AOPA bunfight? [Archive]

Chimbu chuckles

14th Dec 2005, 09:20

How can Mr Bertram be so, apparently, ignorant about GA security in places like the UK?

I have flown in the UK privately in the last few mths and visited GA airfields regularly there for the last 2 yrs....there is NO security at these airports at all...let alone dumb security like ASIC cards...NONE.

It beggars belief that he would turn up to such a meeting and not have such basic information to support his case that DOTARS are idiots out of control when it comes to private aviation.

And that he sees no positives in being in communication with like minded organisations overseas.

I find his innability to answer some very basic questions disturbing in the extreme.

I would bet folding money that in the days Patroni was running the place this would not have been the case...and that was why the organisation had such a high number of members...4000 out of 18000 is a telling number....especially when you include the huge numbers of professional pilots who used to be members...like me for example.

The old story about statistics and damned lies...if you include ALL pilots who might join AOPA or who used to be members it makes for a more interesting comparison....many ATPL holders also own aircraft but by Bertram's own admission they, AOPA, are not interested unless you only hold a PPL.

Tachycardia

14th Dec 2005, 09:45

Kris

Oh the hypocrisey (sic) of it all............

True ! AOPA that criticised other aviation bodies for "taking" money from CASA has now secretly received funding from their stated enemy. They haven't told their members, wonder why that is ? How much did AOPA receive from CASA Kris ?

Chimbu

Even worse, the AOPA membership is not 4,000 but far less. Note that the actual number is never quoted now, that too is on the "classified" list. I remember reading that 20,000 had left (12,000 had joined ) AOPA over the decade since Patroni, the net result with low retention is around now around 3,500. Hardly something to crow about.

Tachy

Since my (above) posting a good Samaritan has drawn my attention to the \"President\'s Report\" in the Dec 2005 AOPA Magazine.

This big-notes the mangificent achievement of \"the first AOPA road show for a number of years\". And whats more it is \"free to all members\". Samaritan tells me that CASA\'s funding is to pay for the President\'s airfares and the cost of the seminars. Is this correct Kris ?

If it is correct, why was this crucial point absent from the President\'s article ? Is this just another example of the porkies being told to members thru a litany of decption by omission ?

Tachy

Vacant Towers

14th Dec 2005, 11:19

Chuckles asks "How can Mr Bertram be so, apparently, ignorant about GA security in places like the UK?"

Good question Chuck when Mr Bertram claims to have spent 18 years in the RAF flying in the UK. Whether he was flying by his own hand or in an aircraft flown by somebody elses hand I do not know.

I does seem though from the Hansard (I note marked "Draft") that there was a certain lack of preparation and even basic knowledge of the committee's interests associated with Mr Bertrams visit to Melbourne.:*

VT

Kris Lovell

14th Dec 2005, 11:37

One wonders how many ex directors are contributing to this thread.

Tachy et al,

If you want answers, ask the company...

I am just surprised by the hypocrisy (got it spell checked) of all of this.

1) Pprune will not allow discussion of AOPA in any shape or form, I spent many messages with Woomera asking to be allowed to alter the status quo, but was rejected. It was a good effort, but was told NO WAY. And then when negative comment is posted, it is all allowed again, to serve what purpose?

2) AOPA is dead say you, its irrelevent, dying, deceased, kicked the bucket, fell off the perch..yet you will still comment whenever AOPA is mentioned. Walk away from it, if you dont like AOPA dont worry about them.

3) The Aviation industry needs a representative group. yet you wont join one already in existance and could do quite well with your membership.

4) Kris swore he would never post on prune again.. and bugguh me but here I am back again bangin on about AOPA!

Vacant Towers, for the life of me I got no idea what you are trying to imply with that comment, but your attitude is a good representation of the aviators in this industry today....

PPRuNe Towers

14th Dec 2005, 12:28

But everything is fine and well in Aopa though isn't it Kris?

No trouble at AOPA from what I have heard. Still doing good work and moving forward....

So, perhaps you can answer the questions if I may precis them.

Is there a significant, intense disagreement amongst part of the board where legal action has been threatened and a series of corruscating e-mails have made all known readers extremly uncomfortable?

Are the members able to discuss this development on the site they fund with their dollars?

Are the same members able to discuss - on their own site - the Hansard report regarding security issues and membership numbers?

Are they able to discuss the performance of their elected front man during questioning on any Aopa controlled site or magazine?

Are the officers of the organisation openly discussing with their membership the difference in constant, tabloidesque, combative, anti Casa language and accepting money to finance the roadshows? Is there an venue open to members to get prompt replies as to the breakdown of costs and payments for these roadshows?

So Kris, other than those petty, nay, minor points you seemed to pretty well answer all the substantive points raised. Well done - an absolute credit to accountability and fine governance.

Regards,
Rob

PS We've honestly lost count of the number of unions we done this to for their members. You can also check that we did the same for the members of the PFA (the UK's version of the EAA) when their execs decided a bulletin board gave far too much in the way of questioning and debate.

PPS Sorry if explaining what the PFA is seems patronising but we can't take chances if Ron is reading about anything outside Oz.

PPPS Just to remind you that as soon as normal checks and balances for a modern go getting, IT aware organisation are confirmed this thread can go the way of the dodo, dotar, dotat, dodamus etc

triadic

14th Dec 2005, 13:24

Kris, I think you are missing the point... but I am sure you mean well. It is interesting that you are the only person to rise to the defence of the Association in these pages. I congratulate you for your stand, but nevertheless I feel you really don't have the full picture and have not been around long enough to know the difference, or how really effective such a body can be. None of the directors post regularly on their own forum, let alone here. Too much to be afraid of, I expect?

I don't think that anyone posting or reading this thread has a problem with AOPA or what it stands for. They do however have a problem with the way it is presently being managed and perhaps in one or more of the Directors who speaking personally have been the direct cause of a very large number of members leaving the Association, perhaps never to return. Have a look at the stats for how many members failed to renew under the various Presidents since Patroni. I would bet the largest number is not when Smith or Munro were in the chair. Go figure!

The other forums including the one funded by AOPA are not used all that much are they? Now we can wonder why that is, or we can have a quick scan through the posts and see how often a very small number of contributors continue to talk themselves up. Is it any wonder that others just can't be bothered any more?

The President has said on more than one occasion that he does not want professional pilots as members. Why not? There is a lot of talent out there and he is just turning his back on what might be the Associations only avenue for survival and the return of any respectability. As said above, many RPT pilots are both owners and recreational flyers. Many of them left as they did not want to be part of an organisation that paid little respect to its membership and what potential it might have given. To have any of those and other PPLs I might add return to the fold there needs to be significant change from the top down and the ego driven Directors moved on.

Why did it all go wrong?

I could make a suggestion but, Kris, you most likely would not like it. One can only hope that there will be an EGM and we might see some movement of at least half the Directors to retirement. The membership is so small now that I don't really believe that those that are interested will rise to the occasion, perhaps like many that have left they are past caring?

It is essential that this thread continues as it is now the only place where there is any significant discussion on AOPA and its problems takes place in open forum. The many posters to Prune can be very constructive if they so choose and I am sure that many of us would like to see a return to the days when AOPA under Patroni had over 10,000 members and significant assets including a building and an aeroplane. All that with membership fees under $50.

Lets keep this thread positive and alive.

:ok:

tipsy2

14th Dec 2005, 13:54

Some 28 hours ago I observed that there was no mention of this rumoured angst on the organisations own website.

Now I see The Towers questioning the same thing. Interestingly, almost the same answer applies to all his questions. Discussion would probably be stifled, censored and contributors banned during any ensuring verbal jousting.

Kris seems to be fighting a lonely rear guard action, probably out of loyalty, hopefully not out of pity.

Triadic offers sage advice but I suspect it will go over the heads of any of the current diehards that believe everything is rosey and 'moving ahead'. Finding somebody of the Patroni ilk to lead the organisation would be "manner from heaven".

Oh that it could happen.

tipsy

Tachycardia

14th Dec 2005, 19:39

Tipsy

Even within the 3,500 members who have loyally clung to AOPA there are very competent people who could be part of the committee or leadership material. But no professional and able person of sound mind would want to get mixed up with some of the people currently on the committee.

And as pointed out by someone earlier, it is sheer madness AOPA not wanting CPLs, ATPLS as members when they own GA aircraft.

Mr President, please explain ?

Tachy

xinhua2

14th Dec 2005, 22:56

Triadic. An EGM is in the winds according to one of their VP's who wants to put more amendments to the constitution to further his own agenda. This would only serve to put the association to more expense and the resolutions of the EGM have to be ratified at the next AGM anyway.

What is needed is to encourage people to run for election next so this crew don't just stay on because nobody nominated like last year.

No nominations = no election.

Tachy. The organisation started as being for aircraft owners, oh, and some pilots as well. It seems that we have forgotten the owners and become selective in what pilots we want.

Tachycardia

14th Dec 2005, 23:13

xinhua2

Good talent is desperately needed.

There are some changes needed for the Constitution, for example:

One of the committee members has been there for a number of years yet has never been elected by the members . The only time he stood he was very much rejected by the members. So what kind of representation is this ?

On occassions this has occured because there were insufficient nominations. The practice also occurs when the committee fills a casual vacancy with a candidate already rejected by the members. How wacky is this ? Surely you would fill a vacancy with the best person you could find but this does not occur because of the desperate need to have cronies onside.

Sadly the rank & file seem happy to tolerate this rubbish.

Tachy

Bob Murphie

15th Dec 2005, 00:31

Indeed, I believe there is a member on this current Board who fits this description, but the method of appointments to fill casual vacancies is truly ensconced in the Corporations Act and in common use throughout like Associations. It would also be unworkable to call elections ever time a casual vacancy arose.

Like our Federal and State electoral system, the members get to vote them off or on as the opportunity arises. Perhaps it says something of the members apathy that high quality candidates are not always on hand at elections. Perhaps the members are happy with what they've got.

As AOPA have half Board elections, appointed members of the Board must stand for election at the next upcoming. As Xinhua mentioned above, if nobody nominates, the existing Board is returned unopposed and with no election.

Unlike an Incorporated Association, which has it's jurisdiction with The Department of Fair Trading, AOPA is a Public Company limited by guarantee and it's jurisdiction is The Australian Securities Investments Commission, (ASIC), therefor The Corporations Act governs here.

The existing constitution makes for a 12 person Board, but may work with 7 until the next election. The current Board is at this level.

Perhaps the original draftees of the constitution made this elected allowance for casual vacancies in the dozen maximum, but considering austerity needs, a more workable Board would be less rather than more.

There have been some rather hare brained amendments to the constitution of recent and all reflect a personal or political need under the guise of getting someone to be President when previously prevented by the constitution from holding this office, or to prevent someone else from holding office on the Board, or to give "the executive" of the Board more power than they are entitled to.

We currently have a President, the owner of a Flying School, and at the mercy of CASA with an AOC. I believe this may be why the original constitution prevented such a thing so any perceived or real conflict of interest would not occur.

Now in the Hansard report, this President admits to accepting funding from CASA for roadshows on the members behalf who pay to be represented by a representative body, which clearly AOPA is now not.

Such a perceptions would logically indicate the recent amendments be removed by General Meeting before embarking on further constitutional change.

By the way, not all these amendments are from this Board's tenure, but a common drafter and supporter of the changes is currently serving.

Tachycardia

15th Dec 2005, 02:55

Bob

Not correct

There is nothing at law that says that vacancies must be filled from candidates who failed to achieve sufficient votes at the last election.

Public companies most commonly make an appointment of someone who is recruited for their qualifications, skills, experience and reputation. You go and find the best available.

The reason AOPA goes for the failed candidates is because most of them stood to prop up someone already on the committee.

Unless AOPA changes this (recent) convention then the committee person who has been there for years and never elected may be there for a lot longer.

All this is hardly healthy & doesn't do much for credibility.

Tachy

Kris Lovell

15th Dec 2005, 05:05

Bah,

Off to play with people my own age.

Kris
Tachy, good point BTW

Bob Murphie

15th Dec 2005, 07:08

You could be right. I believe it was the same "proposer" of constitutional amendments that brought us the "countback" system in elections and appointments, that made things this way.

I would embrace a better way of encumbancy if you could suggest something better than a general election every time a casual vacancy arose.

Perhaps a "reserve of "ELECTED Officers" instead of a huge Board, or a minimilist Board dependent on their mates.

Just thinking out aloud.

Tachycardia

15th Dec 2005, 08:58

Bob

Public companies usually have a sub-committee to attract/vet new board members. AOPA would be best served by having a group of prominent members to recommend new directors.

Keep in mind some some wacky things have been done to the AOPA Constitution:

The rot started when President Munro anointed Mr Hamilton as his protege. Because Hamilton worked for QF the Articles were changed, expressly mentioning Hamilton as being exempted from the provisions of having a professional pilot as AOPA president.

When Bill Pike became president (also a QF pilot) the poorly worded Constitution was ignored. Others have tried to tinker with the Constitution to further some agenda or other, meanwhile Rome burns. The Constitution isn't the problem, it is the behaviour of certain people who are on the committee for all the wrong reasons and the proletariat who are too apathetic or busy to worry about it.

Maybe there does need to be an EGM to sort these issues and to tell the members what is really going on ?

Tachy

coupled impulse

15th Dec 2005, 10:58

One wonders how many ex directors are contributing to this thread.

You mean how many present ones there are posting here and else where? You see on agacf.org that one particular gentleman from the board has the same IP address shown for a couple of different alias names. It does not give too much credibility to the present board when a person in his position does this sort of thing, even if it is done as a joke. It maybe done as fun, but it does nothing to the face of AOPer.

AOPer is meant to be a professional organisation that its members want to be proud of, not a bunch of foolish back yarders playing silly buggers on the forums. If you cannot be honest in who you are, when you post on the forums how can we as members trust you? The next thing you will be telling us one thing and doing another. Good old Honesty and Integrity is everything in an organization & an individual.

Lets steer the ship back on track to truly represent GA here in Australia!!!! :ok:

disco_air

15th Dec 2005, 12:31

....all I can say is, I'm glad I left that bunch when I did.

....Disco

Sunfish

15th Dec 2005, 19:41

The continual aggressive tenor of AOPA's communications leads me to believe that they are part of the problem, not the solution. You don't get very far with the public service by insisting on your "rights" all the time.

Bob Murphie

15th Dec 2005, 23:19

Last time mention was made of a "members council" to look after the checks and balances, a certain Australian forum was threatened with legal action for using the word AOPA.

Such a members council could look after appointments from a list of available. I doubt however you can elect someone without them taking on the responsibilities of a Director, so a four person elected team in reserve would not seem to be possible.

Re the constitution, I would strongly support going back to before the Smith Munroe Hamilton days and removing all convenient amendments thereafter.

A strong representative body is definently needed and AOPA should shoulder that responsibility. It's not the organisation that is broken but the succession of people running it.

Fix that problem and I may rejoin as a member, (although it seems moves are afoot to prevent me from rejoining because I didn't say nice things about them).

Bob Murphie

19th Dec 2005, 04:31

To add a little balance to this thread, something new that AOPA are going to fight; (courtesy ozipilots). Haven't confirmed the claims as yet.

snarek
Member

Registered: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 37
$130 medicals!!!
Ron Bertram (AOPA President) has just told me CASA intend to charge $130 to renew a medical.

They also intend to charge DAMEs to renew their 'designation'.

This is untenable, it will mean nearly a $300 medical when the Drs fees are taken into account.

We will fight this. Others are invited to join our fight or write their own letters. The fight will be run on the AOPA Forum with copies of suggested letters and tactics.

AK

Just confirmed, $130 CASA fee starts 1st January 2006. Pity they are only fighting the matter on their own website.

Bob M.

Woomera

20th Dec 2005, 04:16

coupled impulse

"You see on agacf.org that one particular gentleman from the board has the same IP address shown for a couple of different alias names."

Whilst I accept you may have had some "insight" into the previous AGACF bulletin board - which no longer exists - am I to assume you are also "behind the scenes" at the current bulletin board, which I believed to be independant of AOPA et al???

You certainly have a fascination with IP addresses and identifying users, don't you?

If I, as a PPRuNe Moderator, were to publicly make a similar statement to the statement you made above, this bulletin board would be urgently seeking a new Moderator.

A word of caution to PPRuNe users. The statements made above lead me to assume those accessing the current AGACF site will have their IP addresses not only recorded, but presumably used to ascertain their identities.

Woomera

Bob Murphie

20th Dec 2005, 05:11

I could be wrong here, and I'm not making any apologies for anyone, but I think who you refer to is no longer a mover nor shaker at the ozipilots hosted agacf site. The history behind the original site was that of non anonimity. When the host changed, and to appease those folk who were being abused by anon posters, the Administrator decided to include IP addresses to foil another attempt to close the forum.

The original forum was closed because of legal threats and intimidation by the very people who own a website of their own, but can't stand criticism elsewhere.

I believe it is only the agacf site that has the IP's published, not the rest of ozipilots.

BTW, the poster who's ID was exposed was the very same who rules the forum of "that" organisation. So much for media manipulation. Lets hope he never gets to manipulate this forum.

The other one who I think, thinks I know, shouldn't be offended by my criticism because he gives it to me just as thick.

gaunty

21st Dec 2005, 10:07

Hmmmmm the Merry Christmas email from AOPA was signed by everybody but the Walrus.

Is he still there?

Still given his leaders very much less than distinguished performance at the Senate Enquiry into the ASIC thingy I would not be surprised if he had not thrown his hands in the air.

He and I have some pretty real differences, but at least he would have been better prepared and had his facts straight.

Note to Board in future, please dont send a kid with a plastic knife to a gunfight on our behalf.

xinhua2

2nd Jan 2006, 04:38

The "gassbag" awards have been handed out on the AOPA forum and it is interesting to note only one Board member made it. (came fourth I believe).

More evidence of how the members have not been kept informed, nor encouraged to participate in policy by interaction with their elected board.

It is also noteworthy that the 4th runner is the only one "brave" enough to speak out against the "directors code of conduct" and the "confidentiality agreements" all were supposed to sign. That's democracy for you.

It's a pity those others with something to say, (that perhaps oppose the ruling heirachy), have been silenced.

Bob Murphie

11th Jan 2006, 07:01

EDITED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Bob Murphie.

colonel cameron

11th Jan 2006, 08:48

More fool you for using your own name, bet this is the last we hear from you.

I agree it underlines a very real problem that has not been addressed and continues to hinder the organisation' prosperity and ability to perform.

Any apology by you would now be seen as a lack of committment on your behalf and I for one hope you don't.

I note in the last paragraph, and, it being signed by the AOPA VP, it would suggest approval at board level. Are AOPA going to sue you also?

Hugh Jarse

11th Jan 2006, 09:27

BEng MEng SMIEEE

Forgive my ignorance, but what's a SMIEEEEEE?

Traditionally, I've found people that post gobbledegook after their names tend to suffer from Small Man's Syndrome:E

Good luck Bob Murphie. At Least you've got balls.

OZBUSDRIVER

11th Jan 2006, 12:09

SMIEEE= Senior
Member Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

Radtechs!:bored:

Adamastor

12th Jan 2006, 02:31

I shared your sentiments initially, Hugh, but apparently Bob doesn't have what you suggested he did, since he is now negotiating a settlement of the issue.

Bob Murphie

12th Jan 2006, 21:17

One sometimes wonders of posts like adamastor's, is it another one of the aforementioned natural persons, or just his alter ego, or maybe just wishful thinking on his part. Who started that rumour?

The only settlement I am contemplating is with my bookie.

Adamastor

13th Jan 2006, 00:13

You removed a post - one which I happened to think was a damned good one - and replaced it with the words "Edited Without Prejudice", you pompous twit. Do you even know what they mean? Since I know you won't take my word for it, heres a little material to edify you.
At common law evidence of admissions by either words or conduct made by parties in the course of negotiations to settle a dispute are privileged, even if not expressly said to be "without prejudice" if this is the objective intention of the parties or otherwise agreed.
"Without prejudice" privilege has as its rationale the public interest in encouraging and promoting peaceful settlements of disputes before they reach court.
"Without prejudice" privilege may apply even though a matter is not being litigated. This occurs where a dispute between parties is on foot and genuine endeavours are made to resolve it. The privilege also extends to those matters reasonably incidental to compromise of the dispute.
by Andrew Sullivan - Senior Associate, McMahon's National Lawyers, with my bolding

Bob Murphie

13th Jan 2006, 01:38

I'm not old enough or smart enough to be a pompous twit.

I'm just a dumb pilot who has been legally threatened three times by people from this organisation plus one intimidatory chest bashing pompous twit running a kangaroo court. And I've had a gutfull.

The matter of the removal of the posts is in the spirit of what you have just posted, in that there is a dispute and parties are attempting to resolve it without recourse to legal action.

The removal of the posts was not an admission of liability. It was to allow,
by close of business today to be furnished with solicitors documentation by Mr Kerans AOPA VP, that shows me where he alleges my defamation is.

Subject to my legal advice thereafter, I reserve the right to repost the items in question and entirely at my own leisure.

Now that last paragraph could be pomposity. I hope it doesn't offend you further.

Adamastor

13th Jan 2006, 05:11

I've got to admit Bob, that the reason I resigned my membership to that bunch of monkeys is because I got sick to death of watching them wasting MY money persecuting people like yourself and indulging in their self-aggrandizing, politically driven measurement of their collective manhoods. Thankfully, I wasn't alone, and AOPA is gradually dying the death that snarek and others have brought upon it.

I am upset that you felt the need to remove your post and wish you all the best in reinstating it (and other exposes of their pathetic ineptitude) forthwith. :ok:

Bob Murphie

14th Jan 2006, 05:40

Well nothing came at COB Friday which makes me suspect the threat was simply another intimidation thing. I'll let it ride until COB Monday. I may even ask for an aopaology. (sorry for the spelling).

I am led to believe the board of AOPA are deciding on whether to take action against me as well. That will be interesting.

Did you actually resign?

Reason for asking is that under the Articles of Association, you are always and perpetually a member unless you resign in writing and giving 7 days notice. If you are simply lapsed, you are still a member and upon payment of the subs you can vote at the elections.

I, on the other hand have resigned in writing as a member and board member, and need to be a fully paid up member for 3 months before I am eligible to vote. Therein lies a problem in that I am advised that they will not accept me as a member if I decide to rejoin. That could be amusing if I wanted to persue it, but whatever, I bet I will never get to vote at the next elections.

I am also aware that moves are afoot to expel other members who don't agree with the executive. Article (12) I believe, which should give the Lawyers lots of income at the members expense. This will also test the insurance that was only renewed by the hard work of one Barrister doing pro bono work from Canberra.

Hope springs eternal however in that I believe a very competent "ticket" will be put up at the next elections to rid us of the flotsom residual of the "A team" which had some good intent, but got lost by threatening and intimidating, (members), political egotism, personal agendas, loss of the mission statement and people comparing dicks in general.

And, no, I'm not part of it, but will encourage any change that will alow me to rejoin if the organisation survives the "Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus" reign. (but only it it suits me).

gaunty

14th Jan 2006, 07:32

Bob Murphie

If I didn't know the characters involved in the "membership" issues you describe, you could only view it as some form of sick joke.

Seems they still operate in a Monty Pythonesque vaccum.

This will also test the insurance that was only renewed by the hard work of one Barrister doing pro bono work from Canberra no test needed it will fail.
The foundation principle of any insurance agreement is that the parties "act in the utmost good faith", if you need a leagle to negotiate that for you you're already a long way down that slippery slope.
Keep in mind the TV footage of young Bill saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

Any way I guess I might even be on the same list as you.

I can't imagine what message they think it will send to present and potential members.
AOPAEFTOWDL
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Except For The Ones We Dont Like.

Bring it on.

NAMPS

14th Jan 2006, 08:38

That's the funny thing about defamation litigation. There are, relevantly here, defences of truth, comment and qualified privilege.

If AOPA were silly enough to embark on defamation proceedings, they would have to discover prior to hearing ALL the material which they seek to keep confidential. They cannot rely on any flimsy confidentiality agreement. As court proceedings are generally held in open court and are legitimately reportable, the damage to AOPA management could be far worse than any post on this forum.

Brian_Dunnigan

14th Jan 2006, 14:23

Having read the comments about how bad AOPA has become, are there any alternatives or moves to create another representative organisation?

I think that if things are as bad as some say they are, then a new body is needed ASAP!

Any proposals anyone?

Just my 2 cents + GST worth...:ok:

retardted

14th Jan 2006, 23:16

Oh dear

another ex director trying to put the boot in eh? Bob you join a long list of disgruntled failed directors who try to shut aopa down. good luck because if it wasnt for you and gaunty the aopa could get on with the job. I would prefer my money goes to them getting on with the job so how about you take your little gaunt friend and ride off into the sunset eh and let the people get on with it.
This is surely a game and the music has stopped and all the ex directors find new bed partners. Gaunt & Murphie together, thats a laugh

Bob Murphie

14th Jan 2006, 23:19

Brian;

AOPA has been around for over 55 years and has survived to date in spite of a procession of ego's. Some of the most egtistical actually accusing others of being egotists. Therein lies one problem.

I tried to bust this mindset up with an idea for State Chapters, but that didn't sit well with the centralists because it fractionated the power base into geographical areas and actually made each board member represent his (or her) constituents and not the agenda of a few.

Over a years hard work went into rewriting the Constitution and then the next problem became apparant, rampart apathy with the members. By the time it got to an AGM, only half a dozen bothered to respond either way on the merits or otherwise. The concept got shelved because the power base wouldn't put forth a resolution to support or reject it.

With some 3,500 (now I am told), members, the Association can, and should be a powerful representative body. Here lies another problem.

About 10 years ago there was an article preventing anyone with a hands on interest in any aviation business holding office as president. CASA are not much different than their predecessors and one can only imagine this article was to prevent any compromises with, for example, someone owning a flying school and their AOC was at the mercy of the Regulator. It was also aimed at making way for individuals (3 in succession from memory), to become President.

This article and some others were changed by general meeting and all for some political or personal reason with the result that the Constitution is being amended on the run and not for the good of the organisation. It's interesting to note the more recent were proposed by the same person with threatening tendencies.

Under the guise of controlled spending, power was given to the executive of the board which effectively marginalised the other elected members.

Under the guise of better representation for the members a resolution was passed to prevent anyone who is not a current pilot from being on the board. This was aimed at preventing one man from ever running as a candidate again. (unless he became current).

Confidentiality agreements and codes of conduct were all enlisted to keep the board from talking to the members which then marginalised even the members.

They then made it that all board members were to report to the unelected paid office manager who was appointed as company secretary and given a place on the executive.

Should I continue. Perhaps you get the gist of some of the problems and it is because these problems are not being addressed the organisation is in the state it is now.

I believe that the members would better warm to AOPA if they would put up a fight. A good example of this to watch is how they handle the AVMED fee impost. It looks like they will fight this issue and they should.

They will probably loose the fight, but in defeat some Aussie thing about underdogs comes out and actually unites which means they at least tried on behalf of their members and therefor technically win.

In contrast they have made deals with just about every other tax or cost or piece of legislation this last year or so and driven members (like me), away because they are not representing me. I'm sure Gaunty would get about as much help from them as I if we were to transgress the system in some way.

Add my prophecy (and I sincerely hope I am wrong), that after 31st December 05, and as a consequence of the ASIC / AVID / AVMED / part 47 / full cost recovery etc etc, the GA industry will be gutted by at least 20% and as one can relate this to membership, AOPA will be in a very difficult position.

Every member then counts and each should be treated with courtesy, respect, probity, and be given value for their dollar ($124 in this case). This clearly is not happening. I was told by their VP the other day that they didn't need members like myself, Gaunty, and one other in particular. Indeed the latter is possibly the focus on a expel motion.

Just who gave this person the right to waste $372 in memberships because our money isn't good enough for him.

I apologise for waffling, but in conclusion, a start would be to get rid of most of this lot at the next elections. I doubt any could do worse. The incoming would win on a platform of non censorship, openness and transparancy, valueing their members and listening to complaints or advice even if it goes contrary to their thoughts. Only have elected people on the board or executive, and they must fight issues even if they are on a hiding to nowhere plus wind back ALL the constitutional changes made over the last 10 years.

The ship hasn't sunk yet, but the crew are sailing close to the rocks and it needs steering away.

Incidentally, Rob Lloyd should be given thanks for allowing this thread to continue. None of what I have said above would see light of day on their website.

A quick edit for the retarded one.

Perhaps you should advance the spark on your impusle coupled ignition system, which may fix the retardation. I'm not trying to shut AOPA down, I just want something left that I may choose to rejoin after you and your mates are through playing with it.

Biggles_in_Oz

15th Jan 2006, 07:02

I'm curious as to what AOPAs' inputs were to the recently introduced CASA cost-recovery fees.

According to http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/fees/cris.pdf , AOPA were part of the industry participants consulted.

POPSMURF

15th Jan 2006, 07:37

Well-said retardted.

As a member of AOPA I was disgusted to see Bob Murphie's comments. I made a few calls only to fine out they are lies. I met Mr Murphie at Temora, I should have known then. I was informed he wrongly accused another director of a conflict of interest and spread it on the forums.

Following a "please explain board meeting he left"

How sad and pathetic he now haunts the forums spreading poison. I hope AOPA does take legal action; my fellow aero-club members and I will contribute to any fighting fund if they wish to raise one.

Gaunty I thought you of all people would know better than to feed this idiot.

ninnie

15th Jan 2006, 08:05

I think it would be nice if all you boys would take a step back, a deep breath and think a bit.

AOPA does a good job. Without it we'd all be sunk.

Bob Murphie has aheart of gold, he just gets excited. When he does sometimes he has to back off. Leave him be.

Nasty nasty place this aviation politics corner!!!

Stephaninnie :)

Bob Murphie

15th Jan 2006, 09:15

Hey Popsmurf;

When you start calling people a Liar, you had better get your facts right.

Who did you ring to find out whatever lies you refer to? A one sided story I'll bet. Did you bother to ring me to get a balanced view?

Are you the anonomous Barrister who gave word today that you were going to do a job on me for nothing? Bring it on sunshine.

Get two sides to the story before we find out in the discovery process. I dare you to prove I made any accusations against anybody else for having a conflict of interest. I dare you to put your name to this post you coward.

Piss or get off the pot.

Thanks for the vote Steph.

BTW;

I would give AOPA the benefit of the doubt with their fight against the AVMED money grab. Don't know what their platform was on the whole cost recovery concept, but can guess.

tipsy2

15th Jan 2006, 09:58

POPSMURF, usually discussion of matters AOPA get binned from PPRuNe because they inevitably finish up as a slag fest. So that this particular discussion does not go that way could you please , for all our sake, not refer to fellow posters as, sad or pathetic or as an idiot. Hardly contributes to the real discussion at all.

Thank you

tipsy

retardted

15th Jan 2006, 11:13

tipsy as long as this thread keeps poopooeing aopa our god almighty saint 2nd officer rob wont cann it

long live freedom and the choice to shat on ones ex committee
bob i thought better of you to do this i was wrong

P|_azbot

15th Jan 2006, 11:28

SMIEEE= Senior
Member Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Radtechs!:bored:

Lol makes sense why he hate ATC so much. Just another Tech that stuffs uour stuff up.:8 :8

retardted

15th Jan 2006, 22:45

Security regime may prompt pilots to seek Senate spots
8:16 AM January 16
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is considering standing Senate candidates at the next federal election, as anger grows among regional pilots over increased security checks.
A Government letter has been circulated among members of the association, saying that anyone who flies without first completing new anti-terrorism security clearance checks is committing an offence.
The association's vice-president, Andrew Kerans, believes the measures will ground about 1,500 pilots.

He estimates 30 per cent of his regional members are yet to apply for new security ID cards.
Mr Kerans estimates more than 1,000 regional Queensland pilots are now technically grounded because they have not applied for the ID cards.
"If you think the majority of those will be out bush where aviation is a daily part of life, it could cause a major disturbance in rural Australia," he said.
Federal Transport Department spokeswoman Vicki Dickman says if pilots have not applied for the ID cards they cannot fly.
"No, you should have had your background check well and truly completed by December 31st," she said.
Mr Kerans says the association is now considering fielding federal Senate candidates to draw preferences away from the National party.
Source: ABC

and i thought kerans was tied up with aopa sueing ex directors looks like they just goton with the job sorry bob yesterdays news

Bob Murphie

15th Jan 2006, 23:52

"Add my prophecy (and I sincerely hope I am wrong), that after 31st December 05, and as a consequence of the ASIC / AVID / AVMED / part 47 / full cost recovery etc etc, the GA industry will be gutted by at least 20% and as one can relate this to membership, AOPA will be in a very difficult position".

I made that prophecy some 12 months ago and was laughed out of the boardroom, now AK is in agreeance. Politics change people. Seems AOPA have only been a "Political Party" for 10 minutes and they are stealing policy from others already.

If AOPA loose the stated membership, who is going to fund this run for The Senate? Is this a board decision without consulting the members or another policy on the run?

By the way, nobody has come good with anything to back up their threats yet and at one minute past 5 today, ESDST the posts go back up. I may actually add another received yesterday.

Popsmurf: It appears your asking and then receiving answers that are totally incorrect has put AOPA in a very bad light regarding their "confidentiality agreements" As you haved't bothered to pm me with details to back up your allegations, and as the board of AOPA are on public record, would you mind advising who you asked to get your information. You see you have defamed me as an agent of the people alleging I have defamed them. I agree to indemnify you of the consequences however so we may get to the truth of the matter. Thats if you want to listen to it of course.

Time for an edit;

As someone who spent more than 12 months studying the AOPA constitution, and then redrafting it, I can say with a great deal of qualification that AOPA's constitution won't allow any run for the Senate. Read the stated aims.

The Constitution would have to be amended by General meeting and of course one can only take an educated guess who the Senator would be if it got through.

Sunfish

16th Jan 2006, 00:58

I think AOPA needs to be put to sleep so that we can get on with organising a better association.

AOPA has gone totally mad if it thinks that putting up spoiling candidates is somehow going to make Minister Truss tug the forelock and apologise to AOPA then ask their opinion on policy. I mean are you guys totally living on another planet or what???? I cannot think of any way you could further alienate either the government or opposition by such a foolish move.

The madness continues in the form of seeing everything as a battle and then using war terminology like "Fight" all the time.

Translation: AOPA's "fights" make exactly as much sense as "The war on terror".

Translation AOPA Idiots - wake up! You are fighting battles that you cannot, should not and will not win against the very people who should be your allies. I feel like banging my head against the wall at the stupidity of this!!!!

As I have said elsewhere in the Casa cost recovery forum, "user pays" = "User says". We should be working with CASA to understand their cost structure and to help them eliminate waste and duplication by changing work practices in collaboration with the industry.

However this cannot be done with boneheads talking about running for the Seanate over medical certificate charges.

Translation: If CASA says its $145 bucks then that's it! The correct thing to do is to understand why they think they need to charge that much and then decide if there is any way it might be possible for us to assume some of the processing work ourselves for example, or change the rules. It is not smart to throw the toys out of the sandpit and run for the senate!!!!!

Same applies to the ASIC debate.

Don't you understand AOPA? You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop making things worse!!!!

Atlas Shrugged

16th Jan 2006, 01:22

Sunfish,
:ok:

retardted

16th Jan 2006, 02:00

sunfish why dunt you start a noo associatation now ****

Bob Murphie

16th Jan 2006, 03:40

And your mother wears Army boots: What intelligent comment.

Sunfish, I believe we may have crossed swords before, but if you want a head start just ask me, I may have a wealth of information including nearly 700 (of my own and personal), email addresses to give to someone if this lot keep going on their path. Don't push me however because I believe AOPA is not yet a basket case.

Any member has the right to request and then within 7 days get a copy of the AOPA database. Trouble is they won't give you the email contacts, only what is required by law and that is a copy in a useable format.

So you get the names and addresses thence costing you half a buck to contact them. Also they will spring a thing on you that you can't contact the members via this medium, but that is wrong if used legally and sensibly.

BTW it will cost you $200 for for AOPA to process the of downloading of it to a disc, which experts consider a 5 minute job plus the disc and a stamp, which makes CASA's fees look reasonable.

bigfella5

16th Jan 2006, 04:01

Isn't it funny?..........This thread has only lasted a few pages, but already because the word AOPA is put in there somewhere, a crap fight breaks out.
These threads show why AOPA as it currently stands is a waste of time insofar as being an advocacy group and those associated with it tend to be irrelevant.
I understand where Sunfish is coming from and tend to agree with what he says (notwithstanding the fact he has a pathological hatred of all things Southern,Red and profitable.....thats cool, he is a queer one after all!!:E ).
Unfortunately, starting a new group won't fix the main problem (having a voice in GA) only worsen it by dividing the voices/potential voices that exist.
I've gotten to the stage where I feel I'm forced to join the blasted outfit because I can't think of any way else of helping the industry at a grass roots level (apart from marrying Gretel Packer and sponsoring all flying performed by aero clubs/schools etc.....but geez.....mate...., thats a big grenade to take for the platoon!!!) The thought though of dealing with a few of the directors/ex directors is butt scratchingly painful to say the very least.
I'd suggest than rather than sitting on the sideline bleating like a school girl thats lost her cherry to one of the forward pack, the ex directors get back in there and DO SOMETHING..........ANYTHING. Just stop sitting at home being bitter......you'll upset the wife.
In any case, I suggesat taht we close this thread, grab the crack pipe and contemplate the animal hospital across the road..(there there Dolly, you don't tell, I don't tell, thats the deal !!:E )

Sunfish

16th Jan 2006, 04:42

Bob, every time I visit their website looking for something sensible, all I see is more aggressive and highly emotional rubbish that, rather than advancing the cause of GA, is doing the reverse.

"Tearing the heart out of GA" my @rse! Exactly what is the Minister and his civil servants expected to do with rubbish like that?

Telling the Minister he has made "A shambles' of aviation security?

AOPA's Mission: "AOPA stands for it's members' right to fly without unnecessary restrictions and costs.' This is childish rubbish! You have no such rights and never have had them!

Then of course there are the posts on the website talking contemptuously about public servants stuffing things up.

Well AOPA people, I was priviledged to work for the Kennett government for four years, tasked with getting manufacturing industry back on its feet, which we did. I had never worked for the public sector, or with public servants before. I say it was a priviledge because with one or two rare exceptions the ones I worked with were a dedicated ansd conscientous group who worked bloody hard for what they were paid and had no axe to grind. I also worked with my opposite numbers in the Commonwealth government as well.

Now let me tell you a secret. Provided you are civil and helpful, the public service will bend over backwards to help you. However there is one thing they cannot stand, and that is the type of wind - bag uninformed cheap shots of the sort AOPA fires at CASA with every press release. They hate it even more when the shots are aimed at the Minister. Why? Because they can't respond, with the very occasional exception of correcting a factual error. They have to remain civil.

So what response can a public servant make to a rude and abusive customer who complains all the time like AOPA does? I'll leave it to your imagination, except to say we had dealings with a certain firm whose CEO was always in the paper lambasting the Department. What the guy didn't know was that as a result of his behaviour, there was a directive that all correspondance from this person went to a deputy secretary who "managed" the relationship in a highly satisfying way from the Department's point of view, the guy never worked out why all his competitors could get government grants, but his requests always seemed non compliant. It served the bugger right.

Hint AOPA - if you think that the medical costs too much, find out why CASA thinks it costs that much. Also find out what a full aviation medical check would cost in the private sector, assuming you could find one doctor who could do all the tests - without the regulation that you only paid $100. I suspect you would find $245 total cost represents good value. A mate of mine had a triple bypass after the tests found coronary disease.

If you still think $245 is too steep, then work out with CASA what can be cut to get CASA's cost base down.

My guess is that without a Pauline conversion, AOPA's file is too thick for it to recover any credibility with CASA, and the result is that eventually CASA will ask the RAA to represent the GA industry instead.

Bob Murphie

16th Jan 2006, 04:50

Bigfella;

There are personalities that make up an AOPA board (from what I have observed anyway). The first is the egotist and political go getter, and the second a social justice fighter. I am proud to be the latter.

I will admit that as a victim of CASA (ask someone else, the record is broken), I have been a very vocal advocate of the crash and burn brigade, but of recent a lot has changed especially with regard "heaps" of people and their Ilk that previously antagonised me and cost me "heaps" of money.

I am guilty of shutting up when forced to toe the party line over bad and mad injustices in Central Qld, but soldiered on with a couple of mates anyway and we achieved an outcome. My part was minimal, but the fire was there anyway. AOPA weren't and the injustice was against one of their members.

Grass roots flying: pm me and I'll send you a precis of what I thought would solve the problems. Perhaps you can use this as a seed to further and nurture future pilots needing a representative body. I still don't subscribe to the notion that AOPA is broke. It's just cracked a bit by vibration and abrasiveness.

The other thing regarding the egotists is that they don't know what is going on around them. A Mate has been vilified all over town about doors being closed to AOPA in Canberra because of him. Same bloke knows Northbourne Ave better than most and the doors ARE always open.

So one can say that perhaps sunfish has some points now because things just change. Perhaps we are friends, perhaps who I think he is is not at all. Such is Pprune. Perhaps I am just getting old and don't give a rat's anymore.

Someone is going to sue me aparantly.

Bob Murphie

16th Jan 2006, 05:05

Groundhog day.

This montage is a summary from Ozipilots online forum and after fair warning about publishing Pprune IP’s which Mr Kerans did, and subsequently deleted after three warnings by myself and others. The posts are in order, 1), the caution not by me, 2), My post which has so offended, 3), The threatening email, and 4), an edited copy ( to protect the provider of the information), of a threat on Sunday last 15th January 06.

1) The alleged "Members List" contains only the same info as the public profile, which was available to all users in the old format. I would perhaps urge caution in publishing the Members List on the internet - I suspect there may be legal implications.

2) I believe one individual has already transgressed the bounds of "legal implications"

These persons had, by erroneous deduction, had their IP's posted for all and sundry, (and coincidentally reformatted to admissable PDF by the very quick witted before they were removed).

This person who should have been doing taxpayers work at the time is, or shortly will be, in quiet a bit of bother on a lot of fronts.

3) Dear Mr Murphie

I note you have made numerous defamatory statements about me on various internet forums. While in most cases (but not all) you have not identified me by name it is my view that via your innuendo I am easily identified.

I am most upset and disturbed at the potential to damage my good reputation.

I notice also you have made a flippant threat regarding my employment.

I give you fair notice and warning, if you do not immediately cease publishing defamatory material about me in any way and under any guise I shall take action against you to recover damages.

I shall take an immediate written undertaking to cease such activities together with an apology to me at this e-mail address as settling the matter provided such e-mail is received by me within 24 hours of the sending of this e-mail. (18:00 Eastern Summer Time). I reserve the right to publish the apology wherever you may have published defamatory material.

The issue of defamatory statements regarding the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is a separate issue that will be dealt with by the Board of AOPA.

Regards

Andrew Kerans
BEng MEng SMIEEE
Vice President
AOPA Australia

4) Bob
You’ve really done it this time.
I’m keeping out of this one because I told them I don’t want to give advice about you.
But they are going to DoTARS about the payoff allegation, xxxxxx is going to be involved about the pro bono bit, and they now have a member who is a barrister etc who contacted them concerned as a member about the allegations on Pprune to get the facts then offered to do you over for no charge.
Review everything you put up and make sure you have cast iron proof is my urgent recommendation.
I think this one will get nasty.

Makes one feel good member or not. One can only guess about the crux of the text.

Brian_Dunnigan

16th Jan 2006, 05:55

I am going to look at what can be done to start a new organisation...it'll be hard but judging by the slanging going on in this and other threads, it seems that aviation isn't united anyway and needs a new force to come in and get the priorities of ALL aviators.

It can't be that hard, surely, to get some of us together and sort out what the issues are and go to government and see if something can be done?

I just want to create something that we can feel happy to be in, to our mutual benefit.

What d'yall think?

Tail_Wheel

16th Jan 2006, 06:00

Hugh & Plaz

Took some searching but I found the Institute of Electrical Engineers (http://www.iee.org/Membership/) web site.

Interesting requirement for Membership:

It's just 3 easy steps to join the IEE:
1. Select the type of membership most appropriate to you: Student, Member, Member (MIEE), Fellow.
2. Find out the subscription rate for your membership.
3. Complete your application.

:}

ninnie

16th Jan 2006, 07:43

Oh well, I tried.

Perhaps I was wrong, Bob's last post certainly seems that of a bitter and twisted old man.

Sunfish, you seem to make sense sometimes, can I ask?? do you seek their side from those you pick on in AOPA or rely on the very unreliable post from the 'ex-directors'????

I hope you do ask, I'd think less of you as a person if you didn't.

Poor old Bob :(

Steph

Bob Murphie

16th Jan 2006, 08:16

Steph;

I'm not sure where you are coming from, but I should ask:

have you ever been threatened and intimidated with loosing your family home by a millionair when you can't defend yourself with anything but the truth?

have you ever had four threats to "do you" or "sue the arse off you"?

have you ever had a threat from two Barristers? (One got let off lightly at the Bar association because I let the complaint go as a Christmas present). The next one won't.

have you ever been part of a kangaroo court where nothing you said was taken into account because of a pre ordained write up of the minutes?

have you ever been party to any illegal activities that may see you liable because of others wild and imaginative flights of fantasy?

Have you ever ben a Company director?

Have you ever been denied your right to seek independant advice as a Company Director?

Do you know that ignorance is no excuse for a director of a public Company, (yes AOPA is a public company)?

Do you know that it is the duty of a Director to keep himself informed?

Did it occur to you that the AOPA confidentiality agreements are illegal in this respect?

Did you ever get voted to a position of trust then find you could not represent your constituents because of illegal "executive" board directions?

If ever you were elected as a representative of your constituents would you say to them, I can't talk to you because of a confidentiality agreement?

Were you ever elected to any position of responsibility?

have you ever tried dealing with a democrat?

have you ever tried dealing with a schitzo?

Poor old Bob..........tried to do the best for the members and then to cop that, what a waste of effort.

Well at least I did my best.

The previous post is to highlight the depths this board have sunk to to silence dissent or opposing opinion.

When they sue me, if they've got the guts, AOPA will truly be dead as a Dodo and I do have the balls to stand up for what I believe are social justice issues, and my home is on the line as a consequence.

Poor old Bob and Judy Murphie.

Why don't you start up a collection for AOPA to sue me?

Bob Murphie

16th Jan 2006, 09:25

Courtesy Ozipilots on line forum agacf forum. Not my words note Steph;

And Mr Kerans scores another goal, Chris McKeown has resigned as a Director of AOPA, the dopy Committee don't know why !!!!!

Could it simply be that having been defamed professionally by Kerans there was no alternative but for Chris to ask for an apology to protect his professional position and then Kerans wanted a motion of no confidence against Chris.

Uluru, it seems you and I are in a state of uncommon accord, it beggars belief that reasonable men on a board continue to tolerate this sort of behaviour from one in their midst as a group of like minded peers.

I guess Kerans will be censured for this by the time honoured method of flaggelation with a wet 2 day old lettuce leaf and he can get back to the eye gouging and ankle kicks forthwith.

And people say Murphie and myself are trying to undo AOPA, bloody hell all we have to do is sit at the sidelines and count the bodies.

And if Kerans is the last man standing there is always the Senate.

From Bob Murphie: The Senate deserves him.

q1w2e3

16th Jan 2006, 10:20

"Mr Kerans says the association is now considering fielding federal Senate candidates to draw preferences away from the National party."

HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha
HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha HahaHa..

HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha Haha.....

HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha HahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha Haha.....

bigfella5

16th Jan 2006, 10:22

Ahh what the hell.............
Snarek, you blowhard..(always wanted to say that!)....what the hell have you done for General Aviation in Australia since joining the board of AOPA that has ended in a positive outcome...(please don't give us a bureaucrats understanding of the phrase please mate)
Really, I'd love to know....frankly I'd think squat.

(Was that rude Woomera?) :\

triadic

16th Jan 2006, 10:36

I have not always agreed with Bob, but respect his stand.

AOPA tragically is almost dead in the water and nothing will save the day unless there is a complete change of management.

Those that say that "anti AOPA" comments in this thread or indeed on Pprune, show a lack of support for the Association do not really know the true picture. I am but one of many ex members who would like nothing more that a return to the Patroni days of pre '95 where the association had respect and certainly none of the in-fighting we see today. I will choose to stay a non member, so long as the ego's and self interest continue to drive the association into the ground. Should an alternative rise, the I will consider joining it, PROVIDED that those in charge are cleanskins with no garbarge.

On this occasion, I even agree with Sunfish..!

tipsy2

16th Jan 2006, 11:16

My membership runs out shortly after nearly 3 decades, based on the Association's management, activities and profile, I see no value or point to my continuing membership.

Frankly I don't see any benefit to anybody in being a member of an organisation where the Board experiences resignations and disharmony as if it were an agenda item, individual Board members running heavens knows what particular personal agenda and a President who seems to be invisible.

I will not waste any more of my thought or effort on this organisation, I have more pressing matters to consider.

The Cat has spoken

tipsy

AOPA Australia

17th Jan 2006, 03:53

Pprune Posters

As President of AOPA in Australia, I thank those of you who have added constructively to this debate. I have noted several items.

I congratulate Bob Murphie for a one hundred percent score in achieving the “rumour” part of the Pprune acronym. But I suggest to you all that his posts and that of Tony Mitchell that Bob has carried across – represent the views of two former AOPA Directors with a history of anti-AOPA attacks on various forums but no constructive answers.

The Australian ethic is one of “fair play”. You all have made assumptions based on misinformation and a hate campaign lacking facts or substance. I would hope that you would be as open minded in considering the facts and truth.

The moderators on Pprune have suggested previously that matters AOPA are best debated on the AOPA Forum. I accept their recommendation and am placing FACTS that can be confirmed by documentation on the open section of the AOPA Forum for anyone who wishes to exercise fair play and read and/or debate the matter.

I have also asked that matters concerning Bob Murphie’s resignation as an AOPA Director be noted on the AOPA Forum. I do so with regret but we have unfortunately reached a stage where we need to establish the credibility of the players.

The AOPA Forum is available via their website and then the Information Centre bar. AOPA will not be using any views by Ppruners for any form of identification tracing. AOPA link removed W

Ron Bertram

PS Woomera – when a Director resigns at Qantas, Jetstar, AirServices, or anywhere in industry for that matter, the organisation seems to keep moving along nicely.

I am uncertain why you would feel the need to suggest that a change of Board member at AOPA would be any different. Changes of people in organisations is a fact of life.

Woomera

17th Jan 2006, 09:46

I have deleted some posts, banned some posters who are arguing with themselves, to save bandwidth and moderating time and others because I choose to, given their past record and attitude towards the moderators and their decisions.!

Nobody is forced to come here, they do so on our terms.

You can almost hear the rush to the computer from one sad sack to add yet another "certified PDF copy" of this post to to his Big Book of Evidence against the evil PPRuNe and send us yet another email advising us so. :{ :rolleyes:

As usual he like most misses the point, this problem belongs to AOPA NOT PPRuNe.

It is they not PPRuNe who generates the angst that is aired here.

That we allow it to run like many other controversial issues is apparently anti-GA/AOPA, despite the fact that we run a Forum dedicated to the discussion of professional GA matters that used to belong in their bailiwick. :=

It has been suggested that we should not be "encouraging" these debates on the basis that it does not "help" the growth of AOPA.

It is not our function to either "help" or "not help". It is to provide an opportunity for OUR members to have their say on whatever ails them in matters aviation.

If AOPA will not allow open and frank discussion on their forum their members will simply find other alternatives.

I have removed the link to AOPA for reasons well described before, there can therefore be no questions or allegations of any tracing imagined or actual from PPRuNeland. They are not hard to find if you need to.

If I might take the liberty of reiterating some comments made by Rob in a previous post in this thread and then you can have at it.

But everything is fine and well in Aopa though isn't it Kris?
Quote:
No trouble at AOPA from what I have heard. Still doing good work and moving forward....
So, perhaps you can answer the questions if I may precis them.
Is there a significant, intense disagreement amongst part of the board where legal action has been threatened and a series of corruscating e-mails have made all known readers extremly uncomfortable?
Are the members able to discuss this development on the site they fund with their dollars?
Are the same members able to discuss - on their own site - the Hansard report regarding security issues and membership numbers?
Are they able to discuss the performance of their elected front man during questioning on any Aopa controlled site or magazine?
Are the officers of the organisation openly discussing with their membership the difference in constant, tabloidesque, combative, anti Casa language and accepting money to finance the roadshows? Is there an venue open to members to get prompt replies as to the breakdown of costs and payments for these roadshows?
So Kris, other than those petty, nay, minor points you seemed to pretty well answer all the substantive points raised. Well done - an absolute credit to accountability and fine governance.
Regards,
Rob
PS We've honestly lost count of the number of unions we done this to for their members. You can also check that we did the same for the members of the PFA (the UK's version of the EAA) when their execs decided a bulletin board gave far too much in the way of questioning and debate.
PPS Sorry if explaining what the PFA is seems patronising but we can't take chances if Ron is reading about anything outside Oz.
PPPS Just to remind you that as soon as normal checks and balances for a modern go getting, IT aware organisation are confirmed this thread can go the way of the dodo, dotar, dotat, dodamus etc

We too look forward to establishing the credibility of ALL of the players from both sides. So far it is unclear.

Bob Murphie

17th Jan 2006, 11:18

Womera. Thank you for your tolerance. I fear the joke I put up as an ameliorating gesture has been lost in the bandwidth austerity. Not to worry, my heart was in bringing about a resolution.

My response which perhaps may save further angst.

Ron Bertram;

This afternoon I posted a joke on pprune as a means of saying it is over as far as I am concerned, but you lot just don't give up do you?

Out of interest I tried to access the AOPA forum to prepare a response, but it appears I am not allowed access.

Now this seems a twisted series of events for their President to to call someone a liar, then deny them the right of reply.

Anyway, and I don't really care about who calls who anything anymore, the Bertram missive is missing in fact and I can, and will bring the facts to light if you persist.

Bertram's first response "the board did not put forward a resolution on state chapters because the members at the AGM rejected it"

This is a lie, no resolution was ever put, and the board refused to allow it to be put.

"Mr Murphie has no experience in these matters"

Dr Scully Power (then Chairman of the CASA Board), offered me a position to work with the CASA safety promotions branch after a prolonged and bitter battle with CASA which I happened to win on points and cash.

"it is interesting in that the Article he refers was changed when Boyd Munro resigned so that Bill Hamilton could become president"

I can attribute this to "this" board because this alteration to the Articles referred to Bill Hamilton, nobody else, yet even the next president didn't bother to change things and carried on regardless and illegally.

Marjorie at least had the common sense and support to alter the Article to allow her to become president and those thereafter to which we now subscribe.

A pity I think with hindsight.

"perhaps Mr Murphie is not aware that it is best business practice to control spending"

This paragraph omits the fact that only the "executive" of the board control spending, thus marginalising the elected board from any input. This is also illegal I believe.

I wrote " under the guise of better representation...."

You answered;

"no such detail or intent was built into this agreement"

How would I know, I resigned in protest at the very idea and was not privy to anything except, "I can't talk to you it is priveleged"

The intent was there, I was threatened vehmently.

I made comment about reporting to the then general manager and an unelected member of the "executive" and you reply quoting a different general managers name who wouldn't know what went on that day. That's confusing or designed to confuse. Do elected board members still have to report to the hired help?

The membership statistics will come out for all to see at the next AGM. 3,500 members means an average of 291 renewing each month. The magazine bragging doesn't support this. I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt over magazine advertising however and offer an amended opinion after we see the facts.

"AOPA does spend a great deal of time defending the rights of pilots"

Wrong, and I believe I can get some members from the papers of a respected journalist to prove otherwise. One you dumped pretty badly because he was fighting a cause that may have implicated a then Director. I'm up to my neck in legal actions right now so another won't matter. Do you want that matter brought up before the Ombudsman is finished with it.

"add my prophecy"........

your reply " Mr Murphie appears to have a prophecy on the run"

Do you deny I made this assertion 12 months ago in front of people including an officer of the Court?

" Mr Murphie is not a member"

I may be one day if I feel I can be represented. My concern is that I was warned that AOPA don't want members like me and the board (executive), will oppose your rejoining"

My parting comments did not confer any agreement to forego my rights as a member and express an opinion if I wished. I did not sign a pledge of silence.

The matter of Insurance,

this board has by it's very threats to me jeopardised their directors liability insurance, and without members consent. I doubt unanimous board consent either. As for trivial matters, one should ask why you spend so much time persueing your preoccupation with sueing me?

Your comments regarding never having insurance matters is highlighted in your own thankfull words for Chris McKeown and I for taking on an appointed role at great risk to or own assetts. Should I refer you to the magazine page, month and year?

Mr Hamilton's tireless efforts is an affront to both his and my intelligence. I fear Bill Hamilton has never been given the credit he deserves for his efforts and in the contrary, has been ridiculed and vilified for having doors closed to AOPA because of him by your very self and especially a VP.

Your Senate remarks are taken in the spirit offered, and I like others take them as "spin"

The rest of your notice are, again in my opinion, "spin" and not worthy of comment.

Now if you stop threatening me and leave me to make personal opinion when and if it suits, I will leave you alone. In the absence of such an agreement, the matter continues because nobody will silence me to achieve their own aims.

It may help your cause to rid yourself of the turkeys following and antagonising things by their babbling.

Bob Murphie.
Australian citizen.

P|_azbot

17th Jan 2006, 11:24

A little more in depth here

http://www.ozipilotsonline.com.au/forums/showthread.php?threadid=85432

AOPA Australia

17th Jan 2006, 21:01

Pprune Posters

The Woomera comments deserve my response, which will also cater for Mr Murphie’s allegation about being unable to post on the AOPA Forum.

My initial post was clear that we wished to follow the Woomera suggestion and pursue this debate on the open AOPA Forum.

Mr Murphie complains that he is denied access. The fact is that since Mr Murphie decided to resign as an AOPA member he lost access to the AOPA Forum. If he wishes to register as a guest on the open non-member area, I will personally ensure his registration is expedited. Any Ppruner may also take up free guest registration.

I am uncertain why Woomera would criticise AOPA for requiring registration to post – since that is an identical requirement for this Pprune forum?

Read my post I do not see any criticism re registration simply a comment on removing the link as we do often and for good reasons learnt at the hand of one of your Board. W

Woomera also requotes alleged AOPA problems. The fact is that this Board has reversed the membership decline and commenced regrowth in a hostile GA environment, plus turning the finances around from a disaster. Should I apologise for success?

Not at all if we were referring to the same issues, however the evidence here suggests otherwise, the rest remains to be seen. W

The other fact is that strife in any organisation is not uncommon and is usually confined to a few. Mr Murphie and Mr Mitchell seem to be the few loud protesters, and I ask you to compare them and the few detractors on this forum to the size of our membership and the many members quite happy with our actions. That’s why we are growing again.

Some on Pprune and elsewhere argue that AOPA is not like it was in the past halcyon days. Let me quote a few extracts from the June 1999 magazine when Mr Mitchell was vice president of AOPA and Mr Murphie, if a member, quite silent. Does anyone notice some interesting similarities to the current scene? A hostile environment, decline in membership, allegations the committee is not performing, directors ceasing. This is not to say AOPA has some endemic long-term problem, rather, such issues are a fact of organisational life and we need to recognise it and get on with the real issues facing GA.

“Pres – “Post WW11 optimism has been replaced by a serious bout of pessimism abroad as we approach 2000.” “As I listened to many of our members at the AGM the signals were really mixed”.

AOPA GM – “Votes for the 1999 election were 2156. In 1995 there were 4986 votes cast.”

Pres – “About half the membership will not have seen a series of fax documents berating the committee on its performance.” “One of the statements made during the campaign was “AOPA needs a watchdog.” “This claim and a number of others were constantly repeated alleging your committee falling down on the job”. “It was claimed that we were unaware of a number of Government legislative actions”.

Directors ceased – one resigned, one retired.”

Ron Bertram

Sunfish

17th Jan 2006, 21:25

I think we can summarise the situation as follows. By the way, none of you know me, I'm a low time PPL as investigation of old threads will demonstrate. I make the following observations more in sorrow than in anger in the hope that something can be done to advance the interests of GA.

AOPA is running a confrontationalist strategy that is totally inapropriate for dealing with government. That the strategy is confrontationalist cannot be doubted, as evidenced by AOPA's stated mission (fighting for supposed "rights"), as evidenced by its aggressive language in its statements and now its threats to run Senate candidates. I make this statement on the basis of my own expereince working in government and working to government.

The damage done to GA by this strategy (and the work of another person) is demonstrated by the CASA strategy statement where it is made clear by Mr. Byron that GA is to be the lowest priority of that organisation, and even then, it is only valued as a provider of training.

From a perusal of other threads it is quite clear that whatever the cause, AOPA is dysfunctional, as evidenced by the ongoing infighting between current and former Directors and the dysfunctional nature of its own forums on its own website. It cannot go on like this.

I say it cannot go on because there is no evidence that AOPA is listening to its own members, let alone debating some of the issues I, as an outsider, have raised, especially regarding strategy.

If nothing is done, the result will, I suspect, be a declining membership and a lack of any effective voice representing the needs of the GA community.

As a result of this less than effective voice, the GA community will suffer the consequences of further well meaning but off target regulation from the powers that be.

To put it in other words; AOPA, don't just blame CASA and DOTARS for the ASIC stuff up, you are to blame as well because you failed to provide timely and trustworrthy advice and counsel to them on how these measures could best be implemented.

To put it yet another way, if you knew what you were doing, you would realise that you are supposed to be in partnership with the regulators to ensure that the hand of regulation is as light as possible and that it is easy for the regulators to do their job.

To put it another way again; you should be helping the regulators, because by doing that, you are helping GA.

To put it yet again another way; where was AOPA when there was all this fuss in Far North Queensland??????? Why didn't AOPA get a chance to read all the NAS2c stuff and perhaps organise a few focus groups of pilots so that the material could be thoroughly tested before it was mailed to all of us? You might have been instrumental in saving CASA a stack of money involved in the follow up "supplemental" mailout!

I suggest that you need to have a "spill" motion and find some other people to start again, either that or we will just have to sit and watch while the decline continues.

185skywagon

17th Jan 2006, 23:00

Ron,
When will the organisation address the fact that it has only 3500 members out of a possible 10000 aircraft owners and 30000 pilots?

Over the last few days, I have been perusing some old Australian Aviation mags going back to 1990. Back then, people were asking where GA was going to end up. AOPA had 10000 members at that time, and there were 50000 pilots in Oz.
This was before the Boyd and Dick show.

AOPA desperately needs the membership numbers and the cost of membership. Every new pilot needs to joined at the start, like days of old.

( I don't mean to live in the past).

Based on our group's stats, we should have at least 50% of owners as members(5000) and half the pilots as members(15000). Surely we would have some clout then.

The fighting has to stop, and resources put into a massive membership drive ASAP.

IMHO

Bob Murphie

18th Jan 2006, 00:44

I doubt I will get any answers except more "spin" from my response to Ron Bertrams first. It is however about time to take stock of what is happening here because I am too stubborn to give in and the AOPA executive appear to want to continue to hunt me down.

Let me sum up;

1) One snarek defames me by alleging I am a pprune identity and publishes a list of IP's on the agacf website. After 3 warnings by myself he removes the defaming material

2) The agacf discussion on the website warned by one Uluru to be careful lest the bounds of the law be breached.

3) I post the offending item ( page 4 this thread I guess), which suggests the bounds of the law may have already have been breached.

4) I am then threatened and when awaiting the supportring paperwork (which doesn't turn up), I remove and then replace the items in question including the threatening email. I do this to support my assertions that free speech or opinion contrary to the executive of the board won't be tolerated and the use of threat and intimidation is the manner used to keep people in line. Ask the former administrator of the agacf website. Ask the Ozipilots administrator. Ask Gaunty about the defamation of me whilst they were setting him up.

5) I am further intimidated via a third party email advising some Barrister is going to "do me over" for no cost.

6) I then find myself being vilified as anti AOPA when the threats and intimidation haven't worked.

7) I am then subject to further defamatory remarks and called a liar on numerous forums, one which I can't access, and which for balance, the good president Ron couldn't be bothered cutting and pasting over.

Now all this mess is in the public eye and one should ask, who is doing the most damage to the organisation. It appears me for having the hide to stand up to what I believe are bullies and thugs prepared to use the members money on a legal crusade because a couple of the executive can't stand criticism.

Over to you Ron, you have it in your power to call off the babbling turkeys ending this matter and perhaps leaving AOPA some dignity. I still reserve the right to an opinion whilst ever I have breath in my body however.

Yes Sunfish, a good question re the FNQ mess. Perhaps someone may tell you, (the real truth). Don't ask me though. The end result justifies the matter be put to rest as nothing further can be gained from pushing anything AOPA didn't do or for whatever reason.

Bob Murphie.
Security cleared Australian Citizen.

Woomera

18th Jan 2006, 01:27

Whilst the Woomera team hold diverse personal views on many subjects, in moderating PPRuNe we are one team. We support the post of our Woomera colleague above.

We welcome constructive criticism of, or suggestions for all Australian aviation representative organisations. However this is a rumour and news forum, not a venue for dirty washing, personal attacks and nit picking.

I suggest the AOPA protagonists take their nit picking bickering and personal axe grinding to the AOPA bulletin board or one of the other aviation sites they tend to frequent.

Another Woomera
I have yet to see a more constructive dissection of the AOPA issue than the above by Sunfish.

It is reminiscent of the AOPA A Woomera prespective of 2002. For a very short while, it looked like they may have got the message. The problem is the same people who aborted that idea are still there and dont look like going anytime soon.
There is absolutely no question that PPRuNe would be a passive supporter of a functional AOPA as we are of anything that furthers the progress of the industry.
I don't need to requotes alleged AOPA problems

Now as my Woomera colleague say's, get on with it where it belongs.:rolleyes:

2B1ASK1

18th Jan 2006, 03:03

SOME INTERESTING, HISTORICAL AOPA FACTS HAVE JUST BEEN POSTED ON THE agaf SITE FOR THOUSE OF YOU WITH A PENCHANT FOR REALITY.

SUNFISH, PLEASE HAVE A LOOK.

Bob Murphie

18th Jan 2006, 06:00

I understand the epic will be out in DVD next week, I would wait until then.

tipsy2

18th Jan 2006, 06:36

PPRuNe through the Woomeri have been generous in the extreme by allowing this thread to run.

I think it is time for the big 'click'

Please do this before the puerile 'genitalia comparing' that has swamped other forums infects this one.

The AOPA Forum is infected with useless rantings and with the risk to egos so great it is not to difficult to see that there will be no acceptable solution to the individual combatants.

That being the case, for all our sake please click

tipsy

slice

18th Jan 2006, 06:54

Or how about just moving this thread to Jetblast where discerning gents can compare willies at length!:p

Biggles_in_Oz

18th Jan 2006, 07:04

The only cure for AOPA now (as several have already stated), is for a complete and utter removal of the current management, committee(s), board, etc.

There is way too much anger and animosity and hatred over a long timescale and over too many past issues.
Any sane person who attempts to follow all the public accusations, arguments, counter-arguments and things that only make sense to the protaganists, can only sadly shake their head and then resolve to have as little as possible to do with the entire morass.

A drastic decapitation approach will also remove any good and worthwhile
management members together with the 'bad', but only with such drastic surgery can AOPA ever hope to resurrect itself and attract new members.

An organisation that now has 3500 members out of a potential 30000 has (in my opinion) a credibility problem if it claims to represent pilots, owners and GA.

triadic

18th Jan 2006, 07:43

Biggles - your are on the mark. Nobody that is there now has any sort of a handle on how the task should be carried out. Some are even doing more damage as we speak. The corporate history has gone and that mentioned elsewhere, circa 1999 has very little to do with todays issues or solutions. (but does point the bone at the cause of much of the existing problem)

In the early to mid 90's before the "takeover", AOPA had aprox 10,300 members and sent out about 10,500 magazines each month, all at subs under $50. As said previously the pilot/owner population was above what it is now. Research at the time indicated that the potential membership total was around 15,000. One must remember that maybe 3000 or more members at that time were former GA pilots that were employed by major carriers. Of course most of these dropped out when the new leadership started using terms like "weekend warriors" etc. They obviously did not want to be a part of it. Their value to the industry and the association was significantly undervalued, and still is. This is especially so when the President has said on more than one occasion that he does not want certain types of members, and he wonders why many p!ss on him, or perhaps just walk away shaking their head...! You will never get members with behaviour like that!

Ever since the takeover, the association has gone down hill and certainly lost the respectibility and credibility that it once enjoyed. The only way now to get that back is to do what Biggles suggests... I would suggest a temporary administrator in lieu of the Board - a new set of rules and elections that exclude previously serving board members from within the past 5 years from nominating.

If AOPA is to survive such drastic action must be taken - one must think of the big picture and the greater good, not just their self centered empire.
:ooh: