AOPA "The Election" (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quiet Achievers?????
What nonsense!!!
It is plain AOPA needs change. At Narromine a person from AWPA stood up and told them to stop their soapbox partonising lectures and work to achieve change. They didn't.
I have ever heard tell that Pike once called Pagani 'our token shiela' at a meeting of members!!! A joke, or a snide little way of putting her in her place???
I didn't believe a word of Hamilton's long but questionable explanation of where AOPA's riches were squandered.
No 'quiet achiever' is going to rid AOPA of these clapped out old men. We need people with guts, people prepared to come on here and debate openly with people who, because of their anonimity, can be less than polite.
Which is why I'm not voting for all of Kerans' list. I have left Pike off. I am of the opinion Kerans only put Pike on out of loyalty to Pagani. I understand and respect that loyalty, but honestly Andrew and Marjorie, Pike is a part of the problem and could never change his ways enough to ever be a part of a solution.
Pat
It is plain AOPA needs change. At Narromine a person from AWPA stood up and told them to stop their soapbox partonising lectures and work to achieve change. They didn't.
I have ever heard tell that Pike once called Pagani 'our token shiela' at a meeting of members!!! A joke, or a snide little way of putting her in her place???
I didn't believe a word of Hamilton's long but questionable explanation of where AOPA's riches were squandered.
No 'quiet achiever' is going to rid AOPA of these clapped out old men. We need people with guts, people prepared to come on here and debate openly with people who, because of their anonimity, can be less than polite.
Which is why I'm not voting for all of Kerans' list. I have left Pike off. I am of the opinion Kerans only put Pike on out of loyalty to Pagani. I understand and respect that loyalty, but honestly Andrew and Marjorie, Pike is a part of the problem and could never change his ways enough to ever be a part of a solution.
Pat
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
I will work 'with' Hamilton et al, but I will never again trust their opinions. I learned that from the Board of hard knocks!!!
Good luck in the election
Dog
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Townsville Qld.
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brave man
snarek
You are a braver man than me. I don't see any future for AOPA while any of the old men of the sky are pushing their unassailable opinions down everybodies throats.
PT
You are a braver man than me. I don't see any future for AOPA while any of the old men of the sky are pushing their unassailable opinions down everybodies throats.
PT
Last edited by pesawat_terbang; 15th Apr 2003 at 20:42.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ho hum.
PT
Yeah well. I'd have to describe my last term on the Board as pure hell. In fact I've just been abused by one of them, via e-mail, yet again for not seeing the world through his eyes.
I can live with that.
But to make things easier, AOPA opinion must come from the members, and from all the members and represent the majority, not just the latest whinger. I'm not sure how to do that yet, but I'm open to ideas.
I also think we need the views of non members, especially those feeling disenfranchised, so we can fix the problems that cost us the 10,000 Russell says have left.
PPRuNe is useful for at least an idea on that and I hope Woomera keeps an AOPA Forum stickied after the election for just that purpose. If I get elected I'll be here for you all to have a go at
AK
Yeah well. I'd have to describe my last term on the Board as pure hell. In fact I've just been abused by one of them, via e-mail, yet again for not seeing the world through his eyes.
I can live with that.
But to make things easier, AOPA opinion must come from the members, and from all the members and represent the majority, not just the latest whinger. I'm not sure how to do that yet, but I'm open to ideas.
I also think we need the views of non members, especially those feeling disenfranchised, so we can fix the problems that cost us the 10,000 Russell says have left.
PPRuNe is useful for at least an idea on that and I hope Woomera keeps an AOPA Forum stickied after the election for just that purpose. If I get elected I'll be here for you all to have a go at
AK
Last edited by snarek; 16th Apr 2003 at 14:50.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
I have been looking at some of your posts lately, and I see a consistent pattern of G.A.bashing which I find disturbing. Some examples are
"to keep the same old piece of sh!t flying"
"clapped out geriatric fleet and low wages"
"there are too many of these old sh!tfighters out there"
"It is highly unlikely that you have operated new equipment"
"if you are to become a professional pilot"
And many more. It appears to me that you have a hatred for anything in the general aviation industry, and I wonder if you really can represent G.A. and try to get better legislation and conditions for us, or will you try to get our machinery legislated out of business.
I am sorry. You do not have my trust or my vote.
I have been looking at some of your posts lately, and I see a consistent pattern of G.A.bashing which I find disturbing. Some examples are
"to keep the same old piece of sh!t flying"
"clapped out geriatric fleet and low wages"
"there are too many of these old sh!tfighters out there"
"It is highly unlikely that you have operated new equipment"
"if you are to become a professional pilot"
And many more. It appears to me that you have a hatred for anything in the general aviation industry, and I wonder if you really can represent G.A. and try to get better legislation and conditions for us, or will you try to get our machinery legislated out of business.
I am sorry. You do not have my trust or my vote.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushy
You have obviously gone to some trouble there, I'm flattered to a "t", but lets get "realistic" shall we.
Hmmm apart form my response on the "Lake Evella" thread, I simply wont and dont resile from those remarks and it would have been nice had you spent the extra time to put them into the context in which they were made, but you get that.
If trying to lift the standards in that part of the GA industry, out of the third world conditions that seem to be acceptable to you for the young pilots, is interpreted by you as being "hatred for anything in the general aviation industry ", then I am happy for you to describe it so, as long as you understand that I will continue to fight for that increase in standards for them.
If properly serving your interests means condemning you to fly the same, already 25 year old aircraft, for the rest of your working life, so that you can pass the same seat along to the next youngster in line so he can do another 40 years in it by keeping quiet in case someone notices, then by all means vote me out.
Think about it, although the tenor of your posts suggests that you have already made up your mind, IF lobbying to
was to lead to
and I'm NOT saying we should then why would you not support that.
You really are stupid Gary, saying that, you know you can see the headlines now.
Aspiring AOPA Director wants to get our machinery legislated out of business
You have obviously gone to some trouble there, I'm flattered to a "t", but lets get "realistic" shall we.
It appears to me that you have a hatred for anything in the general aviation industry, and I wonder if you really can represent G.A. and try to get better legislation and conditions for us, or will you try to get our machinery legislated out of business.
If trying to lift the standards in that part of the GA industry, out of the third world conditions that seem to be acceptable to you for the young pilots, is interpreted by you as being "hatred for anything in the general aviation industry ", then I am happy for you to describe it so, as long as you understand that I will continue to fight for that increase in standards for them.
If properly serving your interests means condemning you to fly the same, already 25 year old aircraft, for the rest of your working life, so that you can pass the same seat along to the next youngster in line so he can do another 40 years in it by keeping quiet in case someone notices, then by all means vote me out.
Think about it, although the tenor of your posts suggests that you have already made up your mind, IF lobbying to
get our machinery legislated out of business
better legislation and conditions for us,
You really are stupid Gary, saying that, you know you can see the headlines now.
Aspiring AOPA Director wants to get our machinery legislated out of business
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard on the grape vine today that you do not need to vote for all nine candidates on the blue election form. You only need to vote for six candidates in total. If you vote nine you may get people in that we do not want by default.
Could anybody else clarify if this is correct or do we have to vote for the whole nine?
Could anybody else clarify if this is correct or do we have to vote for the whole nine?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bah humbug
bushy
I'd have to say maxima must have got it right. Sounds like a WA comment to me.
Gaunty has his views on Charter, and they are valid. I have slightly differing views, like joyflights shouldn't be treated the same as charter, but more like gliding. The passenger assumes the risk.
It will all come out through level debate and consultation with the members.
Your 'sponsored' comments though could hardly be seen as anything less than 'sponsored' whiteanting. I refer you again to maxima's post.
Outback pilot
I don't know. I'm not in Australia at the moment. I suggest you ring Marjorie, her contact number is in the magazine. I will e-mail her if you can wait that long.
AK
I'd have to say maxima must have got it right. Sounds like a WA comment to me.
Gaunty has his views on Charter, and they are valid. I have slightly differing views, like joyflights shouldn't be treated the same as charter, but more like gliding. The passenger assumes the risk.
It will all come out through level debate and consultation with the members.
Your 'sponsored' comments though could hardly be seen as anything less than 'sponsored' whiteanting. I refer you again to maxima's post.
Outback pilot
I don't know. I'm not in Australia at the moment. I suggest you ring Marjorie, her contact number is in the magazine. I will e-mail her if you can wait that long.
AK
Last edited by snarek; 16th Apr 2003 at 16:07.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at last
At least this time you can vote, that makes a change.
And, a lot of you are really taking an interest, potential candidates for next year perhaps, again, a pleasant change
AK
And, a lot of you are really taking an interest, potential candidates for next year perhaps, again, a pleasant change
AK
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Are We Doing????
I've been around the traps for a while now, only to see the reduction of an industry which I love. This industry of ours provides a great range of "things" to us all, both the pilots and the community. To those people who feel like nothing is possible, just teach them to fly. The smile on the face is never to be forgotten.
Apart from a few individual people in CASA, CASA (as an organisation) does not care for General Aviation. It sees no gain in the retraining of general aviation. Yes, this is my opinion. But apart from the scale of CASA's disinterest, will anyone disagree?
The challenge in obtaining a pilots licence is gratifying enough for most people. (rightfully so). Others have chosen to face the challenge build a business within the aviation industry. This is no different really from building a business in any other industry, except for CASA.
When you have a CFI not being prepared to question a wrong “decision” made by CASA, you wounder why. It is because there are anywhere between half a dozen to 50 pilots who depend on the AOC you earn a living. The risk is too great for that individual to speak up.
At this time, the only group representing these pilots is AOPA.
Others have said it. Lift the game “ladies and gentlemen”, the stakes are too high. A “vigorous” debate is not what is needed. This is nothing more than slinging mud like a bunch of school boys.
What are you going to do for me??? I don’t want to use a negative method for selecting the board.
Apart from a few individual people in CASA, CASA (as an organisation) does not care for General Aviation. It sees no gain in the retraining of general aviation. Yes, this is my opinion. But apart from the scale of CASA's disinterest, will anyone disagree?
The challenge in obtaining a pilots licence is gratifying enough for most people. (rightfully so). Others have chosen to face the challenge build a business within the aviation industry. This is no different really from building a business in any other industry, except for CASA.
When you have a CFI not being prepared to question a wrong “decision” made by CASA, you wounder why. It is because there are anywhere between half a dozen to 50 pilots who depend on the AOC you earn a living. The risk is too great for that individual to speak up.
At this time, the only group representing these pilots is AOPA.
Others have said it. Lift the game “ladies and gentlemen”, the stakes are too high. A “vigorous” debate is not what is needed. This is nothing more than slinging mud like a bunch of school boys.
What are you going to do for me??? I don’t want to use a negative method for selecting the board.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no debate ???
monkey
If we don't debate the issues, how do you know AOPA won't do something that really pleases bushy as he flies over the 'East Pit' but that really p!sses you off???
As for what I will do, I've posted here a hundred times, read back. But I will talk with you all, here, e-mail or in person.
AK
If we don't debate the issues, how do you know AOPA won't do something that really pleases bushy as he flies over the 'East Pit' but that really p!sses you off???
As for what I will do, I've posted here a hundred times, read back. But I will talk with you all, here, e-mail or in person.
AK
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marjorie/snarek/Hamilton and others;
Many members here have through my fairly busy PM box, posed the following questions to me in relation to the "numbers of vacancies that they can vote" to which I can not, nor would not even attempt to reply, can you please help me/them.
It is a conundrum:
A summary of their concerns is;
They are not convinced that the Board have the powers in the Articles to "decide" the number of vacancies for any Election or apropos, the authority to "direct" them on the ballot paper to vote on any number other than that described in the Articles. The power to decide the Board numbers after the election is conceded.
They are advised that what has been described as "precedent" (in numbers) does not have any 'definition' in the Articles, nor can any number of Boards previous, reach into the future, without the explicit and continuing approval of the membership.
They have proposed several questions;
1. If they tick 11 boxes in accordance, with what they are advised is their "reasonably and properly held" understanding of the Articles of their Association, will that render their vote "informal", if so who decides this and on what authority.
2. What would happen in this event, if they successfully "challenge" what they would consider to be their disenfranchisement and arrogation of their rights under the Articles, by the Board or the members thereof responsible.
3. If ticking of 11 boxes is ultimately "allowed" in the case of those individuals who decide to exercise their "rights", then they would feel equally uncomfortable with the disenfranchisement and arrogation of the rights under the Articles of those who "obeyed" what they then believed to be a "legal" instruction.
4. Of course the corollary; is the "direction" to only vote for 9 actually legal in itself? If this is found to be not so, then a fresh election at some expense must be held.
In the meantime the real business of AOPA is on hold.
4. Before they take such action and having regard for the possible consequences thereafter, would it not be simpler and wiser for the Board and the safest course for AOPA, to now advise all of the membership, by whatever means is required, that they have the option to vote for up to 11 seats.
5. Their advice is, that as there can not be any "downside or disadvantage to the membership as a whole" demonstrated by this action, as the Newly elected Board may then if they have the "numbers" decide how they wish to constitute their number by voting in the appropriate manner, then they would most likely succeed in an action.
They offer that it would be a brave, if not irresponsible President and Board, who ignored this issue, which has such a simple and harmless resolution, yet contains the potential for great harm if this simple "fix" is not executed..
They sound really serious to me.
What do I tell em.???
Other than for the time being and until they recieve instructions otherwise they should only vote for 9???
But then we come back to the questions they have asked?
I'm getting a headache now.
snarek
Isn't it great.
Is this what they call an embarrasment of riches
monkeyfly
With the greatest of respect a "vigourous" debate is exactly what this organisation needs. It is because this was not previously possible, or necessary, to get elected that has brought us to this place in time.
is why I bother,... a lot.
Many members here have through my fairly busy PM box, posed the following questions to me in relation to the "numbers of vacancies that they can vote" to which I can not, nor would not even attempt to reply, can you please help me/them.
It is a conundrum:
A summary of their concerns is;
They are not convinced that the Board have the powers in the Articles to "decide" the number of vacancies for any Election or apropos, the authority to "direct" them on the ballot paper to vote on any number other than that described in the Articles. The power to decide the Board numbers after the election is conceded.
They are advised that what has been described as "precedent" (in numbers) does not have any 'definition' in the Articles, nor can any number of Boards previous, reach into the future, without the explicit and continuing approval of the membership.
They have proposed several questions;
1. If they tick 11 boxes in accordance, with what they are advised is their "reasonably and properly held" understanding of the Articles of their Association, will that render their vote "informal", if so who decides this and on what authority.
2. What would happen in this event, if they successfully "challenge" what they would consider to be their disenfranchisement and arrogation of their rights under the Articles, by the Board or the members thereof responsible.
3. If ticking of 11 boxes is ultimately "allowed" in the case of those individuals who decide to exercise their "rights", then they would feel equally uncomfortable with the disenfranchisement and arrogation of the rights under the Articles of those who "obeyed" what they then believed to be a "legal" instruction.
4. Of course the corollary; is the "direction" to only vote for 9 actually legal in itself? If this is found to be not so, then a fresh election at some expense must be held.
In the meantime the real business of AOPA is on hold.
4. Before they take such action and having regard for the possible consequences thereafter, would it not be simpler and wiser for the Board and the safest course for AOPA, to now advise all of the membership, by whatever means is required, that they have the option to vote for up to 11 seats.
5. Their advice is, that as there can not be any "downside or disadvantage to the membership as a whole" demonstrated by this action, as the Newly elected Board may then if they have the "numbers" decide how they wish to constitute their number by voting in the appropriate manner, then they would most likely succeed in an action.
They offer that it would be a brave, if not irresponsible President and Board, who ignored this issue, which has such a simple and harmless resolution, yet contains the potential for great harm if this simple "fix" is not executed..
They sound really serious to me.
What do I tell em.???
Other than for the time being and until they recieve instructions otherwise they should only vote for 9???
But then we come back to the questions they have asked?
I'm getting a headache now.
snarek
At least this time you can vote, that makes a change.
Isn't it great.
Is this what they call an embarrasment of riches
monkeyfly
With the greatest of respect a "vigourous" debate is exactly what this organisation needs. It is because this was not previously possible, or necessary, to get elected that has brought us to this place in time.
The smile on the face is never to be forgotten.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy
Then I unreservedly withdraw my assumption. That acomplishment makes you a very lucky man in my eyes, I am jealous
Gaunty.
Yes, the voting is a conundrum. I have e-mailed Marjorie, but with no reply. But, Elections Australia was told, by Chris McKeown (illegally or otherwise), to only take 9. So they will, I guess, disallow any ballot with more than 9.
My reading of the articles is still the same, 11 vacancies, and I can only assume this Board did it to increase their chances of being on the next.
BUT .. the size of the next Board is an issue for that Board. So, if that Board choses, it can do a countback and appoint the next two elected. So, there will still be a way around this without causing the expence and frustration of another election.
The allowable size of the Board is an issue for the members and it is my view that McKeown, Hamilton et al should NEVER have put themselves above that with this destabilising and questionable move!!!
So, my advice, vote for up to 9. You don't have to vote for 9 though, you may in fact vote for just one.
AK
Then I unreservedly withdraw my assumption. That acomplishment makes you a very lucky man in my eyes, I am jealous
Gaunty.
Yes, the voting is a conundrum. I have e-mailed Marjorie, but with no reply. But, Elections Australia was told, by Chris McKeown (illegally or otherwise), to only take 9. So they will, I guess, disallow any ballot with more than 9.
My reading of the articles is still the same, 11 vacancies, and I can only assume this Board did it to increase their chances of being on the next.
BUT .. the size of the next Board is an issue for that Board. So, if that Board choses, it can do a countback and appoint the next two elected. So, there will still be a way around this without causing the expence and frustration of another election.
The allowable size of the Board is an issue for the members and it is my view that McKeown, Hamilton et al should NEVER have put themselves above that with this destabilising and questionable move!!!
So, my advice, vote for up to 9. You don't have to vote for 9 though, you may in fact vote for just one.
AK
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHAT DEBATE ON THE ISSUES?
I could not agree more that it is the issues that need debating.
If I search through these 14 odd pages (odd perhaps being very descriptive) I can find enuf personality issues to train psychologists for 20 years but very little on those real issues that affect the members.
AsI have said earlier, first elect the Board on people's merits but the Board then has the responsibility - if necessary via professional help and there are people out there who do help Boards get their act together - to second get its act together.
The ego issues I have seen displayed within and without this Forum leave me doubtful that some of the incumbents can achieve my second desire. This leaves me still awake of a night counting sheep, sorry Board candidates.
Akkers has at least said he will cooperate, that is a start. The Murph motion is a good one, although it is internal. Now, let's see some policies to debate. My kick off is recruitment. This probably also spins off to the PPL syllabus and why is has the wrong things in it because CASA always did it that way. Anyway, over to the candidates for some policies for GA / members/
Cheers, like Gaunty I'm off to make a quid today. Every one enjoy the break if you are not on over the weekend.
BJ
If I search through these 14 odd pages (odd perhaps being very descriptive) I can find enuf personality issues to train psychologists for 20 years but very little on those real issues that affect the members.
AsI have said earlier, first elect the Board on people's merits but the Board then has the responsibility - if necessary via professional help and there are people out there who do help Boards get their act together - to second get its act together.
The ego issues I have seen displayed within and without this Forum leave me doubtful that some of the incumbents can achieve my second desire. This leaves me still awake of a night counting sheep, sorry Board candidates.
Akkers has at least said he will cooperate, that is a start. The Murph motion is a good one, although it is internal. Now, let's see some policies to debate. My kick off is recruitment. This probably also spins off to the PPL syllabus and why is has the wrong things in it because CASA always did it that way. Anyway, over to the candidates for some policies for GA / members/
Cheers, like Gaunty I'm off to make a quid today. Every one enjoy the break if you are not on over the weekend.
BJ
ISSUES !
There is only ONE real issue right now...............
THE SUBSTAINABLE FUTURE OF AOPA.
Unless we get that right, GA is doomed to have no mature, respected and responsible representation at a time when it has needed it like no other time in its history.
Only then we can worry about all the other issues that people lose sleep about.
THE SUBSTAINABLE FUTURE OF AOPA.
Unless we get that right, GA is doomed to have no mature, respected and responsible representation at a time when it has needed it like no other time in its history.
Only then we can worry about all the other issues that people lose sleep about.