COPA Board BREAKS THE LAW

[photofly]

All I want to do is fly a plane and maybe socialise with other pilots - I don't need all the political BS, personality clashes and backstabbing that seem to be prevalent in these organisations.

When an organization of pilots decides it needs a bank account, the writing is on the wall. Death is assured as soon as the website and spiffy logo are announced.

[floatplaneflyer]

The only way an organization has any influence with legislators is to control a large number votes and contributions to their campaign fund. Small splinter "clubs" are just social groups that can't change anything except their meeting date.

[PilotDAR]

has any influence with legislators

And, they would have to use the influence they have.

I am a first hand witness to several occasions where COPA utterly failed even an attempt at influencing regulatory change. In the case of the new (at the time) regulation of noise for propeller driven aircraft, COPA was present in the Transport Canada meeting where this was rolled out. I asked the COPA representative at that meeting with me to express objection on behalf of Canadian owners - nothing. I wrote a letter of objection, and TC told me that it was the only one they received. So now, if you want a propeller change approved, there could be a cost (possibly exceeding the cost of the prop) to demonstrate noise compliance. I have to assume that COPA thinks this is acceptable to members, I do not.

The issue of fixed wing external loads was similarly not defended for the owners and operators by COPA. For these, and other reasons, COPA and I went our separate ways long ago. I will not support an organization, who will not support me as a member on important issues like these.

TC has told me from time to time that they would welcome representations from "alphabet groups" on regulatory initiatives. I think to myself; "gee, who can we get to do that.....?".

[CpnCrunch]

I wrote a letter of objection, and TC told me that it was the only one they received.

Pilots can't really complain when new laws are introduced if they can't be bothered to get off their lazy asses to write a letter (or email it). How much effort does that take?

I wrote a letter to TC in 2008 explaining very nicely and logically why their cost-benefit analysis for the proposed 406 ELT regulation was utter BS. This is one issue that COPA has in fact spent a lot of effort lobbying for, and so far it seems to have paid off because there is no regulation on the horizon.

[AirFrame]

I asked the COPA representative at that meeting with me to express objection on behalf of Canadian owners - nothing.

One person at the meeting asks him to raise an objection... And how is that representative of the members? I agree that the policy is a little retarded and there should have been some more questions asked... But to ask a director to stick his neck out on his own initiative on an issue may be asking a bit much. Look how well that worked out for Doug Ronan.

On the other hand: COPA has participated enough to prevent Banff and Jasper from being closed, they supported one of my local airports during a push by neighbours and the local regional district to close it, and they have fought tirelessly to prevent 121.5 ELT's from being obsoleted without better alternatives being made available. They have not been entirely succesful in that last one, but I think they weren't insignificant in seeing that the rules allowed 121.5 owners to continue using them rather than forcing a costly upgrade to technology that is at best a marginal improvement in functionality.