I really think the situation we are facing is that the SSA will be
around for a long time, hopefully with alert managers and dedicated
soaring folks.

It will be a shame if the Society has been the victim of a crook over
these past few years.

Mike

Stan - VA wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
services for members.

Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
idea. It definitely is worth discussing.

The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.

I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.

A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
are already power pilots.

AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
maintain our insurance in its present form.

Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.

Stan Scott - VA

Tony Verhulst wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.

Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
(2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
*airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
resigned in protest.

Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.

Tony V. CFIG
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING