Of course "AOPA orter" be doing more, unfortunately there are only so many hours in the day, and while the "experts" at CASA come up with proposed regs that say, for example, that aircraft may not operate when the FORECAST or actual weather is below minimas, we are busy playing catch up. We just don't have the time to re-enervate the industry, fix instructing standards, or even "act professionally" as sidelines. Poofcream, we would get along better if you shared your knowledge rather than adopting a "you don't know what I know" attitude. One is expected to know everything about everything as President of AOPA, but that isn't feasible in real life. My understanding is that at present the Court decides whether an offence is strict liability or not, but under the proposed change, CASA will decide for them, and they will all be! Yes I am well aware that there are "defences" against strict liability, good lawyer games I am sure; I would prefer that the pilot wasn't put in a position where he has to rely on such "defences", as most of my mates don't like supporting the legal profession more than they have to. As for those who believe that AOPA Board members should be spending their own valuable time and effort "persuading" them to join, I frankly say that those who are unable to see that a strong lobbying body, however flawed, is essential to the survival of general aviation will remain so despite anything said to them. I don't have the time or the patience. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I am willing to do my bit, but I am not a politician, so please, if my attitude offends, punish me, by all means vote elsewhere. This is a game where winning isn't much of a prize.