Wak-a-Yak52
The above is 100% genuine, mint condition, Hamilton, with a large ladle of warmed over Smith under Bertams name
. The usual vintage discursive polemic.
Apart from that;
AOPA has not changed its position on NAS, AOPA policy has been unwavering.
Horse feathers
A little correction there
it did actually , until the bad guys, guess who, were literally run out of town by the good guys.
First I must say what reasonable person could not support soundly based reform.
However the "bad guys" under considerable and unrelenting fire had it changed from "unequivocal whatever Dick says" and all the claptrap above, to "we support the NAS, but will be
closely monitoring it's implementation".
An entirely more responsible and reasonable position for the AOPA membership at large, considering that at the time the "implementation" process was still "unknown".
How can you "unequivocally agree" with something about which there was yet no detail.
It is unfortunate that the view and "recieved wisdon" of Hamilton and his cohort is conflated with and represented as those of the "membership", there has to my knowledge never been a "poll" of the membership on this or any other issue, unless you call the elections such. In which case, my case rests.
The evidence suggest that since Smith and his cohort started "their" reform AOPA has almost disappeared.
And yes, in accordance with that policy of
closely monitoring we signed on to an T & E implementation package on the condition,
that the frequencies and boundaries on the charts "in transition" were retained mitigators agreed by the NASIG, NAPAC and all of industry including QF.
These, by the deceit and sleight of hand to which we have become inured, were removed in a way that made it effectively too late for any action. It seems we were right about that and the misgivings we "the bad guys" i.e. held about 2c in the then proposed form.
The sheer duplicity of those involved was breathtaking and they are now back in control.
I challenge Mr Smith, right here, to tell us unequivocally, how and on what certified risk management basis, and to whom of the "stakeholders" was it communicated, when the decision was made to
ignore or dismiss those mitigators and that it was not negotiable identified and agreed by the 2b Hazard ID workshop "stakeholders" held with
ALL industry in Sydney 2003.
I and the VP responsible for this matter will swear an affidavit that the
first we heard about it, was the Tues before the following Mondays 2b 20th Oct go/no go date and then only second hand, via QF
and that there was also a meeting scheduled with AOPA, QF and NASIG on that Friday in Sydney to "tidy up".?
I suspect but cannot prove that the T&E material had already been signed off and was already at the printers at that time.
As to any potential judicial proceedings, AOPA will be in lockstep with ASAC, RFACA and the RAA, AOPA will not be acting alone. We will be in excellent company, it is many years since the backbone organizations of the "little end of town" have been so united
I'd like to see some comnfirmation of that, the good guys in AOPA tried very very hard to put the RFACA out of business, the wounds go very deep and they wouldn't go near ASAC.
Strangebedfellows.
Legal action, yup against the authors of this truly unbelievebale fiasco, trouble is they'd wind up on the wrong side of the court.
Ah well better go get the nomex on again.
