National Day of Action

[Creepy_Steve]

The latest from AOPA:

09 September 2004 - For immediate release

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association calls on pilots to SAFELY join Aviation Day of Action

AOPA President Ron Bertram today called on all pilots to join in the Aviation day of Action on November 27, but to do it safely. “We encourage all pilots to show that they are angry at the Government and Oppositions lack of credible aviation policy, to show that we have had enough of ad-hoc regulation and a discriminatory airspace system, we encourage them to fly on November 27.”

“We don’t support flying illegally,” said Mr Bertram “Nor do we support any calls to be rude or contemptuous to Air Traffic Controllers. These people are doing an excellent and professional job, we may disagree on aspects of airspace, but this should not result in personal attacks”

“What we are calling for is for all pilots to get an aeroplane and go flying on November 27. When they do we call on them to fly showing the utmost professionalism and fully within the law and regulations.

“We also ask them to make sure they file flight plans and where possible, to check the correct operation of their transponders with air traffic control.”

Transponders are devices which show air traffic control where an aircraft is, airline aircraft can also receive transponder signals to better enable them to see and avoid other aircraft.

Mr Bertram also condemned the lack of credible policy direction of both Government and Opposition and pointed out that this day of action would serve to show that Australia’s pilots were not impressed.

“It is time Government realise that General Aviation is a vibrant industry and needs proper support from Government, not the haphazard and untenable mish-mash of policy and regulation we see at the moment.”

For more information
Ron Bertram
President
0407 367 203

Andrew Kerans
Vice President
0439 209 343

[flichik]

This is a much better idea. A protest within the rules. I suppose civil disobedience is OK as long as it doesn't endanger the innocent, the 'bindook' day of action would have done that.

Flying 'within the regs' heh heh, carefully worded 'no give way to RPT straight in approaches' :E

Shirl

[Atlas Shrugged]

I can assure you that I will have both feet planted firmly on the ground on 27 November.

I want no part of this absurd exercise.

:mad:

A

[flichik]

Why???

Do you think GA should just keep copping it in the ar$e from Govt???

Why do you think they are not entitled to protest???

Shirl

[Sunfish]

This does not sound productive or wise to me. It sounds awfully like a very bad idea.

Australians know what "work to rule" means. Government, ATC, Professional Pilots and Airlines will simply and easily label AOPA as a rogue organisation and its members as cowboys and hooligans and/or priviledged silvertails who play around in an expensive sport.

They will do this in the minds of the general public and accuse AOPA (rightly or wrongly) of compromising the safety of the travelling public. In addition if there is ANY accident on this day of protest AOPA will wear the blame.

Its the public perceptions that count, and AOPA should be focussing on what the general public think about GA. Its the public that will force change, not AOPA.

Disclaimer: Anyway this advice is provided free of charge. I'm not an AOPA member, nor am I likley to be at this rate. I'm a newbie student pilot even if I am an old fart.

For what its worth, if AOPA wants to change the regulatory environement and the cost structure of GA, then the case needs to be made to the GENERAL PUBLIC about what good fellows GA pilots and AOPA members are, and how they are an asset to the community and worthy of support - you know, like surf lifesaving clubs, the CFA, SES and so on.

Even the Victorian motorcycle riders federation knows this - they organise an annual Christmas toy run to prove they are not drug dealing hells angels.

You will keep copping it in the @rse from Government because no one knows or cares - and the Government knows it.

(Hint - Maybe AOPA needs a PR consultant?)

[poison_dwarf]

Hot diggety........ there's a job for gaunty ya all stay well hear.



You're sailing very close to the wind! :mad:

Anymore "names" and you won't be here. Again!

Woomera

[Howard Hughes]

Unfortunately I cant be part of the "day of action", cause I will be on holidays then and wont be going anywhere near a plane!!

And I'm certainly not paying to fly!! :ok:

Cheers, HH.
:ok:

[Uncommon Sense]

Really: I rolled on the floor laughing when I read it.

A National day of action where pilots 'check their transponders are working' and 'file flightplans'?

I wish you would make every day a National day of action if that is what you intend to do - it would allow the Air Traffic Controllers to get on with the job without prying information like a dentist trying to pull a tooth. That is the 'everyday' reality.

If you file a flightplan, activate your transponder, and call up in plenty of time for clearance, there is rarely a reason you will not get a clearance anyway, assuming WX is legitimate VMC around the Control Area.

That whole point has been overlooked in this entire ridiculous debate. And the fact that there was no cost for VFR clearance before Dicks NAS anyway.

Sounds like a whole lot of 'Rebels without a Cause - or a Clue'.

Nice one AOPA. Glad I dumped my membership 10 years ago. You just lost even more of your dwindling support by giving the 'diagonal nod' to this stunt proposed by one unbalanced anonymous amateur webpage designer!

[Atlas Shrugged]

Flichik,

I did not say that "they" are not entitled to protest, what I did say was that if it goes ahead, I will not be taking part.

I do not consider the changes to be an imposition.

The fact that AOPA, who are little more than a lobby group that presupposes to represent aircraft owners and pilots, encourage this exercise is not justification enough.

I would be interested to know if anyone could tell me just one positive and tangible outcome this exercise will have.

AS

[I Fly]

When one reads the two press releases from AOPA, one can see that they engage mouth before brain. Yes, I am a member of AOPA until this current dose of membership runs out. And at the last election I did vote - for 'none of the above'.

[Creampuff]

And what inference will be drawn by the supporters of the 'rollback', if 27 November turns out to be an average day for Aus aviation, with no appreciable increase in activity (rebellious or otherwise)?

[flichik]

Atlas

Copied from the AOPA forum. I rang him, but apparently he won't post here because he is banned for disagreeing with gaunty :)

Seems AOPA has developed vision for a change :E

I think the benefits outlined are tangible, even if it is only a mass transponder check!!!

Shirl

All

The day of action isn't solely about NAS. The NAS wreck is a result of a lack of cohesive Government policy for GA.

We see CASA almost daily doing their own thing on stuff like ADs, medicals etc and ignoring the FAA lead (where the majority of GA aircraft are managed). We see airservices claiming fees of up to $200 a landing at unnecessary towers and the Department looking at imposing costs on us to manage (and they admit it) a public perception.

So, the day of protest, as called by us, is about showing Govt that we have had enough of haphazard multidirectional regulation and that we are calling for cohesive well thought out policy designed to sove the problems caused by the current mish-mash of policy (including NAS).

There is an answer, we just need to get together to find it and we need to make Government listen.

The one thing I don't condone (and the rest of the Board for that matter) is any call to be contemptuous of Air Traffic Controllers or to fly in an unsafe manner. There are very few ATC actively opposed to NAS (as opposed to quietly opposed) and even the few on PPRUNE each have a multitude of user names so as to reduce that thread to around 6 real posters by my reckoning. Not a particularly representative or influential number.

So, we are flying to make ourselves heard. We will fly safely with flight plans wherever possible and on that day we urge every pilot to call ATC and check the mode C on their transponder is working properly. If it isn't, put it on the MR for checking.

At the end of the day Government will take notice and hopefully every aircraft in the fleet would have had a transponder check.

By the end of the year we should have a Government White Paper containing rational policy aimed at revitalising an industry that employs over 200,000 people and has the potential to attract significant 'export' dollars.

If we can get costs down and services up as well as making certification of new Oz aircraft easier (possible???), Harmonise RAA (ex AUF) training and PPL training so that the unbalanced competition no longer exists, to the benefit of both organisations. If we can make sure those who NEED AsA services pay for them and make the Government realise safety and security is NOT a user pays policy area, then we will have more planes, more pilots, cheaper flying, more controllers and so it goes.

Benefits for everyone!!!!

Just imagine, 10,000 foriegn pilots trained in Oz every year.

Now that has to be good.

As for the ney sayers :p

Andrew Kerans
VP AOPA

[Atlas Shrugged]

Flichik,

I know RB personally, although haven't seen him for some time. He is a man of integrity and a man for whom I have a good deal of respect. I do however, have certain issues with AOPA, but that's my problem and quite another story.

You said:I think the benefits outlined are tangible, even if it is only a mass transponder check!!!
What exactly will this exercise achieve and what if anything, will it change?

A

[Uncommon Sense]

With regard to your point about ATC's actively/silently opposed to NAS.

It depends what you call NAS.

If 'NAS' is the attempt by Dick Smith using all the political influence at his disposal, to enforce his personal airspace regime upon the entire Australian aviation community and it's customers, with inadequate consultation & modelling, for nil economic benefit, and questionable other benefits to anyone, then YES - practically all ATC's would be against it.

If 'NAS' is about real airspace reform that is well thought out and benefits all and inclusive of all parties, then YES - practically all ATC's would be for it.

The word NAS has come to be associated with Dick Smith - it is therefore a 'tainted; brand name.

Come up with something new - do it properly, keep Smith and the usual suspects away from it, and you will get all the support you want.

PS: I would suggest you could substitute 'All ATC's' in the above comments to 'All Pilots', 'All Airline Passengers', 'All Reasonable Persons'....

[flichik]

That wasn't my post.

But I think you can see there is an attitude of cooperation there, so why not try to find common ground instead of all the anti-GA merde on this site.

http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/dayofaction.cfm

Shirl

[tobzalp]

http://shop.innercite.com/giftsdirect/media/30133-Cock-Rooster-Figurine-S.jpghttp://medicine.osu.edu/currentstudents/educational_resources/sectAnat/sgthpmap.gif

[Lodown]

Flichik

But I think you can see there is an attitude of cooperation there, so why not try to find common ground instead of all the anti-GA merde on this site.

To quote John McEnroe,

You can't be serious?!

You need to have a quiet word with your foot-stomping hero in glasses about cooperation and common ground.

[flichik]

Don't think this has anything to do with Mr Smith, it isn't really even about NAS.

It seems it is about the total #$%^ up this govt has made of aviation, really, I think it will be good for ATC, regionals, everyone.

Shirl

[Dog One]

Flichk

Afraid your wrong. It has every thing to do with Smith and NAS. NAS is just the latest in a long list of costly mistakes paid for by the industry generated by the Smith/AOPA combination of freedom to fly.

One of the reasons a few years ago, I like many others didn't renew my membership to AOPA after nearly forty years. The ship was rudderless and out of control, and recent events have convinced me not to rejoin.

Roll on the National Day of action, lets make the RPT's fly full circuits, lets block up frequencys with transponder checks. Not a problem to me, my response will be on the pa to the fare paying passengers apologising for any delays caused. When people realise that airfare rises are due to GA being given more reduced costs so that the airlines have to pay for costly blunders such as NAS, should create considerable discussion.

[antechinus]

AOPA is sad and pathetic, representing only 7% of licencees with medicals. So don't take what they have to say too seriously.

Dick Smith continues to use as AOPA as his political stick with the cronies there not knowing any better and oblivious to having their limited minds manipulated.

The day of disobedience is cute but will only be supported by the ratbag fringe of GA. They have the right of course but it does their "cause" no good.

The "cause" ? Well that is difficult to determine. A few lines of rhetoric and populist stuff but nothing of substance whatsover. Where is their policy paper on NAS and the plight of GA ? Where is the reasoned argument. It doesn't exist, that is too hard. There is no cogent argument about anything. No wonder no one will listen.

AC

[Sultanas and Gin]

The word "weasel" comes to mind.

I'm sure AOPA appreciate your subscription and your accountants bend on the facts of life.

Why don't you and your mates resign?

[flichik]

Jeeez

Can you children stop it. I think AC is wrong, I think he is wrong about a lot of things and becoming a little bitter too, but all opinions are valid, it is just that his are in the minority.

I KNOW this is not about Smith. the organiser, Kerans, while not a NAS detractor, and I quote from an e-mail to me:

'NAS is good, but it has got bogged down in a quagmire of personalities and personal attacks...besides, there are other solutions, I'm not wasting my time on it there are enough others involved already. What I want is a cohesive policy to rebuild GA, get costs down and get CASA and Airservices under control. What I'd really like to see is a Government that recognises that safety and transportation infrastructure are a State responsibility and should NEVER be subject to 'user pays' dogma'.

Grow up you pair. Reasoned debate works, childish sniping, either at each other or AOPA, does not.

Shirl

[poison_dwarf]

I gun reckon the ex treasurer started it. Sounds more akin sour grapes to me. But then agin he had opinions on evethin, mostly wrong.

Mebe he done missed out last night.

[Ibex]

poison_dwarf

Your pathetic one liners belong at the aero club bar after a shandy or two while you recount your latest efforts on FS2000, not here.

Toddle off little dwarf.

:yuk:

[poison_dwarf]

Ibex:

A goat, how appropriate. With backwards pointing horns, even more appropriate. In case someone gets you from behind I guess?

A few AOPA members get a lot of pleasure putting the organisation down. If it no longer represents your needs, (or your scabby mates), why do you join?

[AerocatS2A]

Cripes! Poison_Dwarf can write like a normal educated person. I wish you'd write like that more often. Otherwise you sound like a 10 year old who's playing around on Daddy's computer.

[poison_dwarf]

Gli oggetti del nano anti all'immondizia di AOPA

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Oh No.

The National Day of Action campaign isn't unravelling already is it?

I hope you haven't ordered the commemorative Terry Towelling hats yet.

[pilotads]

g'day

i'm just going to say the day of action seems a little weak to get any response and i also think it is aimed at the wrong target.

if a day of action was to be held in this matter i think it would be better done before the election to demonstrate that we are a good number of voters willing to back a party that has policies to help GA. already the buget is increase fees on GA and it will end up running the small buisness into the ground.

We need to let the government not CASA know we are out there and willing to make action if things continue the way there are heading

[flichik]

pilotads

I suppose it is a tactical thing. Before an election both sides will promise anything, afterwards they become the 'non-core promises' of a pack of cowardly liars.

Probably best to cause a long festering wound on the first month of the new Govt and keep up sustained but non-damaging pressure.

Works for me ;)

Shirl

[pilotads]

good point. but a nation wide transponder check isn't going to wound let alone be festering i think its only going to end up being a huge maintaince bill for shocked private pilots or at worst case a new reason for insurance companies to raise there rates

[flichik]

It actually doesn't cost that much even for a mode C encoder. Usually though it is just an adjustment.

Since we don't need Transponders in E if NAS is rolled back it won't really matter, but it will be good to get a Txp check for most of the fleet, a faulty Mode C can be more dangerous than not having it on.

Shirl

[gaunty]

but it will be good to get a Txp check for most of the fleet, a faulty Mode C can be more dangerous than not having it on.

Hmmm about time, I seem to remember a couple of us being tarred, feathered and run out of town by a pack of slavering baying hounds for just suggesting that as a possibility.:} It must be lonely going now for a man of your intelligence and intelectual capacity.:p

BTW which of the last two letters do I thow in the bin, you must keep a tighter reign on who gets to use the company pencil you know.:)

[Creampuff]

Political Staffer: Bad news boss: the private pilots are going to teach us a lesson by complying with the rules!

Party Leader: Oh no! Which seats will we lose if we get all the private pilots off side?

Staffer: Not single one.

Party Leader: I see. We must immediately divert our resources from wooing voters in marginal seats, to making private pilots happy.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth….

[Islander Jock]

HAHAHAHA!!!

Love ya work Creamie!

[Sultanas and Gin]

This is courtesy of Pprune. Do the search......

OUTLINE OF CIRCUMSTANCES PRECEDING MY RESIGNATION FROM
THE BOARD OF AOPA. (Note: I had posted on the AOPA web
forum a similar account immediately following my
resignation, however, this post was removed by Gaunt, the
then moderator. Gaunt no longer holds the position of
Vice-President, Secretary, or forum moderator).

1. At the board meeting held in Sydney on 7th November,
the issue of Gary Gaunt's having written to both the
office of the Minister for Transport, via his aviation
political adviser, Peter Marchi, and to the Democrats'
aviation spokesperson, to effect that I had no authority
to speak for AOPA on the issue of the disallowance of the
amendments to the 1988 CARs, was raised. The following
had transpired, and the board was advised of these
matters at the 7th November board meeting:

? I had been negotiating with the minister's office to
find a suitable manner in which the amending regulation
would be disallowed, but that a further regulation be
passed enabling the continuance of the demerits points
system pursuant to the amended Civil Aviation Act. The
effect of the proposal would have been firstly, to give
AOPA and other interested sections of industry a six
month period within which to make submissions as to which
of the regulations ought be conferred with strict
liability status, and at the same time allow those
applicable under the demerits points system to be
conferred with that status. I had been having discussions
with the minister's aviation adviser on the issue, and
also with the Democrats, who had filed a Notice of Motion
for Disallowance on our behalf, following my written
submissions to them. Each and every communication I had
with the Democrats and the Minister's office had been
forwarded by e-mail to all board members, with 'read'
receipts being obtained, amongst others, from Gaunt.

? Notwithstanding my advices to Gaunt and the others as
to the progress I was making (which was with the
assistance of the Democrats), Gaunt telephoned a bare
majority of the board to advise them that we should not
pursue the disallowance. He did this on the basis that we
(and that stage, meaning only Gaunt) had received a
letter from the minister promising that he would amend
the sections we wanted amended, after he received our
submissions. The other board members did not have a copy
of the letter, but relied upon Gaunt's representations.
Moreover, he did not tell me what he proposed, nor did he
contact Hamilton or Lyon. It was never, therefore, a
board decision. However, to the extent that a bare
majority of the board initially agreed to rescind our
proposal for disallowance, that decision was taken
relying solely upon Gaunt's representations.

? Approximately one hour after Gaunt received my final
proposals for putting pressure on the government to allow
the disallowance on the basis I had proposed, Gaunt wrote
to the minister's office and the Democrats to effect that
AOPA no longer wanted to proceed with the disallowance
motion; that AOPA was satisfied with the minister's
offer; and importantly, that any actions I took in the
matter were taken independently of the board. Gaunt did
not advise me of his actions, and nor did he receive the
authority of a single board member to make the statement
to effect that I was not acting with the authority of
AOPA. I canvassed this at the board meeting at Bankstown
on 7th November, and not one board member agreed that
they knew of, or authorised, Gaunt's statement in respect
of my role.

? Immediately after Gaunt's letter was written, directors
Errey and Kerans obtained a complete copy of the
minister's letter. They correctly assessed it as being
platitudinous, and not offering what was represented to
them by Gaunt. Errey canvassed the board again, apprising
them of the true situation, whereupon a majority of the
board rescinded the previous decision to discontinue the
disallowance motion. However, it was too late, as the
Democrats, on the advice of Gaunt, had withdrawn the
motion.

? During the process whereby the board was being asked to
rescind the previous decision, after having been now
fully apprised of the contents of the minister's letter
by Errey, both Gaunt and Lawford notified the board that
if the board voted to continue with the disallowance
process (i.e, reversed the decision taken by Gaunt), then
both of them would resign. The majority of the board did
make that decision to reverse Gaunt's action, however,
neither Gaunt nor Lawford resigned as they had undertaken
to do.

? Gaunt had written to the board, advising that we should
not upset, or 'snub' the minister, and that we should
accept in good faith his offer to look at our submissions
after the offending regulations were passed the
disallowance period (i.e., passed into law without the
further ability to disallow them).

? Gaunt had not advised the board that he had taken this
action (supporting the minister's position) whilst he (in
his view) was being considered as a replacement for Mr
Toller. He had advised myself and Lawford of his interest
in the position, and that fact had been kept
confidential, at Gaunt's request. He did not advise the
board that there may have been, at least, the appearance
of conflict between his seeking the CASA job, and his
support of the minister in direct conflict with AOPA's
policy on strict liability, thereby denying the board the
opportunity of assessing whether such a conflict existed,
prior to the board agreeing (initially) with Gaunt's
representations (or at least part of them). It is
important to note, however, that at no time did any board
member give Gaunt the authority to advise any party that
any actions on my part would be taken independently of
AOPA.

2. At the meeting on 7th November I advised the board
that Gaunt's actions had caused me personal
embarrassment, and caused the company, in my view, to
lose significant credibility with both the government and
the opposition parties. I said this also in the knowledge
that Gary had advised the federal opposition, through
Martin Ferguson's political adviser, that we no longer
intended to pursue the disallowance. I was concerned not
only that Gaunt had failed to canvass the entire board,
but that he had not ensured those he did contact had full
knowledge of the actual contents of the minister's
letter. And importantly, I was most concerned, and
stunned, that Gaunt had taken the liberty of advising the
minister and the Democrats that any actions I took would
be independent of the board. I foreshadowed a member
backlash when the members learned that AOPA, through
Gaunt, had capitulated on the issue of strict liability
in respect of the regulations, notwithstanding that
opposition to strict liability has long been an AOPA
policy, and further notwithstanding the government had
tabled the Regulations without notice to AOPA, or
industry.

3. I confirmed my previous position expressed to board
members that I could not continue on the board if Gary
remained on the executive, and that his removal from such
a position was the minimum necessary to regain some
credibility both for myself and for the company, in the
eyes of the government, CASA, DOTARs and the members. My
views were that unless Gaunt were relegated to the
equivalent of the back bench, both my authority and the
influence of our association would be severely jeopardies
in any future negotiations in respect of aviation
legislation.

4. A majority of the board agreed that Gary should not
continue to be a member of the executive. It was proposed
that he be removed from the vice-president's position and
that he remain as secretary. A majority of the board
appeared to be of the view at that time, that the
secretary's position was not an executive position. I
accepted this view in good faith, and I believe it was
given in good faith. A copy of the articles of
association of the company were not to hand at the time.

5. Upon my return to Townsville I read the articles and
confirmed that the secretary's position was indeed an
executive position. Thereupon I advised the members of
the board that, in the circumstances, I thought Gary
should not continue in the role of secretary, and that
another ought take his place. I did so on the basis of my
position taken the previous week, which had not changed,
and which has not changed. The board agreed that Gary
should not have an executive position at that time. I
asked that the board maintain its position.

6. At the meeting I read out the chronology of events,
and had with me the supporting documentation leading up
to Gary's statement to the minister's office and to the
Democrats to effect that I no longer spoke for AOPA on
the issue of the disallowance. Indeed, the meeting
clearly accepted AOPA's policy to pursue the
disallowance, such acceptance having been confirmed by
the gathering of votes by Errey on the issue, albeit too
late to make a difference, Gary's actions already having
caused a position of no return for AOPA. In short, Gary
did not have the support he alleged (when the entire
board was consulted, and when they had to hand the
minister's letter), and had no authority to make the
written representations he did, relating to my position,
to the minister. I have a copy of all of my board
communications on this matter, and of Gaunt's letters,
and have requested that they form part of the minutes of
the meeting of 18th November. The dates and content of
the correspondence confirm that the board, and in
particular Lawford and Gaunt, knew what my communications
with the Democrats had been up to the time when Gaunt
sent his e-mail transmission which negated any prospect
at all of AOPA succeeding in making a compromise deal
with the minister's office on the issue of the
disallowance.

7. The board, at the further meeting, decided to allow
Gaunt to continue as secretary, whereupon I offered my
resignation. I did so on the basis that I would continue
in my role to the end of December 2003, in order to
fulfil my responsibilities and tasks partly completed.
However, Lawford successfully called for a spill of the
board, and nominated himself as president, to take effect
immediately. Hence my resignation took effect
immediately.

SECRETARY'S RESPONSIBILITIES

I have sent e-mails to the board outlining some of the
secretary's duties which have not been completed as at
the time of my resignation, and which have put us at risk
in respect of breach of the Corporations Law, in respect
of at least ten issues.

[Creampuff]

And he turned me into a newt!

[Sultanas and Gin]

A newt with a gaunt expression no doubt.

[NOtimTAMs]

WOFTAM :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[centurionII]

Here here!:yuk:

[tipsy]

S + G

I need you to explain to me what your post is all about, then I may also understand those after.

tks

tipsy

[Woomera]

tipsy

Unfortunately, Mr S + G and his mates will not be able to do so.
They are taking an extended holiday, we believe to be on the planet Coosebane, which planet we understand, is not now able to present a return orbital launch window to Earth until sometime well into the next century. :rolleyes:

[YCKT]

You are a very nasty bunch when someone doesn't share your point of view!! :ugh:

[tipsy]

OK, I think I now understand that those posts actually had nothing to do with this thread.


Re-reading the thread without them it does make sense.

tks

tipsy

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A better idea would be to post something constructive on how YOU would promote GA in Australia instead of slagging off on other attempts to bring attention to the Feds on the problems presented to GA. GA is EVERYTHING other than RPT not just weekend warrior PPL types. The NASdebate is only part of it.

[Wak-a-Yak52]

It would appear that such a concept is an anathema if it does not suit the particular agenda of the day. Perhaps one should ask the moderator for moderation.

On another post I note Dick Smith has been banned, yet a thread remains giving opportunity for all and sundry to attack him, but deny's him a response.

I don't follow the S&G post but gather it revolves around a dislike for Gaunty. Perhpas it was to illustrate a point of qualifications for Gaunty's comments or past actions with AOPA. Whatever, it appears "he and his mates" are banned from further comment so we'll never know.

This does not stop Ibex from kicking the tin a bit and "slagging" (I hate that word), another forum, and laying the boot in for some more "payback".

What has this got to do with a National Day of Action?

I understood the day of Action was a multi faceted affair and includes years of complaints against CASA, Airservices, loss of services, addition of costs, and the once Taxpayer owned airports, now a "milch cow" for the Banks who, apparantly need the money more than us.

Perhaps it's me, but I get the impression that if it has AOPA's name or NAS anywhere near it, then it must be bad.

Your call for "constructive" comment would seem to fall on deaf ears if the AOPA folk are, (as it appears), denied access to this forum. One could almost say, it would be understandable that they would not come near here with a barge pole.

Thereby ends any "constructive" comment contrary to accepted dogma.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff has it absolutely right. The "national day of action" is an incredibly dumb idea because the General Public's idea of what constitutes GA is totally uninformed, its somewhere between delivering newspapers to Mildura, crayfish from King Island and silvertails playing with expensive toys.

Against that background even Pauline Hanson would be able to take AOPA apart with one hand tied behind her back.

At best, GA would come out of a "national day of action"it as a bunch of spoiled brats. If any incident occurred we would come out of it as a bunch of homicidal idiots who don't deserve the priviledge of using the airspace (and CASA is very strong on that word "Priviledge").

If we want to do something for GA in Australia the steps are very simple:

1) Hire a very good PR firm and brief them well about what we want to achieve.

2) Do what they say to create a positive public perception of the industry.

3) After the public image of GA is seen as favourable in the minds of the general public, then "work" with the Politicians and Bureaucrats(god bless them, its a rotten job sometimes) to change things in a "Win/Win" manner.


Any other approach, to put it in pilotspeak, is about as successful as turning back to an airstrip after a low level EFATO.

[YCKT]

PR firms cost money, are you paying Sunfish??

Other than that, GA is more than the PPL. I know of many an instance where GA has been squeezed out of privatised airports.

A GOOD example of a GOOD airport is cairns. A really GOOD example of a really BADLY run airport is bankstown.

I understand the day of action goes well beyong NAS. Please, forget NAS, think of GA

[Sunfish]

YCKT, I thought that there was this thing called AOPA that had a membership of most GA people that could afford $50,000 or so to get a strategy done by a competent firm.

I agree with you about privatised airports. The owners of those airports are concerned about return on investment, not aircraft, and the minute that the return is higher by building a shopping mall on the site rather than squeezing dollars out of GA folk, then those airports will close for good.

The trick is to form a vision of where GA is going, then put in place strategies to achieve the vision. I assume Bankstown is now prime real estate, as is Moorabbin, as is Essendon. GA needs to come up with a compelling reason why those airports need to stay where they are and convince the owners to accept a lower rate of return, or pay market rates compared to the proverbial shopping mall. Thats the way the market works, end of story.

[Foyl]

SF, it is my understanding that whatever else AOPA may be, flush with funds it most certainly isn't. Nor is it's membership comprised of "most GA people" (as far as I am aware - I stand to be corrected). Have a search of some of the AOPA threads.

[maxgrad]

Sunfish
Like your thoughts and I agree, but to expect AOPA to pay for something as you suggest is just absolutely stupid.....







They're to busy infighting presently
but will get back to the real world shortly
please take a number, pay your fees and sit quietly
thankyou

[YCKT]

Maxgrad

Infighting, where??? Could you show me some since May???

I think the NDA is an excellent idea and will be participating.

[Ultralights]

as we are the "customers" of the CASA. ASA business, why dont we, just like every one else who is a disgruntled cutomer, just refuse to pay, untill such time as the service we are paying for is improved?

[bushy]

He who pays the piper call the tune. Those who do not pay their share do not get lidtened to.

[Sunfish]

What if I can only pay the Cessna?

[Obiwan]

They're to busy infighting presently
but will get back to the real world shortly
please take a number, pay your fees and sit quietly
thankyou
Actually the infighting seemed to stop after the last election.

Not quite where they were when Patroni was President but here's hoping...

[maxgrad]

obiwan and wckt
have to now admit that AOPA has been very quiet for some time
(All the election CR@P is still lingering)

I still would be surprised if they would be prepared to pay in any real way.

Govt could take a proportion of their aviation profit and utilse these funds, I would imagine a sizable amount of funding could be generated.

[Obiwan]

maxgrad
After all the cr@p of the last decade I think they need to consolidate at the moment. To think they owned their own aircraft and building AND only charged $40 pa once upon a time :rolleyes:

As for the govt using funds to promote aviation - check your oxygen, bit of hypoxia there, you're becoming delirious :ok:

[maxgrad]

bugga
new I forgot one item off the check list:O

pipe dream I know but at least the industry as a whole might get something back from the pollies instead of the other way

[YCKT]

Hypoxia??

perhaps not, all things come in cycles, it just takes a change in the way people think and vote.

if you really want that, leverage your vote. every candidate gets $2.60 per primary vote for every vote above a certain percentage (3% I think, but dont quote me).

this pays for their next election. this election will (thankfully) see the Democrats wiped out and probably the Greens and independants holding the balance in the Senate.

now if you vote as far left as possible, then after that vote for who you want in, the lefties may get some funding. either way, ALP or Lib wont. you still get the candidate you want (2nd pref) and send a strong message to whoever that you don't like the econorat user-pays policies of either major.

getting noticed as aviators is what the day of action will be about, GA, RAA or GFA.

[Foyl]

Noticed by whom? :confused:

Call me cynical, but unless there is some media coverage (and I note the media hasn't exactly been winding up about this thus far), the only people who are actually going to notice are ATC, pilots and the odd person who bothers to look up at an aircraft going over the top of their house and notices there's a couple more than usual. If it's 8/8 blue that's hardly going to be an earth shattering difference.

[YCKT]

So much negativity, no wonder GA is in the poo!!!

In the US GA 'billing' is up 21%, aircraft sales up 6%.

At bankstown a yearly parking permit is $3600, in Cairns it is $235

Business wise, Cairns is booming, Bankstown is dying.

Not rocket science to work out where the p!ss poor management is!!!

Thats why we need a day of action.

[Sunfish]

YCKT, I am as optimistic as you are about GA. It will boom again - but not at Bankstown and Moorabbin as I have patiently tried to explain elsewhere. The land is just too valuable. The owners MUST get the best return on investment they can. Its a very simple calculation to make, and If GA can't generate the funds a shopping mall can, then GA has to go. Get used to it. Find a chunk of grass somehwere and start again.

Furthermore will someone please, please get some professional PR advice on what a "National Day of Action" will do for the image of GA? All my instincts tell me that it will make things worse, not better. You are P1ssing into the wind.

[gaunty]

Sunfish

Barking at the moon is probably more appropriate.:rolleyes:

I cannot but agree, the concept is terminally tainted and WILL have the media wheeling out the lunatic Bindook.com affair and wondering just how many "little plane pilots" there are "out there" following their advice.

By definition the pilots most likely to cause a problem on that day are going to be concentrated in the airspace in a manner they would normally not be.
There is always one lunatic in a largish statistical population, from which the NORMAL probability derives, by artificially increasing that number, the risk automatically increases by a large magnitude.

The inept attempt by AOPA to turn it around to their advantage after failing unequivocally to knock it stone dead for the lunacy it is, will backfire big time.

It is now out of their control, and it never was under, they can only pray fervently that there is not an incident or accident, National Day of Action inspired or not, because protestations otherwise just will not wash.

The only safe way out now, is to campaign to keep all of GA on the ground that day.

As that is not reasonably possible, the fate of GA as far as the public perception is concerned is now in the lap of the Gods.

[CaptainMidnight]

Sunfish & Gaunty - well said. This day of action is a big mistake, and you have to question whether those behind it really have the best interests of GA in mind, or instead are pushing their own agendas.

The only organisation that comes to mind whose operations are doing anything that enhances the public impression of light aircraft & GA is Angel Flight. It's activities like that with comunity spirit that catches the eye, not a demo by a perceived bunch of ratbags with more money than sense who get in the way of commercial jets and annoy the hell out of everybody when they fly over.

How about another poll, Woomera? NDA good or bad?

[YCKT]

I beg to differ. Action, any action, is long overdue. This Government and the last is killing GA with its 'user-pays' bullsh!t!!!

I want to fly, I don't want to do it from the passenger seat of an RPT!!!!

Gaunty's response reminds me of that religious saying

"THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH"

http://www.aopa.com.au/documents/dayofactionposters.pdf

[triadic]

We all enjoy flying and of course we don't want to have to pay thru the nose for it.

This day of action (!!) will do NOTHING to enhance GA to the masses and will achieve nothing politically. AOPA should not be supporting it in any shape or form. It has the potential to backfire in a manner that may even further destroy the association and the industry it purports to represent.

Is it any wonder that GA is perceived as a play thing for the rich and it is this type of action that will only cause many to believe that the rich are also red-neck loonies! Those of us that are flyers know this is not the case, but perceptions sometimes are everything. Are AOPA working to change those perceptions? Not as far as I can see.

AOPA have not handled this well at all. Yes of course we would all like to do "something" but not at the cost of the reputation of GA and the industry at large, which this crazy idea will no doubt be successful in doing!

AOPA and any other Association that may have tried has failed to have either major political party come out with a policy that supports GA or in fact even promotes it. There are just no votes in it. How many Board members have lobbied the cause in the halls of power in Canberra?

The new Board of AOPA has done little or nothing to enhance the standing of their cause (or anything else for that matter) and all reports are that they are still considered a joke by the powers in Canberra. They have shown very little ability (or desire) to communicate with the membership (such that it is) and the AOPA forum is dominated by a small number of members that do little to enhance the standing of the organisation. A few of them (including board members) post to another forum, which again, is dominated in a similar manner. Is it any wonder those with a bit of self respect are not renewing? At a time now, more than ever, we need representation that is strong and respected.

All very sad, as I believe AOPA now is neither.

[Sunfish]

YCKT I share your objective, but the method chosen - a national day of action, is the wrong way to do it.

I'll try and explain it as simply as possible.

To change Government policy you need the general public behind you, in support of the changes you want. In other words to get the government to support a GA agenda, the general public need to percieve GA is a very good thing.

Now, in my humble opinion, the General public view of GA is something like :

"what??????" Aviation is about Qantas, Virgin Blue and BIG planes or military jets. Aviation is about me going to Surfers paradise by plane to see Aunty Moira or a B747 from Sydney to London. Little planes are either bringing crayfish from King Island so I can buy em cheap, playthings of rich silvertails, or things that give me a $60 twenty minute ride for a thrill."

So YCKT, if this National day eventuates (and pray it does not), all it takes is press releases from QF, VB, ASA, CASA , Dick Smith or whatever alleging that we are compromising safety in some way (whether true or not) the General public will come to the simple conclusion that" GA is a bad and dangerous thing". And thats assuming that no incidents happen on the day.

Following the National day, I can tell you with certainty that the doors of the Minister's Office and his advisers will be permanently CLOSED to AOPA forever, not because AOPA has a silly agenda, but because AOPA has conclusively demonstrated that they are too dangerous (in political terms) to try to work with because it simply does not even understand the process of policy formation.

If AOPA really wants to influence policy then these are the steps necessary to do it.

1. Produce some concrete statistics about the size and value of GA to the Australian economy, lets start with contribution to GDP as a percentage and dollar figure, employment - especially compared to RPT operators, number of aircraft, hours flown, numbers of flights, passenger miles, number of passengers, tax revenue, etc. etc. The purpose of this twofold: establish the importance of GA to the AUstralain economy, compare it to the RPT operators as well. Are we important to the Australian economy? Do we therefore have interests that should legitimately be considered? Are we merely a wart on the bum of progress? These figures will prove it one way or the other.

2. Build a vision. What should GA look like in twenty years? Ten years? Five years?. Forget about arguing about "user pays" you can't win on that one unless you can convince every other Australian that they should be prepared to subsidise you. The only organisation that I think makes this case convincingly are Surf Lifesaving clubs and rural volunteer fire brigades.

3. Get a first rate PR firm to turn your vision into comprehensible position and policy statements that the general public can understand and agree with. Intersperse the statements with FACTS to support the argument ie: "Did you know that Qantas employs 35,000 and has revenues of 2 billion ? Well GA employs 150,000 people and has revenues of $4.5 billion". " Did you know that Bankstown airport generates x,000 jobs and Y,000 million in wages? " "Did you know that z,000 people are moved to hospital by GA every year? In other words build a simple case about why GA is GOOD for Australia.

4. Sell the message to the General Public for a few years in as many ways possible - (for example, why do you think the motorcycle riders association has an annual christmas toy collection for disadvantaged kids?

5. Once you can PROVE that the General Public has a good perception of GA, and that GA is "at risk" in some way, then talk to the public servants concerned with regulating you and work out whats feasible and what is not. Work out what is going to give you some win/win situations ie: something good for GA, good for the public servants, good for CASA, ASA or whatever, and good in terms of votes for the Minister. And for Chrissakes, let the Minister make the announcements when it is convenient to him and NEVER EVER complain via press release of the treatment you are getting, in other words, be gracious about things and never pre empt the Government or reveal your negotiations - let the Government do it.


6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 and start being part of the SOLUTION instead of part of the PROBLEM.

The "national day of action" is at best going to look like a bunch of spoiled children having a temper tantrum. We could just as easily end up painted as criminally irresponsible idiots compromising the safety of the general public.

I would welcome some feedback on this.

[YCKT]

Sunfish

Perhaps you are right, but that is not my feeling.

First, look at when the NDA is being held, AFTER the election, but very early in the new term, straight after the NAS windback.

Secondly, look at where it will be reported, aviation press only.

Third, and to take a little swipe at Creampuff,

Advisor (AKA Junior Minister) "Minister, there are a whole bunch of little planes in the sky, obeying the law, flying responsibly, submitting flightplans and even making sure their transponders are working properly"

Minister "So"

Advisor "But the AFAP and CivilAir don't like it and Airservices can't cope"

Minister "Stuff the unions, and sack the Airservices board!!!"

What it really is, is a door opener. Recall the previous press releases calling for a GA Whitepaper?? (Look on the website).

Give them some credit mate, especially compared to the last disaterous 'rabble'.

The downside is if the union driven ALP get elected, but then, have you seen the "AOPA how to vote"

[CoodaShooda]

YCKT
What it really is, is a door opener.

'fraid not.

Politically weak groups staging public protests against 'government' simply cast themselves as 'opposition', regardless of which party is in power or the worthiness of their cause.

They are perceived as nothing more than a nuisance.

Unless they can produce a powerful lever, they invariably find the doors shut in their faces.

But if they have a powerful lever, they are no longer politically weak.

Politically strong groups can exert influence through the implied threat of action, without having to resort to throwing a public tantrum.

From where I sit, GA is not politically strong at present and, with the National Day of Action, is on a hiding to nothing.

Sunfish is pretty well spot on.

[YCKT]

No aviation group is 'strong' so to speak, because the essential services are duplicated by the military.

Hawke proved that in '88 and reagan in the US controllers' strike.

This however is not a 'tantrum' rather a way of getting a little press time.

We will see, but I am quietly confident. What makes me more confident is AFAP don't like it, CivilAir don't like it and gaunty doesn't like it.

It must be right :E

[CoodaShooda]

YCKT

You trust the press to accurately reflect the truth behind the action? :(

The media is a two edged sword, favouring the sensational and managed by professional spin doctors .

Which is the more likely headline, assuming it gets covered at all?

GA Pilots Demand Reform

or

Light Aircraft Pilots Place Travelling Public at Risk:oh:

[gaunty]

We'll see I guess, I do sincerely hope that we are not proved correct, but I am a proven political failure so maybe that'll help. :)

I have also been called a lot of things, but never meek. :E

You don't have to kick someone in the nuts to get their attention, but I guess if you don't then you'll never get on TV or radio either.

Whatever happened to walking soflty and carrying a big stick as Sunfish and Cooda suggest.

And if;
then, I doubt the right to fly a lightie is much of a concern for him anymore. Or, perhaps that's it, 'If I can't you won't either'
is the highest standard of rigour you can bring to a debate then you will continue to remain irrelevant.

We/you had the doors wiiiiiide open, everwhere, 'till you and your colleagues worked out how to get them slammed and bolted shut again.
I fear this time they will take more effort than a dummy spit to open them again and which, if it blows up in your face and there is a high probability that it will despite your best efforts to retrieve a hopeless situation, will remain closed to you forever. You have given the Govt the bomb the matches and the suicide victim.

Why take the risk.:confused:

I see you are all back to "doing it" whilst standing up in a hammock again. :rolleyes: with the reincarnated 'Bobbsey twins meet the Dick and Boyd' show, now playing at a circus near you.


Sunfish, Cooda :ok:

And if the AOPA executive continue to post here anonymously :rolleyes: and make idiots of themselves by calling others cowards for using the same anonymity?? doh. Do they think we are all or are they stupid or what. :O They're pretty easy to work out. You would be doing them a favour by counselling them on this.

And whilst I am at it if you haven't already, I would move heaven and earth to have the promised ACA Robert Morre show starring various legends in their own lunch boxs and other sideshows buried and get as much distance between you and Smith his outrageous QF/Bennala statements and his Federal Court action as you can manage.

I am not privy to them but there are events overtaking you which you do not seem to be able to recognise.,

Believe me I am not your worst enemy, so start concentrating on those who really are.

And dont make the mistake of doing it just because I don't like it, you are brighter than most, but you do let your prejudices get in the way.

[tobzalp]

CivilAir don't like it



I can assure you that civil air do not give a crap about lighties flying around with flight plans and transponder checks. They have been advocating this for years. Can we make every day a National Day of Action?

[YCKT]

We will see tobzalp, I too look forward to the days of automated flight plans, ADSBs and pilot initiated separation. Not too long now ;)

Just after the non essential towers close down.

[colt_pa22]

The only way to get more people learning to fly is if costs are reduced. Nothing I've heard so far is going to achieve this, just increase them. More people flying means more aircraft flying, where the benefits will flow on to all sector of GA. A national day of action will not help the situation but give GA more bad publicity. If the government has turned its back on GA, which is looks like it has, we just need to put up and shut up. Nobody seems to want to stand up for their rights.

Why waste money painting a bright and rosy picture of GA when in reality it is far from the truth? Similarly, why promote Bankstown for employing x many employees when the owners charge you over $3000 p.a to park your $25000 antique Cessna in the grass, who afford such madness? Does something not sound right here? Let’s not flog a dead horse.

[Sunfish]

Lets hope the national day of action never happens. If it does, then Aopa will find all doors permanently shut in their faces.

As for GA costs, what do you expect?????

The real estate at Bankstown and Moorabbin is now worth a great deal of money. GA operators either give the owners a return on investment commensurate with the value of the property or leave. Its that simple.

BTW the future of GA is the ultralight. Compare the costs of GA componentry with ultralight componentry and you will see what I mean.

GA ain't dead. Its just going to change into something else, driven by market forces. If you want to be part of the process instead of the victim, then understand about markets and get with the program.

[colt_pa22]

I agree with you, the future of GA is in an Ultra light form, so let's get more people joining the RAA ex AUF and flying ultra lights and home-builts at a cheaper cost. The difference between the RAA and AOPA is that the RAA actually stand up to the regulators and protect their member’s rights, not mandate detrimental rules and regulations that negatively affect Australia pilots

I hope I understand markets being a 2nd year economics student, it seems to me that the owners of the small GA airports around the country are pricing to what the market can stand, with of course to costs of this flowing on to consumers. If the operators there are happy with the current economic situation then I'm happy also, as there are always alternative flying activities for consumers to spend there $ on.