatever I'm flying.
However, we have too many aviation organisations in the UK of which AOPA is just one. For aircraft classes we have competent single organisations in the BMAA, LAA, BGA and BBAC, for the professionals we have RAeS; RAeC seem to fulful a useful function in records and racing as well as co-ordinating all the sport flying organisations lobbying efforts - but I remain after that to be convinced that AOPA-UK, and the Air League aren't just splitting and duplicating effort; for that matter why do PPL/IR, Flying Farmers, Lawyers Flying Association, HAA exist other than as divisions of LAA. Why isn't GASCo a committee of the RAeC or RAeS? The voice of UK light aviation would be stronger with less organisations not more and UK-AOPA as a small national player would be better merging into a big national player whilst maintaining the international AOPA engagement.
(Whilst at it, I'd also merge BRA into LAA, BHAB and HCGB together, GAA and GAAC into RAeC, ALAE(1981) into RAeS like the previous ALAE, and force GASCo to actually pay attention to microlights given that BMAA is its single biggest funder. One result of this would be that a lot of people could free up time currently spent on committees and go flying instead, another would be organisations with vastly more clout than at present which can be used for all our benefit.)
G
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyers Flying Association
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 8th Jul 2011 at 23:32.
Thanks for that update FL (although I think they're still listed on the GACC members list).
One hopes that all of these organisations are *primarily* about flying rather than lobbying anyhow - and LFA presumably must have had some lobbying function if it was attending GACC, GASCo, etc.?
G
One hopes that all of these organisations are *primarily* about flying rather than lobbying anyhow - and LFA presumably must have had some lobbying function if it was attending GACC, GASCo, etc.?
G
Originally Posted by Genghis
Whilst at it, I'd also merge BRA into LAA, BHAB and HCGB together, GAA and GAAC into RAeC, ALAE(1981) into RAeS like the previous ALAE, and force GASCo to...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rumors I keep hearing are that a few notable figures in AOPA UK aren't the brightest around town and past their sell by date. Yet they are pretty self-satisfied and that no-one has a higher opinion of them than they do themselves.