AOPA - 4 Directors resign

[gaunty]

FYI

The AOPA Members Only Forum is now open, sort of but at last look is only available for the Administrator, Ron Bertram to post what he has to say on it, "in the interests of members" you understand.

[longstab]

Gaunty

Will be interesting to see if the new President continues to allow Mr Movingforward to purloin emails from the AOPA Forum and copy them onto that "other" Forum. You can bet that the AOPA committee will be very careful about defamatory posts now that they have no Directors' Liability insurance.

This is in contast to the "other" Forum where anything goes.

But back to AOPA, it has to be a positive move to get the Forum back working.

Are you aware of any new GA organisations being formed at the moment? I will be looking for a home in a couple of months.

Movingforward

Clever response. Eventually the bleating goat gets slaughtered. The Devil is in the detail and also lurking around AOPA too, it would seem.

[INSIDEOUT]

This post has been removed by me it was sent to me in an email format by a non pprune member that asked if it could be put up Mrs Pagani was unaware of this and it was done without here knowledge. Mrs Pagani contacted me on becoming aware of it.

[movingforward]

fyi

Free available information found on pprune.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ghlight=pagani

Aopa A-team Crumbles
http://www.aopa.com.au/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=109

PRESS RELEASE – AOPA BOARD CRUMBLES

This evening AOPA president Marjorie Pagani resigned from the board following what she described as improper conduct by former vice-president Gary Gaunt , who remains on the board as secretary. Gaunt was demoted from the VP’s job last week in Sydney after the board became aware that he had written to the Minister for Transport’s aviation adviser, and the Australian Democrats, advising that AOPA no longer supported the Notice of Motion moved by the Democrats to disallow the amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations which imposed strict liability on almost all offences. Pagani had campaigned long and hard on behalf of AOPA for the removal of the strict liability provisions, which had been tabled without industry consultation, and without AOPA’s knowledge. At the eleventh hour, Gaunt had advised the Democrats and the Minister’s office that AOPA no longer wanted the regulations disallowed, and that Pagani’s representations were taken independently of the board. The board had not sanctioned Gaunt's actions, and he was subsequently removed from his position as vice-president. Pagani said that she refused to remain on the board of AOPA whilst Gaunt held any executive position, his actions had done irreparable damage to both AOPA and to justice for Australian pilots.

Pagani said that whilst she would continue to campaign for fairness in aviation reform, she would resign from AOPA. She said that although she was extremely disappointed in the tabling of the strict liability provisions of the CARs, she nevertheless applauded Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, and the National Airspace Implementation Group led by Mike Smith, for the recent advances in Australian airspace reform.

[gaunty]

You want to make the rules then you had better be prepared to play by them.

Watch this space!

[NOtimTAMs]

AOPA AGM and treatment of members

Just to re-check the link to the AGM material, tonight it shows:



AOPA AGM Material

Financial Report FY 2003 (Coming Soon)

Information for members & Notice of AGM including Agenda
PDF DOC

Proxy Form (Coming Soon)

No sign of the Financial Report FY 2003, or means of voting!!!

No change at all.

What have we had here:

1. Last minute change of venue - after heavy advertising as Longreach, all of a sudden it's Sydney due to financial reasons - didn't anyone have a bl**dy clue as to the finances when Longreach was advertised? What more proof do you need of an organisation out of fiscal information & control. Most tuckshop committees do better.

2. Sheer disdain of members - if you don't hop on the 'net and rely on your magazine, you'll turn up at Longreach......

3. Promises of information to members not met - where's the Financial Report FY 2003??

Add the bloody mindedness of previous committee and executive members that have presided over the most recent stages of AOPA's decline to the indifference and contempt of many private pilots/owners to what in an ideal world be THEIR organisation, then I have no doubt that we should make plans for the wake.

HOOROO.

[gaunty]

Whilst this amateur farce rolls on and I await Mr Bertrams apology and retraction of his post and my counsel considers the next step, I am honour bound to point out that Ms Pagani had no part in the serial vituperation and abuse described.

I have said so publicly since and I would say it again, that I have a great admiration and respect for Ms Pagani's personal achievements in her journey through this life

I am certain that Ms Pagani feels fully justified in recording her recollections of the events in such a manner, but I do not believe that she would have intended nor agreed to their publication here.

Suffice it to say, they are not my, nor the recollections of the other directors involved, however, this is not the appropriate place and I do NOT intend to test them here, regardless of the provocation offered.

Your new President is truly way out of his depth and trying to fight way above his weight and his mate movingforward who's nearly wetting himself with excitement at finding more beaut stuff, (pssssst he found the bold function and good old Uncle Bill told him which words to use it on) had better be careful he doesn't get in the way of the big kids in the playground, when it gets really rough.

So how about we deal with the subject of my posts, your clumsy attempts to divert the issue haven't worked, lets see what you can do with your next shot.

[longstab]

Confused and angry

It is hard for someone without access to all this information to work out what has been going on with the finances at AOPA.

From what I gather, there has been some serious lack of management coupled with a very poor balance sheet. Whilst the committtee as a whole has clear responsbility for this, the most disappointing aspect is that the members have been kept in the dark.

Then there is the issue of the providing for members who have paid for five years in advance. Reading between the lines, the committee has only just received independent advice on this yet the argument has been going for years. Where was the committee getting its advice that said that the future liability should be ignored. Common sense tells you that money has to be put away to provide for the supply of magazines and services. So how did the committee talk itself into. Little has been said about what the advice actually stated but again it is a reasonable guess that the delays to the publication of the financials are because the advice contradicts the position taken by the committee.

The debate about strict liability seems a bit more complicated. There is accusation and counter claim going on here.

As an old fart about to give flying (and AOPA) away I find this all very berwildering. How about an enquiry - seems to be the fad - by a panel of members to sort out truth from fiction ?

For some reason members have been shielded from all this stuff and now it has come out during the election campaign. This shouldn't be, the committee should be telling members how it is when it is.

[gaunty]

longstab

Please find below the facts about Strict Liability which bely much of the bluster and just plain BS that is bruited by those who need to make political mileage out of anything that will get them personal headlines.

The AOPA representatives report from the last CASA Standards Consultative Committee at which this issue was featured stated.

At the SCC the other day, some lawyer (who obviously owned a silk hankie and wanted everyone to know) had a number of comments re SL, Sec 20 and Sec 29.

i.e. THAT THEY WERE BAD.

In one instance while SL says that the issue of intent is no longer a defence, one offence of SL contains the word 'recklessly' which is obviously a descriptor of intent.

I have made some notes and will follow up when I come up for air.

Having listened to the guy with the silk hankie, as well as Marjorie and Ron (i.e a third unbiased opinion from someone with expensive tastes in hankies) I am still firmly of the opinion that all SL does is grease the pole so CASA can shove it in easier.

NOTE: If a regulation uses a word like recklessly, SL does not apply. SL does away with the need to prove intent, or the need to prove "a guilty mind" --mens rea is the Latin term. If an offence includes recklessly (or knowingly, or similar words), it excludes SL.

However;
We never did get the full report. It is comforting to see your Directors hard at work diligently, unemotionally and faithfully dissecting important issues?

A less emotive observer from the same meeting, says;

Because of the concerns voiced by the aviation industry over consultation on harmonisation with the Criminal Code, in particular, the "imposition" of strict liability offences, the Standards Consultative Committee sought a presentation on the Criminal Code and strict liability by an independent lawyer. John Langmead SC, a prominent aviation barrister from the Melbourne Bar, attended the SCC meeting of 11 February and gave a brief presentation on these matters.

Mr Langmead's presentation was largely non-controversial, and he outlined without bias basic principles of criminal responsibility under Anglo-Australian law, gave a comparison of the Criminal Code with those principles, and explained the concept of strict liability.
He then pointed out a number of provisions of the Civil Aviation Act which he thought had not been properly harmonised with the Criminal Code, in particular sections 20A and 23.

Nevertheless, when asked whether, in his view, the CARs had been properly harmonised with the Criminal Code, and whether strict liability had been appropriately applied to the CARs, Mr Langmead responded positively.

Mr Langmead also assured the SCC that strict liability did not mean that a person could be found guilty merely on CASA "being satisfied" that a person had committed an offence, but that the prosecuting authority (the DPP) still needed to establish to the satisfaction of the criminal court that the offence had been committed, based on admissible evidence.

Following Mr Langmead's presentation, Geoff McDonald clarified the operation of sections 20A and 23 of the Act and explained that they had been properly harmonised and strict liability appropriately applied. In response to a question from the SCC, Mr McDonald confirmed that AGD was responsible for ensuring consistency in application of fault elements and the level of penalty of offences across all Commonwealth legislation, including the civil aviation legislation.

The presentations by Mr Langmead and Mr McDonald probably served to clarify the rationale for and effect of strict liability offences for the SCC, although it remains to be seen whether some in the aviation industry choose to ignore the advice and continue to make political mileage out of the issue.

One wonders whether they were at the same meeting.

Below is what was actually recorded in the SCC minutes;

5. Strict liability

5.1 In accordance with Action Item 12/11/03 – 1, Melbourne Barrister, John Langmead SC, spoke on the subject of the appropriateness of strict liability provisions in the civil aviation regulatory environment. John’s presentation explained the differences between common law and statute law and strict liability versus absolute liability. John said that strict liability offences are those which do not require guilty intent for their commission, but for which there is a defence if the wrongful action was based on a reasonable mistake of fact. Absolute liability offences are those which do not require a guilty intent, but for which there is no defence of a reasonable mistake of fact. There are very few, if any, instances of absolute liability in civil aviation. The existence of strict liability or absolute liability does not make any other defence unavailable. Defences available to an accused other than those removed by making a matter one of strict or absolute liability remain available to him or her. John cited some examples of how strict liability had been appropriately applied to the Civil Aviation Regulations eg (CAR) 157. He also highlighted some instances where he considered the application of strict liability did not accord with the principles eg Section 20A and Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act. Bill McIntyre sought, and obtained, confirmation that, in John Langmead’s view, the application of strict liability in the civil aviation regulations was appropriate but there were some problems with its application to the Civil Aviation Act.

5.2 John further explained the purpose of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code reflects the common law position fault must be proven for each element of an offence, the only exceptions being where there is legislative provision that an offence or element of an offence carries absolute or strict liability. John said that Commonwealth offences generally require proof of fault, but there are circumstances where strict or absolute liability may be appropriate.

5.3 General questions arising as a result of John’s briefing included:

• The extent to which a CASA officer can determine what is an offence of strict liability and what is not.
• The relationship between strict liability and due diligence.
• The applicability of mercy flights and immunity to certain provisions in the regulations.
• The establishment of a criminal record if found guilty of an offence.

5.4 Geoff McDonald of the Attorney General’s Department also spoke on the subject of strict liability and how it is applied in the civil aviation regulatory environment. Geoff explained the reason for the Criminal Code and that it applied across all Commonwealth legislation - not just restricted to aviation. Geoff explained how strict liability could be applied to a specific element of a regulation, and reiterated the importance of the SCC to keep an open mind about strict liability and that there is no conspiracy going on to make provisions more or less offences of strict liability. Geoff explained the applicability of strict liability is discussed between the CASA Project Manager and the Legislative Drafter of the Attorney-General’s Office of Legislative Drafting. On the specific shortcomings identified by John Langmead in the application of strict liability to particular provisions of the Civil Aviation Act, Geoff McDonald provided an alternate view explaining the validity of the provisions.

5.5 The SCC thanked both John and Geoff for their very informative presentations.

End Part 1

Part the second;

STRICT LIABILITY

The facts versus the fiction.


There is much demonizing of the concept of Strict Liability and AOPA’s actions in the so called “selling down the river” of GA pilots by AOPA in withdrawing a Motion to Disallow the CAR 1988 Amendments 2003 in regard to the application of “Strict Liability”. (hereinafter called SL).

This is being affected by the blind speaking to the deaf in terms quasi-legal that neither understands and invoking highly subjective concepts of conspiratorial and irregular regulatory behaviour.

We will of course address the Ministers Letter in regard to any reasonably supported changes to the 1988 Regs and we already have an undertaking regarding Part 91 confirmed by the Director.

I have researched the matter, sought advice where appropriate and present the following for your information and consideration. I am still waiting for some statistics and a final rendering of some questions.

The only Regs that were possibly NOT already deemed SL before the amendments, that are now SL, are

Reg 13(e) Failure to notify CASA of change in particulars of registration of aircraft

Reg 13(i) Failure to notify CASA of Loss of certificate of registration of an aircraft

Reg 298B(1)a, b, and d Examination misconduct by persons other than a candidate.

There may be one or two we have missed and we will confirm those next week, when we will also have a list of those Regs that are now NOT SL. Hopefully this will save you the effort of finding them yourselves.

WHAT IS STRICT LIABILITY?

Strict liability is a concept that applies to criminal offences.
Essentially, what it means is that the prosecution does not have to prove intention to commit the offence. It simply has to prove that the defendant committed the offence. To use a motor traffic analogy, the police do not have to prove that a driver intended to go through a red light, only that the driver did go through a red light.

IS STRICT LIABILITY A NEW CONCEPT?

No, strict liability has been around for over 100 years.

DOES STRICT LIABILITY MEAN THAT I AM AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY AND HAVE NO DEFENCE?

No. As mentioned above, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt
that you committed each element of the particular offence.

In addition, there are defences that can be raised.

For example, Section 30 of the Civil Aviation Act provides that if a person is prosecuted for a offence against the Civil Aviation Act or the Civil Aviation Regulations, then it is a defence if it is shown that what a pilot did was due to extreme weather conditions or other unavoidable causes. Such a defence only has to be established on the balance of probability not beyond reasonable doubt. This defence applies to offences of strict liability as well as fault offences.

In addition, the Criminal Code (section 9.2) provides a defence of mistake of fact in relation to all strict liability offences.
What this means is that a person is not guilty of a strict liability offence if the person was under a mistaken belief that particular facts existed (eg he had a current low flying permission) and had these facts existed, the conduct would not have constituted an offence.

Also, section 10.1 of the Criminal Code provides that a defendant is not guilty of a strict liability offence if what the person did was brought about by another person over whom the defendant has no control, or by a non-human act or event over which the defendant has no control and the defendant could not reasonably be expected to guard against the bringing about of the offence.

Also, section 10.3 of the Criminal Code provides that a person is not guilty of any offence if what he or she does is in response to circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency.

PRIOR TO THE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS WERE THE OFFENCES IN THE REGULATIONS OFFENCES OF STRICT LIABILITY?

Yes. The offences in the Civil Aviation Regulations have always been regarded as offences of strict liability in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Courts to determine whether or not an offence in legislation is a strict liability offence. The courts have generally regarded an offence to be a strict liability offence if:

* the offence is a summary offence (i.e. a minor criminal offence heard by a magistrate without a jury);

* the offence is not punishable by a term of imprisonment;

* there are other offences in the legislation which are expressed not to be strict liability, e.g. offences containing words expressly importing fault elements, like "intentionally", "knowingly", "recklessly", etc.;

* the offence provides specific defences which imply that a fault element need not be proven, e.g. a person must not do something "without reasonable excuse";

* the offence regulates a matter of social importance (such as health, safety, consumer protection, environmental management), as opposed to "customary" criminal activities (such as property offences and offences against the person).

SO WHY WERE THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS AMENDED TO EXPRESSLY MAKE THEM OFFENCES OF STRICT LIABILITY?

The regulations were amended because of the commencement of the Criminal Code Act. Section 5.6 of the Criminal Code Act provides that a strict liability offence must be identified as such, otherwise a fault element will automatically apply. So in order ensure that the Civil Aviation Regulations continued to operate as they always had, it was necessary to amend the regulations to expressly provide that the offences which were always considered to be strict liability offences, continued to operate in that way after the commencement of the Criminal Code Act.

DID THIS APPLY ONLY TO THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS?

No, this applied to all Commonwealth legislation. As a result of the commencement of the Criminal Code Act, hundreds of pieces of Commonwealth legislation were amended to expressly state that offences which were considered to be strict liability offences before the commencement of the Criminal Code Act, continued to be strict liability offences after the commencement of the Criminal Code Act. This involved thousands of Commonwealth offences. The harmonisation of the Civil Aviation Regulations with the Criminal Code was only a very small part of the complete Criminal
Code harmonisation exercise carried out in relation to all Commonwealth legislation.

DID CASA UNILATERALLY DECIDE WHETHER THE OFFENCES IN THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS WERE STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCES BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT?

No. CASA conducted a review of all offences in the Civil Aviation
Regulations with the Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney-general\'s Department to determine whether the offences in the Civil Aviation Regulations were, or were not, strict liability offences.
The advice of the Attorney-General\'s Department was that most of the offences in the Civil Aviation Regulations were strict liability offences because:
* they were regulatory offences;
* the penalties for the offences were monetary only (no imprisonment) and were not too large (i.e. were below 60 penalty units);
* they related to safety issues and administrative matters;
* the term \'reasonable excuse\' or some other defence was contained in the offence provision.

WERE THE REGULATIONS AMENDED TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR CASA TO PROSECUTE PILOTS?

No, the regulations were amended purely as a result of the commencement of the Criminal Code Act which required all Commonwealth agencies to review their legislation and to expressly set out which offences were strict liability offences.

The amendments simply retained the status quo.

As explained earlier, the majority of offences in the Civil Aviation
Regulations were always considered to be offences of strict liability and so the amendments did not make it easier or harder for offences to be prosecuted - the status quo was maintained. The aviation industry has been subject to strict liability for many years as the Civil Aviation Regulations have always been prosecuted by the DPP on the basis that the offences in the regulations were strict liability offences. The amendments
to the regulations have not changed this position.

WERE THE REGULATIONS AMENDED IN ORDER TO ALLOW CASA TO ISSUE INFRINGEMENT NOTICES AND RECORD DEMERIT POINTS?

No. The infringement notice scheme has been in the Civil Aviation
Regulations for over 10 years, It was first implemented 2 years ago when the first infringement notices were issued by CASA . The demerit points scheme will be introduced from 21 February 2004 as a result of amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 in 2003.

As mentioned above, the strict liability amendments were made as a result of the commencement of the Criminal Code Act, It was part of a Commonwealth wide initiative and was not restricted to CASA.

HOW DOES STRICT LIABILITY IN THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS COMPARE WITH MOTOR TRAFFIC OFFENCES?

It is interesting that the NSW road transport legislation applies the Commonwealth Criminal Code to NSW Road Rules and makes them all offences of strict liability.

The NSW Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation provides as follows:
"33 Chapter 2 of the Criminal code set out in the
Schedule to the Criminal Code Act of the Commonwealth applies to an offence against this regulation or the Australian Road Rules as if the Chapter were in force as a law of New South Wales.

"34 An offence against this Regulation or the Australian
Road Rules is a strict liability offence for the purposes of Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code referred to in clause 33."


CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995
- SECT 6.1 Strict liability

(1)
If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability:
(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available.
(2)
If a law that creates an offence provides that strict liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:
(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available in relation to that physical element.
(3)
The existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.

- SECT 6.2 Absolute liability

(1)
If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of absolute liability:
(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is unavailable.
(2)
If a law that creates an offence provides that absolute liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:
(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is unavailable in relation to that physical element.
(3)
The existence of absolute liability does not make any other defence unavailable.



A full copy of the Criminal Code Act is attached as a Word Document FYI.

For an Acrobat file of the;
Civil Aviation Amendment Act No 105 2003 can be found here.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/com...df/1052003.pdf

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 here.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/top.htm

Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 here.

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pas...2/1485/top.htm

[Bendo]

Thank you Gaunty.

Continue fighting the good fight ...against the idiots.

I'm not sure that simple, clear information (as you have posted above) can make up for a good scare campaign though.

Can you confirm you are running at the next elections?

[gaunty]

At Ron Lawfords request;


27th April 2004

The Editor
AOPA Magazine

Dear Sir,

Having resigned as President of AOPA on 26/4/04 , having resigned from the Board on the same day, and having had Vice President Adrienne Williams, Secretary Mick Kennedy, and board member Gary Gaunt resign immediately after myself, I feel our members are entitled to some explanation as to the reasons why this happened.

Firstly, I did not agree with the policy of the board in keeping bad news from members. I intended, in my president’s report in the January/February magazine, and in the April magazine, to spell out to AOPA Members what I considered to be our most pressing problem --that of declining membership. I intended to outline what I considered to be the reasons for this decline -- board disarray over a number of years, members’ perception that our policy on CASA is one of confrontation, our policy on the National Airspace System, and a perception that AOPA is not doing enough for aviation. I intended to tell members what I saw as the possible solutions to our problems.

The Board saw fit to instruct me to rewrite my report in January/February to remove all bad news, which I did. The board saw fit to prohibit the publication of my President’s report in the April magazine. Hopefully this letter will see the light of day in the May magazine.

I have had concerns for some months over the AOPA’s policies on a range of issues, the principal one being the National Airspace Scheme. I feel that AOPA is out of touch with what major sections of industry want so far as NAS is concerned.

I have additional concerns over AOPA’s financial situation which I have addressed to the board in detail. Adrienne Williams, Mick Kennedy and Gary Gaunt had all indicated to me some months ago that they wanted to resign from the Board to protect themselves financially, and I had prevailed on them to remain on the Board while I felt there was some prospect of making a worthwhile contribution. Over the last week, I concluded that that personal financial risk that I was incurring by remaining on the board, and the risk that I was asking my three fellow Board members to incur, was not justified giving our inability to influence the Board’s decisions.

I am fully conscious of the effect of yet another AOPA President resigning, and my three fellow board members are fully conscious of the effect of their resignations on AOPA members. Hopefully, the remaining board members, and the new Board members elected in May will be able to keep AOPA going as a functioning organisation.

Finally, I reflect on the positives that have occurred during my time on the Board, without claiming personal credit for them. The new CEO of CASA, Mr Bruce Byron, impresses me as person who will bring about much need improvements in the way that CASA regulates and educates the industry. He has already responded to submissions I made to him on flying instructor standards, to the mix of regulation versus education, and to individual matters of concern to the industry.

Mr John Anderson, Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has been instrumental in changing the legislation and the charter under which CASA operates, and he brought about the appointment of Mr Byron. He had instructed the former CEO of CASA to make a personal visit each month to, in turn, the President and Vice Presidents of AOPA. He directed that legislation to which AOPA objected would be the subject of sympathetic attention by his Department if we chose to detail our objections. He has started the process to separate Airservices Australia from the regulation of airspace. I consider that these are all positive moves for the aviation industry.

In closing, I want to pay tribute to our AOPA office staff. They have, under the capable direction of Daniel Parsons, been unfailingly helpful, on a number of occasions going well beyond the call of duty.

I wish to thank those board members, and members not on the board, who have assisted me with support and counsel through what has been a very difficult episode in my aviation career.

Finally, I can now, being once again just an ordinary a member of AOPA, sit back, relax, enjoy the reduction in my stress levels, and go and fly aeroplanes.

Ron Lawford

[gaunty]

Bendo

Thanks for your support amd yes it has been hard to get clear rational thought into vogue in AOPA.

Yes I am still nominated, although I do not know how much the scare campaign has affected me.

I guess if the members vote on that basis they will get what they want.

What I do know for certain is that the "new" AOPA will have some seriously hard fence mending to do in Canberra.

[Creampuff]

I posted this on 22 Nov 03 in my strict liability thread, when Ms Pagani resigned:

Recent events at the top of AOPA have goaded the usual rabble of ratbags into a feeding frenzy. Perhaps we should pause to objectively analyse, so far as possible, what we know about what happened, and why, in relation to the strict liability issue.

The divergent views all boil down to some simply-stated questions.

First, were any offences strict liability under the 1988 regulations prior to the Criminal Code Act 1995, and if so, which?

This is a very important question, because there is a substantial difference between imposing strict liability under the rules where none existed before, on the one hand, and on other hand maintaining strict liability through complying with new requirements as to how a strict liability offence is to be structured.

Secondly, and irrespective of whether it was or wasn’t strict liability under all, some or none of the rules before, what is the basis of the objection to strict liability now?

This also is a very important question, because if the objection is on the basis that strict liability will have some undesirable effect, the undesirable effect must be articulated, and some causal connection between it and strict liability demonstrated.

The first question is an argument about the law.

The second is primarily an argument about policy, but turns to some extent on the answer to the first question. If offences under the 1988 regulations were strict liability from the start, it follows that any claimed undesirable effects of strict liability should have manifested themselves in the last 15 years.

Some facts. Let’s recall exactly what the immediate past President of AOPA said in her September 2003 President’s report:

…there are a substantial number of [offences] which would, if challenged, properly be found to be offences of strict liability by a court, and to those being the subject of the deeming amendment, I have no objection.

[bolding added]

So there you have it: the immediate past President of AOPA took the view that “a substantial number” of offences were already strict liability, and she had “no objection” to them remaining so.

On AGACF, Spud alludes to a “Learned friend” who, according to Spud, considers that at least one offence would certainly have been found not to be an offence of strict liability. Spud omits to state his Learned friend’s view as to the nature of all the other offences.

There is literally no expert in this field who claims that none of the offences under the 1988 rules was strict liability before the Criminal Code Act.

Now put yourself in the shoes of the Senate. It’s got the Attorney-General telling it that all of the offences under the 1988 regulations were strict liability before the Criminal Code, and the amendments are intended to ensure that the Criminal Code requirements cart follows the strict liability horse. Meanwhile, the President of AOPA says she has “no objection” to “a substantial number” of offences remaining strict liability. Further, the Minister has given AOPA a written undertaking to the effect that he will consider AOPA’s objections to strict liability in specific regulations, both new and proposed (if and when AOPA actually specifies exactly to which regulations it objects.)

The notice of motion to disallow had a snowflake’s hope in hell of getting up. AOPA, who prompted the motion, had “no objection” to the effect of a substantial number of the amendments as they stood, and had a written undertaking from the Minister to consider in good faith the ones to which AOPA objected, if and when AOPA identified them and why.

As to the policy of strict liability, I have yet to see a sustainable argument as to why the air rules should be different from the road rules. Most objections are on the ground of the claimed evil effects that will flow from strict liability. The patently fatal flaw in those arguments is that it’s been strict liability under the civil aviation regulations (or at least “a substantial number” of them) since 1988, yet so far as I can tell those evils have not manifested themselves. Either that, or there’s no demonstrable causal link between the two.
…

There’s a difference between motherhood statements to rally the rabble, and objective analysis of specific regulations.

Finally, I note that one of the main reasons AOPA had ceased to have any substantial impact on government decision-making, at least at the federal level, was that it ceased to have any substantial credibility and therefore relevance. For almost every atrocity alleged or forecast by some representatives of AOPA over the last 6 or so years, there’s been a short and fatal answer: the representative was wrong or selective on the relevant facts or the relevant law.

That’s changed. AOPA has commenced the very difficult work of re-establishing its credibility with the federal government, and the Minister’s response and undertaking in relation to the strict liability issue demonstrates that the work has started to pay off. Pressing the motion for disallowance would have undone that work. Don’t let the hotch-potch of nude emperors, bruised egos, and bitter has-beens out there convince you otherwise.

Let me nail my colours firmly to the mast.

Without the likes of Ron Lawford, Gary Gaunt, Adrienne Williams and Mick Kennedy continuing to do the very difficult work of re-establishing AOPA’s credibility, AOPA will, I fear, be restored to the status of laughing stock.

Until it goes broke.

Those who blame or criticise anyone in AOPA for “selling out” on the strict liability issue seem to me generally to fall into one of two groups. The first contains those who are simply unwilling or unable to objectively analyse issues such as strict liability or the workings of government; the second contains those who manipulate the first’s prejudice or ignorance. The people whom AOPA used to attract, but now repels in droves, are those who prefer not to waste their time and money being embarrassed through association with the former, or having their intelligence insulted by the latter.
The outcome of this election will determine whether I waste another second or cent on AOPA.

Thanks for hanging in as long as you did, Gaunty et al, and please come back.

[longstab]

Creampuff & Gaunty

Thank you both for such informative posts. Now I have to read this a few times to digest it all.

Have also been reading some posts on that agacf site. Boy there are some very bitter & twisted people who hang out there.

ciao

[YPJT]

Have also been reading some posts on that agacf site. Boy there are some very bitter & twisted people who hang out there.

Yes and a good number of the most vociferous amongs them have at one time been kicked out of PPRUNE.

[brianh]

Gary

Next time WW2 comes around - based on what i have quickly scanned on this thread - I am certain you, not Goebbels, are a monty for Propaganda Minister.

Four questions:

Since a Board which had your mates on it has already passed a vote of No Confidence in you, how do you suggest your being elected offers any future benefit to either the AOPA Board or those who vote for you, as the new Board post AGM is unlikely to be any more receptive to you???

What do you think is the motivation for the many separate attacks on you. At present you are scoring even more than Bill Hamilton did at the last election. The only thing left to call on seems to be the "tall poppy syndrome" which a few others outside Aviation have used lately.

I have been in and out and have not read your recent posts at length. Is there any mention in them of any rumour or possibility of a CASA job offer to an AOPA Board Member at the same time as the Strict Liability sellout.

Can you list, without rhetoric, what you personally have achieved for GA and AOPA members while on the AOPA Board.

Please stick to the facts and questions.

Let me put my position to all. I am an infrequent AGAF poster except when the AOPA Forum is down so no doubt that still labels me. I am passionate about GA and AOPA and believe the two have suffered in the past twelve months coinciding with your time on board. I note that, despite all the mud thrown at the performance of the financials etc in those twelve months since you and your mates left that you were all on the Board when it was all going wrong. Finally, I believe that - whatever your talents - you are a square peg in a round hole as far as being an AOPA Director is concerned, therefore you certainly do not get my vote.

[longstab]

AGACF Site

I gather that the site was established by Andrew Wetzel to support Mr Hamilton. Of course Movingforward is entitled to do that, as is anyone to participate on that forum.

It is worth a read and as YPJT says, many have been banned from here. I'm told that one was banned because of his boasts of hacking into the PPruNe site, others because of alleged defamation. There is no moderation there, just a free for all.

The pièce de résistance is a particular ex AOPA director & member who has this week re-joined AOPA with the (rumoured) promise that he will be given a place on the board after the elections. That will fling the cat amongst the pigeons.


Brian H

I haven't fully digested the pros & cons of the debate but a no confidence vote if you have the numbers means nothing regarding its veracity. It can be easily used as a method to silence opposing views. And that gets to the hub of the bickering within the committee, intolerance of opposing views. Perhaps a no confidence votes is merely a symptom?

Creampuff

I appreciated your learned analysis of the SL issue. This old noggin is still trying to distill the data.

[Creampuff]

brianh

Although I am sure Mr Gaunt is capable of responding to your post, should he choose to do so, the attitude reflected in your post is in my view at the core of AOPA’s problem.

You commence by drawing an implicit analogy between Mr Gaunt and a Nazi war criminal. That is a despicable analogy to draw.

As Mr Gaunt pointed out earlier, no volunteer director of any company should be expected to tolerate that kind of vituperative and unjustified suggestion.

You then pose 4 questions, each of which contains its own mix of nasty suggestions.

I’ve thought about the sorts of characteristics that might distinguish the kinds of people who just resigned from the board, from some of those that are left and some of their supporters. A key distinguishing feature struck me: one group contains people who have balanced lives and attitudes, characterised by a loving and normal family life, a successful and diverse professional and personal life outside aviation, and a demonstrated capacity for objectivity and critical thought. I’d be happy to count them among my friends, and for my children to play with their children.

The other group contains people the likes of whom I’d generally avoid associating.

Perhaps I’m a snob; or perhaps me and the people with whom I choose to associate are weird; perhaps I’m just a Nazi war criminal. Whatever the case, I know with whom the organ grinders in aviation prefer to associate.

[Bob Murphie]

More foreplay needed.

[Foyl]

Gaunty, thank you for posting Ron's letter.

I'm getting more than a little angry with the public sledging that you're getting (and it has been most inappropriately public on at least one occasion). It says a lot more about the people who are doing the sledging that it does about you. I haven't met you, I have never spoken or corresponded with you, the only information I have about you is via this forum and the AOPA Magazine. But I know absolutely that your sledgers are not people that I would want representing me in any way shape or form.

Good luck in the election, you have much more support out there than your detractors will credit.