Silvaire wrote:
Incorrect.
As I said, from what I gathered (using Google of course 
)
From EAA:
highlighted several areas where national security could be at risk with ATC privatization:
As the Department of Defense relies on the FAA for aspects of national security, it has indicated “serious concerns” regarding proposed changes.
The National Capital Region relies on the FAA’s air traffic system to search and identify air threats before summoning air defenses and U.S. Customs to intercept them. That priority would be diminished with airline control of the air traffic system.
Unlike other nations that have privatized air traffic systems, the U.S. proposal would eliminate all government oversight of ATC operations.
From Federal Times (whatever organisation/association that is)
Sixty nations have privatized their air traffic control systems; however, none has suggested removing government oversight. As proposed, the AIRR Act relinquishes control of previous investments, as well as passenger comfort and safety.
True or not ? I don’t know, but I’m in no position to dispute what they write. If it’s true, the proposal was obviously dead in the water from the start. In other words, just politics.
LeSving wrote:
From what I gather, the US version of a private ATC would be without governmental oversight
Incorrect.
Silvaire wrote:
Evidently not, given that the airlines lost and GA won.
Who are the rest of the associations, there are 250 altogether? So far we only have AOPA and EAA. Airlines have multiple associations for instance. Besides, this is politics, stuff like this happens all the time. Testing to see if the map correspond with the terrain, just to see what is possible and what is not without disproportionate cost and fuzz.
From what I gather, the US version of a private ATC would be without governmental oversight, which is very different from what we have.
Silvaire wrote:
You’ve answered your own question.
Again, point of view. Last time I looked the US was one single country. Europe a collection of countries, languages and cultures.
LeSving wrote:
I somehow believe that the voices of major airlines and aircraft industry means orders of magnitude more than GA in matters like this.
Evidently not, given that the airlines lost and GA won.
LeSving wrote:
What exactly is “European GA” ? It is vastly different from country to country.
You’ve answered your own question.
Everybody likes to take credit. EAA.
April 25, 2018 – A rapid response by the general aviation community made a big difference in helping to eliminate a dangerous amendment to an FAA reauthorization bill in the House of Representatives. Supporters of ATC privatization on April 23 attempted to slip a provision into the House’s FAA reauthorization bill that would set the stage for airline domination of the ATC system. EAA members swiftly responded to a call for action and urged to contact their congressional representatives to oppose the plan. “Thank you to each and every one of you who reacted and responded quickly to eliminate this attempt at backroom politics that could harm GA,” said Jack J. Pelton, EAA CEO and Chairman of the Board. “This again showed the strong voice of general aviation when we respond in a unified effort.
I somehow believe that the voices of major airlines and aircraft industry means orders of magnitude more than GA in matters like this. All voices counts of course, and a united voice is good.
Silvaire wrote:
European GA
What exactly is “European GA” ? It is vastly different from country to country. We have EuroGA which is the same all over, but that’s about it
LeSving wrote:
How is that article supposed to help AOPA internationally or help them gain international members? I have been a member of EAA for ages, and I have never seen any article written by them using such a tone and angle. This cannot be entirely coincidental.
This has a lot to do with AOPA’s stance. While they do cooperate and overlap, AOPA is a US Federal lobbying organization first and foremost, representing everybody from G550-owning business aviation to a guy flying his Aeronca from a field. EAA is an organization of grass roots homebuilder hobbyists first and foremost, a much narrower role that is focused on private cooperation between members as much as politics, wherever they may live. Federal lobbying in the interest of a broad US membership is no holds barred political territory, and European GA is a valid example of the possibilities if things were to go in another direction.
Your comment, LeSving, about white Americans versus EAA is an illustration of this
He he. It depends on the eyes that views. In Norway we have one single organization that encompasses all private flying activities. From RC to flying IFR in F-104 Starfighters. It’s called NLF. NLF is also the competent authority for gliding, in EASA terms, and the “competent authority” for microlight in national terms. It consists of several sub organisations. Representatives get together every year on a “Ting” discussing and deciding stuff, exactly as we have organised things for thousand years here.
We also have FAI, AOPA, EAA, EAS and whatever other international or European organisation people want to join, if NLF is not already a member.
AOPA is an international organization, at least it tries to be sometimes. This article is an international article, but it’s pure nonsense. How is that article supposed to help AOPA internationally or help them gain international members? I have been a member of EAA for ages, and I have never seen any article written by them using such a tone and angle. This cannot be entirely coincidental. EAA is a much more American organisation than AOPA.
It’s no big deal for me. “My” organisation is NLF (implicitly also FAI), then EAA. I fly UL, PPL, aerobatics, even gliders from time to time. I’m rather heavy into homebuilding, experimental. Several people in my local club sees UL as nonsense, but I’m definitely not one of those. IMO it’s articles like the one here that causes this. There is a whole bunch more PPL only pilots that see UL as nonsense than UL only pilots that see PPL as nonsense. Most people though have a practical approach, or are in a process of gaining it. what works in any situation is OK.
US AOPA plays a significant role in keeping GA working together and pulling in the same direction.
This is a big contrast to Europe where GA mostly likes to tear itself apart – where gliding hates power flying, VFR pilots hate IFR pilots, homebuilders hate certified aircraft flyers… ok this is putting it in extreme language but you get my drift. Their respective organisations mostly avoid working with each other. It is I am allright Jack – all the way to the graveyard. Your comment, LeSving, about white Americans versus EAA is an illustration of this. US AOPA represents the whole lot and they have the $$$ resources to do it well.
AOPA is very much a wide focus government lobbying organization, and a good one. That means their image is carefully controlled to appear inclusive and professional to US politicians and Federal Government employees. Whatever impact that may have on homebuilders in Norway probably isn’t foremost in their minds
EAA is equally political but more from a narrower, grass roots flying point of view. That image flies well for certain issues and they tend to work that angle in representing their membership. Meanwhile, EAA does a very good job of getting people interested in aviation with Young Eagles etc. The two organizations cooperate usefully and share a large fraction of their membership.
There are Americans and there are Americans. AOPA is one part. I sometimes have a hard time understanding what exactly they are trying to achieve, other than expressing some kind of “1960-1970 white American upper class attitude”. Then there is EAA, filled with people focused on enjoying flying and spreading the joy of flying, all aspects of it, world wide.
