Has AOPA quit paying its bills? Or just given up on its online services?

Be sure to fill out your proxy card and send it back in.
Click to expand...
Sad, isn't it? Enough people actually do that and consequently give the foxes full run of the hen house.

Viewed abstractly it is a marvelously clever system for the insiders to maintain control and gorge themselves on the organization's resources. I wish I had a jet. Interestingly, NBAA doesn't. I once called and asked.
 
bartmc said:
With the better part of 2 decades in the software industry, I'm failing to find a plausible reason for the change.
Click to expand...

With slightly longer in the industy here, mi surprised you don't see the signs of a "cost-cutting measure" implemented by non-technical folk, where likely there was a nice long e-mail from at least one systems person detailing all the reasons the change would **** off customers, that was discussed for five seconds in a meeting where the systems person wasn't invited, and then summarily ignored.

$20 says Jepp raised their price to license or more likely, to maintain the other flight planner, and someone in project management knows someone at FlyQ personally.

That's how this stuff really happens, and the Marketing spin is written after the phone call to the buddy, and a meeting where the price is low enough the bean counters are ecstatic because, you know, software is software right? No clue about quality or value of a consistent user interface or feature-set.

The FlyQ issues are big enough that Katie has an approved list of features/bugs to post on a public message board. You know how many meetings it takes to go from "this might be a problem, folks" to "the PR folks can publish this list to appease folks"...! You've been around that block, after 20 years observing it. Heck, that's at least two meetings with Legal, at most companies.
 
Good afternoon! I wanted to update you on our priority items on the FlyQ Web flight planner. This message below was also posted on AOPA's forums.


Also, wanted to address the comments on the temporary interruption of fuel prices on the AOPA Airports pages. AOPA simply transferred to a new service provider for fuel prices and it took us a couple of days to make the transition. They are back up and available as they were previously.


Please let me know if you have any other questions,

Katie Pribyl


--------------------------------------------------------------


I want to provide all of you an update on our efforts to get the FlyQ Web planner up to the high standard you expect from AOPA. We launched this service too early. That is my responsibility and for that, I apologize.
We are working seven days a week to get the flight planner fixed and I thought you may appreciate some insight on how we are attacking the problem and our order of priority in addressing issues and releasing features. Our first priority is to repair malfunctions and provide better directions for users. Therefore we are currently concentrating on the following:


1. The FAA flight plan form. The problem is that you cannot edit the fields that the planner has produced. We are making each field in this form editable to allow users to refine the form before submission. We expect this to be released soon.


2. Nav Log. The Nav Log was not in kneeboard format and had a number of inaccuracies. As an interim fix, we have provided a Nav Log that is in knee board format and we have fixed all of the inaccuracies. I understand that this Nav Log is not as convenient as the AIFP version, so we are working to duplicate the Nav Log that we produced In AIFP. We expect to release the new Nav Log soon.


3. Help documentation. We are producing three types of help documentation - a user guide, contextual help, and video tutorials.



4. Restoring saved AIFP flight plans. We have recovered copies of stored routes for all members who logged into AIFP in 2011 and/or 2012. We are working to format this data and then import it into FlyQ Web. When successful, these routes will appear in the “Recent” tab in a box called “Favorites”. We expect this to be released soon.


5. Ability to edit a flight plan after it is created. This will allow users to change fields - like routing and altitudes - during the creation of a flight plan without starting completely over with a new flight plan.
After these areas are successfully addressed, we will continue to fix reported bugs and look to further enhancements.



Addressing a few that have been mentioned here on the forums:


1. User defined maps. I too miss the ability top start with a topographical base map, and add layers like navaids, airspace, roads, and state boundaries. This is functionality that we need to develop and will take longer than the issues above.



2. User defined waypoints. The FlyQ Web system does not currently allow the creation of User Defined Waypoints. We will work to develop this functionality. User Defined Waypoints used in an AIFP stored route will work when those plans are restored.


3. TFRs. TFRs are designed into the current system. We have witnessed a bug based on reports found on this forum. We are working to fix this bug immediately.


Many of you have been very helpful in alerting us to bugs and deficiencies in the FlyQ Web flight planner. We appreciate your help and input. The most efficient way for you to continue to communicate this information with us is via email at flyqhelp@aopa.org.


Again, I apologize for the inconvenience and frustration that we have caused with our move to the FlyQ Web flight planer. We will continue to work to provide you with a great flight planning tool.
Chris Ward
 
Katie and Chris, it's refreshing to see AOPA joining the online community. Thank you for that.

But do you understand that your product is not needed and will, in fact, have a negative effect?

The EFB and online flight planner space is already well populated by high quality and very competitive products. There is also a second tier of aggressive wannabes waiting in the wings for one of the leaders to stumble. The companies producing these products rely on their revenues to support continuing development and enhancement of their products.

For AOPA to show up with a planner, especially one that is immature, buggy, and completely undistinguished, is simply not helpful. To the extent you are successful (and I hope you are not) you are simply taking revenue from companies that are part of AOPAs constituency and weakening products that are better than yours. You are not adding value anywhere.

If you were producing a free planner, I suppose one could argue that it was an appropriate service for AOPA members. I think, though, that was more true in the days before fltplan.com and others. But to come in simply to chase pilots' money is yet another symptom of what afflicts AOPA these days.
 
We appreciate your considerate comments - I would like to clarify that the the FlyQ Web Flight Planner is free to members - as was the AOPA Internet Flight Planner before it.

Again, thanks for your comments. It is helpful for us to be on these boards and hear what our members have to say. I take them very seriously.
 
I would like to clarify that the the FlyQ Web Flight Planner is free to members
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry I was not clear. I see FlyQ as a single effort as implied by the branding. The free portion is relatively harmless except to the extent it will be successful in pushing people to the paid product.
 
bartmc said:
So if I don't lay gifts at the feet of AOPA so that they can lay gifts at the feet of politicians, I'm going to regret it? I highly doubt it.

Is that their current philosophy? Give money or else?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that JimNtexas is an AOPA staff member?

You're also overlooking the fact that he included other ways of defending GA in his statement.
 
DogDaddy said:
They haven't haven't replied to an email I sent them over 2 weeks ago.
And the latest issue of Flight Training magazine was very lame, no useful information at all.
Click to expand...

Every other article G1000 this, brand new plane this, brand new plane that. More like those information packets you see at a dealership for a new car, not about flight training.
 
Katie Pribyl said:
We appreciate your considerate comments - I would like to clarify that the the FlyQ Web Flight Planner is free to members - as was the AOPA Internet Flight Planner before it.

Again, thanks for your comments. It is helpful for us to be on these boards and hear what our members have to say. I take them very seriously.
Click to expand...

But not serious enough to explain WHY?
 
Palmpilot said:
Are you saying that JimNtexas is an AOPA staff member?

You're also overlooking the fact that he included other ways of defending GA in his statement.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort and I didn't overlook anything. His "other way" was saying "do something".
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
I'm outta there for almost a year. Don't miss it. They don't advocate on my behalf, and now the flight planning stuff is gone. What a sham.
Click to expand...

Same here, I just didn't like their position on a few major items. They don't speak for me. It doesn't surprise me on the flight planner, do people even use it anymore? Is there a pilot left that doesn't have some form of PDA on steroids that takes them cradle to grave, so to speak, from preflight planning to chocks at the far end? Besides, the FBO computer always worked fine for my preflight planning and I still call for my briefs and filings.
 
JimNtexas said:
Let me add the same thought I usually offer in these AOPA bashing threads.

If you don't want to join AOPA, then at least send roughly the annual dues to the AOPA-PAC.

We have a President and many Congress people who would happily eliminate all of general aviation just for a 'look how I punished those rich white guys' talking point on the news.

If you don't want to join AOPA do something to defend GA, or live to regret it.
Click to expand...

It's AOPA's politics I disagree with though. I think they fight the wrong battles and side with the BA lobby when it brings us potential damage in the bug smasher world. I think EAA would be more likely to push on an 'Owner Maint Experimental' classification than AOPA would be. They threw us under the bus to BA on the Airservices style ATC fee services for corporate jets. Realize that these issues are items demonstrativly sampling all the issues which combine to keep our entire Federal govt from being able to make a budget that works.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top