rdfb wrote:.. single representative organisation would be far easier for decision makers to deal with, rather than a rabble of dissenting voices.
... I have subscription money ready for an organisation that is prepared to represent me in my recreational aviation activities.
In US that would be AOPA (Canada: the much smaller COPA). AOPA explicitly speaks for all GA activities, articulately; this is in fact, not just a claim. Its huge membership means it can pay for effective research, 'lobbying' at Federal and State levels, and PR 'outreach'. It has the further advantage that many on Capitol Hill (and in State legislatures in larger States like Texas and Alaska) are AOPA members as pilots or at least regular users, to get from 'constituency' to State Capital or to Washington (which usage thus becomes an allowable business expense!). Meanwhile, many GA pilots are also members partly because of the 'perks' such as more affordable (and in litigious US highly desirable) "renter's insurance" - it's why I joined while we lived there. Also, as AOPA is a 'non-profit', even subs may be tax-deductible, which means effectively free, for many Americans.
AOPA UK seems to suffer from an image problem, whether deserved or not. I belong although no longer an active pilot because it clearly has access to regulators (national and international) which none of the other UK GA bodies do; I also still belong to LAA, for analogous motivation (I support its aims). But membership is expensive, and its magazine seems to contain artcles only about the 'skygod' end of GA activities, often based on or seeming to be mere regurgitations of manufacturer PR handouts of the sort of aircraft or gizmos unaffordable for most in UK GA: bizjets, turboprops, top-of-the line avionics, fully IFR operations, .. A particularly recall an article not long ago on the plans for Staverton: all about the advantages for the high-end executive user, nothing about the difficulties created for the lighter end, nor the worrying acceptance that the revenues from the new business park would no longer revert to airport operating funds but to the general funds of the two Councils as landoweners. The only article about a Permit aircraft I recall reading was about an imported expensive homebuilt helicopter kit. I recall nothing in their magazine over the years about any aircraft or activity which would fall within the bailiwick of LAA, BMAA, BGA, .. Similarly, I recall nothing in the magazine about the disadvantages for the Day/VFR bimbler of the Class D changes or proposals at Farnborough, Oxford, Brize, Biggin, .. But the Association is meant to be representing to regulators those aircraft and activities also.
But AOPA still and still alone does have the 'access' which the other Associations seem to lack. I'm not sure what can be done about this. A bit of 'visible inclusivity' might help, eg co-opting
ex officio the Chairmen of other Associations as at least 'observers' on AOPA Board meetings ?
(mere guide at) Jet Age Museum, Gloucestershire Airport
http://www.jetagemuseum.org/TripAdvisor Excellence Award 2015
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction ... gland.html