AOPA bunfight?

[bigfella5]

Re: AOPA bunfight?

Ahh what the hell.............
Snarek, you blowhard..(always wanted to say that!)....what the hell have you done for General Aviation in Australia since joining the board of AOPA that has ended in a positive outcome...(please don't give us a bureaucrats understanding of the phrase please mate)
Really, I'd love to know....frankly I'd think squat.


(Was that rude Woomera?)

[triadic]

Re: AOPA bunfight?

I have not always agreed with Bob, but respect his stand.

AOPA tragically is almost dead in the water and nothing will save the day unless there is a complete change of management.

Those that say that "anti AOPA" comments in this thread or indeed on Pprune, show a lack of support for the Association do not really know the true picture. I am but one of many ex members who would like nothing more that a return to the Patroni days of pre '95 where the association had respect and certainly none of the in-fighting we see today. I will choose to stay a non member, so long as the ego's and self interest continue to drive the association into the ground. Should an alternative rise, the I will consider joining it, PROVIDED that those in charge are cleanskins with no garbarge.

On this occasion, I even agree with Sunfish..!

[tipsy2]

Re: AOPA bunfight?

My membership runs out shortly after nearly 3 decades, based on the Association's management, activities and profile, I see no value or point to my continuing membership.

Frankly I don't see any benefit to anybody in being a member of an organisation where the Board experiences resignations and disharmony as if it were an agenda item, individual Board members running heavens knows what particular personal agenda and a President who seems to be invisible.

I will not waste any more of my thought or effort on this organisation, I have more pressing matters to consider.

The Cat has spoken

tipsy

[AOPA Australia]

AOPA response to bunfight

Pprune Posters

As President of AOPA in Australia, I thank those of you who have added constructively to this debate. I have noted several items.

I congratulate Bob Murphie for a one hundred percent score in achieving the “rumour” part of the Pprune acronym. But I suggest to you all that his posts and that of Tony Mitchell that Bob has carried across – represent the views of two former AOPA Directors with a history of anti-AOPA attacks on various forums but no constructive answers.

The Australian ethic is one of “fair play”. You all have made assumptions based on misinformation and a hate campaign lacking facts or substance. I would hope that you would be as open minded in considering the facts and truth.

The moderators on Pprune have suggested previously that matters AOPA are best debated on the AOPA Forum. I accept their recommendation and am placing FACTS that can be confirmed by documentation on the open section of the AOPA Forum for anyone who wishes to exercise fair play and read and/or debate the matter.

I have also asked that matters concerning Bob Murphie’s resignation as an AOPA Director be noted on the AOPA Forum. I do so with regret but we have unfortunately reached a stage where we need to establish the credibility of the players.

The AOPA Forum is available via their website and then the Information Centre bar. AOPA will not be using any views by Ppruners for any form of identification tracing. AOPA link removed W

Ron Bertram

PS Woomera – when a Director resigns at Qantas, Jetstar, AirServices, or anywhere in industry for that matter, the organisation seems to keep moving along nicely.

I am uncertain why you would feel the need to suggest that a change of Board member at AOPA would be any different. Changes of people in organisations is a fact of life.

[Woomera]

Re: AOPA bunfight?

I have deleted some posts, banned some posters who are arguing with themselves, to save bandwidth and moderating time and others because I choose to, given their past record and attitude towards the moderators and their decisions.!

Nobody is forced to come here, they do so on our terms.

You can almost hear the rush to the computer from one sad sack to add yet another "certified PDF copy" of this post to to his Big Book of Evidence against the evil PPRuNe and send us yet another email advising us so.

As usual he like most misses the point, this problem belongs to AOPA NOT PPRuNe.

It is they not PPRuNe who generates the angst that is aired here.

That we allow it to run like many other controversial issues is apparently anti-GA/AOPA, despite the fact that we run a Forum dedicated to the discussion of professional GA matters that used to belong in their bailiwick.

It has been suggested that we should not be "encouraging" these debates on the basis that it does not "help" the growth of AOPA.

It is not our function to either "help" or "not help". It is to provide an opportunity for OUR members to have their say on whatever ails them in matters aviation.

If AOPA will not allow open and frank discussion on their forum their members will simply find other alternatives.

I have removed the link to AOPA for reasons well described before, there can therefore be no questions or allegations of any tracing imagined or actual from PPRuNeland. They are not hard to find if you need to.

If I might take the liberty of reiterating some comments made by Rob in a previous post in this thread and then you can have at it.

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

We too look forward to

establishing the credibility

of ALL of the players from both sides. So far it is unclear.

[Bob Murphie]

Womera. Thank you for your tolerance. I fear the joke I put up as an ameliorating gesture has been lost in the bandwidth austerity. Not to worry, my heart was in bringing about a resolution.

My response which perhaps may save further angst.

Ron Bertram;

This afternoon I posted a joke on pprune as a means of saying it is over as far as I am concerned, but you lot just don't give up do you?

Out of interest I tried to access the AOPA forum to prepare a response, but it appears I am not allowed access.

Now this seems a twisted series of events for their President to to call someone a liar, then deny them the right of reply.

Anyway, and I don't really care about who calls who anything anymore, the Bertram missive is missing in fact and I can, and will bring the facts to light if you persist.

Bertram's first response "the board did not put forward a resolution on state chapters because the members at the AGM rejected it"

This is a lie, no resolution was ever put, and the board refused to allow it to be put.

"Mr Murphie has no experience in these matters"

Dr Scully Power (then Chairman of the CASA Board), offered me a position to work with the CASA safety promotions branch after a prolonged and bitter battle with CASA which I happened to win on points and cash.

"it is interesting in that the Article he refers was changed when Boyd Munro resigned so that Bill Hamilton could become president"

I can attribute this to "this" board because this alteration to the Articles referred to Bill Hamilton, nobody else, yet even the next president didn't bother to change things and carried on regardless and illegally.

Marjorie at least had the common sense and support to alter the Article to allow her to become president and those thereafter to which we now subscribe.

A pity I think with hindsight.

"perhaps Mr Murphie is not aware that it is best business practice to control spending"

This paragraph omits the fact that only the "executive" of the board control spending, thus marginalising the elected board from any input. This is also illegal I believe.

I wrote " under the guise of better representation...."

You answered;

"no such detail or intent was built into this agreement"

How would I know, I resigned in protest at the very idea and was not privy to anything except, "I can't talk to you it is priveleged"

The intent was there, I was threatened vehmently.

I made comment about reporting to the then general manager and an unelected member of the "executive" and you reply quoting a different general managers name who wouldn't know what went on that day. That's confusing or designed to confuse. Do elected board members still have to report to the hired help?

The membership statistics will come out for all to see at the next AGM. 3,500 members means an average of 291 renewing each month. The magazine bragging doesn't support this. I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt over magazine advertising however and offer an amended opinion after we see the facts.

"AOPA does spend a great deal of time defending the rights of pilots"

Wrong, and I believe I can get some members from the papers of a respected journalist to prove otherwise. One you dumped pretty badly because he was fighting a cause that may have implicated a then Director. I'm up to my neck in legal actions right now so another won't matter. Do you want that matter brought up before the Ombudsman is finished with it.

"add my prophecy"........

your reply " Mr Murphie appears to have a prophecy on the run"

Do you deny I made this assertion 12 months ago in front of people including an officer of the Court?

" Mr Murphie is not a member"

I may be one day if I feel I can be represented. My concern is that I was warned that AOPA don't want members like me and the board (executive), will oppose your rejoining"

My parting comments did not confer any agreement to forego my rights as a member and express an opinion if I wished. I did not sign a pledge of silence.

The matter of Insurance,

this board has by it's very threats to me jeopardised their directors liability insurance, and without members consent. I doubt unanimous board consent either. As for trivial matters, one should ask why you spend so much time persueing your preoccupation with sueing me?

Your comments regarding never having insurance matters is highlighted in your own thankfull words for Chris McKeown and I for taking on an appointed role at great risk to or own assetts. Should I refer you to the magazine page, month and year?

Mr Hamilton's tireless efforts is an affront to both his and my intelligence. I fear Bill Hamilton has never been given the credit he deserves for his efforts and in the contrary, has been ridiculed and vilified for having doors closed to AOPA because of him by your very self and especially a VP.

Your Senate remarks are taken in the spirit offered, and I like others take them as "spin"

The rest of your notice are, again in my opinion, "spin" and not worthy of comment.

Now if you stop threatening me and leave me to make personal opinion when and if it suits, I will leave you alone. In the absence of such an agreement, the matter continues because nobody will silence me to achieve their own aims.

It may help your cause to rid yourself of the turkeys following and antagonising things by their babbling.

Bob Murphie.
Australian citizen.

[P|_azbot]

A little more in depth here

http://www.ozipilotsonline.com.au/fo...threadid=85432

[AOPA Australia]

Pprune Posters

The Woomera comments deserve my response, which will also cater for Mr Murphie’s allegation about being unable to post on the AOPA Forum.

My initial post was clear that we wished to follow the Woomera suggestion and pursue this debate on the open AOPA Forum.

Mr Murphie complains that he is denied access. The fact is that since Mr Murphie decided to resign as an AOPA member he lost access to the AOPA Forum. If he wishes to register as a guest on the open non-member area, I will personally ensure his registration is expedited. Any Ppruner may also take up free guest registration.

I am uncertain why Woomera would criticise AOPA for requiring registration to post – since that is an identical requirement for this Pprune forum?

Read my post I do not see any criticism re registration simply a comment on removing the link as we do often and for good reasons learnt at the hand of one of your Board. W

Woomera also requotes alleged AOPA problems. The fact is that this Board has reversed the membership decline and commenced regrowth in a hostile GA environment, plus turning the finances around from a disaster. Should I apologise for success?

Not at all if we were referring to the same issues, however the evidence here suggests otherwise, the rest remains to be seen. W

The other fact is that strife in any organisation is not uncommon and is usually confined to a few. Mr Murphie and Mr Mitchell seem to be the few loud protesters, and I ask you to compare them and the few detractors on this forum to the size of our membership and the many members quite happy with our actions. That’s why we are growing again.

Some on Pprune and elsewhere argue that AOPA is not like it was in the past halcyon days. Let me quote a few extracts from the June 1999 magazine when Mr Mitchell was vice president of AOPA and Mr Murphie, if a member, quite silent. Does anyone notice some interesting similarities to the current scene? A hostile environment, decline in membership, allegations the committee is not performing, directors ceasing. This is not to say AOPA has some endemic long-term problem, rather, such issues are a fact of organisational life and we need to recognise it and get on with the real issues facing GA.

“Pres – “Post WW11 optimism has been replaced by a serious bout of pessimism abroad as we approach 2000.” “As I listened to many of our members at the AGM the signals were really mixed”.

AOPA GM – “Votes for the 1999 election were 2156. In 1995 there were 4986 votes cast.”

Pres – “About half the membership will not have seen a series of fax documents berating the committee on its performance.” “One of the statements made during the campaign was “AOPA needs a watchdog.” “This claim and a number of others were constantly repeated alleging your committee falling down on the job”. “It was claimed that we were unaware of a number of Government legislative actions”.

Directors ceased – one resigned, one retired.”

Ron Bertram

[Sunfish]

I think we can summarise the situation as follows. By the way, none of you know me, I'm a low time PPL as investigation of old threads will demonstrate. I make the following observations more in sorrow than in anger in the hope that something can be done to advance the interests of GA.

AOPA is running a confrontationalist strategy that is totally inapropriate for dealing with government. That the strategy is confrontationalist cannot be doubted, as evidenced by AOPA's stated mission (fighting for supposed "rights"), as evidenced by its aggressive language in its statements and now its threats to run Senate candidates. I make this statement on the basis of my own expereince working in government and working to government.

The damage done to GA by this strategy (and the work of another person) is demonstrated by the CASA strategy statement where it is made clear by Mr. Byron that GA is to be the lowest priority of that organisation, and even then, it is only valued as a provider of training.


From a perusal of other threads it is quite clear that whatever the cause, AOPA is dysfunctional, as evidenced by the ongoing infighting between current and former Directors and the dysfunctional nature of its own forums on its own website. It cannot go on like this.

I say it cannot go on because there is no evidence that AOPA is listening to its own members, let alone debating some of the issues I, as an outsider, have raised, especially regarding strategy.

If nothing is done, the result will, I suspect, be a declining membership and a lack of any effective voice representing the needs of the GA community.

As a result of this less than effective voice, the GA community will suffer the consequences of further well meaning but off target regulation from the powers that be.

To put it in other words; AOPA, don't just blame CASA and DOTARS for the ASIC stuff up, you are to blame as well because you failed to provide timely and trustworrthy advice and counsel to them on how these measures could best be implemented.

To put it yet another way, if you knew what you were doing, you would realise that you are supposed to be in partnership with the regulators to ensure that the hand of regulation is as light as possible and that it is easy for the regulators to do their job.

To put it another way again; you should be helping the regulators, because by doing that, you are helping GA.

To put it yet again another way; where was AOPA when there was all this fuss in Far North Queensland??????? Why didn't AOPA get a chance to read all the NAS2c stuff and perhaps organise a few focus groups of pilots so that the material could be thoroughly tested before it was mailed to all of us? You might have been instrumental in saving CASA a stack of money involved in the follow up "supplemental" mailout!

I suggest that you need to have a "spill" motion and find some other people to start again, either that or we will just have to sit and watch while the decline continues.

[185skywagon]

Ron,
When will the organisation address the fact that it has only 3500 members out of a possible 10000 aircraft owners and 30000 pilots?

Over the last few days, I have been perusing some old Australian Aviation mags going back to 1990. Back then, people were asking where GA was going to end up. AOPA had 10000 members at that time, and there were 50000 pilots in Oz.
This was before the Boyd and Dick show.

AOPA desperately needs the membership numbers and the cost of membership. Every new pilot needs to joined at the start, like days of old.

( I don't mean to live in the past).

Based on our group's stats, we should have at least 50% of owners as members(5000) and half the pilots as members(15000). Surely we would have some clout then.

The fighting has to stop, and resources put into a massive membership drive ASAP.

IMHO

[Bob Murphie]

I doubt I will get any answers except more "spin" from my response to Ron Bertrams first. It is however about time to take stock of what is happening here because I am too stubborn to give in and the AOPA executive appear to want to continue to hunt me down.

Let me sum up;

1) One snarek defames me by alleging I am a pprune identity and publishes a list of IP's on the agacf website. After 3 warnings by myself he removes the defaming material

2) The agacf discussion on the website warned by one Uluru to be careful lest the bounds of the law be breached.

3) I post the offending item ( page 4 this thread I guess), which suggests the bounds of the law may have already have been breached.

4) I am then threatened and when awaiting the supportring paperwork (which doesn't turn up), I remove and then replace the items in question including the threatening email. I do this to support my assertions that free speech or opinion contrary to the executive of the board won't be tolerated and the use of threat and intimidation is the manner used to keep people in line. Ask the former administrator of the agacf website. Ask the Ozipilots administrator. Ask Gaunty about the defamation of me whilst they were setting him up.

5) I am further intimidated via a third party email advising some Barrister is going to "do me over" for no cost.

6) I then find myself being vilified as anti AOPA when the threats and intimidation haven't worked.

7) I am then subject to further defamatory remarks and called a liar on numerous forums, one which I can't access, and which for balance, the good president Ron couldn't be bothered cutting and pasting over.

Now all this mess is in the public eye and one should ask, who is doing the most damage to the organisation. It appears me for having the hide to stand up to what I believe are bullies and thugs prepared to use the members money on a legal crusade because a couple of the executive can't stand criticism.

Over to you Ron, you have it in your power to call off the babbling turkeys ending this matter and perhaps leaving AOPA some dignity. I still reserve the right to an opinion whilst ever I have breath in my body however.

Yes Sunfish, a good question re the FNQ mess. Perhaps someone may tell you, (the real truth). Don't ask me though. The end result justifies the matter be put to rest as nothing further can be gained from pushing anything AOPA didn't do or for whatever reason.

Bob Murphie.
Security cleared Australian Citizen.

[Woomera]

Whilst the Woomera team hold diverse personal views on many subjects, in moderating PPRuNe we are one team. We support the post of our Woomera colleague above.

We welcome constructive criticism of, or suggestions for all Australian aviation representative organisations. However this is a rumour and news forum, not a venue for dirty washing, personal attacks and nit picking.

I suggest the AOPA protagonists take their nit picking bickering and personal axe grinding to the AOPA bulletin board or one of the other aviation sites they tend to frequent.


Another Woomera
I have yet to see a more constructive dissection of the AOPA issue than the above by Sunfish.

It is reminiscent of the AOPA A Woomera prespective of 2002. For a very short while, it looked like they may have got the message. The problem is the same people who aborted that idea are still there and dont look like going anytime soon.
There is absolutely no question that PPRuNe would be a passive supporter of a functional AOPA as we are of anything that furthers the progress of the industry.
I don't need to

requotes alleged AOPA problems

Now as my Woomera colleague say's, get on with it where it belongs.

[2B1ASK1]

SOME INTERESTING, HISTORICAL AOPA FACTS HAVE JUST BEEN POSTED ON THE agaf SITE FOR THOUSE OF YOU WITH A PENCHANT FOR REALITY.

SUNFISH, PLEASE HAVE A LOOK.

[Bob Murphie]

I understand the epic will be out in DVD next week, I would wait until then.

[tipsy2]

PPRuNe through the Woomeri have been generous in the extreme by allowing this thread to run.

I think it is time for the big 'click'

Please do this before the puerile 'genitalia comparing' that has swamped other forums infects this one.

The AOPA Forum is infected with useless rantings and with the risk to egos so great it is not to difficult to see that there will be no acceptable solution to the individual combatants.

That being the case, for all our sake please click

tipsy

[slice]

Or how about just moving this thread to Jetblast where discerning gents can compare willies at length!

[Biggles_in_Oz]

The only cure for AOPA now (as several have already stated), is for a complete and utter removal of the current management, committee(s), board, etc.

There is way too much anger and animosity and hatred over a long timescale and over too many past issues.
Any sane person who attempts to follow all the public accusations, arguments, counter-arguments and things that only make sense to the protaganists, can only sadly shake their head and then resolve to have as little as possible to do with the entire morass.

A drastic decapitation approach will also remove any good and worthwhile
management members together with the 'bad', but only with such drastic surgery can AOPA ever hope to resurrect itself and attract new members.

An organisation that now has 3500 members out of a potential 30000 has (in my opinion) a credibility problem if it claims to represent pilots, owners and GA.

[triadic]

Biggles - your are on the mark. Nobody that is there now has any sort of a handle on how the task should be carried out. Some are even doing more damage as we speak. The corporate history has gone and that mentioned elsewhere, circa 1999 has very little to do with todays issues or solutions. (but does point the bone at the cause of much of the existing problem)

In the early to mid 90's before the "takeover", AOPA had aprox 10,300 members and sent out about 10,500 magazines each month, all at subs under $50. As said previously the pilot/owner population was above what it is now. Research at the time indicated that the potential membership total was around 15,000. One must remember that maybe 3000 or more members at that time were former GA pilots that were employed by major carriers. Of course most of these dropped out when the new leadership started using terms like "weekend warriors" etc. They obviously did not want to be a part of it. Their value to the industry and the association was significantly undervalued, and still is. This is especially so when the President has said on more than one occasion that he does not want certain types of members, and he wonders why many p!ss on him, or perhaps just walk away shaking their head...! You will never get members with behaviour like that!

Ever since the takeover, the association has gone down hill and certainly lost the respectibility and credibility that it once enjoyed. The only way now to get that back is to do what Biggles suggests... I would suggest a temporary administrator in lieu of the Board - a new set of rules and elections that exclude previously serving board members from within the past 5 years from nominating.

If AOPA is to survive such drastic action must be taken - one must think of the big picture and the greater good, not just their self centered empire.

[P|_azbot]

98


__________________________

[Dogimed]

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

But who will step up to the plate to take over?

And why didnt they step up before at a prior election.
I would prefer what we got, not just because there is nothing to replace them. But they continue against monumental personal insults and criticism from people not even members of the association. Not for their own personal glory (there is none) but for the greater good as Triadic so aptly put it.

Btw I thought AOPA was a dirty word around here? Or is it only a dirty word when there is no dirty word in front of it.

Sunfish, as someone else said, why wait until aopa goes, start one now, put your money where your mouth is. Good luck

Dog