AOPA tries to stop flight training at unlicensed airfields

[John Brady]

You may know that the CAA is proposing to remove the regulation that requires a licensed aerodrome for flight training. This would allow some licensed airfields that do not operate public transport flights to become unlicensed to reduce costs. It would also allow clubs and schools to flourish at unlicensed airfields. Finally it would remove some of the low flying regulations making aviation better for us all. It would save us £1m in regulation charges every year.

AOPA has come out against this change, asking the CAA to withdraw its consultation on the basis that it conflicts with EASA's aim to bring IFR aerodromes and those that operate public transport flights within the scope of community legislation. In our view this is completely bogus and has nothing to do with this consultation at all. AOPA appears to aim to defend the larger flight training organisations against the ordinary pilot and student. If this important change is to go forward we need a large number of responses to support it. Please visit the LAA website www.laa.uk.com and follow the link on the Consultation Updates panel. We need your support and a short email to the CAA indicating that is all that is needed.

The deadline is Wednesday 10 July

Thanks for your help.

John

[Brian Hope]

Is this not typical of an organisation that claims to support the individual pilot whilst being in the pay of commercial organisations such as flying schools. AOPA has a conflict of interest and true to form it has come down on the side of commercialism, just as it did with the NPPL. Initially supportive the idea, when the schools made it clear they were not because it might affect their businesses, AOPA suddenly had a change of heart and even tried delaying tactics to foil the new license.
AOPA is also the only GA organisation of any significance (a relative term) not involved in the GA Alliance, a body of GA asssociation representatives that has been active and successful in negotiating the individual pilot's corner in the UK.
Sadly this action does not surprise me.

[Captain Pulsar]

I've come across AOPA a few times over the years in connection with some local airfield planning enquiries.

My experience has been one of duplicity, misrepresentation and a deep seated vested interest in commercialism as Brian mentions above. From an LAA private flyer's perspective they are a bunch of ****'s and I would'nt give them the time of day.

[Rod1]

From Martin Robinson, AOPA;

The information on the LAAs site is misleading and inaccurate.

Much more;

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php ... 4&start=15

Rod1

[gasax]

It has to be said that AOPAs stance and actions on this issue are pretty disgusting. It is difficult to find much positive to say about the organisation and its approach.

Hopefully their about face and general duplicity will not have an effect on consultation.

The one thing we can be sure of though is that the 'powers that be' must love their go it alone approach which helps to undermine the efforts of the other organisations.

[Nick Allen]

In case any of you missed it by coming straight here to the BB, rather than looking at the main site first, AOPA threatened to sue us yesterday: look under "Consultation Updates"! I suspect they were pissing into the legal wind, but I can't help feeling it shows a certain mean-spiritedness.

Seems to me that the more places there are to learn to fly, the more likely people are to do it (and every pilot is one objector less), hence the more pilots there are who might one day want advanced training at licensed airfields, and even join AOPA! Do I hear the sound of a bullet passing through a foot...?

[steveneale]

I agree. Nothing libellous I can see in what was written. In fact the published letter written on behalf of AOPA to the CAA confirms it was factually correct. Other comment was stated as opinion. I can however understand Peter's wish to avoid ego driven litigation neither organisation can afford.

[solar]

I attempted to reply to John's initial request to the email address supplied in support of unlicensed airfield training and also at my disapointment in AOPA's stance as I am also an AOPA member but it was returned as undeliverable.
In light of what I have been reading I may want to reconsider my AOPA membership.

Eugene

[Captain Pulsar]

I am appalled that AOPA are threatening to sue the LAA. I'm b*****y furious.
I just may seek out AOPA at a fly in soon and will be minded to have a strong word with them.

[steveneale]

I attempted to reply to John's initial request to the email address supplied in support of unlicensed airfield training and also at my disapointment in AOPA's stance as I am also an AOPA member but it was returned as undeliverable.

Eugene

The consultation finished on Wednesday so they may have switched it off now.

[solar]

Steve
I posted on the 10th from out here (Far East) which should have been the 9th in the UK.
Maybe they closed early due to influx or sadly lack of interest.

One question I had was if they do eventually allow training at unlicensed fields would this mean that training would be allowed at a licensed airport when outside normal hours?
We have considerable loss of revenue at our flying club due to being restricted to airport opening times.

[John Brady]

The answer to Solar's question is maybe. If the change comes to pass, it will not be neessary for an airfield to be licensed for traing to take place, only for it to subscribe to a code of conduct. The LAA has offerred to audit and police such a code if needed so the CAA can stay out of it if they choose.

In case of a licensed airfield, what they allow to go on outside license hours is up to the management. However, if they subscribed to the code outside hours, they could legally allow training. Much depends on how they view risk and what thier policies are.

John