AOPA "The Election" (merged)

[Woomera]

Please ensure that your Antivirus and Firewall software is up to date and kept so daily if possible.
PPRuNe nor any site is today "safe" and attacks are now a sad fact of life.
You can be certain PPRuNe will respond thouroughly and rapidly, as has just been demonstrated, to any attacks.
The only consolation is that some obviously feel sufficiently threatened about the transparency of and the way PPRuNe operates that they go to a lot of trouble to try and silence us.

Today is the last day for nominations and those who have announced their nomination publicly are known, and the rest will be so, at some time after closing and the profiles published in the magazine.

This thread, in the absence of the AOPA Forum for the moment, presents an open invitation for discussion of the policies and thoughts of those who have nominated and who choose to do so here.

It will be closely moderated within the rules of PPRuNe, which basically require common sense good manners, mutual respect and civility and ANY personal attacks, attempts to denigrate persons or their policy, or comments other than in a constructive manner and in the spirit of earnest persuasion, will result in the poster being binned for the period of the election at the least

It is possible to have dialogue with another who may have a diametrically opposed view to your own, without resorting to aggression or verbal violence.

It is even possible that you may find a common ground from which progress forward together can be made.

Or, quelle horreur , that you may actually agree with each other and just use a different mode of expression, or have developed an antipathy based on a personal prejudice.

The first piece of common ground is that everyone who has nominated or has not resigned to renomiate, has done so out of concern for the state of AOPA and the desire to serve that concern and the membership in its resolution.

So even those who you may see as your "opponents" are actually with you on that common ground.

How you win the hearts and minds around here, will depend on the quality of your contribution and your general demeanour.

[snarek]

At last, a glimmer of sun between the Towering Cu.


There will be an election for the AOPA Board.

The following people have nominated and I know they all are committed to working together inside AOPA and with like minded bodies such as the Aero Clubs, AUF, GFA, PFA Air Safety, the Minister and those in CASA with 'the right attitude' (the others BEWARE!!!).

Please support the following candidates for the AOPA Board.

Marjorie Pagani (Townsville)
Trish Mahlberg (area rep Mackay)
Adrienne Williams (area rep Adelaide)
Ron Lawford (Darwin)
Gary Gaunt (Gaunty ... Perth)
David McDonald (area rep Brisbane)
Ron Bertram (Bankstown)
Mick Kennedy (St George)
Bill Pike (the Hunter)
Jane Errey (Murrumbateman), oh yeah, and me if you feel inclined
Andrew Kerans

A pretty representative team from all areas and sectors of GA, some with Board experience, all with a deep commitment to working together and to listening to members and non-members views alike.

help us rebuild AOPA!!!!

AK

PS

In answer to axioms claims in Woomera perspective.

1. This list was provided to me not by EA but by the TEAM that is running. I ask you to support this TEAM.

2. To expect me to post or support the nomination of any other person or group is the same as expecting a Labor cnadidate to lobby for his Liberal opponent.

[axiom]

Taken the aforementioned, I reiterate from my post on page 5 of the previous post, THIS POST OF SNAREK'S IS INNACURATE AND MEANT TO BE MALICIOUSLY MISLEADING, given he has repeated it twice.

His post was presented at 11.00 something this morning and well before the close of nominations with Elections Australia.

One would ask HOW is he privy to matters that border on an abuse of the electoral ACT insomuch as he profess to have intimate knowledge of who is nominated before the close of nominations.

Further he has omitted PERSONS who have nominated and one can only figure this as being sinister.

Also, as snarek has a dual personality on pprune, he also has same on the nomination of AOPA with his partner also nominating.

Given, probably a paid up member, but it SMELLS BADLY

I also believe that "HIS TEAM" is a figment of his imagination and does not represent who or what may possibly be at the helm when the votes are counted.

He has omitted a number of persons who do not have to stand, being a product of our split election system.

He has trod on dangerous ground with his revelations this morning, and, if it turns out that (as it is now), after 5.30pm the nominees represent his alleged and informed quota, I personally will be taking matters further with the Electoral Commission.

From what is normal, one expects the impartial Elections Australia to vett the nominations via AOPA Central to see if they are valid and legal nominations.

From a functionary in the office, it appears, indeed, smells of someone commandeering the enquiries from that person and dissimilating and broadcasting same over this medium.

The only sensible person in this matter appears to be the woomera team who pulled this until after nominations closed.

The gloves are off now woomera, is this an election platform or a propaganda platform.

Big mistake snarek, leaving my mate off your list.

Also I have debunked some of your "teams" intent as I write, and will continue to ring around tonight to get a yes or no answer to who is on your team and who isn't.

PS Who made you lord and master on "Outing" Gaunty, or is he on your team also ? Don't try and "Out" me MATE.

There is no icon suitable !! grrrrrrrrrr.

[cogwheel]

(copied from the other thread)

Today's Australian aviation section features an article about Pikes resignation from the board. In the article he blames the Minister and CASA for deciding to give it away. I think it is more likely that it was the internal board politics and his weak stand against those that would not conform was really the reason.

Nevertheless, by blaming the Minister, Pike has now totally alienated AOPA from the main stream decision making process.

Unless the new board can overcome this, the future ability of AOPA to solve the problems of the day is very remote. Another reason to have a spill. I doubt if McKeown has the ability to do it and Hamilton certainly does not. Hopefully some of new names will get up and help regain the respectability the association once had. If not, then there is a good chance of an EGM in the not too distant future.

axiom The info is there, you just have to have the right contacts and keep your ear to the ground whilst watching for the smoke signals. You obviously have your sources?

[Planned Root]

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/jpshakehead.gif

[Woomera]

axiom

I do believe that you have perhaps got the wrong end of the stick here.

I have had a close look at snareks post and as far as I can tell, he has simply posted a list of persons that have nominated, who have told him so, and who he feels could make up a "ticket" for election of an effective Board.

You would be free to do so yourself with your "mate".

As far as the election is concerned,if I read the articles correctly, the Electoral Commission has no jurisdiction and it is in fact ASIC who would.

The magazine says clearly that it has appointed a company called I think "Elections Australia" who are in the business of running the mechanics and process of "elections" for those organisations who have the requirement but not the skills or resources.

There neither is, nor should there be, any secrecy about the nominations once they are closed, neither can or should the organisation that has hired them manipulate that process. This is after all a democratic process.

I have it on fairly good authority that apart from those memtioned above that:

Hamilton
McKeown
Murphy
Rudd

have all nominated and that the magazine will be out next Friday with the profiles.

Those who were not required to do so by virtue of the election process, should be applauded for acting in the spirit of the coming elections.

Lyons remains on the Board and is not required, in this election, to noiminate.

In the meantime the offer stands.

Anyone who wishes may state their case here.

Eeerm and if I've got that wrong or missed anybody, I hope somebody will correct me

[axiom]

We'll see woomera.

In the meantime, while all the Nero's are fiddling Rome is burning.

CASA are up to some darstardly deeds and it appears that they may reintroduce 3 year major inspections.

If you shaft Hamilton, who is going to take this on ? Someone acceptable to CASA perhaps ?

This will surely spell the death of GA in Australia if it is not attacked at the highest and most vocal level.

AOPA, indeed GA in this country needs someone to Kick doors down to get this message across, not some lunch time yuppie who may have a door open to them because they are not as abrasive as Bill.

The whole AOPA situation was caused because someone didn't like the column a members subscription was put in on the balance sheet.

Because of this, it is now open season on Hamilton and his "stooges" who didn't have anything to do with events.

Why do people resign, cause havok and then renominate ?



:(

[snarek]

Axiom

Because I could not work with Bill Hamilton and John Lyon, that's why. I believe the same can be said for Russell Kelly. There are others who feel this way and you can wait for the magazie where they, I believe, are having their say.

Why do those who have never bothered to get involved before and are now only involved to protect someone, cause so much havok ;)

AK

[gaunty]

axiom

Thank you for your concern re my "outing" and yes, it is protocol to request permission from the user to do so.

To be fair, however, I have had a few telephone discussions with snarek prior to my nominating and it is possible that we discussed this very thing amongst a raft of other matters, so if forgiveness is necessary it is given.:D

I did identify myself to your friend Murphie and it has been my intention to do so anyway in case there are those who hadn't already made the connection.;)

Those who have frequented these halls for any period of time or make some simple enquiries have no trouble whatsoever in identifying me and I have never made any secret of who I am.

I used the gaunty "nic" when I first registered some moons ago as it is the 'actual' nickname that my friends and enemies have used for as long as I can remember.
Except my enemies probably attach some other descriptions.:O

I have to go to work now but I will dig up my AOPA profile later and publish it here FYI.

It is the inalienable right of users to remain anonymous here, absolutely without prejudice, but it would be interesting fun :} :uhoh: :ouch: were some of the other nominators??nominees?? who post here to out themselves.

Stay:cool:

Dont you just hate that when you are composing a post you get back to the thread and its moved on.:D



axiom
I dont thnk anyone disagrees with you that, AOPA need strong representation to the Government and Regulator, or the huge depth of knowledge and committment of Bill Hamilton in this regard.

But it is just not working as well as it should.

One definition of insanity is "continuing to do the same things the same way and expecting to get a different result", by which measure we are ALL probably a little bit insane.

We are ALL committed to the same result but need to work out how to make it work BETTER using ALL of the resources and individual skills available to us in the most effective and productive manner.

If this was REALLY happening we wouldn't be having this discussion.

May I suggest we both agree on this concept for a start and then we can move forward towards the attaining the main objective.:D

[axiom]

Gaunty;

Keeping all these "ego's" in check is called MAN MANAGEMENT, apologies to the fairer sex.

If we have a strong and forceful leader who knows what this phenomenom is all about, then HE / SHE should have no trouble in keeping things in check.

Just on this subject, it was said to me the other day, "What's the use of being President if nobody will do as he says".

I was always of the opinion that,

The association/company/whatever you call it, (AOPA), was there for the sole purpose of doing what it's members wanted, not 'El Presidente", and to "fly without unnecessary costs or restrictions" which envelopes the GA fraternity and even (Heaven forbid), extend to non members who would benefit from it's lobbying and research.

I'm not talking to snarek this week, so would you mind telling him for me that the reason things are simply not working is because there is a lack of man management skills and an unwillingness of some to see anything positive in things put forth by someone that they simply don't like.

AOPA doesn't really need a change of direction, but it does need a reinforcement of some loyalty values and perhaps give the members a bigger say.

Also for the rumour mongers, I think woomeras post is also inaccurate, but lets see when the magazine comes out.

When everyone shows their cards in the Mag, this forum may get a bigger airing of platforms and ideas and direction.

Gaunty, I need to see my psychiatrist and then I'll possibly talk to snarek next week.

I can't wait to see all the "hate Bill mail" in these profiles. Seems there won't be much room left to see what the nominees are really all about.



:eek:

[Marjorie Pagani]

As you know, the election nominations have now closed, and although not being required to stand for elections this year, I have done so in the hope that a workable team can be elected to take on the CASA re-write with vigour. I am part of the team supported by "snarek". There are eleven vacancies on the board, and I am hopeful that this team of eleven will be supported by the members. All are committed, enthusiastic, and team-orientated. I am going to ask each of them to give permission for their election profiles to be posted on this site, to give the members the maximum possible time to consider each of the candidates - with any luck they will be posted within a couple of days, or as soon as I can round them all up.

Vote for TEAM AOPA:

Marjorie Pagani
Bill Pike
Mick Kennedy
Ron Lawford
Adrienne Williams
Trish Mahlberg
Ron Bertram
Gary Gaunt
Jane Errey
David MacDonald
Andrew Kerans

(and if we win this one, we'll probably tackle the next America's Cup!)

AOPA needs your vote, whether it's for this team or another.

Marjorie.

[axiom]

Go the other team, whoever they are.

But the best of luck to you all.

:p :p

[monkeyfly]

In another post I outlined the need for teamwork. I did so because there was and stil is no team work within the board of AOPA. To determine this one only need to look at the AOPA mag. and these forums, both this and AOPAs.

I am a CPL looking towards the airlines. I have been trained like every other pilot in Australia. To take command of my aircraft. I am in charge, this will be done this way. This is the "wrong stuff" for multi-crew ops.

I currently play 3 games of sport per week. I have play about a dozen sports in my life, with all but 2 being team sports. I have been a Team leader with an employee outside the aviation industry, and have done team leadership training programs.

I have teammates that I simple do not like. We last played in the finals.

My vote will not be for "Team AOPA".

Well said Planned Root.

[cogwheel]

monkeyfly Whilst you obviously consider yourself a team player and indeed if you are that is a good thing.

However in stating that you will not support the "Team AOPA" you have omitted to say why or or you would support and why.

You are certainly correct in saying there has not been a team in the board for some time and the leadership I believe is to blame for that.

So it will be interesting to see what your views are on any alternative.

axiom So what's your "beef" with this "team" and what makes any alternative so much better? The number of nominations vs vacancies means that most will get in anyway!

[axiom]

Thats just the problem cogwheel. I don't know who has nominated and won't until the magazine comes out.

The "team AOPA" appear to have been privy to some insider trading when you look at the prior predictions and the "team". A minor matter, they appear to have tried to convince all and sundry that these are the nominations and inded have Board approval to use the word AOPA as some sort of sanction or endorsement. I know for a fact, these are not all the nominations.

This is simply "team snarek" and to my knowledge has not been given any endorsement by the encumbent Board to use AOPA as their title.

Some other things;

I have been harping on pprune for some time for this lot to tell me what their accomplishments are and they have none to tell except to dare me to list mine.

This postee and his sponsor have more runs on the board and more scars to prove our run ins with CASA, including wins, than snarek and his crew have had hangovers.

Hamilton may be abrasive, but a lot of the time he is what is needed. To be advised by 3 separate sources within CASA that doors would be shut to Hamilton but open to Pagani, makes one wonder who we want to take the message to them.

Hamilton's results speak for themselves.

snareks crew have one agenda only, and, that is to get rid of Hamilton because he doesn't cow tow to them.

The mess the place is in now is directly and logarithmically proportional to their attacks from without when they resigned.

snarek's wife has nominated for the board, making it a family affair. How would this go at CASA HQ ?

Bob Murphie put a motion to the board for tabling at the next AGM and it was unilaterally rejected by Ms Pagani while she tried to foist another on the board which they rejected. I don't know what stage this is at now, but it stinks.

Murphie's motion was to foster the introduction of State Chapters over the next 12 month period and then ammend the Articles of Association (if everything worked favourably), to include same.

This concept had the majority support of the Board including Hamilton, but was rejected anyway.

Think about 7 States (incl Territory), having a permanent committee to pass policy, problems, ideas, on to a smaller board for implementation. something a bit like giving the organisation back to the members.

Think about this committee having a permanent 100 member proxy support from around the country that effectively would demand the Board never gets the chance to go off the rails again. This amount of proxies can call an EGM and demand lots of things. Remember snarek wanted an EGM for a spill but apparantly couldn't get the 100 supporters.

Think about now there is talk about the "team AOPA" adopting such a proposal as their own, but we'll think about it for the next 12 months.

Ask yourself, who would you rather have fight CASA over a proposal to reintroduce 3 yearly major inspections, this lot or Bill Hamilton and his so called "cronies" who have a success story to tell.

Ask yourself young monkeyfly, where you will get a job if GA is shafted by CASA with these sort of ideas.

Finally, until we see exactly who nominated, (not just a cross section of someone who is or may be on the "team AOPA"), and pick the fence sitters who have everything to gain by being included in one or more "teams", we won't know what is going on.

Believe it or not, I don't care, but there are Board members who are not privy to board decisions (read that as they have been sent to coventry), and these include Hamilton.

And really finally, if we do end up with fence sitters on the board because there are not many nominees, it still has the coroly to have a divided board. This is why we need a much smaller board and the 100 proxy committee to hold a gun at the heads of the incumbents to make sure they do the job properly and without divisions. This committee would be very powerful and obviously seen as a threat by power seekers. In the meantime the fence sitters should publically support one or the other.

[Maxima]

Monkeyfly,
Unfortunately your post didn't make any sense at all to me. You talk about being a team player (in sport) but refuse to vote for a team. You don't say why; you don't say you know any of the team; you don't offer an alternative - it is no wonder you have not been accepted into the airlines, with that sort of negative, unreasoned attitude. To be in command, which you talk about, requires taking command, and exhibiting some leadership qualities. These appear to be sadly lacking in your case. CRM requires these qualities, and this is what the airlines rely upon. What are you really trying to say, and why?

[gaunty]

AOPA Board Nomination 2003

Profile: Gary Gaunt; Member No 48110.
Location; Perth W.A.
Licensed since 1962, ATPL, operated most of the single, multi and turbine fleet throughout Australia and parts of SE Asia.

I have a successful career in communication, negotiation, senior management and at Board level in all aspects of GA since 1967, including the first FBO in Australia; the first Commuter Airline; the first all weather operations for the heavy construction, mining, oil and gas industry; introduction of FIFO, safety audit procedures, premium turbine charter and sales and marketing of new Cessna aircraft.

I currently operate an Aviation Consultancy alongside my family construction interests.

The orderly process of regulatory and industry reform has, since the early eighties, become “derailed” by the operation of high profile personalities and agendas, without regard for the knowledge or experience of the historical development of the industry and regulations unique to Australian operating conditions. AOPA and its membership have become hostages, not partners, in this process.

Reference to and treatment of the Regulator and Government, as the “enemy”, says much of the past, it is a failure of the very reason for AOPAs existence and of our trust, it must now be put into the past, forever. I am committed to repair the ground amongst us all, for the resumption of constructive, mature and respectful dialogue between equals.

I seek election to the Board, to serve and help restore our AOPA’s severely diminished membership and the respect, relevancy and high stature formerly enjoyed by us, with Government, the Regulator and the Community.


Email: [email protected]

[monkeyfly]

Hello,

There have been some question as to why I do not support "team AOPA". The information is in front of all, both the AOPA mag and these forums. Make up your own mind.

At this time I feel unprepared to offer alternatives due to the need for more infomation, refer to parts of axiom's post above.

P.S.
You said that I've applied for the airlines???

Axiom, your comment re where I will work, If anyone need any tree pruning services, please e-mail.

[axiom]

maxima;

Perhaps monkeyfly is trying to say, that given as there has only been one "team" put up to date he doesn't like what he sees.

Talk about CRM, no wonder he's not in the airlines if there are people out there who do the hireing based on how someone votes.

Do you vote on results or on promises maxima ?

If you have'nt seen an alternative, how can you voice your opinion ?

Or,,,, have you a copy of the magazine already ?

bugga ?:confused:

[monkeyfly]

To Gary Gaunt,

Thank you. (No sarcasm)

"The orderly process of regulatory and industry reform has, since the early eighties, become “derailed” by the operation of high profile personalities and agendas, without regard for the knowledge or experience of the historical development of the industry and regulations unique to Australian operating conditions. AOPA and its membership have become hostages, not partners, in this process." (Gary Gaunt)

This can have a lot of meanings and interpertations. Are you able to expand on these before the elections. I may be best in the AOPA mag??

Also, you note that CASA are not the enemy. I have hear a quote from a trusted source who overheard two senor CASA people. "There should be only two forms of aviation, Airlines and miltary". Your thoughts please.

People please note, I am looking for information!

[Maxima]

Monkeyfly and Axiom

No, I haven't got a copy of the mag (is it out yet?), but yes, I did read Gaunty's post. He named the others. I can only assume (as I thought any intelligent person would have assumed) that as there are eleven members on the "Team AOPA", and there is an election to be held, that there are more than eleven candidates!!!! All I wanted to know from Monkeyfly, is what it is he has against the team proposed? Does he know them? Who are they? Who doesn't he like? Are they "eleven bad men" (or women). I look forward to seeing their profiles, which Marjorie Pagani said she is going to try to get permission to print (as Gaunty has already done), so I can see just who these wicked and evil people are, who want to give up their time and energy to help AOPA and GA.

I am also very interested to hear from you Axiom, about what achievements Bill H has made this year since he was appointed in May (there wasn't a real election) - except for totally alienating CASA, and making sure it listens to nothing that AOPA has to say! A list of his gains would be appreciated.

You seem to be saying that because CASA says it will open the doors to M. Pagani, and close them to B. Hamilton, that there must be some evil in this - surely that is the way forward - negotiation, not outright war.

I am intrigued - bring forth these wrongdoers and let them be judged!

[axiom]

Who said anything about 11 bad men or women ?

It appears that you are trying your best to alienate the protagonists with each other. ie. cause divisions.

I mentioned that woomeras post was inaccurate from what I have heard and I also said that some of these 11 are fence sitters.

Thus they can benefit, given the amount of nominations, by being in both camps as the whole process is going to be a numbers game.

Hamilton has helped me, as have others in AOPA and unlike some I believe in loyalty and progress.

Why should I be given to list Hamilton's achievements if you don't care to read or listen. He is quiet capable of that.

Now, why don't you listen to the original,

What has this apparantly ticketed and sanctioned "team AOPA" done except resign in the main, winge, send hate mail to Hamilton (believe it), and try to win the election on a perceived strength of numbers and promises.

Have any of these brought any foreward thinking ideas to the table except continue on with a 12 member board which is unweildy and attritionaly disfunctionable and why when someone does, (like the State chapters idea), they get shafted by a minority of one who speaks with the authority of her own legendary achievements.

If you know so much, you appear to have omitted the fact that Hamilton has been effectively silenced by this same faction of the board since last election and unable to achieve anything.

And there WAS a real election, I know because I was there. (interpretations don't count). Obviously didn't meet with your approval.

As an aside, and just to see where we stand, what do you think of the State Chapters idea. A lot of people would like to know how your team thinks.

Also how would you deal with the 3 year major, seek appeasement maybe ?

[brianh]

Perhaps Woomera's point that the nominees have the best interests of AOPA and its members at heart should become the daily prayer of the Board when elected.

Much of the current situation is the result of personality clashes that create threats of legal action and cause communication breakdowns.

The new Board should perhaps set Rules of Engagement and seek qualified assistance (eg Myers Briggs Analyses or similar) to enhancing free and open discussion leading to an AOPA that focuses on the external enemy instead of their own navels as at present.

I have a personal question mark against several of the nominees but will examine my vote on the basis of the most effective team, particularly where any new blood indicates a proven capability to work in a team environment where all sides of matters can be fully debated, agreement reached, and no backstabbing thereafter.

Unfortunately, the good efforts of some have been overshadowed by the current crisis. AOPA and its Forum have now been "somewhat disadvantaged" for more than a month. Given that the TSI Bill was snuck in without warning last week, fortunately spotted by Boyd, our colleagues at CASA and ATSB must be giggling as we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I return to my earlier comment on this Forum re the need for one or more "Technical Experts" not bogged down by Board duties to concentrate on the deluge of NPRMs, Bills, etc churned out - with potential hidden traps - so we do not have a repeat of AOPA missing the draconian provisions of the TSI BIll as an example. Perhaps they need to be given appropriate status to recognise the contribution?
Cheers

Gaunty

I like your election statement and have just posted recommending that AOPA internally be joyful and united, however, I worry a little about your kindness to the regulator.

I have seen several CASA vendettas - fortunately not on me - and one attempt by ATSB to gag me by improper use of the AFP.

The CASA vendettas, one at Ombudsman level, are indicative of an organisation that has an entrenched culture that will NOT be overcome by AOPA being nice - except that they may use a sharp knife on us instead of a blunt one to minimise the pain!

The TSI Bill and its draconian and unnecessary provisions was amended and caused to be reviewed only by swift action by Boyd and a strong ASA member input to the MPs. This is hardly likely to make friends with the Regulator.

My personal belief is that CASA needs to be fragmented into smaller units as the only way of changing it from a militaristic culture (that thinks e.g. I will not fly in to IMC if I am going to incur "X" penalty points, or that brings in new AFM Rules where we have to throw out the old FM and Manufacturers Handbook if you own a C172M as I do) to a "coaching" culture that already exists in some parts of CASA now and just needs the dead wood removed to thrive.

Talk to any small Flying school or operator and they seem to feel they are being driven out of their core business by paperwork to feed the bureaucracy - the ultimate being large businesses who can deal nicely with the regulator. And, why is the AUF looking so wonderful to we GA PPLs?

I could go on but I really would like you to be a little more detailed about your planned liaison with the Regulator.

[brianh]

Two important qualities to seek in tne nominees: -
1. Ability to comprehend that leadership is exactly that and not dictatorship. Understanding that - like John Howard at present - not all the world will love you.
2. Focus. No more sharing the emotional baggage, particularly when the ego is bruised, Focus on the task - ie the ball not the players.

I only raise these coz my recent email corro with two nominees - or more correctly whay I have received - attacks the messenger, wanders off on emotional tangents, and completely avoids the reality of what the issue was about (AOPA missing another train).

In political terms, anyone noting the decline in "votes" - in our case the long term decline in AOPA membership - would have the think tank examining the root causes. I wonder what an AOPA membership survey would bring forth. Also, noting the number on this Forum who are ex-AOPA, what a survey of them would bring out. Trouble with such surveys, however, is that they hurt the egos of those first to admit they are busting their guts for the members.

Ah well, it's time I walked the dogs and cogitated upon things like "Vox Populi, Voc Dei"
Cheers

[snarek]

I agree with both gaunty and axiom here. CASA can be the enemy, but they can also give great assistance.

At a recent CASA seminar I was manning the AOPA stall (yes axiom, after I resigned, terrible hey!!!).

As soon as I set up a CASA 'lady' attacked me over an article Marjorie had written on you rights while being questioned over a Violation of Controlled Airspace (VCA).

This 'person' though pilots should have no rights. In my view if she wants that sort of power she should get a job a Guantanimo Bay!!! She certainly, to me at least, represented 'the enemy'.

BUT...other CASA people there apologised for her behaviour. Not only that, they came up with some bl@@dy good ideas. Like, if VCAs are happeneing because of out of date maps, then make maps free again. (This would solve our problem of the expence of AsA continumally (and needlessly) updating maps.)

BAD CASA. Handing out ATO-ships to Navy mates.

Good CASA, a guy in the CofR bit of CASA who helped me get three different Grummans, a few Victas and a Taylorcraft through the flight manual process (for members only of course ;) )

I praised him to Toller who then gave us the extension on the manuals.

CASA is made up of people, you can't keep screaming at them and then expect them to listen when you want to make a point.

If the Minister had no faith in CASA he would have shut it down. If the Minister had absolute faith in the opinion of AOPA he would have made changes. Seems to me an attitude of attack attack attack over the last few years has alienated him and his advisors reducing AOPA to little more than a yapping dog.

This situation needs fixing.

AK

[cogwheel]

As far as I can find out, the following are the nominations for the AOPA board (committee).

Ron Bertram
Jane Errey
Gary Gaunt
Bill Hamilton
Mick Kennedy
Andrew Kerans
Ron Lawford
Trish Mahlberg
David McDonald
Chris McKeown
Robert Murphy
Marjorie Pagani
Bill Pike
Richard Rudd
Adrienne Williams

From the rules

COMMITTEE
33. (a) The Committee to be elected as herein provided shall consist of Committee Members
being not less than eight or more than twelve as shall be determined by the Committee. Except
that in the event of a casual vacancy or vacancies arising between Annual General Meetings,
the Committee may consist of seven members until the next Annual General Meeting.


So that makes it 15 nominations for eleven positions as it seems that Lyons did not stand down like the others.

[C182 Drover]

I see a lot of the AOPA members & non-members have started their own forum now @ Australian General Aviation Forum (http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=421403) :cool:

[snarek]

I applaud Bill Hamilton's decision to stand. It does not change my personal feeling though, I think he is past his use by date and should resign from the Board and continue his work for GA in an ex-officio position.

I condemn John Lyon for not standing. But, whoever gets elected at this election will have been put on the Board at the will of the members. The same cannot be said for Lyon. So, when the motion is moved, and hopefully passed, that the Board be reduced to amore workable seven, it seems obvious to me that the only member to have not been elected by ballot should be the first to go.

In fact, when Mr Lyon did stand in a contested election, he came last. Perhaps this explains his decision not to stand this time.

AK

[Mooney Operator]

Just had a quick look at Australian General Aviation - Forum. It looks like a goer if they can keep the politics off there.

[pesawat_terbang]

I find it amazing that one Director, never elected, has decided not to stand. That is the same as a vote of no-confidence in himself.

Shame on you John Lyon!!!!

I think I will support 'the team' because we haven't had one for so many years. We have had dictatorial Presidents taking out writs against those that wouldn't agree with them. We have had big ego's pushing thier own barrow and we have seen some pretty poor decision making resulting in a 60% drop in member numbers.

[Woomera]

I sincerely wish Andrew Wetzel and the new Forum well, if it gets the message out to even more AOPA non members.

As far as I can tell, for the reasons that they closed the AOPA Forum and the legal threats to PPRuNe, from the usual suspects, the Moderators will get a really good work out, if there is to be the same passion and vigour applied to the discussion of important or controversial issues as is here.
It would be a pity if it turned into a mutual backslapping arena.

From the new Forum;
"For first time user's, when you register to post or reply on this forum, please register using proper first name, last name details as prompted, and when you create your user ID make sure it identifies you as the person and not some unknown hidden identity."

Fair enough !

At least here, you and your opinions are respected whether or not you choose to identify yourselves.

I have it on fairly good authority (oftentimes a user will identify themselves to me) and just plain gut feeling that there are more than a few of the AOPA protagonists and Government and Regulatory personnel, who as is their right and which BTW we fiercely protect, choose to post anonymously on PPRuNe in other forums.

They are always welcome to and do test their views and argument in this manner on us, without the baggage of "perception" and "filter" we as humans apply to anything coming from someone we think we "know".

For example: In the context of the current war if Saddam "actually" came upon "and really did have" the cure for cancer and asked for a cessation of hostilites in order to deliver it to the world, I think we would all agree that it is fairly unlikely any one on this side would take him seriously.

On almost every occasion a user has identified themselves to me, for their own reasons, my reaction has been "well I never".!

Just in case anybody gets concerned about their anonymity, worry not, there are only two persons in the whole world (Danny & Rob) who have access to any user information beyond what the user chooses to reveal in their profile. In most cases that information is simply the users email and IP (just a number identifying the ISP) address.
The only way you can be identified from either, is if you use your real name as part of your email addy, the rest is between you, your ISP and the Privacy Act.
Beyond that, the only danger is if the courts or a legally constituted and properly authorised authority comes looking. In which event you have probably gone way beyond the pale and we will not protect you from your own foolishness.

Anonymity is not compulsory here.

Oh, and it is a rhetorical question only (that means it doesn't require an answer) and in the spirit of the new Forum, I don't suppose C182 Drover whose homepage in his profile takes us straight to the new forum and Mooney Operator feel that they need to identify themselves?:D

But on a serious note, we will support anything that seriously has the support of the future of aviation in Australia as their main objective.
The fact that we choose to do it our way, does not mean that another way is any less valid.

Different strokes for different "persons":cool:

Have fun!!

[axiom]

I am still not talking to snarek, but although I agree with a smaller board, I am perplexed as to how it applies to this election and to getting rid of hamilton and Lyon?

What resolution is snarek talking about? Mine was rejected by Marjorie Pagani.

Who said that Lyon was not elected? I was at the meeting, and I saw him elected?

What I didn't see was the plethora of the silent and absent who failed to nominate or vote for any alternate candidates and the board stayed as is.

Are we going to have the resolutions? put before the election of officers and then make the whole thing retrospective?

Who wrote this scenerio, I thought it had to follow certain protocols?

Who has a political agenda here? perhaps snarek is not a Democrat but a Nat. Who is pushing for these changes, not snarek obviously? But I do wonder when he makes statements about his personal affiliations with advisors from John Anderson's office !!!!! Perhaps this agenda is aided and abetted by some influenced CASA cronies at the Deputy PM's office who would like to see AOPA castrated. (cop that ladies).

I'll be ringing Bob Katter Jnr to see what he knows tonight.

Finally, a lot of recent posts are inaccurate. For the intelligently gifted, have another look at articles 33(a), (b),(c ),35, and 37.

For those intelligently challenged, like me until I got the articles freely available at AOPA member services, it says that none have done anything wrong, the resignees are making a fashion statement, and the whole aim is to get rid of Hamilton and Lyon who are a pain in the arse to a few of the Board and ex Board who have an axe to grind.

I have heard on good authority that the next (May), magazine will be late in circulation because of technical problems that will prevent anyone from having a say before the AGM.

Great democracy, but what would we expect.

:rolleyes:

[Dogimed]

I think it is the April one that is being held up with May one running smoothly.

Nice try, but you've still got time to have your say (God only knows what that has to do with the release of the magazinE)

Dog

[axiom]

Dog;

The April magazine is already printed and does not include the nominees profiles which I am told will be put in an insert along with some disjointed attempt at a resolution by Marjorie Pagani.

Thus;

It is simply too late to write a letter to the Editor for April Magazine (today is the first I believe).

The May magazine which should come out in the early part of the month is the subject of the information I have been privy to.

Also thus;

If this magazine does not come out in the early part of the month, people who wish to object to the Pagani resolution which is part of an insert in the April edition, will have no time to get their message across before the AGM.

thus, thus and bloody thus;

If this is a democratic way to run an organisation, it's bloody crook.

I will apologise if the majority of the board reject the resolution and it is pulled, but is still not on that Murphie's has been rejected unilaterally.

I believe he has mailed another which only has to be in 21 days prior, but will probably be late because of the magazine.

Struth, do I have to talk you lot through everything?:mad:

What's your go anyway Dog? what's wrong with the State Chapters thing?

[Dogimed]

I see your point (Re: Magazine) Though I doubt it is anything sinister, but then.....

Also re state chapter thing. I still think that it would water down the power base (whats left) of AOPA and cause more dissention within the ranks particularly if two states don't agree. However, have been thinking it over, and it would probably be not such a bad thing, but definiately would need some rules and structure to ensure that the state chapters stick by the Federal and also do their job. (With complete office). Probably would be good as AOPA could then reset the rules of engagement as well as what they are about.

No bone here....

Dog

[Creampuff]

Axiom – The “kick the door down” strategy is very high risk, especially if you don’t really know what you’re talking about when you get to the other side.

Monkeyfly – Making important strategic decisions on the basis of what someone tells you they heard someone else say, is fraught with danger.

Brian H – Alienating the Commonwealth Ombudsman isn’t the best idea either.

Let’s compare and contrast the lobbying methods and success of AOPA and the AUF.

Elsewhere in this forum I posted some Hansard of evidence given by the Director of Aviation Safety to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, about a convivial lunch he had had with a senior officer of the AUF who happens to be ex-CAA. All very cozy. At that lunch the Director of Aviation Safety suggested how the AUF should respond to a legislative proposal relating to AOCs for AUF flying training.

The law requires flying training to be authorised by an AOC but the AUF doesn’t like that. Guess what? The regulator doesn’t enforce the legal requirement on the AUF, and it isn’t going to in the future. The AUF’s making money hand over fist providing flying training without any AOC.

Sure it’s corrupt. But the AUF gets the outcome it wants. It’s got a statutory monopoly and a regulator in the back pocket.

The AUF didn’t get those because it spends its days yelling at CASA. It got them because it’s got a couple of key people that know how politics and regulation works and, generally, those people keep their mouths shut.

And the AUF’s had the added bonus of AOPA working for it, at GA’s expense, over the last few years.

There is a reason AOPA has zero credibility with those who determine the direction of regulatory reform, and consequently doesn’t get what it wants. Nearly every time someone who claims to represent AOPA opens their mouth publicly (or “kicks a door down”), they manage to demonstrate how little they know about subjects in which they claim to be experts, while criticizing and alienating the people who are. The rhetoric’s all well and good in rallying the (ever-dwindling) troops, but it’s met with a yawn from those who run the country. That’s an embarrassment for members or prospective members who would prefer not to be identified as a member of a bunch slack-jawed conspiracy theorists.

AOPA can’t credibly claim to be all things to all people. AOPA’s duplicity on the AUF flying training AOC issue and similar issues has put a pretty bad taste in the mouths of GA operators and instructors. Does AOPA really think it’s going to get a GA instructor to pay money to AOPA so that AOPA can lobby to help the AUF put GA flying training out of business?

Unpalatable fact of life number 1: The number of pilots and aircraft owners in Australia is not sufficient to make one iota of difference to the outcome of an election, even if you could rally them all to the one cause.

Unpalatable fact of life number2: The overwhelming majority of Australians couldn’t give a toss if flying’s getting more expensive, more complicated or more regulated.

Unpalatable fact of life number 3: Being the best pilot on the planet does not provide someone with the knowledge or skills to play expert regulator or lobbyist.

In those circumstances, the “kick the door down” strategy will get you only 1 thing: a bill for a new door. Second hand hearsay is not a basis for important decisions. And alienating the ombudsman’s just plain silly.

In those circumstances, the only way in which to get what you want is to lobby professionally. Whatever else lobbying professionally means, it doesn’t mean what AOPA’s been doing, with the exception of McKeown who’s been scoring wins for GA without shouting at CASA.

With Gaunt as president and sole spokesperson, and McKeown as deputy to reinforce and consolidate Gaunt’s formidable intellect and people skills, AOPA might - just might – have a chance of resurrecting some credibility and relationship with those who can give AOPA what it wants (to the extent that AOPA knows what it wants).

Eleven on a board of this kind and size of organisation is unnecessary. Buy a professional general manager, and a full time accountant and a professional research officer. If you can’t afford them, play flying club.

Then:
1. work out who AOPA claims to represent
2. work out whose interests AOPA actually promotes
3. work out how to reconcile 1 with 2
4. work out what AOPA intends to achieve (other than at the level of vacuous motherhood statements)
5. work out a plan and priorities for achieving 4
6. get some experts to implement the plan

Or get used to chronic irrelevance.

[brianh]

Creampuff

I'm not certain whether I've been on drugs but where did I say I wished to alienate the Commonwealth Ombudsman?

After 25 years negotiating and resolving Ministerial, Ombudsman, and Regulator issues I love the Ombudsman and have the highest regard for their involvement. The case I mentioned is one where the Ombudsman is involved in asking CASA some very hard questions about a CASA vendetta and rightly so as the doco I have viewed shows a deliberate attempt by CASA to cover up the errors made by CASA staff and a CASA response that deliberately by omission fails to answer the Ombudsman's questions.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I believe the ATSB have adequate power WITHOUT the TSI slam the man provisions. I believe CASA needs the "paper and regulation will work, after all it did in the military" dinosaurs removed to allow the new coaching style to grow and enhance aviation regulation and safety.

If CASA was answerable fully to the Ombudsman - which would also require an aviation culture of openness rather than the fear of long-term retribution if anyone takes CASA on - I doubt they would be in business today.

Anyway, if you have misreported me, please correct the matter.
Cheers
BJ - and taking Woomera's point, that certainly makes me identifiable!

[axiom]

Point taken Dog, read on.

Creampuff;

Good positive post, except I can't abide the CASA/AUF corruption bit, it's simply not on, (this sort of thing), and epitomises what is wrong with aviation in Australia. I was a victim of this same sort of corruption.

I concur with your unpalatable facts but itwouldn't matter if Gaunt or Madonna were president or spokesman, you would still get dissention in the ranks.

What AOPA needs is a Board that addresses your suggestions numbers 1 to 6, is focused and cohesive. It is not at the moment and contrary to what is touted here, it is not all Hamiltons fault. If there is blame to be apportioned it should be applied to current and immediately past Board members who have been running the show since last AGM.

I agree, the Board is top heavy.

Murphie's motion to the AGM attempts to bring about much needed change without altering the Articles of Association, without radical clashes with ego's and tries to put a positive spin on something that is so negative it is little wonder doors are closed. Perhaps kicking them down is a bit rough, but my previous point was that appeasement does not work either.

Notes on the Murphie motion, which encourage the establishment of State run Chapters;

As AOPA belongs to the members and should be a powerful lobby group for the general good of GA, it should be given back to the members.

This forum and other interests have been canvassed and the most positive aspects put forth. Others will argue the ammendments to the Articles but this motion needs no such alterations which historically are treated with contempt by the members.

A Joint States Standing Committee be established (a management decision), represented by all States and the Northern Territory. Three representatives be elected that geographically represent their State and each chapter, as part of their membership drive to get more AOPA members, they gather as many permanent proxies which are filed on a data base and ammended as dues fall etc. these can be removed or replaced at the members behest, but kept at a minimum of 100.

These proxies, can be used as a lever to keep the Board in check. (100 can call an EGM for example). The Board would have to listen.

The States can put up policy to the Board for consideration and can enlist other States for support. If it has no support, it is scrapped.

If things need radical surgery, a concensus of the States 700 proxies would guarantee change and truly represent the members wishes. A majority of the States should be listened to anyway.

No State would be disadvantaged by population if each could only use 100 of their proxies in any single issue.

Murphie is canvassing proxies as I write this and needs them to guarantee support for his motion that is having a luke warm reception by certain members (a minority), of the Board who see it as an erosion of their power base.

His Email address is [email protected]

THE MOTION AS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD:


"That AOPA adopt a National Management structure that allows for State based Chapters which are responsible to the National Board in all policy matters but are able to manage local issues with a high degree of independence"


Murphie is prepared to give 12 months of his time to establish this concept and is a nominee for the next elections.

I believe that there is nothing to lose by trying this and it simply needs support. It certainly does not need "whiteanting" and, for those of you with differences of personality agendas, it does away with demagogues and keeps talent where it should be. Not sent to Coventry by a clique.

Axiom has also canvassed some of CASA and they see only good coming out of it.

Also no need for door kicking or appeasement, OR CORRUPTION Creampuff.



:cool:

[snarek]

I find myself agreeing with Creampuff.

Well a bit anyways.

Now that I've recovered from a state of shock, Puff is right about yelling, screaming and carrying on (axiom???).

I also think he is right about Gaunt. Except I think people need to do a stint as VP before Pres. Gaunty has joined a team, it has not been discussed amongst the team but I believe we are all in agreement who we need as president to get AOPA back on the tracks. Pagani.

I think Puff is peeved at Pagani cos she does so well and actually follows the negotiating pricipals he has laid out. I am impressed anyway. I agree the Board has to shrink, but it must be done in a way that promotes affirmative change and doesn't let the 'old school' regain power.

Axiom, I am neither talking or not talking to you. You have some valid points, but extracting them from the noise is too hard. So I give up.

Oh, and I believe you to be 'Scud' Murphie. Right or wrong????

AK

[axiom]

Snarek;

1) Wrong.

2) Pagani, wrong.

3) My Doctor says I can talk to you if you don't upset me.

:suspect:

[monkeyfly]

Hello all, sorry I’ve not posted in a while, had to clean off some mud.

ELECTIONS

Firstly, what are the problems with the previous elections? Don’t the AOPA rule outline the requirements for a proper election? If there was a problem with the last elections, why has nothing been said before now? Snarek, your post in regards to John Lyon looks like you have a target. “Lyons remains on the Board and is not required, in this election, to nominate”. Snarek, why are you attacking him? John, (if you read this post) have you not. Who else does not have to nominate for re-election? Why have you done (or not) so? Snarek, in a pervious post, you state that you resigned due to not being able to work with Bill Hamilton or John Lyon. This sounds like person egos are coming into play. (Opps, this is a leadership issue).
NOTE THE QUESTION MARKS, they are questions!!!!

HEARSAY

I have been accused (?) of using “Second hand hearsay” as “a basis for important decisions.” This would be correct, except for the fact that I followed my comment with “People please note, I am looking for information!” My intent was not to make a decision, but to stimulate conversation.

TEAM

Axiom was correct in my assessment of “Team APOA” I do not see some of the people involved as being team players. I have stated in previous posts that I have had experience in teamwork both in the practical and in the classroom. (I have completed 3 teambuilding courses now). With this background I read the various articles written by various members. Even in this post there are I find interesting things. Gaunty stats that AOPA needs someone like Bill Hamilton, yet snarek can’t work with Bill. Has not “team AOPA” gotten together and determined their “game plan” before each member post their own ideas. As a team, the individual ideas are joined to form one. This is but one example.

Maxima, you strongly questioned my apparent lack of team skills. You suggested that, “To be in command, which you talk about, requires taking command, and exhibiting some leadership”. Please note the definition of leadership is “Leadership is the art of consistently influencing and directing people in tasks is in such ways as to obtain their willing obedience, confidence, respect and co-operation in a manner desired by the leader.” Where do I TAKE COMMAND.

WORKING WITH CASA

It takes some work but there is some great POSITIVE stuff in here. People are capable of disagreeing without knives. People are putting some good suggestions as to the problems faced by private pilots. Some (if not all) might wonder why a CPL is concerned with the private pilot. It’s quite simple. No private pilot, no flying schools/FBO, no maintenance organisations, no bank runners, etc, etc, etc. I believe that without private flying the whole industry will go.

Do we appease CASA or “fight then on the beaches”? I feel that that should depend on the situation. I agree with the people who say that some in CASA are good and some are bad. From what I’ve seen (and comparing with what I saw when I was a Public servant) the good have their hands tied by procedures and rules. The guys and girls can give a straight answer because they can work it out themselves. Others in CASA simply don’t know which hat to where today, promoter, regulator, enforces or prosecutor.

Is the board too big? Considering that pilots in the main like to “take command” (as the PIC is trained to do), I agree. Yet with good teamwork a group of twenty or more can work very well. (Personal experience in this one, boy did we “kill” that exercise).

How are we going to get CASA to change? Any change will be seen be CASA as more work and less control. People will not freely move into this position unless they see a gain to themselves. There is nothing making them do so. Their superiors are the government, who care about the public. Why does (should) the public care about the private pilot?

[brianh]

The Murphie concept of State based Chapters overcomes the current situation where the Board have to do it all and cannot easily control volunteer assistance.

It enables an AOPA presence in each State at no cost of travel, provides a focal point for member meetings, communication, contribution, political lobbying, and so on - particularly recruitment which is AOPAs life blood.

Leaving the Board with policy management enables them to control AOPA and aviation key portfolios without the clutter of the still essential day by day matters. Likewise enables the delegation to individual State Chapters of specific key projects / analyses. EG My suggestion of a recruiting presence at the CASA Safety Seminars (canned last year, agreed this year although the Pres did give me the flick - as recruiting is not a major issue is it -and suggested I organise it myself - thanks to CASA for offering the space and furniture FOC proving there are good guys (in this case gals) there). Each State Chapter could ensure a presence at Seminars, ASirshows, etc particularly for recruiting - once we overcome the current stigma attached to AOPA in retreat at present that makes it very hard to convince anyone to join

I have worked from the 1 man to the 100,000 man level and a properly managed National organisation with State branches overcomes the tyranny of distance in Australia. And, while we in outer Melbourne cannot get to the Bankstown BBQs, we can get to Moorabbin!

So why are not people supporting this Murphie concept? Let's hear the down side!
BJ

[axiom]

Monkeyfly;

Don't let this mob get to you. Most will attack if you don't agree with their own agendas. But more important, respond in the spirit of the forum.

That is, it is anon. You can say your bit without fear of reprisal from our regulator (isn't that so woomera?)

Some of us have burnt our bridges with CASA and choose to remain anon.

As far as your future goes, CASA are proposing, (read that as it is now law), there are only private, airwork and RPT operations. Great for the passenger, they now get to have increased safety in their C172 charter (sorry airwork) ops that probably require a 2 pilot, IFR with cabin attendant and a CASA approved schedule of maintenance.

CAR schedule 5 is apparantly no bloody good any more.

GA in Australia cannot be without a powerful opposition and lobby group to some of the madness that comes out of Canberra.

This lobby group has to be AOPA.

There are moves afoot to destroy AOPA because someone doesn't like someone else. There is a possibility that AOPA is being used as an experiment by some politically minded demagogues.

Back to your post and your advices of prior, remember;

"A critic is a man who knows the way but can't drive the car"



;)

The Murphie team thank you brian for your provisional support. I likewise haven't heard any negative responses to the project and this postee is still yet to hear a relevant piece of opposition.

I have heard;

1) It would beuracratise the AOPA.

2) it would reduce the power base.

3) I don't like it because you stick up for Hamilton.

None relevant.

Murphie's proposal is simply using what talent the organisation has and-by passing the personal clique syndrome we have now.

He has pledged 12 months of his life toward the project and I believe if it fails it will be because it was "whiteanted".

There is still the possibility that the powers to be will not let it see the light of day and, for this reason it needs as much support as possible. 100 proxies is being touted as the minimum.

This proposal is possibly the last opportunity we members have of reclaiming the organisation and if done properly would be a powerful tool to keep the show on track.

I ask friend and foe alike to give it consideration.

:cool:

[Creampuff]

Brian H – If I misrepresented what you said, I apologise. When you said:The CASA vendettas, one at Ombudsman level, …I thought you meant that the Ombudsman was a vehicle through which CASA had run or is running a vendatta. Do I take that you mean CASA has run or is running a vendatta against the Ombudsman? If so, I’m not sure that that’s the kind allegation the advocacy of which will help AOPA’s cause either. CASA’s as accountable to the Ombudsman as any other Commonwealth agency.

Monkey fly - In response to Mr Gaunt’s suggestion that CASA should not be styled an “enemy”, you said:I have hear[sic] a quote from a trusted source who overheard two senor[sic] CASA people. "There should be only two forms of aviation, Airlines and miltary"[sic].You then asked for his comments. Mr Gaunt can speak for himself, but I reiterate what I said to you earlier: Making important strategic decisions on the basis of what someone tells you they heard someone else say, is fraught with danger. If Mr Gaunt is silly enough to do that (which I very much doubt he is), I will cease to support him.

Ax – AOPA can’t have a foot on the ship and a foot on the shore. It can’t scream “corruption” when CASA does something dodgy that AOPA doesn’t like, but cheer when CASA does something dodgy that AOPA does like. The AUF flying training AOC issue is the perfect example of that kind of duplicity. AOPA, at least at Board level, cheered when CASA decided that it simply isn’t going to enforce the law on the AUF. What a great day for GA! Not! What a great day for AOPA’s credibility! Not! And then AOPA has the audacity to claim it represents GA and commercial pilots!

Boxing with CASA is boxing with shadows. That’s why nobody in AOPA woke up to the TSI bill until the 11th hour, and only after prompting. And I’ll bet my bottom dollar nobody in AOPA (with perhaps the exception of McKeown) has read the latest aviation bill that is in the Parliament NOW.

A professional representative body would have had its one page summary of its submissions on the bill ready to go within a week.

Snarek – Errey, yes; Pagani maybe.

[snarek]

Creampuff

I for one want McKeown back on the Board. He just didn't join the ticket, that's all.

I know both he and Marjorie well. McKeown is very capable but not, in my view, as good an overall negotiator and leader as Marjorie. He will make a great Senior VP.

Some members of the current Board have attempted to reduce the number of the next Board to 10. This in my opinion is contrary to the Articles and, again in my view, is an attempt by this Board to try to ensure they can influence the next.

I had sought advice from ASIC, but I am advised that Elections Australia has been advised of 11 vacancies. So I will let it rest at the moment.

In my opinion this attempted move smacks of the sort of manipulation that has got AOPA in so much trouble and is to be condemned along with anyone who supports or defends it.

I agree that the Board is too big. But the size, and who comes and goes, should be left to the Board it affects. Certainly any member never properly elected should be the first to go. That is, in my view, Mr Lyon.

Members who have lived through past manipulations of the Board will possibly share my concerns, so watch this space, if any member does try to pull this stunt ASIC will take action if requested.

Axiom, on the Murphie thing. I don't believe you.

AK

[antechinus]

I am surprised Snarek about your devotion to Chris McKeown. He had my support until I discovered the duplicity. Chris desperately wants to be President and decided that the only way this can be achieved was to be a disciple of Bill Hamilton. It was only a few months ago that Chris was campaigning for Hamilton's removal, how the worm turns!

No, having McKeown, Hamilton and Rudd back would be a disaster for AOPA. Marjorie would be an excellent President but I can't imagine that she would ever take the job on as long as Hamilton and/or McKeown held any executive positions.

In my opinion if Hamilton comes back there will be a continual stream of resignations as the hapless directors realise that he is impossible to work with.

It's time for a regime change, a fresh approach to dealing with CASA.

Russell

[snarek]

Russell

We are going to have to agree to disagree over McKeown.

I find he might be a little Machiavellian at times, but he also works hard for AOPA. I find too that he, at least in my perspective, can be abrasive and threatened by talent. But then, if we are comparing diestrutive egos he aint anywhere near the problems others are.

He isn't on our ticket, so I'm not voting for him. But I genuinely hope he gest back in just as I am genuinely sad you didn't nominate.

Besides, he will either work productively with Marjorie or I shall punish him with the mother of all hangovers :}

AK

[antechinus]

Snarek

Chris McKeown has called to tell me that he is NOT a disciple of Hamilton, which is apparently at odds as to how Hamilton sees the relationship. Will they still love each other in the morning?

And Snarek, are you going public with your ticket?

Russell

[snarek]

Hamilton sees a lot of things that when I look, I can't see. He remembers a lot of things really differently to me as well.

You and McKeown should kiss and make up, I think you have both supported Hamilton when you shouldn't have. Everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, remember 'the pantomime' at Narromine :}

But, the ticket, here it is from a previous post. :cool:

Andrew

Marjorie Pagani (Townsville)
Trish Mahlberg (area rep Mackay)
Adrienne Williams (area rep Adelaide)
Ron Lawford (Darwin)
Gary Gaunt (Gaunty ... Perth)
David McDonald (area rep Brisbane)
Ron Bertram (Bankstown)
Mick Kennedy (St George)
Bill Pike (the Hunter)
Jane Errey (Murrumbateman, soon to be Cairns),
oh yeah, and me if you feel inclined
Andrew Kerans

[LeadSled]

Well, folks, I am quite amazed at some of the claims and counterclaims of “insider” knowledge of intimate thoughts and opinions of various “personalities” involved in the annual fracas of the AOPA elections.

I can only conclude that the services of a clairvoyant are in very great demand. Given that the “significant other” of a very immediate past President apparently possesses such powers, could this be the source of all the alleged claims for such intimate knowledge. Even if you are a member of Australian Sceptics.

Or perhaps the rational explanation is two disgruntled former directors of AOPA suffering a severe attack of imaginitus.

Tootle pip!!

[snarek]

The claims came from Bills side :}

Tootle pip.

[paddopat]

I remember Bill Hamilton's version of events at Merimbula.

I recall his version of the same events at Narromine.

My recollection of his narrative at those two places failed to coincide.

I remember a Board dominated by 'appointees'. I remember Bill was on that Board.

I remember a Board spending $500,000 (or thereabouts) on a futile attack on AOPA US. Apparently the minutes are lost. Bill was on that Board.

I remember a Board member raising an issue in the Senate without anyones knowledge or approval. I recall Bill defending that.

I remember an attack on CASA that spent the other half of AOPA's funds. It went nowhere and achieved nothing, but at what cost. Apparently the minutes are lost. Bill was on that Board.

I remember getting a letter from CASA telling me my mechanic was to be the owner of my aircraft. Now it is only a boring old PA28-140, but i didn't want to give it away. Bill told me it was all OK. Thankfully someone somewhere made that threat go away. It wasn't AOPA. Bill was on that Board.

[Woomera]

This thread has been moved to admin for review of a couple of posts.
It will be returned after.

In the mean time have at it on this one, but just remember the Rules of PPRuNe.

[awetzel]

Hi Woomera,

Thanks for the positive comments the other day in regards to “Australian General Aviation Forum”. (http://www.aimoo.com/agaf)

A group of us AOPA members miss the old AOPA forum so we started a tempory fix until AOPA resolve the forum issues.

It is a good way to get to know other pilots who just love flying with out the politics & maybe meet them one day.

Thanks


Andrew :cool:


http://www.aimoo.com/agaf

[axiom]

Woomera;

While you are reviewing the prior posts, especially with regard snarek's obvious and trying attemt to "out" axiom, I would advise the following;

1) Axiom has burnt a lot of bridges with CASA and is their nemises.

2) Murphie has had a few bad times with the CASA and political heirachy.

3) Murphie is trying to mend bridges with CASA and by standing for the election and with a positive proposal that has the corollary to bring about a mediation of sorts.

4) Axiom will never break his cover.

5) Murphie and Axiom have a symboitic relationship and a common goal.

6) If snarek choses to break with tradition and opt to "out" axiom, the "outor", will demand he and his "alter ego", or dual posts be sin binned until after the election.

7) Have I made myself clear Woomera?

:mad: cranky axiom.

[Woomera]

axiom

Points 1 thru 5. Quite so, it is your right and you should be commended for commitment to your cause. It is for others, not me, to judge your past and the efficacy of your case presented here.

Point 6, is a game that is played daily here and I don't imagine for one moment that those who are regular contributors here don't know pretty much who is whom (or should it be whom is who, grammar police please.) ?.:)
I will deal with that issue if and when it arises.

Point 7, having been well schooled by Danny the Despot, the Big Kahuna CP around here, before being checked to the line, I do not respond well to demands as to my behaviour :D

[Creampuff]

Just in case my references to that cozy lunch are a cause of the move to administration, I quote the following from pages 296-299 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5365.pdf

…
Senator O'BRIEN --At the last hearings I asked you about the regulatory arrangements as they relate to pilot training for ultralight aircraft. You told me there were no differences in the types of pilot training provided on a commercial basis. On page 263 of the Hansard of 30 May, you said CASA was attempting to find a means by which people could “undertake commercial flying training as opposed to flying training for their members on a not-for-profit basis”. Mr Yates referred to a meeting with the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation on 10 April, and he said that at that meeting CASA officers put to the group a plan to facilitate the issuing of an AOC for sport aviation activity. He referred to a paper which was tabled at that meeting. I do not know if it was actually tabled before the committee. I think Mr Yates offered to table it, but I do not think we actually received it. Can the committee be supplied with a copy of that paper, please?

Mr Toller --Yes, we will try and trace it.

Senator O'BRIEN --Thank you. I understand you wrote to Paul Middleton, the executive director of the AUF, on 11 February this year and said:

“Thank you for hosting me for lunch today. It was good to get together and clarify some important issues. We must do it more often.

“As discussed I believe there is a sensible resolution to the issue of the proposed requirement for AOCs for all commercial flight training organisations including ultralights. Although the NPRM is open for comment until 28 February, it is now clear in my mind that a better path is to amend CAR206. I intend to propose to do this in the near future prescribing that sports aviation and ultralights do not require an AOC for flying training.

“Hence I believe your best response to the NPRM would be to write that you would support an amendment to CAR206 as discussed with the Director on 11 February 2002.
“I look forward with interest to see how the other issues we discussed progress.

Was it such a good lunch that you decided to take a U-turn on the previous position you put before this committee on the provision of commercial pilot training?

Mr Toller --No, I certainly would not claim that the lunch had anything to do with any U-turn, Senator. This has always been a difficult issue to resolve. The previous policy approach was that we did not--while we were trying to undertake the complete review of all the new regulations--want to undertake an amendment to CAR206.
CAR206 is the regulation which prescribes those activities which require an AOC. It has long been one of the more difficult regulations for us in many ways. The reason that we were looking for a means to provide certification for commercial flying training for sports aviation was because specifically it was prescribed within CAR206. It was clear to me that there would have been immense resistance from the sports aviation movement, and particularly I think from the ultralight movement, to the proposal that was put forward. Therefore it was worth considering whether there were other ways to achieve the same end and, let us be quite frank about this, the same safety end, because that is what we are talking about at the end of the day.

I therefore, after some discussions with the board, the secretary and the minister, proposed that we review the whole issue of which aerial work activities actually require an AOC. We brought in a consultant who had international knowledge in this subject and had worked with us previously. As a result of his report we are currently internally, within the authority, undertaking a review of all those aerial work activities. Equally, as a result of his report, he made it clear that he believed that the government policy--going back to 1985 or 1986--was that sports aviation should be allowed to be self-administering and that it should be allowed therefore to continue to do this and should not have an extra imposition put upon it. I was prepared to accept that view. In accepting that view it leads you down virtually the only other logical avenue, which is that you amend CAR206.

Senator O'BRIEN --Notwithstanding the view that you put on 30 May, does the acceptance of this other view amount to a direction, effectively?

Mr Toller --It retains the status quo that has existed since 1985 or 1986 without imposing the requirement for an air operator's certificate on sports aviation and all that would have entailed for those bodies. I do not believe it has any effect on anything other than the administrative burden.

Senator O'BRIEN --Is it usually your practice to form a view about a proposal to change a regulation or rule before the comment period for an NPRM has closed?

Mr Toller --No, most definitely not, Senator. You will recall that in this particular case, though, we have extended the comment period. I think it is safe to say that, even though some comments may still be coming in over the next nine days, or however long it is, the overwhelming view of all the comments--and a large number of comments have come in so far--was that the proposal as put in the NPRM was not acceptable to industry.

Senator O'BRIEN --To industry or to parts of industry?

Mr Toller --To those affected, I think, is probably the best way to put it.

Senator O'BRIEN --The providers in the sports and ultralight aviation field?

Mr Toller --Yes.

Senator O'BRIEN --That is the industry you are talking about?

Mr Toller --The majority of the responses would come from those people.

Senator O'BRIEN --Who else have you communicated this view to? You communicated it to Mr Middleton before the end of the NPRM comment period. Who else did you communicate it to?

Mr Toller --I have communicated it to two people, and there was one reason for both of them. The reason is to try and prevent them from having to write a 50-page response to the NPRM and achieve the same end, if you like. In other words, I knew that they were quite capable and probably had drafted very lengthy responses but I just believed that they should know the way that we were thinking. I have also explained this position to Mr Henk Meertens, the President of the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation, who is the other person who is affected. It was with Mr Meertens and the members of his committee that we in fact formulated the original plan for a lower form of certification, which was called an AOC for sports aviation.

I think it is probably fair to say that the politics of sports aviation is quite complex. For reasons that I do not think I even yet understand, the Ultralight Federation split from the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation in about September of last year, and in so doing created sort of a split of opinion within the sports aviation body from that which had existed when we first put together our proposal, so it was really a very different environment in which we were working and I think that what we have achieved is a sensible result for all those who are involved.

Senator O'BRIEN --So you have asked one industry participant to write and support a view that you have taken? That is what you have done, isn't it?

Mr Toller --I have done it to both of those two, whose organisations represent all the people who were responding to us as individuals.

Senator O'BRIEN --Do you commonly lobby for submissions to be made in response to a notice of proposed rule making to support a view you have about the rule making?

Mr Toller --Not at all. I just believe that, when it is clear from work that has been done since the NPRM was put out, and the weight of the responses to the NPRM suggest that it has no support at all from the respondents, if it is clear that we will be taking another line and that is agreed by the board, why would I not communicate that in advance?

Senator O'BRIEN --This is a board decision?

Mr Toller --It is a decision that has been made by me and ratified by the board. In other words, it is made by me as the chief executive with the advice of my team, and ratified by the board.

Senator O'BRIEN --Before the end of the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller --Sorry, Senator?

Senator O'BRIEN --Before the end of the consultation on the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?

Mr Toller --The board has reviewed the whole situation by asking and agreeing to a review of the requirement for aerial work AOCs. The change that has been made effectively is an agreement that, rather than not amend CAR206, which was the previous board position, the board now accepts that there are occasions--and this is one--when amending the current regulations is probably the best way to go.

Senator O'BRIEN --So it has been determined by CASA that you will propose to the minister an amendment to CAR206 which will exempt all sports aviation training, whether it be commercial training or training for members of an AUF from a requirement to hold an AOC.

Mr Toller --That is one of the proposals of the amendments. We would also review the whole of the current requirements for certification for aerial work, and it is in that context that we are including commercial sports aviation. Non-commercial sports aviation has never required an AOC for flying training.

Senator O'BRIEN --I understand that.

Mr Toller --And one of the difficulties we have, Senator, and I think you will understand this particularly, is that the Civil Aviation Act was amended to remove the word `commercial'; however, CAR206 has never been amended. We have this anomalous position whereby the Civil Aviation Act asks that the regulations prescribe the activities that require an AOC, but it has deliberately removed any hint of commercialism because it should be risk based, and yet the word `commercial' still stays within CAR206. Another part of that amendment, I believe, should be to remove the word `commercial' to be consistent with the amendments that were made recently to the act.

Senator O'BRIEN --Have there been any consultations with the minister or the minister's office about this?

Mr Toller --The minister's office was informed of our thinking, but that is all.

Senator O'BRIEN --Before or after this lunch?

Mr Toller --Before or after I--

Senator O'BRIEN --Told Mr Middleton at lunch.

Mr Toller --Way before.
…

[axiom]

Creampuff;

I think you know what I think I am doing but what your legal gobbligook is doing is exacerbating an already confused situation that has nothing to do with a reincarnation of AOPA but a "I told you so scenerio".

I can quote RRA&T of Hansard with the Murphie debacle and our Director and his ILK when they tried to cover their Ar$es over a complete stuff up that cost that poor sod over $100K.

And Senator Kerry O'Brien took them to task on that matter also.

I can't in all honesty say I have any intimate knowledge of the AUF / CASA / Politics that appear to be the subject of "CORRUPTION", but nothing would surprise me.

In the interim, where do we go from here, shaft AOPA and let CASA reign free, Give GA to the AUF, the flapless and inane ornithopter society or the school for the chronically earthbound?

Why can't some people say something positive about anything?

Bob Murphie has proposed something that has massive support, yet is ridiculed or ignored by the same people who see Hamilton as a threat to their very existence.



And woomera;

Take this in the spirit in which it is given. I have not blown the whistle on anyone and I don't pretend to tell you anything, and, I haven't tried to "out" anyone.

Take note of this however,

GET STUFFED.

:p :p buggaitall:rolleyes:

[cogwheel]

I do stand back and wonder about all of this. What are we here for? The future of AOPA is at risk and we now seem to have a few self chosen few who have egos they can't feed believing they are essential to the future of AOPA and GA in general.

Creampuff as usually your posts are on the mark, but the length is often quite exhausting… no offence – I believed you the first time you said it.

It is quite obvious that the existing Board lack any direction (did they ever have it) and absolutely no leadership whatsoever. It seems that there is now a move (by the acting/interim Chairman?) to reduce the number of vacancies available PRIOR to the election from eleven to nine.

I have no idea of the legality of doing this, but it would be quite morally wrong and I for one would not support any existing Board member that proposed or supported such a move. Whilst I agree that the present Board size is far too large, this is not the way to change it and keep the members on side. Remember us, the members??

I would be only too pleased to join the ensuring revolt to turf the lot out at the EGM which would no doubt follow such an ill advised move.

Again it seem the magazine has been delayed in part because the interim Chairman has written some 800 plus words in an editorial which I am told is nothing more than an election statement. FIGJAM!
One good way to turn the members off! Will just have to wait and see on that one I guess, and then we can all make up our own minds.

[axiom]

I heard the resolution was shafted by the majority of the board (only one was for the aye's), and shouldn't see the light of day.

If that is the case, the status is as it stands unless there are resolutions that haven't been accepted for tableing and may be supported by a 100 member proxy.

If the magazine is corrupted in any way shape or form to preach someones agenda, perhaps snarek will bring his threats of ASIC to bear. Depends on whether he likes what he reads of course.

In the meantime, I told woomera to get stuffed today and I am still here. Perhaps this is an anon/forum in spite of snarek's attempts to "out postees.

Wonder what you have to do to get "sin binned?"

:p bugga!

[gaunty]

cogwheel

It seems that there is now a move (by the acting/interim Chairman?) to reduce the number of vacancies available PRIOR to the election from eleven to nine.

That’s news to me and a fair number of us I suspect.

May I suggest that it is a Furphy.;)

I, nor would I believe, any, thinking candidate support this as a notion.
I believe that now that an election is now on foot, there should be no change to the status quo, even if this were possible within the Articles of Association which seem to say in any event that there "may not be less than 8 or more than 12 members of the Committee.

As far as I know there are currently eleven and the "Team" that has been proposed by snarek is composed of eleven. Given that, any other effort in this regard must be coming from a different direction.
There are after all 15 nominations of which we have been made aware.
Four of those will miss out, or to be mischievous, why isn't here a move to increase the comittee to 12. :rolleyes:

I don't think so.

There has been too much damage inflicted on AOPA and its credibility by those who have in the past ruled by fiat.

Once the membership has spoken, then the new Committee may or can I guess vary the numbers by the time honoured tradition.

Insofar as what is supposed to be happening and who is supposed to be being manipulated by whom, as I simply have no direct personal knowledge of the events described, then I will remain silent on these matters until I see for myself, what the magazine and others bring to the table.

Creampuff
Thank you or your very kind words, but I'll have to take that under advisement for the moment.

brianh
I owe you an answer to your question which will be forthcoming; I've been too busy putting bread on the table for the last week to give it the attention it rightly deserves.
Other than to observe that some have already echoed my feelings that the self evidently divisive incessant shouting and vilification at and of CASA and Government, has, in the same way it works with ANYBODY at the receiving end of suchlike, disconnected AOPA from them.

axiom

Lets wait and see what the magazine brings eh?

Conspiracy theories give me a headache.:)

--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.

[Woomera]

axiom

Take this in the spirit in which it is given

The only reason that I have not sinbinned you is because I do not wish to derail this Thread further.
It is available to all nominators, even their doppelgangers,:D to have their say, if they wish and as long as they don't descend to personal attacks.

I am puzzled that your friend Murphy and his supporters including Hamilton and the others, have not chosen to speak directly to us, so that he and they may state their case directly

The readers here, not me, will make their own judgements on their and your behaviour here .

The original will be returned in due course and merged with this one, as it contains some valuable discussion and it would not be fair to those who have contributed so to be denied the airing.

I am bound by the rules however, to apply 7 demerit points for being "abusive to mods and admins".

If you think I have got the wrong end of your stick then please feel free to email me and I'll remove them

[brianh]

Woomera

You have the support of the silent majority.

Unfortunately the open operation of this Forum allows sidetracking to attacking the players instead of the ball. Even the umpire it seems.

If everyone focused on the issues facing AOPA as its membership vanishes into the sunset, and had to remove their egos before entering this forum, it would be less like Parliament and its useless posturing and more like an effective think tank.

I think I'll go back to the dreamtime, it just isn't a possibility.
Cheers

[antechinus]

Stay tuned for an interesting April Magazine which is now rolling off the presses:

You will find the (max allowed) 250 word election statements from each of the candidates.

More interesting is the "President's Report", this time authored by fill-in President, Chris McKeown. McKeown's column was the subject of a very heated Committee phone hook-up last week because of the unashamed abuse of the column for electioneering purposes. The board, backed by the Hamilton faction who supported McKeown's presidency, agreed to leave the offending article.

Apparently the piece waxes lyrical about the wonders performed by him during his directorship and urges members to return him to power. So McKeown gets his 250 words plus the incumbent's advantage of the President's column, hardly fair to the other candidates.

Personally I think this is on the nose and members would be entitled to question the propriety of this and other tactics being used to prop up the current regime.

Members should write to the Returning Officer and object.

Russell

[Dogimed]

I heard that one of the directors had one more sausage at the last Forum in Perth.

And that because one of them wore glasses at Avalon, he/she is a crap candidate.

Oh oh oh... and that the ex pres. had too much testostorone..(ask him, he'll tell you) so he had to leave. So now we have a woman to balance it.

Oh, ... and that the accounting rules are all f*cked up at the moment. (But lets keep that between you and me eh!!)


Stop this sh!t and vote with your head, not with your mates.

Dog

Pathetic!

[brianh]

Nevertheless, I agree that each candidate should get equal space and the Pres Column should be used for advice to members of matters of Pres contribution or general significance.

Of course we need to keep in mind that all this manoeuvering be it in the AOPA Mag, this Forum, email, or telephone, is only with the best interests of AOPA and its members and has nothing to do with internal politics, egos, personalities etc. (I think I'll have a little rest now, I'm even confusing myself).

State Chapters are looking better every day as a means of reducing the tension and spreading the management of AOPA.

PS Andrew tells me that new forum
http://www.aimoo.com/agaf is gaining a good mix of positive members while we await the re-emergence of the AOPA Forum. I suspect it would not do to have the AOPA Forum up and running before the election, would it!
Cheers

[LeadSled]

Creamie, m’ old mate,

This has about as much to do with the current AOPA turmoil’s as your post, but what the heck.

At the FLOT ( or FLOP, depending on your point of view) Conference, CASA canvassed the views of “industry” as to new mechanisms for setting up any flying school operation. The proposal includes greatly simplified procedures for the initial establishment of a school for GA training.

I believe it has a lot of merit.

Sadly, “senior members of the flying training industry” kiboshed the proposal, and not only from the usual and expected point of view of commercial self-interest. Their real fear was the fear of the unknown, of not having every little detail ticked off ( ie; approved) in advance by CASA, at very great cost in time and money.

Thus eliminating that standard justification/excuse: “It is/was approved by CASA”.

So much for rugged self reliance, a culture of mutual fear of self dependence would be closer to the real reason this surprising
( from CASA) proposal was rejected.

Tootle pip!!

PS
I think Axiom’s mate Bob Murphie has a proposal of great merit for the future of AOPA, and as he has tried to explain to everybody, Bob Murphie is prepared to put 12 months of his own time into setting up the state chapters, before the members at the 2004 AGM gives a final yes or no.

Get behind the Murphie idea, he needs 100 names to get it on the 2003 AGM agenda, to start working on the proposal, for final decisions by the members in 2004. AOPA has everything to gain, and nothing to loose, from the Murphie proposal. No permanent or radical changes would happen until after the 2004 AGM.

What could be more reasonable and less threatening to the power hungry than that ??

[brianh]

LeadSled

Perhaps it does have some significance - the fact that it was rejected probably means that there was not enuf info circulated first, coupled with that mindset about CASA that lingers - perhaps unfairly - "beware of Greeks bearing gifts", and as you hinted commercial concern from the big schools who don't want the low cost small operators intruding into their expensive rates.

If AOPA wishes to encourage GA and membership, we also need a discussion paper on the syllabus for the PPL and why it is absolutely outmoded, has such a focus on BAK, etc etc, thus detering some from proceeding. (A bit like the ham radio licence still needing morse - we always did it that way why shouldn't everyone else.) You could not do this to those seeking their drivers licence and it is not particularly relevant to air safety anyway.

The PPL needs more of a practical focus and less on becoming an aeronautical engineer. Some of the Navex should be on marginal days, things like "Know Your Own limitations' and Weatherwise" should be mandatory - perhaps even parts of the 17 Ways Video - as flying into IMC and stall/spins remain still big killers. And some under the cowl experience given that pilots can do certain things legally although I doubt that those learning at a GAAP school cover much of this.

Anyway, a bit of a tangent but this is the sort of thing AOPA needs to look at for the future.

The Murphie proposal, even if it cannot get up this time, needs to be canvassed and publicised over the next year to make sure it does get up then. A State Chapter arrangement also overcomes the thought of some members that AOPA exists for NSW primarily.
Cheers

[axiom]

THE CONCEPT OF THE MURPHIE MOTION;

This draft apparantly will become final 21days prior to the AGM and hopefully with the support of 100 members proxies/signatures. Such are still canvassed and the format can be emailed / fax'd or posted to you if you contact Bob direct.

[email protected]

[gaunty]

cogwheel

old chap, it seems that I owe you an apology.

It does indeed appear that,

I, nor would I believe, any, thinking candidate support this as a notion.

there are some candidates still on the board who are NOT thinking and I am told have already pushed through a motion to reduce the Board to nine AFTER the nominations closed as it became crystal clear to some that they had a REAL election on their hands after all.

The Board elects the President, so if you feel threatened, 15 nominations is threatening, as President, then why wouldn't you reduce the numbers on the Board in the hope that the top 9 elected will contain the majority you need.
Simple math will tell you that there would be a greater risk against you with a Board of 12 elected out of 15 nominations.
I do not imagine Marjorie or any in her "Team" currently on the board were a party to this.

If what is alleged is true and that this move came from and was agitated for by the "caretaker" President then we have a serious problem going down.

The lack of ethics and morality is breathtaking, it may well be a legal tactic insofar as the Board of a Company in the commercial world is concerned and therefore "legal" for the Board of AOPA to act in this manner.

But AOPA is NOT a commercial company, we are NOT talking about BS Wall Street tactics or control of corporations and assets, we are talking about representing the interests of the AOPA membership and THAT requires a higher standard of ethical conduct than is apparently being displayed.

It has also been suggested to me that there a number of the Board who have nominated, but have some Pollyanna idea dredged up from somewhere, that as they have not submitted a formal resignation from their position, if the vote goes against them that they still have a claim to their original position.

I am not a Corporate lawyer, but I would be seriously amazed that a nomination signed by the nominee and nominators does not at the same time effect your resignation.

Legal issues aside it is, in my humble opinion, a gross breach of ethics and the trust of the membership.

It gets worse, the timing of the move after nominations and that the ballot after the May edition, the last before the AGM is due out, how was the membership at large to find out, and if that is, you wanted them to. And how are they to register their feelings at the ballot box.
Let’s see if there is any announcement in the April edition shall we.

On the matter of magazine, I also understand that the Presidential Editorial was the subject of some robust debate within the Board. But again we shall see.

There, the gauntlet is now on the table and I am seriously aggrieved by the whole matter.

So who is going to be the first to tell me I'm wrong or worse, that it is OK it's just election tactics.

[axiom]

THE CONCEPT OF THE MURPHIE MOTION;

This draft will become final 21days prior to the AGM and hopefully with the support of 100 members proxies/signatures. Such are still canvassed and the format can be emailed / fax'd or posted to you if you contact Bob direct. Input and ammendments are welcomed.

[email protected]

Draft;

Joint States Standing Committee of AOPA.

The current AOPA board has been the subject of an historically volatile, emotional and sometimes disfunctional organisation that when fractionated, lacks direction and focus. Much blame gets put about and further alienates Members opinions and support.

We, the Members need a strong and functional AOPA to protect our legal rights and priveleges and provide a strong and co-ordinated lobby group to politicians, The regulator and the Judiciary.

Our Regulator needs a strong opposition to make it's own position credible.

The aim is to protect and maintain the members interests and prevent factional and ideological interferrence with the smooth running of the AOPA Board.

As AOPA belongs to the members, not a faction, a president (who's real identity should be Chairman of meetings), or any demagogue intent on using it as a political platform, it should be GIVEN BACK TO THE MEMBERS.

As such, a Joint Standing Committee of AOPA is proposed with members from all States and The Northern Territory, to form a committee with a permanent proxy base of 100 per State, and use these proxies as a tool to keep the Board in check. The relevant Articles of Association of AOPA and Corporate Law cannot prevent this being promulgated and could be a powerful arm of AOPA reprtesenting not only the States interests, but the individual members themselves. It would give the individual a voice that the Board would have ro listen to.

100 proxies are enough to call an EGM for example and can have a direct influence on policy and direction. if each State could use 100 proxies as a maximum per issue, and the States concurred, 700 proxies would surely give voice to a vote of no confidence.

Thus represented each State would represent a very significant cross section of the membershipthat has no geographic or ideological influence.

The gathering of these proxies would garner a membership drive at State level.

A steering committee should be set up from the existing membership and chair the first meeting and election of delegates. this can be done electronically, phone fax or mail and need not involve a costly and time consuming face to face meeting. Three delegates per State being envisaged with geographic diversity.

The State proxies would be left on a data base, being upgraded as memberships etc fall due. A proxy can be withdrawn or resubmitted at the members request, but it would be incumbent upon the State Chapter to maintain the 100 proxy base.

This way, all matters are thoroughly thought out, refined, checked and supported by a majority of the State/s and members before being presented to the National Body for implementation, consideration and promulgation.

Whatever the outcome of an issue, the majority would maintain a democratic resolution that should be respected by the Board.

No State would be disadvantaged with the 100 proxy rule.

Fundraising would be the responsibility of the States as would be membership drives at the local level.

The concept gives AOPA back to the Members.

The Motion as submitted to the Secretary and rejected.

'THAT AOPA ADOPT A NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS FOR STATE BASED CHAPTERS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD IN ALL POLICY MATTERS BUT ARE ABLE TO MANAGE LOCAL ISSUES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE'

The motion requires 100 members to support it before the secretary will accept it to be put on the agenda.

This motion needs your support.

The proposer has also thrown his hat in the ring for election to the Board and this also needs your support. he has pledged 12 months of his time to the project irrespective of being elected or not. Being elected would ease the financial burden obviously.

It may be the last chance we members get.

[LeadSled]

Gaunty,

Perhaps you should have a talk to several members of the AOPA Board, or perhaps Andrew Kerans, to determine the facts as to the source of the proposal to reduce the size of the present AOPA Board, after the AGM.

The phone numbers are all in the AOPA magazine.

I have it on quite good authority that NONE of the proposed radical changes came from any long standing member of the Board, but recent arrivals and recently resigned, and it certainly was NOT initiated by the current President.

Or in other words, credit should be as claimed in the “disappeared” section of this thread.

The thot plickans, as “they” say. But who is the plotter, and who is the plottee.

Tootle pip !!

PS: Folks, get behind the Murphie motion now, it need 100 members to put it to the '03 AGM, 100 signatures enforces the rights of members to have a motion presented as a Special Resolution for debate and vote.

Why wait for another year ???

Gaunty,

Once again, on good authority, the only proposal that will appear in the next issue of AOPA, is the proposal to reduce the total size of the AOPA Board, to one that will NOT be big enough to adequately representc all states. That is what I referred to in my previous post.

As I understand it, the present Minimum 8 --- Maximum 12 will be changed, ONLY IF THE MEMBERS approve at the AGM, to Min. 5 ---- Max. 7.

The Board sets the actual establishment from time to time, between the minimum and maximum allowed in the Articles, and for some years the establishment has been 10, so NOTHING has changed for this year's election.

It is somewhat less than obvious to me how "no change" could be some darstedly plot, if anyone on the Board wanted a change, they could have proposed a change. Did they ???? Ask !!

"I am advised" that it was changed from 8 to 10, the last change, some time late in the last century, to improve the chances of smaller states getting representation.

Did anyone propose a change from 10 this year ??? Call a few Board members, and apply a root mean square distribution to arrive at statistically probable answer.

Tootle pip !!

[Doug Stott]

Leadsled .. it would be nice if the present board communicated with the membership somewhat better than they do!

I sent an email to all the present board members and only three have bothered to reply to date and only one addressed the issues that I raised. Maybe this is part of the problem??

One can only hope that the rumour that the board numbers have been changed since the nominations closed is just that.. a rumour.

Like other readers, I await confirmation one way or the other.

cheers

[Creampuff]

Well there goes my dreamteam – Gaunt doesn’t like McKeown. However, that’s based on Gaunt’s understanding of who’s responsible for the push to reduce the number of Board members. Perhaps he may change his mind.

I’ll say it again – 11 on a board of an organisation of this kind is in my view too many. 5 max. It’s all well and good having state ‘chapters’ or some other entrenched representation, but the fundamental problem on that front is that AOPA doesn’t know who it represents!

LeadSled – my post was centrally relevant to the point I was making in comparing and contrasting the lobbying methods and success of AOPA and the AUF.

Yours is a very telling post. It points up exactly why AOPA has alienated itself from its natural (and claimed) constituency. You simply dismiss as irrational the views of people you identify as members of the flying training industry. You think a proposal has merit, therefore their opposition is irrational. Did it ever occur to you that they might not take kindly to paying AOPA to tell them they’re irrational? Did it ever occur to you that if they were ever members of AOPA, AOPA’s job might have been to do what they want it to do? And last but not least, do you ever entertain even the remotest possibility that they might be right, and you wrong?

Woomera – Any more news as to why the previous tranche of posts was moved to admin, and when it might return?

[hermeias]

In responce to Marjorie Pagani's earlier post.
I thought ALL board members & candidates were on "Team AOPA"

[Woomera]

Creampuff

It's coming back, intact, when I can get Admin out of bed and will be merged with this one, I hope. :)

Fascinating thread this.

[Sick Squid]

Admin's out of the sack, and it's all back in black.

Agree folks, fascinating thread, and excellent use of the forum. Good debate.

Sick Squid
PPRuNe Admin

[Woomera]

Thanks mate, cuppa tea and toast on the way.:)

[gaunty]

LeadSled

Now I’m truly confused, I see two scenarios, both, from where I sit way beyond that black stump, from apparently “reliable” sources.

If the scenario I described above is so then I do not resile from any of my comments.

But if as you say it is different, then I will have to reconsider some ideas.

The end result (a Board reduction) does not appear to be in dispute, the responsibility for it is.

I even chide our friend cogwheel for entertaining the notion of a Board number change before the election and AGM, but after the nominations close.

Then I see evidence that suggests that it has “actually” happened.

If I have maligned Mr McKeown in this regard, then he has my unreserved apology.

I will tomorrow (Sun) take up your suggestion and make some further calls.

So how and by whom is still moot then?

Indeed the “thot plickens” and I am dismayed that some feel that it is necessary to “plot” in the first place.
There is arrogance in that as a concept, which does no service to the plotters or the membership.
It promotes the belief that the membership aren’t clever enough out work out who is going to do the best job for them and that they really need “serious help” to make sure that they, the dumb membership, don’t make a silly mistake.

I have much more faith in people than that.

Reduction of the Board numbers AT the AGM is going to be a tricky job as it means two or more “hopefuls” are going to miss out and further concentrate a “power base”.

If this is to be decided by a vote of those present and proxies then that message should be got out with the April AOPA, so that voters may think more carefully on their voting intentions.

We’ll have to see what the Mag brings eh?

I do not disagree in principle on the reduction of Board numbers, as being more efficient, but I am further confused and alarmed by your reference to even lower numbers. I will come back to this subject in a moment

Mr Murphies Motion to embed “State” representation has some real merit and echoes the distant past when there was such a system.
That he has pledged 12 months of his life to promote the legitimate interests of AOPA members, would have to have the support of everyone who has interests of AOPA as their first priority.
My memory is not good enough to recall the details but I’m sure that there is someone around here who can. For reasons I can’t recall, it seems it was abandoned, became superfluous or became a nuisance during the Smith/Munro putsch.

Having said that my gut feeling is that IF the Board is properly elected in a vigorous election, which we appear to now have in spades, then there should be a natural balance of sensibilities amongst mature, responsible individuals, that would ensure the membership and their interests came first and egos dead last.

That Mr Murphies Motion is even mooted is an indictment of the past modus operandi. It is the MO, which must change.

The idea that AOPA needs another body within it to ride “shotgun” on the Board says much of a prevailing feeling, that the Board can not be trusted, is manipulative, has members who act independently of the Board, unilaterally on policy and with scant regard for the membership whom they are elected to represent.
There is some evidence that suggests that this has been so in the past and why the current robust debate and election process plays on.

At the end of the day the Board are legally responsible for the operation of AOPA. Yes, Mr Murphies proposed “outriders” would have the ability to keep em ‘honest’, but we must understand that they also have the ability to completely disrupt the operation, should, and this is more likely than not, factions fight for and gain control of the “outriders”.
Our friend Nicolo Machiavelli would think he’d died and gone to heaven if he was presented with this as an opportunity.
What are the Board, who hold the legal responsibility, to do then? I know what I’d do, pull the handles.

And whilst I agree in “principle” with a reduction in numbers, I fear it would actually have the opposite effect, by concentrating power in smaller numbers, without the “natural protection” that larger numbers bring with a diversity of opinion.

Larger numbers may be harder work in trying to “sell” an agenda or pursue a policy concept, but they are more likely to be tested for efficacy and general agreement in the heat of debate amongst larger numbers than not. The membership deserve that protection

In summary “the status quo” must prevail until after the AGM, the dust has settled, and the new “TEAM “ whoever they may be, as defined by hermeias and I'm sure Marjorie would agree, can get on with the REAL business with Government and Regulator.


Oh and one other little matter on which you may be able to instruct me.

Whilst doing a little research on the Articles, downloaded from the AOPA site, I see Article 38 (b) relating to Committee members who have a full time job blah blah blah, being ineligible for the Presidency, has an exception which specifically exempts Captain W.J.R (Bill) Hamilton from its operation, which I found curious.
Why is this so.?

Creampuff

Do not give up on your dream yet :cool:

the fundamental problem on that front is that AOPA doesn’t know who it represents! = TRUE

And I do hear good things about Mr McKeown which is why my reaction above.

Hmm and regarding the FLOT thingy, one of the largest training organisations in Australia, RACWA, and certainly THE largest in WA are one of the few NOT affiliated with AOPA and haven’t been for some time. They were once. :rolleyes:
Win lose or draw they are on my list, but I suspect that things will have to change dramatically to get them back.
I was given to understand that they were present at FLOT at the “express” invitation of CASA, because of their size and influence, maybe even as guests, I can’t be sure, but to ensure that there was “proper representation” of “that” part of the industry.

I could have sworn that is a role that would normally have been the natural domain of AOPA. :confused:


Now I’m off to make some telephone calls.

[brianh]

1. I have seen it in writing that the acting senior Board member moved for 11 to 9 and I admire Chris for taking such a step as many of us believe the Board is too big therefore more subject to friction and potential regular political paralysis. The writer is, in my opinion and despite my recent crossfire elsewhere with him/her, quite trustworthy.

2. The Murphie motion must not be discounted as just a consequence of the current circus. AOPA has and needs a national membership base and needs to have a democratic and rapid communication flow throughout. A State Chapter arrangement provides this and a social scene outside Bankstown as well. eg My aero club meets two monthly at Moorabbin and I have only missed one meeting in my life despite the drive and inhospitable Moorabbin environment.

3. Creampuff, we are probably juggling semantics. The Ombud is arbitrating in the vendetta, trying to ensure the victim does get both justice and potentially compensation. This last is probably why the men in black are in subterfuge mode.

4. What we are not seeing here are up to date policies from the nominees. Also, a team without Murph lacks a significant cornerstone. Perhaps if the policies are laid out with a scoring square beside each, we can benchmark the Board when this Forum comes alive again next election! Hopefully, in between it can be used, to quote another "to keep the barstewards honest".
Cheers, the dogs are about to drag me into the cold of Emerald Lake Park for a walk!

[LeadSled]

Creamie, M’ old mate,

To clarify, entrenched entities trying to use ( in this case) Safety Regulation (or “Quarantine regulations” to prevent import competition) I can understand . I would suggest that there isn’t an Australia/New Zealand Standard that does not have commercial influences in the final document, however well disguised.

What I never understand, because it is not the way I think or do business, is why anybody would opt for “additional” regulations that objectively have nothing to do with air safety, but everything to do with CASA MANAGING the business of the Australian aviation industry, rather than REGULATING SAFETY as required to achieve the desired air safety outcomes.

And I will never, for the life of me, understand why anybody should opt for a situation where a public servant has commercial control over their business decision making, when they are presented with the opportunity to take that control (which they do not now have) into their own hands.

Given the efficiency of the AUF operation, including it’s schools, versus the tyrannical complexity of the CASA present approach to GA Training Schools and their AOCs, why isn’t it in the interests of aviation as a whole to recognize that the future of light private aviation is the AUF way, and not the dying “traditional” approach to GA.

Part of the AOPA credo is “----- without unnecessary cost and restriction”, would AOPA be doing it’s members a favour supporting “---- unnecessary cost and restriction” when the AUF is showing the way to operate at a much lower level of regulatory intervention.

Aviators are voting with their feet, and there are no credible figures to show the AUF flying operations are any “less safe” than directly comparable operations conducted under the “traditional structure”.

So, just what crime has AOPA been committing, advocating lower costs and easier entry for potential pilots, and easier and cheaper ways for existing pilots to keep flying.

Tootle pip !!

[Creampuff]

Leadie - I'll take that to mean "no", "no" and "no" to my questions. You've made my point for me (again).

[gaunty]

If the scenario I described above is so then I do not resile from any of my comments.

Treachery = violation of faith or trust; betrayal.

Seems like I got it right the first time.

It is no wonder that AOPA smells to high heaven in the places where it counts.

The gauntlet stays down until this fiasco is resolved and the villains brought to account.

Sounds dramatic, you bet your a&se.

Lets see what the magazine brings, but there is yet more to come this week besides and with any luck the Emperors will be found naked, despite their best efforts not to be.

Creampuff

Gaunt doesn’t like McKeown. However, that’s based on Gaunt’s understanding of who’s responsible for the push to reduce the number of Board members. Perhaps he may change his mind.

On present indiications this in becoming an increasingly remote probability standing at the moment around 10 to the -11 power. (Dunno how to do this superscript stuff here)

The whole thing is sounding increasingly like the Monty Pythonesque Press Conferences given by the Iraqi Minister for Information on the progress of the war from his perspective.:uhoh:

The members deserve much much better than this.

Your friend has some strange idea that the Board has the right to choose someone that will work well and be agreeable to the majority of the board.

Funny, I thought that the members chose those whom they wished to represent them, and if there are differences then that is a healthy sign.

The Board elects the President, so if you feel threatened, 15 nominations is threatening, as President, then why wouldn't you reduce the numbers on the Board in the hope that the top 9 elected will contain the majority you need.

sound familiar, by his lights it seems that you can expand and contract the Board to include or exclude those who may or may not support you.

The formidable people skills you so kindly attribute to me do not include, having to stand with my back firmly up against the wall to protect myself against my "colleagues" whilst engaging, engagingly ;) with those whom we seek to inform and persuade to our views.

FIG but not that good. :rolleyes:

--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.

[triadic]

LeadSled old boy !

You remind me of Hamilton, rambling on and on about something which would might make good sense in another forum, but little to do with the subject matter under discussion!!

Piple tootle to you ! ! ;) ;) :

[brianh]

Creampuff and LeadSled
Some good points tween you two and while perhaps not all election related certainly confirms why AOPA cannot lobby over lunch but, rather, needs to use the full membership base to apply pressure to our elected MPs to help aviation foster.

I saw the I think Spanish Nomad equivalent at Avalon - I think it is called the CASA? - undoubtedly coz Spain got on with building it while our Nomad floundered in paper. Talking of that, I read in a February Aviation Paper that GA are thinking of moving Airvan certification to the USA - coz of the problems getting it sorted out in Oz.

I suppose, on the brighter side, you cannot have accidents if nothing is flying coz people are too busy doing paperwork or grounded coz it wasn't done.

Will AOPA ever reach a stage of maturity that will allow it to lobby to regulate the new category of GA in the current NPRM? On current behaviours, not in my lifetime.
Cheers

[cogwheel]

Brianh, you are certainly correct in your last comments, however again as you correctly say it does NOTHING to address the problems at hand.

The obsession that some including Hamilton have in regard to CASA being the "baddy" is one of the reasons that AOPA has not progressed at all over the past few years in regard to sensible and mature discussion with the regulator or the Minister. It is said that poor old Bill looses sleep worrying about CASA… geeeze get a life Bill, it aint really that bad, its just that you think it is and that you are the only person that can fix that. You just have to look at all the babble and boring editorials that he has written over the past years vs the achievements and one can see the problem. Bill is well past his use by date and should retreat whilst he can without any more egg on his and the industries face. . Remember those comments about REX not lasting 6 months? He got it wrong big time and really what business was it of AOPA? He just does not know when to keep his mouth shut! He wont get my vote.

The salvation of AOPA is with a totally new and revitalized Board that can set priorities in the management of the associations day to day affairs and put forward representatives that can regain the much needed respect of not only the bureaucracy but others in the industry itself.

And after the change of available vacancies on the board from 11 to 9 AFTER the nominations closed is a good reason NOT to vote for McKeown either. That is not the way to gain any respect or confidence in his ability control his ego and to stop the rot. He won't get my vote either! (Always easy to start at the bottom and work up! – that’s 2 crossed off before the ballot paper has arrived!)

Certainly there is merit in the Murphy proposal for state Chapters, but I suggest that is unlikely to mature until such time as the organisation as a whole gets back on its feet with respected leadership.

[antechinus]

AOPA is about to get its 4th Treasurer in as many months.

From usually reliable sources it appears that barrister Marjorie Pagani resigned yesterday as Treasuer & Secretary (but remains a board member and candidate).

The resignation was apparently triggered by the dodgy board meeting where it was decided to cut back the number of board positions AFTER the nominations had been received. One can only speculate that the motive was designed to improve Hamilton's chances of having the numbers on the new board to give him an executive position. It seems that acting president Chris McKeon became a little carried away with his chairing duties and stiffled debate to make sure that Hamilton's team got their way.

Additionally, Pagani as Company Secretary has accused McKeown of tampering with the statutory meeting notices she prepared for the AGM without her knowledge. This included directing
that the AOPA (standard) notice to proxy-givers that they were entitled to attend at the meeting, be deleted, because he wanted to "not encourage attendance by those who have put a proxy in".

The acting president also attempted to censor the Treasurer's Report (published in the AOPA Magazine, April edition) as he did with a letter to the editor under my name in the same edition. It would be sad if Chris McKeown wants to take AOPA back to the dark days when every word of the Magazine had to be approved by the president and that dissention from the rank and file was not tollerated.

I would hope that Marjorie will make a post clarifying this and perhaps Mr McKeown may also care to comment.

These are serious allegations and the members deserve better.

Russell

[gaunty]

cogwheel

That'll teach me to ignore my instincts wont it.:rolleyes:

There is another little matter that seems to have been lost in the to and fro.

I understand that there are some who who have nominated who entertain the idea that as they have not lodged a formal resignation, in the event that the vote goes against them, they can reclaim their position.:* :rolleyes:

It would be a pity if they raised that publicly, or even hinted at it as an idea, it would further consign AOPA credibility to the ranks of the joke Third World dictatorships.:(

I exhort you, do not even think about it, you would not believe the amount of ignominy or egg that will be applied to your and as collateral damage, to AOPA and the industries face.

Although I think/hope the world out there would see it for what it was.

antechinus

What a crying shame.

And why for the life of me would you want to discourage people from coming to the AGM for ANY reason.
I thought we were trying to increase participation NOT reduce it.
I guess the more manipulative amongst us feel more comfortable if their are fewer spectators to their antics.

One must recognise that whilst some people assign their proxies to someone they feel can better express their view and has a better grasp of the procedural rules, it doesn't mean that they dont want to participate with their presence.

Any way you read it the "I did it for the sake of AOPA" defence is no longer available to them.

[Lodown]

And some prominent AOPA members accuse CASA of running a dictatorship!

These shananigans justify my feelings that at present, I wouldn't waste the time of day on the organisation, and it seems many past members are in agreement with me.

If a non-member makes a comment about AOPA, they're told to take a flying leap. Great marketing!

And it seems current members are regarded in the same light. Great representation!

In the simplest terms, keep this method of leadership going and when you look around from your seat on the horse to address your troops, there won't be anyone behind you.

[axiom]

I have been informed today of a piece of correspondence between Marjorie Pagani and Bob Murphie which in it's rawest sense can only be construed as an attempt to intimidate him.

I Think it imperative that a few facts be known.

Firstly axiom chooses to remain annonomous simply because he has possibly burnt a few bridges with CASA and does not want the threat of legal action being taken. On this forum, it is possible to air grievances that would otherwise be more restrained.

Bob Murphie, on the other hand is in the process of trying to mend bridges with CASA and in the course of events he sees an opportunity to help AOPA get a measure of strength as a viable and popular opposition to some things CASA would have us put up with.

CASA without opposition (as in a government of the day), is capable of doing things to GA in particular that can only have a negative effect and most of these issues have been aired.

Secondly, It is axioms concerns, now brought forth with murphie being put on legal notice by Ms Pagani that epitomises the very problem with aviation in the GA sector today.

To have to incur legal expense to protect himself from perceived defamations brought about by his soliciting support for a popular motion is tantamount to the very thing that everyone is complaining about. It is after all an election isn't it and he is running in the race.

There are four people that he and I have identified as trying to "whiteant" the project and this has been taken in the text that it is Marjorie. We still believe that there could be 12 more months of "whiteanting".

The text was to some published AOPA representatives and went as follows.

" I have contacted you because you have a published interest in regional affairs of AOPA. This interest is the basis for my proposal (attached) and I ask you to read it and give support.

If you cannot support the idea, can you at least let me know why, because I need all the input I can gather to make the draft a final.

As you probably are aware, I am a nominee also, but win or lose I am prepared to give 12 months of my time to give this a go.

If it works out without too much "whiteanting" it can be promulgated next year. If it doesn't, at least I and my supporters can say we tried.

I only have 4 reps email address at present, and I apologise if I have left the others out. Perhaps you can onforward or advise I will send same to them in due course."

Highly offensive:

Murphie is at the verge of throwing the whole thing in, and, is contemplating the thing through as I write this.

This sort of thing is rot and should not be the subject of any personal legal attack by someone with published legal expertise and leaves a question mark on the natural justice and rights to equal representation.

As far as axiom is concerned, this forum and the thread of an AOPA election authored by the moderator, leaves one in no doubt that any thing posted here is legitimate political comment and a legitimate platform to air and discuss nominees and their promises. As such, axiom rejects any attempt by Ms Pagani to make a public statement of apology to her, and her reference and assertions that axiom is some sort of a coward and speaks as Murphie.

All axiom has asked for was for all the personalities involved to itemise their achievements or promises so we, the members can make an objective judgement as to who's camp we support.

Hamilton has, the others haven't.

Until this is done, axiom will not publically "nail his flag to anyones mast". He can only make judgements on the availability of these testimonials.

This obviously makes him a Hamilton "lackey". Struth!

I fear the damage done to Murphie's attempt at unification is terminal.

Well done. :mad:

[cogwheel]

errr! did I miss something? Where was that posted axiom?


Hamilton has, the others haven't.

[antechinus]

Axiom,

I don't really comprehend what you are on about. Was it that lovely bottle of Shiraz I enjoyed over lunch or do you have a dose of the Hamiltons?....

Russell

[gaunty]

axiom

Top of page 2 is the only profile I can find and it sure ain't Hamilton.

Eeerm I don't suppose we could have a look at yours,:eek: so to speak. :p

It is simply not possible for anybody to a "whiteant" a properly constituted Notice of Motion lodged within the required time before a meeting, without breaking the lcorporations law.

If it does not or cannot catch the "regular" method of communication, in this case say the April AOPA then short of spending around $4,000 to mail each of the members directly then the next AOPA in May may suffice if that is considered to have been published in time.

In any event whether or when it is formally adopted this month or that, given the importance of the concept, which I also believe is supported by Marjorie and many others including myself, perhaps less haste is the order of the day and we should get some basic housekeeping done first.

It would be a pity if Murphies Motion were to become a casualty of the current byzantine politics being played out.

When a motion is adopted as a resolution, I think that's how it goes, is when you really find out who is playing which card to whom.

I would encourage your "mate" to keep going but him getting all "legal" will not help your mates or our AOPAs i.e., cause.

I suspect that there may be an EGM fairly shortly after the AGM which might be a more approriate Forum.

Anyway I look forward to sinking a jar or three with you at the Bridge.:cool:

[axiom]

cogwheel; some people who don't want their "handle" on pprune elect to pm others.

antechinus; Your's is one I would like to see.

gaunty; My profile is not in question. I am a member of AOPA and a voter.

It is possible for someone to "whiteant' a project by stonewalling, negative posting and rumour mongering, threats of legal intimidation, loosing documents, (ask CASA about how to do that), ridicule, using and alleging defamation.

Also, you can fail to assist (especially if you support the project?), in matters that require clear and unambiguous detail as to how to submit same. this is especially true if you profess to have the qualifications to give positive help. This smacks of a lack of duty of care.

Also I believe that ammended information I now have is that the signatures have to be to the board within 21 days of the AGM, but the members have to be notified 14 days prior. In which case the May magazine will be out in plenty of time (if it is distributed without interruption early in the month), thus saving the alleged 4K in postage, (which at the new rate of .50c per stamp = 8000 members, not 4000. Perhaps the printing and envelopes are expensive?

I have been advised that if Murphie pulls the pin on this some others will take the matter up.

Whether Murphie gets elected or not will not stop the project, but you will probably have a fairly cranky board member if he is.

How does this fit in whith the new and rejuvenated AOPA?

Perhaps it's about time some others spoke up, or will we just see the 100 signatures on the day and a heap of disgruntled and disfunctional Board members and Members?

[snarek]

Axiom.

I did move the motion that the Board be reduced in size, a motion to be put to the members at an AGM because 12 is too big. Then the incoming Board could decide how to impliment the change. This is a change that impacts on the incoming Board and not one for the outgoing.

Then the Hamilton/McKeown set pushed it via the BOARD (NOT the members) beforehand, thus attempting (I believe) to reduce their chances of being outed.

I have spoken to ASIC and will be challenging this. It is my view that the action is corrupt, immoral and self serving.

In his defence Mr McKeown has told me the NEXT Board can increase itself in size. This does not remove my concern as it is this Board that appears to me to be 'fiddling the numbers while AOPA burns'

It is my interpretation that the Board, at the next election, will be 12, and that they may then chose the Board size, only the MEMBERS can ammend the articles Mr McKeown!!!!!

So, the way I see it now is DO NOT vote for

Hamilton
McKeown
Murphie (sorry Bob, your apparent association with Hamilton is too much for me to stomach)
Rudd

If you want to see change. It seems to me that this tream is again up to the old sh!t that has wrecked AOPA in the past.

I have (loudly) told Mckeown of my dissapointment with him. Sorry Russell, I should have trusted you!!!

AK

[antechinus]

Am inclined to agree with Snarek.

Voting for Hamilton, McKeown and Rudd will just mean a continuation of the same old ideological nonesense. This triumvirate have blood on their hands and ought be excluded from the board if AOPA is to have any chance of survival.

As for Bob Murphie, I'm not so quick to judge. In fairness I know little about Bob, his credentials or motives. If Bob is simply there to prop up Hamilton's failing regime then I too would not give him my support. Maybe Bob is his own man and capable of addressing issues on their merits and not following what he is told to do by Bill Hamilton. Maybe Bob is a one-trick pony, who knows. I'd like to hear what he has to say about some of the urgent issues facing the board (bet CASA management are enjoying the AOPA turmoil).

What's your position on funding liabilities, Bob?

Gaunty is correct about the EGM. There are enough angry rank and file out there to get the numbers and this certainly beats the Melbourne member push for a class action against the directors.

The current quagmire needs some dedicated expertise to sort out: The financial situation and the dodgy balance sheet, the lack of Directors' Liability Insurance, the two legal actions against AOPA, the breaching of the Directors' Code of Conduct, the leaking of confidential board communications just to name a few.

Then there is the scandal surrounding the current election and the reduction of board postions AFTER nominations had been received. And now with Marjorie Pagani's resignation yet another sucker to take on the treasury has to be found and front the AGM.

Of course until these issues are addressed, AOPA is essentially moribund. While those left on the board are busy trying to put fires out, member representation has come to a halt.

Russell

[pesawat_terbang]

Can someone explain what is going on here.

Can a Committe change the size of the next Committee to suit itself???

Aren't there rules against that???

Axiom, like Russell, I prefer to give Bob Murphie the benefit of the doubt. But, you push his barrow and Hamilton's as well, which seems to indicate Murphie is firmly in the Hamilton camp.

I can't vote for anyone who supports Hamilton. I will only support someone who supports Marjorie Pagani.

Could you ask Murphie to let us know where he stands on that issue.

JJ

[axiom]

Russel;

I would leave Bob alone for a while, last I saw he was fairly despondent. I think he is his own man however and simply wants to get on with the job.

Even with some inside information, I DO AGREE, that there should be a closing of the ranks with the Board on policy matters and a "cone of silence" as Max Smart would say.

Lets see what the election brings. Leaks are not on and I have been as guilty as any in propagating rumours.

I guess a rumour on an anon forum has a negative effect especially in a matter as serious an election as is the forthcoming.

I would image a funding liability would be a matter for the executive to sort out without involving the members. I'll pass this on, but expect that as far as man management practices go, which includes matters arithmatec, there is a simple and ideoligical mantra that we all should recite.

Whatever column we put things "THE MEMBERS COME FIRST".

On matters "Hamilton", and axiom's "forced alegience to his camp", I ask a simple MAN MANAGEMENT question,

How come this person has been allowed to run riot for the last two years when not in presidency?

Who has been in charge of this debacle?

Beer still on chaps?

[snarek]

Axiom

I can't have a beer with you if you aren't talking to me.

Bob Murphie, in my view an OK guy with a cheeky side (I remember the comments at Narromine). But I'd have to agree with the post above and question you or Russell, is he aligned to Hamilton.

I will send him my phone number, perhaps he can enlighten me. If he is as dedicated as you claim then AOPA needs him. If he is a Hamilton Strop, then I can't support him.

How did the guy get away with it for two years.

1. Loyalty. Pike has a lot of that.
2. Give the guy a go. Marjorie never prejudges.

When did it come to a head. When he made a pact with Lyon and Rudd. It all turned to custard then.

reminds me of a movie "One flew over the cuckoos nest"

AK

[axiom]

Pes-bang; after bob's introduction to the harsh realities of politics, I doubt you will get him to support the Pagani camp.

Trouble is, you like a lot of others appear to want to push him into "if you're not with us, you're agin us".

The main impetus of his proposal was to provide a "senate" of sorts to mediate and control these very decisive influences that would have AOPA where it is now. One would hope this would be apolitical and his courage to attempt such a thing should be at least admired.

Surely a geographically diverse and powerful committee should be tried. If it doesn't succeed, it doesn't get promulgated in 12 months time.

I'm sure you don't hold Bob responsible for axioms actions?

And woomera, my spell checker is on the fritz, did you do it ?:p

Bloody heck snarek, I was thinking of you today. Good thoughts only and I missed you. I THINK I am only NOT talking to you every other week and I may have to go of the p!ss to coincide with 24/25 May.

Public disobedience is what we want !

Bring your bail money.

:p

[snarek]

Axiom

I tried to be a Senate. But you either agree with the egos or you get told to "F%$k off".

Nah, we need a new breed.

Public disobedience has its place. But only as one weapon in an arsenal.

Should I call you 'Osama Bin Axiom" ;)

AK

[Bart Ifonly]

Snarek and the small rodent,
I'm still wating to hear what you have done for AOPA other than resign. The rodent couldn't even get the numbers in the righ column.
My hope is that the majority of members will see that you are blind guides.

[snarek]

What makes me think I'm falling into one of those damned if you do damned if you don't traps.

I get the idea no matter what I sat it won't be good enough for Bart, but, from an instant recollection here goes.

1. Part 47. Me, Boyd and Jane Errey killed it while Hamilton supported it.
2. Helped Bart Beech get rid of aircraft radio licence fees.
3. Wrote our (AOPA) submission to GBRMPA to minimise their efforts to stop us flying around Hinchinbrooke Island (Hamilton didn't support me doing this, he wanted to attack, attack, attack. Bit like the Iraqis really).
4. Dared to question Boyd and Dick. I get along with both fine now. No need to attack, attack, attack.
5. Peronally, at my own expense wrote to every federal pollie in the country. Awareness helps!!!
6. Talked to Toller and helped Pike get the extension on flight manuals.
7. Fixed flight manual problems for some members.
8. Manned the AOPA stall at Avalon and the CASA seminar in Canberra.
9. Lobbied pollies (the right way, no attack, attack, attack).
10. Lobbied Toller,( the right way, no attack, attack, attack).

And I'm currently working on an AOPA Type Owners Proficency Course (Grummans actually) to get insurance premuim discounts and increase saftey.

Oh, and I've served on the boards of three aero clubs as well as AOPA.

What about you oh Bart!!! :}

Bugga all I suspect.

[hermeias]

I see no one has responded to my comment re 'team aopa'.
Is that because there is no team ?.
Anyway, who gave Marjorie Pagani the right to associate individuals with one group or another ?.
Are all those listed in the original 'post' included in the Pagani/Kerans 'team' ?.

[cubl]

russell kelly & andrew kerans and others - about the number on the 'board' .......

read the 'constitution', that is 'the articles of association' ..... it is up to the board to decide its size, within set limits.

it has been 10 for some time now, so why should that number be increased.

by the way .... when was a recommendation put to the 'board' to change the number anyway ?

so on what basis does the number of members of the 'board' change, or doesn't this suit your convienence ?

also .... why didn't I 'stand down' ..... beacuse i didn't have to & i chose not to !!!!

john lyon

[snarek]

John Lyon.

Read the articles. Only a dimwit could interpret them to mean this Board can control the size of the next. How do you interpret them???

You can't, and many of us out here in 'member land' won't let you. Remember two things Mr Lyon, singly and severally liable and 'no directors insurance'.

So, before you try to manipulate the outcome of the next election by thinking you can control how many get elected, get some advice!!!! AOPA is not an aero club, it is a vital part of the regulatory process and protection for members. It is my view you are not up to that task.

In my view that attempted manipulation is dishonest, corrupt and probably illegal.

What will suit me is if the members decide how many should be on the Board by way of the articles. It isn't up to you to try and dictate it. If that can't change (because you, the Board, (well McKeown, Hamilton and Lyon anyway) told Richard Rudd not to support the motion because I put it), it is up to the next Board to decide how big it is, it certainly isn't up to you.

As for you showing some honour and standing, I never expected it. You stood before in a contested election and were soundly defeated. If you stood now you would be defeated again, I am sure of that. It is my view that you add no value whatsoever to AOPA and should stand aside. It is also my view that you are only in AOPA to further your own interests.
If the new Board deides to change its numbers I fully expect that you, as the only 'unelected' member, will be the first to go.

And, in my view, not too soon either!!!

Hermias. In answer to your 'sponsored' question.

Yes it is a team. Yes we all gave Pagani permission to call it a team, and yes we will all work together for the members, just for a change.

AK

[cogwheel]

Whilst it is good to see Lyons out of the bunker, it is now obvious that he has little or perhaps no idea of what it is all about.

Do tell us John what you have done whilst on the Board and why it is below you to put yourself before the members (like the others that "didn't have to"), even if you don't have to. And who will you be supporting or not supporting?


:* :*

[antechinus]

G'day John

Nice to see you out of your bunker.

I don't believe that anyone is disputing whether the board can decide on the number of directors, merely that the board only
decided to reduce the number AFTER nominations had closed.

Not very transparent and some folks of the suspicious kind might wonder if the board had something else in mind.

I note your reluctance to put yourself before the membership but as I also understand it, you have not actually been voted in, you are there because the number of vacancies equalled the number of nominations. All the more reason to let the members decide. But you are correct, the Constitution did not require you to spill.

Russell

Snarek,

You seem to be going for Mr Lyon's jugular.

The reason why John didn't spill is clear: It is one guaranteed vote for Bill Hamilton in the new executive.

Russell

[ulm]

A random word just flashed across my mind.

gutless

I have no idea why. :}

[Dogimed]

I only hope that most members don't read Pprune. (No offence Woomera). The calibre of postings from all Directors leaves a lot to be desired. Not only are the postings immature, and becomming a little boring. (I got dizzy going round and round so many times), but they serve no purpose bar to get a gripe of ones chest. Surely the Directors need to put up a list of achievements, but also a list of goals that need to be addressed. (Leaving room for issues that arise as time goes on.) Task directors with jobs and make sure they do it.
Perhaps a list of members wants, then poll it, then act on it. Sure it takes a little longer, (possibly a week if a pattern is formed), but members know they are being heard, and also actioned on. Directors need the lead tightened and have the stick thrown in the right direction, not allowed to piss over each others territory, smell their as$es and bark at shadows.

Dog.

(No pun intended)

[LeadSled]

Folks,

To clear the air a little, now that it is becoming clear, there are two issues being mixed up by Andrew, so let’s un-mix them.

Firstly, it would seem that Andrew/Marjorie ( they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out) have proposed a number of items of special business for the AGM. These proposals include an item to amend the articles, which currently authorises a minimum of eight (8) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members on the Board.

It is proposed, as far as I can determine, that the new numbers be five (5) and seven (7). The members will decide this, nobody else, certainly not the Board. Note who has proposed this change, get the facts straight. Gaunty, please note !!

It will be up to the incoming Board to decide, for some future election, say 2004, what the numbers will be on the Board, and hence the numbers up for grabs, regardless of whether the proposal for amending the Articles gets up. All the amendment to the Articles will do is determine the minimum and the maximum, within which the Board will set the actual number.

Secondly, the vacancies this year. For some years, the establishment has been 10, look at last years elections, and the numbers. And the year before etc. There is no change for this election. The number on the Board will be 10, and there are 9 vacancies.

So, it seems that we have all these allegations of conspiracy by somebody to change the numbers on the Board from 10, very cunningly to 10, and after the nominations closed, yet!! My goodness me, the perfidy, the scheming, when will such underhand tactics ever end.

And finally, this Hamilton bloke must be a great puppet master, seeing that the day to day business, finances etc of AOPA have been run by the (recently resigned) President and (recently resigned) Treasurer(s) for the last two years, the normal state of affairs in the management/administration of AOPA.

While Hamilton got on with the business of being Technical Director.

So who is really directly responsible for the present administrative/financial situation ???

Tootle pip !!

PS And a third issue. If you are an AOPA member reading this, get behind Bob Murphie, it's his blood, sweat and tears that he is volunteering to try and get State Chapters off the ground. Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????

PS1 Dogwhatever, ---- If only !!

[triadic]

Of course the round of ack-ack that he just got may well seal him back in the bunker. Is he really a Hamilton supporter?

I look forward to some positive comment on what he has accomplished whilst on the board.

dog - it is going round in circles because there is no leader of the pack I think you could give them a list of things to do and they could not even agree how to start, let alone achieve anything. If they had, it would be done by now! A good reason for some new faces.

[paddopat]

Bill Hamilton just getting on with the job. What job???

Please correct me if my memory serves me badly, but....

Upsetting the Minister and thus castrating AOPA?????

Attacking the people in the CASA organisation rather than the poor state of governance???

Making comments about REX???

Writing huge illegible 'reports' quoting his own view and then sending them to all and sundry as if they are fact.

Making nasty comments about Ministerial Advisors because they didn't adopt his point of view.

Supporting Ferrier's (lawyer friendly?) push for compulsory insurance.

Causing, it seems, the resignation of just about everyone else on the Board except his own pet supporters.

As a puppet master, it is lucky Hamilton's puppets only need one string each!!!! (and still we get a tangle).

If I recall Merimbula correctly, he even fell out with his old
ally Boyd Munro.

Pat

[cogwheel]

leadsled: Is dear old Bill standing behind you telling you what to say??

He has knocked down more walls then he has built and I believe he has been involved or presided over the worst period in the Associations history. Look at the membership levels and financial situation.

He is a one man band that AOPA cannot afford that no board has been able to control to date. Why would it change now?

And you want to support him to stay there and continue the destruction.

Lets have some reasons, if you think he is that jolly good !

[gaunty]

LeadSled

Firstly, it would seem that Andrew/Marjorie (they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out) have proposed a number of items of special business for the AGM. These proposals include an item to amend the articles, which currently authorises a minimum of eight (8) members and a maximum of twelve (12) members on the Board.

Very clever.

You say, they both have proposed a number of items, OK, cant argue with that, as a statement that is likely to be = TRUE.

We know now that there were several items proposed and that one of them was the reduction in Board Members, the principle of which I support and there seems to be little disagreement generally.
It is the manner of its implementation, which is controversial.

But which items were proposed by whom?

Perhaps, before the nominations were called, an agreement was reached that there would be a "full" Board of 12 elected followed by a reduction at some time in the future. The incumbent Secretary would have held responsibility for this to be implemented as part of their duties

Certainly, when I was considering nomination and made enquiries in this regard I was told that this was so and I had and still have no reservations about the propriety and truth of that advice which was supported from other sources as well.

Perhaps I need to get my hearing checked mrs gaunty has been complaining about it lately. :p

Perhaps this "agreement” was changed when the number and quality of the nominations of the candidates was revealed and as I have suggested elsewhere in this thread that the ground needed to be shifted, even unto 10.

If so, why?

I don’t see it amended in the Articles anywhere beyond, that it can be between 8 and 12, but is really 10.

It is clear to me that Article 33 (a) needs some serious amendment.

Might I suggest that until the articles are changed then the outgoing Board should and could NOT unilaterally DECIDE that the next election will only provide for "X" number of seats, other than the maximum provided for in the Articles. Neither More nor Less.

Might I suggest that neither should the outgoing Board have ANY jurisdiction in that matter whatsoever in regard to the number of seats in an election, lest they leave themselves open to accusations of manipulation.

“Hey we're tight lets just sit”, OR, “hey we need to dilute something here lets expand”.

As at the date of the AGM they cease to be so and the NEW Board duly elected can then do what it likes.

What as you imply about the 10 might have been by "tradition", may have "legal" effect whilst the articles are written as they are, but they do not have the ethical or moral base that is required of this form of Association.

I have not had the time to properly follow it up, but the form of incorporation of AOPA does seem incongruent with its purpose and membership as an Association.

I understand that this is already being investigated and may be the correct vehicle for the Murphy Motion, with the principle of which I and others also agree.

If I understand the difference correctly then trying to run an "Association" along "Company" lines will and has inevitably brought us to this point. But that is for another day.

I do believe however that the current form of incorporation will make it more difficult than it seems.

But I digress;

Did they BOTH propose the reduction of the Board numbers, if so then why the ruction, if NOT then WHO did.

Your statement above is a little disingenuous in that it implies that they BOTH did.

(they seem to be both claiming proprietorship, to the exclusion of the other, so you work it out)

Now a simple soul like me is having a little trouble working out why I should support Mr McKeown as President when he needs a fourth party, maybe or maybe not, via a third party;
To clear the air a little, now that it is becoming clear, there are two issues being mixed up by Andrew, so let’s un-mix them.

If he becomes so easily confused and “mixed up”, about matters of this importance, then he should for our sakes reconsider his position and candidature, if not, then there is indeed mischief in the making.
Unless there is some safe ground in the middle there somewhere, then you can’t have it both ways. I’m not used to working in quicksand and refuse to do so.

We do not have an AOPA forum in which to discuss these issues, directly, PPRuNe has made this forum available to the members for this purpose, Mr Mc Keown like Ms Pagani, has the same access, to personally "clear the air" should his or her actions be misinterpreted.

He should use it, I for one am very keen to be fully informed directly.

Oh and I couldn’t fit it in the 250 word profile but any one who wants to call me can do so on ;

Mobile 0417958312. If I’m busy leave a message and I promise to return your call.

And whilst I am at it.

If you are an AOPA member reading this, get behind Bob Murphie, it's his blood, sweat and tears that he is volunteering to try and get State Chapters off the ground. Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????

Very clever again.

You should indeed get behind Murphie, as you should get behind anyone who volunteers to support your interests in this way.

But you should also be very careful of the rhetoric and throwaway lines such as those "embedded" in the above.

Bob's proposals were never even presented to the Board for their consideration, but Andrew's were ????

Sounds like a conspiracy against Bob by someone in the inner sanctum hey?

Again more than a little disingenuous;

I understand and I am sure it can be confirmed, the simple fact is, that Bobs proposals and Notice of Motion did not meet the requirements of the Companies Code, under which AOPA is administered and which provide the backbone of equality and equity for ALL the members EQUALLY, for it to be accepted in time for the last meeting.

Neither I, nor you, nor any of the other members who want private members' resolutions put up at a meeting, are beyond the law.

The Secretary cannot change Commonwealth Legislation nor break the law for your or my benefit, notwithstanding that the Secretary may totally agree with and support your motion.

Look at it this way, if a motion got up "illegally" as a resolution, with which you disagreed strongly, then it would be a relatively simple matter to have it disposed of, but it would be a superb waste of everyone’s time, no sense in that, for anyone. Agreed!

Worse, the motion may have had some REAL merit within it SOMEWHERE but needed discussion and with revision may turn out to be very useful, but it and its supporters will forever be tainted by the illegal process. No sense in that either.

Murphies Motion can and is still being pursued and will I am sure be presented in legal form at the appropriate time

Unless this process is administered without fear or favour, then LeadSleds innuendo that there is some favouritism or conspiracy will become fact.

There are rules of procedure set up to protect EVERYONE and if they are not used scrupulously and impartially then why bother.

Murphie seems to be of the opinion that he is for some reason being obstructed in his earnest endeavours for AOPA.

Axiom can assure Bob that this can not be so, maybe it has been the way in the past and I don't mean the recent past, but it is certainly not going to be the way of the future if I have anything to do with it.

Bob can also console himself with the thought that whilst he may not have got the "process" right in the first place, few do including me, the first time round, he has enjoyed the benefits of the old campaign maxim that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. At the very least everyone here, now knows about Bob.

axiom

Old chap, I wasn't asking for your profile, I can get that off PPRuNe, it was your mate Murphies, I was after, he wants us to follow him into the Valley of the shadow of ….. blah blah blah but he’s being a bit coy about his background.

C’mon then, lets see it:) :D

[Maxima]

They don't get it, do they? - these directors (dictators) who dictate that the next board shall be ten.
The articles say there shall be twelve.
The articles allow a lessor number if the board agrees, but that provision was obviously made for a board to be able to control itself, not future boards.
The articles of association can only be changed by the members, not the board. The present board can change the number of directors in the present board, but can not interfere with future boards.
Why do they think that articles of association exist?

Hamilton states "For some years, the establishment has been 10, look at last years elections, and the numbers. And the year before etc. There is no change for this election. The number on the Board will be 10, and there are 9 vacancies."
So what? That does not set a precedent. There have been 10 only because there were only 10 nominees. If he wanted the board to remain at 10, why didn't he get the articles changed to 10. He didn't have a problem getting the articles changed for his self-serving purpose of allowing himself to be President. Why was that neccesary? Pike didn't have to have "special approval," although employed in identical circumstances.

No doubt the board should be reduced in size, but by the resolution of the members, not the board.
Of course the members need to be more involved - this is what the resolutions at the AGM are all about. That is where the resolution to reduce the board must be made, not by the board itself, nor by the dictatorial interim and unelected president.
I thought a lawyer would have understood this.

This current board can elect to operate with less than twelve, and as few as seven, which they are down to now. They will collapse with the next resignation unless they can find someone to jump in to fill the void. (Murphie, this may be your 10 minutes of fame - 10 minutes because others may jump out if you jump in.)

LeadSled says "It will be up to the incoming Board to decide, for some future election, say 2004, what the numbers will be on the Board, and hence the numbers up for grabs, regardless of whether the proposal for amending the Articles gets up."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It will be up to the members.

Murphie wants to see the power go back to the members, but he is aligned with those who doing their best to have all control in the President's hands.

Murphie wants people in each state representing AOPA. This process has already been commenced, with the introduction of 'Area Representatives'. Murphie could make himself useful by becoming a Rep and encouraging others to do likewise. I believe Ron Lawford had already been tasked with investigating the benefits of using State bodies, but am not sure whether he has finished that yet. Ron was an Area Rep himself before being appointed to the board. Area Reps were an excellent idea and should be promoted. By the way, whose idea was it?

[gaunty]

Maxima

Hey that was my line, but much more eloquently put.:D :cool:

[Maxima]

Yeah Gaunty,
If I had read your post before I pressed the "Submit" button, I could have saved all that writing.

Glad to see we are thinking the same way. Surely we couldn't both be wrong, so they must!:=

[antechinus]

Congratulations Gaunty & Maxima, an excellent analysis of the "argument" being peddled by Mr L Sled and his Hamilton supporters.

Russell

[axiom]

Gaunty;

I believe Murphie's profile will be out in the AOPA magazine so no need to post here. I am sure he will OK woomera to print it with the others that none of us have seen yet.

Maxima;

Murphie emailed 4 of the area reps seeking input to his proposal and the correspondence was subsequently directed to the Secretary who promptly put him on notice of legal action for some sort of gross indecency.

I believe the offending email to the reps has been reprinted a day or two ago.

Ron Lawford who was canvassed replied to Murphie on March 25th saying " Bob, The idea seems to have merit. it could go to the Board for consideration. There does seem to be a problem with putting it to the AGM directly". Further, he (Ron), emailed the Secretary saying, "I think this could be flagged to the AGM as a proposal the Board will consider over the next 12 months".

Now Hamilton is openly supporting the concept, it is a lousy idea.

Bugga it all, if you blokes can't see any merit in the idea, tell Murphie and let him ammend, alter, reincarnate or dispense with the whole idea. He has been actively canvassing input for over a month now on various forums and only because someone you don't like supports him, lets sink the project.

Some of you blokes make me sick !

:yuk: :yuk:

[snarek]

Ax me old dropshort mate.

It is a good idea. It will remain a good idea, even if Hamilton supports it. But my guess is that if Hamilton gets back on the Board it will rot away as an unused idea. You see it will water down his power base. I bet he won't support it after the fact.

I will support it.

You associating the idea amd the man (Murphie) with Hamilton has done Murphie no good in my eyes. There are many of us that know AOPA needs a change, and perhaps Murphie can provide some of it (I won't have a bar of one-man-bands anymore, so I hope he aint that). How about you drop Hamilton and give Murphie a fighting chance.

As for Leadsleds conspiracy theories. I put a number of motions up. They were mucked around with by the Board and essentially rejected (or so I believe). So Marjorie put them up as a Board member (I think).

Leadsled needs to have a careful look at reality before writing such waffle.

I am particlularly interested in knowing where my motion to dissmiss Lyon and Hamilton went. I will be requesting copies of the minutes as soon as I get time.

AK

[brianh]

The debate is hotting up; hopefully this will enable the AGM to be constructive and a demonstration to the members that the ship is in good hands.

There has been much character assassination but as an "independent" member I have still to make my decisions but I do agree with the hope that the bulk of members do not take this Forum content as indicative of the caliber of the Board.

Surely you jest that M has threatened someone else with defamation. We never did get an explanation of the precise alleged defamatory content of the previous case from far to my West. I thought this was to be a Board that didn't threaten a gunfight at the OK Corral at the drop of a hat?

As an AOPA member I have several desires (not in priority order):
1. Prudent financial management including accruing for future debts for long-term memberships.
2. Support for GA in Oz (more on this below), even where non-members are involved but the matter is sufficiently important.
3. Support for members - I won't elaborate on this, the current Board knows my opinion of allowing ATSB to censor the AOPA Forum. And yes folks, they did!
4. State Chapters - and even if it does not get up now due to the legal constraints there is nothing to stop an infrastructure being put in place as a trial and ready for an official launch.
5. A monthly or two-monthly magazine.

Doggie - yours is the most positive posting for yonks (Woomera you are always positive so don't feel left out) and that's why I have noted as above and also previously suggested the need for a member survey. Well said.

Coggie - I spent 25 years negotiating high level stuff. You and I are going to remain divorced in our views on the relationship with CASA - and don't forget the ATSB with the TSI Bill either. When the AOPA 16 inch guns across the horizon regime ended I felt good. On reflection, I think there is a need for a mix of diplomacy
and combat. Yesterday I was looking through a current file (not mine) with absolute disgust at the CASA deliberate misinformation and obfuscation to the Ombudsman. As an example "CASA is required to be advised when X changes, Mr Z did not advise CASA". Very true as Mr Z was not the delegate (ie the Certificate holder). But to the Ombudsman the obvious interpretation is that Mr Z is at fault. The file is full of this sort of subterfuge. Until CASA is prepared to be accountable for its errors, instead of taking a papal approach and using any means possible to be seen as infallible even when wrong, there is a place for the approach for which Bill Hamilton is being criticised. This does not mean I am in his camp but I certainly understand the frustrations that he must face in his dealings and i value someone with the intestinal fortitude to walk a hard mile instead of a pleasant lunch.

Likewise the AFM debacle. Mine is a non-AFM aircraft. I raised with CASA and ATSB the stupidity of throwing out the old FM - for which I would have been fined for 20 years if not in the aircraft - as if the CASA rules are followed to the letter of the law the W&B etc are turfed. No bloody way would they change the policy and suggest that non-AFM aircraft retain the old FMs etc. ATSB advised that they cannot act against CASA policy. So, after some poor dumbo kills himself outside the envelope I suppose at least CASA and ATSB will have something to investigate. Oh surprise, pilot arror yet again.

Until the Regulators are prepared to act sensibly and ethically, I cannot condone a complete soft relationship. I do love my Gordon Setters trust in rolling over on his back and exposing his vulnerable tummy to attack - but he knows I'm fully trustworthy.

OK, long winded but I want the Board to understand that the members feel passionate about various things and that's where the focus needs to be.
Cheers

[snarek]

Our little mate from WA getting served with a writ.

What delicious irony :}

Ask Gaunty why/(who) RACWA won't affiliate with AOPA.

Lot of fence meding to be done there!!!

Hey Axiom. How about a modification to the Murphy idea. Make the Board in each state up of members of all the 'other' organisations (Like RACWA, GFA, AUF etc etc) plus some generally elected state members, and then have them vote in their federal AOPA Board member.

From the perspective of the NT (where I come from) and the ACT (where I live now), do they get a rep each??? (or does bl@@dy Tasmania get over-represented in AOPA too!!!) I say they do, so that makes 7 states and 2 Territories. 9 person Board.

BUT...what about the North??? Those in Townsville don't want a Brisbane rep (mighjt as well have one from Hobart). Hmmm

Ex-offico positions perhaps. Like 'Technical Advisor' rather than a technical director. So, one elected Director and one elected 'Advisor' from each state??? How about ex-officio advisors from sectors?? GFA, PFA, AUF etc......???

Just having brain-farts, nothing firm. :D

AK

[Maxima]

Axiom;

Murphie emailed 4 of the area reps seeking input to his proposal and the correspondence was subsequently directed to the Secretary who promptly put him on notice of legal action for some sort of gross indecency.

What was the indecent act you did to generate such a response.

Now Hamilton is openly supporting the concept, it is a lousy idea.

I am not suggesting that this is a lousy idea, but I am making the point that there are already some moves underway to increase the involvement of the membership through the use of Reps for a start. Ron has supported the idea by saying "I think this could be flagged to the AGM as a proposal the Board will consider over the next 12 months".

I apologise for making you sick. I did not mean to.
It is not the ideas that are the problem here - it is the method of implementation.
The rules have to be followed: if you don't like them, change them. In the interim, follow them - as you are required to.


brianh - your turn,

Surely you jest that M has threatened someone else with defamation. We never did get an explanation of the precise alleged defamatory content of the previous case from far to my West. I thought this was to be a Board that didn't threaten a gunfight at the OK Corral at the drop of a hat?

Knowing Marjorie, I can tell you that she does not go around 'threatening defamation, - that is not her style. She is a qualified negotiator and spend most of her day day doing just that. She wouldn't want a gunfight at the drop of a hat and in fact, she has spent most of her time diffusing the squabbles amongst the board members. This has gained her considerable respect from most Board members, and has led to the considerable support that she has. However, she does stand her ground. This has caused discomfort to some. In short, the truth hurt.
Yes, she was defamed, and sought a retraction, which she immediately got, as you know. And then was again attacked by the same person, so she was left no option but to commence proceedings, just as you would if you were attacked in the same way, if you had any guts. She does.

[axiom]

Snarek;

Errrr / dunno?

The crux of Murphie's idea is that he (and I concur), stay apolitical and divorced from factional fights etc.

I am pleased to see your achievements and promises put forth. I am yet to see the profiles in the April magazine which should put the candidates to public exhibition and examination.

As such, I am sure if you would like to see a State based representational committee set up to "keep the ba$tards honest", you would respect Bob's neutrality. Remember he and you may have to work with each other and I am sure he would not prostitute his ideals over a personal dilemma.

If you believe in the concept, help get the proxies and nobody on the Board will be able to take control of the committee which should be an amalgum of all States and Territory (perhaps ACT?), and equal roughly 3 per State geographically dispersed.

Maxima;

read about page 5 or 6 of this thread for the offending email, I would prefer not to go there again and the matter is best left alone for the sake of sensible electoral input.

Woomera;

Bob advises that you may print his profile, if you are doing the other candidates,once the magazine is circulated and he has read it.

Good evening all.:hmm:

[brianh]

Maxi

I guess I come from an environment where we accepted the cut and thrust of debate and comment within limits that were set just a tad harder than egg shells.

If Murph says he is "whiteanted' and someone wants to rush in and seize the cap then claim defamation I personally do not find that the skill of a seasoned negotiator. On reflection, I don't think that's defamatory thinking on my part but I'd better rescind it now or I'm next aren't I? I could even claim to have whiteanted him as I haven't sent the promised proxy back yet - right Murph, now I'm defamed by you too - look out. Is AOPA to become the new Slater and Gordon - wonder if I hurt my back during that hard landing and whom I can sue?

Perhaps I can add to my earlier wish list " A Board comprised of members with thick enuf skins to understand that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and capable of the sort of statesmanship John has shown over the current involvement in Iraq, rather than trying to gun down anyone who dissents".

We, the electors, (royal plural) laugh at the posturings and inanities of our elected MPs as they, so to speak "roam while their fiddle burns'. If those desirous of being our elected AOPA Board keep diverting to crossfires with dissenters we return to the very same position that everyone is whingeing about with the current Board.

And I'm not even going to name a previous re-standing Board member who recently sent me a snakey dirty livered unnecessary email, undoubtedly after a third scotch, trying to justify his/her position weks after the event. Scratch one from the list as far as I'm concerned. That sort of vindictive approach is totally unproductive.

It will be a shame if the informed AOPA members have to vote on an exclusion basis rather than a field of mature capable candidates.

Anyway, the more character assassination we can resolve on this Forum the more chance of a successful AGM and year to follow.
Vive la debate!

[snarek]

axiom

I will be doing an e-mail out later in the week. I will get proxies and discuss with Murphie prior to the meeting.

I now have advice that the move of the Board is illegal. Will table it at the next Board meeting. Now that McKeown has changed the numbers and the statement (without it seems the permission of the author) it creates the problem of tellin the members.

Apparrently Kennedy, Lawford and some other 'innocents' voted for the motion. They now, knowing its illegality and immorality, may wish to reconsider. I think they were lead down the garden path by someone. Anyhow, they will get the opportunity.

Either way, those who continue to try and support this rort must be held accountable by the members. Interesting they wouldn't let my motion to put it to a vote of the MEMBERS through, but then did it to, in my view, attempt to keep control.

B@stards!!!!

Maxima, gotta agree about Marjorie. An excellent negotiator and listener, but with balls!!!! :}

Brian. Sorry, the bloke deserved it!!!! I used to get about a threat a week from him. That's what is so delicious about it.


Andrew

[Maxima]

Axiom;
Murphie is naive to think he could "stay apolitical and divorced from factional fights etc."
Everyone starts off believing that they can leave that part aside, but the difficulty will be remaining neutral while "keeping the ba$tards honest," because what is he going to do when he finds out some are not being honest or ethical? How will Murphie handle that? Will he not "prostitute himself" and be a YES man, or will he take a stand and demand truth and accountability?

Snarek;
You have hit the nail on the head.

[monkeyfly]

Ladies, Gentlemen.

The problem remains, who do I vote for????.

I have two simple questions for the people up for election and that are using this post.

In your view, what are my concerns?

What are you going to do about resolving my concerns?

Cut out the crap!

At this time I am only discovering people I DON’T want to vote for.

[Maxima]

Monkey;

Vote for Gaunty - he's a good bloke.
Vote for Kerans - he thinks he's a good bloke ( but axiom is not sure about that)
Murphie is gunna be a good bloke!
In fact they are all good blokes, but some can do more good for AOPA (and you) than others.

1. Only you know what your concerns are.
2. You can resolve your own concerns, based on the information available and soon to be released. Watch this space.

brianh has posted a good wishlist - most nominees seem to support those ideals. Some nominees have even more ideas to bring to AOPA.

The mag should be out soon; it will have the profiles in it - there is a start. This forum will have the profiles on it soon, and those may contain the info you are after.

The ballot papers have not been sent out yet, so no hurry.

Hey, why don't you be a Rep?

[cogwheel]

Much easier to pick four that you don't want to vote for than eleven that you do..

.:D :D

[Maxima]

Hey Cog,
How dare you.
The dictator supremo has said "There shalt not be 11"

[Dogimed]

looks like half the aopa members that post here are as dribbly as their director co-horts.

Bar one..BrianH, there isn't much of what the members want, just whose pants they want to see down.

I want discounts for my flying dollar.
I want scholarships
I want AOPA to be the public face of GA.
I want to see AOPA have airshows.
I want AOPA in government
I want mature directors
I want committed directors
I want someone to interpret what the hell CASA is trying to do to me, and then I want AOPA to fight or push on my behalf.

But I also thank all who have been directors past, no matter who you are. It must be a crap job and a thankless one at that. You all have done a job where no part timer should. You have all expended great personal and professional costs (bar a few, but they still tried) to see that we can fly in some sort of chaos.

Thank you.

I will consider the candidates and vote accordingly. I will not vote for someone just because another director wants them by their side. Thats for both teams!

Dog.

:p :p

[gaunty]

monkeyfly

For my part.

Going back to the beginning.

The reason for my many years absence as a financial member was the result of what I then believed to be and still do, what I can only describe as the 'hijacking' of the organisation by some high profile individuals in order to pursue "their" views on reform and perhaps, their own personal agenda.
It was perfectly kosher and legally executed.

They would argue that this action was necessary to "save" us from the "enemy", the dreaded "Regulator" monster and prevent AOPA being consigned to an irrelevancy in this process.

It would be difficult to argue that at the time there were and as a result, still many unresolved Regulatory "difficulties" in policy and execution.

It is, however, equally difficult to argue that AOPA was totally incapable of responding properly and effectively without this high powered "help".

AOPA was then a strong, vibrant, well financed and resourced asset of the members. The Executive General Manager was skilled in the daily contact with Govt and Regulator and in conducting the necessary research and administration required by the Board on issues important to the members.

The financial membership numbers might have been steady at around 8,500 or so, but perhaps not paying as much as they should, but that is not unusual for any Association.
But it was alive and well and worked, notwithstanding some people’s ideas to the contrary.

We are now faced with the possibility that AOPA will indeed become an irrelevancy unless something is done about it as a result of that "little" adventure. There has been some good work done in the meantime by their successors but the financial membership that then existed does not now. Maybe 4,500.

AOPA no longer owns its own premises, has lost or been unable to keep quality Executive General Managers, the research resources previously available to the Board are no longer so and in the most part must be conducted by the individual Board members in their own unpaid time, in addition to the time that they voluntarily give up to the Board function.

And there is anecdotal evidence that the very people whom we must have on side aren't and to whom we need access are not as easily available as they should be.
As has been described elsewhere on this thread there has been too much shouting and table thumping on all sides.

I do not know the reason for shifting the "Office", I believe that we owned, from Canberra to Sydney, but it seems to me that a lobby organisation needs to be where the lobbying needs to be done. Where did the money go! I am not for one moment suggesting any impropriety, but "selling the farm" to feed the stock, isn't IMHO a smart economic move, unless you are not particularly interested in the long term.

All of that, is what caught my attention. Perhaps I should have stayed.:(

I had been very critical on PPRuNe of the state of AOPA, the way they were doing business and the ever continuing loss of membership.

Kerans told me quite bluntly, you can't change or add anything if you are not a member.

And he was right, I was compelled to rejoin

I had a long talk with Bill Pike and Marjorie Pagani when they were over here for the last meeting about my feelings.

I was asked then why didn't I nominate, as if I had nothing better to do with my time already, in my very busy business.

Bill Pike fixed me with his eyes and said "none of us have, but we make the time.”

Can’t argue with that, so I put my mouth where my money is.

It is a fact that we are now in the throes of a rewrite of the rewritten Regs, to replace those original Regs that they threw away, without an examination of why they were so in the first place and there is still no end in sight. :p

I have to say though that there is some evidence that CASA are now in a listening mode that they were not in before.

I have a background in this business that goes back to almost the very beginning, nearly as long as Bill Hamilton, but then he's older than me.:D

I have a unique understanding of the why and the wherefore of this journey the industry has made from the time of the introduction of the modern aircraft, around 1967, to replace the venerable Austers, Chipmunks. Miles Gemini and so on by C150/172 on to the modern turboprops and jets.
At every step of the way, new tricks, new regs, reworked regs, operational and maintenance "wars" had to be fought, to bring the Regulator and Government along with the new technology.
The Government Two Airline policy was driving the administration of the Regulator. But somehow with determination, mutual respect and goodwill we all got there.

Reform was definitely necessary, no question. But it needed to recognise the effects of the past and that there was a change in attitude and thinking required by ALL participants. It needed to be done carefully, thoughtfully whilst bringing everyone along at the same pace.
The ground was not new and didn’t need the crash through or crash mentality.

For a golden moment in time that looked possible, but was sadly lost.

Through all of this I was able to conduct a successful career in General Aviation. See my profile on page 2 I think, on which I am happy to expand.

Why should you vote for me?

We need to press the reset button as far as the Board is concerned and settle once and for all the divisiveness that for one reason or another has set in.
I will be a new face.
I have strong management, people and negotiating skills that I derive a very excellent living from and with good will and participation from all sides can usually find a way through the inevitable “controversial” issues that crop up.
Until and unless this is achieved, it will be difficult to make any progress.
I have much faith, given my discussions to date, that this WILL be achieved to the satisfaction of all and the benefit of the membership.

To have strong representation, we must have a strong and representative membership.
It is an urgent priority to rebuild that in a way that fairly represents the enormous diversity of environment and the specific State and Territory issues.
There is a Motion by Murphie that will provide the means for discussion of this perhaps in a more formal manner, that I would support.
There are a number of large and influential, currently non-affiliated organisations, that need to be brought back into the fold, I believe that in time I am able to do so.

We need to first identify whether our policies and actions to date, are, or have been what our membership actually wants us to be and to do.
The answer is not as obvious as our credo suggests.

We need, as a Board to reconnect with you and NOT, as in the past, just tell you what is "good" for you.
This will be a personal priority and will be achieved by constructive two way communication through your State or Territory representation, working together with you, for our common aims. The Murphie Motion is a constructive platform from which to work and will be given my earnest consideration.

We need to keep you fully informed of the results of our collective research, the likely directions they reveal and how you want us to deal with it.

We need to restore the mutual respect and communication with our opposite numbers at ALL levels in the Government and Regulator, but NOT as supplicants.

It may not be all sweetness and light at first, but there is no reason it cannot be for the future, if we have quiet reason, the rationale and the membership support. In the final analysis, it is the alignment of what is realistically possible with the desired outcome in any scenario, that wins the day.

We need to keep in our view at ALL times, that it is the Membership we serve, NOT our personal interests or prejudices and in the words of that great song, know when to hold em and when to fold em, in our negotiations on your behalf.

And whilst it sounds trite, I mean it sincerely, when I say to you, that I WILL work together with whatever team and whoever the members decide they wish to represent them, without fear or favour and to use all of the skills at my command to promote effective and constructive work on your behalf.

[brianh]

Oh joy, some positives are coming thru at last.

Dog, top stuff. We need a few more to post their wish list.

Gaunty, I'm impressed and probably prepared to put you to the test. You never did get back re the balance with CASA but I think this current statement covers it.

Akkers, I think we generally agree. I have to say though, and this is addressed generally not personally, that I have already made my appreciation of past Directors public but I feel for Bill H - no matter what his frictions at Board level - as the public character assassination of him by many and on this Forum is inappropriate recognition of his efforts and probably a significant message that the Board could not sort itself out, much less member issues.

ALL - DIVIDED WE FALL
I have not seen much, if anything, on the issue of AOPA isolation. And, with the declined membership and the current economy, I remain uncertain how much membership ground even a reborn AOPA will make. The GA hours are not looking good although as usual all the schools will up their rates as the clientele drops off!

As AUF aircraft zoom past my C172 and anyway didn't we start off as rag, string, and unreliable pommie donks anyway (I have to fix pommie cars at times and believe every Spit and Hurry pilot should have got a valour award just for taking off, knowing how the poms built their cars much less planes) I wonder again about amalgamation and where we sit with the AUF.

That's one. The other, and I note the earlier comment re AOPA research needing extra - so proven by the Pres belated reversal note re the TSI bill - is our colleagues from ASA (who did the research and triggered the uproar). likewise got the strength and publicity at Horsham.

Can we afford splintered small groups representing the merging GA population. Do we need the Board to revisit merger options.
Let's have some comment from the candidates - accepting that they don't at present have a premium product to offer.
Cheers

[gaunty]

brianh

Thank you for your kind words and yes I stiil owe you on the CASA bit which as you say is pretty much covered by attititude.
But I will, when I square some income earning activities away.:rolleyes:

I also have to agree with you on your comments re Bill Hamilton, love him or hate him, he has made very siginificant contributions. and probably a significant message that the Board could not sort itself out, much less member issues

Hopefully in the spirit of reconciliation and renewal we can find a constructive way through that, we really don't have any choice.

Re the AUF, I need to get myself more up to speed on this, but my instinct is telling that we and they perhaps becoming us at some time in the future, is an inevitable and natural part of our future in GA.and anyway didn't we start off as rag, string, and unreliable pommie donks anyway
The more they develop the homebuilts and ultralights the more they look like what we have been flying around for yonks!

Hamilton informed me the other day that the number of motor gliders in Austria outnumber the number of "real" aircraft by, if I got it right, 4:1 around 17,000 of them. Interesting stat indeed.

And leads me to the necessity to re resource the AOPA research effort as a matter of urgency, rather than rely on the "reactive", "third party" or "heard in the halls" information, on which we have been forced to rely.

Nirvana, I guess, should be AOPA leading rather than following the Government and Regulator in the public debate necessary to evolve public policy.
That just requires the right brainpower, working together, applied in the right place.
They, after all work for us. :D

Its getting the cart behind the horse that is the trick at the moment.

[Emeus]

I have been an AOPA member for many years, a long-time lurker of pprune and the AOPA Forum site. and an 'old & bold' enthusiast.

Like a lot of the other 'silent' AOPA members out there I have been disappointed and dismayed by the fall of the AOPA empire since Mr Hamilton took control in 1997.

During that time the finances have been depleted from a once healthy position to where the organisation is broke. Membership has halved, and AOPA has been marginalised by both CASA and the Government because of the way it does business.

Now I read here that there is no Directors Insurance and that the board has resorted to meddling with the accounts to make the situation look better than what it is. Coupled with a steady stream of resignations from the board it would be reasonable to assume that we members need to do something drastic to save AOPA.

I have not as yet received my April Magazine to read the candidate's CVs but I can tell you that I will not vote for the return of Mr Hamilton or any of his supporters (this includes Messrs McKeown & Rudd). Unlike many of the contributors to these pages, I am not privy to the inside dealings of AOPA but Hamilton and his loyal followers should not assume that the membership is totally stupid and cannot work out what has been going on.

The new board will be starting from ground zero and will need to redefine AOPA. There is a lot of work to do and I am impressed by some of the wise words from at least two of the candidates.

I will also vote for candidates who will support responsible financial management because without this AOPA is dead in the water. My understanding is that Hamilton, McKeown & Rudd are behind the madness in not funding long-term liabilities and as a 5 year member I wonder whether I am goin to be left high and dry?.

I cannot attend the AGM but would like someone who could accept my proxy.

[snarek]

Brian and Axiom.

I'm a bit like Gaunty. While I did tell him to 'put up or shut up' (and quite valiantly, he did) I was on the verge of quitting two years ago.

Then I thought that was gutless. So I ran for the Board, (unfortunately) unseating Brian Harwood in the process. I say unfortunately because I repected the man.

I didn't join the Board because I supported what Hamilton had done over the past 8 years to AOPA. I plainly didn't.

Problem was, once on the Board you are expected to sing the same tune, and in my view, Hamilton knows only one tune. His own.

Whenever I refused to sing to that tune I was abused. By him, other 'egos' and a little man from WA who seemed to have up-to-the-second advice on what went on a Board level.

This is why I am warming to Murphie's ideas (which I also shared at Narromine). Even Axiom is getting nicer...but only a bit!!! With state based reprs we won't have single opinions driving the show anymore. This is why I support Marjorie, she is able to listen, form a policy based on the view of all and professionally negotiate or represent it. In my view Hamilton is not able to do this.

I joined the Board then, and am running now on some basic beliefs.

1. LSC was a bad idea! But we are stuck with it now so we must negotiate price breaks for members.
2. Private aviation needs less regulation, charter needs more.
3. There must be middle 'regulatory' ground. Joyflights from little flying schools are NOT charter nad cannot be treated the same way or they will die out (and become way too expensive).
4. There must be a merger of AUF and Private training so there can be progression for AUF pilots and a better share of the booty for GA schools. But that means less regulation NOT MORE.
5. I believe in supervised pilot maintenance. That doesn't mean back yard fixes, it means LAME supervised learningand money saving.
6. I don't believe in mandatory equipment levels. If airlines want us to fit ADSB then they or Airservices can pay. I'd rather spend the money on flying (and keep the flying cheaper for members).
7. I believe in AOPA sponsored Aero Clubs. Not them affiliating, us sponsoring them to run programs in our name for members. (yeah, we will need to fix the finances first, wish we had the money that was in the bank in '92!!!).
8. I believe we need to establish a professional lobbying relationship with CASA and the Government. We should negotiate, NOT LECTURE.
9. MOST OF ALL, I believe AOPA should talk to and represent the views of Members the best it can. I am personally sick of the one man bands we've had since the Partoni days. (And people who put self serving ideas to the Senate!!!)

Oh Gaunty, to answer one of your questions on the AOPA office in Canberra. It was sold at one of the worst moments in ACT property price history. It is now worth (at a guess) three times what it was then. I think it was a stupid move then, but in the interests of stability and retention of some good staff, I wouldn't change things right at this moment.

Oh, and if you would like me to hold your proxy, download the official version from the AOPA site and send it to me at

[email protected]

Please also tell me what you generally support and don't support. I won't use it to vote for something you don't.

AK

[axiom]

I trust Andrew to do what is best for the crew;

But for those not so inclined, send yours to

[email protected]

I am sure between the two of them, and their supporters, they will get the State Chapters matter up and away.

While attempting to stay in the middle of things for my Mates sake, I have to ask,( because someone else will if I don't),

Of Emeus,

Hamilton hasn't been in charge for the last two years and, (I could be wrong), perhaps not with the fiscal situation either.

This postee has tried to look at both sides of the equation, but this sort of thing is a little trying with the election at nigh.

On matters liability, I would sincerely like to see what Marjorie Pagani has come up with on Incorporated Associations viz the current AOPA being a Company, because a lot support this concept.

If the State Chapters goes to ground this election, (God, Allah or whoever forbid), perhaps a concerted effort should be mounted to bring about discussion in the future on both.

And Snarek, don't call me a dropshort, it's not nice.:p

[snarek]

Axiom.

I know you are trying hard to stay in the middle. But from where I stood Hamilton still dominated AOPA and Pike let him (out of loyalty???).

There was even a pantomime played out at Narromine between the two when secret ballots were suggested. Pike walked out, hamilton dragged him back. The 'newbies' on the Board fell for it.

There is no doubt Bill Hamilton works hard. But is it good for AOPA?? Is it good for GA?? Or is it just an old man who has lost focus and direction but can't let go??? The latter is my view.

I doubt the state based thing will get up this time round.:( Because we need to change the articles, to do that we need to give notice. But we can do that at an EGM, and if Murphie or I get in then we can call that EGM. But I really think it needs discussion via the Magazine and the forums for a couple of months anyway.

Sorry to be a bit of a drag Axiom, but I have had two years of dictatorship, I'd like a little member input this time round :)

There were other things we called 'dropshorts', but if I used them Woomera would sin bin me :}

Andrew

[brianh]

Guys
If I can again wax philosophical the previous four posts continue what I consider a positive contribution to the debate, accepting the differences in opinions rather than bulldozing the protestors.

Em, good post. We need more input from the silent majority. Peoples perceptions are true to them and the Board and Bill H need this sort of feedback to test their own values. Nevertheless, one fundamental target of the next Board should be professional help thru the "forming and storming phase" so they can then meet constructively and further the aims of GA instead of the individual ego.

Akkers, I might have to give Murph a boost re the State Chapters because they are dear to my heart but your are still ticked on my list coz you have political nous and can work in a team.

Gaunty, I'm warming to your cause. Let's forget the AUF for the minute - what are your thoughts on AOPA and ASA? Can we afford a 'split infinitive". What are your views on "reconciliation". PS If you pass that test successfully reconciliation with someone else in the west is my next likely question.

A plea to everyone to make all contributions from here on in to the election continue the positives of the past few. There is no "I" in TEAM.
Au reservoir, tanks
BJ

[paddopat]

yes they were good positive posts.

Seems even snarek and axiom have found some common ground :)

I read monkeyfly's post with a quizzical smirk. Mate, you have decided not to vote for the people who will engage with you here and vote for the ones who won't talk to you.

Interesting concept, I suppose then that you have already decided who to vote for and are only making mischief. :}

A number of people have written about relations with CASA. Well I find them to be a generally professional lot with a few VERY bad apples. Interestingly, those bad apples nearly all come from a military background. I suppose that can never be good for civillian aviation.

CASA have also ignored GA for a long time. I feel that is because GA fights amongst itself. But I also believe it is because the way AOPA has been run for the past 10 years has allowed CASA to say to Government "look, they can't be reasoned with". That is why we need change.

There is no doubting that CASA intimidate certain individuals. Even some young (and not so young) instructors at my club say "I'm not challenging that, I have to work you know". That is despicable and must be stopped. But to stop it we need a new respected AOPA, not the tired old soapbox it has become.

I see a post on merging the distinction between GA and AUF. A while ago I would have railled against that. Now I think it is a very good idea. Aviation is changing, GA must change to keep up.

AOPA sponsored clubs. Excellent!!!!!

Pat.

[monkeyfly]

paddopat,

You actually understand me quite well. The confusion you find in reading my post is what I feel in trying to decide.

I want to find 9 people I want on the board. Of the few on pprune, if they behave like this now, how are they going to behave on the board. (Sorry, past boards have given me a negative outlook).

Got the mag tonight. Only read it once, which is not enough. The first thing I notice was that most people posted their aviation experience. Don't take this personally, but I DON"T CARE how you fly an aircraft.(I actually do, just making a point)

Others have posted experience in various boards, mainly aviation based. I have the feeling that we should be looking for ideas outside the industry. The problems we faced with the regulator must have been experience by other industries?????

What do you guys and girls think??

Can the people up for election expand on there experience outside aviation???

monkey

p.s. Sorry for any confusion my various post cause. I'm searching for answers in the dark, I tend to go all over the place.

[snarek]

OK, I'll bite.

My experience outside of GA.

Radio Technician. 10 Years. Central NT and Northern Qld.
Bachelor of Engineering (Radio)
Masters of Engineering (Satellite)
Currently studying (Part Time) for a PhD in Meteorology and Radio Wave Propagation.
Senior Member Intitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Published 12 Papers in Journals and Conferences.
Currently Principal Engineer, Space Systems at the ACA. Also teach part time at James Cook University.

In addition. Master SCUBA Instructor (PADI) member of Instructor Development Committee 1998.
Owned and Operated Sportsmans Dive Services, Townsville 1988 - 91, employed 10 instructors and 5 divemasters. (played a big part in cleaning up the dive industry, TOGETHER with the Qld Govt).
Commercial Diver (But I'm too old now). :(

I make most of my income from real estate.

I WAS a member of Labor Party and more recently the Democrats. Held official positions with Democrats. Left cos they went too far left :}

Have advised two Ministers and numerous 'others' on radiocomms policy.

I also own a Grumman Tiger and a 1944 Taylorcraft. I only hold a PPL.


AK

[brianh]

Paddo,
Good point about the AOPA image with CASA. Never the less, no matter how quick AOPA changes - and my biggest experience is at the 100,000 staff plus org level so I have some feel for this - I do not believe an entrenched militaristic culture can change without external effort - for CASA a massive re-org or fragmentation, etc. I have had recent dealings with defence (I once carried a radio and rifle) and cannot believe their current (read out of the ark) personnel management style. Where did much of CASA come from??? And, even with a re-org and redundancies, our own corporate experience was that the ones who could get a job outside took the $ and ran, and the level of retained mediocrity actually went up!

Monkey.
Me too. Although the mag did bring life to me - I actually found 9 positive selections at first choice - only in pencil so far. Still nowhere near set in concrete.

Akkers
Mate, never admit Engineer qualifications. I spend my life fixing what they design. I did my post-grad at Caulfield rather than Monash - at Monash they can design screwdrivers, at Caulfield they can use them. Hell, you almost had my eraser out on your tick with that admission.

But good on you for the CV. I, like Monkey, looked for some business or similar acumen in my selections.

Also raises the point that we are judging those candidates with the intestinal fortitude to debate on this Forum - warts and all - against a small piece of print from those who do not. I'm giving you and others on this Forum a positive weighting accordingly.

NOW, THE MAGAZINE
Bill P is forthright that he did not see resolving the financial issue as a primary task. I accept his view, not mine of a President.

He makes however some more good points about the excess controls imposed by CASA.

Marjorie has well put both sides of the accrual debate.

Now, this is a worry – Chris wants to censor magazine content. He suggests complaint re the Board should be to the Board only. I know he is aiming for the positive side of life but I cannot support the stifling of genuine debate – there is always right of reply in the magazine by the Board. After all, if it is OK for the Mag to be used for fairly blatant electioneering, why not for member comment. Next, Drac gets the Blood Bank key?

And looking at the notes on the FLOT conference, plenty of CASA goodwill - sort of the SMHEA dam full of good water - but the Snowy river itself seems to be pretty dry still. A little like the Victorian road toll where the Government speed camera position (ie revenue) remains unchanged despite the facts. Can CASA ever relax the iron gauntlet and accept USA standards - or is this akin to Collingwood winning back to back Grand Finals?

Ah well, I'm off to the airport and I well take Bill Hamilton's point that - despite my upcoming medical this year - my greatest risk is not the flying but travelling there and back thru the un-medicalled motorists, without one-hundredth of the theory or prac we need to get even a PPL.

My proxy will go to Murph for obvious reasons.
Cheers

[Maxima]

Haven't got my mag yet.
Snarek;
Congratulations for posting your impressive CV.
Accomplished people like you improve the standing of the board.

Wish you wouldn't say I only hold a PPL.
There are many PPLs who exceed the standard displayed by many CPLs and some ATPLs, particularly on the radio.


brianh;

the level of retained mediocrity actually went up! I agree! This must be so, it is no doubt the cause of the constant frustration whenever dealing with CASA.

And yes, we need to see the rest of the candidates speak up and tell us how they are thinking (and this forum is ideal, until the AOPA forum gets going again).

I am also concerned about interference with the content of the magazine by the President. The Editor is the only person to edit the magazine: it is not the province of the President or anyone else. Hands off the mag.

Monkey;

I agree. I want to see directors who have something more to offer than just flying experience - they should also have experience in business (successful). Although aviation experience is neccesary, an extensive flying history is not and has nothing to do with running an association/company. This is what the job is about. They all have enough experience of the industry just by being pilots.

Directors should have something to contribute to AOPA, such as their individual skills, (professional, listening, lobbying and negotiating), and most importantly, the ability to analyse and debate the issues effectively. They should have the ability and inclination to take and heed advice from others when issues are outside their own field of expertise, whether that may be technical, financial, legal, insurance, employment, etc..


Long live AOPA
:D

[snarek]

Brian

Look at the list, TECH from 79 - 89, then I went to uni. Learned how to fix em before I learned how to design em :)

Maxima

I am proud of my PPL. I put it there so people could se I definitely wasn't a Q-Captain. My experience of them of late has left me wondering about CRM. But I am the first to admit, my full frontal experience has been limited to two, so I will assume the others are a little more open.

AK

[axiom]

I could be wrong, but I thought Paul Scully-Power wasn't a pilot, neither is Ted Anson, (both Chairmen of the CASA Board), and Gabbi Hollows wasn't either, but on the CASA Board as well.

Regards "Q" captains, wasn't Mick Toller a Cathay chief of operations at Kowloon before he came to Oz and took up the "wizzards" job?

Since when did academic achievemic achievement rate better than common sense and idealism in the quest to get a better AOPA.

How many times has snarek said, "bloody lawyers" ?

It does not need a genius to run a company the size of AOPA, it needs "man management and certainly does not need a plethora of academics who threaten to sue at the drop of a hat.

Although not agreeing with McKeowns idea of a closed criticism forum, I DO believe that the Board needs to be more "closed shop" to prevent damaging leaks which people like axiom can, and do exploit when defending some undeserved criticism.

There have been some very cruel posts here that are not worthy of being included in rational debate, however I would rate the profiles on the nominations thus;

1) A lot of promises to work in a team environment.

2) A few resting on past achievements.

3) Some using the platform to advise indirectly, who not to vote for and emphasising the poor state of affairs but without offering an alternative.

4) Some prepared to push ahead with things that AOPA should be doing anyway.

5) Some, and understandingly, reluctant to put more than a foot in the door and remaining in the middle.

6) And, one only with a proposal to do something about the state of affairs. (Murphie), my mate.





:p

[snarek]

Ah Axiom.

You've gone into nasty negative mode again, singing the tune of your one man band!!!!

It seems you can't, but can Murphie work as a team. Another fractured Board we don't need!!! :p

[Emeus]

I read the April Magazine twice, and have read all the postings again on this thread.

It's hard to comprehend how our Association could be so badly managed. Reading between the lines it is apparent that Messrs Hamilton and Lyon were the two directors mentioned who provided the obstruction to the financial reforms proposed by Russell Kelly (could you confirm this Snarek?). How anyone in their right mind could argue that liabilities shouldn't be funded is beyond comprehension, without any expert opinions to back their wacky position. Kelly was qualified in finance yet Hamilton & Lyon who I understand have no formal qualifications, did whatever they could to continue the fiscal rot.

Someone made the comment that we need to know the skills and qualifications of the nominees outside their aviation interests.

I couldn't agree more. Like it or not, AOPA is a business with around $0.7m turnover. There needs to be some people on the board who have had business experience at the board or management level, often these people will have organisational and negotiation skills that could be put to good use when dealing with CASA.

I found the self-serving articles in the Magazine from McKeown and Hamilton offensive in the extreme. Why where they allowed extra electioneering space and given advantage over the other candidates? Even more alarming is the flagged intention of Mr McKeown to censor the Magazine, a big big mistake Mr McKeown. This last happened in the days of Boyd Munro's presidency, letters I wrote were never published and any opinion or dissent was stifled.

The methodology in dealing with CASA clearly needs to be reviewed. The blustering, disorganised nonesense peddled by Mr Hamilton has been an embarrassment and it is no wonder that AOPA has been relatively ineffectual at the political level.

So I am desperately hoping (as an ageing member who would like to see AOPA's credibility and finances restored) that the rank and file members will wake up to what has been going and that the blundering incompetence represented by Hamilton, McKeown and Rudd is addressed. I can assure you that if Bill Hamilton is returned I will immediately resign my 4 year pre-paid membership.

One question that I don't believe has been answered in this Forum: Is Bob Murphie part of the Hamilton ticket?

Another question: Who is currently the Treasurer ? I have some questions on the published accounts?

[antechinus]

I was gratified to see that the Code of Conduct was published in the Magazine. As one of the authors of the document I can tell you that the motive was to try and create an ethical platform for the directors that would have reduced the ratbagery.

As Axiom notes, one of the problems I personally experienced was the systematic leaking of confidential communications between directors to external dissidents, Mr Axiom was possibly a lucky recipient of such juicy tales. Some of the emails between directors were at times robust but nontheless private between the authorised recipients.

Unfortunately the Code meant nothing to two of the committee who openly flouted the rule and freely promulgated material when it suited them.

McKeown's grand plan to censor the Magazine (and presumably the AOPA Forum page if/when it ever returns) is an extremely misguided mistake and will drive members to pprune and other sites. Chris has lost my support, I certainly won't be voting for Hamilton or Rudd.

Russell

[snarek]

Emeus

Your assumptions are correct. In fact, if you had a mind, you could read Russell Kelly's post on Board members leaking info to a little man in WA with those thoughts in you mind and then form another opinion.

I hope the little man can't read backwards, he threatened me all the time.

AK :)

[axiom]

I just spent 30 minutes posting something here and my server went down and lost the lot.

Who the bloody hell is running the communications show in Aust right now snarek?

To recap;

1) Snarek. Murphie appears to be a one man band, tunnel vision, wants support for something worhtwhile but is being drawn into things thet do not concern him. He is not an accountant, Solicitor, barrister or engineer with a plethora of degrees, but he has an idea, a promise to give 12 months of his time to a positive project but is being hindered by people who want a "for us or against us" promise.

Bloody factions.

Ask not if Murphie can work with the Board (whoever they are, but can they work with him.

Can you do likewise?

Emeus;

Whatever you do, don't let anyone know who you are, because, even if they suspect, you could be hit with a warning, writ etc.

It's quiet fashionable right now I hear.

You have told us who you are for and against and quiet frankly you are becoming boring.

What do you have to offer that will fix this? Castor oil?

For info., Bob is not on anyone's ticket, but has promised to work with whoever will work with him.

If you suspect he is a Communist, Gay, a Mason, or an ultralight pilot, or anything else that offends your morals, don't vote for him, but if he gets elected and is part of the Board, can you accept the democratic voice of the members? I'm sure he will and if he goes out with a whimper, he will do exactly as gentlemen before him have done (I refer to Jim Dawson), leave quietly and with dignity

Research has told axiom today that

1) When Dick Smith ran the show, there were open committee meetings.

2) When Boyd ran the show, there were open committee meetings.

3) When Bill Hamilton ran the show, there were open committee meetings.

4) Toward the end of the Hamilton reign, new members dictated a closed shop.

Murphie advises that at the first opportunity he will lobby to have open committee meetings that will stop this rot of rumours and vindictive character assasinations that have bedevilled the show for the past year and a bit.

Can someone now tell me what is wrong with this and how this can be another attempt by axiom or Murphie to bring asunder the smooth running of AOPA?

He is still waiting for some positive indications from Ms Pagani about Incorporated Associations viz liability matters that have a fair degree of support and need airing.

Snarek, you'r in charge, fix my computer up. :confused:

[snarek]

Axiom

1,2,3,4 Bullsh!t. Chinese History!!!

If Murphy gets up he must work with the Board and the Board with him. His ideas will be listened to and voted on, not just accepted.

If he gets the majority to support them, they will be implimented, if not they won't.

I await full details, but in priciple he will have my support.

Have you run a virus check??
If not do a 'defrag' its in your system tools.

AK

[Emeus]

Axiom

One wonders about your own credentials to gratuitously act as the armchair guru throughout these postings. You have goaded others into stating their credentials, what are yours?

I find your pontifications boring, your sanctimonious piffle irrelevant and your apologies for the Hamilton regime sickening.
Reading your posts you have offered nothing to the debate except thinly disquised support for those who have brought AOPA to its knees.

[axiom]

Oh dear oh me;

I have one very real and tangible credential. I am an AOPA member and as such a voter who would like to see as much discussion on matters as seriously relevant as you deem them to be.

One thing I cannot abide is the nauseating continum of abuse being directed to some who have chosen not to run to the lawyers over remarks such as yours.

There are always two sides to a story and you are expousing your own theories that denigrate and attempt to belittle some who represent the other 50% of the spectrum and the opinions.

To give you a point to ponder;

Listening to both sides of the accountancy debate, it appears that either column could be used in the matter of up front membership dues.

You could get opinion after opinion, as I have from local governments, (rates paid in advance) and you will get differing messages.

Magazine subscriptions, insurance, and union dues being some of note.

If I grant Russel Kelly the benefit, AOPA is insolvent and if I grant Lyon the benefit AOPA is not insolvent.

I then ask two things,

1) Why is Russel so set upon reform of the accountancy proceedures if it spells certain death for AOPA.

2) If AOPA can be made solvent by utilising the funds in year one instead of factoring it over the term of the subscription, then surely this is better for the members in so much as they will get at least a magazine for their troubles and AOPA can get on with the job of being AOPA. (which I would imagine requires next years finances getting up and running).

What AOPA needs is input that will give a positive lean on this problem and I have suggested the State Chapters. Has anyone else any ideas?

If you have already made up your mind regarding who you are supporting Emeus, why don't you simply support them and give them a chance of winning? The way you are going with your abuse of the opposition it is doing their cause no good.

Remember there are a lot who believe you are wrong, but this would never have entered your grey matter would it?

[antechinus]

Axiom:

Some relevant points:

I have not claimed that AOPA is insolvent, rather AOPA has the potential to become insolvent if its financial behaviour does not change.

Secondly, my understanding is that Mr Lyon does not have the qualifications to say whether AOPA is solvent or not solvent.

Thirdly, at no time has any written expert opinion been obtained by the AOPA board that refutes my position in relation to the funding of liabilities.

Fourthly, if AOPA's financial position is so wonderful, why is it that even after tarting up the Balance Sheet AOPA still cannot get Directors' Indemnity insurance?

Fifthly, you may care to ask Bill Hamilton why, in the early days of his reign as president it was OK to fund the liabilities in the Balance Sheet, yet when the money was blown he reverted to wiping out the debt. Seems to me like expediency comes before principle!

Emeus:

Don't despair. My guess is that you reflect the views of a large number of the silent majority. Don't be intimidated by anyone here and please have your say. If the Hamilton operatives manage to regain control there will almost certainly be an EGM.

[cogwheel]

This discussion continues to be most robust and this is a good thing for the Association and the membership. There will always be the sniping at those that you don't agree with for whatever reason and it should (so long it is done above the belt) be accepted for what it is and hope that it may benefit all.

The Acting President, has in the magazine, suggested what some might view as an attempt on censorship and I don't believe this is acceptable in any shape or form. All the issues must be made available to the membership by whatever means. (Censorship and single issue crusades do not enhance the associations ability to do business). When this occurs we will benefit from whatever debate that might follow.

There is certainly merit in having a "code of conduct" within the Board. If you don't like it then don't become a board member. The leaking of information of late has been well below the belt and not necessarily in the best interests of AOPA. There are very few items that should be discussed "in camera" on the board and as a result the deliberations of the board should be open for all members to see... (on the web page?) and to attend as observers.

Well then what are the priorities of the new Board?

Firstly the future of AOPA must be the #1 priority of the new board. The management of the association, the development of a sound business plan and a workable budget must come first and foremost.

What next? Well a compressive marketing plan to sell the Association to the existing membership, then to other potential members within the industry.

Regain the respectability and credibility. A team effort behind a new leader. No more single issue crusades – the board are there for the greater good of the membership, not their own pet projects. All policy must have the majority support of the Board. The Chairman must be the sole public voice of the Association – no more unauthorised comments from the side!

Work hard at re-establishing workable relationships with those whom AOPA must deal with. No more shooting from the hip or walking in with guns blazing. The positive achievements that are available come from responsible representation and good negotiation skills. Use them.

Enhance the area representation around the country. (Not against the Murphy proposal, but it needs further review and discussion) Provide feedback and facilitate good communication in both directions. (often the members don't know what is going on – because they are not told)

A complete rewrite of the rules including Board size etc needs to be undertaken.



If the new board do not go down these or very similar lines then it is inevitable that the membership will again question what is going on and an EGM could well be on the cards. What would happen then is anyone's guess, but it is possible a new election might result.

There is no way I for one want to see a return to the dictatorships of the past few years and I am sure that I am not alone. As said previously we have seen AOPA lose over half it's membership and many hundreds of thousands of dollars since the Patroni days. Those that had a part in that do not deserve another go.

[axiom]

Antechinas;

points taken and I will ask of those you mentioned to respond.

Your advice to Emeus needs a bit of tarting up. If you read his (or her), past post, you may well tell me who is trying to intimidate whom/

Cogwheel;

It's amazing how we are so much in agreement on a lot of things and I guess one could work with you on matters of reform. It is healthy to have an opposition however and one would expect all involved would give and take in the same spirit.

What I can't live with is an obvious platform of "HATE" which is spilling from some sectors and is totally counterproductive to their own agendas and the good of AOPA.

Clearly hate messages should be treated with the contempt they deserve. I have never experienced hate and find it most distressing. I am sure others sitting on the fence seeand feel the same way.

Look at my recent posts on open Board meetings, I thought I would relay what a few of us agreed was a good idea. Instead of support we got a job given us to re investigate the history of the Board and if and when I get a response from Messrs, Smith, Munro and Hamilton I can only pass that on. Somehow I doubt even facts would be dismissed.

Look also at Murphie's proposal of State Chapters. His idea is to review, discuss, debate the matter over a 12 month period before attempting an implementation.

His idea is a simple management decision and if you read the resolution, you will see it requires NO ammendments to the articles of association and even if it was deemed to be needed, it would not happen before 12 months time.

All he wants is to get someone to ratify the State representatives we now have into a workable committee.

THE MOTION/ RESOLUTION again.

'THAT AOPA ADOPT A NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS FOR STATE BASED CHAPTERS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD IN ALL POLICY MATTERS BUT ARE ABLE TO MANAGE LOCAL ISSUES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE'

[gaunty]

axiom

I've been busy earning shekels and have to rush off now to do so again.

But I will be back tonight to continue this, but I can't let this one go without comment.

'THAT AOPA ADOPT A NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS FOR STATE BASED CHAPTERS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD IN ALL POLICY MATTERS BUT ARE ABLE TO MANAGE LOCAL ISSUES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE'

I will support a form of the first bit

'THAT AOPA ADOPT A NATIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS FOR STATE BASED CHAPTERS WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD IN ALL POLICY MATTERS

But definitely not the second bit in its present form.

BUT ARE ABLE TO MANAGE LOCAL ISSUES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE

That is exactly the problem we have had, everybody off doing their own thing in the NAME of AOPA.

Think about it.

Having lobbed that one into the bunker I'm off to pay the bills.

cogwheel

Exactly my thoughts, you haven't hacked into my computer perchance.:p

There are a number of other things I want to see on the list too, but they'll have to wait till later today.

Still haven't got my mag yet, the Camel train apparently got bogged in all this rain we have been having over in the West.

:ok:

[axiom]

Gaunty;

Exactly the sort of feed back Murphie has been trying to get, but again I say, we have 12 months to ratify all these things before putting it up as a final. It just needs a decision for the Board, whoever they may be, to get it rolling.

One thing any Board should be wary of however is the feeling the members will get of a Board cementing it's power base at their cost.

The members need and should have more power in the decision making processes and they can get this as a committee of say 7 States of 3 representatives each and each weilding a 100 proxy stick. the "mouthpiece" still comes from head office.

Antechinas;

I was told to refer you to the auditors ascent to the current accounting decisions and I guess this was by way of explaination of having an independent opinion.

Snarek;

Further to your assertion that open Committee/ Board meetings were bullsh!t and Chinese history, I have been assured by several sources that indeed this was the fact of the matter and you may find reference to same by participants at Narrogin AGM and Committee meeting thereafter, meetings at the Cambridge Hotel in Sydney and at the Hangar at Bankstown.

Indeed one member from Victoria came to just about all such meetings and sometimes up to 15 members sat in.

This sort of disinformation is what you have been accusing the Hamilton camp of being up to.

I am still awaiting replies from Principals at the meetings.

Thanks for running up my phone bill and costing me about 5 hours of time.

[Maxima]

Axiom;
In response to your post lastnight:
1) Snarek. Murphie appears to be a one man band, tunnel vision, wants support for something worhtwhile but is being drawn into things thet do not concern him. He is not an accountant, Solicitor, barrister or engineer with a plethora of degrees, but he has an idea, a promise to give 12 months of his time to a positive project but is being hindered by people who want a "for us or against us" promise.
One man band? Tunnel vision? Not what we want. Not a team player. Maybe a more suitable role for him could be found by Saddam. DICTATOR. Fit in with me, or else.
Promise 12 months? Big deal - so do they all. They are all in there to give 12 months of their time, but to many positive projects, not just one.
"For us or aginst us"? Try "WITH US".

I'm with Emeus.

Ask not if Murphie can work with the Board (whoever they are, but can they work with him.
Who is this bloke? The centre of the universe? Sorry mate, but he is going to have to work with others.
He has not attracted my vote.

[antechinus]

Axiom

It is interesting to note that the auditors declined the invitation to put their advice in writing. Wonder why that would be?

I never claimed that my position was definitive, indeed I asked the board a number of times to get independent expert advice but this was denied.

In my opinion, the verbal briefing from AOPA's ex auditors was neither independent nor do I believe that even the auditor would claim expertise in this very specialised field.

So the challenge is still there for Messrs Hamilton, Lyon, McKeown & Rudd to come up with the goods but they have been consistantly unable to find an expert who will agree with them.

My guess is that if the new board is not under Bill Hamilton's control the liability funding issue will be quickly sort out.

Russell

[axiom]

Russel:

My apologies,I thought you were in charge of finances then. If this occurred post your resignation, I should be asking the question to the next treasurer.

Maxima;

I believe Murphie is waiting for Marjorie Pagani's address to the nation on pprune before he throws his hat into anyone's ring.

I can't for the life of me imagine he would support someone who has threatened him with legal consequences for another party's political comment.

Nor can I fathom why he would give anyone support who has some sort of a "hate' orientated agenda to rid AOPA of so called Demons.

Murphie is not the centre of the universe, but he is nearer the centre of rational debate in this matter than you are Mate !

I don't think I like you.



:{

[Marjorie Pagani]

Axiom and AOPA Members

I apologise if some of you have seen the start of this post earlier. I pressed the ‘fire’ button accidentally, then deleted the post, then lost it – so here goes again! I have just returned from travelling for work, and caught up with the posts. I had wanted to avoid wasting time with issues not concerned with furthering AOPA’s strengths, but the misinformation posted by Mr Murphie (through his “mate” Axiom), has to be addressed. I have invited Mr Murphie to come onto Prune and ‘come clean’ on the information (or bits of it) which he has posted (through Axiom), but he has declined. I advised him that I would publish this information if he did not inform readers of the true position. This material is not confidential, because Murphie has e-mailed it to a large number of people, including Tony Mitchell and Bill Hamilton, as well as a larger group. Axiom says that Murphie has been unfairly treated, and says that I have (for no apparent reason) threatened him with legal action. Murphie posted a copy of an e-mail, and alleged it was this that caused the offence. He knows that to be untrue. So, for the record, and I apologise for boring you with this, I shall set out below the course of correspondence. It is too lengthy to reproduce in full, but for those of you interested, you can e-mail me and, after verification of your AOPA membership, I will be happy to send you the totality of the correspondence, with the omission of the defamatory comments, and of the portions which identify Axiom.

21/3/03 – Mr Murphie complained that ex directors were soliciting proxies. He threatened legal action – this was the start of his ‘campaign’ – which was followed by many other threats of legal action against AOPA, the Board and previous directors. By the way, I had nothing to do with this lot – it was a matter for the editor of the magazine.:

Mr Murphie wrote: “I also have a platform and WILL ACTIVELY SEEK REDRESS if I am not allowed equal and unfettered access to the magazine ABOVE AND BEYONE MY 250 WORD (approx) profile. I also have a motion to put to the table which will arrive within the specified time frame but DO NOT WANT IT ‘WHITEANTED’ BY OPEN DISCUSSION IN THE INTERIM.”

22/3/03 – Mr Murhie wrote “The motions should all be tabled at the meeting AND NOT AIRED FIRST”.

23/3/03 – Mr Murphie wrote, re his ‘motion, “I did not seek endorsement from the Board, simply an acknowledgement of and an acceptance of the motion in principle. The motion was open for ammendment and discussion. Further I have been advised that the motion will not be accepted and I should rely upon 249NI (Membership rights) for redress…..unless I get a positive response from the board that my motion will be tabled, (when complete) I INTEND TO TAKE THE MATTER UP WITH THE ANTI DISCRIMINATION BOARD AND WILL PROSECUTE THE MATTER to it’s fullest for redress of the wrong done to me and my supporters. I INTEND TO HOLD ALL BOARD MEMBERS BOTH PRESENT AND IMMEDIATELY PAST TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS INJUSTICE…..I am not asking for anyone to support my motion, simply to have it tabled….If you thought the past disenfranchised Board Members were a force to be reckoned with you have not met Bob Murphie. Ask Mick Toller how far this person is prepared to take matters…”

Unfortunately Mr Murphie did not understand the process by which members’ resolutions must be brought, and seemed to be of the opinion that all he had to do was demand that his motion be tabled at the AGM, without complying with the rules applicable to all members. His anger was, in part, due to my response to him, in my capacity as public officer of the company, which I had written on 23/3/03:

Dear Mr Murphie,

I regret to advise you that your member's motion does not accord either with the company's Articles of Association, nor the relevant sections of the Corporations Law, and as such, I am not in a position to "table" your motion as requested. May I respectfully suggest that you take legal advice as to the necessity to comply with the requirements applicable to members' motions to be "tabled" at an Annual General Meeting of the company. Any "anti-discrimination board" action you may contemplate taking is, of course, a matter for you, however, I advise that your motion is being treated in like manner as others which I have received from members, and which, likewise, have not complied with the relevant Articles and statutes.

Would you be kind enough to advise me as to source of your "advice" that the motion would not be accepted by the Board, and that you should rely upon "section 291 N1".

Should you have any further enquiries in respect of these matters, please address them to me.

Yours faithfully,
Marjorie Pagani
Secretary AOPA.

Mr Murphie then, he said, took advice, but still did not accept that he had to comply with the same rules as other members. He wrote, on 1/4/03:
“Madam,
I would like to put on record my dismay, as a member, to your cavalier attitude, toward my contemplation of taking legal action through the Anti Discrimination Board to my previous attempt to solicit feed back from a draft idea from the Board, which, you unilaterally rejected as a final motion. I believe the members would like to see the Board act in a more professional manner when their organisation is in any way threatened by legal action.

The following "MOTION" does not impinge on any of your aforementioned compliance requirements with the relevant Articles and statutes, nor does it require any ammendments to the Articles of Association.
THE MOTION:
"That AOPA adopt a National Management Structure that allows for State based chapters which are responsible to the National Board in all policy matters but are able to manage local issues with a high degree of independence".

Please table it and include it in your May edition of the AOPA magazine which I expect WILL be distributed on time.”

Mr Murphie’s opinion was that his motion STILL did not have to comply with the requirements for the tabling of motions at an AGM, as did all other members’.

Again, I responded and tried to explain the position to Mr Murphie: On 3/4/03 I wrote (deleting references to Mr Murphie’s Prune identity):

Dear Mr Murphie,

Thank you for your correspondence. The issue I had raised with you (and with other members in respect of their proposed resolutions) was to effect that you not only require the notice period, but 100 members to support the motion, or 5% of the voters, which is the lesser, and those members' names have to be published within the required notice time. The same applied to every other member. Unfortunately you seem to have taken the view that these are my own requirements - they are not - they are the requirements of the corporations law. As secretary I have the unhappy task of advising the members of this.

Further, you may be surprised to learn that it was I, alone amongst the board, who has been canvassing similar resolutions to the ones you proposed in respect of incorporating the association as an association which is State-based, and I support the next board discussing these. I had asked Ron Lawford to look at the possible advantages to us, and he has been working on this. I did this months prior to your resolution being received.

Additionally, you may also be surprised to learn that I put a motion to the board similar to that of yours in respect of elections, but it was rejected by the board. You said you had the support of 50% of the board. I can inform you that not one single director notified me of any support at all for any of your resolutions. They were similar to matters I have raised and hoped to have put before the members at the AGM, but I have not been supported in these. As a matter of interest, my election reform resolutions were vehemently rejected by Bill Hamilton. I had proposed that the members be asked to vote on these matters - Hamilton rejected each and every resolution aimed at reforming the election process.

I had also advised that the number of vacancies at this election should be 11, according to the maximum number available in the constitution. I conferred with Chris McKeown, who said he agreed with my interpretation of the Articles. Then, after the nominations had closed, Chris called a meeting of the board and agitated for a reduction of the board to 9. I strongly opposed the board taking this unilateral action, as I was of the view, firstly, that the change in board numbers should be made only by the members at the AGM, and secondly, that it was wrong for us to reduce the number of vacancies AFTER we had called for nominations, and closed the nominations. The board rejected my proposals, and accepted Chris' reduction. As a consequence, there are now only nine vacancies. I do not support this action, without it first having been put before the members at the AGM.

Yours sincerely,
Marjorie Pagani.

(I have run out of my word allowance, and so shall finish this in the next post (I hear you breathe a sigh of relief!).

(Post continued)

6/4/03 – Mr Murphie then sent correspondence to non board members, which contained material suggestive of my having acted improperly (when read in light of his earlier accusations). The following response from me was to THIS course of conduct, and not to the innocuous letter Axiom has published, and referred to as the offending letter. That allegation was false and misleading, as Axiom (and his “mate” Mr Murphie well knew):

6/4/03 -Dear Mr Murphie,

I have been forwarded a copy of your e-mail to Mr [recipient deleted]. I put you on notice that I shall not tolerate any defamatory comments, or false accusations, in respect of your resolutions, and my involvement in them. I also advise you that I am intending to publish on PPruNe, a response to your posts under the name of [identity deleted], to effect that you have been well advised as to why your resolutions could not be tabled. I would have thought you would be gentleman enough to admit you were wrong in your accusations about my role in your resolutions, when you well know that you have not complied with commonwealth laws (not imposed by me). You also well know that I, and other members, were not able to get resolutions put forward by the board (including reform of the elections, as you also wanted - and canned by Hamilton) for the same reasons. I, and others, did not have the time to get the necessary 100 names, and then to have them confirmed by AOPA as current and valid members, and then pay the cost of printing, enveloping and mailing them to over 4,000.00 members (as is also a requirement under the corporations law, given that the notices have been published already), so that they all get them at least 21 days before the meeting. My estimate for that is about $3,000.00, which I could not afford, and so my own resolutions, which were rejected by the board and which included election reforms, have not been put up either.

You also know that I support the concept of incorporating as an association under State laws, and have been researching this for some time prior to your resolutions. You also know that neither Bill Hamilton, nor any other director, gave me any indication of support for your resolutions. I have not been attacked by the other members who were unable to comply with the law - only you. Why do you persist in this, knowing that I am merely carrying out my role as company secretary, and knowing that your resolutions were not supported by any other member of the board? And why do you continue with this attack, not having the courage to admit who you are on Prune, when you know the fault is not mine?

I am prepared to await your response, and your own retraction on Prune, prior to publishing these matters, including the advices I have given to you. Neither I, nor you, nor any of the other members who wanted private members' resolutions put up at the meeting, are beyond the law. I cannot change commonwealth legislation for your benefit.

What I shall not do, is to allow you to defame me in this fashion, by references to "white-anting" or any other pejorative comments, blaming me for matters over which I have no control. You said you had taken legal advice, pursuant to my suggestion, but you still seem to maintain that all you need is 21 days notice. I note on Prune you are now saying your "mate" Murphy is going to get the 100 signatures - that indicates to me that you received my advices. However, you chose not to publish this fact.

If you comply with the signatures, the verification by AOPA, and pre-pay the costs of mailing as required, within time to have the resolutions reach the members by the 21 day period, then of course they will be put to the AGM - that is the law. Please understand, I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to your proposals, which are similar to my own ideas, but I cannot break the law for one member.

Marjorie Pagani.

The warning to him came as a consequence of Mr Murphie’s series of letters, including letters to non-board members, making false allegations as to my conduct as the public officer of the company. The letter he published on this site (and which he said was the one which caused me offence) is NOT the one I responded to, and he knows that. I have receipts for the e-mails sent to me by Mr Murhpie. I gave Mr Murhpie the opportunity, through his "mate" Axiom", to retract these allegations that I have "unilaterally" refused to table his motion, as he well knew that he had not complied with the requirements that all other members have to comply with.

Mr Murhpie declined to accept the opportunity to retract, but instead published small portions of his correspondence, which bore no resemblance to the offending letter he sent. Nor did he publish all of his threats of legal action again AOPA, the Board, myself, and past Board members, but instead chose to allege that it was I who was threatening legal action, for no apparent reason.

7/4/03 - Mr Murphie then issued me with a warning that he had sent my reply to " his solicitor and axiom, who I am sure will forward to the pprune moderator for comment", and that my "address to pprune should be likewise circumspect".

In short - private members' resolutions must comply with the corporations laws - those which did not, including mine, have not been tabled. Only those adopted by a majority of the board have been tabled. That is the rule. I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss proposed amendments to the constitution at the first board meeting after the election (assuming I am returned). I advised Mr Murphie of this. These should be compiled and put to an EGM. I would like to see the entire constitution re-written and modernised, and all ambiguous and outdated provisions removed. I support the board size being changed, but only by the members in general meeting - and not by a present committee trying to dictate to a future board. I cannot accept that is proper. If it were so, then it would be possible for the current board to reduce the board size immediately after the close of the vote, and before ratification of the board at the AGM!

Mr Murhpie had proposed a reduction in the board size to 3-5; I supported a reduction to 5-7. Neither proposal was accepted by the board to be put to the members at the AGM. I do not support an attempt at a current board reducing the size of a future board, particularly AFTER the close of nominations. Only the members should have the power to do that.

The previous board was 9; the board before that was 9 - in accordance with a resolution by that board. The current board had NEVER passed a resolution defining the number on the board. Hamilton McKeown and Lyon say the current board was ten. How could that be? It started off as 9; it never rose to 10; it was reduced to 8 by the resignation of Russell Kelly, but was then restored to 9 by the appointment of Ron Lawford. It was then reduced again (by default) to 8 after the resignation of Andrew Kerans; and reduced to 7 after the resignation of Bill Pike. If the current board had resolved to make the current board 10 (and there are no minutes to support this), then why hasn't the current board replaced the directors back to 10? That is the only proper thing to do if there had been the number they allege. Indeed, it is odd that Hamilton (through his “mate” LeadSled) forcefully presents to you that all the previous boards have been 10, when he it was he who moved to reduce the board to 9 in January 2001.

The reality is that, in light of there having been no resolution by this board to reduce the number available in the constitution (maximum of 12), then that is the number which should have been made available for the elections (less Lyon's position). It would then have been up to the next board to decide on any reduction (if insufficient members nominated), or in the case where there were resignations. This board cannot fetter the operation of the next board - although that is what has happened. I fully support a smaller board - BUT ONLY where the members vote for it, or only in the case where the CURRENT board decides not to replace directors, down to the constitutional limit set by the members.

I now hope to get back to the CASA issues I am working on. I shall set out my thoughts on the ways which I think can strengthen the membership, and power, of AOPA tomorrow as soon as time permits.

Marjorie.

[gaunty]

Marjorie

Thanks for that, there are many of us here who have been trying very hard to get axiom to tell his mate Murphie to get with the programme, it's not personal, just the same procedure that every one of us has to follow.


axiom

Having read through Marjorie’s response and reread, from the beginning, your posts throughout this thread, it would be very easy to convince myself that recently someone has appeared in the background feeding your mate Murphie, the bullets, to fire at those who would otherwise be supporters of his beloved Motion.

Murphies' writing style, or your translation of it to us, has changed and become quite dramatically different from that of being "artless", IMHO Murphies genuine persona, to "disingenuous" which IMHO is NOT in his style or in his character.
There is an alter ego at work somewhere in the background, it may be a result of the translation process from Murphie through axiom, but the evidence suggests that there are actually more than just the two of you at work.
Whatever is going on does Murphie no good service at all.
May I suggest, that you strongly counsel Murphie, as a good mate should, to be very wary of those who would attempt to manipulate him for their own political purposes.
Or at the very least have him say in his own words, or 'Murphiespeak', what they think he should say.
Further, it should be pointed out to Murphie that whilst his commitment is valued, it is only so valued, when the 'genuine' Murphie speaks and not when he is being led to create mischief by others as well as being marginalised.
Can you help us out here and ask the "old" Murphie to come back, :D we did like him so, or, have I got it completely upside down again. :(

You can also tell him from me, that I have now had done with the Murphie Motion as a subject, as I suspect has every one else.
He should console himself, that it will be dealt with in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time and place.

In any event further discussion of this particular subject will fall on ears now deaf to it, because there are many others equally important, to be dealt with.

What else does Murphie have to bring to the table.?

[Bart Ifonly]

Re. Majorie Pagani

Phew, what a windy disertation. Methinks she protesteth too much.

Bart;)

[antechinus]

AOPA members are indebted to Marjorie for this thorough revelation of the antics of Mr Murphie and his "mate" Mr Axiom.

The explanation needed to be detailed to expose the duplicities and sleight of hand of Murphie/Axiom.

Axiom's credibility has been blown out of the water & it will be interesting to see how he attempts to recover from his poor conjuring act.

I'm sorry that Marjorie needs to waste so much time with people like Murphie who doesn't seem to comprehend even the basic precepts associated with placing resolutions before the members.

Mr Murphie has shown his true colours, I can't imagine why any one could possibily contemplate his particpiation on the AOPA committee.

Russell

[Emeus]

Well well Axiom, caught flagrante delicto I see !!!!

Your schizoid malaise is slowly bringing you undone as the truth is coming out.

[antechinus]

Cat get your tongue Axiom?

Waiting for instructions?

R

[brianh]

As every one runs around with chainsaws on this Forum, trying to cut down the other trees, let us not lose sight of the Forest.

The "Murphie Motion" is a step forward for AOPA; more fully utilising the skill of our human resources. Forget Murph and his supporters, I as a member want to see AOPA proceed down that track.

The last two pages have dipped again into personalities and denigration. I thought Ax's 6 points were good; Coggie posted more good stuff; and Em needs to keep it coming as it is good member feedback. The accrual debate is best summed up by Marjorie in the current Mag. I am reminded that the then Pres was quite forthright that he would not divert from important business to get into this issue, yet it seems to have been the catalyst to the current situation. As a member, no matter how AOPA manages it and no matter what the legal situation. I firmly believe AOPA must partition long-term subs income toward the years it will be needed.

This Forum must not slip into the Australian ethos of making State and Federal political selections based on rhetoric, peoples shapes and sizes, etc. Policies is what its all about and they seem to be getting lost in the personal crossfires - although that is of course often a cunning politician ploy for avoiding the real issues.

I worry a little about throwing defamation warnings about when the debate gets a bit personal, and it was pleasing to see the (albeit) long explanation from Marjorie. Since humour only laughs false gods off their pedestals, can I add that I "writ" a Wild West song - perhaps more correctly a song for a wild man from the west - to be sung by Johnny Crash at the opening of the AGM. It was titled .... A girl named "sue". I hope the new Board can operate without every heated debate ending in more threats against each other as in the past, or this whole spill has been wasted.

Let us keep the policies coming onto this Forum. That's what I as a member want to vote on.
Cheers

[axiom]

I understand Murphie has registered on Pprune to give voice to his own personality. I believe that it serves no purpose to answer an address like Ms pagani's simply because whatever is said in defence, it would be used against the poster by her supporters to again gain favour at the expense of the other candidates.

Murphie would by now fully understand where his support is coming from and his detractors can be measured by the amount of noise coming from a few sources which mainly are disenfranchised, disillusioned, and mainly nasty resignees.

I note that Russel has admitted to and marjorie accepting help from him after his resignation and one wonders where the alleged confidentiality breakdown came from.

To put things in perspective, I and many others saw little to be concerned about with AOPA until the resignations of Messrs, Kelly and Kerans.

From that moment on things started (especially on this post) getting nasty toward the persons opposite to the abovementioned resignees.

Axiom tried to give some balance to the arguements and, as things proved correctly, coveted the anonominity that Pprune gave its posters regarding a possible attack on one at a legal level.

Whatever Murphie's correspondence to Ms Pagani, it pales into insignificance when you see day after day, misinformation like the open committee meetings denial from Andrew who was a Board member and had more idea than the rest of us of it's accuracy or not.

I would say of the confidentiality aspect, axiom has said he was sad that even he had been privy to this sort of thing and the Board should close ranks.

Such is impossible right now with leaks on both sides and matters of robust political discussion being the subject of legal threats.

As said before, if Murphie is rolled at the election, I am sure he will accept the defeat gracefully (as I imagine would Hamilton Rudd and anyone else of unsatisfactory acceptance to this noisy forum), and fade away quietly for the good of the Association. (taking example from my mate Jim Dawson).

I would not accept this same group making so much noise to do likewise, I am sure they will be around for a while on the sidelines.

Or will they?

[antechinus]

Axiom

You need to be a little more careful with the detail:

Quote
___________________________________________________
I note that Russel has admitted to and marjorie accepting help from him after his resignation and one wonders where the alleged confidentiality breakdown came from.
___________________________________________________

Where is that admission? I DID say that I had co-authorerd the Code of Conduct, that was done in October last year well before my resignation.

Your smoke screen fails to address the issues raised in Marjorie's posting. Do you deny what she has said?

Ask your mate Bill Hamilton why he deliberately leaked a continuum of confidential board emails. He does have an explanation which is better coming from him.

I think you are right about one thing Axiom, most AOPA members would have now locked in their vote. There is not a lot of future in this bickering. I intend to go away flying for the next 10 days and enjoy what I thought we were all here for.

Russell

[Bob Murphie]

Given the posts of recent, I must now deal my cards;

they are in VOTING ORDER;

1) KERANS

2) MURPHIE

3) McKEOWN

LAWFORD

HAMILTON

RUDD

BERTRAM

KENNEDY

PIKE.

Thank you.

[snarek]

Still in favour of 'civil disobedience' scud ?? :}

I still think your 'motion' is a good one, and will support it. Pity you didn't vote for Marjorie or Gaunty. I think their skills and acumen are what you will need to build a workable solution around the basic idea.

I'm afraid though that (as 'elected' by you) Board will be fractuous. I certainly couldn't work with Hamilton, Lyon or Rudd again and would never support any of them for executive positions.

[Maxima]

Murphie;
Are you sure?
Snarek #1? Better check that with your disciple axiom: I thought he wasn't talking to Snarek.
What about Gaunty, he has said some kind things about you here - ask your mate axiom.
Don't you like women? 4 nominated, and you didn't even pick one. You prefer boys, do you?
Pike last? Come on...
And who were the next 2 (who should also be here);)

[snarek]

Scud

I gotta agree with Maxima a bit here. Problem with AOPA in my view has been too much chest beating and d!ck duelling between Jumbo Pilots, millionaires and boy lawyers over the past few years.

And it just hasn't worked. If anything, things are worse.

Women negotiate differently, and they provide balance. That's why the AWPA (with 600 members) are today more effective than AOPA with 4600!!! They also work together, 600 members is about 50% of all licenced women. If AOPA could do that we'd have about 35,000 members!!!!

So, if you haven't posted that, how about a little change???

Please (did I say that??? :} )

[paddopat]

There has been some very costructive debate on here recently. Congratulations to those Board members and candidates who openly depated with members.

For that reason my vote goes to Kerans, Pagani, Murphy.

From experience to Lawford, Kennedy, Errey

and also from experience NOT to Hamilton, Pike, Rudd.

The rest, I don't know them. Random probably.

Pat

[brianh]

Very topical issue.

I see the latest from ASA today is an urgent one re Class E airspace indicating a risk scenario coz CASA has bypassed the ARG - let me quote one part direct:
"The document was written by CASA to undermine and frustrate the proper and safe introduction of Minister John Anderson’s National Airspace System (NAS). The Minister had given CASA clear instructions that all NAS educational material was to be discussed with the ARG. This instruction was ignored by CASA."

Those supporting the gentle touch approach to the Regulator can ignore the above because it is obvious that a Regulator with safety and cooperation at heart could not really do this so it must be a fiction! It originates with Dick Smith so it must be the result of the Dick Dueling mentioned by an earlier poster rather than a Regulator that believes it is above the rules of the common man? Sig Heil!

Ackers - good point about the female negotiating style. It is generally accepted that they negotiate more for "win, win" results than we macho hunter-killers. I have several ladies on my how to vote card.
PS I take your earlier point re your pre-engineer reality experience. I have concluded that you were not the Engineer Officer who we convinced on exercises that out the back of the troposcatter shelter equipment there was a gigacycle to ride to the Officers Mess.

Murph
My proxy and motion support is in the mail. I might need your help soon, I am about to be sued also, for injuries sustained by a westerner who fell off his chair laughing at the appropriateness of my proposed opening anthem.
Cheers

[Dogimed]

Do you honestly believe there are 70000 licenced pilots in Australia?

Come on, more like 20,000 current. Lets not get misleading here...

Dog.

[paddopat]

Dogmimed

snarek is correct, there are 74,600 (approx) licenced pilots in Australia. How many are current can't be determined.

Airservices have about 38,000 'map buyers' on their books, so that is a fair estimate, except I've never bought from Airservices, I get all my maps from the local pilots shop. So how many like me are there??? Of course some of those 'customers' would be non-pilots.

So I estimate perhaps 35-40,000 active pilots.

So, perhaps AOPA couldn't get 35,000, but 20,000 looks better than the 4,600 snarek has quoted!!!!

Pat

[antechinus]

Bob Murphy

Just a point of clarification, the vote is not preferential, there is no 1,2,3 etc. Just a tick or cross needed for nine or less. You can vote for only candidate if you wish...

Your vote is your business but leaving out Pagani and Gaunt is a miscalculation as is including Hamilton.

Russell

My understanding is that the nbr of licenced pilots with current medicals is around 20,000.

AOPA membership is around 4,350.

9,000 AOPA members have pulled out since 1997.

Annual loss approx 10% from 1997-2001, 5% 2001-2003.

Russell

[ulm]

20,000 GA pilots with current medicals. What about those who have gone to AUF???

It seems the answer lies at around the 30,000 mark and it also seems by Russell's figures that AOPA was tracking at 50%, BEFORE Smith, Munro, Hamilton.

So Bob Murphie, I agree with the postees before me, your choices won't make for an effective Board. I hope the other AOPA voters put a bit more thought into it.

My understanding is the SODIUM group are Hamilton, Lyon, Rudd and Mckeown who are absolutely incompatible with the Pagani, Kerans, Gaunt, Lawford WATER group. Put them together and you get instability.

In my mind only the new group offers an alternative to a dwindling member base and reduced credibility.

Chuck

[Dogimed]

I agree that certain types cannot work with one another. Note: your SODIUM and WATER reference. But bear in mind that it looks poorly on the potential directors that are giving ultimatums to the members with the words "I will not work with..., this will not work with...." Maybe your right, or maybe your wrong, but there is only a select few candidates that are saying that. Potential to be burned down the road if they are put in that position. As well as the fact that bar 3 directors, everyone else is saying that they dont care who gets on, but they will make as much effort as possible to get along and make AOPA work.


Now as a paying member, I dont particually liked being pushed to vote for a "team" or nothing. It shows the weakness in the candidates. There are better ways of lobbying and also working together. I want a board that can work together for a common goal, not one that will throw the towel in if they don't get their way!

Dog

What happens if I vote the following.

PAGANI
MURPHIE
GAUNT
KERANS
MCKEOWN
BERTRAM
WILLIAMS
HAMILTON
ERREY

Am I throwing my votes away because half the board will resign if these candidates get in? Not impressed and I HATE ULTIMATUMS! Would rather vote other than vote for if the ultimatum is pushed.

<edited for afterthoughts>




:zzz: :zzz: <-- I have no idea what that icon is>

[gaunty]

Well I finally got the AOPA today, it takes a little while to get across the Nullarbor.

So a good bottle of red and a bit of study tonight.

25, 35 or 75 thousand pilots it doesn't matter.

There is a reason why at least half of that number, at the very worst 10,000 aren't members.
We must work first on finding out the REAL reason and building some bridges back towards them.
I am making some progress over here, I think, it will not be easy, nor quick.
There is a big job in trust and integrity to be rebuilt and that is only achieved by REAL action, on the ground listening and bringing their concerns directly to the table, not talk, not bluster, not motherhood statements or motions, just plain simple honest hard work. AND LISTENING.

I've said it before, the definition of insanity "is continuing to do the same hing and expecting to get a different result"

It really doesn't matter now, who was responsible or why, other than that they just should not be allowed to continue.

We are just at the "critical mass" AOPA needs, to remain viable and relevant, any further reduction in membership will see that whoever "gets in" and does not understand that, will be driving the "Marie Celeste."

brianh

This time you will get an answer on the CASA thing that I promised you.

I do not share your feeling that CASA are being duplicitous in regard to the NAS, maybe I am naive, but anything that has Smith anywhere in the equation is rarely that simple.

Let me have some dinner, catch up with my dog Fido, our fourth child, have a read of the AOPA and I will be back.

The trick is going to be separating me mate Murphie and his Motion from the strolling travellers of no fixed percentage, who would accompany him.

[cogwheel]

Well I think part of it is very easy. Anyone that supports Hamilton is not on my list Hamilton MUST go. AOPA can no longer indulge with his bumf.

Therefore Murphie will not get my vote as he seems to be well into Hamilton's back pocket. Sad, because his concept deserves someone to push it to where it may work. But Hamilton would not support it (removes his power base!) Cant work that one out Bob.

I will not be supporting Pike either as he has shown little leadership and in fact has obviously refused or been unable to pull Hamilton into line (work buddies?).

McKeown has lost me with his inference to censorship in the magazine. It is just not acceptable and cannot be condoned. It seems he may not be a supporter of the ladies either? Also not on these days.

Rudd and Kennedy have like Lyons had a go and done very little to advance the cause. Why should they be given another two years at such a critical time to prove they place AOPA first and have the ABILITY to make a difference. I have no confidence in Lyons and he must go at the first chance. Without Hamilton he will have no supporters and I am sure the Board will lose confidence in him in quick time. A strong leader will quickly show him the door.

By a process of elimination, my vote will therefore go to....(in ballot paper order)

GAUNT
ERREY
LAWFORD
KERANS
MACDONALD
BERTRAM
MAHLBERG
PAGANI
WILLIAMS


All else being equal, I strongly recommend everyone vote for PAGANI. She is the ONLY candidate that is capable of providing the leadership AOPA now not only need, but requires. She showed at the recent FLOT conference that she also has the respect of others in the industry. An ability that AOPA has not seen exhibited for many years.

[ulm]

Dog

Again, youthfull misunderstanding. Do you really expect those who have reigned out of frustration with other directors to then 'openly' (stupidly???) lobby for them.

Face it, AOPA needs change, and a lot of it, now.

Chuck

[Dogimed]

Do I really sound that youthful on Prune, thought I was rather acting above my age.

(Trying to set a standard!) :D :D

Dog

[ulm]

Dog

Yes. As you know, I have worked for politicians. To think that AOPA is anything but a political lobby group is naive.

You also know I have 'worked' with Bill Hamilton in the past. He painted himself into a corner over Part 47, and even when given an out, maintained his position. In the view of a lot of members who e-mailed me at the time, he was wrong.

The word for that is intransigent, or recalcitrant.

No wonder people like Russell and Andrew have said they don't want him back. How else are the members going to find out. You want then voting in a fog of no details.

I note you don't deny there is a problem, you just ask that those with a gripe 'be nice'. Well sorry mate, nice isn't going to change anything, and we need change now or there soon won't be an AOPA.

:p

[Dogimed]

I agree there is a problem, PLEASE do I ever agree! However I think that the way it is being dealt with by a few, is wrong, not in the fact that you aren't being nice, but in the fact that you are probably p1ssing more people off and you will lose votes!

I dare say this election is going to get very dirty, considering the email that flew around yesterday lobbying unashamedly in an unfair arena. Better to get opposites to argue it out fairly than oneupmanship with the members.

So, tell me, am I throwing my votes away if I vote as above??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

cogwheel

I do agree that Lyons, Rudd and Kennedy should leave, as they havent performed the best + Pike

Dog

[Maxima]

Now I have the magazine.

What a great mag!

President's Report, by Bill Pike.
Strict Liability absurdity

Bill is absolutely correct. The position of CASA is absurd - strict liability can only be for minor or administrative matters. We must insist that CASA looks more closely at this issue, perhaps by appointing another team of lawyers with a better understanding of the basic concepts.

Coalition of the unwilling?
So much for consultation.
As for flight time limitations, good point. The US rules for flight time limitations don't include private flights. The Dept. of Transport does not require long distance truck drivers to count time spent driving to work in their cars, or on their motorbikes (or tractors like Bill does, for 2 hours). The proposed regs about this weren't even part of the FLOP conference!

How can CASA reject out of hand the proposals about the use of oxygen - weren't they there to listen? The proposals have worked well in NZ and the USA - is the Oz air too thin, or what? Or is it just that the CASA exec's have skin that is too thin?

As for the 'fill-in' president -look at the blatant electioneering by him in the mag - what a farce! How come all the other candidates were only allowed to have 250 words, and McKeown comes in with a "president's" update - a full page of "I am, I did" etc.: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: He forgot to mention all of the other people on the committee who did the hard yards on these things. What happened to electoral fairness? Good onya Bill - sorry to see you go - at least you were happy to let the people have their say in the mag - McKeown has just confirmed his almighty power, and promises to censor everything that he doesn't agree with! And he says that the committee asked him to be president - crap - he took the job by default - no-one else would take the job while him and Hamilton were on the board.

As to the "loud individuals" - do you mean those that don't go to lunch with CASA, and look to them for work (and a means of income). McKeown - aren't CASA your clients????? And what about the AOPA members who ring you up for advice - you charge enough for one letter to pay out my mortgage - service to the members? Bullsh*t.

Treasurer's Report
A fair and balanced report. It seems McKeown and Hamilton are responsible for this attempt to pull the wool over the members' eyes - how dumb do you think we are boys? What guarantee will you give me that my 5 year membership will be honoured? I'll be asking you some questions about this at the AGM - hope you've got the readies!

Code of Conduct
I'm pleased to see this - a bird tells me that Kelly and Pagani wrote this - but Hamilton and Lyon wouldn't support it as a motion going to the AGM for the Code to be included in the articles of association - Shame, shame!

Letters to the Editor
Bill Hamilton - You and McKeown obviously got together to rip off the other candidates - there's no place for your electioneering in the Letters section - what has your letter got to do with anything except you beating your tired old chest, to drum up a few (much needed) votes? You have both abused your privileged positions on the board to get an unfair advantage - the members will see through this - we are not as stupid as you seem to think.

The happiest part of the mag is on the back page, where we are able to welcome aboard 11 new members - just hope we can get a board together which will make them want to stay, and their mates to follow.

I see the ballot paper is only for nine people - McKeown and Hamilton I hear, knocked the other two off after the nominations have closed - hope you get knocked off for your trouble fellas. Seems there will be some challenges to this - I'll be interested to see your answers to this at the AGM - expect there to be lots of questions!

[ulm]

Dog

Would it help if you knew the e-mail list, used by Kerans, was compiled by me and updated by him over the last 3 years.

It was not, as suggested recently by McKeown, the property of anyone, especially AOPA (although it was given to Gregg Lucas in 2001 to update AOPA's rather thin address lists).

Compared with McKeown and Hamiltons use of the Magazine for self praise I think an e-mail to 1500 members is irrelavent, but a fair attempt to level a very rough playing field.

Careful who you believe in these interesting times

Oh, and why were you interested in where I live the other day, did someone ask????

J (ULM # 2)

[Shooter and Voter]

YE GODS – and this man wants to be el presidento! This piece of crap accidentally fell off a truck into my grubby little hands in Melbourne this morning – thought you might all enjoy some enlightenment from the leader who-would-be.

(From Chris McKeown – September 2002):

All,

When someone become unfinancial I think they should drop off our list of members – ie no more e-mails! I reached the conclusion that Bill Pike’s mate out the back who complains about the fact that we send him an email with a Word attachment, can go and get lost in his world of depravation!

AOPA should not be looking after the interests of winging, dust eating, outback, out of touch, kite flyers who complains when the winds of progress financially reach their preserve of a humanity that perhaps existed before the compass!

Greg Lucas forwarded me an email from an ex member. The exmember complained about an attachment that he could not open – it was an MS Word document!

Bill Pike – stuff your bloody mate that just wants to fly around his little bit of the world! He (assuming it is a he) can get elcricricty. Whatever, AOPA should waste its time on these people – these people who will never come into town where there are no kite flyers, where they have to pay a fee, where they will have to work their radio, where they have to be accountable, accountable, good grief, do you mean keep to the left – no you mean keep to the right. – I cann’t do that – that’s why I will stay out the back and windge about you people who can.

I say – Tell them to look around and join the great outback. If you can’t be bothered to stay with developments in technology, in communications and aviation, then don’t waste AOPA’s time by it having to listen to your backward, dusty, achonistic view on life!

I think it’s time we change our preference of the type of member we service. Just because some loud mouth, illitrate, dust dweller, does not want to get a radio, or even talk on a radio, does not mean AOPA should bend over backwards to preserve his (God knows, a female would not be so dumb!) so called right to fly! They don’t need us, they’ll fly anyway!

These two bob hicks, hicks that make much boring noise, trying to drag us all down to their dark, insular, procial, deprived, benighted existence, and probably just because we have electrict and have a working knowledge of the alphabet! STUFF THEM – AOPA does not need to wast it precious resources on these miserable excuses for an aviator in the in the 21 Century!

He should have had MS Word.

( BTW, this is an exact copy – spelling mistakes, warts, and all! Nice of you to let us know your real thoughts Chris.)

[Dogimed]

You ever seen those monkeys with the eyes shut, ears blocked and mouth covered.

Well, I am all of the above, bar the mouth covered bit. (tee hee)

My assumption was my own, yes, I can have them. :p

Fair enough with the list, compiled by yourselves. That answers one question, (that did not really need to be answered anyway, because I AM not taking sides) BUT! I doubt Mckeown or Hamilton are telling me who to vote for.... and that is the nagging thing.

Re: Questions about where you live. I believed it to be an innocent conversation and no secret motives or such intended. Just a concern regarding issues. PM if you want a full explanation or call.

<sigh>

Dog

[snarek]

V&S

I do recall that e-mail. I am also a little sadened that someone would leak it. This is why a degree of Board confidentiality is needed. But, I suppose if one 'side' leaks some of the 'other side' are bound to follow. :sad:

Now, I own a non-radio 'rag and tube kite'. I don't like this particular 'opinion'. I remember when Chris sent out this e-mail he was invited to drop his trousers so it could be correctly filed.

Other Board members jumped on him, including me, and he promptly pulled his head in. I am of the opinion the red wine content of that e-mail exceeded 85%!!!

That is why you have Boards. To filter other's opinions. This is why this Board doesn't work, one opinion won't accept filtration ... and it isn't Chris McKeown. :mad:

So, give Chris a break, he is after all a 'South East Corner-ite' with little real experience of much beyond where the dirt turns red.

Mind you, if he keeps up trying to censor the magazine it'll be trousers down time again, if I get reelected :}

Dog.

No one is telling, we are just asking. On the other issues, your explanation is accepted. We just wondered, thats all :cool:


AK :E

[gaunty]

snarek me old

You are much too kind.

The Genie is now out of the bottle.

I did not encourage the revelation of the above, but it has been and by your corroboration shown to be so and now cannot be ignored.

I am embarrassed, cringeful even, that my representation is currently in these hands.

I am not being precious, I have been known to enjoy the odd demijohn of singing syrup also, but I actually become even more relaxed and tolerant, not less so.

I am disappointed that you choose to defend such boorish behaviour. I am the most tolerant person you could meet with regard to personal peccadilloes, having gained a PhD with Post Doctoral awards at the University of Hard Knocks and Experience, but I am also a student of Freud.

I think I know from whence McKeown comes and it is difficult to disagree with the thrust of his sentiments, but it is the manner and tone of their expression and the misogynistic flavours that greatly alarm me.

Nup, to even begin to rebuild the respect we need, to be heard we need people who are a little more “balanced”, both in respect for the membership and their problems and the manner in which we communicate with them.

As has just been demonstrated, you can’t have it both ways and be ingenuous enough to expect to get away with claiming “protection” from the effects of the singing syrup, it is just not acceptable.

High office in the representation of our membership demands high standards of ethical and personal public behaviour.

Me perfect, not even close, I’d at least have had the sense to run my rant through the same “spell and grammar checker” embedded in the very MS Word application of which he so roundly berates the poor miscreants lack of use. :rolleyes:

[brianh]

Last two pages very interesting, and Ulmy has me a thinking.

Gaunty, no matter who was involved, if CASA has bypassed the correct procedure it is a mortal sin and complete arrogance. Try em on in your aviation business and see how you fare if you step outside procedural guidelines ... bye, bye, baby etc! This attitude of Boyd has Dick in his hand, so to speak, is allowing the surrounds to hide the weapons of mass destruction lurking in the CASA mindset.

I like the comment about ultimatims, and also about sodium and water. What we rank and file can deduce from all this is that nine people selected are unlikely to be able to work as a team. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this and I believe other normal minded members feel the same.

These individual members who aspire to the Board are supposed to be doing it for the good of aviation and AOPA. Yet probably 30% of these 14 pages is devoted to hate mail and attempts to substantiate why the Board must be hand picked or it will not work. What a crock of sh1t!!!!!!!!!

There is a bloody good fiction story by McLean or Innes. The last sentence always sticks in my mind - "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us". In the Boards, RSL and sporting committees, etc I have been involved with there has always been a mix of likes and dislikes but we have managed to survive and thrive. Yet we now have an allegedly mature group incapable of harmonising. I'd vote informal in disgust if I wasn't worried that this would possibly allow the wrong result.

To all candidates - start telling we members how you will work as a team, not why you need to be the team selector. Lift your game!

[Mooney Operator]

It is interesting to see all the candidates scrambling for support "votes" from the present AOPA members. :E I hope we see this same dedication and enthusiasm from the same candidates after they are elected, and the members are not just forgotten about until next round of voting. :D

Personally it maybe better to vote for the quite achievers, those less vocal candidates who not discredit others? :ok:

[Maxima]

Mooney Man;
Why should we vote for the "quite achievers"?
What have they quite achieved?

[snarek]

Gaunty

I wasn't defending the e-mail, nor the opinion (which I do not share). Only that the contents of that e-mail were never communicated with members because the filtration system worked.

Therefore it does no real good attacking McKeown.

Dog.

I will work 'with' Hamilton et al, but I will never again trust their opinions. I learned that from the Board of hard knocks!!!

I will do my utmost to make sure the 'new' AOPA is effective, communicates with and effectively represents members, and does not dream up policy on the run.

I also will do my absolute to ensure Hamilton et al do not represent AOPA to the world. Or, dog, are you suggesting 'working with' means subservience???

[paddopat]

What nonsense!!!

It is plain AOPA needs change. At Narromine a person from AWPA stood up and told them to stop their soapbox partonising lectures and work to achieve change. They didn't.

I have ever heard tell that Pike once called Pagani 'our token shiela' at a meeting of members!!! A joke, or a snide little way of putting her in her place???

I didn't believe a word of Hamilton's long but questionable explanation of where AOPA's riches were squandered.

No 'quiet achiever' is going to rid AOPA of these clapped out old men. We need people with guts, people prepared to come on here and debate openly with people who, because of their anonimity, can be less than polite.

Which is why I'm not voting for all of Kerans' list. I have left Pike off. I am of the opinion Kerans only put Pike on out of loyalty to Pagani. I understand and respect that loyalty, but honestly Andrew and Marjorie, Pike is a part of the problem and could never change his ways enough to ever be a part of a solution.

Pat

[Dogimed]

I will work 'with' Hamilton et al, but I will never again trust their opinions. I learned that from the Board of hard knocks!!!


That was what I was looking for, I can feel comfortable voting the way I want now....

Good luck in the election ;)

Dog

[pesawat_terbang]

snarek

You are a braver man than me. I don't see any future for AOPA while any of the old men of the sky are pushing their unassailable opinions down everybodies throats.

PT

[snarek]

PT

Yeah well. I'd have to describe my last term on the Board as pure hell. In fact I've just been abused by one of them, via e-mail, yet again for not seeing the world through his eyes. :E

I can live with that. :uhoh:

But to make things easier, AOPA opinion must come from the members, and from all the members and represent the majority, not just the latest whinger. I'm not sure how to do that yet, but I'm open to ideas. :confused:

I also think we need the views of non members, especially those feeling disenfranchised, so we can fix the problems that cost us the 10,000 Russell says have left. :{

PPRuNe is useful for at least an idea on that and I hope Woomera keeps an AOPA Forum stickied after the election for just that purpose. If I get elected I'll be here for you all to have a go at :}

AK

[bushy]

Gaunty
I have been looking at some of your posts lately, and I see a consistent pattern of G.A.bashing which I find disturbing. Some examples are

"to keep the same old piece of sh!t flying"

"clapped out geriatric fleet and low wages"

"there are too many of these old sh!tfighters out there"

"It is highly unlikely that you have operated new equipment"

"if you are to become a professional pilot"

And many more. It appears to me that you have a hatred for anything in the general aviation industry, and I wonder if you really can represent G.A. and try to get better legislation and conditions for us, or will you try to get our machinery legislated out of business.
I am sorry. You do not have my trust or my vote.

[Maxima]

Bushy;
Was Mitchell standing close behind you while you wrote this?
Or was it Hamilton?

[gaunty]

bushy

You have obviously gone to some trouble there, I'm flattered to a "t", but lets get "realistic" shall we. :p

It appears to me that you have a hatred for anything in the general aviation industry, and I wonder if you really can represent G.A. and try to get better legislation and conditions for us, or will you try to get our machinery legislated out of business.

Hmmm apart form my response on the "Lake Evella" thread, I simply wont and dont resile from those remarks and it would have been nice had you spent the extra time to put them into the context in which they were made, but you get that.

If trying to lift the standards in that part of the GA industry, out of the third world conditions that seem to be acceptable to you for the young pilots, is interpreted by you as being "hatred for anything in the general aviation industry ", then I am happy for you to describe it so, as long as you understand that I will continue to fight for that increase in standards for them.

If properly serving your interests means condemning you to fly the same, already 25 year old aircraft, for the rest of your working life, so that you can pass the same seat along to the next youngster in line so he can do another 40 years in it by keeping quiet in case someone notices, then by all means vote me out.

Think about it, although the tenor of your posts suggests that you have already made up your mind, IF lobbying to get our machinery legislated out of business was to lead to better legislation and conditions for us, and I'm NOT saying we should then why would you not support that.

You really are stupid Gary, saying that, you know you can see the headlines now.
Aspiring AOPA Director wants to get our machinery legislated out of business:rolleyes:

[Outback Pilot]

I heard on the grape vine today that you do not need to vote for all nine candidates on the blue election form. You only need to vote for six candidates in total. If you vote nine you may get people in that we do not want by default. :uhoh:

Could anybody else clarify if this is correct or do we have to vote for the whole nine? :rolleyes:

[snarek]

bushy

I'd have to say maxima must have got it right. Sounds like a WA comment to me.

Gaunty has his views on Charter, and they are valid. I have slightly differing views, like joyflights shouldn't be treated the same as charter, but more like gliding. The passenger assumes the risk.

It will all come out through level debate and consultation with the members.

Your 'sponsored' comments though could hardly be seen as anything less than 'sponsored' whiteanting. I refer you again to maxima's post.

Outback pilot

I don't know. I'm not in Australia at the moment. I suggest you ring Marjorie, her contact number is in the magazine. I will e-mail her if you can wait that long.

AK

[Bart Ifonly]

O.P.
Quite correct, we only need to vote for those that we want on the board. You don't have to vote for nine.

Bart

[monkeyfly]

This thread is getting interesting. (I'll let you decide on the use of the word.)

[cogwheel]

You can vote for any number UP TO NINE.

Voting paper says...."in up to NINEboxes..."

So even one tick is ok...

[snarek]

At least this time you can vote, that makes a change.

And, a lot of you are really taking an interest, potential candidates for next year perhaps, again, a pleasant change :)

AK

[monkeyfly]

I've been around the traps for a while now, only to see the reduction of an industry which I love. This industry of ours provides a great range of "things" to us all, both the pilots and the community. To those people who feel like nothing is possible, just teach them to fly. The smile on the face is never to be forgotten.

Apart from a few individual people in CASA, CASA (as an organisation) does not care for General Aviation. It sees no gain in the retraining of general aviation. Yes, this is my opinion. But apart from the scale of CASA's disinterest, will anyone disagree?

The challenge in obtaining a pilots licence is gratifying enough for most people. (rightfully so). Others have chosen to face the challenge build a business within the aviation industry. This is no different really from building a business in any other industry, except for CASA.

When you have a CFI not being prepared to question a wrong “decision” made by CASA, you wounder why. It is because there are anywhere between half a dozen to 50 pilots who depend on the AOC you earn a living. The risk is too great for that individual to speak up.

At this time, the only group representing these pilots is AOPA.

Others have said it. Lift the game “ladies and gentlemen”, the stakes are too high. A “vigorous” debate is not what is needed. This is nothing more than slinging mud like a bunch of school boys.

What are you going to do for me??? I don’t want to use a negative method for selecting the board.

[snarek]

monkey

If we don't debate the issues, how do you know AOPA won't do something that really pleases bushy as he flies over the 'East Pit' but that really p!sses you off???

As for what I will do, I've posted here a hundred times, read back. But I will talk with you all, here, e-mail or in person.

AK

[gaunty]

Marjorie/snarek/Hamilton and others;

Many members here have through my fairly busy PM box, posed the following questions to me in relation to the "numbers of vacancies that they can vote" to which I can not, nor would not even attempt to reply, can you please help me/them.

It is a conundrum:

A summary of their concerns is;

They are not convinced that the Board have the powers in the Articles to "decide" the number of vacancies for any Election or apropos, the authority to "direct" them on the ballot paper to vote on any number other than that described in the Articles. The power to decide the Board numbers after the election is conceded.
They are advised that what has been described as "precedent" (in numbers) does not have any 'definition' in the Articles, nor can any number of Boards previous, reach into the future, without the explicit and continuing approval of the membership.

They have proposed several questions;

1. If they tick 11 boxes in accordance, with what they are advised is their "reasonably and properly held" understanding of the Articles of their Association, will that render their vote "informal", if so who decides this and on what authority.

2. What would happen in this event, if they successfully "challenge" what they would consider to be their disenfranchisement and arrogation of their rights under the Articles, by the Board or the members thereof responsible.

3. If ticking of 11 boxes is ultimately "allowed" in the case of those individuals who decide to exercise their "rights", then they would feel equally uncomfortable with the disenfranchisement and arrogation of the rights under the Articles of those who "obeyed" what they then believed to be a "legal" instruction.

4. Of course the corollary; is the "direction" to only vote for 9 actually legal in itself? If this is found to be not so, then a fresh election at some expense must be held.

In the meantime the real business of AOPA is on hold.

4. Before they take such action and having regard for the possible consequences thereafter, would it not be simpler and wiser for the Board and the safest course for AOPA, to now advise all of the membership, by whatever means is required, that they have the option to vote for up to 11 seats.

5. Their advice is, that as there can not be any "downside or disadvantage to the membership as a whole" demonstrated by this action, as the Newly elected Board may then if they have the "numbers" decide how they wish to constitute their number by voting in the appropriate manner, then they would most likely succeed in an action.

They offer that it would be a brave, if not irresponsible President and Board, who ignored this issue, which has such a simple and harmless resolution, yet contains the potential for great harm if this simple "fix" is not executed..
They sound really serious to me.
What do I tell em.???
Other than for the time being and until they recieve instructions otherwise they should only vote for 9???
But then we come back to the questions they have asked?
I'm getting a headache now.:(


snarek

At least this time you can vote, that makes a change. :D
Isn't it great.
Is this what they call an embarrasment of riches:ok:

monkeyfly

With the greatest of respect a "vigourous" debate is exactly what this organisation needs. It is because this was not previously possible, or necessary, to get elected that has brought us to this place in time.

The smile on the face is never to be forgotten. is why I bother,... a lot.

[bushy]

Maxima
I have not met or spoken with either Mitchell or Hamilton. I express my own opinions here.

[snarek]

Bushy

Then I unreservedly withdraw my assumption. That acomplishment makes you a very lucky man in my eyes, I am jealous :E

Gaunty.

Yes, the voting is a conundrum. I have e-mailed Marjorie, but with no reply. But, Elections Australia was told, by Chris McKeown (illegally or otherwise), to only take 9. So they will, I guess, disallow any ballot with more than 9.

My reading of the articles is still the same, 11 vacancies, and I can only assume this Board did it to increase their chances of being on the next.

BUT .. the size of the next Board is an issue for that Board. So, if that Board choses, it can do a countback and appoint the next two elected. So, there will still be a way around this without causing the expence and frustration of another election.

The allowable size of the Board is an issue for the members and it is my view that McKeown, Hamilton et al should NEVER have put themselves above that with this destabilising and questionable move!!!

So, my advice, vote for up to 9. You don't have to vote for 9 though, you may in fact vote for just one.

AK

[brianh]

I could not agree more that it is the issues that need debating.

If I search through these 14 odd pages (odd perhaps being very descriptive) I can find enuf personality issues to train psychologists for 20 years but very little on those real issues that affect the members.

AsI have said earlier, first elect the Board on people's merits but the Board then has the responsibility - if necessary via professional help and there are people out there who do help Boards get their act together - to second get its act together.

The ego issues I have seen displayed within and without this Forum leave me doubtful that some of the incumbents can achieve my second desire. This leaves me still awake of a night counting sheep, sorry Board candidates.

Akkers has at least said he will cooperate, that is a start. The Murph motion is a good one, although it is internal. Now, let's see some policies to debate. My kick off is recruitment. This probably also spins off to the PPL syllabus and why is has the wrong things in it because CASA always did it that way. Anyway, over to the candidates for some policies for GA / members/
Cheers, like Gaunty I'm off to make a quid today. Every one enjoy the break if you are not on over the weekend.
BJ

[cogwheel]

There is only ONE real issue right now...............


THE SUBSTAINABLE FUTURE OF AOPA.



Unless we get that right, GA is doomed to have no mature, respected and responsible representation at a time when it has needed it like no other time in its history.


Only then we can worry about all the other issues that people lose sleep about.


:(

[Marjorie Pagani]

I have just returned from (yet another) circuit court trip, and caught up with the posts about voting in the election. As you know, I did not support the decision to reduce the board candidate number to 9 after the close of nominations (or at all - I wanted the issue to be decided by the members). I do not consider it to have been within the power ofthe board to do it. However, Chris McKeown has notified the elections returning officer that the dandidature is 9, and that is reflected int he balot papers.

In my view, if a member nominates less than nine, then those votes will be counted, but of course, the member won't be exercising his or her rights, and will be wasting a vote in respect of the ability to choose the remainder. If a member chooses more than 9, it is likely that the vote will be invalid, and the member's votes will be completely wasted.

I suggest that no members waste any of their votes - choose the nine you want to support. It may be, that after the election, a challenge will be mounted by one or more of the candidates who were unsuccessful. If that challenge is successful, the election itself will be invalid, and the process will have to 'start again'. However, it may be that the incoming board (of 10) might choose to fill the other two spaces, pending a constitutional amendment to the articles being brought about by the members at an EGM, which, as far as I am concerned, is the appropriate way of permanently dealing with the board number, except for the case of resignations etc., in which case it is appropriate for the current board to determine the number which will be replaced, but only for the life of THAT board, and only in accordance with the minimum/maximum numbers set by the members by way of the constitution.

On a related matter, as company secretary, I had included in the Information to Members page published in the magazine, the following passage, in the How to Vote section (about proxies):

Either

1. Complete and return the proxy form (printed in the Magazine, and available from the AOPA office) so that it is received by AOPA by 11 am Thursday 23rd May 2002.

Or

2. Attend the Meeting. The sending of a proxy form will not prevent you from attending the meeting.

Chris McKeown directed the editor of the magazine to remove clause 2. I did not consent to this. I shall be publishing this clause in the next magazine, as an omission from my previous notice. I want to assure members that, notwithstanding the removal of that clause from the notice, ALL members who have sent in a proxy are still entitled to attend the meeting and participate in the debate.

I hope this clarifies the issues, and I look forward to meeting you at Murray Bridge.

Marjorie.

Oops - when I referred to the removal of clause 2 in the last post, I should have referred only to the second sentence of clause 2. The first part "Attend the Meeting", remains, but it was the second sentence (about the members' rights to attend even though they had sent in a proxy) which had been removed, and which I shall restore in the next magazine.

Marjorie.:)

[triadic]

Me thinks the returning officer for this election has a problem.

In the April magazine there were two articles written by McKeown and Hamilton that promoted their own views in relation to the election.

This clearly gave them both an unfair advantage of the others and should not have been accepted by the editor without providing similar space to all.

It is my view that the entire board should be removed and a manager appointed for a period sufficient to restructure the organization, rewrite the rules and then conduct another election.

Whatever occurs between now and at the AGM will be largely irrelevant as the EGM which I am sure will be called shortly thereafter will have to sort the mess out.

Until then, AOPA will continue to suffer.

[Emeus]

Yes, the election is on the nose as is those who perpetrated the reduction in candidates only AFTER they had received the nominations and could see that Hamilton's team didn't have the numbers.

Equally on the nose is the unfair advantage taken by McKeown and Hamilton regarding their 250 word CV allowance. They cheated on this too. The ethics and morals displayed by people we expect more of is deplorable.

I intend to lodge a complaint with the Returning Officer as should anyone else agrieved by this behaviour.

I have been an AOPA member for many years, old & bold and some would say an old fart. I served on the committee decades ago and then we never had these massive ego trips as displayed by Hamilton and his unsavoury supporters. They have placed themselves and their insatiable diet of power grabbing before the interests of their constituency and the aviation cause. Pox to the lot of you!

[gaunty]

Marjorie Pagani

Thanks for that, I’ll pass it on with the recommendation to vote your team.

[brianh]

Coggie
Admirable and altruistic sentiment, essentially that the most important thing is to get a crew that can stop the iceberg hitting the Titanic.

But, the real question is HOW do they intend to do so?

What have we been told to date: -
We must only pick a specific crew.
Certain of the old crew members must be thrown to the sharks.

Even worse, the Forum/email debate around the accrual issue before the Board spill agreed that the organisation did not have a legal liability to the long-term memberships in the event of insolvency. Well, so much for the passengers on the Titanic, looks like shark-bait also.

What I asked for, and suggest is still topical, is for the candidates to tell us their key policies – not motherhoods like “I love AOPA” or “We must fight for the members” but some specifics on the HOW.

Do we get a new crew or rearrange the deck chairs of the existing? On what we currently know, who knows – surely that’s why people are asking the question about voting for less than nine.

Cheers

[awetzel]

BrianH your spot on there;:ok:

Do we get a new crew or rearrange the deck chairs of the existing? On what we currently know, who knows – surely that’s why people are asking the question about voting for less than nine.

Well we do not want to vote the wrong people in by default; so we need to be careful otherwise we are just rearranging the deck chairs so to speak, and wasting our votes. :hmm: :uhoh: :sad: :suspect:

[gaunty]

brianh

It goes without saying; that of course I will cooperate with whatever the make up of the Board the membership decides is appropriate, that is their right, expectation and an obligation you incur when you nominate.
But I can also assure you that there will be some straight talking about the ethical and moral framework within which I will work, with anybody who thinks I might be malleable on it.

I/we simply do not have the time, breath or energy to massage or nurse fragile egos.

I rely on rational and vigorous debate on the issues without introducing personalities and when an accommodation of views is reached, that is consistent with the interest of the members and that can reasonably be made to “play” with Government, then that is it.

What IMHO needs to be done;

Not necessarily in order of importance as there is much to be started;

General stuff;

1. The Code of Conduct needs to be signed and witnessed by each Director as a starting point.
I think it is a pity, that what I would have considered as normal behaviour and simple adherence to the mores and propriety of a modern civilised society must now be codified. I don’t know how, or what happened to our society, I have some theories but that is for another day, but it is a pity nonetheless. I will of course support and sign it without hesitation.

2. The Board “numbers issue” must be changed in the Articles in a manner that removes the ability, if indeed it ever existed, for the current Board to reach into the future and arbitrarily decide the New Boards composition.

AOPA as an organisation;

3. The urgent appointment of a skilled full time “research officer” is the heart of the organisation.
Relying on the “personal” grapevine, “Munrograms”, “Smithprop” and worse other journals and the news, for a heads up or information on matters that concern us, is not for what members pay their dues.
I need not expand on the problems that a claim to “exclusive ownership” of this role by a Director or two brings.
Further, it goes without saying that the Directors time is better spent on policy and the communication of it, than the office housekeeping details and solid research
That we do not seem to have been able to hold on to what I am told, on excellent authority, was an equally excellent research person, says much about the current state.
By diligent research and becoming once again part of, not hostage to, the Government policy and Regulatory process, we should be the ones starting the “bushfires” not diluting our resources trying to putting them out.
It is only thus, that we will regain control of the agenda insofar as it affects us.

PROACTIVE NOT REACTIVE WE MUST BE.

4. Whether we need a separate Office Manager for routine administration may be for the moment moot. Modern computerised office systems and multitasking roles for the existing staff may render this unnecessary. Given the financial situation for the moment, the priority needs to go to a research officer who may hold both roles, at least until the workload through increased membership builds up.

5. The accounting process in regard to pre paid membership must be settled by the membership at the AGM, in accordance with “accepted standards” of the CPA or other recognised accounting standards organisation. Theories or opinions other than those therein prescribed, represented by the “unqualified” Directors as fact, have no place in a properly constituted Association.

6. The membership must be brought firmly back into the consultation and information loop and the Directors made to start acting as their servants under the Directors Code of Conduct.
Murphies Motion has excellent merit as a concept, but needs some serious debate in the manner and form of its implementation. For the moment the Board needs firmer control of its activities, it does not need the “gun at its head”, as proposed by Murphie second guessing their actions, to keep em honest.
I find that concept mildly offensive and potentially destructive.
I believe the “Area Representative” concept works and serves AOPA well where it is implemented.
It would appear that there is difficulty finding active persons to provide their time for this service, it is unreasonable therefore to expect to find the numbers for 7 State Chapters.
In any event a Board acting effectively would render this idea completely unnecessary.
Might I turn the argument on its head for Murphie.
The reason that he proposed this motion, was that he believed that the Board and some members of it were “out of control”.
By whose definition?
If it is Hamilton’s mob would it be so urgent a motion.
If it was Marjorie’s mob would it be so urgent a motion.
How would you get 7 State Chapters to agree, or, if they could act unilaterally and choose their own agenda, then the Board would be rendered completely impotent.:rolleyes:

7. CASA et al

There is no point in mincing words here.
To quote Woomera.
Some would argue that the “hijacking” of the organisation and the highly political use of its membership and funds by certain high profile adventurers for their own personal agenda was the beginning of the end.
They would argue that only in Australia could an individual who failed to get his agenda operating whilst the most senior Public Servant of the Regulator, use his personal wealth and “profile” to conduct a guerrilla war against his former employer by the abovementioned process, to “save us”.

The subsequent physical disappearance from this particular field of battle of a former President with a flick pass to his partner in this endeavour and successor says much.
It does not mean that his influence has disappeared.
The subsequent appearance of a ‘competing’ organisation privately funded by a former President says more.

Others would argue that these actions were in fact necessary and that failure to act would be fatal to our interests.
They would argue that the situation was so desperate that somebody had to do something or we would “all be ruined”, with much bombast and a rhetoric that was alien to the manner in which the organisation had previously and successfully gone about its business.
They would argue that this was necessary to wake up everybody, to the presence of an “enemy”.

The portrayal of the Government or the Regulator in whatever guise it has been operating, as “the enemy”, is not what one would consider a constructive direction, nor conducive to the form of dialogue necessary to ameliorate whatever “wrongs”, “the enemy” had or was proposing.
It is a well worn tactic to demonise your opponent in battle as a rallying cry in order not only to drive your troops on to the guns, but have them do so enthusiastically.

Either way there has been much disrespect for, real and attempted intimidation, hectoring and lecturing of our Public Servants and Political Leaders effected in the name of your organisation.
It has been unrelenting to this point in time.
They have attempted to marginalise, go round or over the very individuals, who, like it or not, have been appointed and are empowered by the people of Australia to protect their interests in a fair and balanced manner, by sustained personal attack, in the knowledge that the recipient of their curmudgeonly behaviour has, because of their public position, have no public right of reply. Cowardly behaviour on their part would be a concept that one could use.

Why any reasonable person would not react negatively to this treatment escapes me.

If they, the Govt. or Regulator are deficient in their knowledge or understanding of a problem peculiar to our membership, then surely it is our duty to provide, proactively, the information necessary in a manner that informs them accurately and empowers them to work with us to an effective and mutually satisfactory solution. Calling them a bunch of halfwits might satisfy an ego or two, but just doesn’t cut it if you expect a positive result.

There has been much damage inflicted.

We must rebuild bridges; we must reengage with goodwill, we must show that we are sincere in trying to find mutually positive solutions, not excuses to bully nor evidence with which to pillory them.

We must return to the table, not as supplicants but to join with them as partners not enemies. We must become the first port of call or at least an active participant in the development of aviation policy and regs.

Are we now? I suspect not.

If this is so, then on the evidence, the organisation and those who have to this date directed it have failed.

And before anyone rears up in their defence, please tell me why AOPA aren’t represented, consulted or have been invited to be participants on the following industry or consultative Forums.

CASA Aviation Safety Forum
CASA Standards Consultative Committee
NAS Australian Airspace Reform
ASFA Aviation Safety Foundation Australia
Aerospace Australia Limited, organiser of Avalon THE showcase for Australian Aviation
Just to mention a few but all fundamental to our membership’s aspirations.

8. I believe and I will be personally working towards, a closer liaison with ASFA as a natural ally and partner in the safety and regulatory process, in the same manner as the US AOPA have their Flight Safety affiliate.

9. I believe that the AUF and AOPA are natural allies and partners. We should actively explore an even more formal association. There interests must reflect those of a significant number of our membership.
The “disconnection” of the AUF people from the formal regulatory process and their method of regulation and operation may be an answer to some of our members in the way they wish to operate.
If it is possible to operate their types in such manner then why shouldn’t it be possible for those for whom it would be appropriate to deregister their aircraft and operate under AUF supervision?

There is a whole new world out there and it is our duty to find out how to change with it, without prejudicing safety.

Part 2

10. Bruce Gemmel; from the FLOT Conference

“There are some who believe they can kill the regulations off when they get to parliament.
They might be right. They might be successful. But I for one will be working hard to ensure that this does not occur – that the countless thousands and millions of dollars that have been spent and the thousands of hours put into this process by CASA and dedicated industry people- that that effort, time and money is not wasted.” My bolding.

Can’t argue with that, the question is ”how effective was AOPA in this process"?.

The evidence suggests, not very.

And being behind the “eightball” and trying to kill something off AFTER it gets to parliament, because we missed it in the beginning is NOT where we should be. See “research officer” above.

I don’t suppose anybody has tried just sitting down with John, Mick and his men and saying something like,
“That was then this is now”.
“How can we help you achieve your aims and fulfil your responsibility to the public and at the same time ensure that our interests and concerns are reasonably accommodated.”
I would be amazed if that didn’t work, why they wouldn’t want to work through the issues before they went to parliament rather than give the “opposition” of the day a “free kick” escapes me for the moment.

It’s actually even way simpler than that; treat them with the respect and dignity that they deserve as human beings and calmly, quietly and firmly if it is necessary, insist that they do likewise. There is no place for ego on either side. They represent their body politic, we represent ours, it’s not personal, so as my adult children say “deal with it”.

11 Resources must be provided outside of the AOPA mag to get “the message” to those who are un-financial and those who are not yet members.

Organisations that were or are not yet affiliated must be canvassed directly.

It has been suggested to me that the reduction in membership is really due to the general downturn in aviation per se. I cannot agree with this, the pilot numbers in total are higher than they have ever been and there has been a net increase in aircraft numbers. The reason lies elsewhere and IMHO that it is in the perception of AOPA’s relevance and our public behaviour to date.

Change that and the rest will follow.

I have had several PMs’ today, promising a return to AOPA, the moment I am elected. I am delighted that this would occur for AOPA, understand their reluctance to risk their money, but despair that it has come to this.

So; brianh I’d say there is about 2 years work just there, not including the day to day Regulatory and Government business and I haven’t even got to the hard bits yet. :rolleyes:

It would be just plain unrealistic to believe that a decade or so of sturm und drang can be turned around quickly, but it will be turned around as quickly as it can be.

There is already strong evidence that the Regulator is taking real interest in the burgeoning new approach from AOPA. It is not dependant on the results of the election; it is a result of coming upon plain, common sense, real live, proactive expertise.

[brianh]

Gaunty
I'm impressed.
What's more, I go along with most of your thinking.
Even more, you have taken up the challenge and put up some policies. It is a joy to read a meaningful posting such as this.

I think, on the CASA issue, I still have a little uncertainty and we are not quite aligned. I guess my background still leaves me concerned at CASA as judge, jury, and executioner. Likewise that they have not been forward in suggesting a sincere low cost review process for their actions (eg any complaint about the AFP has to be copied over to the Ombudsman for review).

Perhaps you could consider such a process in your platform to keep many of us happy in the transition from the CASA we don't trust to the CASA we love? :D

On the State Chapter issue, please reflect on this. You have put a few negatives and I agree they exist. Perhaps a compromise where the State Chapters operate under Board direction and are an upward funnel and social stimulus would be a kick-off point. They do represent a better feel for members issues than the current State Reps situation.

As far as Board collaboration, I well know you cannot pigeonhole people into rigid psychological corrals, however, they should each get a copy of eg "Know Yourself as You Really Are" early in the piece. I suppose the problem is that the ones who need to read it wouldn't.

I have a high regard for the wisdom of Woomera and am pleased to see you likewise exhibiting his positive thoughts. Distant relatives?

You have been a pencilled tick on my list all the way along, I'll change it to indelible ink!!! Enjoy your hot cross bun!
Cheers

[Maxima]

Gaunty was never a pencilled tick on my list.
He was there in indelible ink (BOLD) from the start. He is the sort of director we need, (he just writes too much).:D


In response to Gaunty's post:

1. Code of Conduct;
Having read the code of conduct in the magazine, I fail to see why any director would have a problem with abiding by it. It is fair and reasonable, and in fact it shouldn't even have to be spelt out, but unfortunately some people do not possess these basic principles.
2. The board "numbers issue";
This is already addressed in the articles and should not need to be changed, however some people may need it to be rewritten in a more legalistic fashion to remove any perceived ambiguity, which has been used to advance the argument that a board can interfere with another (and change its numbers).
The whole of the 'Articles' should to be rewritten in a modern and unambiguous format, avoiding legalese.
3. Research Officer;
Agreed, but funding is the problem. Priority for funding must be in this area.
6. Area Reps are a good idea for the purpose of the bringing the membership firmly back into the consultation and information loop. These Reps are there so they can liase directly with the members and concentrate on their problems, without the distraction or responsibilities of the board activities.
State Chapters can only increase the administrative cost and workload, without neccesarily improving contact the between directors and members. And anyway, why State Chapters? This concept might work in the U.S. where there are much smaller states and larger populations, but not neccesarily where the population is widely dispersed (W.A., N.T., Qld). In these cases, a Rep in each main (aviation)centre would be more appropriate.

[gaunty]

brianh

I guess my background still leaves me concerned at CASA as judge, jury, and executioner.

Same background, same concern but it has always been thus.

I have never had the occasion to test the "jury and executioner" routine as I've always been able to either avoid "the judge" by admitting we made a boo boo and will or have already taken steps to mitigate or "plea bargain" :D

Having said that, the comletely understandable loss or sidelining of most of the "wise old hands" as a result of the turmoil caused by you know who, have been replaced for the most part by a bunch of newbies who may have unwittingly (and who would do so wittingly ?) stepped on the odd land mine or two as a result of their overall inexperience in industry and life in general.
However they are obliged to surveil and rooting out dodgy operators and pilots must be good for us all, just as long as they don't also take out the gooduns by mistake or personal animus.

I have many times been at the wrong end of an "old crusties" assesment of my parentage, skills, knowledge and character. :{
But I never came away without having learnt something. :ok: :D

A CASA newbie, perhaps trying to convey the new fangled regs has run foul of a few of these fellows including myself, who have a business to run and bills to pay and forgotten more than they know. At very the least I would try to leave out the personalities and part amicably, whether we agreed or not.
It is in the nature of the beast and it would be very difficult for them not to react negatively.

The exercise of power is properly done, by as little of its use as is possible.

It is the CASA "newbies" front line and rear who need to be brought along as partners too, if they haven't got an industry to surveil, then they too will find the dole queues a testing experience.

IMHO the "experience" level in OZ has always been very thin and fragile, because of the small size of the market and industry. It has become even smaller in recent times.

It is this very thin and fragile resource, that we must protect and nurture as if our lives depended on it, because they do.


State Chapters, can't disagree with your thoughts and that is how I think they should work too.
I am proposing amongst the mob over here that we form a local and informal Advisory and Support Group as a simple mechanism for 2 way communication of idaes and concerns, meeting say monthly by email or at the bar sometime before a Board meeting. I believe it needs to be informal as we don't need de facto Boards all over the place and because as soon as you make it formal then every one wants to be the boss and you know the rest. :(

Board collaboration

I suppose the problem is that the ones who need to read it wouldn't. QED :{

I think you can safely leave that one to Marjorie and myself to deal with. If we can't or they wont then there can be only one result.

Woomera a "distant relative"?
To quote the evil PM in that wonderful TV series "House of Cards"
"You may well say that, but I couldn't possibly comment":)

Thank you for your support and if I get in I'll still need it and your prodding.:ouch:

--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.

Onya Maxima

I think I've just proved your point, sorry, but I'll get it out of my system one day.:\\

Interesting thought,
the concluding paragraph of;
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861

I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

[Emeus]

Well said Gaunty.

Be prepared for some serious opposition from Hamilton and his cronies. He will oppose your excellent program and do everything possible to obstruct its fulfillment.

Before you do anything the financial matters will need to be fixed. No money = no organisation.

The proposition of not funding for 5 year members is ludicrous and will bite AOPA on the rear end down the track.

Establishing a sensible dialog with CASA is also essential and very easy to fix. This could happen almost overnight but it will take longer for the trust eroded over the past 8 years to be re-ignited.

The Code of Conduct is more problematical. My understanding from earlier posts is that Lyon & Hamilton subscribed to the Code but were the first to breach it. There needs to be a system where such transgressions are reported to the membership as a whole so at least there will be general awareness of what their representatives are up to. I would imagine that their chances of being re-elected would quickly disappear if they continued this behaviour. My old-fashioned view is that leaking confidential emails between fellow-directors is bastardry in the extreme and neither the committee nor the membership should tolerate it.
But unless the membership reads pprune how are they to know?

I understand that McKeown and Rudd were both happy with the board leaks because it suited their (& therefore Hamilton's) purpose. So the excellent Code hasn't worked because a significant number of board members didn't want it to work.

Mind you, 'back in my day', a Code wasn't necessary. People came to the committee table full of goodwill, there were no sordid agendas being run, just a mission to be accomplished.

As a very long term member I have been saddened by the aeon of the big swinging dick egos of Smith and Munro and the blustering ineptitude of Hamilton. These successive regimes have almost destroyed our once fine association, both financially and politically.

So Gaunty, you and your team have a difficult and perilious time ahead of you. I see AOPA as being at the cross roads:

If your team get in we can all be optimistic that there will be a future.

If Hamilton and his little helpers maintain control then I think it is all over, Rover.

Almost makes me want to stand for election next time, but I recognise that I am past my use-by date. Perhaps Bill Hamilton should come to the same realisation!

[monkeyfly]

THANK YOU GAUNTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I now have the information I need to determine my vote for you.(At this time I'm not prepared to say if it is yes for no):D

The only concern I have is your approach to CASA. There are regulations, policies, procedures and requirements that appear to have no justification. To get a public servant to do the extra research work involved seems a hard to do via negotation.

Hope you enjoyed Easter

Monkey

P.S. Any post I send asking for more information from the people running for office does not included yourself. (That is as far as I'm concerned)

To all people running for election and are using this post. (P.S.) I think there are only 3 or 4).

Can you please follow gaunty's lead and post a simular outlines of your policies.

Monkey

[gaunty]

monkeyfly

Thanks for that, I would appreciate your carefully considered vote, but at the end of the day your vote for anyone of the candidates is a positive step for AOPA as at least this time we have a REAL election going.

I wish every AOPA member would consider their vote as carefully, there is little room for error here and too much at stake.

For some years it has only been sufficient to nominate to "get on", why are we then suprised at how easy it has been to manipulate the agenda.

There are regulations, policies, procedures and requirements that appear to have no justification. To get a public servant to do the extra research work involved seems a hard to do via negotation.
.

Exactly why we have to have a gun research officer.
We must be LEADING the debate NOT FOLLOWING or reacting to it.
We must beg borrow and/or better pay the right money for the right one.
If the Public Servant ? wont or can't be persuaded to and you have to do the research for them, sobeit, if they don't listen to or use it consructively, then you have a fairly big stick with which to whack them.
It doesn't mean you get to call them "names" in the press just the steel fist in the silken glove.
Remember what I said above;
The exercise of power is properly done, by as little of its use as is possible.
They'll only do it once, maybe twice.:rolleyes:
This is after all how the process works and the "respect" thing kicks in big time.

One of my philosophies in life is, if people are going to play "the rules game" with you, then you'd better know them at least as well and better if you are able.
At the end of the day IF,regulations, policies, procedures and requirements have no apparent justification it can only be the result of one of two failure modes.

If it has NO justification then we have failed our in role in the consultation process.

If it HAS a justification and we have been a part of its evolution and promulgation and it/they appears to not have one, then we have failed in our 2-way communication of its sense to the membership.

We must hold in our view at all times that the Government and Regulator have a resonsibilty to "the people" as a whole not just to narrow focus groups and that there will be occasions when we have to accept whatever compromise we are able to negotiate.
To stand back and throw rocks just because we can, is not the least bit constructive.
Having said that I find it difficult to imagine much, that wouldn't in any event coincide with our views, if properly constructed, researched, debated, explained and reasoned. I think that is how life really works.?

So far we have been the recipients of "recieved wisdom" from "our betters" on these matters from Smith to the present day. I suppose we should feel grateful for their concern for us and the results they have achieved so far.:rolleyes:

[cogwheel]

Of the 15 nominations, from my count only four have contributed to the discussion on this site.

Now I wonder why that is ?

It is general knowledge that you are all reading these posts and I am sure have the ability to register and post. After all, the 12th man Lyons managed to do it and he is not even standing! And it is said that if he can do it then it would be a breeze for you others.


If you cannot or will not get the AOPA web site up and running and contribute to discussions there, then you have a duty to enter into the discussions on this site.

[axiom]

Congratulations for winning the election before it has been counted.

Murphie also, will be signing the code of differential conduct (if it passes muster with the people who own AOPA),

Like the members),

And If it comes to pass, he, if elected, will recommend,

(please take note),

that AOPA avail themselves to the 10,00 odd potential members on Pprune by way of a banner advertisement.

If he thought about it, it is a good idea? yes / no ?

If GGaunt thought about, it Murphie should he oppose it ! yes / no ?

Should ggaunt support it ? yes ? no ?

When this reshauffle of old tucker is seen for what it is, (bubble and squeak), we may get down to some serious proposals like'

Chapters.

open committee meetings.

a positive and forceful opposition to CASA's rule of Mick !

a concerted and prolonged membership drive in conjunction with the Chapters).

A re evaluation of the Company policy that AOPA has now and perhaps a look at Incorporated Associations to fend off the indemic and world wide malaise of insurance kidnapping.

A look at bringing Boyd and Jim back into the fold.

a look at bringing AUF, GFA, etc etc etc into a powerful and relevant force to deal with CASA, the Politicians and the Judiciary.

A committee of concerned citizens, informal of course, (sorry I mean Chapters Ggaunt), to keep the power crazed and hungry dictators at camp AOPA in check. (but lets do this over a 12 month period, yes, let's).

One last thing before woomera decides to censor my ramblings, (I only have 7 points left), It is little wonder that only 4 candidates have posted on pprune when anything that does not meet with the approval of the NEW REICH is ridiculed, slandered, liabled, threatened, and generally used as fodder for the cage full of startled monkeys, and their equally irelevant masters, that go off when you mention the word HAMILTON.

This forum has gone from an entertaining and topical focal point to the worst form of gutter wharf trade unionism intimidation imaginable that has brought it to the state of a receptacle worthy of being called a VOMITORIUM.

Go for it !!! I won't be here to listen.

Great work on the moderating woomera. Forgotten what I called you in jest last time, but there has been lots worse said since and not one point ??????

Not one bloody point !







:mad: mad axiom.

PS snarek. I can't afford to drink with you and all your personalities. Drinks are off.

Now go for it Guy's and Gal's (blokes and sheilas)

I thought we already had a research/ technical officer name of Bill Hamilton from memory.

No really go for it.

[snarek]

Axiom

Who are you accusing me of being now??? Following the line of posts it is probably emeus, I'm sure he has something to say about that. :mad: Careful of those snipers in the treeeline ax :} Just because you are paranoid doen't mean they aint out to get you.

Now, my 'policies'

My first one is that MEMBERS should set policy direction by way of forums, questionnaies and meetings. This is vital. Members must also all be recruiters, so that we have the numbers to influence thier directions.

In addition:

I support a full time tech officer and researcher. We do NOT need an office manager. (and we have in my opinion, not had an effective technical director for 8 years). The resourses therefore don't need to be cenralised, a GOOD FT researcher could work from home, anywhere in Oz.

Each Director should have a 'portfolio', then you can guage how we do and relate to one of us directly when you have a problem.

CASA must CLEAR regs with AOPA before they go up, otherwise (Mr Gemmell) we shoud lobby hard to dissalow. Now that means getting closer to pollies and CASA (in a non-aggressive manner ... at least to the pollies and their advisors).

Now my biggie. AOPA should run PPLs the way AUF run their courses!!! AOPA designed courses (with the help of talented instructors of course) AOPA sanctioned, AOPA run. It works in the dive industry (try www.padi.com ) and it can work in GA.

AK

[Lead Balloon]

Axiom despite his name, is not a definitive proof.

A state based and controlled organisation, that he wishes AOPA to become is an idea bordering on lunacy.

With no finances and an unworkable board as it is, how would making 7 State based representations work? With such a fractured and unworkable managemnet structure, AOPA would replace the words irrelevant & shambles in the Macquarie dictionary.

I remember a famous line from one of our ex-PMs. The state based Senate is "unrepresentative swill". Conjuring pictures of all the little state pigs with their noses in the troughs of the common good.

[axiom]

Don't know who you are mate, I'm paranoid remember!

Did I hear you right? CASA MUST clear regs with AOPA !!!!~

Is this another non aggressive formulae to rid the world of bad people in aviation? Sounds like prostitution, AIDS and Russian Roulette rolled into one.

Is Marjorie or Garry going to clear this with the Boss after we become a Department of CASA ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lead Baloon;

I can see you at the Party for the Labor faithful right now.

How would you know it won't work if you don't give it a try. No pain No gain and 12 months to sort it out or dump it.

But then again, what would you expect from a mob of people intent on bringing an individual down at any cost. Great for AOPA!

Get ready, I'm going to mention another word so sinister it will peobably get the grubby little (small e) emeus going.

Ready, get baited;

GO,

Lyon.

Stand by for some more swear words tomorrow, if I'm still on the net.

:p :uhoh:

[cogwheel]

::confused: ::confused:
axiom old boy! I thought I was following this thread ok, but I am afraid that the height of your literately skills places me at a disadvantage. There is only so much double-dutch that I can handle - maybe you would be good at writing the Regs for CASA – they are about as equally confusing!

Nowhere to date as far as I can see have you laid your cards on the table and said who you favoured or for that matter would vote for (if you are a member of course?). You seem to lean one way, then just as the picture is starting to form, you pull down the canvas and start again. Are you an artist? No maybe then a poet? You have used your expertise in English literature to completely confuse me and perhaps some other readers, so maybe you might bless us with a list of your favoured candidates. Thanks

Chapters This is an idea worth some serious consideration, but you cannot just flick a switch and "make it so". It will take some time and a lot of effort from not only the new Board (if they support it) but the membership at large to get it up and working. The planning may in fact take a year. In the meantime we should continue with the area representatives. Maybe they might evolve further as the Chapter proposal is considered on a wider basis.

Posting on PP
It is my belief that the reason some of the other candidates have not posted here is that they would prefer not to get involved in an open discussion on their views. If that is the case then maybe they are not worth voting for. Obviously the same people have control of the web site and it seems to be suiting their needs not to have it up and running either!

:ok:

[ftrplt]

whens the vote?

[cogwheel]

ftrplt If you are a member the details are in the April magazine including voting papers.
Votes close 9 May. AGM 24 May.

If you are not a member, then it would help if you were. AOPA needs all the members it can get right now.
:ok:

[C182 Drover]

cogwheel

Posting on PP.....Obviously the same people have control of the web site and it seems to be suiting their needs not to have it up and running either! :E

I believe this is why the main group of members who used the AOPA forum started up their own forum in the interim @ http://www.aimoo.com/agaf "AOPA MEMBERS AREA",
as well as being part of an AOPA members email group too, to keep all communications links open, so we are not kept in the dark on important issues. You could probably be part of the email group if you asked the people at http://www.aimoo.com/agaf to put you on under the AOPA section? :ok:

[axiom]

If axiom confuses you, wait until AOPA become an impotent arm of CASA under the new and revitalised team that all on Pprune must vote for or be ridiculed for having any thoughts of their own.

Axiom is a member and stands for,

Hamilton
Murphie
McKeown
Rudd
Bertram
Lawford

Few of these would agree that a cap in hand tap on CASA's door will bring about the reforms promised by the "team AOPA' mob who have hijacked this thread.

Now having said that I await the screaching anthropoids who go off at the mere mention of these names.

:p

[cogwheel]

C182 Drover
I believe this is why the main group of members who used the AOPA forum started up their own forum in the interim @ http://www.aimoo.com/agaf "AOPA MEMBERS AREA",
as well as being part of an AOPA members email group too, to keep all communications links open, so we are not kept in the dark on important issues. You could probably be part of the email group if you asked the people at http://www.aimoo.com/agaf to put you on under the AOPA section?


Maybe so. I applaud the option, I am registered, but there are no posts there of significance and certainly no discussion. That is what is needed.

Axiom
Thank you for placing your cards on the table. Now that you have blessed us with your views in supporting some of the candidates, of whom I believe only one has contributed on this forum, you may like to tell us why you support those you name?

This will be interesting!

You also say.....

wait until AOPA become an impotent arm of CASA

I humbly suggest that AOPA cannot get more impotent in dealing with just about anyone at this time. So how do you see this salvation working?


Few of these would agree that a cap in hand tap on CASA's door will bring about the reforms promised by the "team AOPA' mob who have hijacked this thread.


I don't recall any instance of this approach being used of late, so don't you think it is at least worth a try? As for this thread being "hijacked"... dear me! you jest of course. It is open to all, just some don't seem to "want" to contribute.

chow! :ok:

[axiom]

Coggy;

If there is a "PUTCH" on, one would assume that the "New Turks" should tell us why their mob are better than the old mob.

This new lot have used most of their profile time telling us who to vote for and axiom has decided he doesn't like what he sees so is voting for those not on their ticket.

I couldn't be bothered going back over all the old detail, (just use your back button), to preach to someone who has made up his mind already.

Seems like a waste of time really.

Know any good jokes to break up the monotony?:p

[gaunty]

:confused: :rolleyes: :sad: :(

[Outback Pilot]

cogwheel,

Try and get on the AOPA email group that is out there too, as it is quite informative. :oh:

[Maxima]

Just back from my Easter holiday and had a look at these posts. I agree with Cogwheel - axiom has lost me with his ramblings.
What has happened to axiom? Has he had too many easter eggs?
He has even tried to poach 2 members of "Team AOPA". I wonder if he asked them if they support him.

axiom; (with a small a? You seem like a big 'A')
If you have had enough of this thread, you could go elsewhere. Other threads have jokes for you to 'break up the monotony'. We don't need those jokes: we are still laughing at you.
I can't wait 'til emeus deals with you.
As for "The New Reich": how offensive. Stop your sulking and pull your bottom lip in. Then, come up with some new ideas, and stop recyling others. You haven't had an original idea yet.
Your literary tone has deteriorated considerably, again. Did your spin doctor take an Easter break?

182 man;
As for the 'other' thread, why would anyone go there? There is no need: this is where the action is. That forum has tried to hijack this one. Of course "there are no posts there of significance and certainly no discussion". It's all here.

Lead Balloon;
Right on, Mate!

[Dogimed]

I thought we already had a research/ technical officer name of Bill Hamilton from memory.

A he does a good job, however why not employ a dedicated person. AOPA lost a lot when JD went, and ASA have gained a lot by having him there. Why not get him back as an employee to support the directors?

Just out of curiousity, and I'm not sh1tting on BH here, but how many times does he inform the rest of the board as to what is going on at CASA/Parliament?

If he stays on he needs professional support.

also.

But then again, what would you expect from a mob of people intent on bringing an individual down at any cost. Great for AOPA!

Have you ever had the question asked of you, if your driving a truck full of soldiers down a hill on a steep road and a kid walks out in front and the brakes fail etc etc etc. Who would you save, the kid or the soldiers?

Who would you save? Hamilton or AOPA?

And bar that, I have no idea what your talking about. Sorry.

Snarek

I support a full time tech officer and researcher. We do NOT need an office manager. .

No Office manager? are you proposing that a Director can run the office full time, as well as whatever else they may do in their other life? or just have a part timer who sees it as a hobby? We members deserve better.

Dog


Footnote: Lets not forget all the things BH has done in the past for the betterment of General Aviation in this country. He has worked tirelessly for you, the pilot. In his spare time and at great cost to his own personal and professional life. Don't muddy the waters just to get him out. Give him a watch, take him to dinner and thank him and talk of all the good things he did. Then show him the door. :O :O

[axiom]

I do understand you gaunty, pity these "flat earth policy" postees don't understand me. PM me if I have put you in a bind and I will see the proposal put forth for the good of AOPA before the AGM (executive decision one would imagine). At least it's at the "IN" box.

Also, you do bandwidth on and I dropped out about the same sentence as Marjorie's address to the Nation. hope you were not preaching to the converted. I will read it later I promise.

As far as giving Bill a gold watch and dinner, I think he would tell you to shove it up your arsk. and I would concur you patronising dipsticks.

Can't wait for the tirade from that evil little wart emues.



:E