AOPA needs our help!!! [Archive]

snarek

6th Jan 2003, 02:09

Heh heh.

Well gaunty, since it was me what made you see the light perhaps i should explain.

There was a disagreement as to how multiple year memberships should be treated, as a liability or not. Russell Kelly was Treasurer and he chose to treat them as a liability, ie fund them from within the budget.

Russell did have the support of the majority of the Board, but not all. He took into account his own liability as Treasurer and Secretary and the fact that two of the Board had voiced discontent with his accounting practises and chose to resign.

As I have said on the AOPA forum, Russell always has and always will have my support and friendship. He did a wonderful job for AOPA and we need him back. That said I hope he renominates at the next AGM so we can put the current Board differences behind us.

Regardless of Russell's resignation, current Board practise is to account for long term membership payments. Should that change then I would need to reconsider my position.

So, all you PPRuNers who are members, please talk to Russell, find out from him why he resigned, bear this in mind and vote at the next elections and attend the AGM.

AK

gaunty

6th Jan 2003, 03:56

Thanks

Kris from the office has very kindly "set me up" :D and even took the time to let me know.

Apparently there is a bit of a backlog due to some staff shortages and the Christmas break.

I thought about paying a multiple membership for the obvious reasons of cost, but honestly didn't feel all that comfortable with it, given the current circumstances.

I will however, when I can be assured that AOPA is very firmly back in the hands of it's natural constituency and not driven from behind the scenes by high profile dabblers with personal, single issues or political motives.

I look forward to contributing, although so far I have an open mind, I will be interested to see how the "active" moderating that takes place there as against the "passive" moderating here stacks up against the "censorship" issues described by Woomera.

Outback Pilot

6th Jan 2003, 05:02

It looks like they need the help of people like Tony Mitchell and Boyd Munroe to get them back on track? :) :) :)

antechinus

6th Jan 2003, 05:09

The issue is about whether AOPA needs to fund future membership liabilities – ie the 3,4 and 5 year membership. Several directors want to put the whole 5 year income into the month it is received and then spend it. A bit like what HIH did.
Why does this matter? Well using their ingenious accounting method makes the AOPA books look respectable when the actual situation is that AOPA’s finance are fairly sick
and need a concerted effort by all board members to fix up the problems.

I was the only accountant on the board and whilst I had the valued support of some board members, including Andrew Kerans, I was facing a daily smear campaign regarding the veracity of the financial reports. Who would want to continue as Treasurer under these circumstances?

There are some bizarre defences running around like AOPA has always been broke so what’s the problem, and the best of all – when a member pays 5 years in advance there is no obligation to provide any services whatsoever for the 5 years!

This nonsense is a typical foible of voluntary organisations. AOPA members need to elect board members who have had some modicum of experience in the corporate world or at the very least, understand how to read a balance sheet and elementary financial reporting.

I have pestered the board to obtain an independent expert opinion but the two directors concerned have fought against this.

Notwithstanding this AOPA needs to be viable and strong and the support of GA. Otherwise what else do we have?

So the past 18 months on the AOPA board hasn’t been the most pleasant experience & I am happy to be out of it. I am busy fighting an expected demonisation campaign and will probably set up a web site to deal with these issues.

Cheers

Russell Kelly (ex Treasurer AOPA)

ulm

6th Jan 2003, 05:39

:eek: :eek:

Geeeeeezzz Outback pilot, I hope that last post of yours was meant to be a joke!!!!!!

:eek: :eek:

Chuck

Outback Pilot

6th Jan 2003, 23:09

ulm, you have to look on the bright side of life. :D :D :D :rolleyes: :p

I Fly

6th Jan 2003, 23:14

In his coming letter to members perhaps Russell Kelly could let us know who the board members were, so we can take that into account next time we vote. AOPA has a very peculiar electioneering campaign. We hear what Licences and hours candidates have. We hear what else they do outside AOPA, but we hear little of what they propose to do once on the board. After they get elected we get told what they can't do.

ulm

7th Jan 2003, 04:21

Can't do, or not allowed to do??? :D

Most of them are actually mere PPLs (like most AOPA members) but the combined ego of the Jumbo drivers swamps debate.

But then, you voted for them (or not, by not nominating and running against them).

But the loudest Jumbo driver isn't up for reelection, so not much the members can do about that, except perhaps call an EGM ... now there's a thought :)

Hey Russell Kelly, you know the ropes, call an EGM!!!

Chuck

antechinus

7th Jan 2003, 05:30

An EGM would be very disruptive.

However a current director can call a General Meeting and the meeting can resolve to call a fresh election.

Easier still, why don’t the board just agree to a spill and make all positions vacant? All directors would have to agree though. I can’t imagine why any director should object unless they are afraid of facing the members.

Russell

axiom

7th Jan 2003, 08:38

To ulm and snarek; or am I talking to the same guy.

Seems there is a lot of negative talk and a small bit of the positive.

Who is the "most senior" pilot in question?

Who is "whiteanting" the whole show?

Why can't you guy's get a positive thread going about AOPA ? or is your life (plural perhaps), so taken up with doing something on pprune that your own website won't allow you?

There is life without Kelly believe it or not, and the whole concept of a complete fracture of AOPA as a result is just too silly for words.

Would Bill P and Bill H (who seem to be the most sane, by their silence), please speak up or do "us" members have to go through another s**t fight which will have the pre determined outcome of F**k**g the whole show.

Struth !!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:

hurlingham

7th Jan 2003, 09:21

AOPA in trouble?

Again or still.

As has been mentioned
'PPL's with 747 egos - claiming to represent all of GA'

Not getting my $, again.

ulm

7th Jan 2003, 20:02

Axiom

At least snarek identifies himself as an AOPA Board member. You could try the same honesty.

Same guy, how presumptuous of you to even assume that all pilots are male. Typical of the problems facing AOPA (and people like Kerans and Kelly) in our industry.

The problems facing AOPA are very real, I know that having sat through what i thought was a one hour bullsh!t, bluff and bluster lecture on why AOPA Oz sued AOPA US at the Narromine AGM. Now having a bit of background on it helped me to decide when I was hearing reality and when I was hearing a Chinese version of history to protect an ego that I think is so big it has become unstable.

Axiom dear Girl, I think it is time you and your mate resigned and left AOPA to those who have a little sanity left and a lot less of an agenda.

snarek

7th Jan 2003, 20:21

Arghhh

Copping it from both sides now.

Axiom, your assumption about ULM in this case is incorrect. Think a bit deeper, c'mon mate, try, I'm sure you can.

Hurlingham.

Only two of nine Board members are or were 747 Captains. Regardless of what this qualification makes you feel, six of the others are PPLs and there is one CPL.

Again, regardless of your opinion on ATPLs running AOPA, AOPA is the members. If you won't be a member (and the other PPL members think the same) then the CPLs and above will elect CPLs and above to the Board and drive the PPL out of the sky.

Now, more on '747 Captains', despite the fact that most people are aware that I have differences of opinion with Bill Pike, he has NEVER in all my time on the Board even suggested AOPA take up a QF, RPT or commercial issue. He has doggedly persued the interests of the PPL in areas such as landing fees, over-regulation, flight manuals etc.

So, while I see your point, be careful not to confuse the person with their job, you can be right, but you can be wrong.

AK

antechinus

7th Jan 2003, 21:07

AOPA members suffer the same problems as do shareholders of listed public companies.

How can members possibly know which directors are competent, pulling their weight and making a positive contribution to the organisation? Are some directors past their ‘use-by’ date? In my experience of company boards, only fellow directors or senior management will ever get to find out. This leaves the members in blissful ignorance.

In AOPA’s case I’m sure all directors are well-meaning and passionate about the cause (otherwise why would they put themselves through purgatory?) and I am proud to have participated with some clever, dedicated and professional aviators. Notwithstanding this, there are serious divisions within the board that go well beyond normal robust debate and
this must leave its mark on AOPA effectiveness.

I should add that criticism of Bill Pike and Bill Hamilton solely because of their present and past employment at QF is unfounded. During my time on the board there was never any instance where either did anything but work tirelessly towards the betterment of GA.

AOPA is pivotal in protecting GA and members need to take a greater interest in the election process, including enhanced scrutiny of candidates. To those who argue that members get the board they deserve I would say that we deserve better.

A vigorously contested election for a completely new board would be the best outcome.

Russell

ulm

7th Jan 2003, 21:27

OK Russell

Since you think AOPA needs a whole new Board then that means all of them must stand aside at the next election.

Now only Kerans, Kennedy and Rudd actually must (although the costitution says 'half' the Board must stand aside and I believe Mr Pike did at the last election to make up the full half.)

So assuming Hamilton stands this time to make up the half (as he is Senior VP and Pike set the precident last time), how to you propose getting the rest to stand aside should they choose not to???

Chuck

Piper Arrow

7th Jan 2003, 21:47

If you lose Hamilton you can kiss AOPA good bye. :D :D :D

ulm

7th Jan 2003, 22:29

Slow airplane pilot

you left out 'don't' and 'soon'. :D :D

axiom

7th Jan 2003, 23:40

Bill Hamilton rang me this morning after having failed to get a post put on this thread through Danny , He asked me to do so and I quote; (obviously He's not registered), (and Axiom isn't him).

From Bill Hamilton,
Vice President and Technical Director,
AOPA of Australia.

In view of the fact that I have been named on this thread, I would offer the following.

Firstly, AOPA is solvent and will remain so, with prudent and sensible management. The Board of AOPA is a sensible and prudent group of people.

Shortly after the Mobil fuel crisis, AOPA finances reached an all time low, as a result of heavy expenditure on the resulting problems of members and non members, alike.

Since that time, significant and at times painful cost cutting has enabled a slow but steady improvement in the AOPA financial situation, despite a further fall in membership in line with the reductions in General Aviation activity. Show me anywhere in GA where things are not tight. AOPA is no exception.

Quiet simply AOPA is paying it's bills on time, and with the support of its members, will continue to do so. AOPA will continue to provide all its traditional services to members.

No member of the AOPA board has questioned, let alone sought to reverse the current accounting standard, since the Board decision to adopt the present standard. No member of the Board wants to "spend it", all the money at once. Indeed it was during my time as President that some of the most significant cuts were made, to ensure the continued solvency of AOPA.

There has not been, nor will there be any smear campaign as has been suggested herein.

Nor do I personally intend to respond to the rather scurrilous and defamatory comments in some of these posts.

My only interest is that AOPA should continue to fulfill its Charter, in the interests of all its members, and I will be happy to be judged by the members at large on the results we achieve.

Yours sincerely,
Bill Hamilton.

Having passed this on, may I say that it is the anonymity of pprune that makes this website unique and I have no intention of identifying myself to any person with a good or bad vested interest in AOPA (except the obvious who know me).

I do not post anything on the AOPA website simply because it is people of dubious intent who have turned the site into an ambulance chaser's dream.

If I have got Andrew and ulm mistaken, I apologise.

Finally, I say again, There is life after Kelly, and in my humble opinion, it seems like his resignations (s), are egocentric and self serving.

It would be interesting to draw up two overlapping graphs to see where the membership peaks and these sh*t fights historically occur.

People in aviation today cannot afford not to be members of AOPA and it is blokes like Bill Hamilton, who's tireless work help make a team that make things happen.

Get off their backs !!!!!

ulm

7th Jan 2003, 23:56

Yes well.

From the posts here and discussions with AOPA members as recently as last night I believe the debate is whether AOPA needs some new blood and whether Mr hamilton should consider his options.

The simple solution seems to be for Bill to stand at the next election. (remember, there was no election last time). If re-elected (in a contested election) then that is the members will and I will immediately pull my head in.

Chuck

axiom

8th Jan 2003, 00:10

I'll ask for a comment. Watch this space :)

snarek

8th Jan 2003, 01:00

Lunch time now, and boy has this been active this morning!!!

Anyway, I have no problems with what Bill Hamilton has posted, I just don't agree with all of it.

But Axiom, that bit about Kelly. Nasty and below the belt. Worse though, totally untrue. No one on the Board is "self serving" and you know that. Not even the people I disagree with are "self serving" (at least as far as I can tell), you wouldn't do this to serve yourself.

Egotistical, possibly, it takes strong people and Russell is by far not the worst in big ego stakes on this Board. Big egos can be useful in this sort of game, look at the Treasuruer (of the Govt) for instance. You get big egos in any union or political party and I think you are incredibly niave to think that it should somehow be any different in AOPA.

Perhaps we need someone with less of an ego to bring us all together, and Marjorie Pagani would be perfect. She seems to me to have what it takes to get all the egos working to the same goal (if not perhaps agreeing on exactly how to get there :D )

Russell worked his guts out for AOPA, but did not receive full support from all the directors, yourself and one other. That is why he left. It had little to do with ego. Having spoken with Russell I am confident he will renomonate for the Board at the next election and he will have my full and absolute support.

I note also that Bill has agreed to be 'judged' by the members. It was a pity there was no election last year because there were insufficient nominations. It seems we have all now agreed that we should all stand at the next election, hopefully a contested one, so that the members can judge us all properly. Then they too will have no reason for criticism.

I think you should a) Come clean about who you are, and b) Apologise to Russell.

Andrew Kerans

Piper Arrow

8th Jan 2003, 01:13

I have to say Mr Hamilton is an asset to AOPA along with the others and its members. It is just a pity they have not learnt to agree to disagree on certain issues and move forward. :cool:

It would have been nice to see a lot of these issues resolved on the AOPA forum or person to person instead of spiting the dummy on pprune. :mad:

I guess it is free of censorship here to a degree. :D

snarek

8th Jan 2003, 01:30

Piper Arrow.

(I once overtook a 200 hp Arrow in my 180 HP fixed gear, fixed pitch Grumman :D )

The AOPA forum is essentially un-edited unless you defame someone. if you, in my view, defame someone I send it to one of our two lawyers for opinion. If they say OK it gets posted, otherwise it is returned or edited.

Just the same as any other forum, except you cant hide your identity.

You want to post this stuff there, go for it. There already is a thread.

AK

antechinus

8th Jan 2003, 01:39

Let’s keep out the character assassination, there is no place for that.

Just a point of correction re Bill Hamilton’s proxy posting:

AOPA did not fund future liabilities during the period 1997 thru 2001. Had it done so, in my opinion, it would have been bankrupted. So Bill, why your change your position on this?

I am a little confused about your post, Andrew. Are you implying that Bill H won’t be part of a spill ?

Irrespective of the mud-slinging on this Forum, members have no way to make up their own minds about which directors are performing. And what happens if the membership democratically elects the same people back?

Russell

Mooney Operator

8th Jan 2003, 01:39

snarek, why don't you go and work things out together as mature board members for the good of it’s members. Please put your differences away and get on with the job that you have been elected to do.

If we do not get this situation fixed fast you will not have any members and we will all go and join the AUF as they have one fixed purpose and vision for their members.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

snarek

8th Jan 2003, 01:47

Russell,

I don't know. Bill previously declined to stand but seems to have agreed to stand in the post above.

Mooney Operator,

I am sure Russell shares my sympathy on your choice of aircraft. That aside, you must therefore know Russell. Put you question to him, I'm sure he can enlighten you.

AK

antechinus

8th Jan 2003, 02:08

Andrew, Mooney operators are always right!

The options are simple I reckon. The board should try
and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults.
If this fails, there is no option other the whole board to
support a spill and for the members to have their say.

Why not give the first option another try?

Russell

snarek

8th Jan 2003, 02:31

Russell

We have a spare wing spar at Yarrawonga if you'd like to try installing one in a Mooney. :D

Bin reading these posts and I had a thought (yes, it did hurt).

There have been transitions in AOPA.

There were the Patroni years. AOPA was big, quietly powerful and influential (and flush).

Then came Dick Smith. There was a different AOPA. I can't whinge, I got caught up in the excitement for change and supported it. Stuff seemed to happen and they were heady days.

Then came the Munro years. You were there in the thick of it. I was threatened with writs and had a Ministerial lodged against me. (Boyd has since apologised and I enjoy a reasonable relationship with him now).

I did not agree with Boyd's way, I found it destructive and threatening and I feel it did more damage to GA than it did good. I actually then ran for the Board on an "I hate Boyd" platform. The final count saw me un-elected.

Bill H took over from Boyd. Bill and I had an interesting relationship. he certainly didn't agree with my decision to ask the Democrats to disallow part 47. Interestingly I worked very well with Boyd Munro to achieve that.

I was astounded at some of the financial decisions made in those days and to this day don't understand some of the reasoning behind them, despite convoluted and confusing explanations from many of those involved at the time.

I found almost everything that Tony Mitchell had to say on GA disagreeable.

So, I didn't put myself forward for the Board to merely follow along with the way AOPA was run in those days. And I won't simply go along with it now.

I agree that the best way forward is for a complete Board election at the next AGM (AOPA simply cannot afford and really doesn't need an EGM unless some members of the Board decide not to voluntarilly put themselves before the members).

AK

Piper Arrow

8th Jan 2003, 02:39

Andrew & Russell,

That is great to hear "The board should try and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults ".

AOPA is a great organisation and it is worth the effort in keeping it going in spite of all the differences and different opinions.

(Andrew did you overtake that Piper Arrow on final? What does the Grumman do flapless landings?) ::eek:

:D :D :D

snarek

8th Jan 2003, 02:43

Piper

No, going up the Araluen, and the Arrow pilot (who was renting and was a friend) admitted he was going 'flat chat'.

Read the last (or the one before) issue of US Flying. Roy lopresti did the same thing :D :D

(and they are half the price at 100 hourly)

But at least Arrows have wing spars ;)

AK

axiom

8th Jan 2003, 03:00

Russell;

I'm sorry I brought the character part in to play, but really, AOPA needs strong cohesive leadership at Board level for it's survival and pissing off right now is not what is needed.

I have had a gutfull of these episodes over the years and it always ends the same way;

1) Lack of members.

2) Lack of cash.

3) Lack of credibility.

4) Loss a decent and hardworking heirachy.

5) Appeasement to CASA who are strengthened by it.

6) An increase of membership fees.

7) A decrease in the ability of AOPA to protect it's members.

8) A feeling of apathetic deja vu by the members.

9) New brooms who sweep the place clean before the next s**t fight.

I know a committee designed the camel when it was envisaged a horse was the order of the day (I think the same mob designed the Lada Niva), but aviation is too serious a business to be left in charge of pissants.

The problem as I see it is that we need a cohesive Board and if it cannot cohese (?) then it is unfunctionable.

I thought we had such a board, I was there at the last AGM, I didn't see a problem with the voting (or lack thereof because of non nominations),

If your principles dictate you take the action you did Russell, I can only commend you and if you are serious, stand at the next elections, throw the challenge out to all and sundry and make the organisation stronger, not weaker for your actions.

Andrew, please read the apology above, and, no I won't come clean about who I am.

I am me, an AOPA member and will be easy to find when our organisation membership drops down to you and me, which seems likely the way things are going.

Why don't you just get on with the job you were elected to do and leave the publicity to the heirachy.

paddopat

8th Jan 2003, 03:03

Hello all.

I am a new member here (I have been lurking for a while though), I have been an AOPA member for over 20 years.

Can somebody tell me what is going on??? It seems AOPA committees haven't been able to get on since about 1994???

Pat

monkeyfly

8th Jan 2003, 03:27

Hello all,

TO ALL AOPA MEMBERS, HEADS UP. I have seen many a time people getting involved in dissagreements between two or more people. YOU WILL NEVER GET THE FULL PICTURE. This is the case even if you hear both sides of the story. Get two eye-witness reports on a car crash and you get 3 stories. Is Russel correct. Most likely yes and no. Are the two board member who ??(was it disagree, ask for more information, suggest another option) correct. Most likely yes and no.

Most likely, based on times this has happen in other organisations, there is a conflict of personalities.

IS THE REMAINING BOARD MATURE ENOUGH TO MOVE AHEAD???

Also I aggree with the suggest to list the board members experience outside aviation altogether. AOPA is a political organistion. We need experience with a wide range of backgrounds.

ulm

8th Jan 2003, 03:38

My (reasonably well) educated guess:

2 'factions'.

Loosely aligned: Kelly, Kerans and McKeown. A distant hanger on here, Kennedy.

Strongly aligned (but in opposition to the above): Hamilton, Lyon and Rudd.

And;

Not aligned at all: Pagani.

Unable to make it work: Pike. (although differing significantly from what I am told, my gut feeling is that Pike supports Hamilton).

One other interesting aside, it seems Hamilton seeks significant counsel from previous Board members, possibly Mitchell and Ferrier (instigator of an attempt to make us all pay compulsory third party, possibly wrongly accused because perhaps it might not have been a bad thing after all, but then, perhaps not).

Chuck

antechinus

8th Jan 2003, 03:40

Good point Mr/Ms Monkey.

Our local bush pub is up for sale. A local wants to buy it, he says he knows how to pull (and consume) a beer. What else could there be to it?

AOPA board members similarly need more than a just a pilots licence. Hopefully a range of complimentary skills (particularly commercial) where there is some mutual respect.

Russell

snarek

8th Jan 2003, 04:01

I don't mind who knows about me.

I am 44. I have been flying for 24 years but only have about 700 hours. I have a PPL, PIFR, NVFR, twin, tailwheel and aero endorsements.

I started my life as an appretice diesel fitter, got sick of that, tried the army, got sick of that and then spent 11 years as a radio installer in Telecom working in the NT. (Stayed in the army reserve until '93).

I quit Telecom in 88 and went to university in Townsville. I owned and operated a very sucessful dive operation based mainly on tourism but also doing some commercial work. I am a commercial diver, a master dive instructor and hold a coxwains certificate (low level commercial marine licence). This allowed me to eat while at uni. I sold the business in 92.

I graduated as an engineer in '94 and worked for Defence in Geraldton WA.

I now run the Space Systems team in the ACA. We do all satellite coordination and policy work for Australian networks. 14 people work with me. I also work at the ITU (an arm of the UN) where I lead delegations representing Australia at high level technical meetings.

I own a Grumman Tiger and an antique 1944 L2 warbird. I have been on the committees of the Canberra Aero Club, The Moruya Aero Club and the Midwest Aero Club (Geraldton WA). As well as AOPA I am in the AYA (Grumman Club) and the AAA (Antique Aircraft Association).

In addition to my degree I have a Masters in Engineering and am studying for a PhD.

Is that enough???

triadic

8th Jan 2003, 04:52

Hmmm - what an interesting thread.

As a long time AOPA member and supporter thru thick and thin, I believe that those board members that did not agree with Russell, should have resigned - placing the association ahead of their collective ego's. The wrong person has stood down when in fact we need a Treasurer like Russell more now than every before.

Fact is that AOPA now needs a new clean image. To do this it would be necessary to have a complete spill of all board members at the next election. Nothing less.

Ten years ago, AOPA had asserts of around $75000, over 10,000 members and was a credible organization, a quite achiever if you like, and certainly no gross ego's that we have seen since. That all changed and we now have a situation where the very existence of AOPA is now at risk. That is the priority right now and any Board member that does not believe that should resign forthwith.

It is interesting to discuss with former members as to why they are no longer members. If what I hear is true then many do not like the style of some of the Board, especially the previous President. Having airline pilots on the Board may be a good thing but the image portrayed is perhaps not what the majority of GA people like. Trouble is that other suitable people have to put their hand up, and then as Bill Pike repeats, work ones guts out for little reward other than a warm and fuzzy feeling that you are doing the right thing.

We must now look forward and plan accordingly.... without the egos.

axiom

8th Jan 2003, 04:58

Thanks snarak, It's a wonder woomera hasn't pulled the plug on this ANONYMOUS forum.

I hope for our (AOPA) members sake you can use your credentials to alter the AOPA website to an ANONYMOUS site and save the world from seeing our dirty laundry.

If, as ulm suggests a three factional Board, who the bloody hell is running the PR show. Faction #1 perhaps.

Struth !!!!!

paddopat

8th Jan 2003, 04:59

Please!!!

Who are the Board members that did not support Russell Kelly???? Who should resign???

Pat

Creampuff

8th Jan 2003, 07:35

Strange - virtual dirty laundry is about as undignified as the real thing.

Hey Axiom: Next time you're talking to Bill, tell him I'm sure Leadsled is happy to post on his behalf as well.;)

hurlingham

8th Jan 2003, 09:31

snarek

I did not make any inferences about C172 or 747 drivers or directors

AOPA claims to represent GA - it does not

It represents its members - a lot of PPL's and a few airline types with private aircraft

monkeyfly

8th Jan 2003, 11:26

Interesting comment hurlingham.

A person can read a lot into those few words (this can be the problems with this form of communication).

Are you saying that AOPA represents people. If so is this individuals or a group of people.

Are you saying that there is no industry repsentitive. If so, are you also saying that AOPA should fill this!

TO ALL,

To quote the great Richie, (as per the 12th man) we are a team, and we will do it my way.

Woomera

8th Jan 2003, 15:26

Axiom

I have no intention of closing this thread; as you know, censorship is something we don't do on PPRuNe unless there is uncivil, slanderous or libellous behaviour.

If there are issues that are unable to be discussed on your Forum then you are always welcome, within the PPRuNe rules to do so here.

There is absolutely no reason for Mr Hamilton to try to involve either Danny or yourself in order to post directly on this Forum.

He is always welcome here and should be quite capable of doing it himself, I remain a little confused as to his motives for not doing so.

Your President worked it out.

Registration is very simple and quick, only requires a valid email address and it doesn't contain any communicable diseases.

And to AOPAs benefit, I have to say PPRuNe is freely available to ALL without cost to them and provides access to close to 60,000 users worldwide and at my last count approaching 10,000 users associated with OZ.

If you wanted to get a message out, debate the issues for all to see, participate and learn how the non-members really feel in order to get them onside and inside, I couldn't think of a better place.

Having chosen to "close" the AOPA Forums to non members thus cutting off prospective members and the possibility of constructive contributions coupled with the "we won't talk to them unless they join and pay their money" routine, seems to me to be a churlish and self fulfilling prophecy.

On the evidence, it would seem that right now, AOPA needs them more than they appear to need or want AOPA involvement in their lives.

I don't believe that there is any PPRuNer who does not think that there is an important role for AOPA in the scheme of things.

But the membership have been much used and abused by the passing parade of travellers in the recent past and there are many fences to be mended whilst at the same time carrying forward the business.

It is the lost and new membership from it's natural constituency, that needs to be repaired, for it to return to its former credibility.

This will require an enormous amount of goodwill from every one.

triadics an esteemed and much respected very long term members post says much.

On another note.

To those who would challenge others to “come clean” on their anonymous identity or choose to demean or insult those that choose to do so.

It has always and ever will be YOUR inalienable right on PPRuNe to choose EITHER, TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS, OR TO POST IN YOUR REAL IDENTITY and that you respect OTHERS rights in this regard EQUALLY.

THAT IS A PRIMARY CONDITION OF YOUR PRESENCE HERE.

The ONLY caveat being that if you transgress the bounds of decency, civility or the rights of others, PPRuNe reserves the right to ban you altogether or sin bin you for an appropriate time.

It will always be the right of those who choose to remain anonymous to remain so and this should be respected and will be protected by the Moderators

If you as a user for whatever reason choose to “out yourself” then that is your prerogative, it is NOT a justification to insist that another does likewise, it is NOT appropriate or fair to criticise their motives for doing so, nor will attempts to out others be tolerated. It is up to you then to weight the comment and response on the quality of the argument in the post.

Team Woomera

paddopat

8th Jan 2003, 23:23

This doesn't help.

I don't like airport charges, they hurt me.
I don't like NAS.

So, in your more educated opinions, who do I vote FOR on the Board and who do I not.

1 vote is all the ammunition I have :(

Pat

snarek

9th Jan 2003, 01:09

I don't personally support LSC either, and I didn't when it was brought in. But I don't see how it can be changed now.

I used to not support NAS. I have since spoken to both Dick Smith and Mike Smith and am not so sure it is a bad as PPRUNERs think it is (apart from see and avoid).

Up to you who you vote for.

hurlingham

9th Jan 2003, 01:59

Monkeyfly
AOPA should represent its members, but that depends on their articles or constitution
AOPA claims to represent GA - it does not. I do not think that there is an organization out there that does

snarek

9th Jan 2003, 03:09

Hurlingham

AOPA represents its members. They are currently predominantly PPL and private owners. But there are a lot of Commercial GA people too.

GA to me is everything from AUF to Chtr. But I am a PPL and Private owner, those who voted for me knew that, I owned up to it.

I would welcome with open arms a 'real' GA representative on the Board. Even try to help them get elected. I once asked a lady CFI from JKT in WA to consider it. She said no (work reasons fairy-nuff).

So, if you want AOPA to represent 'all' of GA then join, nominate or get someone else too.

But may I ask, Bill Hamilton fought tooth and nail against Part 121B - who was that for???

AK

axiom

9th Jan 2003, 03:13

G'day Paddy,

Watch this space, keep your eyes and ears open, don't make decisions based on factional conflicts, don't listen to the old wags, keep an open mind and use your instincts to treat historical achievements as the basis for who you vote for.

We have a Board that is good for the next election date, albeit with a few who have not concurred with the majority at the last AGM and some resignees.

What you and I have to do, (as AOPA members), is to make sure the place is still intact for the next election so we can have open votes as called for in this thread.

We must also make sure our spelling is correctest.

Don't know what we can do if nobody nominates however;

Winge I suppose.

pprune is a good forum to get things off your chest (or breasts if we are talking to the opposite sex), and should be used to get some of the 10,000 odd ppruners in OZ to become members of AOPA and give GA in this country a loud voice instead of the whimper we hear now.

Seeing as you are new and recently a postee, I'll let you know who I am.

Lot's of people want to know and you'll be the first;

First name Elvis and I'm not a helicopter and I don't have two or more user names.

Enough.

One last thing, If Jimmy cracked corn and nobody cared, why did they write a song about him ? Have a good day mate !!:)

Dogimed

9th Jan 2003, 03:24

What I dont get is this. Why do people leave instead of voting someone out? Leaving serves no purpose to ALL concerned. Why not just vote him or her out.

Lost on me. If I think JL is doing a crap job, I vote someone else in. I'd rather have a say than not have a position to speak.

If people started staying as members, then their vote would be triple what it is worth now, and they would have the power to push directors out or in.

Like a government. Vote em out if they aint working for it.

Completely defeats the purpose of having elections if people are going to take their bat and ball when they don't get their own way. Lets put the fear into their eyes around election time, knowing if they haven't done anything they're gone!

Anyhoo

Dog
:D

snarek

9th Jan 2003, 03:26

Heh heh.

You took it out to edit it.

you sly dog you :D

monkeyfly

9th Jan 2003, 22:28

hurlingham

My opions.

There is a note that the members of AOPA are PPLs. You claim that APOA does not represent GA, and that there is no organisation that does. I AGREE. The problem as I see it is that PPLs are GA. Without a strong GA there will be no PPLs. Without PPLs there will be no GA. To my thinking, GA includes "mucking" around in "little" aircraft on survey work for $$$$ mining contracts, medical flight and the list goes on. BUT NOTE MY previous statement. Without PPLs there will be no GA, without GA there will be no PPLs.

OPTION. THE CURRENT (PROBLEM?) within the board is not people, but team-man-ship. Most (succesfull) people in aviation have very strong "personalilities". The current members of the board, including Russell, are most likely the people with the right experience. BUT THEY ARE WORKING SOLO.

OPTION. AOPA is fighting spot fires. It looks are individual problems. There are systemmatic (big work hey!) problems within aviation, and not limited to CASA (although they are the biggest). We need to repair the problem, not fix it. (Note, often the best repair is with small steps IN ONE DIRECTION)

Lets try again, with corect spelling

hurlingham

My opions.

There is a note that the members of AOPA are PPLs. You claim that AOPA does not represent GA, and that there is no organisation that does. I AGREE. The problem as I see it is that PPLs are a mojor part of GA. Without a strong GA there will be no PPLs. Without PPLs there will be no GA. To my thinking, GA includes "mucking" around in "little" aircraft on survey work for $$$$ mining contracts, medical flight and the list goes on. BUT NOTE my previous statement. Without PPLs there will be no GA, without GA there will be no PPLs.

OPION. THE CURRENT (PROBLEM?) within the board is not people, but team-person-ship. Most (sucessful) people in aviation have very strong "personalilities". The current members of the board, including Russell, are most likely the people with the right experience. BUT THEY ARE WORKING SOLO.

OPION. AOPA is fighting spot fires. It looks at individual problems. There are systemmatic (big work hey!) problems within aviation, and not limited to CASA (although they are the biggest). We need to repair the problem, not fix it. (Note, often the best repair is with small steps IN ONE DIRECTION)

Mooney Operator

9th Jan 2003, 22:40

monkeyfly, Well said, I could not have put it any better myself. :)

axiom

10th Jan 2003, 05:10

Goodness gracious me, "primates", I guess it is the fairer of the sex that had the last word.

Lets put this to bed and get on with things.

One last question,

Who was the bloke/sheila that said, "I'll eat the next thing that comes out of that chicken's bum"

No need to answer, happy new year:) :) :)

LeadSled

14th Jan 2003, 08:33

All,

Just to inject a tiny smidgen of fact into who AOPA represents, clearly the members AND affiliated organizations.

Where one to pick up any copy of an AOPA magazine, one could peruse the quite large list of Clubs and Schools who are affiliated.

Clearly far more than “mere PPLs and a few airline pilots with private aircraft”.

I am surprised that the AOPA “Director” who has been so prolific on this thread doesn’t seem to know or understand this quite significant fact.

Believe it or not, AOPA was started by a group of commercial operators, just after WW11, for their collective protection from the “good old DCA”.

Tootle pip!!

ulm

14th Jan 2003, 20:19

Ah leadsled.

Always so imaginiative with reality. :)

Haven't I heard the same old waffle before, Narromine wasn't it??? :D

axiom

15th Jan 2003, 00:15

ulm, you must not leave things there.

I guess we will now get to see the true anabridged version of the birth of AOPA Australia ? Should be interesting.

At least give us a hint, not the old spaceman story again is it ?

ulm

15th Jan 2003, 03:19

Ah, an old favourite.

Batman and Robin. :D

Aka the Bobsy Twins from Bankstown.

antechinus

15th Jan 2003, 04:30

Perhaps he needs some more lead in his sled...

Next he will trot out the stuff like the Mobil Crisis caused AOPA to
go broke (it was already broke before that) or that AOPA won the legal action against AOPA USA that still cost AOPA $250,000.

I hear he is now telling all who will listen that AOPA's cash position is actually terrific and improving by the minute. Good news indeed except he seems to have forgotten about the Liabilities side of the Balance Sheet. Sounds an awful lot like HIH to me.

Russell

axiom

15th Jan 2003, 04:35

The spaceman story had more credibility, but we seem to be orienting in time and space anyway. It's a bit rich to call someones statement a bit ficticious to say the least, but at least give your alternative version.

I honestly don't know, but would ask either yourself or leadsled to fill me in on the following.

1) Who was member number 1?

2) Who were the first committee / board ?

3) When did all this take place and where ?

4) Was AOPA an offshoot of AOPA US or an Australian entity ?

5) Has the membership profile (logarithmically speaking) been static, decreasing or increasing in relation to the aviation industry ?

6) What was the original charter or the purpose of AOPA ?

7) As a kid, I remember Fred Hoinville and I believe he was there somewhere, his wife wrote an article of recent in the magazine so she must still be alive. Perhaps she can fill in some gaps ?

8) If in fact it was set up as a protective umbrella against the old DCA, how many name changes has that organisation had to date, and how does this relate to the the credibility factor with AOPA (or have they had name changes also) ?

9) how much would it cost to have another election to get a board that is happy with itself and one that the members would be happy with and do we (the members) have to put up with "fifth columnists" in the interim ?

Finally, this is not a "Dorathy Dixer", but you can at least answer or let leadsled have his day.

Bloody factions. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ulm

15th Jan 2003, 04:37

I remember the waffle about AOPA US at Narromine as well.

I remember you hung your head as did a couple of other Committee members.

That story wasn't the same as another I had heard, what's your recollection, was the 'Narromine' version true or not????

axiom

15th Jan 2003, 05:25

You appear to have me mixed up with my drunken physics teacher brother, axion.

He should hang his head in shame for all the red he was drinking that night. made a complete "prat" of himself. I on the other hand was sober and of sound mind but don't recollect the "waffle" you are going on about.

Unless of course you are referring to the minuted reference to AOPA US regarding liability or something.

Wasn't that interesting really and I nodded back off to sleep while eagerly awaiting the arrival of The Director of Aviation Safety who's subsequent no show was the cause of axion's social excitement.

If you are Mrs ulm, I was seated some way to your left rear and if you are Mr ulm, you would have seen me to your front right about mid depth.

Sorry, you appear to have me mixed up with someone else.

Be this as it always is, why don't you answer the aforementioned questions, it appears leadsled is still at work otherwise he would have responded by now.

You have the stage !

antechinus

15th Jan 2003, 06:12

Axiom raises some interesting issues.

About time someone wrote a history of AOPA. I confess to being
singularly ignorant as to what happened in the early years.

Post 1997 there has been a 10% annual decline in AOPA membership. I guess that the AirServices movements is a reasonable barometer of GA health and this has been
relatively flat for some years. My view is that AOPA has suffered a decline well beyond what is going on in the industry but the reasons are more complex and subject to debate.

Following the NRMA member revolt, AOPA members may become
more demanding of their elected committee, particularly with prudential governance.
Other than replacing the whole board, how can members possibly know who are the good guys? At the moment though I am optimistic that common sense will prevail and
the whacko element on the board will be kept under control.

Russell

monkeyfly

15th Jan 2003, 11:23

If we seem to aggree on a couple of facts, i.e. AOPA represents the so called "Lower end" of the aviation industry, and that we need to work together. SHUT UP AND DO IT. THERE APPEAR TO BE SEVERAL MEMBERS/EX-MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO NEED A LESSON IN TEAMWORK. Without GA there will be no aviation industry FULL STOP. AOPA is the only organisation which can and does represent GA. GET ON WITH THE JOB. APOA MEMBER number i can remember.:mad:

poteroo

15th Jan 2003, 12:32

Is AOPA Really Losing Ground?

It may be that the decline in AOPA memberships only reflects a decline in 'active' people within G.A. We have the same situation in agriculture - there are less farmers every year, and agro-political organisations are finding it tough to hold their numbers up.

There is a static or declining aircraft owner base in Australia, and this is where AOPA seems to have lost it's support. I think it has to do with the original base of older members retiring from aircraft ownership, and the younger owners being unconvinced as to AOPA's worth. The same can be said about younger farmers and their organisations.

As an owner I do see the value of AOPA, and 2003 is my 40th year of continuous membership. As a previous post said - you have to be in it to use your vote. Voting with one's feet isn't the way.

It's not easy to vote for Board members when their 'positions' are ill defined in pre-election advertising. But, why be influenced by whether someone is PPL, ATPL, 747 rated, or owns an airline? Running the AOPA 'business', and lobbying our cause, may be equally, if not better supported by people who are experienced in other professional fields. Being in the forest may adversely affect the appreciation of the trees.

I also think that we lost something in AOPA when it was decided not to have state or regional representation, because it was more likely that members and non-members actually 'knew' the AOPA rep.

I don't see AOPA's online forums ever going anywhere while they are so closely controlled. Why not have an AOPA/country section on pprune - it would have to be good for exposure to a whole lot more prospective members than at present? And better run to boot.

cheers,

ulm

15th Jan 2003, 20:33

Well in my view the version of events fed to us at Narromine about the AOPA US issue was misleading.

Yes axiom, bl@@dy factions, and we know which one you are in.

The one that TRIED to give us a Part 47 where we were supposed to hand over control of our C of R to a LAME. Good thing members (and many thanks to the WA people who helped), on their own, with help from BM, (and while under verbal abuse from certain ego driven AOPA Directors) had it dissallowed.

The one that gave us Location Specific Charging. Got a 'fair' deal for about 25% of owners, then dropped the ball and shafted everyone else, paticularly those operating under 'GAAP'.

The one that changes history, including reporting of member numbers, to suit whatever purpose that 'faction' may have at the time.

The one that allowed a certain person with a Welsh name a whole page in the magazine to attack a simple letter to the editor.

The faction that drove a really good Exec manager to leave (or was he sacked???) for not agreeing with certain voting and accounting procedures.

The one that told someone complaining about increasing costs at privatised airports 'he has to get a return for his investment' (despite Anderson's CPI-1% promise).

The one that tried to bring us compulsory CPI (and thus increased operating costs) by representing the issue in the Senate, even if it wasn't on the agenda!!!!

Apart from that, this 'mob' has achieved SFA for GA; but CASA are happy, years of shoddy management and ego airing have so preoccupied AOPA that CASA has gone from strength to strength.

But the thing that p!sses me off most about this ageing 'faction' is the way it just goes its own way without ever once trying to find out what the members want.

I wonder if another applicant for the Gemmell job had been sucessful whether it would all be different now :)

Yeah axiom me old mate, you can keep your bellicose little faction all to yourself!!!! :mad:

axiom

15th Jan 2003, 22:53

ulm; You simply don't get it do you ?

I am not a member of a faction, in fact I am anti faction.

I am not a Board member.

I AM A PISSED OFF MEMBER !

I recently advised a postee on this thread to keep your eyes and ears open, don't become involved in factions, don't listen to the old wags and.......
vote for the people who brought you results.

From what all and sundry can see to date, YOUR nominated faction of Pike, Hamilton, etc. seem to be in self preservation mode and YOUR nominated faction of McKeown, Kerans and the of late Kelly, are in fact agitating for a self destruct happening.

I am pragmatic enough to have sought help from various sources within the aviation spectrum when I needed it and most certainly have used both the Labor and National Parties in the Senate for results.

Of particular note is that whenever I approached any Democrats, they didn't even pay me the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

Your self confessed allegience to faction B puts you in this same "sit in the corner, wringing hands and opposing everything" outlook on life that has that political party in the state of a benign wart with no followers.

I believe your postings here at pprune have been negative and you are using it as a platform to further whatever AOPA political agenda you may have.

If you lose Hamilton or Pike, you can kiss AOPA goodby. I'm not the first to say that either.

Instead of being so critical of achievements (whether they are good, mediocre or bad), why don't you list your's?

Why don't you answer the questions I posed yesterday about the origins of AOPA ?

If as I suspect, AOPA has been around for so long a time, why would you want to be party to it's fractionation or demise.

With regard corporate governance, what would a tribunal say to members of a faction of a Board breaking ranks publically and, particularly at a real danger of harming the organisation, and running tales to the enemy.

(if in fact the original AOPA was set up to protect against the old DCA) has this facet of the organisation been compromised ?

You trotted out "the Bobsy twins from Bankstown" the other day, I believe your mob are too closely aligned with Canberra (both geographically and ideologically to make any sort of a claim to righteousness in this matter.

I like a lot of others only have one vote at the next elections, don't count on mine.

:mad: :mad:

ulm

15th Jan 2003, 23:06

I am not standing at the next election, nor have I ever stood. In fact I am only a member under duress!!!! So do what you will with your vote.

You make assumptions about my allegiences, but as usuall your assumptions suggest only the first three letters. I am not 'Canberran', I am not a supporter of any Canberra faction and in fact, if I got my druthers, I'd have someone from the North as President so we could get rid of the Sydneycentricity of the organisation.

In addition, it is you that aligns Pike and Hamilton, I do not. Just because their careers were/are similar does not mean they think alike.

In my view Hamilton has achieved very little for AOPA or GA over the past years. I have no view on Pike whatsoever.

I also care as much for the origins of AOPA as I do for the origins of the Liberal Party (the pair being closely aligned). As a member I care only for whether AOPA supports me, makes my flying cheaper, safer and easier.

So far, in my 18 month membership, I am dissatisfied. Before that my absolute dissatisfaction prevented me from joining. Should the domination of AOPA by the 'old school' and followers continue I see very little reason to remain a member (or for that matter for AOPA to continue to exist).

axiom

16th Jan 2003, 03:18

Woomera;

In resting my case I ask, have you got a "******" icon I can use to describe my feelings at this moment.

grrrrrrr grrrrrrrrrr grrrrrrr ?????????

Woomera, the icon I was asking about was a bugg*r icon.

This surely must go down in the anus of histericals as the most pressing matter to date.

As Australians driving Toyot*s we will not rest until we have this icon granted us.

I fully intend to press this matter on all D & G threads until a resolve is reached.

In liu of same we, The "bugg*r Australians" will accept an apology from your esteemed towers of knowledge and a substitute existing icon we can use in the interim.

We are deafly seriuos (how do you cut out newsprint and make a threatening letter in this web site) ?

axion (the bad one).

Rich-Fine-Green

16th Jan 2003, 17:53

Regardless of what has been posted on this forum or the changing of the AOPA palace guard over the past decade......

The reality is AOPA membership is in serious decline and AOPA Australia is in serious trouble.

Anyone wanna see what AOPA Australia could be like?.

www.aopa.org (http://www.aopa.org)

Have a look, it could happen here as well.

axiom

16th Jan 2003, 21:33

RFG, yes a real eye opener. Perhaps we all should take note and a reality check at the same time.

I know there is a population difference which should be logarithmically applied, but there is room for improved optimism.

I hope all members will allow the present Board to just get on with the job and judge them at the next elections. I sincerely hope the dissenters will concur and be around when the time comes for them to throw their hat in the ring.

In the meantime, there is an approximate 10,000 potential members right here at pprune (D&G), and all with an interest in aviation should perhaps use this platform to further this goal of a membership increase. It does appear that a concencus has been reached with regard the AOPA Australia web site and perhaps the Board should take note :)

Rich-Fine-Green

16th Jan 2003, 22:42

AOPA could just start with something basic that the US AOPA does.

How about distribution of the magazine through Newsagents and Flight Schools just like Australian Aviation & Australian Flying .

New Pilots (read: potential fresh new AOPA fodder) & Armchair Pilots practically devour anything printed about Aviation.

Distribution of the magazine would expose AOPA to a wider group, raise public exposure and surely attract some new members (with fresh ideas).

And dare I say possibly add some cash flow due to sales or at least reduce print costs by a larger circulation (i.e. larger circulation = more advertising $$).

BTW; This has been suggested in the past by a few members.

The conspiracy theorist in me summises that some elected members may have seen this as an erosion of their power base or opening their exclusive little club to heretics.

Anyway, I concur with Axiom's comment, I hope the present board gets on with the job.

Charlie Foxtrot India

16th Jan 2003, 23:31

"....there is an approximate 10,000 potential members right here at pprune (D&G), and all with an interest in aviation should perhaps use this platform to further this goal of a membership increase."

I hope you will be doing the right thing and paying Danny for this via banner type advertising. I would hate to think of the regular D&Gs being seen as just likely "propects" .

nasa

16th Jan 2003, 23:54

Woomera....As a concerned Australian Citizen, I for one am firmly against the use of a Bugga icon on this BB.....We should exercise our freedom of action and speech and have this disgusting proposal put to bed once and for all.

As a brand new Grandfather :D :D :D, I refuse to allow the future generations of nasa(s) to be subjected to this horrendous use of foul and unconscionable language/signage, without the minimum of the Mother of All Battles.

axiom

17th Jan 2003, 03:24

charlie foxtrot india.

this appears to be a chicken and the egg thing,

AOPA want members to make the organisation more solvent and thus, one would imagine, would be unable to subscribe to the banner advertising thing.

If they had more members they possibly could, given a board concurrence, which at the moment seems improbable.

woomera suggested that pprune is not in "competition" with AOPA and I believe these sentiments to be sincere.

Further, it was suggested by this same moderator that pprune would be a good forum to air things AOPA given, AOPA's determination to have a members only thing going on their web site and thus preventing potential members from seeing, trying and participating in general aviation matters and forums. (obviously sans administrative matters).

A question of sincerity, because I do not follow the world forums, but do AOPA US do this sort of advertising? (woomera?).

Could be a good idea, and supports my theory that there are people out there who have positive, not negative ideas about AOPA.

Potential members, not likely prospects seems nicer.

;) ;)

nasa:

apparantly you can say bugga, bugga, bugga, but not bugg*r etc.

10 year old told me this on another forum.:D :D

ugly

18th Jan 2003, 22:20

from AOPA US
Jan. 10 — AOPA, already the world's largest civil aviation organization, continued to make substantial gains in membership during 2002, ending the year with 390,749 members. That's an increase of 12,179 in a single year.

"Passing another 10,000-member milestone and achieving 390,749 provides a number that commands attention," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "As the new 108th Congress convenes and the country faces many issues that could impact general aviation pilots, aircraft, and airports, we're pleased to represent the many pilots who trust us to protect their interests.

Outback Pilot

20th Feb 2003, 22:46

Their forum has ceased as of last night too. :mad:

Do we have any more information on the problem? :)

axiom

20th Feb 2003, 23:43

Seeing as how there have been 81 replies to this topic and is level with the Smith/Boyd topic, I thought I would try something to kick it along a bit. Also while we wait for someone to see what is happening with AOPA US forums:

A lot has been said, positive and negative about AOPA Australia especially with regard who is running the "show".

Perhaps we should have some nominations for the jobs, ie, President,
Vice President,
Secretary,
Treasurer,
and 3 Board Members; one perhaps a Tech or research officer.

Bound to have some serious response, but there may be some common nominations that can sensibly be put forth.

You never know, if this works, perhaps we could have a pprune election.

This would have to be a wake up call to everyone concerned.

Try to keep it civilised and I guess a bit of humour wouldn't go astray.

Personally I like Marjorie Pagani and you know of course I would be biased toward Bill Hamilton. I have grown fond of Creampuff, hope that gets a nibble

:p :p

ulm

21st Feb 2003, 00:34

Axiom old mate

It'll never beat Smith and boyd, Woomera has it on a sticky!!!! (not fair). ;)

Now I absolutely agree with you on Pagani, she really has what it takes. :)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Hamilton. :p

Creampuff, BWAHAHAHAHAHA :D :}

axiom

21st Feb 2003, 03:33

ulm;

With clever manipulation and a dextrous right and left index finger I now have us agreeing with each other.

How about we get serious and without character assasinations, let me nominate; (not in order of heirachy).

Pagani (Marjorie).
Hamilton (Bill).
Pape Arthur (Dr).
Laming (John).
Dawson (Jim).
Schiff (Barry).
Andersen (David).

Some of these people simply would not get on with one another and some would prefer to remain retired. There is a mix of old blood and new and I believe should be non factional.

I was once wrong (the time I admitted I was wrong), but at least it's a start.

And, remember, an old Jewish proverb that may be apt in your selections;

"The girl who cannot dance says the band can't play".

Can we find some common ground here ?

;) :rolleyes:

ulm

21st Feb 2003, 03:58

Axiom

Yes, we can reach common ground.

Pagani.

The others I would agree with you on have not recently nominated. So is there a point. (I think I'm about to find out, I just got a call from one on the list).

axiom

21st Feb 2003, 05:14

ulm,

Don't keep me in suspense, remember this is hypothetical, and not meant to be sinister.

If what I have read lately, the show needs a wake up call, so, then, let's do it.

I really like some of the Pommy posters on pprune, jetblast, perhaps we can get some to imigrate.

Incidently, I had three inches of rain, last 24 hours, can now pay my AOPA dues. (and perhaps the rest of my long suffering creditors).

:D

Woomera

21st Feb 2003, 10:23

This Forums is open for business and would welcome AOPA members to use it responsibly.

We are NOT competition for AOPA, but we will be happy to host a continuation of the discussion that has been shut down elsewhere for entirely understandable reasons.

I did not see the "offending" email, but from what has been posted so far, it seems that the reaction has been a little OTT.

If someone would care to copy it to me it would help me support of the argument.

Is the robust nature of the way we deal with each other in OZ going to be monstered in to a state of snivelling "coercive sanction".???:*

For those who haven't seen that term before it was coined by that esteemed and highly respected OZ journalist, Frank Devine. whose CV includes editorship of the New York and Chicago Times, the Australian etc. etc., as the real definition of "political correctness". :rolleyes:

Woomera

21st Feb 2003, 10:30

There are events unfolding that need a bit of exposure and ventilation.

I am going to merge the "AOPA in trouble" thread with this one and hope that there may be some constructive discussion.

Australia so far has not seen this kind of action and I am greatly surprised that it has even gained legs.

We may have to go to war in Iraq to make a point in regard to a robust public arena, it would be a pity if we were to condone the same behaviour here.

bonez

21st Feb 2003, 22:13

Sadly it is true, AOPA are in BIG trouble. As of this week the insurance company providing indemnity to the directors withdrew its coverage, seeing at least one director resign and a staff member leave during the last few days. The present financial situation is believed to be very bad and only some sound management from the Board is likely to avoid an administrator moving in soon. At least two members of the Board have refused to place the association first and agree to a total spill of all board positions. An EGM is on the cards. Only a new Board with MP at the helm is likely to work its way through this swamp. The forum I hear was closed because they did not want to expose themselves to any additional risk. The Association now has an urgent responsibility to officially inform its membership of what is going on.
:mad: :mad:

snarek

21st Feb 2003, 22:26

OK, here I am not in drag. :}

Axiom, Woomera et al.

The forum did not close because of an ATSB officer's paranoid attack on an AOPA member. It closed because the insurer has declined (but not in writing) to insure AOPA directors against liability arising from AOPA business. So Marjorie Pagani took the correct decision to close it down. Given the rantings of one particular member, can you blame her.

Now, courtesy of the 'forum mafia' (and I don't mean that in the derogatory - they know that) you are all aware I have resigned from the Board.

My reasons are related to the actions of two Board members, you all know who, who in my view have been making deals and running AOPA without the consent of the Board. After Russell Kelly left, John Lyon was appointed treasurer. I personally had no confidence in him in that (or any) position and decided it was in my best interests to resign lest decisions be made that I had no say in, but was still liable for.

I have not seen any indication of the financial position of AOPA since Russell's departure, without insurance I would have been liable for the financial position of the company, had I had confidence, or even knowledge, of how the company was being run that may have been different. I did not have that confidence or knowledge and so chose to resign.

I believe that as of last night John Lyon has been stood down as treasuruer by the Board; but I am not sure of that. I believe all bar Margorie Pagani, Chris McKeown and Bill Pike have been removed from any day to day running of the office or from making statements on AOPA's behalf, I think this is a very good move but again I am not sure of that.

Axiom, I commend Margorie Pagani to you. I said some time ago to Pike that he should stand down and we should elect her as President. He declined in his usual way.

I commend Chris Mckeown to you. He works tirelessly for AOPA and is a very good VP (even if he choses to fly that chugging high wing rubbish).

AOPA desperately needs Russell Kelly back as treasurer. His warnings in the past seem to me to be interestingly close to why the insurer declined to reinsure.

I could never again bring myself to be part of a Board were Bill Hamilton, John Lyon or Richard Rudd members as well.

That said, Bill Hamilton is a very hard worker and extremely valuable as a technical director. It is just that I think he needs to be kept away from the day-to-day running of AOPA. Perhaps even his greatest detractors can agree??? How to solve this, an ex-officio position perhaps.

But, AOPA members own AOPA. It is up to you to do everything you can to save it. In my view, and I have said this to Pike, the whole Board needs to stand at the next election. If the Board will not decide to do that (and I presonally believe Lyon and Hamilton will refuse), then it is up to the members to spill them.

An EGM is the way to do this, but it can can only be called by a Board member or by 100 members. If you are interested in this way forward contact me at

[email protected]

But there is no point in spilling if members don't stand to be elected. Pike often has a go at members about this and I agree with him, the last lot were elected unopposed, so in my view the members only have themselves to blame for the current situation.

Oh and axiom, one other I'd agree with you on is Dawson, so come on Chainsaw, rejoin and put your name in the hat.

Pagani for President :)

AK

axiom

21st Feb 2003, 23:54

More information needed!

It surprises me to find out that AOPA is a Company, and not an incorporated association.

If liability is the primary concern of all concerned (and what organisation is not going through this right now?), why can't AOPA become an incorporated association, liability limited by the assetts of the association and a book of rules so simple a monkey could run the show. (On agenda next AGM or EGM).

Directors SHOULD be held accountable for company matters, however, is AOPA such a financially significant player in World affairs that we need to put our Board Members necks on the block? AND make AOPA impotent.

There must be someone out there that can enlighten me on this.

IS THIS AN OPTION ?

Creampuff

22nd Feb 2003, 03:14

Ax

Try to quell your youthful exuberance.

There are companies and there are companies.

Back in the old days, there was a big disadvantage if you incorporated under a State’s or Territory’s associations incorporation legislation but your activities extended beyond that State or Territory: you had to register as a foreign corporation in each of the jurisdictions to which those activities extended.

AOPA’s been around a long time, and its activities aren’t confined to one State or Territory.

The alternative was to register as a company limited by guarantee under the companies legislation. A company formed for non-commercial purposes that applied its income to promoting its objects could also be licensed to be registered without the word “Limited” in its name.

You now know why AOPA doesn’t have Proprietary or Limited in its name: it’s not a proprietary company, and it got a licence to be registered without the word “Limited” in its name.

However, neither the associations incorporation option nor the company limited by guarantee option excludes the officers from liability in all circumstances, especially where other people’s money’s concerned.

Interesting question arises if – repeat if - AOPA can’t pay its bills. I’m told the members, and ex-members who have been ex for less 12 months, can have the guarantee enforced against them. Or perhaps it’s just the officers Snarek: do you know what the amount of the guarantee is, and who is bound by it???

axiom

22nd Feb 2003, 04:46

Someone "bloody" well should say something "bloody" quickly to sort this "bloody" mess out or you will have "bloody" members bailing out "bloody" everywhere if they "bloody well think" they can be held liable for anything more than a "bloody"postage stamp.

Where are all the "bloody"lawyers and those left with the authority to speak on AOPA's behalf?

I can't wait until the next magazine, so someone should "bloody well" speak up on this forum so I can pass it on to my email loop who number a significant amount of "bloody"pissants. (Nearly the amount snarek reckons we need for an EGM).

Most will not now be party to log on to AOPA web site for information because of prior mentioned fears.

Great means of communication !

creampuff, I'm an 80 year old in a 50 year body, but thanks for the youthful bit, I'll tell the leader of the opposition.

:mad:

Mooney Operator

22nd Feb 2003, 06:04

I have heard a rumor that there was letter put up on the AOPA forum about a certain aviation government bureaucrat. Is this the reason the Fed's as in police paid a visit to the office to have it removed? I am lead to believe that this certain bureaucrat has taken legal action against the person who wrote the letter on the forum. If it is true, it does not say too much to our so-called "democratic" governing system in the area general aviation.
:mad:

I am not too sure how true it is, so need some more input from people closer to the case.

Creampuff

22nd Feb 2003, 06:06

My apologies, Sir. Your impetuousness is uncharacteristic of an octogenarian.

Don’t worry – I’d be surprised if the guarantee is for a total amount exceeding a few pennies. Be interested to find out its exact terms though.

axiom

22nd Feb 2003, 08:06

Creampuff, I lied. I'm a 50 year old in an 80 year old body. but I told the missus anyway. She reckons it doesn't make much difference.

There is still more input necessary here.

ax

Dogimed

22nd Feb 2003, 12:02

Someone "bloody" well should say something "bloody" quickly to sort this "bloody" mess out or you will have "bloody" members bailing out "bloody" everywhere if they "bloody well think" they can be held liable for anything more than a "bloody"postage stamp.

What a stupid thing to say
Firstly, Why leave when you have the option of removing the problem. Secondly, This all happened on Friday. Weekend is upon us, lets see what happens on Monday.

<mutter mutter sigh fart> When will these people learn. You weaken our association. I have absolute faith in the board as a whole to deal with these issues and more, including the muzzeling of some directors, and the removal of others. VOTE YOUR DIRECTOR IN NOW!

Dog
:=

Outback Pilot

22nd Feb 2003, 21:50

Mooney Operator

I believe the guy involved is Brian Hannan who was posting on the AOPA forum. I believe Boyd Munro and a few others are trying to help in over turning the case along with the help of Martin Ferguson.

It is amazing what some of the bureaucrats will try, to silence the truth from coming out or when they are challenged on issues.

:eek:

For the full details email Brian ([email protected])

axiom

22nd Feb 2003, 23:10

Dog;

I apologise for my "bloody" past posting and can only say that it was the frustrated rantings against silence and perhaps stupidity, factions, and legal eagles.

I am now suitably slapped across the face and will do what you suggest, Wait until Monday.

I'm not so sure about having so much faith as you suggest, there being not much of a decision making element left. Is it a quorum?

As far as am EGM goes, what happens if nobody nominates like last election?

2B1ASK1

23rd Feb 2003, 05:20

Reading through the comments i see alot of people out there rushing in to criticise the directors. yes there may be problems but before we start throwing around accusations just remember that these people did step up to the plate to bat i.e they volunteered their services which means there own time outside their normal jobs. simple answer if you dont like what you see step up to the plate and have a go see if you can do it better.

The system is there to alow you to do it so use it. Over the years these volunteers have stood up for our rights defending us in their own time and even take days of their work to do so and what thanks do we give them jack ****, but we are so quick to criticise. What does standing down as a director because you are not happy with other directors do? easy answer nothing but make it worse.

I am sure there are lots of people out there that could run for director if you think you can make the difference do it, if you dont want to volunteer please stop criticising the people who do, sadly this is a typical human trait and not a particularly nice one. lets face it even if the current board are not doing it correctly at least they gave it a go, stupid me thought thats what being an Australian was all about. This thread is only going down one road a road that an already struggling industry does not need, we need to help not criticise. My suggestion step up or shut up and Im sorry if you find that comment offensive and if you do take a closer look at yourself, are you so perfect?:ouch:

Dogimed

23rd Feb 2003, 11:48

Twas not intended as a face slap, however will be interesting to see what comes from AOPA tommorrow.

Maybe its time to get a more youthful board together. Look for under 40's to run. Probably be able to move on things a lot quicker and change the image...

Vote [1] __________

Woomera, perhaps a poll about whether AOPA needs a spill?

Dog:} :} :} :yuk:[COLOR=purple]

snarek

23rd Feb 2003, 20:40

Heh hehe :D

An under 40s Board. I an 44 and was constantly criticised (albeit usually jokingly) by Pike for being too young.

Some of what is said above is true, however I say again, the actions of Friday were not precipitated by the Hannan letter.

Someone said something about accountability (ax??) and someone else about voluteer work. Now I personally don't get on with Hamilton, but he has worked his bl@@dy guts out for GA. I don't particularly like Pike's style, but he has too.

So yeah, if you are so good (collective you) then step up to bat!!!

As for responsibility, I'll accept that, but there are people out there who threaten legal action quicker than they say good morning. I won't wear that without cover. But my main reasons for leaveing were that decisions had been made that I knew nothing of, decisions that I believe impacted on finances. Now whether these decisions, in the light of morning, will be seen as good or bad I don't know and I don't care. As a Director I was responsible for them, but I had no say. So I jumped.

Now in my view AOPA has been run for quite a while on a very agressive stance. To get an example of this:

Go to www.aaal.com.au - then newsletters - then Jan/feb

Now these guys are airport owners. They need us we need them. But the are now very very p!ssed off at AOPA. This is reasonably typical of the last 2 years.

I think we could learn from Axiom. He and I started fighting, then I suppose we figured we needed to find some common ground. And we did (I think :} ).

AOPA needs to find common ground with AAA, AUF, GFA, PFA etc etc and then develop a strategy. At the moment from where I stood on the Board there wasn't one, or if there was, noone shared it with the Board. AOPA also needs to start playing the ball and not the man. Too many personal attacks have alienated regulators, politicians and advisors alike. So now AOPA isn't listened to in any halls of power.

The only person on the Board who can pull AOPA out of its present rut and turn it into a viable, believeable and powerful force is Marjorie Pagani. To do this she needs help.

That bit is up to you.

snarek

24th Feb 2003, 01:13

Axiom

We are in full and absolute agreement.

AK

antechinus

25th Feb 2003, 04:15

AOPA is facing a serious crisis and the options are fast running out.

Marjorie Pagani is the only current board who can offer the leadership, skills and experience to save AOPA from a complete collapse. But without the supportive environment of fellow board members who share the need and urgency for reform, no leader could bring the outcomes members would expect.

AOPA is fixable but not with the current board dynamics. I understand that all directors other than John Lyon & Bill Hamilton would be willing to spill and allow members to vote
in a new board. You may well ask why Hamilton & Lyon are not prepared to let the members decide at such a formative time and when AOPA is on the brink.

The dilemma of course is that who would want to join a board where there is no Directors’ Liability cover?

The insurer refused to renew, principally because of AOPA’s financial situation. Mr Hamilton blames myself for producing accounts that are incorrect and claims that membership liabilities should not be funded – the HIH treatment. Unfortunately for Mr Hamilton, the insurance company is able to read a balance sheet and all the filibustering, juggling and magic in the world will not make AOPA’s financial situation look any better.

Only 2 days ago Hamilton was telling the AOPA board ….

quote:

"As a result of adopting an accounting method NOT required by the Australian Accounting Standard, and by then treating members forward membership as an unqualified liability, which it is not, we have created an accounting deficit which leads an insurance company to come to the conclusion that we are verging on the edge of insolvency, which we are not."

In my opinion, Mr Hamilton appears to be very much out of step with the rest of the board, has dispensed legal and accounting advice without any formal qualifications and has not produced any expert opinions that contradict either the AOPA board’s position, the auditors or the insurance company. So how can a board divided over whether there is a problem or not ever produce reform outcomes?

There must be an election immediately for all positions. The only other alternative is for the board to place AOPA into voluntary Administration.

Cheers

Russell
(Treasurer before the last one)

2B1ASK1

25th Feb 2003, 06:55

Guy's lets settle down a bit here.

I tell you what its just as well that Im a current member because as far as this thread goes you have just about scared the sh*t of of me renewing my membership. Sorry if you dont like to here this but the way you guy's are going on you are probably doing more damage than the current board.

Remember who actually reads this there is alot of new people to aviation that you are putting off joining AOPA with this talk. If you truly are a supporter of AOPA as you claim to be then you would see this. AOPA needs the support of pilots old and new by the sound of it. Maybe you Guy's have a hidden agenda here who knows? but this is damaging to AOPA and the industry in general. Some people are airing their personal laundry here sorry not the place, AOPA has there doors wide open for all if you do feel so strong about this get together march in and find the answers dont put people off joining an organization that has always been there to support us and them when they need advise, Sorry to repeat myself but step up and have a bat by all means if not don't make things worse for the people that will try and make things better.:(

Piper Arrow

26th Feb 2003, 00:49

Marjorie,

What is happening with Brian Hannan’s case? It appears that AOPA are too busy to help its member and take up the fight against his accusers. :mad:

2B1ASK1

26th Feb 2003, 03:20

Piper Arrow

learn to change the things you can, accept the things you can't and above all have the wisdom to know the difference between the two. Fantastic words maybe you should adopt them, do you realy think that posing that kind of question on a rumour site will get you a satisfactory answer get a life. Without sounding like a broken record people like you are only making things worse for the genuine people out there that are attempting to change things, you make my blood boil :mad:.

There is absolutely no reason to post that kind of question you could have contacted AOPA and asked them youself but no you choose to let everyone know that you are not happy well boo hoo!. This thread is sliding down hill fast not good for AOPA or GA in any way particularly new comers to the industry. Who do you thing will represent Brian if AOPA is not around you? or perhaps you feel you could do a better job if that he case run for the board. So easy to critisise typical human trait we quickly forget all the good things that have been done. To expand on this when it comes to the crunch and people do decide to remove board members I sure hope that there are people out there to replace them and have the time to do the job correctly, if not it will only make the situation worse. Sometimes the percieved answer to a problem is not always the best one. If you all feel so passionate about your views and realy want to help this is not the way try the AGM.