AOPA Doing Fine.

[d_concord]

Been away flying and come home to this... Interesting,


Now let me get this correct.

Bertram apologises to Pagani publicly and confirms that the board did not sanction Gaunts actions, that what he said in his statement on PPRUNE is a lie and then she gets the bucketing!!!

The sad part of this is that it would seem that he had to be threatened in th first place. I would have thought for someone in the position he holds that people dealing with him would expect that he tells the truth. Is it the case now that CASA or others have to sit there and second guess whether this is the case. Triadic you seem to endorse this?

I'm sure most people, irrespective of whether they were a lawyer, would be seeking to get the wrong put right. Surely what AOPA needs is people that place the principle before their ego's and personal likes and dislikes. Surely it's only correct that the President be advised of a development and all the board members have ownership of a decision and put their two cents worth in. Surely there should be a mechanism in place to prevent someone ringing around a faction to get enough members of the board to support their personal view (although there is no evidence that even this took place.)

I should also remind everyone that Bertram also claims to be a lawyer and would have made the apology understanding the ramifications for and against. He's a big boy and has done the right thing!!

It would seem that almost everyone here including AOPA board members is suggesting that a blind eye should be turned to their actions and anything they say or do can be justified as them being board members and puting in. It's a seige mentality. The fact of the matter is that not only does the AOPA board have to do the right thing it must be seen to the right thing. The suggestion that they should be secretive is absurd.

Bertram has stood up and admitted the problem and I don't for one minute suggest that he in fact had anything to do with the original issue of a member, on the face of it, acting unilateraly and to the detriment of the board position on this issue and maybe general aviation in the wider text. Lets hope that this doesn't turn out to be the case.

I applaud the fact that these people are giving of their time and effort to AOPA, but I don't applaud the actions and consequences or excuse them out of hand just because to do so is dismissed by them as being almost unpatriotic. I could also add you get the representaion you deserve.

I for one won't stop criticising AOPA if I think what they are doing is incorrect. Convince me and others otherwise. To be honest, AOPA manage to do enough damage all by themselves and the little criticism they get here palls into insignificance. The occurance of this saga and all the goings on after just confirm it.

The other reality is that a lot members are only members because they subscribe to the magazine like I do although I did renew it last year after some 15 years as the indications from this forum was that things would change. If it takes unsubscribing to stop AOPA saying they represent me as a member then that is how it is.

The issue at hand here which hasn't been answered directly is did Gaunt send a letter to CASA reversing or changing AOPA's position at that time. The indirect answer would be appear to yes and the next component of that is that those actions appear to have been endorsed by the present board. This is not an issue of whether the present position on th issue is a correct one. The issue here is whether AOPA has an effective board and let's consider that AOPA claims to represent the interests of General Aviation.

In terms of how it was handled, it would have been better for Bertram to admit it happened, it was regretable, that they understand Pangani's position and apologise, have moved to prevent the manner in how it happened from happening again while informing the masses that while the process wasn't correct, the outcome as far as the issue is concerned has the majority support of the board and AOPA believes it to be correct and explain why.

The sad thing from my point of view is that it seemed as though AOPA had got the mix right and had set down the path of a consultative and considered path rather than appearing to fight with CASA and others for the sake of it, where the major issues were lost in the mire of all the minor issues and fights.

The fact of the matter, as I have said before, is that AOPA is irrelevant because of the way it acts and is seen to act. CASA must just laugh their heads off. AOPA is gridlocked in its' own politics including having some board members whose best defence is to call people who comment or criticise as D@ckheads or scum (although I note that that last reference has been removed from the AOPA website forum recently - a very wise move too I would have thought.) or say, as they have in this forum, that you should only ask reasonable questions if you expect a reply.

signed,

A soon to be ex member of AOPA ( January I think!) and one of those D@ckheads and now it would seem scum. (Ron, you need to put a gag on that man!!)