USPA vs. AOPA

[Dutchboy 0]

I had a strange thought after recently receiving renewal notices for USPA and AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assoc.). These are both groups that claim to support aviation groups but they have some real differences.
AOPA dues are $39/year, and this includes a magazine will useful articles, weather information, flight planning, messaging, hot-line for questions, a huge database of information, representation, access to cheap insurance, financing, the list goes on and on. They also have education programs, and a support network to keep tabs on all airports in the USA. They get members by providing lots of services in addition to representing pilots to the government. They do not attempt to regulate pilots. There are no "group members".
USPA dues are $44 and that includes a magazine will much less substance, and some liability insurance. They get members by forcing "group members" to require membership in order to jump there. Dropzones are normally forced by the airport management to become group members. They are clearly trying to regulate skydivers, given the above, and that your license is only good while you are a USPA member.
So why are we paying more for less? Is it because they have set up a system which prevents skydivers from jumping without joining? Would skydivers still spend the money for what they are getting if it were not forced upon them?
The Dutchboy
Phil's Flying Enterprises, Inc.

[Levin 0]

as far as i am concerned the insurance is worth the $44

[NewGuy 0]

How many members in each? It might be that AOPA has a larger member base from which to draw $$ and provide services.
Cheers,
NewGuy

[quade 3]

We are not paying more for less. We simply have FAR fewer members to share the costs.
quade
(member of both groups as well)
http://futurecam.com

[pilotdave 0]

Although I agree that I get a whole lot more from the AOPA than USPA, I think it's comparing apples and oranges. I'm a USPA member because I have to be. I'm voluntarily an AOPA member. The USPA, as far as I see it, isn't there to promote skydiving as much as regulate it. It's all in the name of safety of course. I don't think skydiving would be the same sport it is today if it weren't for the USPA keeping us safe by regulating what we can and can't do, and through education. AOPA is all about fighting for the rights of general aviation. They have no need to make rules or force membership. The FAA takes care of all that. Sure, the FAA sets the official rules for skydiving too, but those rules are minimal, basically for ensuring the safety of the planes sharing our airspace.
AOPA is for allowing GA pilots to do what they want with minimal restrictions. USPA is for regulating what skydivers can do so the sport is as safe as possible and has a good public image.
Dave
http://www.skydivingmovies.com

[AggieDave 6]

The USPA worked their asses off after 9/11 to get skydiving back in the air, though. AOPA did a hell of a lot too, though. Both are very important IMHO.
A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

[flyingferret 0]

Well, I think they both serve different functions. And I think that the AOPA has many more members to draw funds from. So, that accounts for a lot. I think the USPA is important. However, as a general attitude, I like the AOPA's a lot better. I think the USPA should try to instill more communication and cooperation. Of course, could it be that the attitudes of jumpers as free spirits impinge on this as much as the USPA? But, I will say this in reference to David's comment. I was EXTREMELY impressed with the AOPA in the wake of 9/11. They did a hell of a lot more than the USPA. Once again, this might have to do with more members. But, for whatever reason they freaking threw weight against everything they could. During that time, the FAA and the USPA was hours behind the news cycle. Even pre-flight briefers were giving different info in different counties. The one accurate source through it all was the AOPA. During this time, I wrote an email to the AOPA president Phil Boyer. This is a man that was busy talking to government, news, pilots, etc. But I just wanted to let him know that I appreciated his efforts, and solely for that, once out of college I would join the AOPA becuase I thought they indirectly did a lot for skydiving. Well, things began to move toward a lift of the GA ban and I forgot about my email. A week later, I got a personal response from Phil Boyer, stating that appreciated my support and if I did choose to join the AOPA, even not being a pilot, he would be pleased to have me as a member. This just solidified what I thought about the AOPA. Being a few months out of school, I have not joined yet, but it is on my list. And they have my full support in the future. The USPA, well we dont even trust them with a proxy.
Malachi

[rking12 0]

I had almost the same experience with Phil Boyer. I thanked him too for all the good information about GA. I too will join. Part of the reason is they have 400,000 members to our 35,000. They have horsepower lobbying. I also told him it would be good if a lot of the General Aviation organizations would join forces and have a GA council so to speak. We are too fragmented. We have pilots, skydivers, ballonist, hangliders, gliders and some I am sure I have missed. We all have separate organizations and little to no communication. All of us combined would have much greater power...It would be worth it for each of us to pay a little more for this communication.

[kallend 1,625]

AOPA has more than 10 x the membership of USPA, and those members tend to be (a) older, (b) wealthier by far, (c) fitting the image of the "establishment" more than skydivers do, and (d) the kind of people that politicians think will vote in elections and donate to their campaign funds. All of this gives AOPA far more political clout. We've all seen what one government body (Quincy city council) thinks of skydivers.
jk, USPA member, AOPA member.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

They are clearly trying to regulate skydivers

USPA and AOPA have different aims. AOPA doesn't have to regulate pilots, the FAA does that. Skydiving is a "self regulated" sport and USPA is the organization that took on the responsibility of "self regulating" back when it looked like we might end up dealing with seriously restrictive legal regulations. Without the leadership of USPA thirty years ago (and ever since whenever skydiving has been threatened by regulation), we probably wouldn't like the rules we'd be jumping under right now - that is if we were even still allowed to legally jump.
Educational programs? Hmmm.. Safety Day and various rating courses come to mind...
Representation to the government? Hmmm... do you really think we'd have been back in the air as fast as we were after Sept. 11 if USPA had nobody available to work with the government and show them that we were not a threat?

Quote

So why are we paying more for less?

Economics. How many skydivers do you think there are in the US? Compare that with the number of private pilots. And I don't agree that we are getting less... the magazine alone has come light years from what it was only 10 years ago (and if anyone wants to complain that it doesn't have good or relevant articles in it, start writing - they'll be glad to print what you have to say).

Quote

Is it because they have set up a system which prevents skydivers from jumping without joining?

There are a lot of dz's you can jump at without being a USPA member - I've even jumped at a group member dz with an expired USPA membership. But, if you want to jump at the majority of dz's in the US, yes, you need to be a USPA member. That's the dz covering it's ass - thank our country's legal system for that one.
If you think our system is restrictive, look at the UK and Australia's "rules"...
pull & flare,
lisa
[subliminal msg]My website Go Now[/subliminal msg]

[riggerrob 558]

Good point skybytch,
The key difference between AOPA and USPA is that most AOPA members already hold licenses issued by the FAA. Keeping your medical, biennial flight review, etc. up to date costs hundreds or thousands of dollars per year.
USPA on the other hand issues licenses because the gov't does not want to be bothered. In a rare moment of clarity, the United States Federal Government admitted that there was no way for chair-bound bureaucrats to keep up with the latest developments in skydivng.
As for having one large, national aero club: it already exists in most most countries as a sub-set of the Federation Aeronautique International. I don't know what Americans call theirs, but we have the Aero Club of Canada up here. ACC includes skydivers, balloonists, gliders, aerobats, modellers, etc. Skydivers are the largest single bock of ACC members. ACC does not have much political clout because its members do not have much financial clout.
The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association is the organization with clout because COPAs senior members tend to be small business owners who have enough money to fly Bonanzas, Citations, contribute to political campaigns, vote, etc.