AOPA Does Not Support Pilots but Big Business

[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.
​