Join AOPA? Pro? Con?

[Jan Olieslagers]

As a low-time club flier, renting club planes for the occasional 100 euro luch, I never wondered. But as a new aeroplane owner, I can't honestly avoid the point of joining AOPA.

-) apart from the obvious membership fee, is there any clear reason NOT to join?
-) what are the main reasons to join? I should think it is the best way to add one's voice to our chorus of public interest?
-) any particular views concerning Belgian AOPA branch?

TIA,

[proudprivate]

Pro

I can recommend joining AOPA

Although I haven't heard much of AOPA Belgium lately. They used to be EBAW based I believe, but now I cannot even find them in the mid section of AOPA magazine (in contrast to the aviation Mecca of Belize)

Reasons for joining would be
- General Aviation advocacy
- Lots of goodies offered on their membership website:
* extremely well-done interactive courses
* information of specific aircraft types via archived materials
* the flight planner is first rate (unfortunately US only)

I'm sure that Jan Olieslagers, had he been born a 100 years later, would be an AOPA member

[Jan Olieslagers]

I haven't heard much of AOPA Belgium lately

is what I mostly feared. Do you have any visible activity as regards

General Aviation advocacy

? That would be what I most expect.

Also: not that it matters much if one can afford owning a private plane, but how much is the annual fee? (sorry, too dog tired from work to look it up)

[proudprivate]

AOPA annual dues

I pay $60 p.a.

As regards GA Advocacy :

There is a regular update of their work with US Congress (4 pages per month) and Airport Volunteers (a couple of pages) as well as mentoring programmes for new pilots.

The centerfold () page is about IAOPA. I must say I was a bit disappointed by the coverage of the EASA-nonsense, but you do get news of GA Advocacy around the world.

Oh and you also get weather briefing access via their website (not sure whether it was duats or the other one).

[Jan Olieslagers]

Thanks a lot! That fee seems quite reasonable, one of these days I'll really do join. Beginning to know myself, I think you'll be lucky to see me on the member's list in 2011...

[patowalker]

Belgium - IAOPA Europe

[Chris Royle]

There is a regular update of their work with US Congress (4 pages per month) and Airport Volunteers (a couple of pages) as well as mentoring programmes for new pilots.
Whuh? For AOPA Belgium??. Are you referring to AOPA (US)? If so, why should someone living in Belgium join AOPA US?

[SunnyDayInWiltshire]

I'd strongly recommend you join - the Belgian branch that is.
Even if only for the GA Advocacy, it's important that we have as much lobbying/promotion of GA interests as we can.

You may also find out some additional Belgian specific aspects through your local branch that aren't known elsewhere.

The other primary reason I've joined is perhaps as a bit of an "insurance policy", where I can contact them for advice or help if I have a major problem or dispute.

For those who feel that their local AOPA branch isn't acting as they would wish, then you could always get involved... But without the support (including financial) of a strong/wide membership base, such groups can't achieve what we all want.

SD

[proudprivate]

Why Belgians join AOPA US...

I think the $60-odd annual fee is for overseas members, as opposed to $40-odd for US residents.

I joined AOPA US because my main certificate is FAA and because I fly in the US from time to time. I also like their views and explanations as regards GA advocacy (e.g. how to convince the neighbours that GA is a good thing), their training materials, their reports on adventure flying accross the world, their accident investigations, their "Never Again"-stories, the legal opinions and, not in the least, the ever humourous contributions of flight training guru Rod Machado. Everyone - at least for the moment still - is free to do with their money what they want.

I didn't join IAOPA Belgium because it was (virtually) non-existent. I notice from patowalker's reference that they still operate, which is obviously a good thing. It might be a good idea to give them a call : Finserve is, if I'm not mistaken, an aviation insurance broker based at EBAW. By talking to them, you quickly know whether there is a match with your own feelings towards GA and whether they have any significance (e.g. would they advocate improvements to EBGB, are they lobbying the Belgian BdL to reduce costs, what are they doing about the lack of proper (night) training airfields in Belgium, do they have a Etienne Schoupe's or Joke Schauwvliege's mobile, etc, etc...). Please report with feed back, I'm sure the Belgians on this forum would be interested.

I have mixed feelings about the various IAOPA's across Europe. They certainly deserve some slack, doing a lot of good work on an almost purely voluntary basis, not being able to benefit from a 400,000 strong membership and $100 Million balance sheet like AOPA US. On the other hand, they have been a bit quick to claim credit in this EASA-story (or in the Italian case cited above, about the fuel situation on Italy's regional airfields), without a lot to substantiate for. This in contrast to an AOPA US, which lists several politicians and their stance on general aviation and who (up until now) has rebutted all attempts at introducing user fees into the FAA's budget. But again, life is easier when you have reams of permanent staff at your disposal, which the European IAOPA's have not.

I stand corrected on DUAT(S). I recall joining them while clicking through from the AOPA website (I think in the AOPA flight planner), and although they advertise regularly in AOPA magazine, they are most likely completely independent. And yes, they are only useful when flight planning in the US.

[Mike Cross]

I'm a Director of AOPA UK and a member of US AOPA.

The overarching body is IAOPA, the International Council of Aircraft Owner & Pilot Associations, to which all national AOPAs are affilliated.

You should contribute to the AOPA covering where you fly. I am a member of both UK and US AOPA's because my life is currently split between UK and US and I fly in both places. The subscription is minimal and so are the overheads so little of the money that comes in goes on administration. My own work for AOPA UK is entirely voluntary, I don't take any fees or expenses. It's my way of giving something back to an activity that I have enjoyed for many years.

AOPA differs from many organisations in that its work goes to benefit all aviators, not just its members. In the US they recognisee this and the uptake of membership as a proportion of flyers is much higher than in Europe where a "what's in it for me" mentality pervades and many seem happy to sit on the sidelines and not support the work that's being done on their behalf.

Nowadays, when the European National CAA's no longer control the regulation of their own State's aviation activity it's essential that we have representation at European level. Like it or not that costs, even if it's just travel and accommodation.

Anyone who flies should contribute.

[IO540]

Speaking as an N-reg aircraft owner, UK AOPA did not do themselves any favours with a large number of owner pilots by their very ambivalent stance on the N-reg issue over the years.

At one point it got so bad that somebody did a Freedom of Information Act request on the CAA to try to get copies of correspondence, IIRC, between them and AOPA.

I think this may be in the past now, looking at recent UK AOPA statements on the stupidity of the EASA proposals, but it has taken them an awfully long time.

Like it or not, this kind of thing sticks for a long time, and the apparent reason for it (a large number of flying schools, traditionally anti N-reg, are AOPA corporate members) has not changed.

I am a member of US AOPA.

[421C]

Speaking as an N-reg aircraft owner, UK AOPA did not do themselves any favours with a large number of owner pilots by their very ambivalent stance on the N-reg issue over the years.

At one point it got so bad that somebody did a Freedom of Information Act request on the CAA to try to get copies of correspondence, IIRC, between them and AOPA.

I think this may be in the past now, looking at recent UK AOPA statements on the stupidity of the EASA proposals, but it has taken them an awfully long time.

Like it or not, this kind of thing sticks for a long time, and the apparent reason for it (a large number of flying schools, traditionally anti N-reg, are AOPA corporate members) has not changed.

I am a member of US AOPA

I believe that to be false. AOPA were actively opposing N-reg restrictions in the UK as long ago (IIRC) 2004. That's at least 7 years of consistent pro-N work. How long can one hold a grudge? I don't even believe there is any substance to that grudge. Give me one example, EVER, of AOPA being anti N-reg?

The problem for AOPA is the cluelessness of the community of pilots in Europe who expect tiny voluntary organisations to be like big commercial enterprises, vigorously competing for their membership. Sort of like mobile companies endlessly trying to sell you your perfect membership plan, with the perfect balance of people representing exactly the things you are interested in, in exactly the style you want and with every interaction and communication meeting your high expectations. Well, it ain't like that. They are small voluntary organisations, with all the imperfections inherent in that, in the big European countries. Even tinier in the small countries. Nevertheless, the critical battles are often at a European level, and every national AOPA and every last member helps that.

Forgive my bluntness. I generally despair about the over-regulated, over-taxed, over-restricted misery of European GA. When I read some of the ways people think about (not) supporting the representative organisations (and compare that to the US), I think we deserve it.

[Fuji Abound]

The problem for AOPA is the cluelessness of the community of pilots in Europe who expect tiny voluntary organisations to be like big commercial enterprises, vigorously competing for their membership.

That is true, as far as it goes.

AOPA UK is a tiny voluntary organisation because it has a history of being unable or unwilling to work with any of the other representative organisations in the UK. That my be apocryphal, but is a comment I hear all to frequently that would lead me to suspect their is more than some truth there.

Unfortunately they also seem to have perfected the art of sitting on the fence on a raft of important issues and when they finally come off the fence they also manage to totally misrepresent matters. The IMCr is close to my heart as but one example. AOPA couldnt make up their mind whether to support the IMCr or not and when they finally felt they should support the IMCr they managed to issue a number of press releases that were real howlers. Large or small their is no excuse for some of the technical inaccuracies they have put their name to, nor to their vindicative campaign regarding the 61.75 and certain individuals.

They claim to be a tiny organisation run by volunters but their proliferate spending on offices in London does not support their claim.

Finally, Martin is past his sell by date. I have heard far too often that he has simply been in the post too long - the organisation badly needs fresh blood and fresh ideas and it might be at the forefront of representing UK GA again, although I fear Martin has already done too much damage and their are wounds that cannot be readily healed. That is what I have been told anyway.

From personal experience I have had some dealings with Martin over the IMCr which unfortunately supported earlier apocryphies, so I feel there is more to this than the GA population being particularly clueless. More to the point while this is an often made assertion my experience is other. Most pilots I meet are reasonably wealthy and reasonably savy (not that the two necessarily go together). I dont think on the whole they have the wool pulled over their eyes that easily and I think there is a reason most in the UK dont join AOPA and most in the US do.

When you drill down into the numbers I think AOAP UK reprsents something around 5% of the total UK GA population (and even that may be generous given the corporate membership). That in itself speaks volumes and if nothing else does leave them as a tiny organisation which attempts to hide behind AOPA US with the claims they make on their UK website. They should face reality and do something about it!

421C - why do I get the impression we are going to disagree.

[proudprivate]

I dont think we deserve this

Forgive my bluntness. I generally despair about the over-regulated, over-taxed, over-restricted misery of European GA. When I read some of the ways people think about (not) supporting the representative organisations (and compare that to the US), I think we deserve it.

That is indeed a very blunt statement. First of all, given the good work performed by Mike Cross and Martin Robinson, if you're living in the UK, there is a clear case to join AOPA UK for the reasons both Mike and yourself mention. Especially Martin is actively lobbying the UK MEP's to get them to reject the FCL draft proposal when the translation reaches them around July 15th.

On the other hand, some "representative" organisations have been extremely ambivalent about the N-reg stance. I would like to cite PPL/IR Europe as an example, with Jim Thorpe not really defending our case vigourously enough so as to avoid mishaps like FCL Annex II. As an FAA IR pilot, joining PPL/IR and contributing to them would be a natural thing to do, especiallly because their Belgian arm is particularly small and could use not just the contribution but also the active support. But when he accepts statements like "The FAA IR is insufficient to navigate the UK airways" at face value, I run a mile.

I hope you do not qualify this behaviour as cluelessness or a tendency for unrealistic expectations. By contrast, when Alexandra started her campaign of the N-flyers, I jumped on it and contributed "to keep the aspidistra flying".

Generally, people are willing to join organisations that seem credible to them and that provide a service (at the very least open and regular communication, pilot goodies as an extra).

In the current situation, we have to play with the cards we got dealt. That doesn't exclude vigourous activism : calling MEP's offices and writing letters; writing to the Commission to complain; applying to the Transport minister; and for us Belgians, calling Finserve and see how they feel about losing out on about half of their insurance premiums.

[avionimc]

Jan: yes you should join AOPA USA. I have been a member since 1984 and do not regret it. If nothing else, the AOPA Pilot magazine is good enough a reason.

Also, if you fly in Europe, you should consider joining PPL/IR Europe. PPL/IR is a great organization for private IFR flying, tries helping European based N-reg GA aircraft, provides excellent resources, a color newsletter and web site (including forums).

And, EAA - The Spirit of Aviation - Oshkosh, WI of course (and participate at the AirVenture Convention taking place there at the end of every July).

You will not regret attending the AirVenture convention, that's for sure!

All three are well worth joining.

Good Luck! Happy & Safe Flying,

[421C]

I am sorry ProudPrivate, but you are illustrating exactly my point in your comment on PPL/IR.

In general, it is not true that PPL/IR hasn't opposed the N-reg restrictions. A significant effort went into this. Thousands of words were written in consultation responses and endless meetings attended. We even wrote to US manufacturers and associations warning them of the outlook on the N-reg. I can say that because I wrote a lot of those words and attended many of the meetings. PPL/IR doesn't have the resources or specialised skills to do the political lobbying at the European Parliament and Commission level. We know a lot about IFR and little about politics. So our focus tends to be input at the regulatory level. That didn't work during the EASA FCL process, because, frankly, it was a political issue way beyond the scope of the regulation-drafting process. AOPA and Europe Air Sports are big organisations with good Brussels-level lobbying machines, (so we have helped them behind-the-scenes). Also, the N-Flyers group seem to have done excellent lobbying work.

On the other hand, some "representative" organisations have been extremely ambivalent about the N-reg stance. I would like to cite PPL/IR Europe as an example, with Jim Thorpe not really defending our case vigourously enough so as to avoid mishaps like FCL Annex II

Specifically, this also isn't true. PPL/IR was not ambivalent. Jim Thorpe was involved in meetings in Cologne and the UK pushing back on the original FCL draft. Detailed comments were made on Annex II in the CRT process. Like every other stakeholder, we found zero flexibility on this topic from the "powers that be". The best we could do was, in concert with other stakeholders, was to get FCL008 to review the overall instrument flight topic, but not the FAA IR restriction. No-one knows what the FCL008 outcome will be, but if there is a more accessible European instrument rating as a result of it, I believe Jim Thorpe would have been more responsible for that than any person in Europe.

The choice to specialise in areas we could make an impact on (ongoing regulatory work with EASA) rather than ones we couldn't (lobbying in Brussels) was made knowing that good organisations like AOPA, EAS and N-Flyers were doing the latter; whereas a lot of the specialised IFR regulatory work is something no other GA body is likely to be capable of doing. Stuff like this paper on GPS approaches:http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/...als%20v2.1.pdf

But when he accepts statements like "The FAA IR is insufficient to navigate the UK airways" at face value, I run a mile

The problem is you have chosen to ignore a mass of useful stuff supporting the N-reg and GA IFR in Europe in general, and pick on an anecdotal thing I don't even believe is true. In what way did Jim Thorpe "accept" such a statement and in what context?

I hope you do not qualify this behaviour as cluelessness or a tendency for unrealistic expectations.

It's not for me to criticise any fellow poster about any decision he makes. It's perfectly natural not to support anything that doesn't meet whatever criteria one chooses.....but yes, your decision does illustrate my general point that people don't join representative organisations for reasons of "perceived slight" which are sadly inherent in having small voluntary organisations. You do realise no-one gets paid a cent for any of this lobbying stuff? It achieves no personal benefit except annoying spouses with the time it takes up. People generally volunteer to do work that they think they are capable of doing. It doesn't deserve a witch-hunt mentality of "on occassion X, in year Y, Mr Z wasn't zealous enough in a specific topic that interests me, therefore the whole organisation is heretical and opposed to my interests". I don't intend this last remark personally, it is a general one directed at the reasons I read, on occassion, for people not joining GA organisations.


Finally, there is a sense in which GA organisations are rivals to be selected for your single membership. They are not, they're generally complementary. It's hard to have one mega-organisation - even in the US, AOPA is complemented by many type-specific organisations that do specialised representation and lobbying. No-organisation is big enough to please everyone. The problem with "specific issue XYZ" is that if one organisation doesn't do enough lobbying, a certain cadre of people won't join. If they do, another cadre will leave, because they were doing too much. So you need more than one organisation......
brgds
421C

[421C]

421C - why do I get the impression we are going to disagree.

Sorry, read your post after PPs, and no time to reply. So let me leave it as, yes, we disagree 100%!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that every pilot (or engineer for that matter) should join at-least one significant representative organisation - we very much need them.

Which organisation depends very much upon where you are and what you fly.

For me, in the UK, I belong to two national representative organisations: LAA and BMAA. Both do a superb job of representing their members interests and organising things I want to be a part of.

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 US, if I lived there, I would certainly join - it is extremely impressive.

Regarding Belgium - I really don't know, but it can't be that hard to look and see what impact the one or more organisations present there - then make your own mind up.

AOPA US does some great magazines and may well be worth joining for that alone, but I can't see they're going to help you much as a Belgian pilot.

If there is no equivalent in Belgium, you could do worse as a new microlight owner than join the BMAA. There is much information and advice available through them, even if you don't fly a British registered microlight.

G

[Miroku]

After speaking to representatives of the LAA at Sywell recently I was converted from AOPA to themselves.

The reason being that as an NPPL holder I feel that their organisation looks after my interests better than AOPA.

To reiterate some earlier posts, whatever you do join one of the flying organisations. It's clearly too much to hope that they would ever get together unfortunately!

[Jan Olieslagers]

Thanks for all responses. I just requested joining information from AOPA Belgium by e-mail - will see what comes next.

@Genghis: we do have a Belgian ULM federation, and I do am be a member and even occasional collaborator, but they have repeatedly disappointed me with their enthusiastic lack of earnest. Even if we are amateur fliers, our publications - on paper and on the www - should have a certain level of professionalism. Your suggestion of joining the BMAA merits consideration, at the least.