AOPA Elections [Archive]

snarek

30th Oct 2002, 08:23

Hmmm. I don't post here often, AOPA Board members tend to get shot at here!! :D

Anyway Thermal, I agree with AF. A lot of stuff goes on 'behind the scenes' that you don't see.

Just look recently, Mobil - Chris McKeown. (and add that to the thousands of dollars worth of free legal advice he gives every week!!). And pretty soon you will see a real achievement, one that WILL help revitalise GA training. All Chris' work!!!

AUF, we all got stuck in to try and stop CASA over-regulation.

Russell Kelly. A free accountant, treasurer and magazine director. Without him no AOPA, without AOPA you guys would be neck deep in P@@!!!

Part 121B. Some here argue GA Chtr needs cleaning up. Over prescriptive regulation isn't the way!!!

Marjory Pagani, CASA are a lot less keen to stuff people around over net exams now!!!

Even Bill Pike (and yes I know what you are gonna say), I figure he puts in AT LEAST 50 hours a week into AOPA business. negotiating with CASA, AsA and Government. Who is gonna do that if AOPA folds because you can't be bothered???

But anyway, all that and a magazine subscription don't seem to be worth $100 bucks a year or so. So what should we do to get you all to join??? :confused: I mean that, give me some suggestions!!!

I suppose if AOPA was a union we could have two sets of Regs, one for AOPA members, and whatever CASA want to throw at those that aren't.

Now there's a thought. :rolleyes:

Charlie Foxtrot India

30th Oct 2002, 23:19

AOPA friend, it's funny, but the people who seem to compalin about the state of GA are often very vocal members of AOPA already. The rest of us, who have no wish to join this organisation, or who have already resigned in disgust, are too busy getting on with making a living in GA to get involved in that sort of nonsense.

snarek, saying people "can't be bothered" again shows a typical AOPA lack of understanding of the realities of this industry. No, we would not be in deep doo doo without AOPA, the professional GA organisations would be a lot better off without their unwanted interference in the past, and future intentions. And this is our livlihood, not a weekend hobby.

Sorry, but AOPA have done too much damage and made too big fools of themselves, a few reshuffles in the committee won't change that.

If I had a lazy $100 I'd give it to the RFDS

snarek

31st Oct 2002, 07:19

CFI

And who are your customers???

If the 'weekend hobbyists' can't fly then who are you going to train??? Or are you another who feels a CPL is the minimum we all need to be allowed to fly. (And seeing the quality of some CPLs of late, that is positively scary!!!). :rolleyes:

Anyway, since you and your organisation are obviously not members then you are about to miss out, big time :)

And if you come crying 'please let me in' perhaps we will think about it, perhaps not. :D (more likely not)

To those of you with a little more common sense, imagine where GA would be today if CASA had free reign??? Scary eh. For those GA'ers with AUF roots, together we can keep em at bay, apart we are all stuffed!!!

Oh and by the way, I remember, CFI was one of those who would use repressive regulation in the interests of his own profits against the AUF. In my view, blinkered, self interested 'I'll be right' Jackism.

Anyone care to give us a hint which organisation 'CFI' represents??

AK

Charlie Foxtrot India

31st Oct 2002, 10:33

A worry if AOPA have got a little surprise up their sleeve that will leave the flying schools "crying" (again) what is it this time? Why do AOPA people make these statements, which sounds like a thinly veiled threat to wreck our industry and livlihoods, and then expect our support?!!!!!

"Oh and by the way, I remember, CFI was one of those who would use repressive regulation in the interests of his own profits against the AUF. In my view, blinkered, self interested 'I'll be right' Jackism"

Well if running a good business, providing a safe, quality service , employment, and making a profit is a crime then tell that to ASIC and the government. Actually nearly all turnover goes back into the industry in the form of wages, maintenance, fuel, LSC etc. The meagre profits in this industry are hardly enough for anyone to accuse the schools of being greedy. This is not a charity, this is an industry which puts dosh into the economy and employs a lot of PROFESSIONAL people who have worked hard and made a lot of sacrifices to get where they are. IF AOPA sees that as blinkered, self interested "I'll be right Jackism" then I shudder to think what your little surprise is, if it has been conjured up by people who display their lack of understanding of this industry, human nature and business in general as clearly as your last post did.

BTW many on pprune (though obviously not yourself) know who I am, and that's fine; just be aware that "outing" people on Pprune is generally considered to be bad Pprunemanship. I know exactly who you are, your name is in my logbook, but that doesn't mean I would resort to "outing" you because I disagree with you!

Perhaps you will hear what you want to hear elsewhere.

Instructor Barbie

31st Oct 2002, 11:17

snarek, I can see that your post was made in the heat of the moment, but let me see if I got this right....
You (reperesenting AOPA) appear to say that anyone who a) runs a legitimate aviation business in our free country and b) who exercises thair democratic right in this free country NOT to join an organisation deserves to have thier livlihood threatened by hitherto unknown "fait accompli" from that organisation unless they beg to join the organisation.

This is an Australian forum isn't it? Or are we living somewhere rather sinister? :(

Please explain!

Dogimed

31st Oct 2002, 20:12

IB.

I think he was just trying to say that Flying schools could miss out on some good opportunity if they continue to keep the attitude of "never join AOPA again".

Oh, and when you see a rather odd sentence followed by ":D ", common Ppruneknownledge means its a joke.....

REEEELLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX!

I thought this forum was predominantly UK??

Dog:p

Hugh Jarse

1st Nov 2002, 00:57

CFI 1
snarek nil.

No wonder most aviators (for whatever reason) do not consider membership as beneficial.

Snarek, you just gave us another with that attitude :D:D:D

snarek

1st Nov 2002, 05:11

IB

Read what dogmimed said, he is right. I am not threatening anyone. But if AOPA come up with a package that will assist GA in finacial terms, give me a good reason why we should not favour members first. I can't think of one and would need a lot of convincing. We are here for members first, if GA benefit from what we do the so be it.

I don't think there is one true aviator who would knowingly shaft the AUF, I can only surmise anyone who wants to is only in it for the dough. But anyway, i won't be and particularly not on the behest of non-members. (I actually have never received such a request from an affiliated school or club, only the non-affiliates, funny AOPA never take that line eh???).

I actually don't care if organisations are members. We put a lot more work into affiliates than members (and rightly so). At the moment more affiliates would be more work, something we don't really need as voluteers (but would welcome genuine rejoiners).

But you can bet your last buck, I'll be doing what ever I can to make sure it is only members that get benefit from AOPA work wherever possible.

The choice is yours.

I don't need to be outed CFI, I am Andrew Kerans, AOPA Director, most people here know that. And yes CFI, I know who you are as well. But no need to be paranoid (not much anyway). :D

AK

ulm

1st Nov 2002, 06:34

heh heh heh

Typical, non-members getting p!ssed off at AOPA's direction.

It is an association boys, if you don't like it, join and put your 2c in. If you don't want to join, shaddup!!!

Simple really. :p

As for AOPA's news, I hope it is big, and I hope non-members miss out bigtime :)

Chuck.

Woomera

1st Nov 2002, 08:27

It may have been just possible that you could have got my $100, just to suck it and see if things really have changed or are changing, but on the evidence here and elsewhere, now I'm not so sure.

snarek

1st Nov 2002, 09:18

Woomera

It is more than $100 (sorry). But it is worth it.

Now I am unashamedly an advocate of the private pilot, always will be. But I have a deeprooted sense of fairness, and when I look at the way CASA shuts down the small operator without recourse to natural justice, well that p!sses me.

A lot of people here think AOPA should represent GA Chtr, Trg etc and not PPL freedoms. But they aren't members. An organisation represents its members, taking money from the PPL or AUF member and then using it soley to support (say) CHTR or RPT just isn't right.

It would be good to have new blood on the committee. It would be good to have new opinions.

But the meek ain't gonna inherit AOPA, so fighters are needed. The opinions some claim to have been around or 25 years are strong and forthright, to change them people will need to put up a bl@@dy good argument or vote them out. Those that don't like my line (ie pro AUF and PPL) should join and vote me out!!!

That said, I'd love to see your membership come through.

AK

Instructor Barbie

1st Nov 2002, 13:05

Wow I may be new to this pprune thing, but i'm learning fast.
If the attitude shown here by the director of AOPA is typical of thier kind, then I don't want to play in that sandpit, because those children seem rather nasty and spiteful and i don't like bullies.
snarek said "A lot of people here think AOPA should represent GA Chtr, Trg etc and not PPL freedoms. But they aren't members. " so what is he doing coming onto a forum for professional pilots and threateneing them and slagging them off??
sorry if i seem naive.

Charlie Foxtrot India

1st Nov 2002, 15:22

Hello again Andrew.

So, in your own words GA and charter aren't members. You represent the PPLs and AUF and that is admirable, but surely that doesn't put you in a position to judge what is "good" for the professional end of the industry, if you represent, your own words again "weekend hobbyists".

Not sure how many people here think AOPA should represent us. Perhaps we could have a poll. Personally, looking at some of the childish rhetoric from their supporters, they don't seem fit to seriously represent anyone. Perhaps if you and your friends are looking to drum up support you woud publish your proposals for changes to our industry instead of posting "nyah nyah" style comments.

We would all agree that it would be nice to reduce the cost of flying. But safety comes at a cost, and there is no such thing as cheap flying. Or cheap fuel, cheap insurance, cheap maintenance, cheap rent, etc etc. If anyone is under the impression that GA businesses are run by "fat cats" they are very, very misguided.

Does your deeprooted (sic) sense of fairness include allowing others to have different opinions than yours?

P. S. I am no fan of CASA. They have made the last few months of my life a paperwork nightmare.
The AUF leave me with a profound feeling of indifference.
And the problem isn't so much the people CASA do prosecute, but the people they should and don't.

snarek

1st Nov 2002, 19:27

IB

This is the GA part of the forum. PPLs are GA as well. Do you expect them to pay (their AOPA dues) to protect non-members???

Do you expect them, once they have paid you for their PPL, to give in meekly when CASA, RAAF and RPT attempt to impose 'safety' restrictions on their operations without justification???

What would you have of the PPL and AOPA???

CFI

I didn't say AOPA was just there for the PPL. I was referring to me and me alone. Their are those on the Board, such as Chris McKeown, who spend hours every day fighting for the whole GA sector. He also gives fee legal advice (not just 'referrals .. real advice that you would normally pay thousands for) to all sectors of GA.

I welcome other opinions. I will listen to them, but that doesn't guaratee they will become mine. If you and Barbie feel AOPA should be supporting another particular sector more strongly, then join and voice that opinion. Please don't expect us to change AOPA towards the perspective of non-members. That is niave.

There are many members, but not many active ones. Any person with a perspective and perseverance can change things, so why not give it a go???

AK

Charlie Foxtrot India

1st Nov 2002, 22:51

Andrew mate,
Please try to understand. GA and CHTR Non members aren't necessarily wanting or expecting AOPA to represent them. They are mostly people capable of running their businesses without "help" from an organisation that has alienated many of them.
Some people may be non-members because they can't be bothered, others just don't want to be involved in your organisation AT ALL, for all sorts of reasons, nor do they want AOPA to be involved in theirs.
It's quite simple really.

YPJT

2nd Nov 2002, 01:47

Snarek,

No one is denying that GA accross the board needs a strong lobby group to represent it. But don't you just sit back and wonder sometimes why so many in GA have either left or refuse to join AOPA? When you come to grips with and be seen to address some of those causal factors perhaps then you can embark on a successful recruiting campaign.

triadic

2nd Nov 2002, 12:19

It is sad that we see such bickering as above and one has to wonder why. Of course everyone has their own preferences and agenda’s in life, but on issues such as this we really must stand back and look at the big picture, or outside the box if you like.

AOPA has been about for over 50 years which I suggest is longer than most contributors to this forum. It obviously has a role to play in representing “aircraft owners & pilots” but just were you draw the line is today sometimes hard to say.

A few years back we had (amongst others) the General Aviation Association (GAA) which represented charter companies etc and the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs (RFACA) which still exists but only a shadow of its former self, representing the aero club movement. The GAA failed because nobody would look outside their own backyard and support such a representative body. The commercial flying schools and charter organizations are now paying the price. The RFACA has changed because of the role of aero clubs over the past decade has changed. Even the Regional Airline Association has changed its name of late to represent a wider base of the commercial side of the industry.

Up until the mid 90’s AOPA I believe was there for the greater good and was managed well, if tho’ at times on the conservative side, nevertheless the Association did what most members expected. They just did not dance on the table every time they had a win, and they had many.

The revolution which occurred around 95 with the change of management and two high profile Presidents which followed changed the way the association was viewed by both members and non members alike. Many members did not agree with the new style and voted with their feet at renewal time and we saw the membership drop from over 10k in 94 to less that half that in 2000. Likewise the funds of around $700k have fallen to such a low level that is presently making the very existence of the association hard work for those that have the management responsibility.

I have been a member of AOPA since I started flying over 30 years ago and support what it is all about. I have continued to do this even when employed in the airline industry and even when I did not support the direction of the day.

It’s all very well to say it does not affect me, but I can assure you it does. The existence of a viable General Aviation industry is vital to all other segments of the industry. This includes the ultralites, gliders and the recreational pilot, as well as the schools and charter companies and airlines.

The GA industry at the moment is the worst it has been for longer than many can remember (and still going down hill), the average standard of pilot training is poor, many commercial pilots trained today would not have passed a PPL test 15 or so years ago. Pilots are now letting their licence lapse, not because of the traditional reason – cost, but now because many see it as been over regulated and just too hard to understand. Now who’s fault is that? And what could have been done about it? And what difference might there have been if there was strong representation over the past decade?

If you don’t believe there is a role for AOPA and other similar industry representative organizations then perhaps you don’t understand how it all works. There always has been and always will be strength in numbers, which is why we have unions etc. The operator or individual that does his own thing is unlikely to achieve the same as a group of like people with the same aims.

Yes, Ulm is right, there is now a chance to examine the board of AOPA and as a member vote to do something about it. But you can only do that as a paid up members. It is no use bleating about the association from the outside, you must be a member to bring about change. The Board must be those which show they support the big picture and the greater good and not for their own agenda and/or ego, sadly not the present state of affairs.

If you are in the industry, especially GA you have a responsibility to support whatever organizations provide representation and you can only do that as a member. The industry needs AOPA because you just watch what might happen if it did not exist.

:confused:

Piper Arrow

5th Nov 2002, 00:50

triadic, well said

The old saying goes; you have to be in it, to win it.
It maybe an idea to put some of the previous guys back on the board in the next election as AOPA was quite successful up until around 1995, when things changed.

:D :D :D

ulm

6th Nov 2002, 01:09

triadic

Most sensible thing I've heard in ages, well done.

I suppose I should never haveposted this. It seems as soon as any AOPA person comes up on here he is shot down and dissapears.

Snarek is the only one to come on and answer questions, is usually attacked by the self interested, and then pulls his head in for a while.

I can't believe CFI started the tired old bleat about the AUF again. if you are that good at running a business mate you wouldn't need to regulate the competition out of existence!!! :mad: Get real!!! (and your name is in my logbook too!!!).

Can you blame them for avoiding PPRuNe. :rolleyes:

Triadic made a point about personality politics in AOPA, think about it. Who is there that still follows the line of the Smith/Munro presidencies. I'll tell you, Bill Hamilton and Bill Pike. So if that style is not for you, ask them to leave. If you like that style, vote them back in. Who is never heard from, Rudd. The others just seem to get on with it.

But if you ain't a member you ain't changing anything are you :)

Charlie Foxtrot India

6th Nov 2002, 13:02

What tired old bleat? The only mention I have made of the AUF is that I am indifferent to them, and a quote from snarek who seems to think otherwise, but that's news to me.
I sure don't have any power or desire to regulate the AUF or anyone else out of existance. I've never even responded to an NPRM about them.
I'm afraid the two of you have a case of mistaken identity.

Outback Pilot

7th Nov 2002, 02:15

Take it easy ulm
:D :D :D

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~akishpau/boxing.gif

ulm

7th Nov 2002, 04:02

reeeeowwwwwwwwwww

fffffftttttttt!!!!!!

heh heh heh

woof

chuck

Bill Pike

11th Nov 2002, 04:06

Nothing would please me better than a strong batch of nominations for the Board, and a strong voter turnout next elections. I do not have an axe to grind, and I would willingly and happily hand over to anyone more representative of the member's views if that is the fact. AOPA's work at opposing CASA's attempted power grab in the laughingly described "simplification " of the rules that is in progress should have the undying gratitude of every, and I mean every, pilot. I am firmly of the view that any aviator who is not a member is assisting to seal his own fate, but that is just the opinion of someone with forty years in the game, what would I know? I am more in line with the Smith/Munro action plans rather than the previous old boy's club way of doing things, which might well have had some effectiveness then, but which would be run over by present day CASA. GA is so disparate that it is impossible to take a position on any matter without offending someone, but I am happy to defend my position, or AOPA's position, on any matter. Anyone who is not a member of AOPA has the support of CASA. (As for ULM s "anonymity", I remember the story of the pilot who stuttered, and one day called"Sssydney Tttower is our ttower, Wwwe use it evvvery day" "Cut it out Tom" returned the Tower. "Hhhow ddid you kknow it wwas mme?")

cficare

11th Nov 2002, 04:27

AOPA (Australia) lost my support over 10 years ago when it was hijacked by Smith et al for their own political use.

AOPA does not have the ear of the Government

AOPA is no longer relevent or respected

Rich-Fine-Green

11th Nov 2002, 05:01

If AOPA did a little more to embrace flight schools, charter etc into their fold then it could become a true representative of Australian G.A.

Especially Flight Schools as this would open AOPA to a whole new source of members i.e. new students.

Flight Schools and Instructors may well then recommend to new students that AOPA membership is advantageous in the same way as membership is encouraged in other vocational & recreational pursuits.

Amongst other topics; Comments on the AOPA forum (I won't name anyone :D ) about PPL's becoming Instructors does not endear AOPA to Schools or Instructors.

Yes, I am an AOPA member and a working CPL and every year I wrestle with writing a cheque for my renewal. and every year a good friend convinces me over a beer with the old chestnut ''Gotta be in it to win it' (or similar).

Well, renewal time has arrived and this year I think I might join CFI and give it to the RFDS.

Bill Pike

11th Nov 2002, 08:59

"AOPA (Australia) lost my support over 10 years ago when it was hijacked by Smith et al for their own political use.
AOPA does not have the ear of the Government
AOPA is no longer relevent or respected"

It is absurd to say that Smith had a political use for AOPA. What on Earth is that supposed to mean? He is already the most popular man in Australia, and polls for President put him way ahead. He could be a Senator any time he wished. Smith gives of his time and effort to achieve a simpler and cheaper aviation scene for Australia. His opponents are those who stand to lose by this.
AOPA does have the ear of the Government. I, as President of AOPA, was invited to address the Senate inquiry into the ATSB bill, and did so. I meet with John Anderson regularly. He has guaranteed to take my phone calls as required. AOPA is both relevant and respected, however it certainly does not have the clout that it would do if its membership was double. We work to simpify, and thereby increase, flying in Austraila. It is unfortunate that some short sighted protectionists cannot always see that this is for the common good. I have been a member of AOPA ever since I learnt that someone was out there trying. I cannot imagine any sensible reason not to be a member. As I am sixty one it is becoming increasingly irrelevant to me but I am forever amazed at the strange reasons some have not to be a member. It is the young instructor's future that we fight for, however if they don't see that, who is punished? Not me.

gaunty

11th Nov 2002, 13:21

Mr Pike

There have been so many changes and doh se dohs in the last 40 years, I am having a little trouble getting right, the sequence of who did what to who and when.

Would I be correct in saying, that the first Smith AOPA coup d’etat was AFTER his first dabble at being a regulator.???

I am more in line with the Smith/Munro action plans rather than the previous old boy's club way of doing things, which might well have had some effectiveness then, but which would be run over by present day CASA.

Might I suggest that the "old boy's club way of doing things" actually, in its own quaint way, worked.
You see it allowed everyone to operate from a position of mutual professional respect.
Confrontational politics rarely work effectively or long term, save to massage an ego or pursue an agenda.

Why then are we now surprised that CASA are effectively deaf to anything coming from this direction or anything associated with Munro/Smith, which is a pity.

Can I turn this around a bit and offer, for consideration;
“I am more in line with the CASA action plans rather than the previous old boy's club way of doing things, which might well have had some effectiveness then, but which would be run over by present day Smith/Munro.”

AOPA is both relevant and respected, however it certainly does not have the clout that it would do if its membership was double.

Quite, and why, pray tell, is this so.
People will follow and they will participate willingly, when they are treated with respect, carefully listened to and not hectored.
Where are ALL those members now?

AOPA's work at opposing CASA's attempted power grab in the laughingly described "simplification " of the rules that is in progress should have the undying gratitude of every, and I mean every, pilot.

If this is so and I don't doubt that AOPA have had some effect, then there is something fundamentally awry in the manner in which AOPA is representing itself to these ungrateful wretches.

Somewhere along the track they, AOPA, lost them and failed by the only measure that counts, decreasing membership numbers, to bring them along with the debate. It's called being inclusive with your electorate, the members.

It is actually AOPA that needs them now, not the other way round.

but that is just the opinion of someone with forty years in the game, what would I know?

With respect, it was this very same attitude presented to the Minister by a former AOPA VP during a meeting in which he "instructed" :rolleyes: the Minister in all manner of aviation matters from his “30 years of experience”, that sidelined AOPA for all practical purposes for some considerable time in those halls.

On top of the Smith/Munro coups d’etat and the subsequent filling of the vacuum they left with this and other pretenders, the organisation was mortally wounded in the eyes of its previous and potential supporters. The members were effectively disenfranchised by the actions of their leaders.

There are very many of us with that length of time in the industry that agree with much of what you say and propose, but choose to present our views in a different manner free from the noise of Smiths personal agenda.

And this is the really scary bit;
It is absurd to say that Smith had a political use for AOPA. What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
Errm……. Smith had a political use for AOPA?

He is already the most popular man in Australia, and polls for President put him way ahead. He could be a Senator any time he wished.

Now maybe? But at what cost and;

He will be neither; he knows well enough that the body politic will demand more than dilettante dabbling and besides there is the real risk that you may have to actually know of which you speak and the very high risk that you will be so judged at the ballot box.
Commitment means you have to stay and fight, even if you reckon your opponents are real d!ckheads because they can’t see the “obvious” rightness of your cause.
You can’t hit and run when it gets hot or blame everybody else for your failure.

The Canberra Press Gallery is an entirely different animal to those that report on school fetes and populist ‘gee whiz’ pap.

It’s ever so much easier to be a “could have”, than “has been”.

I commend to you Paul Sheehan’s “Amongst the Barbarians” for an exquisite explication of the surgical ruthlessness and perspicacity of the Australian voter and what they will and will not, up with put.
And I guess when we need someone to solve the present world agony or the peculiar and unique technical problems we have with our airspace we should simply elect the most “popular” person we can find and let him/her at it. And when he/she is finished with that little problem, why there’s, cancer, world famine or any number of things to keep em busy.

Smith gives of his time and effort to achieve a simpler and cheaper aviation scene for Australia. His opponents are those who stand to lose by this.

I have significant experience both pre and post Smith and for all the warts of the past, I know which era was better and actually cheaper. I have no doubt that he was well meaning, but he didn’t reveal anything that wasn’t already known and being addressed. The word hijack comes to mind.
Any way you choose to look at it Mr Smith has much for which to answer and that includes the present condition of AOPA.
The problem for the Smiths of this world is that you are either for or against.

I suspect from the feedback on the imbroglio surrounding the NAS Implementation project that there are many who feel that the most constructive contribution Smith can now make to it is to go away, period.

AOPA may get a much more reasonable hearing and better treatment from CASA if it could be seen as not being in the thrall of the past leadership.

I cannot imagine any sensible reason not to be a member.

Neither can I, if I could be certain that we didn’t have to run interference on everything that wasn’t ordained from on high.

So here is the test, I have tonight, sent off my money and details to regain membership of AOPA.

Now I can be offside with every body equally, it’s a wonderful thing this democracy. :D

Can’t be fairer than that.

BTW if you happen to be in LRE this weekend, I’d be happy to buy you a beverage and we can have a go at getting a little closer on this thing. There is much to be done.

And hey, I’m now a voter so you’ll have to listen. :D

ulm

11th Nov 2002, 19:57

Hey gaunty, oh personality challenged one.

Good to see you are a voter, I take it AOPA member ;)

Now if you and the others want more charter, flying school representation, then join and vote it in. I don't much like the AOPA VP so well reported here, or his mate from Bankstown, or the 20 watt follower from the deep north.

But I have only one vote.

How about some of the WA members so disenchanted by the actions of another 'other opinion' challenged ex AOPA VP get a candidate up and vote him/her in.

A certain POM CFI springs to mind, or perhaps another 'Grumman Tiger' person from the school next door :P Even an ex Phantom jock with a funny accent, who knows ;)

Get in and change things.

Chuck

Rich-Fine-Green

11th Nov 2002, 22:05

Ulm;

I feel it's kind of a chicken and egg situation.

AOPA needs members desperately or at the very least, stop the number slide. Otherwise future AOPA GM's will be held in a Bankstown Cafe.

Fresh new students are an great source of new members for AOPA, new ideas, new funding.....New students are to found at flying schools all around the country. New students are impressionable & enthusiastic for their new interest and generally follow Instructor/Flying school direction/ideas/opinions.

Win the support of the schools & charter companies and watch the new members sign up in droves. At the very least, send free copies of magazines to schools for the coffee table/lunch room, along with a display stand of blank membership forms.

Newsagent distribution of the magazine couldn't hurt either (if there already is newsagent distribution, I have yet to see any copies!). In the USA, AOPA magazine is on display at almost all airport newstands.

AOPA needs to make the move and represent ALL of G.A.

Face it, there HAS to be a reason that member numbers are down.

It's not a case of join up and change the system. If political parties had the same attitude, they would never see office again.

AOPA needs to win it's support.

ulm

11th Nov 2002, 22:30

RFG

Ah yes, but AOPA seems somewhat fiscally challenged at the moment, and what you propose would cost money.

I am a member of two 'professional' organisations. Each costs me over $400 a year. How much would you pay to be a 'professional affilliate' of AOPA???

If your answer is 'the same as an ordinary member, but I still want ...... extra' then forget it.

If your answer is, 'Oh I'd pay $650 a year if they looked after AOC issues, and gave me table mags, and ran TV ads' then perhaps you are talking.

Have you seen the AOPA US TV ad, it is great. But it takes money. So, how many would pay in excess of $500 a year for that service???

I wonder.

Chuck

gaunty

12th Nov 2002, 01:15

ulm

moi "personality challenged"?:confused:

If I have a problem with personalities, it is with those "personalities" who masquerade or are paraded as "experts" here to "save us" with narrow agendas.

Rich Fine Green

Puts his finger right on it

AOPA needs to make the move and represent ALL of G.A.

They need to work out just who they actually represent against what they are currently presenting.

I get the feeling that they would like the Minister and public to think they represent "aviation" in Oz period.

They may now do so, de facto, because of the way their original constituency was so debased by the opportunists that they left in droves.

Ignoring the casuallties and those killed in action and starting afresh with young new cannon fodder, viz the

New students are impressionable & enthusiastic for their new interest and generally follow Instructor/Flying school direction/ideas/opinions

as an electoral base has already been tried/corrupted with spectacularly negative results.

Blind Freddy can lead a bunch of kids over a cliff, cheering as they go.

Certainly they need to be encouraged to be members and participate.

But you need to re engage with those former members with experience and "history" and who were disenfranchised, to rebuild the legitimate base that once existed.

Patiently and surely without histrionics and "personalities" in front or behind.

Rich-Fine-Green

12th Nov 2002, 01:29

Ulm;

Yes, I would.

and so would almost all operators.

Look at it this way. Most operators are already spending $5,000+ on yellow pages ads (even more in Sydney & Melb!).

For $500+ dollars or even more - I would. To have an organisation that ran Ad's, had a lobby that represented close to 100% of GA and provided a few table mags - thumbs up!.

Today's AOPA does none of that so $=0.

If the above fantasy became reality, a professional organisation could also get for their $$ something along the lines of;

* Employees become members of AOPA as part of the professional membership (no extra magazines of course). Fees can be weighted for organisation size - say up to 10 employees $500.

The young Instructors & Charter pilots (as well as the grizzled operators) are at the coal-face. The flow on from Instructors & Charter pilots being members as part of their employment will be lots and lots of new, well funded, full-fare paying, impressionable student pilot members.

Some may see expansion of AOPA to seriously include all parts of GA as too radical or an erosion of power or some may just want AOPA to represent just PPL's and private flying. OK, so be it.

However, the fact remains, AOPA as it stands today is in trouble - with no new members or funding on the horizon.:eek:

snarek

12th Nov 2002, 03:34

Rich-Fine-Green.

OK, at the risk of being shot at cos I don't agree with every opinion expressed here or i don't want to look after the interests of non-members, (flak jacket ON!!!)

Call Chris McKeown. He wants to set up just such an organisation. He wants to support AOC holders with ads, representation and advice. The cost will be at least $500, but we would be able to get TV ads etc if we had enough members.

We are also looking at a paper similar to one called Dive Log (ask for one at a dive shop). An industry journal free to students/customers/prospective customers and about $5 at the newsagent.

Chris has also negotiated a really good deal for industry which we will announce soon.

If you want his number send me an e-mail at

[email protected]

AK

axiom

12th Nov 2002, 04:03

Please ?
AIRCRAFT: any machine capable of flying by means of boyancy or aerodynamic forces such as glider, helicopter or aeroplane.
OWNERS: a person who owns; legal possessor. (plu).
PILOT's: a person who is qualified to operate an aircraft or spacecraft in flight. (plu).
ASSOCIATION: a group of persons having a comman interest or purpose or interest.

WHITE ANT see termite: social insect of the order Isoptera, feed on wood and cause damage. also used to describe a social order determined to "white ant" a project or cause damage of a nature whereby the structure or organisation is rendered useless and destroyed.

I fail to see how "professional pilot's" somehow find AOPA of no significance to them. Been flying for more than 37 years and the professionalism I see and hear on a day to day basis makes me shudder.

A FACT; the AOPA website is not annonomous and you can actually get into trouble for saying what is on your mind. Perhaps our Democrat Snarek is using pprune as a forum denied him in his own organisation. Perhaps Woomera should give dunnunder and godzone another sub site for the AOPA members and the whiteants. would make interesting reading and keep our moderator busy seeing as he has no AOPA magazine to read.

Andrew; PHILOSOPHY: the beginning of philosophy is the recognition of the conflict between opinions. (Epictetus).

Civil disobedience is what we need !!!!! :rolleyes:

Rich-Fine-Green

12th Nov 2002, 04:12

Fair-Enough,

Thanks Snarek, I already have his details - from the front of my AOPA magazine, yes I'm a member (I think I already mentioned that).

I will invest in a phone call and see what he has to say.

Anyone else interested email snarek.

Then again, despite restricted distribution of the AOPA magazine and secret forums (members only) on the AOPA web-site. The AOPA contact details of Chris McKeown are not a state secret.

From page 4 of Nov AOPA as left in my company's coffee room and already dog-eared and pages stuck together (from Coffee OK dammit!);

AOPA HQ YSBK: 02-97919099

AOPA VP Chris McKeown: 02-62575255

In fairness, I suggest operators reading this topic call the above and post further comments as you see fit.

snarek

12th Nov 2002, 04:13

now that diodn't take long did it ;)

not that I understood a word of it :D (not your post Rich-Fine-Geen)

McKeown is away at the moment with work. E-mail me, I'll give you his mobile.

AK

cogwheel

22nd Feb 2003, 20:43

Understand that during a phone hook up on Friday night by the Board a spill was rejected by the two members mentioned above. These two must go and not be involved with the management ever again.

I hear there was also talk of a $100 levy on all members. Even as a long time member I would not contribute until there was a complete spill and there was a management team in place that gave me confidence that I would not be wasting my money. There are many members that would contribute a significantly if the likes of Patroni was in control. The past 8 years of Smith, Munro and Hamilton have seen the membership drop from over 10k to around 4k. Only the return of strong and responsible leadership will see any chance of a membership rise.

An EGM must be called without delay.

Tough measures must be put in place by Monday, even if it means suspending the magazine. If an Administrator is called in we all know where any money left goes then!

The Board have a responsibility to inform the members and the web page or an email should be used as a matter of urgency.

axiom

23rd Feb 2003, 23:48

I would support Marjorie, having met her I have a deal of admiration for her; Perhaps she would like to comment (if she is on the list of nominated spokespersons), perhaps also she may explain the situation to date.

I can't access the AOPA web site for information (although I haven't tried today).

One thing however, the 2 Bill's and the remaining board have put a lot of energy into our lot and don't deserve to be thrown on the scrap heap.

If you have a cattle dog who is a bit severe on sheep, you get a sheep dog and leave the "bluey" for his intended work.

I can't think of anyone who would put the work in of Hamilton for example in his nominated sphere of expertise, perhaps he is a bit abrasive for say, public or CASA relations.

Obviously someone else should do this job then.

Either way, there is no room at the top for factions or clashes of personality.

They all should piss or get off the pot.

axiom

25th Feb 2003, 06:02

From my limited understanding of corporate management, the directors are liable for the stuffups for some 12 months after the demise of the company. (?). Therefor;

Bailing out won't achieve immunity from any sh*tfight that may evolve in the courts by the directors/(board)?????

As far as the HIH similarity goes, (seems like a red herring) I believe also that the Ansett frequent flyers were not granted creditor status, so where do we get a debit on the credit sheet???????

Given my inane curiosity, I wonder what has been acheievd by a 40% (or thereabouts) defection, if the show is still on the road.

Directors liabiliy insurance seems like a waste of money in an organisation like AOPA when incorporated associations (read that as clubs), could be set up as chapters (read that as States), with an executive geographically removed from it's power base, (no not Canberra), to Alice Springs, where the Australian International Airport should be situated;

with it's "hub's".

I'm getting a headache :( I hope someone responds from AOPA.

Marjorie Pagani

25th Feb 2003, 07:13

I have been following this thread for the last couple of days, and assume that there are many AOPA members who use this site. Unfortunately, due to issues of potential liability (which are totally unrelated to any particular members' postings, but of a more general nature) I have taken the action of temporarily closing down the AOPA site. I have written an update on the situation for publication to members in the next AOPA magazine, which should be ready for the printers within a day or so.

I note also that there is some consternation amongst members as to AOPA's financial situation at the moment, and in respect of staffing and directors. AOPA is trading as usual, and there is no issue at the present time about AOPA not being able to pay its accounts. I have recently taken on the positions of Secretary, Treasurer, and Director responsible for staff matters, until the next AGM which will be held at Murray Bridge on the weekend of 24-25 May.

The Directors are working towards a structure which will advance AOPA, but of course the real strength of AOPA is its members. I urge those of you who are not members to consider joining in order that we may fortify our position with CASA at this very difficult time for G.A. in Australia. Solidarity is the only effective way to ensure we remain a force to be reckoned with, and hence prevent a re-write which may otherwise be too costly and procedurally flawed for many in G.A. to bear.

Marjorie Pagani
Director AOPA.

cogwheel

25th Feb 2003, 07:26

2B1ASK1... Certainly the current state of affairs is not providing any confidence in AOPA, but then to push it all under the table is likely to do much worse. We must have AOPA and it must be managed well. On top of that we need people who are able to represent the Association in a responsible and respected manner. AOPA have failed in most of these departments of late. And with GA the worst it has ever been in this country, can we afford that? - no way.

We certainly have a management problem and from what I see both Hamilton and Lyons would not survive any vote of confidence if the whole story was placed before the membership. Why do they seem to be placing their ego in front of the Association? To not discuss these matters in open forum such as this will only make things much worse.

Nothing less than a complete spill and an EGM will provide what is necessary to rebuild the Association. I would guess that the insurer would again cover the directors if they were confident in a new board and what was proposed. That would also provide the necessary confidence in members to renew and for non members to join/renew.

2B1ASK1

25th Feb 2003, 08:23

cogwheel

Don't get me wrong I do agree with what most of you are saying but still we must be carefull that at the end of it all we have an organisation left to fight for. Its ok for those of us that have been in aviation for a number of years to know the chaff from the feed but a hell of alot of new comers read this lets be carefull not to frighten them away because in truth when it is all repaired they will be needed for it to go forward.

snarek

26th Feb 2003, 03:44

The way the Board is now structured, with only Pagani, McKeown and Pike having a say in the day to day running of the office will ensure AOPA's survival. I have absolute confidence in all three.

Perhaps it took some bad things to happen before the change, so what. The change has happened.

Now the members need to decide whether they are prepared to step into the breech and support AOPA because without AOPA, CASA will go ape (or more ape than they are already).

axiom

26th Feb 2003, 05:51

Children, lets try and sort this out.

1) We have a) Pagani
b)Hamilton
c)Lyon
d)Pike
e)McKeown
f)Kennedy
g)Rudd

2) We have not

a)Kelly
b)Kerans

3) Silenced by decree (?) are

a)Hamilton
b)Lyon
c)Kennedy
d)Rudd

4) A steering committee of

a)Pagani
b)Pike
c)McKeown

5) Of the aforementioned 7, three have taken a controlling interest in the day to day running of affairs.

6) Did the 7 vote this way ?

7) Are the remaining non silenced three a quorum ?

8) If threre is an AGM in May, and the bills are being paid, the income exceeds the expenditure, the steering committee are doing the job, there is back up from the other four, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM ??

9) Of note to Snarek, do the words, "bloody lawyers" and "Qantas pilot's" sound familiar.

I implore you all to let this matter ride until May, and then my friends, (I say this in the full meaning of the dictionary), put up your candidates, let them run their campaigns, support them, but don't desparage the incumbents to the extent that the very genises of AOPA is compromised.

If you do, I am certain, the voters will see through you.

If there is a problem with accounting ideologies, let it all come out prior to May.

There are people out there who think AOPA is a joke and people like me who are trying to keep the knots tied, another joke, but the simple fact is that

NOBODY IN AVIATION CAN AFFORD NOT TO BE A MEMBER OF AOPA.

It's time to close ranks, there is no room for factions AFTER the elections, so lets get things sorted BEFORE

BUT

NOT BY COMPROMISING OUR FUTURE MEMBERSHIP BASE WHO, BELIEVE IT OR NOT ARE THE GRASS ROOTS OF AVIATION IN AUST.

triadic

26th Feb 2003, 07:20

AT LAST !!

The post from Marjorie Pagani is the most direct and mature, responsible statement that I have seen from an AOPA director form many years. And it comes at a time when such clear speaking and leadership is required. As a long time member, she will have my support to overcome the many problems.

No more ego driven ramblings from those who fail to see how much damage they have done over the past years. Good riddance. (and keep them locked out!)

I assume that Bill Pike is still in the sick bay, but having said many a time that he wanted out, I guess he now has a very competent replacement. Well done Bill, but let's see the handover without delay.

Go do it Marjorie!

C182 Drover

26th Feb 2003, 19:39

Maybe we need to call new elections now, to sort out this mess?:) :eek:

antechinus

26th Feb 2003, 20:23

AOPA has a big problem that only the members can rectify:

As I understand it, Lyon & Hamilton no longer have the confidence of their fellow board members. All board members other than Lyon/Hamilton have agreed to present themselves to the members for re-election, and in my opinion this can only be because their egos are being placed ahead of their constituency and the future viability of AOPA.

If Lyon/Hamilton remain, I'd be surprised if current worthwhile and talented board members would either continue or put themselves up for re-election.

With this background and the refusal of Directors' Liability insurance, it is going to be difficult to get anyone to stand.

AOPA is going to need a reform board that has the full backing of the membership if it is to survive this crisis.

Russell

snarek

26th Feb 2003, 20:53

The AOPA posts seem to have become somewhat ubiquitous overnight, (from the latin term ubique, which in the sense of the artillery regiments, as axiom would well know, means 'all over the bl@@dy place')

Replying to a post axiom made elsewhere about 'leaving it be until the AGM', that's fine. Except Hamilton and Lyon are refusing to stand.

So in my view not even the members can really have their say and the problem remains.

It is interesting that the last time there was a real election Lyon came last :) Perhaps the members ain't so dumb after all.

But then, there ain't no reason why the members can't spill the Board at the election and then appoint a caretaker Board pending proper and full elections.

I can feel a motion coming on.

AK

Woomera

26th Feb 2003, 21:28

Part 2.......

snarek

26th Feb 2003, 21:47

(copied from an elsewhere)

The AOPA posts seem to have become somewhat ubiquitous overnight, (from the latin term ubique, which in the sense of the artillery regiments, as axiom would well know, means 'all over the bl@@dy place')

Replying to a post axiom made about 'leaving it be until the AGM', that's fine. Except it seems, Hamilton and Lyon are refusing to stand.

So in my view not even the members can really have their say and the problem remains.

It is interesting that the last time there was a real election Lyon came last Perhaps the members ain't so dumb after all.

But then, there ain't no reason why the members can't spill the Board at the election and then appoint a caretaker Board pending proper and full elections.

I can feel a motion coming on.

AK

cogwheel

27th Feb 2003, 02:41

Woomera et el. This morning these AOPA posts were all cut about and even appeared on the Reporting Points page for a while (!!)

During this flurry of activity, I made a post regarding all these changes and obviously during that period the Woomera's were also doing their thing. I found the lost post on the RP page and went back to correct my earlier post, but it was locked! It vanished from the RP page about the same time.

What I did notice was a post from Woomera on this subject which I believed was very appropriate and contained some very wise words from the pinnacle of wisdom. Myself and one other in fact had responded to it - but now its not to be found anywhere. Did you guys delete it?

I think it was so good, that maybe you should repost it for all to see.

[and no, I did not start this thread]

axiom

27th Feb 2003, 05:21

My dear schitzophrenic friends, ulm and /or snarek;

You really have it in for these two don't you?

Haven't you got anything good to say that may moderate the apparant bile that we are hearing on a daily basis?

Remember, If you have acquired such intimate knowledge of affairs over the course of your AOPA involvement, but do not practice it's use, It's a bit like ploughing your land and leaving it unsown. A waste of time and effort.

Perhaps there are people with good and intelligent intent in particular fields that should not be thrown on the scrap heap, but managed for the good of an organisation that is needed for all our sake?

Perhaps knowledge is being misconstrued as an ego trip.

Perhaps we are so deaf that we are refusing to hear, (perhaps)?

brianh

27th Feb 2003, 05:21

As an AOPA Forum contributor, I have every hope that AOPA will quickly resolve its situation - preferably with a spill of Directors and an EGM to clean up the current mess. Unless a unified team - capable of criticism without warfare - results, this will drag on.

What may be needed perhaps is less AOPA Directors - to simplify the decision making process - and several "technical specialists" to do the necessary defence against our benevolent big brothers at CASA and ATSB who intend to resolve aviation safety by putting GA out of business through regulation.

I note Marjorie's comment on "solidarity". At present I am at odds with the ATSB who have endeavoured to use the Aust federal police to pressure and gag me over a colloquial sentence in my criticism on the AOPA Forum of a senior ATSB officer's media reported comments on black boxes in light aircraft. If "solidarity" means AOPA batting on my side, I have not seen it. If it means me contributing $100 in the absence of AOPA support, that's something they will not see either! Hopefully I can expect support after the management and financial position of AOPA is resolved.
Cheers

axiom

27th Feb 2003, 05:36

Not in my Battery and not while I was FO.

I said on the another post, "youv'e really got it in for these two haven't you?

I take it Hamilton has done absolutely nothing for Australian aviation.

Lyon is simply in your way and an annoyance to you.

Even Pike doesn't meet with your requirements.

Rudd is apparantly irrelevant.

Marjorie is the answer to all our prayers.

Kennedy doesn't exist.

But McKeown is OK.

2 out of 7 seems like a good start to me, why didn't you ask on your poll if the remainder are relevant?

We were getting on so well too.

:rolleyes:

Bart Ifonly

27th Feb 2003, 09:41

Antechinus, lets face it, Hamilton may not be a great people person but he has done more for GA and AOPA, put in more effortand is more knowledgeable than you ever will be, is that why you are so against him?
Bart

snarek

27th Feb 2003, 20:30

Axiom. I didn't think we had fallen out again, just are having a difference of opinion.

If we have fallen out I'd remind you of the story behind the white lanyard, but since we haven't, I won't.

I don't mention Kennedy, or even Pike, because I have no gripe with them. Kennedy to me seems level headed and does what a Board member is supposed to do, represent a point of view.

I like Pike. But I also find him to be the sort of person that p!sses people off up front then tries to fix it. That approach clearly isn't working for AOPA.

I have never taken issue with the amount of work Hamilton does. What I take issue with is what I perceive to be flights of fancy presented as fact, 'Board Policy' being whatever Hamilton dreams up on the day and certain expenditures and decisions about the office made without my knowledge or support and in my view that of the Board as well.

I personally have no time for Lyon or Rudd.

But I ask, if Hamilton (or Lyon for that matter) are so capable then why won't they stand for a full and proper election???

Brianh said what has been said before and i agree. We probably need a smaller Board and a few ex-officio members (like Bill Hamilton) doing the important work he does and then reporting through someone who can bring it all (and the industry) together.

That person is Marjorie Pagani.

antechinus

27th Feb 2003, 20:36

Bart.... all that may be true, I would give him top marks for effort. But it is of little use if fellow board members won't/can't work with him. In my opinion, Hamilton is a one man band who seriously lacks skills to work in a team. Maybe Bill should set up his own outfit like Boyd?
And if Hamilton is so good, the members would rapidly vote him back in. So why is he and Lyon refusing to spill when all the other directors see this as being the only way to break the impasse?

Russell

axiom

27th Feb 2003, 20:39

G'day Bart;

Perhaps we should get the 2 dissenters to list their achievements and compare them with those left on the scene?

The pprune poll is doing well:

As I write this some 16, (72.73%) want Hamilton and Lyon out.

This includes all AOPA non members, members, fifth columnists, probably CASA "wallahs" and those with 2 or more pprune identities, etc etc.

there are 6, (27.27%) want them to stay:

Obviously with a vested interest (read that as members).

The significant thing is;

Count the "hits on the post and subrtact the above 26 votes (I know even I have looked twice), but halve that if you want and LOOK at the ABSTENTIONS.

Read also the fact that ak wants an EGM that can be called by a board member OR 100 MEMBERS.

If he was held in such high esteem by the rank and file, why couldn't he rustle up the 100 members.

I bet Hamilton could if he wanted, even I could muster that amount.

If anyone on the board calles this EGM they should take things like this into account because this could come back and bite them on the hand.

I'll Back the remaining board against snareks mob any day.

:p

axiom

28th Feb 2003, 00:12

snarek;

We are now officially at war.

You may be excused for thinking I support those who have helped me, aided me, saved me the humiliations of some very nasty CASA attacks (both monentary and personally), I can be accused of supporting an organisation that in general has the interests of aviation as it's main agenda and the majority of it's board who are attempting to do a job under very difficult conditions, made worse by an orchestrated "whiteanting" of the whole show by a very noisy, nasty and insignificant minority.

BUT, I am proud of my military background and especially my association with RAA.

Your not so subtle reference to "the white lanyard" may be lost on most, but I believe you are referring to the "coward" thing that has been the subject of more military bar room brawls history would care to reflect upon.

I take it you know nothing about military customs or you would not choose to use a "cowards" means of denigrating a postee on pprune.

Congratulations, you have just alienated yourself with every ex RAA member pilot in the country, not to mention those who regularly fly Birdogs, Austers, Winjeels and other FAC type aircraft who would be proud, I'm sure, to know that you treat them with the contempt of the pilots of these aircraft and their passengers.

You would do well to read Christopher Jobson, (published 1997)RAA Customs and Traditions and have an apology ready before we next meet.

You should also sit under the sword suspended by Hamilton's hair, young Damocles before you continue with your endeavours. :mad: seriously :mad:

snarek

28th Feb 2003, 01:06

Well, that was the most amazing over-reaction I have seen since 1991 where, in the Sapper's mess at Pucka, two very p!ssed sappers and two equally p!ssed bombardiers had at it.

Otherwise, even in a shared mess, I have only ever heard (and shared) the occasional jocular comment on the purple vs white argument. I have had, and still have, many very good friends who were/are dropshorts, FOs and even LOs.

I note though you seem to subscribe to a very military (officer that is) version of democracy, whereby a vote, any vote, that does not agree with your opinion must be wrong and the lesser vote, which corresponds with how you think, can be justified with convoluted pompous argument.

That was how we got Location Specific Charging and nearly got Part 47 and Compulsory Third Party, via the Senate.

2B1ASK1

28th Feb 2003, 03:41

snarek

Sorry to have to say this but! your nothing but a childish blethering idiot that obviously has a personal axe to grind with AOPA. We the people that have got a life are fed up with listening to your non constructive crap. I dont Know you from a bar of soap nor wish to, its clearly obvious that you have had some position of responsiblity with AOPA (board member). Thank god your not still around. I dont know what your real agenda is but its sure not in the interest of aviation. You just cant leave this topic alone can you? you obviously travel through life at the height of your incompetence. You have no idea the of the amount of damage you are doing to the industry. If I was a new comer to the industry I would think twice about joining AOPA thanks to you.

Every organisation has its problems Im sure it will work itself out one way or another. So basically grow up stop being so bitter and twisted and for god's sake get a life.

To all newcomers out there that have been reading this crap AOPA is a fine organisation but like many others it occasionaly has a few problems. I am a member and proud of it when I have a problem or a question they have always been helpful these are the facts they have always been there to support us and hopefully always will. It does need your support now probably more than ever so pitch in and join and make it stronger than ever. I have read this site for some time now and never felt like pitching my coin in untill I started reading this mindless drivel. I have always thought that pprune was better than this. pitty we cant vote to remove some of the idiots on this site that are making our industry worse. :)

axiom

28th Feb 2003, 04:04

snarek;

Some apology, thanks digger (and that's the kindest thing that will be said about you, from me, from now on).

You want over-reaction, you haven't seen me in action yet, mate!

You couldn't p!ss, you got off the pot, now p!ss off!

paddopat

28th Feb 2003, 05:00

It seems to me that the childish blithering is in the two posts above.

Is there anything wrong with a difference of opinion, obviously around here, even calls to silence it.

I hope axiom and 2B1 aren't representative of the AOPA Board????

axiom

28th Feb 2003, 05:47

Hey pat;

We've had this out before, remember, you had some damning evidence to give me about CASA's corruption/incompetence and how Me, in particular, invited you to email me with the details so I could pass on same to ICAC/FBI/NRMA/RACQ/RACV/, and I remember, AOPA.

You never emailed me with these damning pieces of evidence and I put you in the basket case.

You're still there mate, and don't call me childish unless you have something constructive to say about a forum that you appear to have no understanding of.

If you want nothing to do with AOPA, keep your opinions to yourself, because you are doing more damage than snarek and his mob to any future viability of AOPA.

Remember mate, you may need AOPA's help one day !

To the best of my knowledge 2B1ASK1 is not on the board and neither am I. Perhaps we are just p!ssed off members.

As for snarek and his (yes he brought it up before me), assertion and my subsequent admission of Artillery, where did he get this information? What does he do for a living? Has he access to files on people who are protected by privacy laws? perhaps he thinks that Lyon and I are the same person? perhaps he is right?

Whatever happens, he will find out who 2Lt Axiom is at our next meeting. With your input perhaps we will be the only members left and he will know anyway.

He is either ignorant, or has information not privy to the general public or is mistaken.

Either way, people that listen to his rantings will join his minority?

"childish blithering", baiting, and doing a poor job of it. :mad:

"Trying to silence them", not me mate, they are digging their own graves.

Have you got a job yet??

C182 Drover

28th Feb 2003, 06:25

Why is that we have people on the AOPA board or x-board members who stir up strife using pprune plus whatever other means to discredit other’s on the board? :mad: It does not show a real maturity & people skills as a leader. I for one will not be voting people like this to the board in the future. (It’s really disgusting to see board members & x-board members that have to stoop this low to discredit their other team members on the board.) We do not need people who are there to peddle their own agenda’s and push their own personal ambitions at the expense of us members just so you can climb your own little social ladder or what ever it maybe.

You should only be on the board because you love flying and want others to have the same freedom. ;) " AOPA stands for its members' right to fly without unnecessary restrictions and costs "

By the way I use to think Bill Hamilton was a real arrogant & outspoken sort of guy too, by what I had heard from others. One day I picked up the phone and spoke to him and found out it was not so, just a normal guy who loves to fly just like you & I. This guy has put a whole lot of his own time & finance into fighting for the right for you and I to have the right to fly. I did not say Bill is perfect, but neither are you or the other board & x-board members (otherwise they would still there).

:D It is about time someone takes a stand and say’s enough is enough and re-focus on the real issues that face us all as pilots who love flying.

Have a nice weekend. :) :) :)

C182 Drover

28th Feb 2003, 06:30

axiom

28th Feb 2003, 07:08

C182drover;

Axiom is not on the board, has never been and Mrs Axiom won't let me out to play this wekend. I'm not allowed out at night either

I hope your attention was therefor addressed to snarek, who was on the board, and since demised and now in top gear to bring the organisation to wrack and ruin because someone kicked in his sandcastle.

I do however really really like the phrase "refocus" and I'm with you brother (no I'm not Aboriginal either).

UNITY is another good word.:p

2B1ASK1

28th Feb 2003, 07:15

padopat, grow a brain! of course there is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion providing that its constructive in most cases on this thread its not, it is only damaging the industry if you cant see it then you should not be in it.

no im not a board member or an x-board member for that matter. I am a member that is concerned that AOPA will not be here next year if this crap does not stop. Ive been flying since the age of 17, im now 40 I love it I would not trade it for the world I have also been a lame for good few of those years, I get angry when people like yourself voice stupid opinions that make our industry worse get a life.:mad:

C182 DROVER I could not agree more have a good weekend and safe skies buddy:D

Axiom I don' know you well only what I have read, your heart seems to be in the right place. Being x-military myself I get a little miffed when people go one about things they have no real comprehension about, there is no argument for snarek because if he did really understand military customs and courtesies then he would not have brought them up in the first place. I will stick with my origional opinion bitter and twisted ex-board member with an axe to grind HE NEEDS TO GROW UP, come on people lets get construcive here and look to a better future you must all see that this is only making things worse. I seem to be waisting my fingertips here surely most of you agree with what Im saying if not I fear its a sad time for those of us that like to fly.:confused:

axiom

28th Feb 2003, 09:34

To Marjorie Pagani;

I have just printed the last months forum threads on pprune and it makse interesting reading (if you have the time).

I'll re read it tomorrow and try to reinforce what my initial reaction to the scribes input.

There are common threads here that you should address before you get involved in any decision making on the future of AOPA.

Leaving out the obvious antagonism between, the past and departed board members, my own input that has probably antagonised some of the participants, and the present incumbents, there appears to be a conformation of ideas that are deserving of merit.

I will not go through and name each, but they will know to whom I refer.

1) Banner advertising on pprune.
2) Less abrasiveness in public.
3) Less negative "vibes" from the board (who should "close ranks" when a crisis evolves) and jump on it as soon as it happens.
4) A cohesive board with personalities placed in heir sphere of expertise.
5) The reinforcement of the AOPA aims, asperations, agendas and limits.
6) An invitation to GA operators to be proactive participants in AOPA and not reactive.
8) A common aim to oppose restrictive harsh and unconscionable rules and regulations brought about by CASA.
9) A common aim to support those who fight these restrictive impositions.
10)An amagamation of AUF, GFA, helicopters, ornithopters, seaplanes, warbirds, charter, schools, parachutists, gyrocopters, and, anyone else who would want to be part of a protective umbrella under AOPA.
11)A simplification of (or at least an explaination of) the new rules and reg's which are being foisted upon us albeit with a struggle.
12)Magazine distribution through newsagents as well as subscription.
13) Strong leadership.
14) Recognition of individual board members knowledge and experience as opposed to branding them ego trips.
15)An endeavour to bring to the fold "space cadets" who are the grass roots of aviation and are having sh!t put on them and being brainwashed by their mentors.
16)An endeavour to bring to the fold "enthusiasts" who also are grass roots material.
17)State chapters which may alter the constitution from a company to individual incorporated associations with a central power base (magazine), represented by the states. (and no, I'm not in favour of Canberra, Alice Springs would be a better choice).
18)An abolition of the insurance ideology and mantra played for the benefit of the insurance companies and the Lawyers.
19) A basis of understanding with the regulator, the executive and the judiciary that is sadly lacking now.
20)A basis of understanding by the regulator, the executive and the judiciary with a strong and cohesive lobby group that seriously has it's constituents interests at heart. (yes AOPA is a political organisation).

Finally to end this wish list, a stop to the destructive influences of dissatisfied and absent and non decision making elements who would bring down the organisation for whatever means.

This means quick, decisive and firm statements by the incumbents that they are unrepresentative voices and should be ignored....even on pprune.

Also it appears we need a tight fiscal plan for the near future, SPONSORS perhaps ????

axiom

2nd Mar 2003, 01:01

I urge everyone to read woomera" post on reporting points, D&G regarding AOPA.

To those of you who onforward vital messages to mates in the bush and on laptops I urge you to send this also.

There is hope and pprune just gave AOPA a free 2 page advertisement to some 10,000 of their readers.

:D :D

axiom

2nd Mar 2003, 01:06

woomera's post on D&G reporting points, A MUST READ. There is hope.:D :D

antechinus

2nd Mar 2003, 01:13

The sad situation for AOPA is that the current board members apparently cannot work with Lyon & Hamilton.
In recent days this has been exacerbated by the alleged leaking of confidential board material by Lyon/Hamilton to some renegade members, this being in breach of the Code of Conduct.
The Code of Conduct was agreed to and adopted unanimously and covers what is normal and reasonable behaviour expected from committee members.
If indeed the board has lost trust in Lyon/Hamilton then it is unworkable. The problem as I understand it is that Lyon/Hamilton have steadfastly refused to spill and allow the members to vote.
My guess is that none of the current board would want to stand for the coming election if Lyon & Hamilton remain.
So where to from here?

Russell

cogwheel

2nd Mar 2003, 13:05

DH82Drover...

Why is that we have people on the AOPA board or x-board members who stir up strife using pprune plus whatever other means to discredit other’s on the board? It does not show a real maturity & people skills as a leader. I for one will not be voting people like this to the board in the future. (It’s really disgusting to see board members & x-board members that have to stoop this low to discredit their other team members on the board.) We do not need people who are there to peddle their own agenda’s and push their own personal ambitions at the expense of us members just so you can climb your own little social ladder or what ever it maybe.

There are a number of very good reasons as to why the discussion is here and that is the freedom to express responsible views and in fact air facts that other perhaps are not aware of. And of course the AOPA Forum has been closed for some equally good reasons. Believe me the strife you say has been stirred up by the x board members has in fact has been long precipitated by those who are refusing to agree to a spill of all positions. In fact the same two members are more than likely the ones that have pushed "their own personal ambitions" not the two that have resigned.

It sounds as if you have made your mind up before hearing all the evidence? Do you know how long some members of the board have represented themselves using the AOPA hat to get their voice heard, with or without board consent?. How many letters and emails some board members have sent over the past years that have not even been discussed or tabled at board meetings? How embarrassed some board members have been to find out what position on some matters has been put forward as policy? Talk about policy on the run.

No organization can afford to have any lose cannons on the board that push wheelbarrows that no one else knows about.

Find out the answers to those questions and I believe you and any other reader will be of the opinion that there must be a complete spill of all board positions at the AGM or even earlier at an EGM.

We all owe it to AOPA to ensure that the best people are running the association and the creditability and respectability together with sound financial management is returned so that we may all be benefit.

Woomera is 110% correct in his post. That is the way we must go.

(yes - I am an AOPA member)

paddopat

2nd Mar 2003, 20:24

Axiom

I am at a loss to even try and figure out you references to evidence I was supposed to have sent you. We have never corresponded in the past and given the tone of your posts on this forum, you are not the sort of character I would entertain correspondence with????

A tad of paranoia???

You then accuse snarek(???) of spying on some personal files somehwere to find out you were in the Army, well if you click on just your last few posts you will come accross the one where you told the world of your army affiliations.

A little more paranioa???

And then of course you and you friend 2B1 verbally abuse anyone (and I even read implied threats of violence in at least 4 of your recent posts (none of 2B1s)) who dares to question any opinion you may hold, however blinkered or invalid.

No wonder Mrs Axiom won't let you out to play, she is obviously concerned for your health.

Pat

snarek

2nd Mar 2003, 20:59

Thanks Cog.

It is good to see that you (as I believe do the majority of AOPA people) ensure the brain is engaged before putting the mouth (or keyboard) into gear.

AOPA will be OK under Marjorie, I am sure of it.

AK

axiom

3rd Mar 2003, 00:30

Paddy;

1) You did.

2) snarek brought this up first, I confirmed, go back a way before and you may even see your reference to the evidence.

3) Next ANZAC day go tell a "Gunner" he is a coward and let me know what sort of a response you get.

May be a good idea to tell him he is paranoid as well.

I still have received no apology from snarek, shows you what sort a person he is. If he can't be a peacemaker to 2 individuals, how does he expect anyone to believe he can do better with bringing a whole organisation back together.

You are doing a great job of ameliorating the situation as well.

Good day to you sir !:rolleyes:

paddopat

3rd Mar 2003, 01:24

Axiom

You and I have NEVER corresponded, except for this, and I hardly count this as correspondence. Correspondence usually leads to something useful, little of what you have posted in the last few weeks could be counted as useful.

On this issue and the snarek spy vs spy conspiracy, I strongly urge you to tell the little voices to be quiet so you can think straight.

This is the last time I rise to your bait.

Pat

Woomera

3rd Mar 2003, 03:19

I have merged the "AOPA needs our help" thread with this one as the more approriate, so that it reduces the confusion a little.

I think I will close the Woomera thread but leave it stickied for the same reason.

The Woomera thread was and is not intended as an electioneering stunt for his/her election as there are too many of us one :p

It was merely to give AOPA as a whole a plug during the difficult time it is experiencing and as a means of helping to boost the membership to its former safe level.:D

We cannot and will not endorse any candidate here, that prerogative solely belongs to you the readership of PPRuNe and themembership of AOPA.

You should be both

2B1ASK1

3rd Mar 2003, 06:41

paddopat.

I dont realy understand why I am replying to your comments but here goes. This is just a site where people from all sides of aviation come and talk about all sorts of things relating to a common interest ie the love of aviation. Do I think Ihave the right to verbaly abuse anyone that tries to destroy the very thing I and many others love, well yes I do. I feel a little insulted that you assume I want to stop people from expressing there thoughts or ideas, this thought could not be further from the truth.

My whole point on the matter is that fact Snarek is an Ex- board member and should not be distorting the views of us people that are only members Im sure Im old enough to make up my own mind. If he has an axe to grind then do it somewhere else. As I have previously stated there is alot of people out there that are new to the industry should they be subject to this or is it fair to say that they should make up there own mind base on correct and not distorted information. Have a good look at the current state of the world we are on the brink of war all because people are listening to others that are distorting the truth to justify there actions and everyone else is jumping to conclusions based on this distorted truth, sad fact but probably true.

So whats the point of all this well if you want to be like everyone else and destroy the very thing that brings us all together then I guess no matter what I say will make no difference. Yes we all have the freedom of speach but it came at a price, if you want to destroy the very meaning of that comment then carry on, but don't expect that those of us who do value that freedom will not pass a comment from time to time.

Myself personally, well I have made up my own mind base on what I personally have knowledge of and my own personal view which you will have noticed I have not commented on in my posts and rightly so because they are my views and I should not try to influence people by them. I know you all probably care but you must see that in alot of these cases its damaging to the industry.

Now I do have it on good authority that snarek is an Ex-board member any comments by him are just not right. I dont know of the others but have suspicions but again I should keep them to myself which I will. Axiom well sorry I dont know him from a bar of soap I mearly made a passing comment, I do appologise if you felt my comments were harsh but I believe I have earned the right to say them. I will continue to protect the very thing that makes me want to get up every day and thats flying.:D

axiom

3rd Mar 2003, 07:21

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

"I", axiom, made the committment, and, my forebears, and some very dear friends paid the ultimate sacrifice, so you "Paddy" have the freedom of speech to call me paranoid, insinuate I have little voices in my brain, and the temerity to stick up for my mates.

Perhaps you are another of snarek's identities, talk about paranoid !

Why don't you just go away and wait your turn at the ANZAC march with snarek and his hand wringing, stand in the corner, snipe at whoever you don't like mob of small "d" Democrats who regularly have meetings in telephone box's.

Call my "Gunner" mates what snarek was going on about, and it won't be "me" with any ideas of violence toward you. (but I'd pay money to be there).

Probably better if you nominate for the board of the "reserruction of AOPA" which has now taken on biblical proportions.

Seeing as we are now down to name calling (really helpful to the election of a professional body to take up the challenges laid down by woomera),

What "have" you done, that will escalate your mediocre status from a "5 minute of fame follower" to a person with Bill Hamilton's achievements.

The Irish love a sh!t fight don't they ?

P!ss or get off the pot !!!

:mad:

paddopat

3rd Mar 2003, 19:58

2B1

Some reasoned thought there and I shall comment on it. If you feel I have in some way linked you to axioms paranoid threats of violence to any that disagree with him, I am sorry. I understand how disturbing such a link could be.

You have argued well about opinion, and how here on PPRuNe we are all here to share it. You have then argued that snarek, because he is an ex-Board member, should shut up.

The two do not follow and in fact are contradictory.

Surely snarek has earned the right to an opinion by actually standing for the Board and serving on it, many here with strong opinions on AOPA aren't even members (are you??). Obviously there is something wrong inside the Board and it seems to me to be linked to the behaviour of Lyon and Hamilton, an opinion well supported on this forum by another ex-Board member, general comments and the poll in another thread.

Who the would be better placed to properly inform members and potential members about what is going on than someone who was 'inside'. Obviously snarek will have his own slant on things, but that is for you and the other intelligent people here to filter and reach your own opinion, which you, like snarek, are perfectly entitled to.

Pat

2B1ASK1

4th Mar 2003, 01:41

Pat

This will be my final reply on this subject so here goes. Yes I am a member of AOPA, gold card clutched in fingers as we speak. My favorite Quote, I do not know snarek from a bar of soap, which makes my point more valid. This is not personal, look I have read the posts on this site for some time now and have only recently wanted to pass comment. If snarek or any other ex or current board members post a comment on this topic it is going to be distorted, its akin to asking a victims family to pass a judgement on a defendant based on what the prosecution lawyers have said it does not work and can only make the situation worse. These comments will scare people away from joining that is a fact. People around me are saying they will not join because of some of these comments, so in fact the damage has already been done. Yes I agree both you and I are capable of making up or own mind however there are lots of new people out there that are looking to people like us for inspiration and guidance they listen to what we say with intent and will be guided by our comments.

Your comment who would be better placed to inform members.
Well if you asked a politician who to vote for in an election whats his responce? if you asked him what he thought was wrong with the opposition party he would give you a thousand reasons.

AOPA's doors are always open I do visit from time to time to say hello I dont see any hidden agenda as I walk through the door the odd time I have met the board members they seem reasonable people. Now I am not saying there are not problems there clearly there are however before we all jump in and vote people off the board we have the responsibility of A) Making sure that there is actually someone to replace him or her and that they have the time to commit to the job as well as being the right person. B) Making sure steps are in place to prevent this situation from re-occuring.

As far as Snarek is concerned yes he has the right to voice his oppinion but I truly believe he also as well as other current or ex board members have to exercise their moral right to abstain from comment. Because in truth they are akin to politicians AOPA is not a political party and should not be used as such especially on this forum. This **** fight that has developed over those comments has not only damaged AOPA but GA in general. We have now got to try and repair the damage the and thats going to take some time. I always talk or type in this case from the heart, HENCE THE NAME (2B1ASK1) some of you out there will know what that name means, if all of you that have made biased comments on this subject would sit back and think for a second then you would see this whole **** fight has not helped in any way. this could have and should be brought to the table at the AGM. The damage has to stop now woomera is attempting to unite us all for the good but nobody seems to be listening.

My only agenda is the love of aviation as is many of you out there but we must always be carefull not to damage the very thing we all love. Our passion should be passed on not poisoned by people that have an axe to grind on either side of the fence. So thats that, feel free to email me if you wish to discuss the matter further I have nothing to hide nor a personal agenda.

:) :)

Woomera

4th Mar 2003, 02:22

2B1ASK1, paddopat, axiom, snarek et.al

On one thing you are united, AOPA is important and needs our support.

The damage has to stop now woomera is attempting to unite us all for the good but nobody seems to be listening.

My only agenda is the love of aviation as is many of you out there but we must always be carefull not to damage the very thing we all love. Our passion should be passed on not poisoned by people that have an axe to grind on either side of the fence. So thats that, feel free to email me if you wish to discuss the matter further I have nothing to hide nor a personal agenda.

sorta sums up what I was trying to say.

So why don't we all start off again from that united point and concentrate on going forward.

As I pointed out to those who haven't been around long it was the personal agend of others, represented as AOPA agenda, that has brought AOPA to this point.

I believe this thread has now run its course, achieved its aim of exposing some issues and is no longer relevant in the scheme of going forward so I am going to close and unsticky it.

I have reopened the Woomera perspective thread for, hopefully constructive discussion and as a means of you guys helping turn some of the "negative" attitudes around.

May I reiterate.

The issues that dominate the current debate would not be issues were there membership numbers appropriate to the number of Aircraft Owners and Pilots in this country.

It is not enough now to protest that you wouldn’t join, rejoin or renew because "so and so" is still there, when clearly "so and so" is only there because no one else will step up, either to offer an alternative, or to help.