Why I won't renew AOPA membership again

[EricJ]

On 9/3/2022 at 8:14 PM, TNIndy said:

I'm a member and try to support both EAA and AOPA but when I called AOPA in 2017 to ask about insurance and financing for a Mooney two of them told me I shouldn't buy a Mooney. Obviously I didn't take their advice

The part about that that I find funny is that I bought my Mooney from the AOPA Foundation in 2017.    

It was not a great experience to deal with them, but we managed to get it done.   I am still a member and think they do still do some useful things.   I think we'd be worse off without them overall.

 

[hammdo]

Agree, I'm just doing basic membership this year. I'm also an EAA member...

-Don

[Hank]

7 minutes ago, hammdo said:

Agree, I'm just doing basic membership this year. I'm also an EAA member...

-Don

Me too, me too.

[MikeOH]

Me three!

[Marauder]

Me not four. But I might join if they paid me $500k a year to say nice things about them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Frank B.]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:58 AM, 67 m20F chump said:

Oh man it looks like flying a Bonanza has some unexpected side effects.  I dropped my membership in the 90’s when my plane was hangared with AOPA’s. Phil B was the president and the guy was a kinda a jerk.  Real stand-off unfriendly guy.  You don’t get my money.  EAA all the way.

It was the Wheaties … it had to be. I fly an A36 and don’t have any open or closet thoughts about anything like what’s happened to Bruce. 

[steingar]

First, I quit AOPA for something rather meaningless.  The had one of the older Internet forums, they closed it for farcical reasons.  Granted it was over moderated and rather dead, but I still liked to go there once in awhile and it was the only thing my rather expensive dues were doing for me.  That magazine covered just about everything everyone else does, and the writing was pathetic.

As far as folks not liking transponder free traffic, I suppose that outlaws these guys.

[thinwing]

On 9/4/2022 at 3:22 PM, RobertGary1 said:

You are 100% wrong. An airport under federal grant obligations can only enact such restrictions at the direction of the faa. You have been misinformed. 
The faa has already informed them they are in violation. 

we already have lawyer .   All we wanted was a letter 

i wonder how you’d feel if an airport arbitrarily banned single engine GA. I’m sure you wouldn’t expect anything of Aopa 

I dont think this is correct regarding grant obligations,The FAA does support airports restricting certain kinds of aircraft due to safety concerns as long as it does so nondiscrimatory.Airport managers can restrict ultralights (no "N" number and no required training or license required)or hot air balloons due to lack of manuver abilty as long as they restrict "ALL" such aircraft.In the area I am located ,ultra light aircraft are flying out of small,privatey owned strips ie Freedom Field ,calif.

[RobertGary1]

34 minutes ago, thinwing said:

I dont think this is correct regarding grant obligations,The FAA does support airports restricting certain kinds of aircraft due to safety concerns as long as it does so nondiscrimatory.Airport managers can restrict ultralights (no "N" number and no required training or license required)or hot air balloons due to lack of manuver abilty as long as they restrict "ALL" such aircraft.In the area I am located ,ultra light aircraft are flying out of small,privatey owned strips ie Freedom Field ,calif.

No, airport managers cannot. The FAA can. 

"The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety. As such, an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport aeronautical activity or access is encouraged to contact the local ADO or regional airports division"

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/5190_6b.pdf

[thinwing]

42 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

No, airport managers cannot. The FAA can. 

"The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety. As such, an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport aeronautical activity or access is encouraged to contact the local ADO or regional airports division"

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/5190_6b.pdf

excellant!!!Please see page 14-9 of the above .It relates a complaint letter re ultralight activity bannishment at franklin field ,Sacramento County.What it basically says that if they can be safely operated ,than the airport manager has to makesome  allowance.He can still restrict time of day,procedures ,alitudes and parts of the field.In this case ,franklin field is a non towered ,no fuel or fbo and very sparsley used.There would be no question of a manager restricting to Sacramento 4 other airports and the western faa district manager would back them up.Thankyou for including the above FAA memorandum that outlines when and where airport owners and managers can and do restrict use.

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 9/5/2022 at 1:03 AM, carusoam said:

 

 

The next thing I think AOPA can help with… ageism regarding insurance…. There has got to be a better way of measuring skill than age… and that measurement shouldn’t cost a fortune…

 

 

I have ideas.  But the realistic assessment and underwriting I'd put on it would sideline a lot of 80+ year old pilots.  But it'd keep the ones flying who should be flying.  I want people 80+ to keep flying if they are safe.  But a lot of them are in denial.  And the worst of it is that the ramifications of an age-related loss pollute the waters for those who are 80+ and can continue flying.

I know what it's like to not be able to find an ~80+ person a quote...and for good underwriting reasons (make/model combination with a pilot who had been out of aviation for a significant period of time - he should not have been flying that type of plane)...and then he ended up in a gruesome pilot error fatal accident shortly thereafter.

If I had one wish for the broader aviation community, it would be for them to remember this about insurance:

- Rates are up.  And yes, it might cost an extra tank or two or even three of fuel per year (depending if you're @201er or someone flying around with 50 gallon bladder capacity .  But there's a lot of really good aviation enthusiast underwriters out there who have finally gotten some meaningful pay increases.  You'd like to see them make the kind of income to afford GA aircraft ownership, too.

- Regarding underwriting for certain planes.  Underwriters are real people, too...with real consciences.  I have phone conversations with them.  Underwriting profitability aside, one might say something similar to "I don't want to be [enabling] someone to get into this life-risking situation."  This isn't the military where you solo in a turbine aircraft while your life is full-immersion into aviation.  This is different.  And most of us in the insurance world want to be a backstop against bad decisions.

[RobertGary1]

3 hours ago, thinwing said:

excellant!!!Please see page 14-9 of the above .It relates a complaint letter re ultralight activity bannishment at franklin field ,Sacramento County.What it basically says that if they can be safely operated ,than the airport manager has to makesome  allowance.He can still restrict time of day,procedures ,alitudes and parts of the field.In this case ,franklin field is a non towered ,no fuel or fbo and very sparsley used.There would be no question of a manager restricting to Sacramento 4 other airports and the western faa district manager would back them up.Thankyou for including the above FAA memorandum that outlines when and where airport owners and managers can and do restrict use.

You are welcome. This is what we’re trying to do. Come up with a procedure. As you note he can’t just totally unilaterally ban ultralights. 
Fortunately the faa is the arbtor if the manager has made an honest effort to create procedures.  
 

“The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety.”

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I have ideas.  But the realistic assessment and underwriting I'd put on it would sideline a lot of 80+ year old pilots.  But it'd keep the ones flying who should be flying.  I want people 80+ to keep flying if they are safe.  But a lot of them are in denial.  And the worst of it is that the ramifications of an age-related loss pollute the waters for those who are 80+ and can continue flying.

I know what it's like to not be able to find an ~80+ person a quote...and for good underwriting reasons (make/model combination with a pilot who had been out of aviation for a significant period of time - he should not have been flying that type of plane)...and then he ended up in a gruesome pilot error fatal accident shortly thereafter.

If I had one wish for the broader aviation community, it would be for them to remember this about insurance:

- Rates are up.  And yes, it might cost an extra tank or two or even three of fuel per year (depending if you're @201er or someone flying around with 50 gallon bladder capacity .  But there's a lot of really good aviation enthusiast underwriters out there who have finally gotten some meaningful pay increases.  You'd like to see them make the kind of income to afford GA aircraft ownership, too.

- Regarding underwriting for certain planes.  Underwriters are real people, too...with real consciences.  I have phone conversations with them.  Underwriting profitability aside, one might say something similar to "I don't want to be [enabling] someone to get into this life-risking situation."  This isn't the military where you solo in a turbine aircraft while your life is full-immersion into aviation.  This is different.  And most of us in the insurance world want to be a backstop against bad decisions.

My anecdotal experience with Octogenarian pilots is that most still have the ability to remain safe pilots. Ability is not the problem, more often than not it’s an aversion to committing the time and resources required to stay current, which increases with age. 

[A64Pilot]

I live in an Air Park in Fl, what that means is at 64 I’m the kid, most are older.

Ugly truth is at 80 most don’t have what it takes to fly a complex aircraft in controlled airspace. This is not to say they can’t operate a Cub Nordo in and out of grass strips, and some at 80 really shouldn’t drive a car, but many do.

The difference is it seems most older pilots know and concede it and quit, we had two do it last year, but they are both still driving and in my opinion a 5,000 lb SUV at 80 mph is more dangerous than a 1,000 lb LSA at 70.

Way I see it is thankfully you don’t have to have insurence, not yet, and you know what, who cares if I crash a Cub in a cotton field anyway? So my plan is when insurence cost gets beyond what it’s worth I’m going to thank my Underwriter and not buy it, but I’m not going to stop flying, perhaps that’s the time to get an LSA amphib. If I kill myself, who cares it’s not like I’m leaving a whole family of kids behind and at that age my earning years are behind me and it’s not a loss to society for me to be gone. Hence why I won’t fly over populated areas, plenty of woods and swamp, I’ve got the whole Ocala Natl forest to fly over.

What would make sense is if an insurence company required a competency flight for people above xx age, not the FAA, but insurers, or maybe offer a discount for those that take a ride every year, with the content of the ride spelled out.

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

My anecdotal experience with Octogenarian pilots is that most still have the ability to remain safe pilots. Ability is not the problem, more often than not it’s an aversion to committing the time and resources required to stay current, which increases with age. 

The issues I see with super senior experienced students is in atc communication and instrument flying. But uncontrolled field with a Cub most are fine for much longer 

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

The issues I see with super senior experienced students is in atc communication and instrument flying. But uncontrolled field with a Cub most are fine for much longer 

That’s certainly part of it. My counterpoint to that is the last four taildragger incidences at FDK (two ground loops and two nose overs) happened to very current, highly credentialed individuals all <65. I’ve never thought of taildragger flying as a refuge for those whose cognitive abilities are deteriorating.

[RobertGary1]

4 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

That’s certainly part of it. My counterpoint to that is the last four taildragger incidences at FDK (two ground loops and two nose overs) happened to very current, highly credentialed individuals all <65. I’ve never thought of taildragger flying as a refuge for those whose cognitive abilities are deteriorating.

I didn’t consider 65 to be super senior.   but I’ve found that stick and rudder skills stay longer than instrument flying type skills. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

I didn’t consider 65 to be super senior.   but I’ve found that stick and rudder skills stay longer than instrument flying type skills. 

Point taken. I agree that 65 isn’t super senior, that was my point. If younger folks are bending taildraggers on the regular, not sure the small segment of Octogenarians are going to do better.  Age isn’t everything of course. Most of the accidents I mentioned involved commercial  and ATP rated pilots. Those  guys likely all had excellent instrument and communications proficiency but fell short on stick and rudder.

[Parker_Woodruff]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

My anecdotal experience with Octogenarian pilots is that most still have the ability to remain safe pilots. Ability is not the problem, more often than not it’s an aversion to committing the time and resources required to stay current, which increases with age. 

In many cases, you are correct.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

 

What would make sense is if an insurence company required a competency flight for people above xx age, not the FAA, but insurers, or maybe offer a discount for those that take a ride every year, with the content of the ride spelled out.

Some of what you propose is required by insurers already.  Above 75/80, we see requirements for annual medical exams and annual flight reviews.  I'd propose some additional things, including, but not limited to the below:

• Minimum 60 hours logged in the previous 12 months (80 would be better) or you must fly dual only until you reach 60 in the previous 12 calendar months...
• Flight Review endorsement every 6 months (3 months would be better).  A particular CFI cannot sign off two flight reviews in a row.  Airlines require recurrent training every 6 months.  There's nothing wrong with this for *any* pilot.
• BasicMed signoff every 6 months.  In some ways I've found an honest BasicMed assessment to have more benefit than a 3rd class medical.

[hammdo]

Thanks Parker!

Couple of quips:

CFI(I)s - I had a real hard time finding a CFII that would fly in my plane as well as flight school who'll will train me in my own plane - that has become an insurance issue for the flight schools- they don't want the risk.

Basic Med - I see my Dr 4 times a year, my cardiologist 2 times a year, my electrophysiologist once a year, my CPAP Dr once a year, and a colonoscopy every 3 years. My pacemaker and CPAP are monitored daily and evaluated every 3 months by the electrophysiologist and CPAP Dr.  Report are generated from those. In my case, I think that should cover me. I think basic med should take that into consideration vs mandatory 6 months. I'm not sure I need a six months check out with that much going on.

I do 6 month to yearly flight reviews with the same CFI(I) for the reasons listed (I did yearly this time as I'm going for my instruments).

I'd  hate to have another restriction. My drs will let me know if I should hang it up by not signing my basic med. I could see basic med every 2 years like 3rd class...

-Don

[kortopates]

32 minutes ago, hammdo said:

CFI(I)s - I had a real hard time finding a CFII that would fly in my plane as well as flight school who'll will train me in my own plane - that has become an insurance issue for the flight schools- they don't want the risk.

That's to be expected, flight schools are insured to fly in their own planes. There are a lot more flight instructors without Mooney experience than with it, and the former shouldn't be giving instruction in a unfamiliar Mooney. Its not that hard to find a Mooney savvy instructor.

[hammdo]

Thanks!

For flight reviews, 100% true, for getting the IFR ticket - whole other story for a local CFII -- I did ask a couple Mooney CFIIs but they were very busy and were not available when I had the time to do the IFR ticket. Once I get the IFR ticket then it can be  a 'Mooney flight' away...

I did do the MAPA SF last year. MAPA needs to find a fix to the insurance binder costs now being added by some underwriters just to take the 'safety course'...

-Don

[A64Pilot]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Point taken. I agree that 65 isn’t super senior, that was my point. If younger folks are bending taildraggers on the regular, not sure the small segment of Octogenarians are going to do better.  Age isn’t everything of course. Most of the accidents I mentioned involved commercial  and ATP rated pilots. Those  guys likely all had excellent instrument and communications proficiency but fell short on stick and rudder.

Tail dragger is like a bicycle, we had a 100 yr old former WWII P-38 pilot over who flew a Stearman like a champ.

As you age it’s not the basic skills you lose, with experience those are ingrained, sort of instinctual. What you lose is the ability to multi task and the ability to think on your feet as it were, it’s not hard to confuse an old man, interrupt him in the middle of something and they are way more confused than a younger person.

So have them having to deal with ATC possibly making a request they don’t understand and having to set flaps, prop forward and gear and they are more likely to forget something than they were 20 years ago.

But for the experienced higher time person, the basic stick and rudder doesn’t deteriorate, I believe it’s because it doesn’t require thought, as we age our mental processes slow down, up to a point we can compensate for that with our superior skills and less brash behavior, but there is a time where we can’t and we have to shed tasks

[A64Pilot]

4 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Some of what you propose is required by insurers already.  Above 75/80, we see requirements for annual medical exams and annual flight reviews.  I'd propose some additional things, including, but not limited to the below:

• Minimum 60 hours logged in the previous 12 months (80 would be better) or you must fly dual only until you reach 60 in the previous 12 calendar months...
• Flight Review endorsement every 6 months (3 months would be better).  A particular CFI cannot sign off two flight reviews in a row.  Airlines require recurrent training every 6 months.  There's nothing wrong with this for *any* pilot.
• BasicMed signoff every 6 months.  In some ways I've found an honest BasicMed assessment to have more benefit than a 3rd class medical.

If I had to do all that I’d just self insure, way too much. I fly because I enjoy it, all that would tend to take the enjoyment out of it.