AOPA bunfight?

[Vacant Towers]

Chuckles asks "How can Mr Bertram be so, apparently, ignorant about GA security in places like the UK?"

Good question Chuck when Mr Bertram claims to have spent 18 years in the RAF flying in the UK. Whether he was flying by his own hand or in an aircraft flown by somebody elses hand I do not know.

I does seem though from the Hansard (I note marked "Draft") that there was a certain lack of preparation and even basic knowledge of the committee's interests associated with Mr Bertrams visit to Melbourne.

VT

[Kris Lovell]

One wonders how many ex directors are contributing to this thread.

Tachy et al,

If you want answers, ask the company...

I am just surprised by the hypocrisy (got it spell checked) of all of this.

1) Pprune will not allow discussion of AOPA in any shape or form, I spent many messages with Woomera asking to be allowed to alter the status quo, but was rejected. It was a good effort, but was told NO WAY. And then when negative comment is posted, it is all allowed again, to serve what purpose?

2) AOPA is dead say you, its irrelevent, dying, deceased, kicked the bucket, fell off the perch..yet you will still comment whenever AOPA is mentioned. Walk away from it, if you dont like AOPA dont worry about them.

3) The Aviation industry needs a representative group. yet you wont join one already in existance and could do quite well with your membership.

4) Kris swore he would never post on prune again.. and bugguh me but here I am back again bangin on about AOPA!


Vacant Towers, for the life of me I got no idea what you are trying to imply with that comment, but your attitude is a good representation of the aviators in this industry today....

[PPRuNe Towers]

But everything is fine and well in Aopa though isn't it Kris?

No trouble at AOPA from what I have heard. Still doing good work and moving forward....

So, perhaps you can answer the questions if I may precis them.

Is there a significant, intense disagreement amongst part of the board where legal action has been threatened and a series of corruscating e-mails have made all known readers extremly uncomfortable?

Are the members able to discuss this development on the site they fund with their dollars?

Are the same members able to discuss - on their own site - the Hansard report regarding security issues and membership numbers?

Are they able to discuss the performance of their elected front man during questioning on any Aopa controlled site or magazine?

Are the officers of the organisation openly discussing with their membership the difference in constant, tabloidesque, combative, anti Casa language and accepting money to finance the roadshows? Is there an venue open to members to get prompt replies as to the breakdown of costs and payments for these roadshows?


So Kris, other than those petty, nay, minor points you seemed to pretty well answer all the substantive points raised. Well done - an absolute credit to accountability and fine governance.

Regards,
Rob

PS We've honestly lost count of the number of unions we done this to for their members. You can also check that we did the same for the members of the PFA (the UK's version of the EAA) when their execs decided a bulletin board gave far too much in the way of questioning and debate.

PPS Sorry if explaining what the PFA is seems patronising but we can't take chances if Ron is reading about anything outside Oz.

PPPS Just to remind you that as soon as normal checks and balances for a modern go getting, IT aware organisation are confirmed this thread can go the way of the dodo, dotar, dotat, dodamus etc

[triadic]

Kris, I think you are missing the point... but I am sure you mean well. It is interesting that you are the only person to rise to the defence of the Association in these pages. I congratulate you for your stand, but nevertheless I feel you really don't have the full picture and have not been around long enough to know the difference, or how really effective such a body can be. None of the directors post regularly on their own forum, let alone here. Too much to be afraid of, I expect?

I don't think that anyone posting or reading this thread has a problem with AOPA or what it stands for. They do however have a problem with the way it is presently being managed and perhaps in one or more of the Directors who speaking personally have been the direct cause of a very large number of members leaving the Association, perhaps never to return. Have a look at the stats for how many members failed to renew under the various Presidents since Patroni. I would bet the largest number is not when Smith or Munro were in the chair. Go figure!

The other forums including the one funded by AOPA are not used all that much are they? Now we can wonder why that is, or we can have a quick scan through the posts and see how often a very small number of contributors continue to talk themselves up. Is it any wonder that others just can't be bothered any more?

The President has said on more than one occasion that he does not want professional pilots as members. Why not? There is a lot of talent out there and he is just turning his back on what might be the Associations only avenue for survival and the return of any respectability. As said above, many RPT pilots are both owners and recreational flyers. Many of them left as they did not want to be part of an organisation that paid little respect to its membership and what potential it might have given. To have any of those and other PPLs I might add return to the fold there needs to be significant change from the top down and the ego driven Directors moved on.

Why did it all go wrong?

I could make a suggestion but, Kris, you most likely would not like it. One can only hope that there will be an EGM and we might see some movement of at least half the Directors to retirement. The membership is so small now that I don't really believe that those that are interested will rise to the occasion, perhaps like many that have left they are past caring?

It is essential that this thread continues as it is now the only place where there is any significant discussion on AOPA and its problems takes place in open forum. The many posters to Prune can be very constructive if they so choose and I am sure that many of us would like to see a return to the days when AOPA under Patroni had over 10,000 members and significant assets including a building and an aeroplane. All that with membership fees under $50.

Lets keep this thread positive and alive.

[tipsy2]

Some 28 hours ago I observed that there was no mention of this rumoured angst on the organisations own website.

Now I see The Towers questioning the same thing. Interestingly, almost the same answer applies to all his questions. Discussion would probably be stifled, censored and contributors banned during any ensuring verbal jousting.

Kris seems to be fighting a lonely rear guard action, probably out of loyalty, hopefully not out of pity.

Triadic offers sage advice but I suspect it will go over the heads of any of the current diehards that believe everything is rosey and 'moving ahead'. Finding somebody of the Patroni ilk to lead the organisation would be "manner from heaven".

Oh that it could happen.

tipsy

[Tachycardia]

Tipsy


Even within the 3,500 members who have loyally clung to AOPA there are very competent people who could be part of the committee or leadership material. But no professional and able person of sound mind would want to get mixed up with some of the people currently on the committee.

And as pointed out by someone earlier, it is sheer madness AOPA not wanting CPLs, ATPLS as members when they own GA aircraft.

Mr President, please explain ?


Tachy

[xinhua2]

Triadic. An EGM is in the winds according to one of their VP's who wants to put more amendments to the constitution to further his own agenda. This would only serve to put the association to more expense and the resolutions of the EGM have to be ratified at the next AGM anyway.

What is needed is to encourage people to run for election next so this crew don't just stay on because nobody nominated like last year.

No nominations = no election.

Tachy. The organisation started as being for aircraft owners, oh, and some pilots as well. It seems that we have forgotten the owners and become selective in what pilots we want.

[Tachycardia]

xinhua2


Good talent is desperately needed.

There are some changes needed for the Constitution, for example:

One of the committee members has been there for a number of years yet has never been elected by the members . The only time he stood he was very much rejected by the members. So what kind of representation is this ?

On occassions this has occured because there were insufficient nominations. The practice also occurs when the committee fills a casual vacancy with a candidate already rejected by the members. How wacky is this ? Surely you would fill a vacancy with the best person you could find but this does not occur because of the desperate need to have cronies onside.

Sadly the rank & file seem happy to tolerate this rubbish.


Tachy

[Bob Murphie]

Indeed, I believe there is a member on this current Board who fits this description, but the method of appointments to fill casual vacancies is truly ensconced in the Corporations Act and in common use throughout like Associations. It would also be unworkable to call elections ever time a casual vacancy arose.

Like our Federal and State electoral system, the members get to vote them off or on as the opportunity arises. Perhaps it says something of the members apathy that high quality candidates are not always on hand at elections. Perhaps the members are happy with what they've got.

As AOPA have half Board elections, appointed members of the Board must stand for election at the next upcoming. As Xinhua mentioned above, if nobody nominates, the existing Board is returned unopposed and with no election.

Unlike an Incorporated Association, which has it's jurisdiction with The Department of Fair Trading, AOPA is a Public Company limited by guarantee and it's jurisdiction is The Australian Securities Investments Commission, (ASIC), therefor The Corporations Act governs here.

The existing constitution makes for a 12 person Board, but may work with 7 until the next election. The current Board is at this level.

Perhaps the original draftees of the constitution made this elected allowance for casual vacancies in the dozen maximum, but considering austerity needs, a more workable Board would be less rather than more.

There have been some rather hare brained amendments to the constitution of recent and all reflect a personal or political need under the guise of getting someone to be President when previously prevented by the constitution from holding this office, or to prevent someone else from holding office on the Board, or to give "the executive" of the Board more power than they are entitled to.

We currently have a President, the owner of a Flying School, and at the mercy of CASA with an AOC. I believe this may be why the original constitution prevented such a thing so any perceived or real conflict of interest would not occur.

Now in the Hansard report, this President admits to accepting funding from CASA for roadshows on the members behalf who pay to be represented by a representative body, which clearly AOPA is now not.

Such a perceptions would logically indicate the recent amendments be removed by General Meeting before embarking on further constitutional change.

By the way, not all these amendments are from this Board's tenure, but a common drafter and supporter of the changes is currently serving.

[Tachycardia]

Vacancies

Bob

Not correct

There is nothing at law that says that vacancies must be filled from candidates who failed to achieve sufficient votes at the last election.

Public companies most commonly make an appointment of someone who is recruited for their qualifications, skills, experience and reputation. You go and find the best available.

The reason AOPA goes for the failed candidates is because most of them stood to prop up someone already on the committee.

Unless AOPA changes this (recent) convention then the committee person who has been there for years and never elected may be there for a lot longer.

All this is hardly healthy & doesn't do much for credibility.



Tachy

[Kris Lovell]

Bah,

Off to play with people my own age.


Kris
Tachy, good point BTW

[Bob Murphie]

You could be right. I believe it was the same "proposer" of constitutional amendments that brought us the "countback" system in elections and appointments, that made things this way.

I would embrace a better way of encumbancy if you could suggest something better than a general election every time a casual vacancy arose.

Perhaps a "reserve of "ELECTED Officers" instead of a huge Board, or a minimilist Board dependent on their mates.

Just thinking out aloud.

[Tachycardia]

Bob

Public companies usually have a sub-committee to attract/vet new board members. AOPA would be best served by having a group of prominent members to recommend new directors.

Keep in mind some some wacky things have been done to the AOPA Constitution:

The rot started when President Munro anointed Mr Hamilton as his protege. Because Hamilton worked for QF the Articles were changed, expressly mentioning Hamilton as being exempted from the provisions of having a professional pilot as AOPA president.

When Bill Pike became president (also a QF pilot) the poorly worded Constitution was ignored. Others have tried to tinker with the Constitution to further some agenda or other, meanwhile Rome burns. The Constitution isn't the problem, it is the behaviour of certain people who are on the committee for all the wrong reasons and the proletariat who are too apathetic or busy to worry about it.

Maybe there does need to be an EGM to sort these issues and to tell the members what is really going on ?


Tachy

[coupled impulse]

One wonders how many ex directors are contributing to this thread.

You mean how many present ones there are posting here and else where? You see on agacf.org that one particular gentleman from the board has the same IP address shown for a couple of different alias names. It does not give too much credibility to the present board when a person in his position does this sort of thing, even if it is done as a joke. It maybe done as fun, but it does nothing to the face of AOPer.

AOPer is meant to be a professional organisation that its members want to be proud of, not a bunch of foolish back yarders playing silly buggers on the forums. If you cannot be honest in who you are, when you post on the forums how can we as members trust you? The next thing you will be telling us one thing and doing another. Good old Honesty and Integrity is everything in an organization & an individual.

Lets steer the ship back on track to truly represent GA here in Australia!!!!

[disco_air]

....all I can say is, I'm glad I left that bunch when I did.


....Disco

[Sunfish]

The continual aggressive tenor of AOPA's communications leads me to believe that they are part of the problem, not the solution. You don't get very far with the public service by insisting on your "rights" all the time.

[Bob Murphie]

Last time mention was made of a "members council" to look after the checks and balances, a certain Australian forum was threatened with legal action for using the word AOPA.

Such a members council could look after appointments from a list of available. I doubt however you can elect someone without them taking on the responsibilities of a Director, so a four person elected team in reserve would not seem to be possible.

Re the constitution, I would strongly support going back to before the Smith Munroe Hamilton days and removing all convenient amendments thereafter.

A strong representative body is definently needed and AOPA should shoulder that responsibility. It's not the organisation that is broken but the succession of people running it.

Fix that problem and I may rejoin as a member, (although it seems moves are afoot to prevent me from rejoining because I didn't say nice things about them).

[Bob Murphie]

To add a little balance to this thread, something new that AOPA are going to fight; (courtesy ozipilots). Haven't confirmed the claims as yet.



snarek
Member

Registered: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 37
$130 medicals!!!
Ron Bertram (AOPA President) has just told me CASA intend to charge $130 to renew a medical.

They also intend to charge DAMEs to renew their 'designation'.

This is untenable, it will mean nearly a $300 medical when the Drs fees are taken into account.

We will fight this. Others are invited to join our fight or write their own letters. The fight will be run on the AOPA Forum with copies of suggested letters and tactics.

AK

Just confirmed, $130 CASA fee starts 1st January 2006. Pity they are only fighting the matter on their own website.

Bob M.

[Woomera]

coupled impulse

"You see on agacf.org that one particular gentleman from the board has the same IP address shown for a couple of different alias names."

Whilst I accept you may have had some "insight" into the previous AGACF bulletin board - which no longer exists - am I to assume you are also "behind the scenes" at the current bulletin board, which I believed to be independant of AOPA et al???

You certainly have a fascination with IP addresses and identifying users, don't you?

If I, as a PPRuNe Moderator, were to publicly make a similar statement to the statement you made above, this bulletin board would be urgently seeking a new Moderator.

A word of caution to PPRuNe users. The statements made above lead me to assume those accessing the current AGACF site will have their IP addresses not only recorded, but presumably used to ascertain their identities.

Woomera

[Bob Murphie]

I could be wrong here, and I'm not making any apologies for anyone, but I think who you refer to is no longer a mover nor shaker at the ozipilots hosted agacf site. The history behind the original site was that of non anonimity. When the host changed, and to appease those folk who were being abused by anon posters, the Administrator decided to include IP addresses to foil another attempt to close the forum.

The original forum was closed because of legal threats and intimidation by the very people who own a website of their own, but can't stand criticism elsewhere.

I believe it is only the agacf site that has the IP's published, not the rest of ozipilots.

BTW, the poster who's ID was exposed was the very same who rules the forum of "that" organisation. So much for media manipulation. Lets hope he never gets to manipulate this forum.

The other one who I think, thinks I know, shouldn't be offended by my criticism because he gives it to me just as thick.