AOPA - 4 Directors resign
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera
Nice to hear from you when you added tonight to my post of this morning: -
"Perhaps it is because Gaunty is prepared to stand and fight for his beliefs?
You may surely ponder on that, because I won't. The subject of AOPA is not one which concerns me."
Perhaps the subject of AOPA is one that does not concern you, however, I feel you do the other Directors - left behind to fix the mess - a disservice by implying that there is only one superhero "fighting for his beliefs' - after leaving the sinking ship he crewed as an officer.
Don Quixote tilted his lance at windmills. The windmills were an essential part of the economy and environment and outlasted well beyond the lacklustre lancer. Must be a message in that.
Anyway, its probably all water under the bridge now. Those who intended to vote before the election closed should have done so by now, so au revoir till next time around.
Ron Bertram, as expected, spoke well and sincerely in re-opening the Forum. Long live AOPA and its support for GA.
Nice to hear from you when you added tonight to my post of this morning: -
"Perhaps it is because Gaunty is prepared to stand and fight for his beliefs?
You may surely ponder on that, because I won't. The subject of AOPA is not one which concerns me."
Perhaps the subject of AOPA is one that does not concern you, however, I feel you do the other Directors - left behind to fix the mess - a disservice by implying that there is only one superhero "fighting for his beliefs' - after leaving the sinking ship he crewed as an officer.
Don Quixote tilted his lance at windmills. The windmills were an essential part of the economy and environment and outlasted well beyond the lacklustre lancer. Must be a message in that.
Anyway, its probably all water under the bridge now. Those who intended to vote before the election closed should have done so by now, so au revoir till next time around.
Ron Bertram, as expected, spoke well and sincerely in re-opening the Forum. Long live AOPA and its support for GA.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Administrator
The incumbent committee are taking a big risk by not placing AOPA into voluntary Administration. They may become liable to the membership , eg a class action, if they continue to foul up.
If the members fail to accept the accounts at the AGM, the committee would be obliged to place AOPA into Administration or Liquidation. So my suggestion is vote NO to the accounts when you send in the proxy.
No wonder that AOPA's credibility is at such a low. The Committee has failed to manage the show and they have equally messed up the representation to CASA & Govt. A score of zero out of 10 I would say !
The Hamilton team is now running AOPA and will continue to do so after the election. My bet is that the loss of members will now accelerate and AOPA will enter the spin.
The only chance for AOPA is to sack the current committee, put in an Administrator and hope that the association can be saved.
But the members are apathetic and I can't see anyone getting very excited at the AGM.
Hate to be so depressing but the future is looking gloomy. I won't be rejoining but GA will be damaged by AOPA's failure.
When you read all the posts on this thread any thinking person would likewise be despondent.
If the members fail to accept the accounts at the AGM, the committee would be obliged to place AOPA into Administration or Liquidation. So my suggestion is vote NO to the accounts when you send in the proxy.
No wonder that AOPA's credibility is at such a low. The Committee has failed to manage the show and they have equally messed up the representation to CASA & Govt. A score of zero out of 10 I would say !
The Hamilton team is now running AOPA and will continue to do so after the election. My bet is that the loss of members will now accelerate and AOPA will enter the spin.
The only chance for AOPA is to sack the current committee, put in an Administrator and hope that the association can be saved.
But the members are apathetic and I can't see anyone getting very excited at the AGM.
Hate to be so depressing but the future is looking gloomy. I won't be rejoining but GA will be damaged by AOPA's failure.
When you read all the posts on this thread any thinking person would likewise be despondent.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I felt the Administrator issue was well covered by the Garrylous post but it seems there is a conspiracy in our midst that I have missed.
What is this "Hamilton Team"? Can I blame it for the events of the last twelve months? Was it the "Hamilton team" that caused the Marjorie Pagani resignation? Was it Hamilton or one of his team who changed the agreement on the strict liability? Has Andrew Kerans changed his beliefs and joined the Team? And Ron Bertram, a man of impeccable integrity and who has put enormous effort into AOPA - has he been subverted into joining this malicious "Hamilton Team".
More information is needed on this Team.
Can someone please list on this Forum the number of current AOPA Directors who comprise the "Hamilton Team". Let's sort these rotters out now by publicly exposing this team.
What is this "Hamilton Team"? Can I blame it for the events of the last twelve months? Was it the "Hamilton team" that caused the Marjorie Pagani resignation? Was it Hamilton or one of his team who changed the agreement on the strict liability? Has Andrew Kerans changed his beliefs and joined the Team? And Ron Bertram, a man of impeccable integrity and who has put enormous effort into AOPA - has he been subverted into joining this malicious "Hamilton Team".
More information is needed on this Team.
Can someone please list on this Forum the number of current AOPA Directors who comprise the "Hamilton Team". Let's sort these rotters out now by publicly exposing this team.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brianh, you may well believe Garry lous covered the Administrator issue, I happen to feel he did not nor convince me that an Administraor should not be appointed..
Although according to he/she/it, as a CPL I am not a member so I guess he means I don't count.
B25/Garrylous
Disco Stu
Although according to he/she/it, as a CPL I am not a member so I guess he means I don't count.
B25/Garrylous
Disco Stu
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stu
I'll stick with his theme until some one posts a more feasible alternative.
But, hang in there buddy, I welcome you as a CPL in AOPA. I do not believe AOPA can or should represent the total spectrum of aircraft owners and pilot levels - some of which may be better represented by industry or career specific associations - but CPLs certainly belong. After all, it is CPL that train GA at grass roots level, and their input to policy and procedure is welcomed.
I'll stick with his theme until some one posts a more feasible alternative.
But, hang in there buddy, I welcome you as a CPL in AOPA. I do not believe AOPA can or should represent the total spectrum of aircraft owners and pilot levels - some of which may be better represented by industry or career specific associations - but CPLs certainly belong. After all, it is CPL that train GA at grass roots level, and their input to policy and procedure is welcomed.
"hamilton team"
What is this "Hamilton Team"? Can I blame it for the events of the last twelve months?
more like the last 5+ years
doubtful if aopa will survive with this "team" about??
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longstab
What is it that you want? Sounds like you want to see AOPA gone.
As for Ron Bertram being part of the 'Hamilton Team', you obviously don't know him well... At least he hasn't ejected with most of the committee, but is trying to hold the fort until the elections and beyond. He is a man of integrity who wants to see GA survive in Australia. I hope he is elected president at the end of the month, I can't see a better person for the job at the moment.
What is it that you want? Sounds like you want to see AOPA gone.
As for Ron Bertram being part of the 'Hamilton Team', you obviously don't know him well... At least he hasn't ejected with most of the committee, but is trying to hold the fort until the elections and beyond. He is a man of integrity who wants to see GA survive in Australia. I hope he is elected president at the end of the month, I can't see a better person for the job at the moment.
ugly.. u dont get it.. ron b is not the problem
like u i think he will do his best but not much good swimming upstream at 1mph when the stream is going 10mph the other way?? and someone else has control of the weir and wont turn the water off ! or maybe its a poor weir?
it does not matter who is elected the flow will still be too strong
like u i think he will do his best but not much good swimming upstream at 1mph when the stream is going 10mph the other way?? and someone else has control of the weir and wont turn the water off ! or maybe its a poor weir?
it does not matter who is elected the flow will still be too strong
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ugly.. u dont get it.. ron b is not the problem
10 years of crap in AOPA. I didn't renew back in about 1996 when membership costs doubled. I recall a quote from the president at the time (might have been Munro, can't remember) that he didn't care if membership dropped by a third, because there'd be more money coming in. Well well - look where we are now.
I'm sick of egos, squabbling, name calling, dummy spits, resignations, calls for votes of no confidence, back stabbing, team this and team that, cliques, childish behaviour, legal threats, lies... you name it.
We see it all the time here, people who hide behind anonymous names and spread lies. Several times these anonymous posters have said the Hamilton is controlling the board, Ron B is a part of some 'Hamilton Team' yet none of these people have the balls to put their name to posts.
I have nothing to hide here, my name is in my signature but I'm not a registered user so it doesn't appear, but if anyone cares, its Brian Grinter - I'm a PPL and enjoy aviation as a hobby. Like Ron B, I'm also a volunteer with the AAL and get a kick out of seeing former cadets flying F/A-18s, Boeings or even just going solo in a C152. I once had dreams of a career in aviation myself, however I was good at IT so here I am.
How did AOPA work before? I was only a member for about the last 2 years of Patroni's presidency, however it was a stable and respectable organisation then. There were no 'A Teams', just a board who worked together to get the job done.
Ron may be pushing the proverbial up a hill with a pointy stick, but at least he stuck with it when so many others took the easy way out and bailed. For that the man deserves our admiration. Rather than the demands for administrators to be appointed we should wait at least until the AGM and see what transpires.
He might be swimming upstream at 1 knot, but if some of us get off the wier and give a hand, maybe some good may yet come.
brianh
A couple of points in your response again demonstrate what I consider to be a cause of AOPA’s malaise.
On the strict liability issue, you state that:
Your position is therefore that:
- Mr Gaunt caused the outcome;
- the outcome wasn’t a positive one;
- Senator Alison is, as a consequence of this issue, unlikely to help AOPA again.
I think none of those points is true. The notice of motion was doomed to failure as soon as AOPA got the written concession from the Minister. I can prove it was doomed.
When a Senator wants to move a notice of motion of disallowance, s/he must give notice that the motion will be moved. Once notice has been given, a whole lot of other rules kick in. One of those rules is that if the Senator wants to withdraw the motion, s/he must give notice that s/he intends to move the notice of withdrawal. The purpose of the rule is obvious: there might be other Senators who want to keep the notice of motion alive.
When Senator Alison moved her motion of withdrawal, having warned the Senate she was going to do so, how many Senators objected to the motion? Not one.
The reason there was no objection is explained in my post above – among other things, AOPA had that letter from the Minister.
If AOPA really wanted to get Senator Alison off side, all it needed to do was ask her to make a goose out of herself by pressing the motion. The government would have waved the letter and the AG’s opinion around, and the motion would have failed.
And of course you never deal with the substance of the issue – that is, identify which rules weren’t already strict liability, which shouldn’t be strict liability now, then write to the Minister to get him to do what he said he would do. No, that wouldn’t do at all.
If the issue’s so important, so crucial to the interests of GA, if your overriding concern is for AOPA and GA, why haven’t you done that?
You also state that:
I think you have more biases than the one you claim. If you had objectively analysed all of my posts on pprune, you would have seen that I criticise CASA when I think it deserves criticism, and support it when I think it deserves support. That’s called objectivity. You equate the merits of an issue to your perceptions of the people involved. That’s called prejudice.
A couple of points in your response again demonstrate what I consider to be a cause of AOPA’s malaise.
On the strict liability issue, you state that:
AOPA had a politician ready to go to bat for a positive change. Two things happened thanks to Gary's intervention. First, the situation did not change for the positive. Second, and worse, a certain politician will be very unlikely to come to the aid of AOPA again in a hurry.
- Mr Gaunt caused the outcome;
- the outcome wasn’t a positive one;
- Senator Alison is, as a consequence of this issue, unlikely to help AOPA again.
I think none of those points is true. The notice of motion was doomed to failure as soon as AOPA got the written concession from the Minister. I can prove it was doomed.
When a Senator wants to move a notice of motion of disallowance, s/he must give notice that the motion will be moved. Once notice has been given, a whole lot of other rules kick in. One of those rules is that if the Senator wants to withdraw the motion, s/he must give notice that s/he intends to move the notice of withdrawal. The purpose of the rule is obvious: there might be other Senators who want to keep the notice of motion alive.
When Senator Alison moved her motion of withdrawal, having warned the Senate she was going to do so, how many Senators objected to the motion? Not one.
The reason there was no objection is explained in my post above – among other things, AOPA had that letter from the Minister.
If AOPA really wanted to get Senator Alison off side, all it needed to do was ask her to make a goose out of herself by pressing the motion. The government would have waved the letter and the AG’s opinion around, and the motion would have failed.
And of course you never deal with the substance of the issue – that is, identify which rules weren’t already strict liability, which shouldn’t be strict liability now, then write to the Minister to get him to do what he said he would do. No, that wouldn’t do at all.
If the issue’s so important, so crucial to the interests of GA, if your overriding concern is for AOPA and GA, why haven’t you done that?
You also state that:
We all have our biases. Mine is success for AOPA and GA. I don't know yours but from reading your posts I detect a strong pro-CASA bias therefore I suspect you and I are going to see both AOPA issues and Gary's actions with different benchmarks.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy
And Gary called me a sophist.
You carefully skirt the machinations involving Mr Gaunt and how the strict liability issue was handled at Board level. I'll stick by Ms Pagani's version and leave any silks and stuffs who post on this Forum to disprove it if they are game to try.
Insofar as strict liability goes, I don't wear a legal hat. I'm an Australian citizen, about to cop a $200 fee and two yearly licence renewal, bulldozed in with no substantiation on a minority group. Strict liability is a similar imposition and I don't give a tinkers what existed previously, I'm talking about fair play for pilots and aircraft owners. I believe in a system where the onus is on the prosecution to make the case. Your post supports the French legal system - guilty until proven innocent - and that's why you and I will never be able to communicate rationally on the matter.
If you claim my posts are prejudiced, remember I'm not the one with the no confidence vote. I will however give you full marks, even ahead of Gary, as a master of misdirection for trying to move the spotlight away from how the Board was manipulated by stealth and Allison once bitten.
Let me make a statement of undeniable fact. I have never worked for CASA or any aviation regulator. Nor been involved in an investigation. Therefore any comments I make do not have any inherited regulator bias.
Prejudice can be inherited - particularly by anyone who has been involved in the legal side of CASA my friend.
Can all posters here say the same?
Ugly
Well put again. Amazing how this one man team can be responsible for 5 years of trauma, even against so formidable a group as the "A" team. Obviously AOPA has adopted a new Board voting method where one man and one man only equals the majority vote. The four who departed should have alerted us to this earlier.
Like you, I earlier called for anyone to nominate who comprises this "Hamilton Team". We will see hell freeze over before anyone is silly enough to put their real name to a post labelling Directors who they denigrate by innuendo as "Hamilton Team".
This thread will be moderated if there are any more personal attacks on Gary, we were told. But it is quite OK to adversely label ethical and dedicated AOPA Directors by implication and innuendo. What a farce.
And Gary called me a sophist.
You carefully skirt the machinations involving Mr Gaunt and how the strict liability issue was handled at Board level. I'll stick by Ms Pagani's version and leave any silks and stuffs who post on this Forum to disprove it if they are game to try.
Insofar as strict liability goes, I don't wear a legal hat. I'm an Australian citizen, about to cop a $200 fee and two yearly licence renewal, bulldozed in with no substantiation on a minority group. Strict liability is a similar imposition and I don't give a tinkers what existed previously, I'm talking about fair play for pilots and aircraft owners. I believe in a system where the onus is on the prosecution to make the case. Your post supports the French legal system - guilty until proven innocent - and that's why you and I will never be able to communicate rationally on the matter.
If you claim my posts are prejudiced, remember I'm not the one with the no confidence vote. I will however give you full marks, even ahead of Gary, as a master of misdirection for trying to move the spotlight away from how the Board was manipulated by stealth and Allison once bitten.
Let me make a statement of undeniable fact. I have never worked for CASA or any aviation regulator. Nor been involved in an investigation. Therefore any comments I make do not have any inherited regulator bias.
Prejudice can be inherited - particularly by anyone who has been involved in the legal side of CASA my friend.
Can all posters here say the same?
Ugly
Well put again. Amazing how this one man team can be responsible for 5 years of trauma, even against so formidable a group as the "A" team. Obviously AOPA has adopted a new Board voting method where one man and one man only equals the majority vote. The four who departed should have alerted us to this earlier.
Like you, I earlier called for anyone to nominate who comprises this "Hamilton Team". We will see hell freeze over before anyone is silly enough to put their real name to a post labelling Directors who they denigrate by innuendo as "Hamilton Team".
This thread will be moderated if there are any more personal attacks on Gary, we were told. But it is quite OK to adversely label ethical and dedicated AOPA Directors by implication and innuendo. What a farce.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamilton's little helpers
Mr Brian H
Fairly easy to determine who kowtow's to BH:
1. Read who he has carefully selected for his ticket. They are the ones he wants on the Committee. For his generous sponsorship that will guarantee a position on the Committee he will expect obedience, support and the crucial vote when it counts.
2. Some of the more honest drones have publicily declared their faithfulness to Him (eg Mr Murphie).
3. Some have never had the temerity to vote other than the way He votes (eg Mr Lyon).
Yes RB may well turn out to be independent, this is yet to be demonstrated. But a President who is out of kilter with the Hamilton clique will not get very fair (eg Mr Lawford).
Administration:
Yes an Administrator will cost. But what is going to more expensive in the long run ? Another year of mismanagement ?
What AOPA needs is a clean sweep and a new committtee. Apart from that AOPA may be broke (how can we know if the accounts are not published ?) anyway.
Blame:
Interesting that those dispensing blame find it convenient to blame the "evil four" or Ms Pagani, yet they were on the Committee at the time. I wonder if they raised these concerns during Committee meetings, bet not.
New Management:
The new committee needs to tell members what their plan of attack is to fix up the mess. Demonstrate that they are prepared to put the members ahead of their egos. This is really the next phase, the election is over, Rover.
They need to get the members back on side, show that they are in control of the situation, turn adversity into triumph. I reckon that this 'ask' is well beyond those now in control.
Fairly easy to determine who kowtow's to BH:
1. Read who he has carefully selected for his ticket. They are the ones he wants on the Committee. For his generous sponsorship that will guarantee a position on the Committee he will expect obedience, support and the crucial vote when it counts.
2. Some of the more honest drones have publicily declared their faithfulness to Him (eg Mr Murphie).
3. Some have never had the temerity to vote other than the way He votes (eg Mr Lyon).
Yes RB may well turn out to be independent, this is yet to be demonstrated. But a President who is out of kilter with the Hamilton clique will not get very fair (eg Mr Lawford).
Administration:
Yes an Administrator will cost. But what is going to more expensive in the long run ? Another year of mismanagement ?
What AOPA needs is a clean sweep and a new committtee. Apart from that AOPA may be broke (how can we know if the accounts are not published ?) anyway.
Blame:
Interesting that those dispensing blame find it convenient to blame the "evil four" or Ms Pagani, yet they were on the Committee at the time. I wonder if they raised these concerns during Committee meetings, bet not.
New Management:
The new committee needs to tell members what their plan of attack is to fix up the mess. Demonstrate that they are prepared to put the members ahead of their egos. This is really the next phase, the election is over, Rover.
They need to get the members back on side, show that they are in control of the situation, turn adversity into triumph. I reckon that this 'ask' is well beyond those now in control.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ugly
hear hear and bravo.
unfortunately this forum veritably swarms with those you describe. under various names, same old same old.
Oh, and as for not getting on with the Hamilton clique, lawford had full support, until he decided gaunt's opinion was more worthy that any other, a view not held by a majority of the Board or, as we shall soon see, the members.
hear hear and bravo.
unfortunately this forum veritably swarms with those you describe. under various names, same old same old.
Oh, and as for not getting on with the Hamilton clique, lawford had full support, until he decided gaunt's opinion was more worthy that any other, a view not held by a majority of the Board or, as we shall soon see, the members.
Garrylous
I'm not a member, just a fascinated spectator to this 'debate'.
Am I correct in inferring from your last post that there is (despite brianh's earlier protestations to the contrary) a Hamilton clique and that it removes its support from those who choose to take an independent or non-conforming view?
I'm not a member, just a fascinated spectator to this 'debate'.
Am I correct in inferring from your last post that there is (despite brianh's earlier protestations to the contrary) a Hamilton clique and that it removes its support from those who choose to take an independent or non-conforming view?
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had enough of this!
brianh said:
Thank heavens you are not on the board of AOPA with a statement like that!
That kind of thinking is why people are leaving AOPA in droves, and thanks to your attitude I'm joining them.
I have listened to your incesant tyrade of abuse toward a certain few here and if your attitude has any bearing on the current or newly 'elected' board, I want nothing to do with AOPA.
Your views are so narrow it's unbelievable.
I dearly want AOPA to succeed but I believe that it is not likely to see itself through the next 12 months unless it receives a fresh start, which can only happen with the appointment of an administrator and should that happen I will then quite happily pay my subs.
I regret that AOPA has denegrated into the shambles it now is and hope dearly that it can survive.
BSB
(Now awaiting the obvious abuse from the same few!)
I do not believe AOPA can or should represent the total spectrum of aircraft owners and pilot levels
That kind of thinking is why people are leaving AOPA in droves, and thanks to your attitude I'm joining them.
I have listened to your incesant tyrade of abuse toward a certain few here and if your attitude has any bearing on the current or newly 'elected' board, I want nothing to do with AOPA.
Your views are so narrow it's unbelievable.
I dearly want AOPA to succeed but I believe that it is not likely to see itself through the next 12 months unless it receives a fresh start, which can only happen with the appointment of an administrator and should that happen I will then quite happily pay my subs.
I regret that AOPA has denegrated into the shambles it now is and hope dearly that it can survive.
BSB
(Now awaiting the obvious abuse from the same few!)
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brianh
There you go with your sophistry again.
I think you may have defrocked yourself here my son;
Don't we all and it is still exactly so?? 
Perhaps you have a problem in simple English comprehension or maybe and it is a common failing, in just separating personal prejudice from fact
It is now crystal clear, that you either, have absolutely no idea, if that was so you could be forgiven for your elementary mistake in how the law in Australia is administered, or you do, either way my case rests.
And it was you who use the word rational.
So does that mean that Public and other Companies subject to the Corporations Act, Maritime Acts, Road Traffic Laws Communications Act in fact any of those subject to State or Federal Govt Regulatory attention don't get a fair go either.
Or is it just pilots and aircraft owners who are the special subject of the 100 year old principle applied by the courts in their administration of the law.??
If that were so, what justification would there be for it to be so.
You are barking up the wrong tree my friend.
I'm also having trouble linking a Government/DOTARS , Homeland Security issue, which will be written and stipulated as SL, with CASA, AOPA and myself, but I'm sure you can.
And no the "thunder and lightning" Christmas day email was not from you.
There you go with your sophistry again.
Oxford English Dictionary
sophist
/soffist/
• noun a person who uses clever but false arguments.
— DERIVATIVES sophistic /sfistik/ adjective sophistical /sfistik’l/ adjective.
sophist
/soffist/
• noun a person who uses clever but false arguments.
— DERIVATIVES sophistic /sfistik/ adjective sophistical /sfistik’l/ adjective.
I believe in a system where the onus is on the prosecution to make the case.
Perhaps you have a problem in simple English comprehension or maybe and it is a common failing, in just separating personal prejudice from fact
It is now crystal clear, that you either, have absolutely no idea, if that was so you could be forgiven for your elementary mistake in how the law in Australia is administered, or you do, either way my case rests.
And it was you who use the word rational.
Strict liability is a similar imposition and I don't give a tinkers what existed previously, I'm talking about fair play for pilots and aircraft owners.
Or is it just pilots and aircraft owners who are the special subject of the 100 year old principle applied by the courts in their administration of the law.??
If that were so, what justification would there be for it to be so.
You are barking up the wrong tree my friend.
Insofar as strict liability goes, I don't wear a legal hat. I'm an Australian citizen, about to cop a $200 fee and two yearly licence renewal, bulldozed in with no substantiation on a minority group.
And no the "thunder and lightning" Christmas day email was not from you.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, LET'S PUT A COUPLE OF FURPHIES DOWN FOR GOOD.
Gary
AOPA MAG 2003 - PRESIDENTS REPORT
" ... the Australian and New Zealand Aviation Law Association do not support CASA's view. My understanding is that strict liability (wherein intent or more strictly knowledge does not have to be proved) is only intended for minor or administrative offences. To propose, as CASA have, that the pilot be guilty of an offence if cabin crew don't stow baggage is absurd in my opinion".
Try and twist it all you like to cover what you did, Gary - even the President of the time was able to comprehend that no-one is well off where intent or knowledge does not have to be proved. It is still NOT exactly so.
BSB
And so AOPA should spend funds to fight for Virgin and Qantas as aircraft owners.
And members of Civil Air in industrial campaigns - not sure how the IRC will grant AOPA coverage of that lot.
If you cannot comprehend what that would do to AOPA finances, obviously I am not going to be one of the few to abuse you.
ALL & COODA
NOW THE FAMOUS HAMILTON TEAM
Let's begin with the Nominees statements for the election in 2003, and go right to Ms Pagani, the leader of the "A" team.
"I commend to you these candidates - all dedicated, experienced, and team-orientated aviation enthusiasts who will pull together for AOPA and GA. Pagani, Pike, Kennedy, Lawford, Mahlberg, A Williams, Errey, Gaunt, MacDonald, Kerans, and Bertram."
All but MacDonald were elected. But, notice who is not on her list - Bill Hamilton. And guess whose Nominee statement mentioned no-one to vote for except himself - Bill Hamilton.
So, of 12 Directors post the AGM, 10 were of the "A" Team - not the "Hamilton team" which seems to have been rather small does it not? Yes, folks, the "A" team had control.
NOW TO THE AOPA MAG JUNE 2003 AND Ms PAGANIS PRES REPORT
I won't as a two finger typist try and enter the tasks given to each of the Directors named in this glowing report but those named with specific roles were Pagani, Lawford, Gaunt, Errey, Pike, Kerans, Kennedy, Mahlberg, A Williams, and Bertram. Well golly gee- it's the "A Team" again - still no mention of Bill Hamilton who was obviously relegated to the bleachers with John Lyon.
So there we have it. If John lyon was (and i am not saying he was) on Bill's team, that makes 2 against 10.
So, after all the abuse about Bill Hamilton being allowed to be written unchecked on Pp last year (that's another story isn't it), and the success of the "A Team" in gaining a massive election majority then disintegrating due to internal squabbles and (censored by myself) only someone who believes in Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny would give any credibility to the attempts to cover the disastrous results of the year by attempting to blame a one-man band who did not have the numbers.
While researching the rise and fall of the "A Team" in the AOPA Mags I actually came across a quote from an unbiased observer about Bill Hamilton. It is not germane to the current debate but given all the desperate attempts to duckshove blame on to him, I feel it warrants posting.
From Eugene Reid, AUF President who paid tribute to the work of AOPA on behalf of AUF " particularly Bill Hamilton who looks after AUF at meetings with CASA. If it was not for Bill, the AUF might not be here".
And that leads to another conclusion that, if it was not for certain others, AOPA would not be where it is at present.
Gary
AOPA MAG 2003 - PRESIDENTS REPORT
" ... the Australian and New Zealand Aviation Law Association do not support CASA's view. My understanding is that strict liability (wherein intent or more strictly knowledge does not have to be proved) is only intended for minor or administrative offences. To propose, as CASA have, that the pilot be guilty of an offence if cabin crew don't stow baggage is absurd in my opinion".
Try and twist it all you like to cover what you did, Gary - even the President of the time was able to comprehend that no-one is well off where intent or knowledge does not have to be proved. It is still NOT exactly so.
BSB
And so AOPA should spend funds to fight for Virgin and Qantas as aircraft owners.
And members of Civil Air in industrial campaigns - not sure how the IRC will grant AOPA coverage of that lot.
If you cannot comprehend what that would do to AOPA finances, obviously I am not going to be one of the few to abuse you.
ALL & COODA
NOW THE FAMOUS HAMILTON TEAM
Let's begin with the Nominees statements for the election in 2003, and go right to Ms Pagani, the leader of the "A" team.
"I commend to you these candidates - all dedicated, experienced, and team-orientated aviation enthusiasts who will pull together for AOPA and GA. Pagani, Pike, Kennedy, Lawford, Mahlberg, A Williams, Errey, Gaunt, MacDonald, Kerans, and Bertram."
All but MacDonald were elected. But, notice who is not on her list - Bill Hamilton. And guess whose Nominee statement mentioned no-one to vote for except himself - Bill Hamilton.
So, of 12 Directors post the AGM, 10 were of the "A" Team - not the "Hamilton team" which seems to have been rather small does it not? Yes, folks, the "A" team had control.
NOW TO THE AOPA MAG JUNE 2003 AND Ms PAGANIS PRES REPORT
I won't as a two finger typist try and enter the tasks given to each of the Directors named in this glowing report but those named with specific roles were Pagani, Lawford, Gaunt, Errey, Pike, Kerans, Kennedy, Mahlberg, A Williams, and Bertram. Well golly gee- it's the "A Team" again - still no mention of Bill Hamilton who was obviously relegated to the bleachers with John Lyon.
So there we have it. If John lyon was (and i am not saying he was) on Bill's team, that makes 2 against 10.
So, after all the abuse about Bill Hamilton being allowed to be written unchecked on Pp last year (that's another story isn't it), and the success of the "A Team" in gaining a massive election majority then disintegrating due to internal squabbles and (censored by myself) only someone who believes in Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny would give any credibility to the attempts to cover the disastrous results of the year by attempting to blame a one-man band who did not have the numbers.
While researching the rise and fall of the "A Team" in the AOPA Mags I actually came across a quote from an unbiased observer about Bill Hamilton. It is not germane to the current debate but given all the desperate attempts to duckshove blame on to him, I feel it warrants posting.
From Eugene Reid, AUF President who paid tribute to the work of AOPA on behalf of AUF " particularly Bill Hamilton who looks after AUF at meetings with CASA. If it was not for Bill, the AUF might not be here".
And that leads to another conclusion that, if it was not for certain others, AOPA would not be where it is at present.
Ron Bertram.............he is a man of integrity who wants to see GA survive in Australia. I hope he is elected president at the end of the month, I can't see a better person for the job at the moment.
AS
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harumph;
What a good idea, telling a lie a 1,000 times, even shouting it, does not make it any less a lie. I say it, therefore it must be.
"the Australian and New Zealand Aviation Law Association do not support CASA's view."
What view and just because they don't support, it so what?
What expertise does the Association have on this issue in any event - most of them are "insurance" lawyers who have very little practical understanding of regulatory issues.
And how did the Association come to this momentous decision?
Was there a general meeting at which the matter was discussed -which meeting - who was present - what was the basis of the arguments?
Isn't Bill Hamilton a member of this Association - says a lot about their quality control.
My local 'mothers' club, which includes a Justice of the Supreme Court, a leading Perth psychiatrist, the MD of a Top 100 Australian Company and several PhD's amongst a bunch of equally concerned residents don't support the latest "local traffic calming" report in our area authored at considerable expense by so called "experts", one of whom is still recovering from a brush with said "calmed trafffic". It seems 'Blind Freddy' was off sick that day.
"My understanding is that strict liability (wherein intent or more strictly knowledge does not have to be proved) is only intended for minor or administrative offences". ??
That is correct - and that is how it is applied.
The offences under the CARs are all classified as minor because there is no imprisonment penalty and the maximum fine is $5,5000 (although most of the offences have lesser fines).
The point is that the test for strict liability that was applied to the CARs was the test that the courts have consistently used to determine the issue of what was and was not a strict liability offence, funny that, the Aviation Law Association did not seem to know that!
"To propose, as CASA have, that the pilot be guilty of an offence if cabin crew don't stow baggage is absurd in my opinion".
Absurd it is , where does it say that, what is the relevance of this, it is just another furphy, the same as the absurd "weather" example cited by another AOPA Director to frighten the kiddies.?
The sort of simple simon logic that allows;
Death = Bubonic Plague
Bubonic Plague = Rats
Rats = Cheese
Cheese = nibbles with Martini (very dry Bombay Sapphire)
nibbles with Martini (very dry Bombay Sapphire) = Vintage Cellars
Vintage Cellars = Coles/Myer
Therefore Coles/Myer = Death.
Hamilton "relegated to the bleachers", really;
"MINUTES;
Minutes from the Board meeting conducted after the AGM on the 23rd May 2003 were received, with an amendment adding Bill Hamilton’s refusal to accept a portfolio and the statement that (he) was “considering his position”.
Moved: ******
Accepted: ********
Passed"
And ****** or ***** were not one of the so called "sad 4".
and that was not the last time either that, (he) was "considering his position". Certainly he is entitled to do so, but don't come the ingenuous "bleachers" routine.
Same board meeting ;
"Attention was drawn to Bill Hamilton posting in public forums, negative views of GA and exhorting people to leave GA and go to Ultra light aviation whilst a Director of AOPA was inappropriate.
Further, attention was also drawn to a number of emails sent by Bill Hamilton denigrating the current Board and referring to members of the executive in a demeaning fashion. "
An "unbiased" quote;
and AOPA might have many more members too.
How does Hamilton represent AOPA interests as an AOPA Director whilst also representing Air Safety Australia, the AUF, Warbirds, AGACF and whoever else who will let him when AOPA wont, at the various industry committees and forums. Unless of course you allow that their policies exactly coincide with AOPA's "in interests of the members" you understand.
If they did you would have to ask why they are not operating under the AOPA banner.
Nothing now has changed since this time last year and he/they will ( and I do not take any pleasure from saying this) have the pleasure of presiding over the denouement.
You bet your bippy and most rational observers know this, sadly, to be true.
Oh and his lone mate, he too was the subject of a "no confidence motion" as well as a motion to have him removed as a Director on the 12th June 2003. We need not go into the $30,000 dollars worth of brochures never distributed nor the $6,000 odd of computers bought, allegedly without authorisation, but not compatible with company systems laying in a store room unused for many months.
Haven't heard you yelling foul on those litttle bewdies yet.
Yes, lets put a couple of furphies down for good shall we.
It really doesn't matter the votes are in by now and AOPA's fate is sealed one way or the other.
I may well be relegated to the status of Fred Daly's famous feather duster.
If I am not, then it will be interesting to see how the Board deal with an elected "cuckoo" in their nest. I have no doubt (I have it in writing) that "in the interests of the members" of course, I will be pecked to death for not having the common sense or decency to worship Bertram, become an acolyte of Hamilton or support the fantasy of State Chapters.
OK, LET'S PUT A COUPLE OF FURPHIES DOWN FOR GOOD.
" ... the Australian and New Zealand Aviation Law Association do not support CASA's view. My understanding is that strict liability (wherein intent or more strictly knowledge does not have to be proved) is only intended for minor or administrative offences. To propose, as CASA have, that the pilot be guilty of an offence if cabin crew don't stow baggage is absurd in my
opinion".
opinion".
What view and just because they don't support, it so what?
What expertise does the Association have on this issue in any event - most of them are "insurance" lawyers who have very little practical understanding of regulatory issues.
And how did the Association come to this momentous decision?
Was there a general meeting at which the matter was discussed -which meeting - who was present - what was the basis of the arguments?
Isn't Bill Hamilton a member of this Association - says a lot about their quality control.
My local 'mothers' club, which includes a Justice of the Supreme Court, a leading Perth psychiatrist, the MD of a Top 100 Australian Company and several PhD's amongst a bunch of equally concerned residents don't support the latest "local traffic calming" report in our area authored at considerable expense by so called "experts", one of whom is still recovering from a brush with said "calmed trafffic". It seems 'Blind Freddy' was off sick that day.
"My understanding is that strict liability (wherein intent or more strictly knowledge does not have to be proved) is only intended for minor or administrative offences". ??
That is correct - and that is how it is applied.
The offences under the CARs are all classified as minor because there is no imprisonment penalty and the maximum fine is $5,5000 (although most of the offences have lesser fines).
The point is that the test for strict liability that was applied to the CARs was the test that the courts have consistently used to determine the issue of what was and was not a strict liability offence, funny that, the Aviation Law Association did not seem to know that!
"To propose, as CASA have, that the pilot be guilty of an offence if cabin crew don't stow baggage is absurd in my opinion".
Absurd it is , where does it say that, what is the relevance of this, it is just another furphy, the same as the absurd "weather" example cited by another AOPA Director to frighten the kiddies.?
The sort of simple simon logic
that allows;Death = Bubonic Plague
Bubonic Plague = Rats
Rats = Cheese
Cheese = nibbles with Martini (very dry Bombay Sapphire)
nibbles with Martini (very dry Bombay Sapphire) = Vintage Cellars
Vintage Cellars = Coles/Myer
Therefore Coles/Myer = Death.
Hamilton "relegated to the bleachers", really;
"MINUTES;
Minutes from the Board meeting conducted after the AGM on the 23rd May 2003 were received, with an amendment adding Bill Hamilton’s refusal to accept a portfolio and the statement that (he) was “considering his position”.
Moved: ******
Accepted: ********
Passed"
And ****** or ***** were not one of the so called "sad 4".
and that was not the last time either that, (he) was "considering his position". Certainly he is entitled to do so, but don't come the ingenuous "bleachers" routine.
Same board meeting ;
"Attention was drawn to Bill Hamilton posting in public forums, negative views of GA and exhorting people to leave GA and go to Ultra light aviation whilst a Director of AOPA was inappropriate.
Further, attention was also drawn to a number of emails sent by Bill Hamilton denigrating the current Board and referring to members of the executive in a demeaning fashion. "
An "unbiased" quote;
From Eugene Reid, AUF President who paid tribute to the work of AOPA on behalf of AUF " particularly Bill Hamilton who looks after AUF at meetings with CASA. If it was not for Bill, the AUF might not be here".
How does Hamilton represent AOPA interests as an AOPA Director whilst also representing Air Safety Australia, the AUF, Warbirds, AGACF and whoever else who will let him when AOPA wont, at the various industry committees and forums. Unless of course you allow that their policies exactly coincide with AOPA's "in interests of the members" you understand.
If they did you would have to ask why they are not operating under the AOPA banner.
Nothing now has changed since this time last year and he/they will ( and I do not take any pleasure from saying this) have the pleasure of presiding over the denouement.
And that leads to another conclusion that, if it was not for certain others, AOPA would not be where it is at present
Oh and his lone mate, he too was the subject of a "no confidence motion" as well as a motion to have him removed as a Director on the 12th June 2003. We need not go into the $30,000 dollars worth of brochures never distributed nor the $6,000 odd of computers bought, allegedly without authorisation, but not compatible with company systems laying in a store room unused for many months.
Haven't heard you yelling foul on those litttle bewdies yet.
Yes, lets put a couple of furphies down for good shall we.
It really doesn't matter the votes are in by now and AOPA's fate is sealed one way or the other.
I may well be relegated to the status of Fred Daly's famous feather duster.
If I am not, then it will be interesting to see how the Board deal with an elected "cuckoo" in their nest. I have no doubt (I have it in writing) that "in the interests of the members" of course, I will be pecked to death for not having the common sense or decency to worship Bertram, become an acolyte of Hamilton or support the fantasy of State Chapters.