AOPA Does Not Support Pilots but Big Business

[bigshinyjet]

I posted this on Airline Pilot Central and wanted to put it here too:

I work as a professional pilot and that pays the bills. Recently, a friend of mine asked me if I could teach him how to fly in my off time in my airplane. I really enjoy teaching people to fly so I thought this would be fun! I told him no problem, we set a rate and started planning. I wanted to make sure this would be okay with the local General Aviation public use airport (KFMY) so I gave them a call the next day. This is when it gets interesting. Evidently, a CFI is not allowed to teach someone to fly at FMY unless he is a Flight School. A CFI cannot be a flight school unless his flight school occupies 43,560 square feet on the airport, has at least two airplanes, full time flight instructors during business hours, and a list of other things. I can understand a business license and insurance but that is ridiculous.
After I talked to the Airport Authority, I called AOPA. The AOPA representive said AOPA supports this because otherwise the flight schools would not be able to be viable businesses because of the competition. I asked the person if they where the Aircraft Owners & Pilot Association or the Flight School Owners & Pilot Association. I always thought of AOPA as being out for the small unrepresented individual aircraft owner. They are to protect the freedoms of General Aviation. They are supposed to promote flying as a fun hobby as long as it is done with safety in mind. Needless to say I was very dissappointed. If I am an aircraft owner/CFI and I want to share my joy and love of flying with a friend am I not free to do that anymore?
Not everyone wants to go to a big flight school. I started flying for fun when I was very young. You could say it was kind of a family tradition with my dad being a pilot and all of my brothers flying also. I decided to pursue aviation as a proffession in my early twenties and went to one of the big 141 flight schools. These schools are very regimented and I truely believe they teach you more than the average part 61 CFI. With that said the last day I ever had fun flying was my first day at the 141 school. The next time I did not enjoy flying again until I left the 141 enviroment. These schools are not there to teach flying as a fun leisurely hobby, they are there to teach people to be knowledgeable proffessionals. I enjoy teaching people to fly because I love to pass along my enjoyment of flying. I have talked to to many people that hated instructing to 'build time' and my theory behind it is because they have never flown for enjoyment they have only flown to 'build time'. Flying is not about 'building time', it is about the people you meet, the places you go, the sights you see, the sunsets, the mountains, the landings, the hundred dollar hamburgers, and making the world smaller so you can see more of it and of the people in it. If you are just 'building time' you have missed the entire reason you decided to be a pilot.
The reason why I have gone into all of this is simple. Yes, i think 141 schools produce knowledgeable, capable pilots. These pilots will teach others to be knowledgeable and capable. However, with that said, from my findings and experience in aviation if you want to become knowledgeable, capable, learn somethings that flying books cannot teach, and most importantly learn how to enjoy flying I would suggest seeking out that pilot on the airport that has a plane and teaches in it because he love to share flying with others. He teaches them the joys behind it and not just how to pick out a field when your engine fails.
I guess the reason why I am writing this rant is because I am finding out today that the CFI that teaches the joy of flying is becoming an Airport Outlaw. The agency that is there that should protect that CFI is protecting the businesses. This to me would be the equivalent of the NRA helping the Government take away our guns. I would say this is probably the reason every year fewer and fewer pilots are produced. The joy of flying has been replaced by something I do not understand.

 

[Waldom]

Have you ever heard the phrase "its easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission"?

If you are worried about it, charge your friend for aircraft expenses only and instruct for free. That way there is no business transacted and nothing to argue with the airport authority about.

 

[deadstick]

Now if your friend owned a Caravan or a CJ, they'd be there for you! THAT is something they can relate to.

 

[ePilot22]

I canceled my membership and stopped paying dues about three years ago. Reading this just reaffirms my reasons for doing so. Sorry to hear about your experience! I'm glad I'm not paying to promote/support this type of thinking any longer.


Good Luck!







eP.

 

[avbug]

Many locations have policies prohibiting independent instruction, and many rental facilities and schools will not permit their aircraft to be used by an outside instructor. Numerous valid reasons exist for this. Many airports will not permit through-the-fence commercial operations, which include washing and waxing airplanes, maintenance, and yes, instruction.

You're blaming AOPA for this? What an utterly ignorant attitude.

 

[bigshinyjet]

Many locations have policies prohibiting independent instruction, and many rental facilities and schools will not permit their aircraft to be used by an outside instructor. Numerous valid reasons exist for this. Many airports will not permit through-the-fence commercial operations, which include washing and waxing airplanes, maintenance, and yes, instruction.

You're blaming AOPA for this? What an utterly ignorant attitude.

Ignorant, really, because I have this attitude for having taken the time to become informed. Yes, I believe AOPA takes dues from people to promote aviation and this is something that is doing the exact opposite.

Was I rude to you in my original post? Is there a good reason for you to call me ignorant without know me? Does that make you ignorant?

The point behind all of this is that one more freedom is being taken through regulating into oblivion. There are good reasons for gun control too but you will not be taking mine anytime soon.

 

[ePilot22]

Many locations have policies prohibiting independent instruction, and many rental facilities and schools will not permit their aircraft to be used by an outside instructor. Numerous valid reasons exist for this. Many airports will not permit through-the-fence commercial operations, which include washing and waxing airplanes, maintenance, and yes, instruction.

You're blaming AOPA for this? What an utterly ignorant attitude.

I didn't read any blame, he seems upset that the AOPA supports commercial flight schools rather than the independent CFI. He also said he was using his own airplane, not a rental aircraft for his flight instruction. This is America, if I own my airplane and insure it, then it's nobody's business what I use it for.

You sure seem to have a $hitty attitude this morning.



Good day, sir!







eP.

 

[regionalcap]

Many locations have policies prohibiting independent instruction, and many rental facilities and schools will not permit their aircraft to be used by an outside instructor. Numerous valid reasons exist for this. Many airports will not permit through-the-fence commercial operations, which include washing and waxing airplanes, maintenance, and yes, instruction.

You're blaming AOPA for this? What an utterly ignorant attitude.

You can make a valid point without the unnecessary comment at the end.

 

[avbug]

Is there a good reason for you to call me ignorant without know me?

I see that not only is your attitude ignorant, but your comprehension skills also lack.

I did not call you ignorant, but did note that your attitude certainly is. Given your naive view of airport management and that of the position of AOPA, noting that you display considerable ignorance, and not just the attitude thereof, is certainly a valid observation.

I didn't read any blame, he seems upset that the AOPA supports commercial flight schools rather than the independent CFI.

Is he prepared to take out a business license, meet the requirements of the municipality having jurisdiction over the airport and the regulation thereof, undertake the taxes, ramp space and fees, and field insurance requirements of a flight training provider? If not, do you expect AOPA to tell the city or other businesses how to conduct their operations? This is not the job of AOPA. When it's the city setting the policy, to blame AOPA is somewhat like blaming a fish when a man drowns in the stream. Non-sequitor and irrelevant. Go lobby city hall.

This is America, if I own my airplane and insure it, then it's nobody's business what I use it for.

Most certainly it is. I see that the original poster is not the only one displaying overt ignorance today.

You think that if you buy an airplane and insure it that you can spray crops with it of your own volition? Carry passengers for hire? Hold out as a common carrier in scheduled operations...simply because you say so? You think you can waltz into any airport or any location and simply set up shop, without meeting certification requirements, paying appropriate taxes, obtaining business licenses, and meeting the specific needs of the entity which oversees that field? Of course you can't. If you believe otherwise, you're living in a dream world.

If you own your own airplane and insure it, you can operate it privately as you see fit, within limitations which may come from any number of sources. Among them include the FAA, your insurance carrier, the airport from which you operate, etc.

If you own your own airplane and insure it, you're not empowered to make up your own policies and regulations or conduct business with that airplane simply on your own say-so. Surely you understand this concept. One can't buy a car and enter into the taxi business either...without licensing and certification. You don't buy a firearm and park yourself at the local rock concert, holding out as a security guard. You adhere to the policies of the entity which has jurisdiction over the place in which you intend to conduct business.

I always thought of AOPA as being out for the small unrepresented individual aircraft owner.

You do realize that AOPA is very dedicated to the flight training industry and environment, and even purchased Flight Training Magazine several years ago? AOPA most definitely supports individual trainers, but also flight schools, and isn't going to attempt to change the airport policy just for you.

The joy of flying has been replaced by something I do not understand.

Clearly.

 

[ePilot22]

I see that not only is your attitude ignorant, but your comprehension skills also lack.

I did not call you ignorant, but did note that your attitude certainly is. Given your naive view of airport management and that of the position of AOPA, noting that you display considerable ignorance, and not just the attitude thereof, is certainly a valid observation.



Is he prepared to take out a business license, meet the requirements of the municipality having jurisdiction over the airport and the regulation thereof, undertake the taxes, ramp space and fees, and field insurance requirements of a flight training provider? If not, do you expect AOPA to tell the city or other businesses how to conduct their operations? This is not the job of AOPA. When it's the city setting the policy, to blame AOPA is somewhat like blaming a fish when a man drowns in the stream. Non-sequitor and irrelevant. Go lobby city hall.



Most certainly it is. I see that the original poster is not the only one displaying overt ignorance today.

You think that if you buy an airplane and insure it that you can spray crops with it of your own volition? Carry passengers for hire? Hold out as a common carrier in scheduled operations...simply because you say so? You think you can waltz into any airport or any location and simply set up shop, without meeting certification requirements, paying appropriate taxes, obtaining business licenses, and meeting the specific needs of the entity which oversees that field? Of course you can't. If you believe otherwise, you're living in a dream world.

If you own your own airplane and insure it, you can operate it privately as you see fit, within limitations which may come from any number of sources. Among them include the FAA, your insurance carrier, the airport from which you operate, etc.

If you own your own airplane and insure it, you're not empowered to make up your own policies and regulations or conduct business with that airplane simply on your own say-so. Surely you understand this concept. One can't buy a car and enter into the taxi business either...without licensing and certification. You don't buy a firearm and park yourself at the local rock concert, holding out as a security guard. You adhere to the policies of the entity which has jurisdiction over the place in which you intend to conduct business.



You do realize that AOPA is very dedicated to the flight training industry and environment, and even purchased Flight Training Magazine several years ago? AOPA most definitely supports individual trainers, but also flight schools, and isn't going to attempt to change the airport policy just for you.



Clearly.

You are certainly an extremist. Why are you even discussing Part91, 119, 135, 140 and 141 regulations? I think if I own an aircraft, I have proper insurance and I am a current CFI, I can teach who ever I like to fly, when and where I like. (Except for any TSA rules that might prohibit certain people). I know, you're going to discuss flight training at Class B airspace and some other far blown example.

So you're right, in your extremist world, you hardcore fundamentaist aviator, avbug. May we all get on our knees and hail the almighty avbug. For it is you that shall lead us, the ignorant, into the light of alrightious aviation. The perfect aviators that never protest the rules. Nor twist, bend or break them. That hold them holy second to one's own religion. Because without them, aviation would be total chaos. How dare an aviator defy the airport authority and teach someone to learn to fly. How dare they be SO ignorant to any Federal Aviation Regulation, no!, any Code of Federal Regualtion Part 1 through a billion. You are the "#1 Aviator" in my book! And if I ever meet you, I'll make sure to purchase you the mug from the AOPA that says so.

Again, it seems he was DISAPPOINTED by the AOPA stance, not blaming them. Why do you insists on using the word blame?

I bid you another ignorant, but blissful, good day, sir.






eP.

 

[avbug]

Why are you even discussing Part91, 119, 135, 140 and 141 regulations?

I am not discussing these regulations, nor did I introduce them. You did. Why did you do this?

Are you aware there is no 14 CFR Part 140? Yet you wish to cackle on about being an instructor in your own aircraft? Should an instructor not know his basic regulation? You do not. Why not?

You stated "This is America, if I own my airplane and insure it, then it's nobody's business what I use it for." Aside from your poor choice of grammar, you were clearly shown to be wrong; it's very much the purview of other interested parties in determining what, if anything, for which the aircraft is used.

Aside from that, this not not "America," but the United States of America...unless you intend to lump Canadian, Mexican, Panamanian, Nicaraguan, El Salvadorean, Guatamalan, Honduran, Costa Rican, Colombian, Peruvian, etc regulations in your statement. No, mate. It's many people's business regarding for what your aircraft may be used. Your broad statement is in error.

I think if I own an aircraft, I have proper insurance and I am a current CFI, I can teach who ever I like to fly, when and where I like.

What you think really doesn't matter, does it? You don't get to make that decision, as evidenced by the initial post in this thread. You may live in whatever little world you wish inside your head, but it won't change reality.

I know, you're going to discuss flight training at Class B airspace and some other far blown example.

Perhaps you should discuss this, because I have no idea about that which you speak. Given your comments, it's patently clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, either.

So you're right, in your extremist world, you hardcore fundamentaist aviator, avbug.

You wish to instruct, but cannot construct a simple sentence. Do you not speak English?

You find adhering to the regulations that define our working environment to be "hardcore" or "extremist?" This doesn't speak well of you. That you prattle with very weak, poorly constructed attempts at sarcasm doesn't speak well of you either, and there's little need to provide further correction there, as it might take far too long.

I bid you another ignorant, but blissful, good day, sir.

I know you do, and while unfortunate, you should know that this doesn't paint you in a good light, either. The true shame is that you are just ignorant enough that you don't know enough to be embarrassed.

 

[ePilot22]

I am not discussing these regulations, nor did I introduce them. You did. Why did you do this?

Really?

You think that if you buy an airplane and insure it that you can spray crops with it of your own volition? Carry passengers for hire? Hold out as a common carrier in scheduled operations...simply because you say so?

Crop Dusting? Common carriage? I don't remember introducing them. Maybe you forgot you did?

Are you aware there is no 14 CFR Part 140? Yet you wish to cackle on about being an instructor in your own aircraft? Should an instructor not know his basic regulation? You do not. Why not?

Oops. Part142.


But again all hail avbug.

Aside from that, this not not "America," but the United States of America...unless you intend to lump Canadian, Mexican, Panamanian, Nicaraguan, El Salvadorean, Guatamalan, Honduran, Costa Rican, Colombian, Peruvian, etc regulations in your statement. No, mate. It's many people's business regarding for what your aircraft may be used. Your broad statement is in error.

You are so anal retentive. Have you ever been laid?









eP.

 

[ePilot22]

I didn't read any blame, he seems upset that the AOPA supports commercial flight schools rather than the independent CFI.

Is he prepared to take out a business license, meet the requirements of the municipality having jurisdiction over the airport and the regulation thereof, undertake the taxes, ramp space and fees, and field insurance requirements of a flight training provider? If not, do you expect AOPA to tell the city or other businesses how to conduct their operations? This is not the job of AOPA. When it's the city setting the policy, to blame AOPA is somewhat like blaming a fish when a man drowns in the stream. Non-sequitor and irrelevant. Go lobby city hall.

Where did he blame the AOPA? Hmm...It's the AOPA's PAC supposed to lobby city hall? You really aren't making any sense.



Also where in Part61 or Part91 does it restrict him from using his aircraft to teach someone to fly? He doesn't even need insurance to instruct. If he can find an airport authority that doesn't have limits or restrictions on flight instruction he's totally legal to INSTRUCT this individual. Not crop dust or run charter ops as you have argued.


So what what? Since you like to "not not"






eP.

 

[avbug]

Where did he blame the AOPA?

Perhaps you missed the title of the thread, bright spark.

Really?

Really.

Crop Dusting? Common carriage? I don't remember introducing them. Maybe you forgot you did?

You invoked all uses for your airplane when you incorrectly asserted that you can do anything with your airplane, and that it's "nobody's business what I use it for." Setting aside your poor choice of grammar, you were quickly proven wrong, and that yes indeed, it's most certainly other's business regarding that for which you use your aircraft.

You ignorantly stated that you could do anything you want to do with your own airplane, so long as you insure it. In so doing, you did not speak the truth. Ag operations and common carriage operations are two examples of why you did not speak the truth. You stated: "This is America, if I own my airplane and insure it, then it's nobody's business what I use it for." Clearly you are wrong. We can note examples all day of why you are wrong, but the few cited thus far more than suffice.

Also where in Part61 or Part91 does it restrict him from using his aircraft to teach someone to fly?

Irrelevant. Where in Part 61 or 91 is the airport board required to allow him to perform commercial services, including flight instruction, from their airfield?

Has he met the requirements to perform instruction at that location? No? End of story; your argument falls flat after that, doesn't it? It certainly does.

If he can find an airport authority that doesn't have limits or restrictions on flight instruction he's totally legal to INSTRUCT this individual.

Nobody has argued his ability to instruct. This is something you have invented in your rather poor imaginative world. What has that to do with the price of tea in China?

The original poster didn't whine that he's not allowed by the FAA to instruct. He is upset that the airport where he wishes to instruct has regulations that do not permit him to do so. He is upset that AOPA won't make them change. He is upset that the world he wishes to exist, doesn't.

What hasn't been invoked is his ability to instruct...except by you. Go figure. Always one step behind, aren't you? Perhaps far enough behind that you must invent the irrelevant to make up for what you've missed. Who knows?

Thus far you accused me of introducing regulation, which I did not (you did). You have accused me of introducing the poster's ability to instruct, which I did not (you did). You've even invented regulation that doesn't exist. You introduce that which is irrelevant, and then argue it, having made it up yourself. Do you see this as logic, or are you simply that confused?

Hmm...It's the AOPA's PAC supposed to lobby city hall? You really aren't making any sense.

Actually, no. It's your sentence that makes no sense. You should work on not only comprehension, but basic language skills. Yours are lacking.

So what what? Since you like to "not not"

More of that sharp, intellectual banter wrapped in a firm grasp of basic writing skills, I see. What would you have said if you had intended to form a complete, coherent sentence? One can only but wait with attentive angst for the next morsel of pearl-like wisdom.

But again all hail avbug.

You are so anal retentive. Have you ever been laid?

Somewhat irrelevant to the topic at hand, but an expected tack for someone to take, given the lack of intellect needed to form even a halfway-intelligent response. Spoken like a true fourteen year old.
​