AOPA bunfight?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmmm the Merry Christmas email from AOPA was signed by everybody but the Walrus.
Is he still there?
Still given his leaders very much less than distinguished performance at the Senate Enquiry into the ASIC thingy I would not be surprised if he had not thrown his hands in the air.
He and I have some pretty real differences, but at least he would have been better prepared and had his facts straight.
Note to Board in future, please dont send a kid with a plastic knife to a gunfight on our behalf.
Is he still there?
Still given his leaders very much less than distinguished performance at the Senate Enquiry into the ASIC thingy I would not be surprised if he had not thrown his hands in the air.
He and I have some pretty real differences, but at least he would have been better prepared and had his facts straight.
Note to Board in future, please dont send a kid with a plastic knife to a gunfight on our behalf.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: HK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
The "gassbag" awards have been handed out on the AOPA forum and it is interesting to note only one Board member made it. (came fourth I believe).
More evidence of how the members have not been kept informed, nor encouraged to participate in policy by interaction with their elected board.
It is also noteworthy that the 4th runner is the only one "brave" enough to speak out against the "directors code of conduct" and the "confidentiality agreements" all were supposed to sign. That's democracy for you.
It's a pity those others with something to say, (that perhaps oppose the ruling heirachy), have been silenced.
More evidence of how the members have not been kept informed, nor encouraged to participate in policy by interaction with their elected board.
It is also noteworthy that the 4th runner is the only one "brave" enough to speak out against the "directors code of conduct" and the "confidentiality agreements" all were supposed to sign. That's democracy for you.
It's a pity those others with something to say, (that perhaps oppose the ruling heirachy), have been silenced.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
More fool you for using your own name, bet this is the last we hear from you.
I agree it underlines a very real problem that has not been addressed and continues to hinder the organisation' prosperity and ability to perform.
Any apology by you would now be seen as a lack of committment on your behalf and I for one hope you don't.
I note in the last paragraph, and, it being signed by the AOPA VP, it would suggest approval at board level. Are AOPA going to sue you also?
I agree it underlines a very real problem that has not been addressed and continues to hinder the organisation' prosperity and ability to perform.
Any apology by you would now be seen as a lack of committment on your behalf and I for one hope you don't.
I note in the last paragraph, and, it being signed by the AOPA VP, it would suggest approval at board level. Are AOPA going to sue you also?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
BEng MEng SMIEEE
Traditionally, I've found people that post gobbledegook after their names tend to suffer from Small Man's Syndrome
Good luck Bob Murphie. At Least you've got balls.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
One sometimes wonders of posts like adamastor's, is it another one of the aforementioned natural persons, or just his alter ego, or maybe just wishful thinking on his part. Who started that rumour?
The only settlement I am contemplating is with my bookie.
The only settlement I am contemplating is with my bookie.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
You removed a post - one which I happened to think was a damned good one - and replaced it with the words "Edited Without Prejudice", you pompous twit. Do you even know what they mean? Since I know you won't take my word for it, heres a little material to edify you.
At common law evidence of admissions by either words or conduct made by parties in the course of negotiations to settle a dispute are privileged, even if not expressly said to be "without prejudice" if this is the objective intention of the parties or otherwise agreed.
"Without prejudice" privilege has as its rationale the public interest in encouraging and promoting peaceful settlements of disputes before they reach court.
"Without prejudice" privilege may apply even though a matter is not being litigated. This occurs where a dispute between parties is on foot and genuine endeavours are made to resolve it. The privilege also extends to those matters reasonably incidental to compromise of the dispute.
by Andrew Sullivan - Senior Associate, McMahon's National Lawyers, with my bolding
"Without prejudice" privilege has as its rationale the public interest in encouraging and promoting peaceful settlements of disputes before they reach court.
"Without prejudice" privilege may apply even though a matter is not being litigated. This occurs where a dispute between parties is on foot and genuine endeavours are made to resolve it. The privilege also extends to those matters reasonably incidental to compromise of the dispute.
by Andrew Sullivan - Senior Associate, McMahon's National Lawyers, with my bolding
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
I'm not old enough or smart enough to be a pompous twit.
I'm just a dumb pilot who has been legally threatened three times by people from this organisation plus one intimidatory chest bashing pompous twit running a kangaroo court. And I've had a gutfull.
The matter of the removal of the posts is in the spirit of what you have just posted, in that there is a dispute and parties are attempting to resolve it without recourse to legal action.
The removal of the posts was not an admission of liability. It was to allow,
by close of business today to be furnished with solicitors documentation by Mr Kerans AOPA VP, that shows me where he alleges my defamation is.
Subject to my legal advice thereafter, I reserve the right to repost the items in question and entirely at my own leisure.
Now that last paragraph could be pomposity. I hope it doesn't offend you further.
I'm just a dumb pilot who has been legally threatened three times by people from this organisation plus one intimidatory chest bashing pompous twit running a kangaroo court. And I've had a gutfull.
The matter of the removal of the posts is in the spirit of what you have just posted, in that there is a dispute and parties are attempting to resolve it without recourse to legal action.
The removal of the posts was not an admission of liability. It was to allow,
by close of business today to be furnished with solicitors documentation by Mr Kerans AOPA VP, that shows me where he alleges my defamation is.
Subject to my legal advice thereafter, I reserve the right to repost the items in question and entirely at my own leisure.
Now that last paragraph could be pomposity. I hope it doesn't offend you further.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
I've got to admit Bob, that the reason I resigned my membership to that bunch of monkeys is because I got sick to death of watching them wasting MY money persecuting people like yourself and indulging in their self-aggrandizing, politically driven measurement of their collective manhoods. Thankfully, I wasn't alone, and AOPA is gradually dying the death that snarek and others have brought upon it.
I am upset that you felt the need to remove your post and wish you all the best in reinstating it (and other exposes of their pathetic ineptitude) forthwith.
I am upset that you felt the need to remove your post and wish you all the best in reinstating it (and other exposes of their pathetic ineptitude) forthwith.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
Well nothing came at COB Friday which makes me suspect the threat was simply another intimidation thing. I'll let it ride until COB Monday. I may even ask for an aopaology. (sorry for the spelling).
I am led to believe the board of AOPA are deciding on whether to take action against me as well. That will be interesting.
Did you actually resign?
Reason for asking is that under the Articles of Association, you are always and perpetually a member unless you resign in writing and giving 7 days notice. If you are simply lapsed, you are still a member and upon payment of the subs you can vote at the elections.
I, on the other hand have resigned in writing as a member and board member, and need to be a fully paid up member for 3 months before I am eligible to vote. Therein lies a problem in that I am advised that they will not accept me as a member if I decide to rejoin. That could be amusing if I wanted to persue it, but whatever, I bet I will never get to vote at the next elections.
I am also aware that moves are afoot to expel other members who don't agree with the executive. Article (12) I believe, which should give the Lawyers lots of income at the members expense. This will also test the insurance that was only renewed by the hard work of one Barrister doing pro bono work from Canberra.
Hope springs eternal however in that I believe a very competent "ticket" will be put up at the next elections to rid us of the flotsom residual of the "A team" which had some good intent, but got lost by threatening and intimidating, (members), political egotism, personal agendas, loss of the mission statement and people comparing dicks in general.
And, no, I'm not part of it, but will encourage any change that will alow me to rejoin if the organisation survives the "Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus" reign. (but only it it suits me).
I am led to believe the board of AOPA are deciding on whether to take action against me as well. That will be interesting.
Did you actually resign?
Reason for asking is that under the Articles of Association, you are always and perpetually a member unless you resign in writing and giving 7 days notice. If you are simply lapsed, you are still a member and upon payment of the subs you can vote at the elections.
I, on the other hand have resigned in writing as a member and board member, and need to be a fully paid up member for 3 months before I am eligible to vote. Therein lies a problem in that I am advised that they will not accept me as a member if I decide to rejoin. That could be amusing if I wanted to persue it, but whatever, I bet I will never get to vote at the next elections.
I am also aware that moves are afoot to expel other members who don't agree with the executive. Article (12) I believe, which should give the Lawyers lots of income at the members expense. This will also test the insurance that was only renewed by the hard work of one Barrister doing pro bono work from Canberra.
Hope springs eternal however in that I believe a very competent "ticket" will be put up at the next elections to rid us of the flotsom residual of the "A team" which had some good intent, but got lost by threatening and intimidating, (members), political egotism, personal agendas, loss of the mission statement and people comparing dicks in general.
And, no, I'm not part of it, but will encourage any change that will alow me to rejoin if the organisation survives the "Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus" reign. (but only it it suits me).
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
Bob Murphie
If I didn't know the characters involved in the "membership" issues you describe, you could only view it as some form of sick joke.
Seems they still operate in a Monty Pythonesque vaccum.
no test needed it will fail.
The foundation principle of any insurance agreement is that the parties "act in the utmost good faith", if you need a leagle to negotiate that for you you're already a long way down that slippery slope.
Keep in mind the TV footage of young Bill saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Any way I guess I might even be on the same list as you.
I can't imagine what message they think it will send to present and potential members.
AOPAEFTOWDL
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Except For The Ones We Dont Like.
Bring it on.
If I didn't know the characters involved in the "membership" issues you describe, you could only view it as some form of sick joke.
Seems they still operate in a Monty Pythonesque vaccum.
This will also test the insurance that was only renewed by the hard work of one Barrister doing pro bono work from Canberra
The foundation principle of any insurance agreement is that the parties "act in the utmost good faith", if you need a leagle to negotiate that for you you're already a long way down that slippery slope.
Keep in mind the TV footage of young Bill saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Any way I guess I might even be on the same list as you.
I can't imagine what message they think it will send to present and potential members.
AOPAEFTOWDL
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Except For The Ones We Dont Like.
Bring it on.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
That's the funny thing about defamation litigation. There are, relevantly here, defences of truth, comment and qualified privilege.
If AOPA were silly enough to embark on defamation proceedings, they would have to discover prior to hearing ALL the material which they seek to keep confidential. They cannot rely on any flimsy confidentiality agreement. As court proceedings are generally held in open court and are legitimately reportable, the damage to AOPA management could be far worse than any post on this forum.
If AOPA were silly enough to embark on defamation proceedings, they would have to discover prior to hearing ALL the material which they seek to keep confidential. They cannot rely on any flimsy confidentiality agreement. As court proceedings are generally held in open court and are legitimately reportable, the damage to AOPA management could be far worse than any post on this forum.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: AOPA bunfight?
Having read the comments about how bad AOPA has become, are there any alternatives or moves to create another representative organisation?
I think that if things are as bad as some say they are, then a new body is needed ASAP!
Any proposals anyone?
Just my 2 cents + GST worth...
I think that if things are as bad as some say they are, then a new body is needed ASAP!
Any proposals anyone?
Just my 2 cents + GST worth...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Willinilli
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
Oh dear
another ex director trying to put the boot in eh? Bob you join a long list of disgruntled failed directors who try to shut aopa down. good luck because if it wasnt for you and gaunty the aopa could get on with the job. I would prefer my money goes to them getting on with the job so how about you take your little gaunt friend and ride off into the sunset eh and let the people get on with it.
This is surely a game and the music has stopped and all the ex directors find new bed partners. Gaunt & Murphie together, thats a laugh
another ex director trying to put the boot in eh? Bob you join a long list of disgruntled failed directors who try to shut aopa down. good luck because if it wasnt for you and gaunty the aopa could get on with the job. I would prefer my money goes to them getting on with the job so how about you take your little gaunt friend and ride off into the sunset eh and let the people get on with it.
This is surely a game and the music has stopped and all the ex directors find new bed partners. Gaunt & Murphie together, thats a laugh
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
Brian;
AOPA has been around for over 55 years and has survived to date in spite of a procession of ego's. Some of the most egtistical actually accusing others of being egotists. Therein lies one problem.
I tried to bust this mindset up with an idea for State Chapters, but that didn't sit well with the centralists because it fractionated the power base into geographical areas and actually made each board member represent his (or her) constituents and not the agenda of a few.
Over a years hard work went into rewriting the Constitution and then the next problem became apparant, rampart apathy with the members. By the time it got to an AGM, only half a dozen bothered to respond either way on the merits or otherwise. The concept got shelved because the power base wouldn't put forth a resolution to support or reject it.
With some 3,500 (now I am told), members, the Association can, and should be a powerful representative body. Here lies another problem.
About 10 years ago there was an article preventing anyone with a hands on interest in any aviation business holding office as president. CASA are not much different than their predecessors and one can only imagine this article was to prevent any compromises with, for example, someone owning a flying school and their AOC was at the mercy of the Regulator. It was also aimed at making way for individuals (3 in succession from memory), to become President.
This article and some others were changed by general meeting and all for some political or personal reason with the result that the Constitution is being amended on the run and not for the good of the organisation. It's interesting to note the more recent were proposed by the same person with threatening tendencies.
Under the guise of controlled spending, power was given to the executive of the board which effectively marginalised the other elected members.
Under the guise of better representation for the members a resolution was passed to prevent anyone who is not a current pilot from being on the board. This was aimed at preventing one man from ever running as a candidate again. (unless he became current).
Confidentiality agreements and codes of conduct were all enlisted to keep the board from talking to the members which then marginalised even the members.
They then made it that all board members were to report to the unelected paid office manager who was appointed as company secretary and given a place on the executive.
Should I continue. Perhaps you get the gist of some of the problems and it is because these problems are not being addressed the organisation is in the state it is now.
I believe that the members would better warm to AOPA if they would put up a fight. A good example of this to watch is how they handle the AVMED fee impost. It looks like they will fight this issue and they should.
They will probably loose the fight, but in defeat some Aussie thing about underdogs comes out and actually unites which means they at least tried on behalf of their members and therefor technically win.
In contrast they have made deals with just about every other tax or cost or piece of legislation this last year or so and driven members (like me), away because they are not representing me. I'm sure Gaunty would get about as much help from them as I if we were to transgress the system in some way.
Add my prophecy (and I sincerely hope I am wrong), that after 31st December 05, and as a consequence of the ASIC / AVID / AVMED / part 47 / full cost recovery etc etc, the GA industry will be gutted by at least 20% and as one can relate this to membership, AOPA will be in a very difficult position.
Every member then counts and each should be treated with courtesy, respect, probity, and be given value for their dollar ($124 in this case). This clearly is not happening. I was told by their VP the other day that they didn't need members like myself, Gaunty, and one other in particular. Indeed the latter is possibly the focus on a expel motion.
Just who gave this person the right to waste $372 in memberships because our money isn't good enough for him.
I apologise for waffling, but in conclusion, a start would be to get rid of most of this lot at the next elections. I doubt any could do worse. The incoming would win on a platform of non censorship, openness and transparancy, valueing their members and listening to complaints or advice even if it goes contrary to their thoughts. Only have elected people on the board or executive, and they must fight issues even if they are on a hiding to nowhere plus wind back ALL the constitutional changes made over the last 10 years.
The ship hasn't sunk yet, but the crew are sailing close to the rocks and it needs steering away.
Incidentally, Rob Lloyd should be given thanks for allowing this thread to continue. None of what I have said above would see light of day on their website.
A quick edit for the retarded one.
Perhaps you should advance the spark on your impusle coupled ignition system, which may fix the retardation. I'm not trying to shut AOPA down, I just want something left that I may choose to rejoin after you and your mates are through playing with it.
AOPA has been around for over 55 years and has survived to date in spite of a procession of ego's. Some of the most egtistical actually accusing others of being egotists. Therein lies one problem.
I tried to bust this mindset up with an idea for State Chapters, but that didn't sit well with the centralists because it fractionated the power base into geographical areas and actually made each board member represent his (or her) constituents and not the agenda of a few.
Over a years hard work went into rewriting the Constitution and then the next problem became apparant, rampart apathy with the members. By the time it got to an AGM, only half a dozen bothered to respond either way on the merits or otherwise. The concept got shelved because the power base wouldn't put forth a resolution to support or reject it.
With some 3,500 (now I am told), members, the Association can, and should be a powerful representative body. Here lies another problem.
About 10 years ago there was an article preventing anyone with a hands on interest in any aviation business holding office as president. CASA are not much different than their predecessors and one can only imagine this article was to prevent any compromises with, for example, someone owning a flying school and their AOC was at the mercy of the Regulator. It was also aimed at making way for individuals (3 in succession from memory), to become President.
This article and some others were changed by general meeting and all for some political or personal reason with the result that the Constitution is being amended on the run and not for the good of the organisation. It's interesting to note the more recent were proposed by the same person with threatening tendencies.
Under the guise of controlled spending, power was given to the executive of the board which effectively marginalised the other elected members.
Under the guise of better representation for the members a resolution was passed to prevent anyone who is not a current pilot from being on the board. This was aimed at preventing one man from ever running as a candidate again. (unless he became current).
Confidentiality agreements and codes of conduct were all enlisted to keep the board from talking to the members which then marginalised even the members.
They then made it that all board members were to report to the unelected paid office manager who was appointed as company secretary and given a place on the executive.
Should I continue. Perhaps you get the gist of some of the problems and it is because these problems are not being addressed the organisation is in the state it is now.
I believe that the members would better warm to AOPA if they would put up a fight. A good example of this to watch is how they handle the AVMED fee impost. It looks like they will fight this issue and they should.
They will probably loose the fight, but in defeat some Aussie thing about underdogs comes out and actually unites which means they at least tried on behalf of their members and therefor technically win.
In contrast they have made deals with just about every other tax or cost or piece of legislation this last year or so and driven members (like me), away because they are not representing me. I'm sure Gaunty would get about as much help from them as I if we were to transgress the system in some way.
Add my prophecy (and I sincerely hope I am wrong), that after 31st December 05, and as a consequence of the ASIC / AVID / AVMED / part 47 / full cost recovery etc etc, the GA industry will be gutted by at least 20% and as one can relate this to membership, AOPA will be in a very difficult position.
Every member then counts and each should be treated with courtesy, respect, probity, and be given value for their dollar ($124 in this case). This clearly is not happening. I was told by their VP the other day that they didn't need members like myself, Gaunty, and one other in particular. Indeed the latter is possibly the focus on a expel motion.
Just who gave this person the right to waste $372 in memberships because our money isn't good enough for him.
I apologise for waffling, but in conclusion, a start would be to get rid of most of this lot at the next elections. I doubt any could do worse. The incoming would win on a platform of non censorship, openness and transparancy, valueing their members and listening to complaints or advice even if it goes contrary to their thoughts. Only have elected people on the board or executive, and they must fight issues even if they are on a hiding to nowhere plus wind back ALL the constitutional changes made over the last 10 years.
The ship hasn't sunk yet, but the crew are sailing close to the rocks and it needs steering away.
Incidentally, Rob Lloyd should be given thanks for allowing this thread to continue. None of what I have said above would see light of day on their website.
A quick edit for the retarded one.
Perhaps you should advance the spark on your impusle coupled ignition system, which may fix the retardation. I'm not trying to shut AOPA down, I just want something left that I may choose to rejoin after you and your mates are through playing with it.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
I'm curious as to what AOPAs' inputs were to the recently introduced CASA cost-recovery fees.
According to http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/fees/cris.pdf , AOPA were part of the industry participants consulted.
According to http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/fees/cris.pdf , AOPA were part of the industry participants consulted.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
Well-said retardted.
As a member of AOPA I was disgusted to see Bob Murphie's comments. I made a few calls only to fine out they are lies. I met Mr Murphie at Temora, I should have known then. I was informed he wrongly accused another director of a conflict of interest and spread it on the forums.
Following a "please explain board meeting he left"
How sad and pathetic he now haunts the forums spreading poison. I hope AOPA does take legal action; my fellow aero-club members and I will contribute to any fighting fund if they wish to raise one.
Gaunty I thought you of all people would know better than to feed this idiot.
As a member of AOPA I was disgusted to see Bob Murphie's comments. I made a few calls only to fine out they are lies. I met Mr Murphie at Temora, I should have known then. I was informed he wrongly accused another director of a conflict of interest and spread it on the forums.
Following a "please explain board meeting he left"
How sad and pathetic he now haunts the forums spreading poison. I hope AOPA does take legal action; my fellow aero-club members and I will contribute to any fighting fund if they wish to raise one.
Gaunty I thought you of all people would know better than to feed this idiot.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sth Coast NSW
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: AOPA bunfight?
I think it would be nice if all you boys would take a step back, a deep breath and think a bit.
AOPA does a good job. Without it we'd all be sunk.
Bob Murphie has aheart of gold, he just gets excited. When he does sometimes he has to back off. Leave him be.
Nasty nasty place this aviation politics corner!!!
Stephaninnie
AOPA does a good job. Without it we'd all be sunk.
Bob Murphie has aheart of gold, he just gets excited. When he does sometimes he has to back off. Leave him be.
Nasty nasty place this aviation politics corner!!!
Stephaninnie