AOPA claim 70% drop out rate

[IO540]

I find that one puzzling TOO because parachuting has very little connection with normal aviation (flying things), and in aviation anybody can be "ramp checked" which includes drug testing.

I wonder if there are examples of pilot privileges which are mutually exclusive between groups of pilots.

[TheOddOne]

parachuting has very little connection with normal aviation

...who am I to disagree??!! Quote of the year so far!

However, they are a significant force in sporting aviation. This is about having a regime of regular testing whether or not you're about to fly/jump as a part of a sporting code, as per Olympic athletes.


All right then, how about microlight flying instruction/training versus SEP flying instruction/training or glider flying instruction/training? I can imagine a situation where one group might be prepared to do the dirty on another to gain their own advantage in terms of minimum maintenance standards, for instance. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

TOO

[Crash one]

I have no idea what the answer is, but, the fragmented recreational side of GA is, in my opinion, most of the problem. The PFA are trying to lose the 1930s trilby hat & plus fours image by name changing, fine, good start. Interesting point, the cover photo of the very first LAA magazine is a Eurostar, possible Microlight.
When we get something called the Recreational Aviation Association, encompassing all bodies BMAA, BGA, LAA, BRA, BHGA, have I missed any? All fighting "City Hall" with one voice then we may survive. Why, in the name of whatever, would AOPA dissagree with NPPL training at unlicenced strips? The NPPL has no provision for continuing to CPL, IMC, IR or anything "commercial". Isn't this a bit like the big kids chucking the little kids out of the playground because they don't have a full size ball?
Personally I think the NPPL is a great thing, once it is expanded a bit & I can fly VFR to Europe that is all a lot of recreational pilots want. If it encourages more people to fly the voice will get stronger.
One small point though, I have noticed a small trend from some towards a "not so well qualified" attitude. I hope this does not start to grow otherwise there will be another fragment to fight.

[S-Works]

Can I just point out that AOPA did not fight against training at unlicensed strips neither did they fight against the bringing back the PPL Instructor. Quite the opposite in fact. They are all for training from unlicensed strips as it would allow the small airfield to become unlicensed and continue to train without the expensive costs of a licence.

Can I also point out that AOPA were the major instigator of the NPPL in an effort to reinvigorate the training market and general GA market.

[Crash one]

My apologies, I'm only going by what Rod1 said.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

If the campaign has done nothing more than bring this matter to the forefront of everyones attention, enabled the issues to be widely discussed and reflected the strength of feeling then I beleive it has achieved something.

Beware that any "campaign" is not merely holding a venomous snake by the tail and irritating it.

[Islander2]

Beware that any "campaign" is not merely holding a venomous snake by the tail and irritating it.

Whilst you've undoubtedly been making a bit of an a*se of yourself on this topic, rustle, I'm sure Fuji would not wish you to refer to yourself as a "venomous snake"!

[Islander2]

But on a more serious note ....

.... rustle, you presumably agree with bose's assessment that UK GA is going to be 'bitten' in any event in respect of the IMCR (and from all your recent posts, here and in the other place, it's difficult to believe the two of you could disagree on anything ), so ....

.... exactly what problems do you foresee from Fuji and others grabbing the "venomous snake by the tail and irritating it"?

Despite the many thousands of (often unappealingly vitriolic) words that have been written of late in connection with the future of the IMCR under EASA FCL, I find it truly difficult to discern a meaningful difference between the two 'sides'.

Both profess to believe passionately in the importance of the rating's continuation in some form (whilst, IMHO, seriously understating the impact of its loss). Both want something to be done. Bose et al believe the 'fight' should be left to AOPA, whilst simultaneously expressing the opinion that AOPA will fail in their attempt to retain the rating! Fuji et al, express reservations about leaving to AOPA, yet get crucified for mounting a separate campaign. Both seem to agree completely with the arguments that should be used in favour of retaining some form of IMCR. Yet bose seems determined that Fuji and his cohorts should present a different advocacy platform for their campaign.

It's a funny old world!

[Contacttower]

As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail....

[S-Works]

Just hang on a sec Islander, you have completely taken the wrong view on my position.

Firstly I did not say leave it to AOPA. I also did not say that AOPA see the battle as lost I said it was my personal opinion that it has probably gone to for now but I would be happy to stand corrected. I would like nothing better than to be wrong.

The alternative campaign was started because Fuji did not like the submission or the work that AOPA was doing and went to very great lengths to tell us how crap they were, so how can he be in agreement with what AOPA have done?

If he is not in agreement and has to run his own campaign I have just asked to see what that campaign is. He is asking for supporters and presumably I am invited to be a supporter so I just wanted to see what the pitch is to decide if I want to support it or not. I have expressed the view that without a proper pitch for the campaign it is flawed.

I have tried to play devils advocate with the counter arguments thats all, which is exactly what will happen when they are put to committee. The campaign owes itself to get all the facts straight before they make any type of pitch or they will be laughed out of the room.

Geremy Clarkson received more votes on the petition raised to make him prime minister.......

The Downing Street petition site is just a way of ignoring the masses while making them think they are being listened to, NOTHING is ever acted on from that site, government use it as away of keeping us quiet along with football and The Sun. I have already told you what will happen, everyone will get a nice letter from the office of the PM saying thanks very much but it is an EU or whatever matter.

I wish fuji all the best with his campaign.

[eltonioni]

You know exactly what the PM response will be, something along the lines of "The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for representing the UK on aviation matters".

However, if Fuji's petition (and these forum threads) provide a rallying point for individuals who would have otherwise been unaware or unmotivated it can only be a 'good thing'. It's not the petition that counts, it's what it stimulates. A couple of months ago the IMC discussions were unknown and the EASA position was being drawn up without a by nor leave to what we all think. Now look at the fuss among the proles.

Bose, don't give up the ghost just yet.

[IO540]

It's not the petition that counts, it's what it stimulates

Exactly right, all good publicity and it is delivering results, with the press taking notice too.

As with most things in aviation, the picture is 100% political (otherwise every ICAO member could just validate each other's FCL and certification, and sack much of their staff) and while on the face of it it is a Eurocrat-only matter, the reality is that it isn't, nothing is a done deal, and there is a lot of work done under the table and in the bar before the committee meetings.

This is both a good thing (means nothing is a done deal until it is a done deal) and a bad thing (lack of transparency, committee votes can be rigged beforehand in the well established Town & Country Planning Committee manner, where you back one rep because he backs you on something else, possibly in a different committee altogether) but it does all mean that NO effort is wasted.

Well done FUJI and others.

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji did not like the submission or the work that AOPA was doing

Not so.

I found it difficult to establish what AOPAs submission was and how they had formulated their campaign.

Bose was good enough to help us out with the former.

For their to be a campaign, people have to feel passionate about the matter for which they are campaigning. They cant be passionate unless they understand the issues.

I believe the campaign, including the petition, has caused more interest and debate than was taking place before.

The petition should not been seen in isolation. I would hope that many who have signed the petition will write at the appropriate time to EASA and to their Euro MPs.

From my perspective, it is true that the response of a few has been vitriolic, which seems surprising given that we are all on the same side.

I would never have guessed that it would have spilled over in another thread in another place in the way that it did. I am not so naive as to be persuaded that there was any real interest in debating the issues that arose on that thread by some, but rather to prosecute another agenda. More than a few picked up on that.

I know a few did not agree with my views regarding AOPA, however given the other recent threads on this issue I am clearly not alone in the views I have expressed. I would love to see AOPA flourishing.

I believe that the changes proposed by EASA provided a pivotal opportunity for the representative organisations to unite GA in fighting for our rights. I believe that opportunity had already been missed when this campaign started and that much of the damage had already been done by then.

So far as I am concerned, trying to save the IMC rating in something we pilots are doing for ourselves. We are expressing how important this is to us. We are garnering as much support as possible. We are putting the issue as squarely as we can in front of everyone.

Given that the view was expressed that the IMC rating had probably already been lost it is difficult to understand the corollary with a poisonous snake. More to the point, and perhaps it is just me, I don’t understand the basis of such one line comments - are they intended to be humorous, or clever or to antagonise? I could understand the comment if it was followed by some exposition of why that view was held, but that was not the case. I still believe on something like this, either you declare yourself in support of the campaign and work constructively to promote the campaign in the best way, or you clearly declare against the campaign and / or the way in which it is being promoted and set out your reasons for holding that view.

Needless to say I still believe this campaign is very worth while.

The more we debate the issue in a constructive way the better. Bose is right to question why we need the IMC rating. However, we need to be careful not to go over ground already covered. If others have already set out the basis of why the IMC rating is important lets make sure we all understand their reasoning and build and develop on the good work they have already done - not try and reinvent the wheel.

I don’t see this as something that one or a group of people are doing, but rather as a campaign we all take on for ourselves. If it is successful it is not a matter of any one taking credit rather, it should be perceived as the satisfaction we all take from retaining a very useful and safe privilege that has stood the test of a great deal of time.

Bose - thank you for your well wishes. I know you are doing a very good job with AOPA and I wish you well with that.

[rustle]

Actually bose, I believe the best result we can hope for from the ill-advised petition is that it is completely ignored by everyone.

Originally Posted by Islander2

.... exactly what problems do you foresee from Fuji and others grabbing the "venomous snake by the tail and irritating it"?

One problem with thrusting stuff into the public domain, especially something as contentious as this, is that it would take very little effort to make the [optimistic maximum 3000] signatures look very silly indeed by someone starting a counter-petition (which is encouraged on the website) and gaining 10 times that number of signatures within days.

When discussing or debating reasonably technical matters it is usually best to let those who know what they're talking about discuss/debate behind closed doors then publically announce the output.

To expect public support (which is, after all, what a petition to the PM is all about) for something 99% of the population wouldn't have a clue about is courting with danger. Once the genie is out the bottle and the privs of an IMC holder are being openly discussed I think problems are on the way.

Rather than seeing the petition, website, and ongoing discussion on these media-facing boards as positive contributions to the retention of a rating, I think they will kill it stone dead.

The quickest way to kill privs like this is for a mid-air (God forbid) to happen as that immediately identifies a risk/fact.

The second quickest way to kill privs like this is for public discussion which immediately identifies a risk - perceived or otherwise.

There is no point telling everyone that in 50(sic) years there has never been an accident/incident by a qualified IMC holder operating within their privs: Since time began there has never been an accident/incident on an GA airfield apron that would have been prevented by wearing a yellow jacket. You still have to wear a yellow jacket though

--

Still think I'm wrong?

1. The media watch the petitions website for anything interesting. We all know and expect this.

2. Pilot unions across the EU (and possibly the world) rightly or wrongly oppose the IMC rating

3. The IMC rating is the only rating in the world where legally a 17 year old (who may not even be allowed to drive on a motorway) with 15 hours experience can fly within [approx] 800 feet of a 747 full of passengers with a closing speed > 400mph without being able to see anything out the window (i.e. IMC).

--

Putting the debate about IMC rating into the public domain is a bad move and will cause untold more damage to pilot privs than EASA or anyone else could dream of if it gets picked-up by any of the media.

It could even be seized upon by an airline CEO who operates out of a Class D airport if he wanted a bit of publicity. Who do we know who operates aircraft into many UK Class D airports who likes a bit of controversy? Blimey, even his pilots would like him for that

---

Since FA seems obsessed with himself, rest assured that the DA42 discussion elsewhere wasn't fuelled by this discussion at all - notwithstanding a few sychophantic comments from SEP flyers

[Fuji Abound]

Since FA seems obsessed with himself, rest assured that the DA42 discussion elsewhere wasn't fuelled by this discussion at all - notwithstanding a few sychophantic comments from SEP flyers

OK, OK, we all enjoy the smart one liners - including me - all good fun -albeit what possessed you to take the trouble to go back and edit your first post to add that one is beyond me.

However can we do a deal and just call it quits on them for the purpose of this debate. I am not going to post on any other issues, so it should work fine.

gaining 10 times that number of signatures within days.

Who do you think would do so, and why?

Do you think the same could be said of many other matters with regards GA?

For example, what sort of case could be made if a GA IR holder had an accident (God forbid) with a commercial aircraft. It might start with a simple statement along the lines of what the hell are we doing allowing these private pilots who havent done a check for two years and havent logged 20 hours in the last year to be flying around in the airways with commercial aircraft who have two highly trained crew members that are required to go into a sim every six months to demonstrate their competance.

Is there a case that the moment we give in to that approach we are all lost?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound in relation to the counter-petition bit I posted earlier

Who do you think would do so, and why?

There are several groups of people who might want to do such a thing, I gave a couple of examples in my post, but really that should have been thought about prior to going public...

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

Do you think the same could be said of many other matters with regards GA?

Despite your inaccurate description of the JAA IR renewal process I don't think PPL/IR or AOPA would be putting the debate in the public forum.

We (or me at least) are discussing now your choice to put the IMC rating debate in the public domain; not something that may or may not happen, but what you have chosen to do despite guidance/suggestions from myself, bose and David Roberts (amongst others) that it wasn't a good idea.

I would have expected your campaign manager (the guy who started the petition) to have been a bit more media-savvy than that

Islander2 asked me why I thought you were playing with a venomous snake and AFAIAC I have answered that.

FTR I only edited my previous to change "UK Airspace" to "The IMC rating" in point number 3 in the second section of my post as it made more sense.

[Fuji Abound]

presumably I am invited to be a supporter

Sorry, Bose, I missed that. Of course. In fact I would love to have your support and technical assistance on moving the campaign forward, in the same way, and as I said before, it would be great to see AOPA or anyone else of for that matter come together to form a single concerted campaign.

Rustle

So do we have a truce, then?

There are several groups of people who might want to do such a thing, I gave a couple of examples in my post, but really that should have been thought about prior to going public...

You will recall how the petition came to pass.

However, and as I have now said on numerous occasions, the petition should not been seen in isolation. Nor should it be seen as an end in itself, but as the basis for demonstrating to whoever might be interested the strength of support across a wide cross section of people.

So far as these groups are concerned I am still interested as to who you have in mind. I think I can give you some very good reasons why infact they would not have the support you believe exists.

Despite your inaccurate description of the JAA IR renewal process I don't think PPL/IR or AOPA would be putting the debate in the public forum.

I know, but I thought that was the point you were making.

We all know the press arent concerned with technical accuracy, but emotive reaction. A pilot with an IMC rating endangering hundreds of passengers in class D and a private IR holder doing the same in class A is no different so far as the press are concerned. Do you think they are interested in the revalidation process, but rather to draw as many distinctions between the way commercial operators go about safety and the perceived way private pilots go about safety. If it suites them, both are inadequately qualified - one no more, nor more less than the other.

You are a defender of the IR, and rightly so, but it will not get you anywhere if we are going to give in to those sort of arguments.

In fact, in some ways your position (devil's advocate mode) is more tenious.

Do you think the commercial operators want you pottering around in your SEP coming off airways with the perception of delaying their arrivals and departures? Do you thnik they would far rather the IMCr holders who will stay well away from controlled airspace and on the whole larger airports? Will you be the next target?

I fully appreciate that is not the case BUT that is why it is so important to explain what the private pilot wants and why, and to demonstrate that the evidence supports the ratings are sound.

[eltonioni]

rustle, I do think that the notion of the petition bringing out opponents is a total of a red herring. As for what the press want to report or sensationalise, which is the better headline...

One day a pilot might crash into another in cloud but it's not happened so far

- or -

Euro bureaucrats ban UK pilots safety qualification

?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

committee votes can be rigged beforehand in the well established Town & Country Planning Committee manner, where you back one rep because he backs you on something else, possibly in a different committee altogether

This is very seriously illegal indeed (assuming you're talking about UK planning decisions). Please pass your evidence to the police and/or the standards board.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

If it suites them, both are inadequately qualified - one no more, nor more less than the other.

An instrument rating is an ICAO rating recognised throughout the civilised world: The IMC rating isn't and never will be.

The safety case for an IMC rating wouldn't/couldn't exist judged today. The same cannot be said of the IR (FAA, JAA or otherwise)

I know you like to deflect attention from what we are discussing - but we aren't discussing world-wide recognised ratings, we are discussing a UK anachronism; and further we are discussing your misguided (IMO) decision to start publicly discussing the privileges of it.

Anyway, I'm bored of this now. You won't listen to or try and understand any view other than your own - I don't expect you to agree with me but I would have expected you to at least argue coherently.

Have fun.