My main beef with this is how AOPA plays it. They play it as joe and bob renting a C172, when that's not what's being proposed at all. AOPA tries to hide the fact that they lobby hard for part 91 business flying, corporate, etc. I wouldn't mind so much if they were actually representing it fairly, then we could debate the pros and cons and maybe talk about the possible repercussions and affects outside of the intentions, but as it stands, they are about scaring the GA population to benefit corporate flying.

X2.
............

JNB,

By definition, if it isn't airline or military, it is GA.

GF

That is a wide brush which also happens to be untrue.

If it's untrue, why is the coding on an ICAO flight "G", if not mil or commercial. The FAA seems to agree, too.

GF

You are simply basing it on what you've experienced, within part 91 there's 91K, there's corporate departments, there are 141 schools that use planes, 142 that do the same, 135 single pilot, 135 single PIC, 135 basics, 135 on demand, 135 commuter, 125 with fleets of aircraft, 133s, 137s, and others. Lots of these are not "GA", some are bigger and more complex than some 121s. So are all of these what AOPA lobbies for? Are they what you want AOPA to lobby for? Some of these interests are in complete opposition to the interests of part 91 non-commercial aviation pilots.

There's also a huge difference between "airline" in your first post and "commercial" in your second. They are not interchangeable terms for what you are attempting to describe.