Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By Bob Upanddown
#1704073
Subs paid to PPL/IR doesn't support the ownership of some very expensive real estate in South West London.
AOPA gives the impression of a bunch of well meaning old farts (I am just an old fart) with a fancy London address speaking for all of general aviation when they clearly don't.

They will not change.
User avatar
By James Chan
#1704220
I’m not sure why all the criticisms still run large here.

I continue to be a member of AOPA and think it’s worth it.

The real estate as I understand is a gift from days of old and is entirely owned - not a misappropriation of membership funds.

It’s not perfect but I have met many nice people there. It has limited resources, but does well with what it has. It has to prioritise and know what it can realistically achieve, given so many parts of GA have so many different needs and wants.

I suppose either current members or potential members can continue to sow into it and help it from within. Or they don’t have to and eventually leave it to collapse, leaving representation weakened or moved elsewhere.

:-(
johnm, flybymike liked this
By johnm
#1704230
As Tom Lehrer observed "Life is like a sewer what you get out of it depends on what you put into it"

As far as AOPA is concerned the individual membership benefits aren't the point, it's the bigger picture of influence on the regulatory impact on GA as a whole that matters.
Peter Mundy, GrahamB, flybymike and 1 others liked this
By IMCR
#1704232
https://www.aopa.co.uk/martins-blog/ite ... ement.html

Since this is topical, this is also typical of the concerns expressed in the past.

It is totally on song on the current regime, which would be fine, if it were not controversial. Where are the arguements on both sides of the equation? Martin is frequently accused of being out of touch with the rank and file, and this is a good example.
flybymike liked this
By johnm
#1704236
@IMCR That blog post is just simple factual outline of infringement implications and context with some useful reminders on planning and sources of information. How would that be controversial??
By IMCR
#1704239
Johnm - I would take it to be a commentary on the current situation otherwise why would it feature in Martin's blog which I assume is intended to draw attention to current and topical issues. If nothing else this could not be more on topic;

"Finally, the CAA has increased the number of provisional suspensions of pilot’s licenses in respect of Infringements"

so why not use the blog to either express concern about the increase in the number of suspensions, or, to make it clear, AOPA supports the current process? As has been said elsewhere if nothing else the increase comes against a backdrop of little or no evidence that the number of infrigements has actually increased, just that more reports are being encouraged.

Maybe this topical subject has been dealt with elsewhere with more detail and AOPA's views?
flybymike liked this
By johnm
#1704240
IMCR wrote:Johnm - I would take it to be a commentary on the current situation otherwise why would it feature in Martin's blog which I assume is intended to draw attention to current and topical issues. If nothing else this could not be more on topic;

"Finally, the CAA has increased the number of provisional suspensions of pilot’s licenses in respect of Infringements"

so why not use the blog to either express concern about the increase in the number of suspensions, or, to make it clear, AOPA supports the current process? As has been said elsewhere if nothing else the increase comes against a backdrop of little or no evidence that the number of infrigements has actually increased, just that more reports are being encouraged.

Maybe this topical subject has been dealt with elsewhere with more detail and AOPA's views?


AOPA is not the regulator, it can sensibly warn pilots of regulatory issues as this does, it can lobby for change as it does and it can support individual pilots in difficulty as it does.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1704243
Forgive the slight drift that follows, but

This unknown traffic environment, mostly Class G airspace often comes into contact with regulated airspace, particularly around airports which serves Commercial Air Transport operations.


Can anyone think of a piece of Class G that doesn't come into contact with regulated airspace eventually?

Rob P
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1704278
I think IMCR makes a valid point about AOPA needing to take a more proactive stance to make all sides of the argument regarding infringements.
That Martin has a definitive connection with GASCO is going to make any perceived neutrality on the situation that much more difficult.
User avatar
By Balliol
#1704284
AOPA is a lobbying body, it has no formal powers or delegations - unlike other GA organisations. Most people can sensibly recognise it gets business done by engagement and persuasion, not playground shouting.

Why on earth people can’t appreciate GASCO is a charitable body doing what it has been contracted for, and is not part of the CAA, is beyond me. Of course people from other bodies and organisations are board members - it’s the whole concept of it! At work we have a charity come in to deliver mental health training and courses - perhaps they are part of some evil conspiracy with our exec leadership as well? :roll:
gaznav, kanga, johnm liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1704296
AOPA is a lobbying body, it has no formal powers or delegations - unlike other GA organisations. Most people can sensibly recognise it gets business done by engagement and persuasion, not playground shouting.

Then let them “lobby, engage and persuade” that there is unrest in the community.
No need for playground shouting.
Balliol liked this
By IMCR
#1704305
No shouting from me just a clear point made I hope, as usual it seems the shouting is always in the other direction.

I have said why I believe AOPA should engage on this, you make disagree constructively, but its still my opinion.

I have also said in the other thread why GASCo perhaps should not have agreed to be the provider. Someone from GASCo even said when they had discussed this internally concerns were expressed. It seems odd now to therefore say there are no issues at all and slightly disingenuous even if you are satisfied it is the case.
Stampe liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1704310
@IMCR

That was me - but it wasn’t that GASCo disagreed with the idea of the infringement course, but that they were worried that some misguided people would think that GASCo were the ones ‘punishing’ people with the course (that worry looks like it was justified judging by the comments from a small vocal minority on here, but hopefully that position has now been put right? Which is a good thing :thumleft: ).

Obviously, the Authority/Regulator is a completely different body to GASCo - which is why I believe this is currently a good solution. Now I won’t try and opine it is 100% perfect, things never are, but I truly believe that having a non-Government flight safety organisation, with experienced volunteer GA pilots delivering it, is a far better solution than what we might have ended up with. As others have said, having the Authority/Regulator doing that education would have seen certainly some more with closed minds on the course. GASCo remain committed to using education to save lives in General Aviation - so a course like this would sit firmly within its aims. I am too convinced that we can save lives through education in safety related topics - which is why I check into this forum a couple a times a day to discuss matters mainly with a safety-related content. I also learn stuff in discussion here - one of my first ‘learnings’ came from a discussion with the late, great, Dave Phillips regarding ATZ status. Discussion is good especially when backed by fact rather than conjecture, which is why I enjoy the chance to chat with folks like Tim Dawson, Lee Moore, Christian Ramsay, Balliol, Nick Wilcock and Cub (late of this Parish) plus many more who come with significant SQEP (suitably qualified and experienced person) backgrounds. But I’m not belittling anyone with a non-SQEP background either - everyone has the right to voice/question opinions on the forum, which is one of the strengths. But then we all have to be able and willing to learn from each other, our viewpoints and opinions when surrounded by sound facts/analysis. :thumright:
johnm, James Chan liked this
By IMCR
#1704614
"when surrounded by sound facts/analysis. :thumright:"

Exactly. I totally agree. Which is why I cannot understand whY the sound facts and analysis are not forthcoming.

You may be surprised how much experience some contributors have, they may sometimes let the words do the talking. Hopefully we all recognise the dangers as well of being so entwined with a process that is becomes difficult to see any alternative or any of the shortcomings. I will say it one last time, but if some of the posts are read carefully some important questions have been raised. A lot of effort appears to have been put into not quite answering those questions. Here in is the real problem. I am sure it is not deliberate, but it would not be acceptable in many walks of life, and while no one is required to give an account here, if they were to do so, many of the concerns expressed could be easily satisfied.