National Day of Action

[Sultanas and Gin]

The word "weasel" comes to mind.

I'm sure AOPA appreciate your subscription and your accountants bend on the facts of life.

Why don't you and your mates resign?

[flichik]

Jeeez

Can you children stop it. I think AC is wrong, I think he is wrong about a lot of things and becoming a little bitter too, but all opinions are valid, it is just that his are in the minority.

I KNOW this is not about Smith. the organiser, Kerans, while not a NAS detractor, and I quote from an e-mail to me:

'NAS is good, but it has got bogged down in a quagmire of personalities and personal attacks...besides, there are other solutions, I'm not wasting my time on it there are enough others involved already. What I want is a cohesive policy to rebuild GA, get costs down and get CASA and Airservices under control. What I'd really like to see is a Government that recognises that safety and transportation infrastructure are a State responsibility and should NEVER be subject to 'user pays' dogma'.

Grow up you pair. Reasoned debate works, childish sniping, either at each other or AOPA, does not.

Shirl

[poison_dwarf]

I gun reckon the ex treasurer started it. Sounds more akin sour grapes to me. But then agin he had opinions on evethin, mostly wrong.

Mebe he done missed out last night.

[Ibex]

poison_dwarf

Your pathetic one liners belong at the aero club bar after a shandy or two while you recount your latest efforts on FS2000, not here.

Toddle off little dwarf.

[poison_dwarf]

Ibex:

A goat, how appropriate. With backwards pointing horns, even more appropriate. In case someone gets you from behind I guess?

A few AOPA members get a lot of pleasure putting the organisation down. If it no longer represents your needs, (or your scabby mates), why do you join?

[AerocatS2A]

Cripes! Poison_Dwarf can write like a normal educated person. I wish you'd write like that more often. Otherwise you sound like a 10 year old who's playing around on Daddy's computer.

[poison_dwarf]

Gli oggetti del nano anti all'immondizia di AOPA

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Oh No.

The National Day of Action campaign isn't unravelling already is it?

I hope you haven't ordered the commemorative Terry Towelling hats yet.

[pilotads]

g'day

i'm just going to say the day of action seems a little weak to get any response and i also think it is aimed at the wrong target.

if a day of action was to be held in this matter i think it would be better done before the election to demonstrate that we are a good number of voters willing to back a party that has policies to help GA. already the buget is increase fees on GA and it will end up running the small buisness into the ground.

We need to let the government not CASA know we are out there and willing to make action if things continue the way there are heading

[flichik]

pilotads

I suppose it is a tactical thing. Before an election both sides will promise anything, afterwards they become the 'non-core promises' of a pack of cowardly liars.

Probably best to cause a long festering wound on the first month of the new Govt and keep up sustained but non-damaging pressure.

Works for me

Shirl

[pilotads]

good point. but a nation wide transponder check isn't going to wound let alone be festering i think its only going to end up being a huge maintaince bill for shocked private pilots or at worst case a new reason for insurance companies to raise there rates

[flichik]

It actually doesn't cost that much even for a mode C encoder. Usually though it is just an adjustment.

Since we don't need Transponders in E if NAS is rolled back it won't really matter, but it will be good to get a Txp check for most of the fleet, a faulty Mode C can be more dangerous than not having it on.

Shirl

[gaunty]

but it will be good to get a Txp check for most of the fleet, a faulty Mode C can be more dangerous than not having it on.

Hmmm about time, I seem to remember a couple of us being tarred, feathered and run out of town by a pack of slavering baying hounds for just suggesting that as a possibility. It must be lonely going now for a man of your intelligence and intelectual capacity.

BTW which of the last two letters do I thow in the bin, you must keep a tighter reign on who gets to use the company pencil you know.

[Creampuff]

Meanwhile, on the planet Coosebane…

Political Staffer: Bad news boss: the private pilots are going to teach us a lesson by complying with the rules!

Party Leader: Oh no! Which seats will we lose if we get all the private pilots off side?

Staffer: Not single one.

Party Leader: I see. We must immediately divert our resources from wooing voters in marginal seats, to making private pilots happy.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth….

[Islander Jock]

HAHAHAHA!!!

Love ya work Creamie!

[Sultanas and Gin]

A wake up call for those who forget.

This is courtesy of Pprune. Do the search......

OUTLINE OF CIRCUMSTANCES PRECEDING MY RESIGNATION FROM
THE BOARD OF AOPA. (Note: I had posted on the AOPA web
forum a similar account immediately following my
resignation, however, this post was removed by Gaunt, the
then moderator. Gaunt no longer holds the position of
Vice-President, Secretary, or forum moderator).

1. At the board meeting held in Sydney on 7th November,
the issue of Gary Gaunt's having written to both the
office of the Minister for Transport, via his aviation
political adviser, Peter Marchi, and to the Democrats'
aviation spokesperson, to effect that I had no authority
to speak for AOPA on the issue of the disallowance of the
amendments to the 1988 CARs, was raised. The following
had transpired, and the board was advised of these
matters at the 7th November board meeting:

? I had been negotiating with the minister's office to
find a suitable manner in which the amending regulation
would be disallowed, but that a further regulation be
passed enabling the continuance of the demerits points
system pursuant to the amended Civil Aviation Act. The
effect of the proposal would have been firstly, to give
AOPA and other interested sections of industry a six
month period within which to make submissions as to which
of the regulations ought be conferred with strict
liability status, and at the same time allow those
applicable under the demerits points system to be
conferred with that status. I had been having discussions
with the minister's aviation adviser on the issue, and
also with the Democrats, who had filed a Notice of Motion
for Disallowance on our behalf, following my written
submissions to them. Each and every communication I had
with the Democrats and the Minister's office had been
forwarded by e-mail to all board members, with 'read'
receipts being obtained, amongst others, from Gaunt.

? Notwithstanding my advices to Gaunt and the others as
to the progress I was making (which was with the
assistance of the Democrats), Gaunt telephoned a bare
majority of the board to advise them that we should not
pursue the disallowance. He did this on the basis that we
(and that stage, meaning only Gaunt) had received a
letter from the minister promising that he would amend
the sections we wanted amended, after he received our
submissions. The other board members did not have a copy
of the letter, but relied upon Gaunt's representations.
Moreover, he did not tell me what he proposed, nor did he
contact Hamilton or Lyon. It was never, therefore, a
board decision. However, to the extent that a bare
majority of the board initially agreed to rescind our
proposal for disallowance, that decision was taken
relying solely upon Gaunt's representations.

? Approximately one hour after Gaunt received my final
proposals for putting pressure on the government to allow
the disallowance on the basis I had proposed, Gaunt wrote
to the minister's office and the Democrats to effect that
AOPA no longer wanted to proceed with the disallowance
motion; that AOPA was satisfied with the minister's
offer; and importantly, that any actions I took in the
matter were taken independently of the board. Gaunt did
not advise me of his actions, and nor did he receive the
authority of a single board member to make the statement
to effect that I was not acting with the authority of
AOPA. I canvassed this at the board meeting at Bankstown
on 7th November, and not one board member agreed that
they knew of, or authorised, Gaunt's statement in respect
of my role.

? Immediately after Gaunt's letter was written, directors
Errey and Kerans obtained a complete copy of the
minister's letter. They correctly assessed it as being
platitudinous, and not offering what was represented to
them by Gaunt. Errey canvassed the board again, apprising
them of the true situation, whereupon a majority of the
board rescinded the previous decision to discontinue the
disallowance motion. However, it was too late, as the
Democrats, on the advice of Gaunt, had withdrawn the
motion.

? During the process whereby the board was being asked to
rescind the previous decision, after having been now
fully apprised of the contents of the minister's letter
by Errey, both Gaunt and Lawford notified the board that
if the board voted to continue with the disallowance
process (i.e, reversed the decision taken by Gaunt), then
both of them would resign. The majority of the board did
make that decision to reverse Gaunt's action, however,
neither Gaunt nor Lawford resigned as they had undertaken
to do.

? Gaunt had written to the board, advising that we should
not upset, or 'snub' the minister, and that we should
accept in good faith his offer to look at our submissions
after the offending regulations were passed the
disallowance period (i.e., passed into law without the
further ability to disallow them).

? Gaunt had not advised the board that he had taken this
action (supporting the minister's position) whilst he (in
his view) was being considered as a replacement for Mr
Toller. He had advised myself and Lawford of his interest
in the position, and that fact had been kept
confidential, at Gaunt's request. He did not advise the
board that there may have been, at least, the appearance
of conflict between his seeking the CASA job, and his
support of the minister in direct conflict with AOPA's
policy on strict liability, thereby denying the board the
opportunity of assessing whether such a conflict existed,
prior to the board agreeing (initially) with Gaunt's
representations (or at least part of them). It is
important to note, however, that at no time did any board
member give Gaunt the authority to advise any party that
any actions on my part would be taken independently of
AOPA.

2. At the meeting on 7th November I advised the board
that Gaunt's actions had caused me personal
embarrassment, and caused the company, in my view, to
lose significant credibility with both the government and
the opposition parties. I said this also in the knowledge
that Gary had advised the federal opposition, through
Martin Ferguson's political adviser, that we no longer
intended to pursue the disallowance. I was concerned not
only that Gaunt had failed to canvass the entire board,
but that he had not ensured those he did contact had full
knowledge of the actual contents of the minister's
letter. And importantly, I was most concerned, and
stunned, that Gaunt had taken the liberty of advising the
minister and the Democrats that any actions I took would
be independent of the board. I foreshadowed a member
backlash when the members learned that AOPA, through
Gaunt, had capitulated on the issue of strict liability
in respect of the regulations, notwithstanding that
opposition to strict liability has long been an AOPA
policy, and further notwithstanding the government had
tabled the Regulations without notice to AOPA, or
industry.

3. I confirmed my previous position expressed to board
members that I could not continue on the board if Gary
remained on the executive, and that his removal from such
a position was the minimum necessary to regain some
credibility both for myself and for the company, in the
eyes of the government, CASA, DOTARs and the members. My
views were that unless Gaunt were relegated to the
equivalent of the back bench, both my authority and the
influence of our association would be severely jeopardies
in any future negotiations in respect of aviation
legislation.

4. A majority of the board agreed that Gary should not
continue to be a member of the executive. It was proposed
that he be removed from the vice-president's position and
that he remain as secretary. A majority of the board
appeared to be of the view at that time, that the
secretary's position was not an executive position. I
accepted this view in good faith, and I believe it was
given in good faith. A copy of the articles of
association of the company were not to hand at the time.

5. Upon my return to Townsville I read the articles and
confirmed that the secretary's position was indeed an
executive position. Thereupon I advised the members of
the board that, in the circumstances, I thought Gary
should not continue in the role of secretary, and that
another ought take his place. I did so on the basis of my
position taken the previous week, which had not changed,
and which has not changed. The board agreed that Gary
should not have an executive position at that time. I
asked that the board maintain its position.

6. At the meeting I read out the chronology of events,
and had with me the supporting documentation leading up
to Gary's statement to the minister's office and to the
Democrats to effect that I no longer spoke for AOPA on
the issue of the disallowance. Indeed, the meeting
clearly accepted AOPA's policy to pursue the
disallowance, such acceptance having been confirmed by
the gathering of votes by Errey on the issue, albeit too
late to make a difference, Gary's actions already having
caused a position of no return for AOPA. In short, Gary
did not have the support he alleged (when the entire
board was consulted, and when they had to hand the
minister's letter), and had no authority to make the
written representations he did, relating to my position,
to the minister. I have a copy of all of my board
communications on this matter, and of Gaunt's letters,
and have requested that they form part of the minutes of
the meeting of 18th November. The dates and content of
the correspondence confirm that the board, and in
particular Lawford and Gaunt, knew what my communications
with the Democrats had been up to the time when Gaunt
sent his e-mail transmission which negated any prospect
at all of AOPA succeeding in making a compromise deal
with the minister's office on the issue of the
disallowance.

7. The board, at the further meeting, decided to allow
Gaunt to continue as secretary, whereupon I offered my
resignation. I did so on the basis that I would continue
in my role to the end of December 2003, in order to
fulfil my responsibilities and tasks partly completed.
However, Lawford successfully called for a spill of the
board, and nominated himself as president, to take effect
immediately. Hence my resignation took effect
immediately.

SECRETARY'S RESPONSIBILITIES

I have sent e-mails to the board outlining some of the
secretary's duties which have not been completed as at
the time of my resignation, and which have put us at risk
in respect of breach of the Corporations Law, in respect
of at least ten issues.

[Creampuff]

And he turned me into a newt!

[Sultanas and Gin]

A newt with a gaunt expression no doubt.

[NOtimTAMs]

WOFTAM

[centurionII]

Here here!