AOPA needs our help!!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill Hamilton responds.
Bill Hamilton rang me this morning after having failed to get a post put on this thread through Danny , He asked me to do so and I quote; (obviously He's not registered), (and Axiom isn't him).
From Bill Hamilton,
Vice President and Technical Director,
AOPA of Australia.
In view of the fact that I have been named on this thread, I would offer the following.
Firstly, AOPA is solvent and will remain so, with prudent and sensible management. The Board of AOPA is a sensible and prudent group of people.
Shortly after the Mobil fuel crisis, AOPA finances reached an all time low, as a result of heavy expenditure on the resulting problems of members and non members, alike.
Since that time, significant and at times painful cost cutting has enabled a slow but steady improvement in the AOPA financial situation, despite a further fall in membership in line with the reductions in General Aviation activity. Show me anywhere in GA where things are not tight. AOPA is no exception.
Quiet simply AOPA is paying it's bills on time, and with the support of its members, will continue to do so. AOPA will continue to provide all its traditional services to members.
No member of the AOPA board has questioned, let alone sought to reverse the current accounting standard, since the Board decision to adopt the present standard. No member of the Board wants to "spend it", all the money at once. Indeed it was during my time as President that some of the most significant cuts were made, to ensure the continued solvency of AOPA.
There has not been, nor will there be any smear campaign as has been suggested herein.
Nor do I personally intend to respond to the rather scurrilous and defamatory comments in some of these posts.
My only interest is that AOPA should continue to fulfill its Charter, in the interests of all its members, and I will be happy to be judged by the members at large on the results we achieve.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Hamilton.
Having passed this on, may I say that it is the anonymity of pprune that makes this website unique and I have no intention of identifying myself to any person with a good or bad vested interest in AOPA (except the obvious who know me).
I do not post anything on the AOPA website simply because it is people of dubious intent who have turned the site into an ambulance chaser's dream.
If I have got Andrew and ulm mistaken, I apologise.
Finally, I say again, There is life after Kelly, and in my humble opinion, it seems like his resignations (s), are egocentric and self serving.
It would be interesting to draw up two overlapping graphs to see where the membership peaks and these sh*t fights historically occur.
People in aviation today cannot afford not to be members of AOPA and it is blokes like Bill Hamilton, who's tireless work help make a team that make things happen.
Get off their backs !!!!!
From Bill Hamilton,
Vice President and Technical Director,
AOPA of Australia.
In view of the fact that I have been named on this thread, I would offer the following.
Firstly, AOPA is solvent and will remain so, with prudent and sensible management. The Board of AOPA is a sensible and prudent group of people.
Shortly after the Mobil fuel crisis, AOPA finances reached an all time low, as a result of heavy expenditure on the resulting problems of members and non members, alike.
Since that time, significant and at times painful cost cutting has enabled a slow but steady improvement in the AOPA financial situation, despite a further fall in membership in line with the reductions in General Aviation activity. Show me anywhere in GA where things are not tight. AOPA is no exception.
Quiet simply AOPA is paying it's bills on time, and with the support of its members, will continue to do so. AOPA will continue to provide all its traditional services to members.
No member of the AOPA board has questioned, let alone sought to reverse the current accounting standard, since the Board decision to adopt the present standard. No member of the Board wants to "spend it", all the money at once. Indeed it was during my time as President that some of the most significant cuts were made, to ensure the continued solvency of AOPA.
There has not been, nor will there be any smear campaign as has been suggested herein.
Nor do I personally intend to respond to the rather scurrilous and defamatory comments in some of these posts.
My only interest is that AOPA should continue to fulfill its Charter, in the interests of all its members, and I will be happy to be judged by the members at large on the results we achieve.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Hamilton.
Having passed this on, may I say that it is the anonymity of pprune that makes this website unique and I have no intention of identifying myself to any person with a good or bad vested interest in AOPA (except the obvious who know me).
I do not post anything on the AOPA website simply because it is people of dubious intent who have turned the site into an ambulance chaser's dream.
If I have got Andrew and ulm mistaken, I apologise.
Finally, I say again, There is life after Kelly, and in my humble opinion, it seems like his resignations (s), are egocentric and self serving.
It would be interesting to draw up two overlapping graphs to see where the membership peaks and these sh*t fights historically occur.
People in aviation today cannot afford not to be members of AOPA and it is blokes like Bill Hamilton, who's tireless work help make a team that make things happen.
Get off their backs !!!!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes well.
From the posts here and discussions with AOPA members as recently as last night I believe the debate is whether AOPA needs some new blood and whether Mr hamilton should consider his options.
The simple solution seems to be for Bill to stand at the next election. (remember, there was no election last time). If re-elected (in a contested election) then that is the members will and I will immediately pull my head in.
Chuck
From the posts here and discussions with AOPA members as recently as last night I believe the debate is whether AOPA needs some new blood and whether Mr hamilton should consider his options.
The simple solution seems to be for Bill to stand at the next election. (remember, there was no election last time). If re-elected (in a contested election) then that is the members will and I will immediately pull my head in.
Chuck
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lunch time now, and boy has this been active this morning!!!
Anyway, I have no problems with what Bill Hamilton has posted, I just don't agree with all of it.
But Axiom, that bit about Kelly. Nasty and below the belt. Worse though, totally untrue. No one on the Board is "self serving" and you know that. Not even the people I disagree with are "self serving" (at least as far as I can tell), you wouldn't do this to serve yourself.
Egotistical, possibly, it takes strong people and Russell is by far not the worst in big ego stakes on this Board. Big egos can be useful in this sort of game, look at the Treasuruer (of the Govt) for instance. You get big egos in any union or political party and I think you are incredibly niave to think that it should somehow be any different in AOPA.
Perhaps we need someone with less of an ego to bring us all together, and Marjorie Pagani would be perfect. She seems to me to have what it takes to get all the egos working to the same goal (if not perhaps agreeing on exactly how to get there
)
Russell worked his guts out for AOPA, but did not receive full support from all the directors, yourself and one other. That is why he left. It had little to do with ego. Having spoken with Russell I am confident he will renomonate for the Board at the next election and he will have my full and absolute support.
I note also that Bill has agreed to be 'judged' by the members. It was a pity there was no election last year because there were insufficient nominations. It seems we have all now agreed that we should all stand at the next election, hopefully a contested one, so that the members can judge us all properly. Then they too will have no reason for criticism.
I think you should a) Come clean about who you are, and b) Apologise to Russell.
Andrew Kerans
Anyway, I have no problems with what Bill Hamilton has posted, I just don't agree with all of it.
But Axiom, that bit about Kelly. Nasty and below the belt. Worse though, totally untrue. No one on the Board is "self serving" and you know that. Not even the people I disagree with are "self serving" (at least as far as I can tell), you wouldn't do this to serve yourself.
Egotistical, possibly, it takes strong people and Russell is by far not the worst in big ego stakes on this Board. Big egos can be useful in this sort of game, look at the Treasuruer (of the Govt) for instance. You get big egos in any union or political party and I think you are incredibly niave to think that it should somehow be any different in AOPA.
Perhaps we need someone with less of an ego to bring us all together, and Marjorie Pagani would be perfect. She seems to me to have what it takes to get all the egos working to the same goal (if not perhaps agreeing on exactly how to get there
)Russell worked his guts out for AOPA, but did not receive full support from all the directors, yourself and one other. That is why he left. It had little to do with ego. Having spoken with Russell I am confident he will renomonate for the Board at the next election and he will have my full and absolute support.
I note also that Bill has agreed to be 'judged' by the members. It was a pity there was no election last year because there were insufficient nominations. It seems we have all now agreed that we should all stand at the next election, hopefully a contested one, so that the members can judge us all properly. Then they too will have no reason for criticism.
I think you should a) Come clean about who you are, and b) Apologise to Russell.
Andrew Kerans
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YSBK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say Mr Hamilton is an asset to AOPA along with the others and its members. It is just a pity they have not learnt to agree to disagree on certain issues and move forward. 
It would have been nice to see a lot of these issues resolved on the AOPA forum or person to person instead of spiting the dummy on pprune.
I guess it is free of censorship here to a degree.
It would have been nice to see a lot of these issues resolved on the AOPA forum or person to person instead of spiting the dummy on pprune.
I guess it is free of censorship here to a degree.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper Arrow.
(I once overtook a 200 hp Arrow in my 180 HP fixed gear, fixed pitch Grumman )
The AOPA forum is essentially un-edited unless you defame someone. if you, in my view, defame someone I send it to one of our two lawyers for opinion. If they say OK it gets posted, otherwise it is returned or edited.
Just the same as any other forum, except you cant hide your identity.
You want to post this stuff there, go for it. There already is a thread.
AK
(I once overtook a 200 hp Arrow in my 180 HP fixed gear, fixed pitch Grumman
)The AOPA forum is essentially un-edited unless you defame someone. if you, in my view, defame someone I send it to one of our two lawyers for opinion. If they say OK it gets posted, otherwise it is returned or edited.
Just the same as any other forum, except you cant hide your identity.
You want to post this stuff there, go for it. There already is a thread.
AK
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let’s keep out the character assassination, there is no place for that.
Just a point of correction re Bill Hamilton’s proxy posting:
AOPA did not fund future liabilities during the period 1997 thru 2001. Had it done so, in my opinion, it would have been bankrupted. So Bill, why your change your position on this?
I am a little confused about your post, Andrew. Are you implying that Bill H won’t be part of a spill ?
Irrespective of the mud-slinging on this Forum, members have no way to make up their own minds about which directors are performing. And what happens if the membership democratically elects the same people back?
Russell
Just a point of correction re Bill Hamilton’s proxy posting:
AOPA did not fund future liabilities during the period 1997 thru 2001. Had it done so, in my opinion, it would have been bankrupted. So Bill, why your change your position on this?
I am a little confused about your post, Andrew. Are you implying that Bill H won’t be part of a spill ?
Irrespective of the mud-slinging on this Forum, members have no way to make up their own minds about which directors are performing. And what happens if the membership democratically elects the same people back?
Russell
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek, why don't you go and work things out together as mature board members for the good of it’s members. Please put your differences away and get on with the job that you have been elected to do.
If we do not get this situation fixed fast you will not have any members and we will all go and join the AUF as they have one fixed purpose and vision for their members.
If we do not get this situation fixed fast you will not have any members and we will all go and join the AUF as they have one fixed purpose and vision for their members.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russell,
I don't know. Bill previously declined to stand but seems to have agreed to stand in the post above.
Mooney Operator,
I am sure Russell shares my sympathy on your choice of aircraft. That aside, you must therefore know Russell. Put you question to him, I'm sure he can enlighten you.
AK
I don't know. Bill previously declined to stand but seems to have agreed to stand in the post above.
Mooney Operator,
I am sure Russell shares my sympathy on your choice of aircraft. That aside, you must therefore know Russell. Put you question to him, I'm sure he can enlighten you.
AK
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew, Mooney operators are always right!
The options are simple I reckon. The board should try
and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults.
If this fails, there is no option other the whole board to
support a spill and for the members to have their say.
Why not give the first option another try?
Russell
The options are simple I reckon. The board should try
and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults.
If this fails, there is no option other the whole board to
support a spill and for the members to have their say.
Why not give the first option another try?
Russell
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russell
We have a spare wing spar at Yarrawonga if you'd like to try installing one in a Mooney.
Bin reading these posts and I had a thought (yes, it did hurt).
There have been transitions in AOPA.
There were the Patroni years. AOPA was big, quietly powerful and influential (and flush).
Then came Dick Smith. There was a different AOPA. I can't whinge, I got caught up in the excitement for change and supported it. Stuff seemed to happen and they were heady days.
Then came the Munro years. You were there in the thick of it. I was threatened with writs and had a Ministerial lodged against me. (Boyd has since apologised and I enjoy a reasonable relationship with him now).
I did not agree with Boyd's way, I found it destructive and threatening and I feel it did more damage to GA than it did good. I actually then ran for the Board on an "I hate Boyd" platform. The final count saw me un-elected.
Bill H took over from Boyd. Bill and I had an interesting relationship. he certainly didn't agree with my decision to ask the Democrats to disallow part 47. Interestingly I worked very well with Boyd Munro to achieve that.
I was astounded at some of the financial decisions made in those days and to this day don't understand some of the reasoning behind them, despite convoluted and confusing explanations from many of those involved at the time.
I found almost everything that Tony Mitchell had to say on GA disagreeable.
So, I didn't put myself forward for the Board to merely follow along with the way AOPA was run in those days. And I won't simply go along with it now.
I agree that the best way forward is for a complete Board election at the next AGM (AOPA simply cannot afford and really doesn't need an EGM unless some members of the Board decide not to voluntarilly put themselves before the members).
AK
We have a spare wing spar at Yarrawonga if you'd like to try installing one in a Mooney.
Bin reading these posts and I had a thought (yes, it did hurt).
There have been transitions in AOPA.
There were the Patroni years. AOPA was big, quietly powerful and influential (and flush).
Then came Dick Smith. There was a different AOPA. I can't whinge, I got caught up in the excitement for change and supported it. Stuff seemed to happen and they were heady days.
Then came the Munro years. You were there in the thick of it. I was threatened with writs and had a Ministerial lodged against me. (Boyd has since apologised and I enjoy a reasonable relationship with him now).
I did not agree with Boyd's way, I found it destructive and threatening and I feel it did more damage to GA than it did good. I actually then ran for the Board on an "I hate Boyd" platform. The final count saw me un-elected.
Bill H took over from Boyd. Bill and I had an interesting relationship. he certainly didn't agree with my decision to ask the Democrats to disallow part 47. Interestingly I worked very well with Boyd Munro to achieve that.
I was astounded at some of the financial decisions made in those days and to this day don't understand some of the reasoning behind them, despite convoluted and confusing explanations from many of those involved at the time.
I found almost everything that Tony Mitchell had to say on GA disagreeable.
So, I didn't put myself forward for the Board to merely follow along with the way AOPA was run in those days. And I won't simply go along with it now.
I agree that the best way forward is for a complete Board election at the next AGM (AOPA simply cannot afford and really doesn't need an EGM unless some members of the Board decide not to voluntarilly put themselves before the members).
AK
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YSBK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew & Russell,
That is great to hear "The board should try and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults ".
AOPA is a great organisation and it is worth the effort in keeping it going in spite of all the differences and different opinions.
(Andrew did you overtake that Piper Arrow on final? What does the Grumman do flapless landings?) :
That is great to hear "The board should try and resolve their differences amicably and as mature adults ".
AOPA is a great organisation and it is worth the effort in keeping it going in spite of all the differences and different opinions.
(Andrew did you overtake that Piper Arrow on final? What does the Grumman do flapless landings?) :
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper
No, going up the Araluen, and the Arrow pilot (who was renting and was a friend) admitted he was going 'flat chat'.
Read the last (or the one before) issue of US Flying. Roy lopresti did the same thing
(and they are half the price at 100 hourly)
But at least Arrows have wing spars
AK
No, going up the Araluen, and the Arrow pilot (who was renting and was a friend) admitted he was going 'flat chat'.
Read the last (or the one before) issue of US Flying. Roy lopresti did the same thing
(and they are half the price at 100 hourly)
But at least Arrows have wing spars
AK
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russell;
I'm sorry I brought the character part in to play, but really, AOPA needs strong cohesive leadership at Board level for it's survival and pissing off right now is not what is needed.
I have had a gutfull of these episodes over the years and it always ends the same way;
1) Lack of members.
2) Lack of cash.
3) Lack of credibility.
4) Loss a decent and hardworking heirachy.
5) Appeasement to CASA who are strengthened by it.
6) An increase of membership fees.
7) A decrease in the ability of AOPA to protect it's members.
8) A feeling of apathetic deja vu by the members.
9) New brooms who sweep the place clean before the next s**t fight.
I know a committee designed the camel when it was envisaged a horse was the order of the day (I think the same mob designed the Lada Niva), but aviation is too serious a business to be left in charge of pissants.
The problem as I see it is that we need a cohesive Board and if it cannot cohese (?) then it is unfunctionable.
I thought we had such a board, I was there at the last AGM, I didn't see a problem with the voting (or lack thereof because of non nominations),
If your principles dictate you take the action you did Russell, I can only commend you and if you are serious, stand at the next elections, throw the challenge out to all and sundry and make the organisation stronger, not weaker for your actions.
Andrew, please read the apology above, and, no I won't come clean about who I am.
I am me, an AOPA member and will be easy to find when our organisation membership drops down to you and me, which seems likely the way things are going.
Why don't you just get on with the job you were elected to do and leave the publicity to the heirachy.
I'm sorry I brought the character part in to play, but really, AOPA needs strong cohesive leadership at Board level for it's survival and pissing off right now is not what is needed.
I have had a gutfull of these episodes over the years and it always ends the same way;
1) Lack of members.
2) Lack of cash.
3) Lack of credibility.
4) Loss a decent and hardworking heirachy.
5) Appeasement to CASA who are strengthened by it.
6) An increase of membership fees.
7) A decrease in the ability of AOPA to protect it's members.
8) A feeling of apathetic deja vu by the members.
9) New brooms who sweep the place clean before the next s**t fight.
I know a committee designed the camel when it was envisaged a horse was the order of the day (I think the same mob designed the Lada Niva), but aviation is too serious a business to be left in charge of pissants.
The problem as I see it is that we need a cohesive Board and if it cannot cohese (?) then it is unfunctionable.
I thought we had such a board, I was there at the last AGM, I didn't see a problem with the voting (or lack thereof because of non nominations),
If your principles dictate you take the action you did Russell, I can only commend you and if you are serious, stand at the next elections, throw the challenge out to all and sundry and make the organisation stronger, not weaker for your actions.
Andrew, please read the apology above, and, no I won't come clean about who I am.
I am me, an AOPA member and will be easy to find when our organisation membership drops down to you and me, which seems likely the way things are going.
Why don't you just get on with the job you were elected to do and leave the publicity to the heirachy.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all.
I am a new member here (I have been lurking for a while though), I have been an AOPA member for over 20 years.
Can somebody tell me what is going on??? It seems AOPA committees haven't been able to get on since about 1994???
Pat
I am a new member here (I have been lurking for a while though), I have been an AOPA member for over 20 years.
Can somebody tell me what is going on??? It seems AOPA committees haven't been able to get on since about 1994???
Pat
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA
Hello all,
TO ALL AOPA MEMBERS, HEADS UP. I have seen many a time people getting involved in dissagreements between two or more people. YOU WILL NEVER GET THE FULL PICTURE. This is the case even if you hear both sides of the story. Get two eye-witness reports on a car crash and you get 3 stories. Is Russel correct. Most likely yes and no. Are the two board member who ??(was it disagree, ask for more information, suggest another option) correct. Most likely yes and no.
Most likely, based on times this has happen in other organisations, there is a conflict of personalities.
IS THE REMAINING BOARD MATURE ENOUGH TO MOVE AHEAD???
Also I aggree with the suggest to list the board members experience outside aviation altogether. AOPA is a political organistion. We need experience with a wide range of backgrounds.
TO ALL AOPA MEMBERS, HEADS UP. I have seen many a time people getting involved in dissagreements between two or more people. YOU WILL NEVER GET THE FULL PICTURE. This is the case even if you hear both sides of the story. Get two eye-witness reports on a car crash and you get 3 stories. Is Russel correct. Most likely yes and no. Are the two board member who ??(was it disagree, ask for more information, suggest another option) correct. Most likely yes and no.
Most likely, based on times this has happen in other organisations, there is a conflict of personalities.
IS THE REMAINING BOARD MATURE ENOUGH TO MOVE AHEAD???
Also I aggree with the suggest to list the board members experience outside aviation altogether. AOPA is a political organistion. We need experience with a wide range of backgrounds.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My (reasonably well) educated guess:
2 'factions'.
Loosely aligned: Kelly, Kerans and McKeown. A distant hangar on here, Kennedy.
Strongly aligned (but in opposition to the above): Hamilton, Lyon and Rudd.
And;
Not aligned at all: Pagani.
Unable to make it work: Pike. (although differing significantly from what I am told, my gut feeling is that Pike supports Hamilton).
One other interesting aside, it seems Hamilton seeks significant counsel from previous Board members, possibly Mitchell and Ferrier (instigator of an attempt to make us all pay compulsory third party, possibly wrongly accused because perhaps it might not have been a bad thing after all, but then, perhaps not).
Chuck
2 'factions'.
Loosely aligned: Kelly, Kerans and McKeown. A distant hangar on here, Kennedy.
Strongly aligned (but in opposition to the above): Hamilton, Lyon and Rudd.
And;
Not aligned at all: Pagani.
Unable to make it work: Pike. (although differing significantly from what I am told, my gut feeling is that Pike supports Hamilton).
One other interesting aside, it seems Hamilton seeks significant counsel from previous Board members, possibly Mitchell and Ferrier (instigator of an attempt to make us all pay compulsory third party, possibly wrongly accused because perhaps it might not have been a bad thing after all, but then, perhaps not).
Chuck
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point Mr/Ms Monkey.
Our local bush pub is up for sale. A local wants to buy it, he says he knows how to pull (and consume) a beer. What else could there be to it?
AOPA board members similarly need more than a just a pilots licence. Hopefully a range of complimentary skills (particularly commercial) where there is some mutual respect.
Russell
Our local bush pub is up for sale. A local wants to buy it, he says he knows how to pull (and consume) a beer. What else could there be to it?
AOPA board members similarly need more than a just a pilots licence. Hopefully a range of complimentary skills (particularly commercial) where there is some mutual respect.
Russell