Hung Parliament - lost opportunity for reform? [Archive]

Flying Binghi

4th Jul 2016, 05:36

I suggest some here need to do a little research about the 'political' priorities of those such as xenophon.

xenophon cares nought about any Australian small business, especially Aviation small business...

Some background:

After Tony Abbott became Prime Minister, al gore and clive palmer meet to ensure the corruption of carbon trading continues. Big banks and gore to profit...
Palmer and Gore exchange fond words (http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/al-gore-takes-the-stage-with-clive-palmer/news-story/988e9c76fce50f8f510eb8bcfc29af0e)

Al gore 'helps' a candidate go against Tony Abbott. Andrew woodward "is a climate reality leader as part of al gores climate reality project". Big banks and gore to profit...
https://au.linkedin.com/in/andrewwoodward1966

And that muppet xenophone ploted to ensure 'carbon' is taxed. Big banks and gore to profit...
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/10/18/nick-xenophons-ploy-price-carbon/14135508001142

Al gore and his Australian stooges such as xenophon are ensuring that Australian business costs are higher then their overseas competitors and that money from Australian taxpayers flow to the carbon trading scam..:hmm:

.

mcgrath50

4th Jul 2016, 06:15

carbon trading scam

Yes the scam that will help Australia transition to a carbon free economy, make sure at the cutting edge of where the world is going technology wise and ensure the planet is still habitable for my and future generations. What an evil man Xenophon is.

Flying Binghi

4th Jul 2016, 06:25

via mcgrath50:
Yes the scam that will help Australia transition to a carbon free economy, make sure at the cutting edge of where the world is going technology wise and ensure the planet is still habitable for my and future generations. What an evil man Xenophon is.

Considering just one thing. As all of Australia's roads are paved with what is basicly processed coal I think we will look a bit stupid to the rest of the world when we have a national system of gravel roads to service our "carbon free economy"..:hmm:

Hmmm... I dont think you've put much thought to it mcgrath50

.

IFEZ

4th Jul 2016, 08:30

Spot on Flying Binghi. 1st it was 'global warming' then it morphed into 'climate change', now I hear there's a good chance we're heading to a mini ice age in the not too distant future..!

All the scare mongering that's been going on by the likes of Al Gore et al is now being proven to be a compete crock. All the predictions of doom & gloom, the temperature rising, the sea levels rising, never getting any good rains again, etc etc. So much of the 'science' around all this is now proving to be flawed. So much of the computer modelling that predicted all this is now being proven to be incorrect when the actual data is turning out to be completely different (ie nowhere near as bad) to what was predicted.

As far as I'm concerned, this is one the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the general public, of all time.

I'd suggest our political leaders do some of their own research into the subject before they send this country further into abject poverty, instead of blindly following the rest of the western world over the cliff. The current crop, including Nick X, will have us sending billions overseas to make absolutely no difference to anything but the bank balances of overseas climate change shysters & frauds. :ugh::ugh:http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Ixixly

4th Jul 2016, 09:04

IFEZ, you can't possibly deny Climate Change can you? There's billions of years of Earths History where it has constantly changed, it's always changing! The "Mini Ice Age" they're talking about drew my attention as well, but have a bit more of a read and they're saying that it simply means a small decline in temperature, not that the world is going to Ice over, it really is a poor name, but certainly a catchy headline. Experts suggest it will cause warming to slow down but not to reverse and it will only last maybe 20 years before going back to how it is now.

I don't like Al Gore, I hate the "Global Warming" hype, but there is definitely Climate Change, we are having an affect on it for sure, I personally believe the world is far more complicated that a lot of people choose to believe, it has many different processes that help balance it out when events happen such as too much carbon, so much of it we're only barely beginning to understand which is why I hate all the models that people put out which cannot possibly be correct as they're based only on what we currently understand which is so damned little!

In short, we do need to give businesses a good reason (A financial reason unfortunately) to convince them to reduce their impact, otherwise they won't, simple as that. Only way to really get businesses to do what is good for everyone else is to eat away at their bottom line in some way.

In a perfect world you should just be able to tell them "Hey, you're polluting the world, you should spend a little to help clean up after yourself..." but you can't, instead we have to go with the "Hey, you're polluting so we're going to tax you more, but if you take actions to reduce your impact we'll reduce the amount you'll be taxed by a greater amount than what you spent"

cbradio

4th Jul 2016, 11:08

How'd those fine folk from the ALA go binghi? Saved us all yet?

Duck Pilot

4th Jul 2016, 12:07

Let's just wait untill the dust settles ay!

Wunwing

4th Jul 2016, 23:35

When the major event that can't be mentioned here occurred, I suggested that it was paralleling the great NSW railway strike of the early 1900s. Many similarities occurred in both including bringing in the military, alternative labour and placing the later arrivals first on the seniority list.

However when the dust settled after the unspeakable event, then the 2 disputes were very different. Unlike the railway strike nothing political was organised by the pilots or the industry.The railway workers went into politics and from that their reps became Prime Minister and NSW State Premier.

Why the different results? If we could come up with an answer on that then we may be able as an industry to work out an action plan.

Wunwing

Horatio Leafblower

5th Jul 2016, 09:18

Wunwing,

Flying Binghi and IFEZ have just demonstrated why this industry will never gel into a political force: There is a portion of the population who lose their hair in apopleptic fury every time someone says something non-scathing about
- Climate Change
- Gay Marriage
- Islam
- Malcolm Turnbull
- Barak Obama.

Instead of looking at NX's pro-aviation conduct, especially in needling Qantas over Jetstar and the Group's creative cost-shifting, FB picks out one part of NX's policies and makes it part of an international conspiracy :ugh:

Flying Binghi

5th Jul 2016, 22:50

via Horatio Leafblower:
Wunwing,

Flying Binghi and IFEZ have just demonstrated why this industry will never gel into a political force: There is a portion of the population who lose their hair in apopleptic fury every time someone says something non-scathing about
- Climate Change
- Gay Marriage
- Islam
- Malcolm Turnbull
- Barak Obama.

Instead of looking at NX's pro-aviation conduct, especially in needling Qantas over Jetstar and the Group's creative cost-shifting, FB picks out one part of NX's policies and makes it part of an international conspiracy.

"apopletic fury..." :ooh:
.....Hmmm, I do note that as a barely literate hill farmer my abilitie to put 'emotion' into me words do be a bit lacking at times though being considered apopletic is a new one on me..:cool:

Horatio Leafblower, I dont know if you've noticed though yer mate xenophoney is a supporter of the carbon scam which is adding costs to Australian business, like aviation, that affects our international competitiveness amongst other things.

.

Flying Binghi

5th Jul 2016, 22:57

via cbradio:
How'd those fine folk from the ALA go binghi? Saved us all yet?

Perhaps they should join up with One Nation..:)

.

Lookleft

6th Jul 2016, 01:05

See Sunfish why your proposition in theory possibly might work but why in practice its never going to. You suggest a "strategy". A strategy requires a common ideal and a plan. A plan that all parties are committed to. In aviation you cannot achieve this. If you could then AOPA, AAAA, RAAA would pool their resources and present a united group to the politicians but each has their own vested interest and desired outcomes. The sad fact is the majority of Australian voters do not give a nano second of thought to the state of the aviation industry and would not even know who or what CASA is/does.

Horatio Leafblower

6th Jul 2016, 12:10

I would love to mount a case to demonstrate that GA is relevant and necessary to Australian society but I am struggling to convince even myself these days

Flying Binghi

7th Jul 2016, 00:29

via fpvdude:
No chance you could potentially see the irony that you bang on and on about a conspiracy by scientists to get rich, yet here you are with an increadibly vested interest (as stated by your nutjob-self)...?

Hmmm..., fpvdude, in this thread I commented on, or referenced to, politicians and al gore.

fpvdude, please do provide a reference to where you got the "conspiracy by scientists" idea from..... or perhaps yer think al gore is a scientist. A lot do it appears..:hmm:

.

Flying Binghi

7th Jul 2016, 00:59

via Ixixly:
IFEZ, you can't possibly deny Climate Change can you? There's billions of years of Earths History where it has constantly changed, it's always changing! The "Mini Ice Age" they're talking about drew my attention as well, but have a bit more of a read and they're saying that it simply means a small decline in temperature, not that the world is going to Ice over, it really is a poor name, but certainly a catchy headline. Experts suggest it will cause warming to slow down but not to reverse and it will only last maybe 20 years before going back to how it is now.

I don't like Al Gore, I hate the "Global Warming" hype, but there is definitely Climate Change, we are having an affect on it for sure, I personally believe the world is far more complicated that a lot of people choose to believe, it has many different processes that help balance it out when events happen such as too much carbon, so much of it we're only barely beginning to understand which is why I hate all the models that people put out which cannot possibly be correct as they're based only on what we currently understand which is so damned little!

In short, we do need to give businesses a good reason (A financial reason unfortunately) to convince them to reduce their impact, otherwise they won't, simple as that. Only way to really get businesses to do what is good for everyone else is to eat away at their bottom line in some way.

In a perfect world you should just be able to tell them "Hey, you're polluting the world, you should spend a little to help clean up after yourself..." but you can't, instead we have to go with the "Hey, you're polluting so we're going to tax you more, but if you take actions to reduce your impact we'll reduce the amount you'll be taxed by a greater amount than what you spent"

"...and they're saying"

I've been commenting on the global warming nonsense for going on ten years now. Apart from pprune i've been on political forums, science forums, weather forums, environment forums, and sundry other forums.

One thing I noted a few years back that whenever the fact were mentioned that the sun has been more active in the last 25 odd years then it had been for the last several hundred years, it were made out to be irrelevant by the global warming nutters. Now the suns gone quiet and things are cooling down, suddenly, "experts suggest".....:hmm:

"...give business a good reason"

errr... Ixixly, yer do understand that in Australia most business normally only survives because there are customers. Of course if yer in governmint service or one of them perpetual student protester/dole bludger types that fact would probably escape you..:hmm:

If Australian citizens are buying products from any particular business then those citizens (voters) have made their "what is good for everyone" voter minds up..:)

.

mcgrath50

7th Jul 2016, 07:04

All the scare mongering that's been going on by the likes of Al Gore et al is now being proven to be a compete crock. All the predictions of doom & gloom, the temperature rising, the sea levels rising, never getting any good rains again, etc etc. So much of the 'science' around all this is now proving to be flawed. So much of the computer modelling that predicted all this is now being proven to be incorrect when the actual data is turning out to be completely different (ie nowhere near as bad) to what was predicted.

Show me a consensus of scientists who believe this! Binghi your loony conspiracy is only supported and advanced by fringe scientist. You and your ilk are going to cost this planet and screw the future generations.

So thanks. Now piss off and let's fix this thing.

Flying Binghi

7th Jul 2016, 09:21

via mcgrath50:
"All the scare mongering that's been going on by the likes of Al Gore et al is now being proven to be a compete crock. All the predictions of doom & gloom, the temperature rising, the sea levels rising, never getting any good rains again, etc etc. So much of the 'science' around all this is now proving to be flawed. So much of the computer modelling that predicted all this is now being proven to be incorrect when the actual data is turning out to be completely different (ie nowhere near as bad) to what was predicted."

Show me a consensus of scientists who believe this! Binghi your loony conspiracy is only supported and advanced by fringe scientist. You and your ilk are going to cost this planet and screw the future generations.

So thanks. Now piss off and let's fix this thing.

:confused: You seem a bit confused mcgrath50.

Putting up a quote covering many subjects from poster IFEZ and then asking if a consensus of scientists believe it is a bit silly.

As to the "looney conspiracy", I'm yet to see a reference..:hmm:

...anyway, One Nation wants some enquirys made into this global warming nonsense so it will be fixed..:)

.

mcgrath50

8th Jul 2016, 07:39

Binghi, it's not difficult to understand mate. The science and models are turning out correct if not worse. The whole point of climate change is that some areas will get drier, some will get wetter. But overall the planet will warm (hence why global warming became a popular term). Most worryingly is there will be an increase in extreme weather events, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc. The computer models are NOT being proven wrong. In fact they are being proven to have been too optimistic.

One of the few policies of One Nation I welcome is the inquiry into climate science. It will be a quick and simple, open and shut inquiry. It WILL come back that climate change is real and we should have started acting at least 10 years ago. And I look forward to all you idiotic boomers admitting you were wrong and letting go of your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Just like you all did with wind turbines... oh wait.

IFEZ

8th Jul 2016, 08:02

Wow, and Horatio reckons Flying Binghi and I were apoplectic..!!

Don't worry FB, it appears that mcgrath50 assumes that we're too old to understand all this new fangled climate bizzo. It wouldn't dawn on him that maybe we've researched and considered BOTH sides of the argument and formed an opinion based on that. As I said before, I wish our political leaders could find the time to do the same. I'm afraid its too late for mcgrath50 though. The brainwashing has been exceedingly successful.

Sunfish

8th Jul 2016, 10:57

None of you get it...

We are talking negative campaigning here. We care not about global warming, gay whales, a balanced budget, etc.

What we simply say is that unless you agree to support aviation reform, then we will do everything legal to ensure you aren't re- elected. We do not have to argue a balanced policy about how GA is good for Australia, we are not running for election. Here are our demands, if you do not support them then we will run a negative campaign to unseat you, maybe we just pay for negative ads, we don't have to be politically savvy, we aren't up for election, you are.

It matters not if your opponent Is a green tree hugger, YOU won't be in parliament. WE will make the same offer to the tree hugger at next election.

At time of writing one seat is down to a seven vote lead. Pity we didn't do something.

gerry111

8th Jul 2016, 15:02

Please check your PMs, Sunfish.

Lookleft

8th Jul 2016, 22:51

So basically Sunfish you are advocating political blackmail and thuggery to achieve an objective? Isn't this what Get-Up did in Tasmania to unseat Liberal MPs that they considered had a right-wing agenda? Get-Up did this by using a lot of money and "volunteers". Are you going to fund such a campaign? Good to see where you sit on the ethics spectrum Sunfish. Tell us again how successful you were as a businessman and consultant to Government.:mad:

Sunfish

9th Jul 2016, 07:11

Lookleft, only the naive, foolish or stupid expect to play politics by Marquis of Queensberry rules and win. It is physically, logically and intellectually impossible to create a policy platform, let alone an economic strategy, that does not encompass winners and unfortunately losers. As professor Isiah Berlin explained even perfect solutions to problems inevitably father more problems. We are dealing with choices of evils at all times.

The aviation industry is as entitled as anyone else to ask for exactly what it wants without consideration of its effects on others. Whether we the get what we asked for is then a question of politics - what is the political costs and benefits of helping GA vs. not helping GA?

AOPA and all the alphabet soup of associations have spent at least Fifteen years quietly, artfully, accurately and with great patience spelled out the economic benefits to politicians of supporting GA, with exactly Zero success. It is now time to explain and implement measures that increase the political costs of NOT supporting GA. A negative election campaign targeted on marginal seats is the preferred method of applying political pain since sugared enticements have absolutely and totally failed.

To put that another way that I still don't expect you to understand' we have tried Fifteen years of "carrot" that failed. It is now time to try "stick".

Lookleft

9th Jul 2016, 12:05

So the ends justifies the means Sunfish. Well done on articulating why politicians treat the voting public with such contempt if you are an example of a typical constituent. You keep talking in terms of we yet I don't see you putting your name to anything. You expect others to do the heavy lifting to start and maintain your morally corrupt campaign of targeting politicians in marginal seats. Why don't you at least have the courage ( I forgot you were once a businessman and a consultant) to state which marginal electorate you live in that this scheme would work? When are you going to understand that politicians and the voting public do not care and are not interested in general aviation as an electoral issue.

Flying Binghi

9th Jul 2016, 12:11

Heh, Dick Smith is bringing 'attention' to Oz aviation with his helicopter rescue bid for Julian Assange..:)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ONzuPKED5qc

Of relevance to politics... Apparently Assange has the dirt on hillary clinton..:ooh:
...and if ya believe the blogger world there's the miss-information campaign that google has been running against Assange........and isn't illerys close freind al gore tied up with google..:ooh:

This is gonna be...:cool:

Some see it a little differently... http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/dick_demands/#commentsmore

.

Sunfish

9th Jul 2016, 22:08

lookleft = pollyanna

I live in Indi - we already elected an independent. You however have got me thinking. How hard would it be to write a position paper and self help strategy that any voluntary group of pilots could implement in their own electorates? Then we don't need a national institution to do that.

basically, all pilots should support independents all the time and encourage others to do the same.

It matters not who they are or what they stand for - just as long as they are NOT LIBERAL OR LABOR and most importantly, both parties understand that no aviation industry participant or their families, friends and relations will ever again vote for a major unless they build a constructive aviation policy.

This situation is to continue until one or both major parties hurts enough that they embrace and execute a policy of aviation regulatory reform.

"hurting" you say? remember the fable of the lion and the gnat? how many votes are pivotal in those last six seats?

"businessman and consultant"? why yes, with some modest success. how about you Lookleft?

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2016, 23:48

via mcgrath50:
Binghi, it's not difficult to understand mate. The science and models are turning out correct if not worse. The whole point of climate change is that some areas will get drier, some will get wetter. But overall the planet will warm (hence why global warming became a popular term). Most worryingly is there will be an increase in extreme weather events, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc. The computer models are NOT being proven wrong. In fact they are being proven to have been too optimistic.

One of the few policies of One Nation I welcome is the inquiry into climate science. It will be a quick and simple, open and shut inquiry. It WILL come back that climate change is real and we should have started acting at least 10 years ago. And I look forward to all you idiotic boomers admitting you were wrong and letting go of your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Just like you all did with wind turbines... oh wait.

mcgrath50, please do show us a reference to this "correct" climate computer model. And as you are claiming it were a predictive model then you also need to prove that it were closed out, i.e. no recent data modifications, within say the last 20 years. I'm looking foward to looking at the first 'correct' climate model in existance...:)

"increase in extreme weather events"... what increase? Please provide a credible reference.

mcgrath50, unless I see some sort of a credible reference I'll take it that yer 'pulling my leg'..;)

Heh, and as to finding a credible climate model...

"Surface air temperatures, as measured at weather stations across Australia, are routinely remodeled through a process of homogenization. After the remodeling of approximately 100 individual temperature series, various area weightings are applied to these individual series, then the average annual temperature is calculated for each state and territory, the entire continent, and used to report climate change.

Issues of concern are the process of homogenization, the choice of stations, the way the homogenized data series are combined, and whether this provides an accurate representation of the historic temperature record for Australia.

There has been no independent assessment of this methodology. I made a request for the same in a letter to Grant Hehir, Auditor-General of Australia, with supporting information on 11th November 2015. This requested was rejected without any consideration of the evidence. I used Rutherglen as a case study, and queried the rational for dropping down temperatures in the early part of the Rutherglen record when their had been no site move or equipment change. These adjustments turned a slight cooling trend in the minimum temperatures as recorded at Rutherglen, into dramatic warming, as illustrated in this chart..."
Continues...

Auditor-General Dismisses Need for Scrutiny of Bureau's Homogenization Methodology - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/06/audit-general-dismisses-need-for/)

So a cooling trend is modified to a warming trend. Smells of corruption to me and that enquiry One Nation is calling for is long overdue..:cool:

.

Flying Binghi

10th Jul 2016, 23:54

Sunfish, which Oz political party leader has flown in an experimental catagory aircraft ?

.

Lookleft

11th Jul 2016, 00:41

Sunfish if I am Pollyanna you are definitely Walter Mitty! For some reason only known to yourself you think that you are a great political strategist who is the only person to have the knowledge and experience to save GA! For a start its not a hung parliament so there goes your "big idea" from the start. Secondly you think there is enough votes from the GA fraternity to make a difference to any political parties policy on aviation.Take your independent in Indi. You think that if every aviation minded person stated they would vote for her if she had a platform for reforming aviation and she told the government she would not support their agenda if they didn't fix CASA- then the party in government would go weak at the knees and give in! Your fantasy land knows no bounds if that is the case. You're incorrect (yes you are wrong Sunfish-again)regarding the fable of the lion and the gnat. The fable is about the lion and the mouse. The lion representing the major parties and them being ensnared in the net of parliamentary procedures and their inability to do what they want. The mouse represents the independents who assist the lion and help set it free. The lesson for dimwitted ex-consultants is by helping each other you get what you want. Democratic fantasy, possibly, but it is a more likely outcome than your ridiculous notion.

rutan around

11th Jul 2016, 02:01

Flying Binghi & Lookleft,

Your political views make you sound insane.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Lookleft

11th Jul 2016, 02:58

Your political views make you sound insane

And your contribution is .......:D

Sunfish

11th Jul 2016, 03:39

Lookleft:

secondly you think there is enough votes from the GA fraternity to make a difference to any political parties policy on aviation

You have just demonstrated you don't understand what a negative campaign is all about. It's not about our votes, it's about getting other voters mad mad enough at incumbents not to vote for them. Do you understand this? We work to motivate others NOT To Vote For incumbents who wonT support aviaition reform.

We don't have to sell aviaition reform to the voters at all, what we have to sell them is a good reason that may not even be aviation related NOT to vote for our target.

Shakes head.

Lookleft

11th Jul 2016, 06:00

Rutan around thinks I'm insane! No wonder I don't understand it, its the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Start a negative campaign about someone in the aim of making them support something that they don't even know they are supporting because an insignificant minority may not vote for them. I'll stick to professional aviation Sunfish because the world of the businessman and consultant is delusional at best and morally bankrupt at its core.:mad:

Sunfish

11th Jul 2016, 08:19

still doesn't understand.........

GA people are indeed an insignificant minority.

The idea is to motivate a significant fraction of the electorate NOT to vote for the incumbent.

Blackmail? Why yes, certainly! Do you think, like Pollyanna, that people who think only good things get elected?? The GA industry has been sweet reason for fifteen years and has zero to show for it! Time to make like the CFMEU and united firefighters union.........and don't fall for the trap of being too "professional" to do a little arm twisting.

Lookleft

11th Jul 2016, 08:49

You give someone enough rope........

Arm out the window

11th Jul 2016, 21:11

I've been accused of being like Pollyanna by Sunfish too, Lookleft, whose operating method is basically to state his own case as if it's unassailable fact and then use put-downs in practically all further 'discussion'.

None of you get it... Oh, the humanity!

rutan around

11th Jul 2016, 23:15

Lookleft asks " And your contribution is ..............?"

Well for a start this from another thread on this forum.

I think we all start off with that touchy feely view that that no organization can be as bad as some of the old hard bitten pilots among us make out. We feel that common sense and mutual respect will resolve any differences we might have about how to solve problems as they arrive.

Slowly the realization comes to all of us, some sooner than others, that we are not dealing with sane, reasonable people.

Both the upper management of CASA and the Politicians who are supposed to guide the organization are nothing more than overpaid self serving bludgers who think that the whole now rotten edifice exists solely to feed their overblown egos and keep them in their high and mighty lifestyle.

We have seen over the last 6 weeks a fairly strong move to bring about change. I personally have been to 5 meetings and spoken one on one with 8 different current politicians. Result? Half arsed promises from both sides and a winge about being finger pointed at Tamworth - Poor little petals.
They JUST don't care about 1/2 a billion $$$$$ being wasted on unusable idiotic rules or about hundreds of job losses and the potential for that to become thousands.

I am now of the opinion that we will only bring about change if we take loud and drastic action. We should announce that as of a certain date we are dumping CASA rules and adopting New Zealand's rules whether CASA likes it or not.

Then let the pollies and CASA explain why we should keep our rules when NZ has a similar safety record and a thriving Aviation Industry for a fraction of our costs and a fraction of our red tape. I wonder how many aviation people who dearly would like to see change in the management of Aviation actually got off their backsides and spoke to even one current or aspiring politician.
If every reader of p-prune had made the effort to make at least one contact before the election the politicians may have thought that at least it was worthwhile making some sort of reform statement and could crow about how they would save the aviation industry money in these times of fiscal crisis blah blah blah..........

I guess I must also be insane to believe that the majority my fellow aviators would ever do any more than winge to each other about the demise of GA.

I'm probably even more insane in thinking the politicians would ever do anything about fixing the current situation purely because it would be the right thing to do and good for the country.

I think Sunny has the right idea. Kick them in their majority.

Lookleft

11th Jul 2016, 23:33

Rutan just for the record I did go and speak to my local pollie after the Senate inquiry and got a nothing response as he was a left wing Labor type with no interest in aviation.He is still the local member with in increased majority because the Libs put a no neck numbskull in as a candidate.

You think Sunny has the right idea but with this statement: I'm probably even more insane in thinking the politicians would ever do anything about fixing the current situation purely because it would be the right thing to do and good for the country. he would immediately put you in the Pollyanna camp.

I guess I must also be insane to believe that the majority my fellow aviators would ever do any more than winge to each other about the demise of GA.

That doesn't make you insane but it does state quite clearly what the problem is. Sunny with all his rhetoric doesn't actually want to do anything himself he just wants to ponce about using the royal"We" as in "we should do something and I have the most brilliant of ideas". He has stated in other threads that he considers industry groups a complete waste of time even though they are the aviators getting off their backsides. The only problem that I can see is that there are too many industry groups and if they lobbied as one group then they could make some progress. But there you go that might be just Pollyanna talking.

Sunfish

12th Jul 2016, 20:08

the trouble with pilots is that a certain amount of ego is a requirement for successful aviation, as it is with barristers and surgeons. in my opinion this is antithetical to the construction of effective representative associations, as seems to be demonstrated by the regular conniptions in AOPA,RAA,etc.

perhaps it is possible to get agreement on what we don't want however at my age I'm doing it from an armchair. I've done it before - creating an industry association out of warring tribes and I don't need the stress again. happy. to tell you again how Idid it.

Arm out the window

13th Jul 2016, 21:02

the trouble with pilots is that a certain amount of ego is a requirement for successful aviation, as it is with barristers and surgeons.

Absolute unsubstantiated rubbish. All kinds of personality types are represented in the pilot group.

thorn bird

13th Jul 2016, 22:00

"The only problem that I can see is that there are too many industry groups and if they lobbied as one group then they could make some progress".

Never a truer word was spoken, but I fear its too late.

With the current DAS deluding himself that the industry is in good shape, completely contrary to overwhelming evidence that it isn't, I am of a mind that regardless of what the industry does it is doomed, he'll never accept he has failed miserably, the pollies will simply believe what they are fed by their mandarins, the DAS will probably get a knighthood for services to the aviation industry. The industry itself can repair to the nursing home, cry in its beer, argue over pedantic's and reminisce on what might have been.

Lookleft

14th Jul 2016, 02:02

Thanks for the affirmation TB Never a truer word was spoken, but I fear its too late. :ok:

As for this:

the trouble with pilots is that a certain amount of ego is a requirement for successful aviation, as it is with barristers and surgeons.

What can you say other than to include this statement as an example of what a real egomaniac looks like:

I've done it before - creating an industry association out of warring tribes and I don't need the stress again. happy. to tell you again how Idid it.:yuk:

Sunfish

14th Jul 2016, 04:16

Pilots need healthy egos to fly. They need confidence in their ability to master any situation, not breakdown and cry.

The common factor with pilots, surgeons, barristers and actors is that once they start an operation/flight/court performance they must go on to the end and finish it. This requires a certain level of confidence in ones own abilities - also called ego. Members of these groups cannot be tentative about the actions they take, they cannot suddenly say "hold everything! I need to study this situation! Excuse me while I take myself off and do some research". You have to perform with what you know and the skills you have available at the time. There is no one else who can do it for you as you realize a microsecond after you. lift off on your joyous first solo. It is also a solitary profession compared to say accounting.

As another Pprune poster wrote years ago somewhere, pilots are not comfortable with ambiguity, nor long winded decision making processes, they want an answer right now and if they disagree with the answer then they say so.

They don't beat around the bush because doing so with an aircraft will kill you. Thus they are not the logical folk to build an Association which must of necessity deal with Government ambiguity, long winded decision making, people perhaps playing fast and loose with the truth as part of political processes and all the other institutional touchy feely stuff.

This is not a criticism of pilots merely an observation that as a group we don't do the cooperation thing too well (perhaps it's just a male thing? ladies seem to work together very well:p)

This is not to say that pilots are loud mouthed egomaniacs, merely that a healthy ego is necessary for safe operation of an aircraft. A certain book about an A380 incident illustrates what I mean.

Looklefts comments demonstrate where excessive ego leads - to destructive name calling.

Lookleft

14th Jul 2016, 04:55

Sunfish I didn't realise that as part of your amazing skill set that you were also a pseudo psychologist! There is a big difference in confidence in one's ability to ego driving your decision making.

As for the name calling, you have a very limited attention span otherwise how could you have already forgotten this:

lookleft = pollyanna

Arm out the window

14th Jul 2016, 09:25

Well I'm stuffed - those very successful female pilots who can also work together, how do they deal with emergencies when their massive pilot ego doesn't come on line? I'm sure you can elaborate, Sunfish.

The pilot with the big ego is the one to avoid flying with, not to put up as typical of the profession! Although I'm sounding a bit flippant here, this bit is dead set truth. Ego is the root of press-on-it is and the 'don't tell me about the rules, they're for average pilots, not me' attitude which has killed a lot of our forebears and peers and will continue to do so.

Barristers and surgeons, though - what about plumbers? There's no room for the faint hearted in that line when they get half way through unblocking the dunny - they need the drive to carry on through adversity, and once committed to a course of action better not stop!

Sunfish

15th Jul 2016, 05:12

Aaaah! But plumbers work by very simple rules! Sh*t flows downhill, don't chew your fingernails and Thursday is payday. Doctors bury their mistakes and barristers oopsies go to jail. Pilots on the other hand have their mistakes splattered over the front page.

I agree about egomaniacs however my reading of Pprune suggests they may be commoner to the pilot community then, say, among accountants and auditors.

An example drawn from a current thread elsewhere on this page:

There has been a change of management at BRS a Greedy Self-elected Dictatorial Board of two ******* and ****** and anyone that dares to have a different opinion to theirs is targeted.

Some Aero Club members that are also Airport owners have exercised their right to free speech that was not in line with ******* and ******* views as a result not only have the Aero Club members that are also Airport owners been targeted so has the Aero club.

You can find similar storms in a teacup littering Pprune without even looking very hard.

Lookleft is a perfect example. He simply sprays at anything he doesn't like the look of without a constructive comment.

Lookleft

15th Jul 2016, 05:40

AOTW I defer to your powers of observation and your correct assessment of Sunfish:

I've been accused of being like Pollyanna by Sunfish too, Lookleft, whose operating method is basically to state his own case as if it's unassailable fact and then use put-downs in practically all further 'discussion'.

Exhibit A: Lookleft is a perfect example. He simply sprays at anything he doesn't like the look of without a constructive comment.

Arm out the window

15th Jul 2016, 10:33

You could use him on your driveway: "I spray, and ... I walk away!"

Sunfish

15th Jul 2016, 22:07

Q: How do you know if someone at a party is a pilot?

A: he'll tell you!

Old joke, says it all really..........l

I love it when the injured innocents here say pilots don't have big egos. Ask members of the general community, not your colleagues.

But back on track, lookleft and perhaps AOTW demonstrate the lack of any constructive attitude to the question of GA and a complete refusal to think outside the square when it comes to gaining recognition of GA's plight.

it may have escaped your attention that it has been reported that Melbournes population is going to double by 2050. What hope for YMMB, YPCK and YMEN without an effective GA lobby???????

Lookleft

16th Jul 2016, 06:21

Its a joke usually told by pilots Sunfish so don't go congratulating(or is that soemthing else ending in ..ating?) yourself on your wit.

This is classic demonstrate the lack of any constructive attitude to the question of GA and a complete refusal to think outside the square when it comes to gaining recognition of GA's plight.

By your own admission you considered your hair brained scheme to be dishonest and it was always based on a "negative" campaign. Where is the constructive attitude to the question of GA?

What hope for YMMB, YPCK and YMEN without an effective GA lobby???????

Once again your own words condemn you as a fraud because you consider GA industry groups to be nothing more than warring factions full of egotistic pilots. What you proposed consists of some nebulus group starting a whispering campaign about incumbent MPs supposedly orchestrated by King Sunfish to advance the cause of GA? Just remember this is a forum for Professional Pilots Sunfish, although there is a Wannabe section that you might like to check out. Of course you can always start your own BB titled "Dishonest Consultants".

Flying Binghi

16th Jul 2016, 07:54

via rutan around #52:
Flying Binghi & Lookleft,

Your political views make you sound insane.

Oh, rutan around, do tell. What part of my political views. Please explain..:p

.

rutan around

16th Jul 2016, 13:07

Flying Binghi,
What part of my political views. Please explain..http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gifI would probably have been more accurate to make the reference to your scientific views re climate change science. I hope I'm not wrong in assuming you trust scientists in other fields such as medicine , engineering , chemistry , metallurgy etc etc. Over time all these sciences continually refine their procedures and expand their knowledge. If you go to a doctor , fly a plane, take medication or cross a bridge you believe the science is essentially correct even though it has evolved over the years. Yet when climate scientists refine their methods to give an ever more accurate picture of what is happening to our climate you choose to reject everything they do. I find this non acceptance of science in one field but embracing it in others very strange indeed.

Sunfish

16th Jul 2016, 20:58

Once again, Lookleft demonstrates the negative, egotistical, pilot mindset that has destroyed any hope of building a reform organization as demonstrated by his continuous Ad Hominem attacks on me.

He either doesn't understand or doesn't like negative political campaigning so he goes hammer and tongs at someone who suggests it, thus providing a perfect example of the divisive and unconstructive behavior that has destroyed. the hopes of many for CASA reform over at least fifteen years.

For the record Looky, negative campaigning is a recognized political technique that has been around for decades. It is highly effective since people remember negative information better than positives according to some researchers. It is a dangerous tool if used badly because it can backfire.

Australian negative campaigns that were devastatingly effective were "36 faceless men" - used by Menzies to destroy Calwells campaign in 1963.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceless_men

Then of course there was Labors "whinging Wendy" in the 1987 campaign.

Then of course there is "Pauline Pantsdown" who may make a return this year and who can forget the Bob Ellis campaign against Bronwyn Bishop?

We have had at least 15 years of arguing sweet reason with CASA to no effect. There has been review after review highlighting CASA failure, the latest being the unimplemented Forsyth review which famously found that no one trusts CASA.

Surely we are entitled to conclude that CASA is not going to willingly reform itself?

If CASA will not willingly reform, then our politicians in government are the next legal entity that can implement CASA reform.

To date politicians have demonstrated no stomach for CASA reform.

It is thus open to us, since politicians number one concern is to be re elected, to legally threaten their career prospects.

As I said, fifteen years of carrot, time for the negative campaign stick - starting with highlighting how politicians talk about waste, yet let CASA blow half a billion in taxpayers money.

Lookleft

17th Jul 2016, 03:05

I'm sorry Sunfish, I thought that you wanted to be taken seriously with your campaign for a "negative" campaign to get the population to rise up against the evil CASA. Now I can see you were just having a laugh,:D because no one who uses a political campaign from the time of Calwell and Menzies can expect to be taken seriously in anything they say. First it was your faith in the young folk of PM&C who were going to fix things but who were in fact hiding under the table from their Chief of Staff. Now its using the Reds under the Beds slogan of Menzies. You do know that most readers of this would not have a clue who Arthur Calwell is.

It is thus open to us, since politicians number one concern is to be re elected, to legally threaten their career prospects.

Who is the "us" in the above statement? It can't be you because to date you actually haven't demonstrated a single action that would put your fantasy into practice.

Then your hypocrisy rises to the fore when you state that I continue to attack you, yet your initial statement is:

Once again, Lookleft demonstrates the negative, egotistical, pilot mindset that has destroyed any hope of building a reform organization as demonstrated by his continuous Ad Hominem attacks on me.

Is hardly an example of bon homme is it Sunfish. You claim to be a pilot so the egotisitical pilot mindset must exist in your befuddled brain.

Personally I put more faith in the industry groups in achieving reform than your political masterstroke that goes back 53 years! But once again because you once tried to run an industry group and failed....... you think that all of them are never going to work.

Give up while you can Sunfish because the more you type the more stupid you look, but I know that your ego will not let anyone have the last word. BTW the Libs won this election without a hung Parliament, despite Labor using the negative campaign technique you are so fond of.

Sunfish

17th Jul 2016, 06:59

lookleft, "The industry groups" that exist have failed and continue to fail. They have had 15 years to gain traction and they have been utterly unsuccessful. They all seem to implode due to the aforesaid pilot ego problem or lately, they get bought off by CASA with the prospect of an authorization from CASA to administer the very rules that destroy their membership in return for a stable cash flow extorted from the same members.

Answer me this; after 15 years, aren't we entitled to conclude that the "sweet reason" approach as implemented by the associations is an abject failure?

If the answer is "yes" then it is time to pressure CASA's masters - our elected representatives no less, for change.

You still deliberately fail to understand the concept of negative campaigning - it's not about pilots voting out incumbents, it's convincing the wider electorate to do it for us. It's called "leverage".

Oh! And P.S. look at the antics of some of the pr!cks you are defending: https://jade.io/article/422184

Lookleft

17th Jul 2016, 11:50

Give up while you can Sunfish because the more you type the more stupid you look, but I know that your ego will not let anyone have the last word. BTW the Libs won this election without a hung Parliament, despite Labor using the negative campaign technique you are so fond of.

Looks like my prediction was uncannily accurate!

Answer me this; after 15 years, aren't we entitled to conclude that the "sweet reason" approach as implemented by the associations is an abject failure?

Have you not noticed that AOPA is getting more militant and the AAAA is also going public in its rejection of CASA policy. That's just the groups off the top of my head that I can think of. Just because you couldn't get an industry group to dance to your tune (I wonder why:rolleyes:) doesn't mean others can't. Of course you could just be one of those people that thinks if you fail once then don't bother ever trying again.

You still deliberately fail to understand the concept of negative campaigning - it's not about pilots voting out incumbents, it's convincing the wider electorate to do it for us. It's called "leverage".

I certainly understand the concept of negative campaigning-it didn't work for the Labor Party. What I don't understand is your concept of negative campaigning. No detail, no organisation, no structure. Before you have "leverage" you need a fulcrum,an arm and a force. From what I can tell all you have is an ability to:

state his own case as if it's unassailable fact and then use put-downs in practically all further 'discussion'.

Over to you Sunfish to restate your unassailable fact and follow it with put downs and from the nature of your last post, it looks like you are just as capable as anyone else to:

demonstrate where excessive ego leads - to destructive name calling.

triadic

17th Jul 2016, 12:37

Chaps... all very interesting, but time for a cold shower and back to the topic please!

Flying Binghi

24th Jul 2016, 23:28

Hmmm... I thought it were all on topic.

Flying Binghi

24th Jul 2016, 23:29

via rutan around:
I would probably have been more accurate to make the reference to your scientific views re climate change science. I hope I'm not wrong in assuming you trust scientists in other fields such as medicine , engineering , chemistry , metallurgy etc etc. Over time all these sciences continually refine their procedures and expand their knowledge. If you go to a doctor , fly a plane, take medication or cross a bridge you believe the science is essentially correct even though it has evolved over the years. Yet when climate scientists refine their methods to give an ever more accurate picture of what is happening to our climate you choose to reject everything they do. I find this non acceptance of science in one field but embracing it in others very strange indeed.

rutan around, I dont up front trust any so-called 'science' research any more...

85% clinical medical research is false, or not useful, not worth the money ? government funded waste « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/85-clinical-medical-research-is-false-not-useful-not-worth-the-money-government-funded-waste/)

And from one of our agenda driven (i.e., NOT research driven) university's comes this directive:
"...Taking a plane from Sydney to Bali, for example, has almost the same carbon footprint as a typical year’s worth of driving..."
Five ways to reduce your eco-footprint this Christmas - IMPACT @ Griffith Sciences (http://app.griffith.edu.au/sciencesimpact/five-ways-christmas/)

Ultimately the corruption of the global warming hysteria is out to destroy aviation... except for the aircraft required for conveying the wealthy like Dick Smith :E and a few 'select' politicians..:hmm:

rutan around, as just a dumb old barely literate hill farmer I've been amazed, incredibly amazed actually, just how easy it is to demolish the arguments of our so-called scientists. If you search my old posts here you'll find where I covered my run-ins with Blair Trewin over at the weather zone forum. I've de-bunked him several times and he is supposedly one of Oz's chief climate researchers. blair trewin - - Search - Bureau of Meteorology (http://search.bom.gov.au/s/search.html?query=blair+trewin&collection=bom&Submit=Search)
The last forum 'discussion' I had with Trewin he basically comments that having many of Australia's temperature stations located at airports makes no difference to the temperature record. Me as a pilot, and having spent many a night seeing the heat signature of airports in a FLIR camera, has the practical experience to de-bunk the Trewin nonsense. The Weather Zone forum seeing the looming Trewin fiasco banned me before I could totally debunk their forum poster boy..:)

.