The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

AOPA Doing Fine.

Old 17th Dec 2003, 16:01
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 7
I see Ms ExPres is on the AOPA forum threatening litigation again. WELL - THAT'S A SURPRISE.

GET a life, love.....
Poox is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2003, 18:10
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 54
Poison dwarf, what a fitting name. Yes i would be much better off on AGACF than here in cowards castle.
Bart Ifonly is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2003, 18:42
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 68
Poox

I noticed that litigation lils post has appeared on the AGACF forum, well now how does that work? An ex-pres attempts to bring down the board because it does not do what itís told and jump through the hoops when told to do so, joins forces with the same forum that in my view has attempted to bring down AOPA since it started.

Now how does this jigsaw fit together? What is the common denominator? Well in my view AOPA boards have had internal fighting for a number of years now, at least 4 or 5 that I can remember. One director has been on the board all that time. Rumors have it that the same director was passing out AGACF leaflets at an AOPA function.

Call me sinister but what is the real agenda here?

Perhaps when they whittle AOPA's membership down to nothing we will have a new organization. I wonder what the website would be (AGACF home page) perhaps? Or maybe after its founder the person that brought down AOPA.

Bart Ifonly

Go back to using you real name on AGACF or perhaps moderate the truth, as it seems to be the case on that forum. In my view that forum is a joke it cannot even stick to a policy, maybe thatís because the moderator only moderates the truth?
poison_dwarf is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2003, 19:01
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 68
d_concord

Just realised who you were. Must be so hard for you, who actually wears the trousers?
poison_dwarf is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2003, 04:03
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Fom what I hear, the AOPA board are doing fine. I hear they are working on new strategic direction. I reckon we should all contact them and let them know what where we want GA to go. (And I don't mean crap about the past). All the phone numbers and email addresses are in the mag.

I'm going to, because I want a viable aviation lobby group in this country, one that I have a say in, not one that is run by rich men with ther own agenda.

Happy Chrissie flyers!
MaxyB is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2003, 14:07
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 118
Hi Poison Drawf,

If you knew who I was you certianly wouldn't have written what you did. Wrong again!

However, note that you have just registered and all you have done is spew vitriol on all and sundry in this topic and others on the same subject without any constructive debate or logical defense of AOPA's position. So what is your other nick? I doubt that a new forum member would act the way you have.

The reality is that I suspected Gaunt had done what it turn's out he did and alluded to it in my first postings on this topic. I however without proof didn't expouse it.

I don't even suggest that the conflict was thought of, or that the intention was to favour himself with the selectors for the esteemed position for which he applied as I don't know. It really doesn't matter, you not only have to do the right thing, you have to be seen to do the right thing. (However I do admit that CASA have chosen the right person though!). It also doesn't matter whether the conflict was intentional or a mistake, the same outcome results and let's hope that this isn't a big error for the industry as a whole. The decision to withdraw with working with the democrates is tainted either way and in question.

The current board only diminish themselves by not being able to acknowledge that this was all wrong, that a board member acted while having a conflict. Instead of facing the issue they instead go on the attack with the one person who acknowledged the issue and felt strongly enough to put herself on the line in an effort to defend the correct position. Some lied and now have had to confirm the truth which has further cast their individual integrity into doubt and this is a shame where Bertram is concerned because I personally felt that he was a quite a capable advocate (and to some extent still do).

The issue here is not if the legislation is correct, it's whether the AOPA board goings on are appropriate.

The result of all this is that AOPA is now gridlocked in it's own politics, it's representation is in question by those organisations with which it is supposedly negotiating as GA's self appointed representative, and also with those people it supposedly represents. "I" feel AOPA is badly wounded as a representative organisation. In fact I think it's irrelevant now. It has given power to AUSAC in a way that money couldn't buy. Time will tell.

If this is about going forward, looking to the future etc as so many say, then surely AOPA needs to acknowledge the mistake of the past so the industry can be sure they are not likley to make it again. But they don't, they just lie, defend the indefensible and insult members or people with a differing opinion. Very representative!!!

Anyway, enough of this, the truth is out and it's up to AOPA to go forward, Fix the problems which they won't do by denial, however as can be seen, they are their own worst enemy so let's not hold our breath.

Last edited by d_concord; 18th Dec 2003 at 14:31.
d_concord is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2003, 15:48
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: In the air
Posts: 102
d_concord


By what criteria are they doing a good job? It looks more like a dissaster.
first time in many years i have seen the pres on tv... thats a start.. whats more it is good to see the egos going out the back door

The result of all this is that AOPA is now gridlocked in it's own politics, it's representation is in question by those organisations with which it is supposedly negotiating as GA's self appointed representative, and also with those people it supposedly represents. "I" feel AOPA is badly wounded as a representative organisation. In fact I think it's irrelevant now. It has given power to AUSAC in a way that money couldn't buy. Time will tell.
d-c please explain?


my feeling now is that the management is the best it has been since patroni

now lets get on with it
bonez is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2003, 16:33
  #68 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,404
d_concord

Anyway, enough of this, the truth is out and it's up to AOPA to go forward, Fix the problems which they won't do by denial, however as can be seen, they are their own worst enemy so let's not hold our breath.
May I suggest that your version of the truth is not even close and your sources disingenuous.

You may if you care to read it, find the Dec AOPA in a mailbox near you this week, instructive.

Coupla simple things you need some instruction on.

There was not then or at any time a so called "conflict of interest".

I did not apply for the position, it was not advertised.

It was the subject of an executive search by a world class executive search firm.

I was invited to interview and both the Pres and other VP were advised as a matter of principle before I accepted.

The list was supposed to be and has since remained highly confidential except for my name which was made public here within 48 hours????

In the end they found exactly the right man.

I was advised that the search was concluded the preferred candidate identified and final negotiations were taking place in late August, some weeks before the "notice of motion to disallow" was gained and way before the Regs 1988 issue was brought to a head on the 27th October.
The appointment could not be made before the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003 was passed which also contained the new softer enforcement regime whose operation also required the Regs 19898 to be in effect.

Read the Ministers Letter in the AOPA mag, there are two serious wins for AOPA in it and a demonstration of why it was pivotal to the working of the new Act.

There are still a couple of Board members backed by a huge majority of about 3 or 4 other members who continue to try and destabilise AOPA and have been doing so since the last election, in the interests of "members rights". Well I guess the members, as they should, will decide at the next election whether they agree with them or not.

There is a great deal made of the so called calamitous end of GA as we know it, as a result of AOPA's "rolling over" on "strict liability" by "allowing" the Regs 1988 amendment to pass, all of course as a result of my personal intervention.
The same sort of tabloid journalism and PR that we complain about here so often.
"Airliner death plunge" after there is a routine inflight shutdown.

Gets attention drives the troops onto the guns but does not want to go near the facts.
I am vaguely flattered that there are some who ascribe such powerful influence and personality to me, that I am able to singlehandedly deceive and manipulate AOPA, the Government, CASA and the Dems.

I can only refer you to Creampuffs post on this issue which gives the lie to some of the fatuous statements made around here on it.

There is another Director of AOPA who previously held a much more senior position than now, who had aspirations to employment as the Deputy Director of CASA, which was advertised, whom it appears did not have any issues of conflict at the time.

But then I've been around here long enough to understand that the truth is not important to the many who cover themselves in self righteousness for a cause for the same reason that the wolf wears a sheepskin.

There will always be some who play the old cowards castle game of asserting a certain thing then threatening to sue any one who says otherwise. There is an inevitable result of that.

You will not find me doing so, I do not need to, I am well enough know around these parts for a good many years for most to be able to work out whats what and what isn't.

I have had many a puzzled call from people who know me well, trying to reconcile the evil person being portrayed with the one that they actually know. They are not disappointed.

I hear tell that the residents of a loony bin near you are rioting, they have either stopped taking their medication or are finding that their peculiar version of "free speech" actually does carry responsibilities and has come back to bite them.

AOPA is NOT gridlocked and is going forward even more strongly and is doing just fine thank you.
gaunty is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2003, 17:37
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 7
MaxyB

Sounds like a good idea.

I'd like to see AOPA representing me - a private pilot who doesn't want to see the costs of flying go up anymore.

As far as direction goes, I'd like AOPA to pressure the transport minister to deliver a GA policy.

I believe the current board understands this and is working towards it.

Have a happy new year too!
Poox is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2003, 17:54
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
D-Concorde.

I have a lot of time for Marjorie, but she has moved on.

AOPA is doing very well, the majority of Directors are working towards a better GA WITHOUT the personalities. The current Board will no longer tolerate personality above GA!!!

As for the problems, yes there are a few. I challenge you to find the common denominator on this Board and previous ones where disharmony has been a problem.

As for Gary gaunt, what if he were to stand again next year and was re-elected, would you repspect the members' confidence in him, or just keep sniping???

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2003, 18:26
  #71 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,404
Like AK I'm proud to be one of the 19,999,999 likewise.

Maxy B points up a mystery to me.

My number along with all the other Directors is in the mag along with our emails.

Funny thing is, I have had many calls from members with constructive and proactive comments and yes even the odd "good onyer"

But I have not had ONE that has challenged me for the facts or rationale for my or the Boards decisions.

I think the others have had a similar experience.

As Prof. Sumner Miller would say "Why is this so?"

Is it because they are not interested in the facts or feel intimidated by me/us.

The former seems likely the latter unlikely.???
gaunty is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2003, 03:18
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 118
Snarek,

If Gaunt is elected again next year, I'd say good on him, AOPA would have a good person and I would hope that he doesn't get involved in an apparent conflict of interest again. If he does he needs to choose and do the right thing.

I would hope that the board in general would be able to handle it a lot better and in particular not perpetuate the issue by not exactly telling the truth.

I've made my point, I don't think anyone has come up with a defensible position for what went on, I just say it should have been handled better after the event.

AOPA is not the first board to get caught up in these sorts of things and won't be the last, but there is plenty of evidence on how to handle these sorts of things.

I would also hope that processes be put in place to make sure that there is ownership through consensous on the board and that doesn't mean everyone's agreement. What is the use of having a president or chairman(person) if you don't keep them informed and people act unilaterily.

I read the directors reports in AOPA lat night adnd I see Bertram explanation and then I see another drectors reply to Murphy?. That other reply was the first time someone said it was wrong and came up with constructive ways to go forward. There might be hope for you yet.

And as for sniping!. Except for Dwarf I don't think i have taken a personal swipe at anyone.
d_concord is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2003, 08:56
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Townsville Qld.
Posts: 34
Seems Mr Kerans has called their bluff over on the Gerriatric Q-Captain anti-GA Whinge Forum.

Heh heh, he did an insult count after being threatened with censorship, seems it was Mitchell 86 him 12 and he gets threatened.

Just shows there must be a hidden agenda over there.

Jangan Gidu Dong!!!!!

PT
pesawat_terbang is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2003, 12:40
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 118
Gaunty,

I didn't see your post this morning so apologise for just reponding to snarek. It does deserve a considered reply however I am having to do things aviation (and Crissy things) until early next week and will respond then.

I will make the point between now and then that at no stage have I suggested I thought you evil( or any lesser adjective for that matter.) It's not the issue. As I keep saying the perception is as important as the reality sometimes. The issue also hasn't been the conflict or apparent conflict, it's been how the Pagani issue has been handled, the statements, the withdawal and correction of statements etc.

I actually rejoined AOPA after watching your considered posts, the principles your faction put forward and hoped that the mire that AOPA has got itself into since the Patroni days may be over. What do we get but more of the same.

The shame here is that now AOPA though it's own internal goings on have lost the effort of two capable, good people and damaged it's reputation in the process.

You being one of the two and Pagani being the other, however if I read anything into Snareks post you may be up for a comeback. Not knowing Pagani, I can only assume she won't so that is a loss to Aopa and an aviation industry in decline.
d_concord is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2003, 13:19
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hobart
Posts: 2
This months AOPA Mag look's quite good too. AOPA is starting to look up and get back on track with things.
Snarek007 is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2003, 03:01
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
http://www.dotars.gov.au/transsec/fact_sheet6.aspx

Transport Security
General Aviation


Aircraft theft measures
General aviation aircraft including private/corporate non-jet aircraft that are not required to have a security program will be required to put measures in place to reduce the risk of theft.

Practical measures to mitigate against the risk of theft would be determined by the aircraft operators as appropriate and might include fitting auxiliary locks (for example to propellers or prop controls), securing aircraft in hangers or fitting door locks.

DOTARS Transport Security Investigators will be auditing compliance and undertaking random compliance checking in relation to aircraft anti-theft measures.

Background checking and licensing of pilots
All pilots and trainee pilots will be required to undertake background checking prior to being issued with new photographic licences by 1 July 2004.

Ensuring that pilots and trainee pilots are subject to background checking will reduce the likelihood of persons who might pose a threat to aviation gaining access to aircraft through legitimate means.

The cost of background checking and the photographic licence will be borne by individual pilots. Licences will be valid for two years and will cost around $200.

Please note: Sport aircraft are not included in the category of aircraft required to be secured from theft. Background checking will not be carried out on pilots of sport aircraft and they will not be required to have a photographic licence.
C182 Drover is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2003, 10:16
  #77 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,404
AOPA have attended the DOTARS briefing with the airlines and peak industry body and will be formulating our response over the break.

There are a number of proactive alternatives being considered that can deliver a win win solution for us all.

I, personally, don't believe it will be necessary to man the barricades and roll out the tumbrils.

And whilst I am on the subject, when I were a lad, getting an pilot license issued was a similar process to getting a passport. That is positive identification, birth certificate, signed passport photo, the whole schlemeil.

The issue of a license then allowed you to operate as a crew member or exercise the privilege of your license internationally using the license without necessarily the benefit of a Passport .

Why should it now be any different?


In the meantime if you have any ideas we would be grateful to hear them.

Andrew Kerans is running with this for the moment

[email protected]
gaunty is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2003, 15:14
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hobart
Posts: 2
Let's hope AOPA & ASA can see this defeated;

The cost of background checking and the photographic licence will be borne by individual pilots. Licences will be valid for two years and will cost around $200.
Practical measures to mitigate against the risk of theft would be determined by the aircraft operators as appropriate and might include fitting auxiliary locks (for example to propellers or prop controls), securing aircraft in hangers or fitting door locks.
I see on couple of other major forums there has been some real heated debate.
Snarek007 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.