Harumph;
OK, LET'S PUT A COUPLE OF FURPHIES DOWN FOR GOOD.
What a good idea, telling a lie a 1,000 times, even shouting it, does not make it any less a lie. I say it, therefore it must be.
" ... the Australian and New Zealand Aviation Law Association do not support CASA's view. My understanding is that strict liability (wherein intent or more strictly knowledge does not have to be proved) is only intended for minor or administrative offences. To propose, as CASA have, that the pilot be guilty of an offence if cabin crew don't stow baggage is absurd in my
opinion".
"the Australian and New Zealand Aviation Law Association do not support CASA's view."
What view and just because they don't support, it so what?
What expertise does the Association have on this issue in any event - most of them are "insurance" lawyers who have very little practical understanding of regulatory issues.
And how did the Association come to this momentous decision?
Was there a general meeting at which the matter was discussed -which meeting - who was present - what was the basis of the arguments?
Isn't Bill Hamilton a member of this Association - says a lot about their quality control.
My local 'mothers' club, which includes a Justice of the Supreme Court, a leading Perth psychiatrist, the MD of a Top 100 Australian Company and several PhD's amongst a bunch of equally concerned residents don't support the latest "local traffic calming" report in our area authored at considerable expense by so called "experts", one of whom is still recovering from a brush with said "calmed trafffic". It seems 'Blind Freddy' was off sick that day.
"My understanding is that strict liability (wherein intent or more strictly knowledge does not have to be proved) is only intended for minor or administrative offences". ??
That is correct - and that is how it is applied.
The offences under the CARs are all classified as minor because there is no imprisonment penalty and the maximum fine is $5,5000 (although most of the offences have lesser fines).
The point is that the test for strict liability that was applied to the CARs was the test that the courts have consistently used to determine the issue of what was and was not a strict liability offence, funny that, the Aviation Law Association did not seem to know that!
"To propose, as CASA have, that the pilot be guilty of an offence if cabin crew don't stow baggage is absurd in my opinion".
Absurd it is , where does it say that, what is the relevance of this, it is just another furphy, the same as the absurd "weather" example cited by another AOPA Director to frighten the kiddies.?
The sort of simple simon logic
that allows;
Death = Bubonic Plague
Bubonic Plague = Rats
Rats = Cheese
Cheese = nibbles with Martini (very dry Bombay Sapphire)
nibbles with Martini (very dry Bombay Sapphire) = Vintage Cellars
Vintage Cellars = Coles/Myer
Therefore Coles/Myer = Death.
Hamilton "relegated to the bleachers", really;
"MINUTES;
Minutes from the Board meeting conducted after the AGM on the 23rd May 2003 were received, with an amendment adding Bill Hamilton’s refusal to accept a portfolio and the statement that (he) was “considering his position”.
Moved: ******
Accepted: ********
Passed"
And ****** or ***** were not one of the so called "sad 4".
and that was not the last time either that, (he) was "considering his position". Certainly he is entitled to do so, but don't come the ingenuous "bleachers" routine.
Same board meeting ;
"Attention was drawn to Bill Hamilton posting in public forums, negative views of GA and exhorting people to leave GA and go to Ultra light aviation whilst a Director of AOPA was inappropriate.
Further, attention was also drawn to a number of emails sent by Bill Hamilton denigrating the current Board and referring to members of the executive in a demeaning fashion. "
An "unbiased" quote;
From Eugene Reid, AUF President who paid tribute to the work of AOPA on behalf of AUF " particularly Bill Hamilton who looks after AUF at meetings with CASA. If it was not for Bill, the AUF might not be here".
and AOPA might have many more members too.
How does Hamilton represent AOPA interests as an AOPA Director whilst also representing Air Safety Australia, the AUF, Warbirds, AGACF and whoever else who will let him when AOPA wont, at the various industry committees and forums. Unless of course you allow that their policies exactly coincide with AOPA's "in interests of the members" you understand.
If they did you would have to ask why they are not operating under the AOPA banner.
Nothing now has changed since this time last year and he/they will ( and I do not take any pleasure from saying this) have the pleasure of presiding over the denouement.
And that leads to another conclusion that, if it was not for certain others, AOPA would not be where it is at present
You bet your bippy and most rational observers know this, sadly, to be true.
Oh and his lone mate, he too was the subject of a "no confidence motion" as well as a motion to have him removed as a Director on the 12th June 2003. We need not go into the $30,000 dollars worth of brochures
never distributed nor the $6,000 odd of computers bought, allegedly without authorisation, but not compatible with company systems laying in a store room unused for many months.
Haven't heard you yelling foul on those litttle bewdies yet.
Yes, lets put a couple of furphies down for good shall we.
It really doesn't matter the votes are in by now and AOPA's fate is sealed one way or the other.
I may well be relegated to the status of Fred Daly's famous feather duster.
If I am not, then it will be interesting to see how the Board deal with an
elected "cuckoo" in their nest. I have no doubt (I have it in writing) that "in the interests of the members" of course, I will be pecked to death for not having the common sense or decency to worship Bertram, become an acolyte of Hamilton or support the fantasy of State Chapters.