AvBrief has learned that at least two and possibly three long-term members of AOPA’s board of trustees will retire from their positions in time for the May 12 annual board meeting in Frederick, Maryland. Former Chair Bill Trimble, a trustee for 33 years, and Larry Buhl, who has been on the board for 22 years, will announce their resignations in coming weeks, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions. The third possibility is the current Chair, Jim Hauslein, but he apparently has not confirmed his intention to step aside. It’s also not clear whether he would vacate the chairmanship and stay on as a trustee or leave the board entirely.
There are informal committees of AOPA members working in the background to facilitate these and other changes since the abrupt departure of Darren Pleasance as CEO in early February. It would appear the May 12 meeting is the deadline set to get these changes and possibly amendments to the organization’s bylaws in place to allow for a board vote at the meeting, which is open to paid-up AOPA members.
Meanwhile, AOPA kept track of the impact of the fallout from Pleasance’s dismissal, and it would appear several thousand members registered their displeasure in tangible ways. According to AvBrief’s sources, about 2,000 people canceled their memberships and about 6,000 withdrew their proxy votes. Based on figures for paid membership in AOPA’s 2024 tax filings (2025 won’t be released until November of this year), the protest totals represent a small portion of the membership.
AOPA uses 300,000 as a rough membership total, but the actual number of paid members in 2024 can be calculated as about 200,000 based on dues collected ($19,320,802) divided by the annual individual cost ($89-$107.88 depending on the payment method chosen). The figure of 300,000 apparently includes complimentary promotional and courtesy memberships and free three-month trial memberships given to student pilots.
AOPA declined to supply accurate figures on the cancellations and proxy withdrawals, citing confidentiality concerns. “We’re not able to get into internal membership or proxy activity numbers, particularly in the context of trying to tie them to a personnel matter,” an AOPA spokesman told AvBrief in an email. “Those are internal metrics and not something we comment on.”
“Those are internal metrics and not something we comment on.” Same old – Same old.
Unfortunately. Just as it sounds like they’re moving in the right direction, they say something like that. It’s a Membership organization, and they aren’t willing to comment on their membership count!?
“We know what’s best for you”
Yup. This is classical textbook behavior right now. Confirm or deny nothing. Make the “problem” disappear. Whoever asks too many questions gets cut off completely.
Always the same pattern, except – this time they wasted a quarter million dollars for a completely unprofessional “help us make this go away” agency.
Again: Most pilots and members think that aviation advocacy is hands off as soon as you pay a lobby group to do the lobbying. Traditionally, members don’t ask because they prefer not to know how screwed up and dysfunctional this all is.
The die-hards will even attack the media, bloggers or anyone who is critical of the status quo. It will be made to look as if those with annoying questions are trying to harm their own industry.
Those who speak up will be ridiculed, ignored and stonewalled or (where possible) legally silenced.
Been on that bull and rode all the rodeos.
At the end of the day, its destructive and unhealthy and eventually everyone stops to try and wake his fellow pilots up. People want it this way.
AOPA will change when a new BOD and new bylaws are passed which give members more say. Its next CEO needs to be someone who can get people who have traditionally been told that someone at AOPA/ EAA/ SPA/ COPA or any other group knows better than them, to mobilize and get involved.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
You can count me as one of the 2000.
You also need to calculate Life Memberships.
I’ve always wondered if life memberships are purged as necessary or maintained in perpetuity for marketing purposes.
No idea about AOPA. I would say EAA do purge. Their “Sport Aviation” magazine includes “Welcome New Life Members” and “Gone West” pages each month.
It’s absurd they refuse to provide membership numbers. AOPA is a nonprofit and is not in a competitive situation.
Aging out departures isn’t quite the same as a true shake up. With the Pleasance departure about the same time as the latest BOD additions, that seems to be more of the root cause than anything. These departures will just leave room for the deck to be stacked even more in favor of the recent tribe. Does anyone have a napkin for Klapmeier’s salivating for more influence and control?
They likely keep the membership numbers fuzzy to get more clout when dealing with Congress or advertisers. If the numbers are small then they don’t command as much respect when fighting Congress, or get as many advertising dollars.
As for not being competitive because they’re just a non-profit, that’s not really the case. “Not for Profit” doesn’t mean they’re not a ‘real’ business, it simply means there are no shareholders or owners that split the profits. Other than that, it needs to run like a business and maintain profitability to stay in business.
““Not for Profit” doesn’t mean they’re not a ‘real’ business, it simply means there are no shareholders or owners that split the profits.”
Instead, those profits go to the BODs and CEO. They occasionally “give back” to the membership by giving out a refurbished plane once a year to someone who could likely buy it if they wanted to anyway.
I’m not sure I want to be a member of an organization that misleads advertisers or Congress.
How are replacements going to be chosen? Voting by the membership (without a requirement that they vote in person) would be the obviously appropriate method.
“AOPA uses 300,000 as a rough membership total, but the actual number of paid members in 2024 can be calculated as about 200,000 based on dues collected ($19,320,802) divided by the annual individual cost ($89-$107.88 depending on the payment method chosen). The figure of 300,000 apparently includes complimentary promotional and courtesy memberships and free three-month trial memberships given to student pilots”
====================================================================
more bologna and ham as usual===bs.
Go EAA.
I quip AOPA several years ago. Saw no value in the nearly $100 spent on dues. EAA takes care of the legislative issues for the types of aircraft I fly.
Internal metrics, and not something you comment on? Sounds like politics to me! And knowing the politics of the old and new board members would tell the membership who to endorse! As a proponent of ultralight electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft; knowing who will push the FAA into allowing use of the unused city airspace below 1000 feet above ground level is extremely important to me and anyone flying an eVTOL. Fixed wing aircraft are now antiques; and not having to use an airport flying an eVTOL appears paramount. I have had contact with the FAA on this matter and have requested a special flying permit for using city airspace; going and coming from my driveways; no wires except in the alley; no trees in my yard or along the street. So I have a clear pathway to come and go from my home driveways. With traffic jams in all metro areas around Earth, nothing appears more important than getting auto drivers into eVTOLs to commute to work. This presumes a ground school for all eVTOL operators to know where airspace classes: B; C; D; & E are located. And the need for a transponder to fly inside the mode C veil in all metro areas, squawking 1200, and stay outside all airspace classes B; C & D. The price of the two Chinese eVTOLs: Yivtol S-0 and Skytech X1 are under $100,000. So the cost difference between buying a sports car or a new truck is about the same. And since the US has around 600,000 pilots; that many eVTOL operators can be expected in the next 10 or 20 years; to avoid sitting in metro traffic. The Jetson 1 has sold over 635 Jetson 1s; which should tell everyone the flying public is paying attention to ultralight eVTOLs and is planning on using them. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and 200 years of case law says no one gets to block commerce; and why a flying permit in unused city airspace is needed. And I believe the FAA and AOPA know this! I have asked my City Police Chief. And he will not act until given direction from the City Attorney via the FAA; most likely.
Ultralight eVTOL aircraft are the size of autos; have 3 softwares that talk to each other to maintain flying stability, and have LIDAR or equivalent for avoiding wires, plus a ballistic parachute on the pricey eVTOLs that is separate cost on the Chinese eVTOLs. Or, ultralight eVTOLs are as safe as a jet fighter; probably safer because they have top velocity of 63 mph. And being the size of autos, can land in any open parking lot or along any roadside; even in a ditch, if needed. Making ultralight eVTOLs safer than an auto. Or, nothing should be in the way of using an ultralight eVTOL; just proving flying ability and able to read sectional charts to know where one can fly which is probably 90 plus % of the sky below 18,000 feet MSL versus the 10% that is airspace class B; C; and D; where one can not fly an eVTOL without an aircraft radio and clearance from ATC. Since class B airspace moves airliners in and out nearly full time, class B airspace is out of the question for use by eVTOLs; probably. Airspace Classes C & D are usually busy part time; and with an aircraft radio an ultralight eVTOL operator could probably get clearance in airspace classes C & D. And class E airspace is almost never busy with a few exceptions; Van Nuys, CA, comes to mind; busier than O’hare or Atlanta Hartzfield. None of the ultralight eVTOL manufacturers have mentioned or discussed transponders or aircraft radios. Instead of an aircraft radio, a phone number to ATC is probably preferable for clear conversation; if ATC will accept phone calls from operators and pilots wanting to enter the airspace they control; I do not know. And anyone wanting to go faster than 63 mph should probably request a light sport aircraft (LSA) eVTOL instead of an ultralight eVTOL; so no horizontal speed limit; to optimize distance traveled. And the operator or pilot needs to be reminded they need an airman’s medical to fly an LSA. If 63 mph is fast enough, then an ultralight eVTOL is acceptable and no airman’s medical is needed.
Based on my knowledge of electric motors and propellers, electric motors are nearly silent and propellers make noise, but nothing compared to an internal combustion engine. Meaning, coming and going above city streets should never be a noise problem. And only above city streets, alleys, boulevards, and highways, because private property owners own their airspace to the base of navigable airspace and can only be used with permission of the property owner.
The national airspace begins above the surface. That is, REGULATED airspace (not to be confused with ATC controlled airspace) extends down to just above the surface.
Air rights are not the same as ownership. Just as mineral rights are not the same as ownership. Just because your house lot is located (somewhere) above China (if you go real deep) does not confer ownership of China….
Mindless! Yes, an old pilot!!! City airspace extends to 1000 feet above ground! Look it up! Air rights over private property are ownership to the based of navigable airspace ; at least in most states. Again, look it up! I have! Mineral rights everywhere I know supersede property rights. Meaning, if a mining company decides they need the minerals below your property, they can buy you out at a market rate to get to those minerals. For the third time, look it up! Try doing your homework before shooting your pen off!!!
The FAA regulates aviation throughout the national airspace which extends down to (just above) the ground.
If there is no mark on the chart (or some tfr or notam) as in this case, then I am free to fly my aircraft there in accordance with applicable requirements such as minimum safe altitudes. Period.
In the case of the destroyed enemy CBP drone, there were no restrictions whatsoever on the airspace in question.
If there is no published restriction, you or I can fly there. No matter what your land title says.
This forum is about aviation, not land ownership. You do not regulate the airspace above your property for the purposes of aviation safety. The FAA does.
In your dreams only. You fly over private property city airspace below 1000 feet above ground level (AGL), 500 feet above ground level (AGL) outside a city without advance private property owner consent and the police will be visiting you! Or, they will just shoot your drone down! And then the police will come looking for the owner of the drone. Without written consent from the private property owner, you are in deep trouble. Just ask the FAA! One must stay over: streets, boulevards, alleys, and highways to be legal, always! Unless the private property owner has given their permission for an over flight below 1000 feet AGL in cities or 500 feet AGL outside cities. Or, do it your way and see what comes to you!
AOPA sounds really democratic!
Was that a typo? Head guy get $2M a year