Congratulations to the successful candidates, and in particular Gaunty.
If the rumoured results are correct, and if the various posts on PPRuNe accurately reflect the allegiances of the candidates, it appears the Gaunt/Pagani faction might scrape the balance of power.
Interesting.
I’ve posted elsewhere my views as to the broad strategy approach that I think AOPA should take.
I’ll now make one specific suggestion: Allocate to Mssrs Pike and Hamilton one task, and one task alone. Allocate to them the task of drafting the rules that AOPA wants. Relieve them of any pressure or responsibility for diverting any of their very valuable time and energy to criticising the existing rules, or to reacting to proposed rules, or to commenting on any aviation-related issue.
The single most impressive thing that AOPA could do to establish some credibility in the regulatory reform process would be to put on the table the set of rules that AOPA wants word for word.
Don’t like strict liability or indeed any criminal liability – don’t put it in.
Want automatic stays on suspensions – put it in.
Don’t like the proposed forecast requirements – don’t put them in; put in what you want.
Want simple, clear rules that are truly harmonised – simply copy the ones with which you want to harmonise.
What could be simpler? Those awfully complicated, convoluted, and incomprehensible original 1988 CARs took up about the same space as a C172 POH. The simple, clear and harmonised version would have to be a doddle, surely?
Draft them up, tie them in a nice bow, and slide them across the table: this is what we want