[IMCR]

A serious question.

Most of the posts appear pretty old and there seems to be very little feedback from AOPA. There is a "recent" thread on Martin wanting feedback, but in reality Martin hasnt taken the time in over two years to post anything on the thread.

Leaving aside the work AOPA does, it seems to be pretty pointless to have a forum especially for AOPA but which AOPA appears to have so little interest in?

[Mick Elborn]

Why does this offend you? No-one forces you to visit this forum.

[IMCR]

It doesnt offend me but (and I dont know whether you are a supporter of this forum or not) you support my point of view.

I respect anyone who stands their corner, but AOPA are privileged with a dedicated forum in which the display a pathetic lack of interest.

That is my point.

Of course no one has to visit and no one has to comment - which seems to be exactly the case in point - so why have this forum at all - give a more deserving organisation the chance to promote their interest in GA.

[Rotorboater]

What's AOPA?

[joe-fbs]

I for one keep on eye on the AOPA section. It seems to have something to say when there is something to say. I would suggest that just because it is not full of chatter that it is a waste of space.

Expanding the discussion, I do wonder why people are so often so keen to attack an organisation that does so much good.

[IMCR]

It seems to have something to say when there is something to say. I would suggest that just because it is not full of chatter that it is a waste of space.

but that is also my point. In the last four months, at most, AOPA seems to have only had two instances of something to say.

AOPA always seems to react to any critcism by complaining about people "bashing" AOPA. Thats no answer, deal with the criticism. I am simply asking if AOPA has a dedicated forum why dont they use it. Even the CEO seems forum shy.

Simples really.

[James Chan]

I am simply asking if AOPA has a dedicated forum why dont they use it. Even the CEO seems forum shy.

This forum was created some time before we put up our revamped website and electronic newsletters informing our membership and potential membership of our developments.

It provided people an opportunity to communicate with us as there was once a perception that we weren't informing them of what we were doing and that they weren't being heard.

We are monitoring this forum and will continue to review whether this remains an effective means of communication.

[IMCR]

James

Thank you. That was rather closer to what I imagined are the facts.

I think it reflects poorly on AOPA to have a forum which attracts so little attention and given what you say I would have thought it would be as well to discontinue it.

[Mike Cross]

It's a way for people to discuss things pertaining to AOPA. You've asked a question and had a response. Now you suggest it should be discontinued so others cannot do what you've done. Not sure I follow your logic. The fact that it's not full of posters letting off steam is not a good reason to deprive people of the ablity to do so in the future,

[Chris Royle]

Nicely put Mike

[IMCR]

It's a way for people to discuss things pertaining to AOPA

But there is patently no discussion,

Which if nothing else suggests aopa has nothing to say, or at least people here have nothing to say to aopa,

And if no one has anything useful to say the forum is pretty pointless.

[Mike Cross]

Well I wouldn't class what you say as useless, therefore it's performing a function by enabling you to raise the question - QED.

More seriously I do feel it's important to have the channel available, even if at the moment no-one feels the urge to use it.

[IMCR]

Mike I do understand your point which would be more justified if there had been a temporary lull in activity - but if you look at the posts its been that way for a very long time and then when there is an effort to engage with the CEO there is just silence.

I just dont think the evidence suggests AOPA want to use the forum for any productive purpose and clearly the audience dont see any reason to engage with AOPA at least through this forum which leads me to feel the forum does AOPA more harm than good.

[421C]

I am glad the CEO doesn't engage. I happen to know Martin and he works pretty tirelessly representing pilots at events in the UK and Cologne and in between. It's one of those low cost travel get-up-at 5am away from family roles that are pretty thankless. We are lucky that he continues to have the will and energy to do the job.

Even occasional engagement on a forum can be a massive time-sink. I am rather glad we have other AOPA reps like Mike and James responding, rather than Martin diverting his time.

The time to complain would be if there was a question to AOPA and no-one responded, surely.

[IMCR]

So i do have a question not having looked at aopas web site for some while.

Why are the accounts and chairman's report only open to members?

Almost all membership organisations these days support open governance - let people have a look at the organisation they are joining?

After all it is a matter of public record not that people should need to go to the public record.

As to martin he appears to be the only full time paid employee. If his job involves red eye flights so be it, i assume he doesnt have to do the job if the hours are unsuitable. There are doubtless many who work in tough demanding and unsociable jobs some may be more deserving, doubtless some less, and i have symphathy for them all.