AOPA.. Here we go again..

I

iflyatiger

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
308
Display Name
Display name:
iflyatiger
For your consideration..

AOPA has just given away the organization you have been helping to build for all these years.

- Drone pilots are not the same as aircraft pilots for one major reason.. They don't have the same skin in the game. Their life or the life of passengers do not depend on the safe outcome of their flights.

- If AOPA is now a lobby organization for both types of pilots, whose side are they going to take if a dispute of any kind involves both airplane and drone? Sure they might try to mediate but do you you think they can fully stand behind either. It has been diluted both in strength of mission and also financially.

- For example.. Past members have contributed to the success of AOPA and some reports say they have 70 million in the bank. Wasn't that money collected for one reason, to support and also lobby for General Aviation ( Fixed wing and Helicopter )? Will they not spend that money if needed on their new drone members ? Isn't this dilution contrary to AOPA's charter and their stated purpose when soliciting the millions and millions of dollars?

- If and when the ratio of members favors the drone members do you think that AOPA will continue to lobby for airplane member at the expense of their drone members, I seriously doubt it. And by the time we find out the answer it will be too late.

This is a big deal! If there is no threat to our place in this organization I sure think they should lay out the facts and the legal aspect to all of the members. Does anyone think this will happen?

All I can think of is that they should figure out some form of sister organization (DOPA) that is starting out new and not piggybacking on the current organization?

No one needs to try and convince me this is not true. I certainly could end up wrong and would be happy to admit it if proven in the future but there is nothing for me to debate at this time.

Thank you for your time..
 
Aircraft are their bread and butter,but will they take the money from drone (pilots) of course. Advertising drives the organization haven't seen any drone ads yet.
 
I agree with many of your points about drone pilots.
However I suspect AOPA has analyzed both possible actions (ignoring & alienating drone pilots vs welcoming them) and decided it would be better to do as they have done.
It might well be the best way to have any influence on their activities.
 
Yeah but.. I think we can agree that they can't just take their money. If they take their money they will need to represent them and if they represent them wouldn't it have to equitably ? I don't know the answer but it is certainly a big part of my question.

frfly172 said:
Aircraft are their bread and butter,but will they take the money from drone (pilots) of course. Advertising drives the organization haven't seen any drone ads yet.
Click to expand...
 
Invite your cousins (enemies) into your home, give them the keys and access to your bank account? Also when they multiply like rabbits it will end up being their house. Whether they let you keep living there or kick you out is yet to be seen!


Stewartb said:
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Click to expand...
 
Honestly, if you try to take on drones as a whole, you're going to lose. That's where the moneyed interests are. Work with them, or get steamrolled.

Do you REALLY hope to take on amazon.com? Good luck with that. 70 million in the bank is chicken feed.

You gotta pick your fights. You're gonna lose this one. Make it the least catastrophic loss you can. Which means, don't characterize drone pilots as "not real pilots," and don't overstate the risks, but rather try to work with them for reasonable accommodation for both needs. If it's one or the other, recreational pilots are going to lose, especially in the current climate.
 
Our country was built on compromise. I don't own the sky. If I have to share it I'll be more productive to work with the other users to find compromise than sit around and ***** about them and polarize other user groups. There's plenty of that going on all around us and it sure as hell isn't solving anything.
 
Just to be clear! In this thread I addressed one thing.. That is the incorporation of another segment of aviation into what was always our main lobbying organization.

I did not say drone drivers were not legitimate users of the sky.. Nor did I say we need to go to battle with them.

Are the only 2 options Fight or incorporate? Isn't just "get along" an option?

I do wonder what the motivation is when aircraft owners or airplane pilots so strongly defend the rights of drones ? Do you have a financial interest in drones, do you see that as the only thing that you will be able to fly sometime in the future?
 
Lighten up, Francis, lol. It's better to invite yourself to the discussion table as friends so that you have a say in potential regulatory moves than it is to wait until they draft something you have to spend time/resources maneuvering around. There's no conflict of interest, and I'll likely be long gone before the number of AOPA drone members outweighs the certificated pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
iflyatiger said:
If AOPA is now a lobby organization for both types of pilots, whose side are they going to take if a dispute of any kind involves both airplane and drone?
Click to expand...

Good point. They can't lobby on behalf of both sides.

This decision tells me that as an organization, AOPA is not serious about lobbying.

It also tells me they aren't serious about us.

I'm a dues-paying member, and I am ****ed.
 
I do wonder what the motivation is when aircraft owners or airplane pilots so strongly defend the rights of drones ? Do you have a financial interest in drones, do you see that as the only thing that you will be able to fly sometime in the future?
Click to expand...

Didn't see a whole lot of defending drones in this thread, if that is what you refer to.
If people don't jump to join your viewpoint that does not mean they are defending drones. I will be pretty pzzed if I get whacked by one.
I seriously doubt there is a ulterior motive ie financial incentive etc. Just a realism about the future. Have seen this in other groups and issues - it is hard to accept what is happening (drone proliferation in this case) but might as well because there is absolutely no way to stop it.
Given that, we have two choices, battle them (and likely lose big) or bring them aboard, hope they will listen to reason. A 'middle ground' would be ignoring the problem; and that has never worked for anything.
Looks like AOPA studied this in detail and came to the realization of what is the least painful or most hopeful route, invite them aboard.
 
Just another money grab by AOPA. They are clueless.
 
GA aircraft or drones. Which has the bigger growth projections for the next 10-20-50 years? Clueless? I don't think so.
 
KA550 said:
Just another money grab by AOPA. They are clueless.
Click to expand...

AOPA sees the GA well running dry in the not-too-distant future. They are looking for ways to bring in members and funding so they can both justify and fund the bureaucracy and the really good jobs at the top of a DC based lobbying or advocacy business. Delivering results is either secondary or not even in the picture.

I've asked before. What's the most recent "win" by AOPA on something that mattered?

ADSB... No
Medical Reform... No
STC's for Experimental Avionics... No (That's EAA's)
Santa Monica... No
Meigs... No
 
Drone "pilots"? Can we just call them drone "operators" or "drivers" instead?
 
Beyond (besides?) commercial use, I kinda equate drones to toys, similiar to CB radio back in the day. Most non-commercial users (hobbyists, kids, etc.) will muck about with them a bit, then wander off to the next thing, leaving a few hard-core amateurs to share airspace with the for-profit and other serious players. It may be the commercial and other serious drone users are who AOPA will be interested in, and those folks will have a stake in getting along and mutual cooperation.

But nah, they ain't pilots, not even pax - heck, many of the projected uses are autonomous - no one to even call a "driver" or "operator".

It'll shake out, maybe with a universal hard ceiling, well defined exclusion zones, active counter measures around larger airports, cruel fines for playing badly around GA airports, some imbedded tech to geo fence the smateurs, etc. I imagine that's the kind of stuff AOPA would look at, for drones and real airplanes.
 
IMO you guys are overthinking this. The number of drones in the US is projected by the FAA to be 20 million by 2020. Other numbers here: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/29/drones-in-2016-4-numbers-everyone-should-know.aspx They already dwarf the number of general aviation airplanes.

Of the toy buyers there is a subset that will see belonging to an "Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association" as a big ego deal. They will brag about it, put stickers on their cars, put pins in their lapels, and generally feel quite superior to mere mortals, being an "owner and pilot." In addition, assuming AOPA does anything reasonable at all, there will be a subset who are commercial operators to one degree or another and who will join AOPA for information useful in their businesses and to support lobbying activities. The size of these groups is unknown but lets just hypothesize them to be 5% each of the total drone numbers. That's maybe 200,000 right now and 2,000,000 by 2020. This is what AOPA is drooling over. Potential revenue growth of six-fold or more even if they capture only a tiny share of this huge pie. Moreover, they are uniquely positioned to do this.

Of course it's about the money. I wouldn't be surprised if they crack a few shekels out of the $70M cash hoard in order to chase this business. It would be a good investment.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I guess the NRA should have just stuck with rifles . . .
Click to expand...

Ha, yeah. Firearms shoot bullets, airplanes have pilots, and carry passengers. Drones? Very different. I don't blame AOPA for wanting to tap into the revenue stream for drone operators, but they are a very different audience with possibly conflicting interests.
 
" ... they are a very different audience with possibly conflicting interests."

FTFY
 
So let's see. A vanishingly small population of AOPA's base uses the forums, or is even aware of this debate. I would hazard a guess that their most active users utilize the site for supplemental training, education, and various aviation interest materials. I did as a greenhorn.

Those products for a new or student pilot is not bad. A new pilot I am familiar with is pouring through their material now, and thinks it is wonderful.

Where would we prefer that either new toy buyers or businesses that want to dip their toes into commercial uses get their education on appropriate usage? The lovely and user friendly FAA.gov site? Their buddy down the street? A Chinese drone manufacturer's pamphlet with a bad Google-Chinglish translation?

I would bet that not only can AOPA come up with a decent and engaging education product for those two user groups that plays to our interests, but that base is large enough to pay for it as well over time.

If my son, daughter, nephew or business partner bought a drone online and I wanted them to learn to operate it in a GA compliant and safe manner, What better organization would you recommend them to turn to???
 
Greg Bockelman said:
You guys are harsh. Drones are a segment of aviation. Drone pilots are pilots too. Why such animosity?
Click to expand...
Not sure I'd go that far - maybe a fixed wing UAV-type driver is a pilot?Quadcopter operator? Nah, not as I would call it. . .they have a legitimate interest in airspace rules, sure thing, and deserve a voice. But so does self-loading airline ballast, or ground-pounders under an approach path.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Drones are a segment of aviation. Drone pilots are pilots too.
Click to expand...

I suppose everyone has their own opinion about the terminology.

In my opinion the operator of a quad copter is not a pilot, any more than the thrower of a paper airplane.

Now I'm not knocking the throwing of paper airplanes, and indeed I enjoy it myself, but it does not make me a pilot to throw them. In my opinion.

Others may hold other opinions, and I respect that, but in any case opinion should not be mistaken for fact.
 
Anthony said:
Ha, yeah. Firearms shoot bullets, airplanes have pilots, and carry passengers. Drones? Very different. I don't blame AOPA for wanting to tap into the revenue stream for drone operators, but they are a very different audience with possibly conflicting interests.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. The National Rifle Association caters to owners of rifles . . . and shotguns, and pistols, etc., all forms of weapons that fire projectiles. AOPA caters to pilots, aircraft owners, people who like to fly, and now, people who fly drones. AOPA caters to people who partake in the joy of flight, just as the NRA caters to people who like to fire weapons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top