AOPA the way forward, A Woomera perspective
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA the way forward, A Woomera perspective
AOPA, the way forward.
It is not normal for PPRuNe to associate itself editorially with any particular issue or organisation except where the overall good and interests of our aviation family are at real risk and need universal support.
This instance requires an exception.
Aircraft Owners and Pilots pretty much covers ALL of us here and the lack of an “association” or common voice to the Public, Government, Regulator and Decision Makers would clearly be to our mutual disadvantage.
There would be some who could argue, that the current situation is difficult but with a lot of goodwill and a fresh-ish Board it will, eventually, sort itself out.
Others could argue that the organisation is moribund.
It may be that both views for the moment, are correct.
What is certain is that the root cause, is the significant loss of membership over the years, which has brought it to the parlous state of today.
How can a vigorous organisation with a large and truly representative membership that was respected and whose views were once an integral part of Government and Regulation come to this state of membership and relative irrelevance and impotence in such a short time?
Some would argue that the “hijacking” of the organisation and the highly political use of its membership and funds by certain high profile adventurers for their own personal agenda was the beginning of the end.
They would argue that only in Australia could an individual who failed to get his agenda operating whilst the most senior Public Servant of the Regulator, use his personal wealth and “profile” to conduct a guerrilla war against his former employer by the abovementioned process, to “save us”.
The subsequent physical disappearance from this particular field of battle of a former President with a flick pass to his partner in this endeavour and successor says much.
It does not mean that his influence has disappeared.
The subsequent appearance of a ‘competing’ organisation privately funded by a former President says more.
Others would argue that these actions were in fact necessary and that failure to act would be fatal to our interests.
They would argue that the situation was so desperate that somebody had to do something or we would “all be ruined”, with much bombast and a rhetoric that was alien to the manner in which the organisation had previously and successfully gone about its business.
They would argue that this was necessary to wake up everybody, to the presence of an “enemy”.
The portrayal of the Government or the Regulator in whatever guise it has been operating, as “the enemy”, is not what one would consider a constructive direction, nor conducive to the form of dialogue necessary to ameliorate whatever “wrongs”, “the enemy” had or was proposing.
It is a well worn tactic to demonise your opponent in battle as a rallying cry in order not only to drive your troops on to the guns, but have them do so enthusiastically.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it.
Whichever side was right or wrong, is not now the point.
Who was or is responsible for the current low membership, is not now the point.
The membership had already voted with their feet at the very time when money and support was really needed during the Mobil problem, which further eroded the position.
Without a strong membership and therefore strong interest in the daily goings on, it became possible for certain individuals to gain high office that they would not, in the ordinary course of events, have been able to do so.
The damage from those events on top of the previous adventurers efforts have rendered the organisation, for the most part, inconsequential in matters aviation.
The efforts of the most recent Presidents and Board have been remarkable given the situation they inherited and their lack of an effective support base.
Some would argue that they have not represented important issues properly, or, that that they have been too much of a “one man band”, or, that they have lacked “finesse” in their dealings with Government, Regulator and Members.
They, I suspect and I, would argue that that may be so, but that if you disagreed you only had to become a member, or rejoin to be heard, nominate yourself for the positions and exercise your democratic rights.
If you are the last men standing, you can only fight with what you’ve got.
The members’ reasons over the years for not renewing, rejoining or joining prior may well have been justified, then.
In the political arena where there is a clear choice of “parties” a “swing of the pendulum” one way or the other may change the government or cause a change in its demeanour but the political base and organisation remains intact to operate for the benefit of the whole. That is the way life operates.
In AOPAs’ case the gyration of the pendulum in regard to the membership’s reaction to its treatment at the hands of strolling adventurers and sometime impostors has swung it right off its fulcrum.
The issues that dominate the current debate would not be issues were there membership numbers appropriate to the number of Aircraft Owners and Pilots in this country.
It is not enough now to protest that you wouldn’t join, rejoin or renew because "so and so" is still there, when clearly "so and so" is only there because no one else will step up, either to offer an alternative, or to help.
No one could doubt the weight of the efforts or motives of the incumbents on your behalf, but they can’t do it on their own or be guided by you in the manner of their presentation, until you take personal responsibility for what is being represented on your behalf, unless you are a paid up member.
How you protect your organisation from any individuals personal agenda is with a LARGE and vigorous membership and, as our PM is wont to say, from a “broad church”.
It is self evident that LARGE membership of an organisation restores and ensures credibility in the Halls of Power and the democratic processes within it ensure that there is always healthy debate, reasoned consensus and more candidates than offices. That is the measure of a healthy organisation and denies the opportunity to opportunists to strut their stuff.
It is after all called an “Association”.
So that is where we are today, where to from here.
That is in your hands.
Some suggestions for those who may not have a background in such matters;
The quicker the membership base is returned to its earlier and proper state the easier it will be for all.
If PPRuNe D & G can boast a readership of around 10,000 there must be close to that number who should be members of the organisation that can represent them and their concerns in the places that matter.
AOPA membership numbers is very much less than this. The last number I recall was in the mid 2000’s?
I urge you to not make the mistake of believing that having a “whinge” on PPRuNe is enough and will, necessarily, change anything and therefore you have done your bit.
PPRuNe provides, gratis, a highly respected International Forum for vigorous discussion of matters aviation and perhaps a means of “keeping whoever honest”, but in and of itself cannot take any real action. on them.
Influential perhaps and there are many PPRuNers active at very high levels in their personal and professional capacity, but PPRuNe is not nor is intended to be a substitute for relevant industry representation to Government et al.
This can come only from a properly funded organisation, based as it used to be, where the decisions are made. That means your membership dues and participation.
The Board in any organisation should only be required to provide policy, direction and representation at appropriate levels. Its job is not the day to day running of the organisation and the constant putting out of bushfires.
There must be a properly funded and resourced “executive” and administration that is tasked to execute the Boards directions, research requirements and manage routine communication with Govt, Regulator and other Decision Makers, without the enervating day to day “micro-management” (interference) of some Presidents of the past.
This professional full time executive used to exist and needs to do so again, quickly.
It will not be attractive to the calibre of Directors necessary to represent you, if their precious personal time is consumed by administration matters other than consultation with you and formulation of policy.
You will not attract the calibre of executive and staff required to do this very important job unless you pay them well. That means your membership dues and participation.
Given that this vibrancy can be achieved, then the probability of any one person or group “hijacking” your organisation or trashing its reputation in one meeting with the Minister becomes sufficiently remote.
That was then this is now.
I urge you all, not already members.
It’s time, join up, rejoin or renew, pay up and take back the control of your voice, and rehabilitate its strength and reputation with those who matter lest it be controlled by the agenda of others.
AOPA
It is not normal for PPRuNe to associate itself editorially with any particular issue or organisation except where the overall good and interests of our aviation family are at real risk and need universal support.
This instance requires an exception.
Aircraft Owners and Pilots pretty much covers ALL of us here and the lack of an “association” or common voice to the Public, Government, Regulator and Decision Makers would clearly be to our mutual disadvantage.
There would be some who could argue, that the current situation is difficult but with a lot of goodwill and a fresh-ish Board it will, eventually, sort itself out.
Others could argue that the organisation is moribund.
It may be that both views for the moment, are correct.
What is certain is that the root cause, is the significant loss of membership over the years, which has brought it to the parlous state of today.
How can a vigorous organisation with a large and truly representative membership that was respected and whose views were once an integral part of Government and Regulation come to this state of membership and relative irrelevance and impotence in such a short time?
Some would argue that the “hijacking” of the organisation and the highly political use of its membership and funds by certain high profile adventurers for their own personal agenda was the beginning of the end.
They would argue that only in Australia could an individual who failed to get his agenda operating whilst the most senior Public Servant of the Regulator, use his personal wealth and “profile” to conduct a guerrilla war against his former employer by the abovementioned process, to “save us”.
The subsequent physical disappearance from this particular field of battle of a former President with a flick pass to his partner in this endeavour and successor says much.
It does not mean that his influence has disappeared.
The subsequent appearance of a ‘competing’ organisation privately funded by a former President says more.
Others would argue that these actions were in fact necessary and that failure to act would be fatal to our interests.
They would argue that the situation was so desperate that somebody had to do something or we would “all be ruined”, with much bombast and a rhetoric that was alien to the manner in which the organisation had previously and successfully gone about its business.
They would argue that this was necessary to wake up everybody, to the presence of an “enemy”.
The portrayal of the Government or the Regulator in whatever guise it has been operating, as “the enemy”, is not what one would consider a constructive direction, nor conducive to the form of dialogue necessary to ameliorate whatever “wrongs”, “the enemy” had or was proposing.
It is a well worn tactic to demonise your opponent in battle as a rallying cry in order not only to drive your troops on to the guns, but have them do so enthusiastically.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it.
Whichever side was right or wrong, is not now the point.
Who was or is responsible for the current low membership, is not now the point.
The membership had already voted with their feet at the very time when money and support was really needed during the Mobil problem, which further eroded the position.
Without a strong membership and therefore strong interest in the daily goings on, it became possible for certain individuals to gain high office that they would not, in the ordinary course of events, have been able to do so.
The damage from those events on top of the previous adventurers efforts have rendered the organisation, for the most part, inconsequential in matters aviation.
The efforts of the most recent Presidents and Board have been remarkable given the situation they inherited and their lack of an effective support base.
Some would argue that they have not represented important issues properly, or, that that they have been too much of a “one man band”, or, that they have lacked “finesse” in their dealings with Government, Regulator and Members.
They, I suspect and I, would argue that that may be so, but that if you disagreed you only had to become a member, or rejoin to be heard, nominate yourself for the positions and exercise your democratic rights.
If you are the last men standing, you can only fight with what you’ve got.
The members’ reasons over the years for not renewing, rejoining or joining prior may well have been justified, then.
In the political arena where there is a clear choice of “parties” a “swing of the pendulum” one way or the other may change the government or cause a change in its demeanour but the political base and organisation remains intact to operate for the benefit of the whole. That is the way life operates.
In AOPAs’ case the gyration of the pendulum in regard to the membership’s reaction to its treatment at the hands of strolling adventurers and sometime impostors has swung it right off its fulcrum.
The issues that dominate the current debate would not be issues were there membership numbers appropriate to the number of Aircraft Owners and Pilots in this country.
It is not enough now to protest that you wouldn’t join, rejoin or renew because "so and so" is still there, when clearly "so and so" is only there because no one else will step up, either to offer an alternative, or to help.
No one could doubt the weight of the efforts or motives of the incumbents on your behalf, but they can’t do it on their own or be guided by you in the manner of their presentation, until you take personal responsibility for what is being represented on your behalf, unless you are a paid up member.
How you protect your organisation from any individuals personal agenda is with a LARGE and vigorous membership and, as our PM is wont to say, from a “broad church”.
It is self evident that LARGE membership of an organisation restores and ensures credibility in the Halls of Power and the democratic processes within it ensure that there is always healthy debate, reasoned consensus and more candidates than offices. That is the measure of a healthy organisation and denies the opportunity to opportunists to strut their stuff.
It is after all called an “Association”.
So that is where we are today, where to from here.
That is in your hands.
Some suggestions for those who may not have a background in such matters;
The quicker the membership base is returned to its earlier and proper state the easier it will be for all.
If PPRuNe D & G can boast a readership of around 10,000 there must be close to that number who should be members of the organisation that can represent them and their concerns in the places that matter.
AOPA membership numbers is very much less than this. The last number I recall was in the mid 2000’s?
I urge you to not make the mistake of believing that having a “whinge” on PPRuNe is enough and will, necessarily, change anything and therefore you have done your bit.
PPRuNe provides, gratis, a highly respected International Forum for vigorous discussion of matters aviation and perhaps a means of “keeping whoever honest”, but in and of itself cannot take any real action. on them.
Influential perhaps and there are many PPRuNers active at very high levels in their personal and professional capacity, but PPRuNe is not nor is intended to be a substitute for relevant industry representation to Government et al.
This can come only from a properly funded organisation, based as it used to be, where the decisions are made. That means your membership dues and participation.
The Board in any organisation should only be required to provide policy, direction and representation at appropriate levels. Its job is not the day to day running of the organisation and the constant putting out of bushfires.
There must be a properly funded and resourced “executive” and administration that is tasked to execute the Boards directions, research requirements and manage routine communication with Govt, Regulator and other Decision Makers, without the enervating day to day “micro-management” (interference) of some Presidents of the past.
This professional full time executive used to exist and needs to do so again, quickly.
It will not be attractive to the calibre of Directors necessary to represent you, if their precious personal time is consumed by administration matters other than consultation with you and formulation of policy.
You will not attract the calibre of executive and staff required to do this very important job unless you pay them well. That means your membership dues and participation.
Given that this vibrancy can be achieved, then the probability of any one person or group “hijacking” your organisation or trashing its reputation in one meeting with the Minister becomes sufficiently remote.
That was then this is now.
I urge you all, not already members.
It’s time, join up, rejoin or renew, pay up and take back the control of your voice, and rehabilitate its strength and reputation with those who matter lest it be controlled by the agenda of others.
AOPA
Last edited by Woomera; 1st Mar 2003 at 15:01.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW
WOW Woomera
A fair balanced and accurate post.
Your words stir emotion and motivation and I hope many will hear the message. It has made me consider rejoining after many years of disbelief for EXACTLY the reasons (RHS) you mention.
I suppose that I suffer form the normal fears a single member of an organisation whose vote has but one value, by my enthusisim and values want to carry more.
I am interested to know more of the loss of members over the years. I have read that some 8000 members have left over the last 10 years. Can anyone out there provide actual figures or persenatges, because this is the fact that NO member of a board can resist. The people may well be voting already, with thier feet. Of course this vote is only heard by the one making it usually.
Thank you for an AOPA post that is worth commenting on, and a message that is worth getting out. But could you imagine PPRUNE bieng the starting ground for the revival (survival) of AOPA. Strange things DO happen.
You have me thinking, and that is a start.
A fair balanced and accurate post.
Your words stir emotion and motivation and I hope many will hear the message. It has made me consider rejoining after many years of disbelief for EXACTLY the reasons (RHS) you mention.
I suppose that I suffer form the normal fears a single member of an organisation whose vote has but one value, by my enthusisim and values want to carry more.
I am interested to know more of the loss of members over the years. I have read that some 8000 members have left over the last 10 years. Can anyone out there provide actual figures or persenatges, because this is the fact that NO member of a board can resist. The people may well be voting already, with thier feet. Of course this vote is only heard by the one making it usually.
Thank you for an AOPA post that is worth commenting on, and a message that is worth getting out. But could you imagine PPRUNE bieng the starting ground for the revival (survival) of AOPA. Strange things DO happen.
You have me thinking, and that is a start.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I applaud Woomera's comments and congratulate him on their clarity in summing up the present situation surrounding AOPA, the organisation has a very, very long way to go before they can hope to get my support and membership fees.
Until AOPA presents reasoned and properly researched positions on matters of crucial importance to the aviation community, demonstrates an ability to influence politicians at both a State and Federal level, respects confidences and demonstrates an ability to conduct an argument rather than shouting at people it doesn't agree with then, and only then, will they get my money.
And, in an effort to be helpful, perhaps AOPA might address the following matters of interest to the aviation community to demonstrate their ability to change and improve their standing in the community and maybe win back disaffected members.
1. A reasoned, properly researched and costed position on NAS, including critical analysis on the impact of the implementation of NAS on regional operators and private aircraft owners, an idea of how much NAS is going to cost or save the industry and an examination of any alternative airspace arrangements they may care to propose or may otherwise exist
2. Make a serious effort to keep at least Federal MPs in the information loop on aviation matters of importance to AOPA members. (Questions for AOPA - a. Are any Federal MPs paid-up members of AOPA? b. Does it supply copies of the AOPA magazine to Federal MPs? c. How many Federal MPs have or had pilots licences?
3. A coherent and legally defensible accounting policy and full disclosure of past accounting practices.
It has been my experience that to win the support of people those seeking that support must first demonstrate their ability and expertise before people will give them money.
The present and past performance of AOPA has not demonstrated this vital and simple principle to potential members
Disclaimer: I have never been a member of AOPA
Until AOPA presents reasoned and properly researched positions on matters of crucial importance to the aviation community, demonstrates an ability to influence politicians at both a State and Federal level, respects confidences and demonstrates an ability to conduct an argument rather than shouting at people it doesn't agree with then, and only then, will they get my money.
And, in an effort to be helpful, perhaps AOPA might address the following matters of interest to the aviation community to demonstrate their ability to change and improve their standing in the community and maybe win back disaffected members.
1. A reasoned, properly researched and costed position on NAS, including critical analysis on the impact of the implementation of NAS on regional operators and private aircraft owners, an idea of how much NAS is going to cost or save the industry and an examination of any alternative airspace arrangements they may care to propose or may otherwise exist
2. Make a serious effort to keep at least Federal MPs in the information loop on aviation matters of importance to AOPA members. (Questions for AOPA - a. Are any Federal MPs paid-up members of AOPA? b. Does it supply copies of the AOPA magazine to Federal MPs? c. How many Federal MPs have or had pilots licences?
3. A coherent and legally defensible accounting policy and full disclosure of past accounting practices.
It has been my experience that to win the support of people those seeking that support must first demonstrate their ability and expertise before people will give them money.
The present and past performance of AOPA has not demonstrated this vital and simple principle to potential members
Disclaimer: I have never been a member of AOPA
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vote [1] Woomera for Director
Woomera,
Well said.
Just to touch on tsnake.
Need money and members to do this As Woomera said
Need money and members to do this As Woomera said
tsnake , you have hit upon the very problem, you have never been a member, yet you want to sit around and watch other peoples money work for you, and then when it is safe, Join? Class act!!!
Elections soon, join and vote! or join and nominate!
Dog
Well said.
Just to touch on tsnake.
Until AOPA presents reasoned and properly researched positions on matters of crucial importance to the aviation community, demonstrates an ability to influence politicians at both a State and Federal level, respects confidences and demonstrates an ability to conduct an argument rather than shouting at people it doesn't agree with then, and only then, will they get my money
And, in an effort to be helpful, perhaps AOPA might address the following matters of interest to the aviation community to demonstrate their ability to change and improve their standing in the community and maybe win back disaffected members. 1,2 and 3.
tsnake , you have hit upon the very problem, you have never been a member, yet you want to sit around and watch other peoples money work for you, and then when it is safe, Join? Class act!!!
Elections soon, join and vote! or join and nominate!
Dog
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am closing this thread and leaving it stickied,
Please address you comments to the "AOPA elections", thread above.
Cheers and thanks for your kind comments but there are too many of us Woomera for you guys to handle.
On second thoughts I 'll leave it open, perhaps we could have all the positive thoughts in this one.
Please address you comments to the "AOPA elections", thread above.
Cheers and thanks for your kind comments but there are too many of us Woomera for you guys to handle.
On second thoughts I 'll leave it open, perhaps we could have all the positive thoughts in this one.
Last edited by Woomera; 3rd Mar 2003 at 10:13.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of the posts over the last weeks, there have been some very positive remarks, I covered most of these in a recent note on pprune to Marjorie Pagani (which has not been replied to), but in essence, I printed the posts, collated and read them all and dismissed the negative. (mine included, and I apologise for aggravating the situation).
I urge you to do likewise and add to woomera's invitation.
Something to think about;
In War:
Resolution, (in AOPA's case, firmness in a vote for the model of future at the next AGM).
In Defeat:
Bold challenge to entrenched attitudes. (a healthy positive and non abusive opposition).
In Victory:
Magnanimity, generosity, and nobility. (not ego trips).
In Peace:
Goodwill, benevolence and approval. (on all sides until the next election).
("The moral of the work" of Winston Churchill, "The Second World War"; vol. 1 to 5).
Great start toolbox.
I urge you to do likewise and add to woomera's invitation.
Something to think about;
In War:
Resolution, (in AOPA's case, firmness in a vote for the model of future at the next AGM).
In Defeat:
Bold challenge to entrenched attitudes. (a healthy positive and non abusive opposition).
In Victory:
Magnanimity, generosity, and nobility. (not ego trips).
In Peace:
Goodwill, benevolence and approval. (on all sides until the next election).
("The moral of the work" of Winston Churchill, "The Second World War"; vol. 1 to 5).
Great start toolbox.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great start to reconciliation "dog", who gives a stuff about what you think of Churchill, it was the sentiment of the history I was aiming at.
Who would you be happy with me quoting "the Marx Brothers?"
Who would you be happy with me quoting "the Marx Brothers?"
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom Do you think your post had something to do with reconciliation
Puleeeeze, If you want to carry on about reconciliation, stop quoting Churchill and get non members to join.
Next we'll be saying..
Never in the field of General Aviation (you guys), has so much,(lots) been owed by so many (you guys), to so few, (AOPA Directors).
We have nothing to fear, but CASA itself!
CASA: Your annoying
AOPA: Yes, and your unsafe, and whats more, I'll be safe in the morning!
It is well said, (CASA thinks) there is nothing wrong in change if it is in the right (CASA's) direction.
CASA will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives.
On CASA's philosophy <sp?> on NPRMS.......
This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.
But he still was a wally axiom.... now, lets be friends...
Dog
Next we'll be saying..
Never in the field of General Aviation (you guys), has so much,(lots) been owed by so many (you guys), to so few, (AOPA Directors).
We have nothing to fear, but CASA itself!
CASA: Your annoying
AOPA: Yes, and your unsafe, and whats more, I'll be safe in the morning!
It is well said, (CASA thinks) there is nothing wrong in change if it is in the right (CASA's) direction.
CASA will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives.
On CASA's philosophy <sp?> on NPRMS.......
This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read.
But he still was a wally axiom.... now, lets be friends...
Dog
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Dog, I'm just a trite jumpy these days. I've given up on reconciliation with CASA although I have had some wins over the past years through sheer pig headedness and determination.
We may see some change coming soon, some interesting facts apparantly came out of the flot conference and bear checking out on the other thread on D&G.
Can't make it this weekend snarek, but if we can stay friends long enough I'll certainly have a drink with you at Murray bridge.
In the interim, lets keep woomeras "positive" alive and work on resolving the future of AOPA.
We may see some change coming soon, some interesting facts apparantly came out of the flot conference and bear checking out on the other thread on D&G.
Can't make it this weekend snarek, but if we can stay friends long enough I'll certainly have a drink with you at Murray bridge.
In the interim, lets keep woomeras "positive" alive and work on resolving the future of AOPA.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got my pick
And I got my shovel
When the sun comes up
I'll be in my hovell
Life aint nuffin but a stubbie full o' trouble
Thank god I'm a pioneer.
Ok Ax, no more AP vs RAA jibes, I promise
But I gotta agree with Dog on Churchill, what a ****!!!
Dog did a bl@@dy good job of associating his quotes with CASA though.
Now onward into the Breech and to Murray Bridge, we'll have a new Board then, hopefully lead by Marjorie, and CASA will be on the back foot, just like they were at FLOT.
AK
And I got my shovel
When the sun comes up
I'll be in my hovell
Life aint nuffin but a stubbie full o' trouble
Thank god I'm a pioneer.
Ok Ax, no more AP vs RAA jibes, I promise
But I gotta agree with Dog on Churchill, what a ****!!!
Dog did a bl@@dy good job of associating his quotes with CASA though.
Now onward into the Breech and to Murray Bridge, we'll have a new Board then, hopefully lead by Marjorie, and CASA will be on the back foot, just like they were at FLOT.
AK
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got back up you guy's, Capt pprune is quoting WC on jetblast, can't help myself;
Nancy Astor to WC: "If I were your wife I would put poison in your coffee".
WC: "If I were your husband, I would drink it".
another (an oldie but a goodie).
Bessie Bradock, Mr "Churchill you are drunk"
WC: "Mrs Bradock, you are ugly, I shall be sober tomorrow".
More;
WC: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"
How about a quote from Herman Goering, just to let you know I am not a WC devotee, just a reader of history.
Herman Goering: "Well what can I do for you chaps to help you win the war?"
Adolf Galland: "A staffel of Spitfires would be a good start".
OK children now back to business...
Nancy Astor to WC: "If I were your wife I would put poison in your coffee".
WC: "If I were your husband, I would drink it".
another (an oldie but a goodie).
Bessie Bradock, Mr "Churchill you are drunk"
WC: "Mrs Bradock, you are ugly, I shall be sober tomorrow".
More;
WC: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"
How about a quote from Herman Goering, just to let you know I am not a WC devotee, just a reader of history.
Herman Goering: "Well what can I do for you chaps to help you win the war?"
Adolf Galland: "A staffel of Spitfires would be a good start".
OK children now back to business...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FLOT conference certainly gave many the opportunity to have a say on the proposed rules.
Marjorie certainly is a shining light and is the only chance that AOPA have of regaining some respectability. Her ability to talk and listen without declaring a war is good to see. The two Bill's were there, but best not to go down that path.
In one of the forums, Marjorie spoke on strict liability and received a round of applause. It was also interesting to note that both the major airlines at the same forum supported a similar point of view against strict liability and the legal speak of the proposed rules. The resulting summary of the conference mentioned this had the potential to be a hazard to air safety and not to improve it.
There is no doubt whatsoever that there is a need for change in the Board and in fact I would strongly support a smaller board of perhaps three, with sub committee's working on specialist matters. For this to occur there must be a complete spill.
Now let's keep to the topic and not play the man. Life is too short for that. Even WC would agree with that!
Marjorie certainly is a shining light and is the only chance that AOPA have of regaining some respectability. Her ability to talk and listen without declaring a war is good to see. The two Bill's were there, but best not to go down that path.
In one of the forums, Marjorie spoke on strict liability and received a round of applause. It was also interesting to note that both the major airlines at the same forum supported a similar point of view against strict liability and the legal speak of the proposed rules. The resulting summary of the conference mentioned this had the potential to be a hazard to air safety and not to improve it.
There is no doubt whatsoever that there is a need for change in the Board and in fact I would strongly support a smaller board of perhaps three, with sub committee's working on specialist matters. For this to occur there must be a complete spill.
Now let's keep to the topic and not play the man. Life is too short for that. Even WC would agree with that!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic
Three is too small, there is a requirement for an executive comprising
Pres
VP (now usually x 2)
Sec
Treas
Five would allow that plus one extra if we do away with the second VP. Whoever runs AOPA she will need some 'gofers' or ordinary Directors to run committees, special projects etc.
I am writing a motion to that effect for the AGM, would those on this forum support it???
AK
Three is too small, there is a requirement for an executive comprising
Pres
VP (now usually x 2)
Sec
Treas
Five would allow that plus one extra if we do away with the second VP. Whoever runs AOPA she
will need some 'gofers' or ordinary Directors to run committees, special projects etc.I am writing a motion to that effect for the AGM, would those on this forum support it???
AK
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worthy comment. Some little while ago I put forth the idea (supported by a surprising number that);
AOPA be broken into "State chapters" under the Incorporated Associations guidelines (State) with a central Federal body to overseer the day to day running of affairs. ie Magazine, etc etc.
The Federal body could also be Incorporated and do away with a lot of the liability issues associated with a company.
Each Incorporation under the various State requirements and the Federal Incorporation in the State or Territory of the vote.
Creamfuff advises that historically AOPA was set up as a Company because of geography, perhaps it is time for a constitutional change?
Before we dismiss the idea, we should look at the plus and minus of such a move and I would suggest to get the ball rolling something like;
Plus:
1) State run membership drives
2) Smaller Federal Body (triadic).
3)Equal and location specific (I hate that term) issues.
4)Central collation of ideas.
5)Centrallly co ordinated political lobby, with a credible reason to be granted upper level audience because of the diversification and geographical pragmatism of various electorates.
6)More entertaining AGM's.
7)Breakup of the "ego's" or put another way, separate the genius.
8)Possibly rotate the Federal body on an annual basis to stop any old boys net getting control.
9)Minimal overheads, most could be done with volunteers.
10)A strengthening of ties with regional commercial, recreational, engineering, political and aviation related entities (be they who ever).
Probably a lot more but that should get minds "awhiring"
Minus:
Well, I thought of the idea, so I haven't seen any yet. No doubt someone will let me know in due course. Try and keep it friendly.
snarek;
Hold off on your motion until we see where this leads, may be that a complete constitutional spill is required not simply the incumbents.
Following in woomeras vein, I believe something this drastic has to be done to regain our credibility, and, once again become a viable and serious threat to run away ideologies spewing out of Canberra.
Where are the Lawyers ??????/ come out we need you now.
AOPA be broken into "State chapters" under the Incorporated Associations guidelines (State) with a central Federal body to overseer the day to day running of affairs. ie Magazine, etc etc.
The Federal body could also be Incorporated and do away with a lot of the liability issues associated with a company.
Each Incorporation under the various State requirements and the Federal Incorporation in the State or Territory of the vote.
Creamfuff advises that historically AOPA was set up as a Company because of geography, perhaps it is time for a constitutional change?
Before we dismiss the idea, we should look at the plus and minus of such a move and I would suggest to get the ball rolling something like;
Plus:
1) State run membership drives
2) Smaller Federal Body (triadic).
3)Equal and location specific (I hate that term) issues.
4)Central collation of ideas.
5)Centrallly co ordinated political lobby, with a credible reason to be granted upper level audience because of the diversification and geographical pragmatism of various electorates.
6)More entertaining AGM's.
7)Breakup of the "ego's" or put another way, separate the genius.
8)Possibly rotate the Federal body on an annual basis to stop any old boys net getting control.
9)Minimal overheads, most could be done with volunteers.
10)A strengthening of ties with regional commercial, recreational, engineering, political and aviation related entities (be they who ever).
Probably a lot more but that should get minds "awhiring"
Minus:
Well, I thought of the idea, so I haven't seen any yet. No doubt someone will let me know in due course. Try and keep it friendly.
snarek;
Hold off on your motion until we see where this leads, may be that a complete constitutional spill is required not simply the incumbents.
Following in woomeras vein, I believe something this drastic has to be done to regain our credibility, and, once again become a viable and serious threat to run away ideologies spewing out of Canberra.
Where are the Lawyers ??????/ come out we need you now.