AOPA "The Election" (merged)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkeyfly and Axiom
No, I haven't got a copy of the mag (is it out yet?), but yes, I did read Gaunty's post. He named the others. I can only assume (as I thought any intelligent person would have assumed) that as there are eleven members on the "Team AOPA", and there is an election to be held, that there are more than eleven candidates!!!! All I wanted to know from Monkeyfly, is what it is he has against the team proposed? Does he know them? Who are they? Who doesn't he like? Are they "eleven bad men" (or women). I look forward to seeing their profiles, which Marjorie Pagani said she is going to try to get permission to print (as Gaunty has already done), so I can see just who these wicked and evil people are, who want to give up their time and energy to help AOPA and GA.
I am also very interested to hear from you Axiom, about what achievements Bill H has made this year since he was appointed in May (there wasn't a real election) - except for totally alienating CASA, and making sure it listens to nothing that AOPA has to say! A list of his gains would be appreciated.
You seem to be saying that because CASA says it will open the doors to M. Pagani, and close them to B. Hamilton, that there must be some evil in this - surely that is the way forward - negotiation, not outright war.
I am intrigued - bring forth these wrongdoers and let them be judged!
No, I haven't got a copy of the mag (is it out yet?), but yes, I did read Gaunty's post. He named the others. I can only assume (as I thought any intelligent person would have assumed) that as there are eleven members on the "Team AOPA", and there is an election to be held, that there are more than eleven candidates!!!! All I wanted to know from Monkeyfly, is what it is he has against the team proposed? Does he know them? Who are they? Who doesn't he like? Are they "eleven bad men" (or women). I look forward to seeing their profiles, which Marjorie Pagani said she is going to try to get permission to print (as Gaunty has already done), so I can see just who these wicked and evil people are, who want to give up their time and energy to help AOPA and GA.
I am also very interested to hear from you Axiom, about what achievements Bill H has made this year since he was appointed in May (there wasn't a real election) - except for totally alienating CASA, and making sure it listens to nothing that AOPA has to say! A list of his gains would be appreciated.
You seem to be saying that because CASA says it will open the doors to M. Pagani, and close them to B. Hamilton, that there must be some evil in this - surely that is the way forward - negotiation, not outright war.
I am intrigued - bring forth these wrongdoers and let them be judged!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said anything about 11 bad men or women ?
It appears that you are trying your best to alienate the protagonists with each other. ie. cause divisions.
I mentioned that woomeras post was inaccurate from what I have heard and I also said that some of these 11 are fence sitters.
Thus they can benefit, given the amount of nominations, by being in both camps as the whole process is going to be a numbers game.
Hamilton has helped me, as have others in AOPA and unlike some I believe in loyalty and progress.
Why should I be given to list Hamilton's achievements if you don't care to read or listen. He is quiet capable of that.
Now, why don't you listen to the original,
What has this apparantly ticketed and sanctioned "team AOPA" done except resign in the main, winge, send hate mail to Hamilton (believe it), and try to win the election on a perceived strength of numbers and promises.
Have any of these brought any foreward thinking ideas to the table except continue on with a 12 member board which is unweildy and attritionaly disfunctionable and why when someone does, (like the State chapters idea), they get shafted by a minority of one who speaks with the authority of her own legendary achievements.
If you know so much, you appear to have omitted the fact that Hamilton has been effectively silenced by this same faction of the board since last election and unable to achieve anything.
And there WAS a real election, I know because I was there. (interpretations don't count). Obviously didn't meet with your approval.
As an aside, and just to see where we stand, what do you think of the State Chapters idea. A lot of people would like to know how your team thinks.
Also how would you deal with the 3 year major, seek appeasement maybe ?
It appears that you are trying your best to alienate the protagonists with each other. ie. cause divisions.
I mentioned that woomeras post was inaccurate from what I have heard and I also said that some of these 11 are fence sitters.
Thus they can benefit, given the amount of nominations, by being in both camps as the whole process is going to be a numbers game.
Hamilton has helped me, as have others in AOPA and unlike some I believe in loyalty and progress.
Why should I be given to list Hamilton's achievements if you don't care to read or listen. He is quiet capable of that.
Now, why don't you listen to the original,
What has this apparantly ticketed and sanctioned "team AOPA" done except resign in the main, winge, send hate mail to Hamilton (believe it), and try to win the election on a perceived strength of numbers and promises.
Have any of these brought any foreward thinking ideas to the table except continue on with a 12 member board which is unweildy and attritionaly disfunctionable and why when someone does, (like the State chapters idea), they get shafted by a minority of one who speaks with the authority of her own legendary achievements.
If you know so much, you appear to have omitted the fact that Hamilton has been effectively silenced by this same faction of the board since last election and unable to achieve anything.
And there WAS a real election, I know because I was there. (interpretations don't count). Obviously didn't meet with your approval.
As an aside, and just to see where we stand, what do you think of the State Chapters idea. A lot of people would like to know how your team thinks.
Also how would you deal with the 3 year major, seek appeasement maybe ?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA ELECTIONS
Perhaps Woomera's point that the nominees have the best interests of AOPA and its members at heart should become the daily prayer of the Board when elected.
Much of the current situation is the result of personality clashes that create threats of legal action and cause communication breakdowns.
The new Board should perhaps set Rules of Engagement and seek qualified assistance (eg Myers Briggs Analyses or similar) to enhancing free and open discussion leading to an AOPA that focuses on the external enemy instead of their own navels as at present.
I have a personal question mark against several of the nominees but will examine my vote on the basis of the most effective team, particularly where any new blood indicates a proven capability to work in a team environment where all sides of matters can be fully debated, agreement reached, and no backstabbing thereafter.
Unfortunately, the good efforts of some have been overshadowed by the current crisis. AOPA and its Forum have now been "somewhat disadvantaged" for more than a month. Given that the TSI Bill was snuck in without warning last week, fortunately spotted by Boyd, our colleagues at CASA and ATSB must be giggling as we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I return to my earlier comment on this Forum re the need for one or more "Technical Experts" not bogged down by Board duties to concentrate on the deluge of NPRMs, Bills, etc churned out - with potential hidden traps - so we do not have a repeat of AOPA missing the draconian provisions of the TSI BIll as an example. Perhaps they need to be given appropriate status to recognise the contribution?
Cheers
Gaunty
I like your election statement and have just posted recommending that AOPA internally be joyful and united, however, I worry a little about your kindness to the regulator.
I have seen several CASA vendettas - fortunately not on me - and one attempt by ATSB to gag me by improper use of the AFP.
The CASA vendettas, one at Ombudsman level, are indicative of an organisation that has an entrenched culture that will NOT be overcome by AOPA being nice - except that they may use a sharp knife on us instead of a blunt one to minimise the pain!
The TSI Bill and its draconian and unnecessary provisions was amended and caused to be reviewed only by swift action by Boyd and a strong ASA member input to the MPs. This is hardly likely to make friends with the Regulator.
My personal belief is that CASA needs to be fragmented into smaller units as the only way of changing it from a militaristic culture (that thinks e.g. I will not fly in to IMC if I am going to incur "X" penalty points, or that brings in new AFM Rules where we have to throw out the old FM and Manufacturers Handbook if you own a C172M as I do) to a "coaching" culture that already exists in some parts of CASA now and just needs the dead wood removed to thrive.
Talk to any small Flying school or operator and they seem to feel they are being driven out of their core business by paperwork to feed the bureaucracy - the ultimate being large businesses who can deal nicely with the regulator. And, why is the AUF looking so wonderful to we GA PPLs?
I could go on but I really would like you to be a little more detailed about your planned liaison with the Regulator.
Much of the current situation is the result of personality clashes that create threats of legal action and cause communication breakdowns.
The new Board should perhaps set Rules of Engagement and seek qualified assistance (eg Myers Briggs Analyses or similar) to enhancing free and open discussion leading to an AOPA that focuses on the external enemy instead of their own navels as at present.
I have a personal question mark against several of the nominees but will examine my vote on the basis of the most effective team, particularly where any new blood indicates a proven capability to work in a team environment where all sides of matters can be fully debated, agreement reached, and no backstabbing thereafter.
Unfortunately, the good efforts of some have been overshadowed by the current crisis. AOPA and its Forum have now been "somewhat disadvantaged" for more than a month. Given that the TSI Bill was snuck in without warning last week, fortunately spotted by Boyd, our colleagues at CASA and ATSB must be giggling as we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I return to my earlier comment on this Forum re the need for one or more "Technical Experts" not bogged down by Board duties to concentrate on the deluge of NPRMs, Bills, etc churned out - with potential hidden traps - so we do not have a repeat of AOPA missing the draconian provisions of the TSI BIll as an example. Perhaps they need to be given appropriate status to recognise the contribution?
Cheers
Gaunty
I like your election statement and have just posted recommending that AOPA internally be joyful and united, however, I worry a little about your kindness to the regulator.
I have seen several CASA vendettas - fortunately not on me - and one attempt by ATSB to gag me by improper use of the AFP.
The CASA vendettas, one at Ombudsman level, are indicative of an organisation that has an entrenched culture that will NOT be overcome by AOPA being nice - except that they may use a sharp knife on us instead of a blunt one to minimise the pain!
The TSI Bill and its draconian and unnecessary provisions was amended and caused to be reviewed only by swift action by Boyd and a strong ASA member input to the MPs. This is hardly likely to make friends with the Regulator.
My personal belief is that CASA needs to be fragmented into smaller units as the only way of changing it from a militaristic culture (that thinks e.g. I will not fly in to IMC if I am going to incur "X" penalty points, or that brings in new AFM Rules where we have to throw out the old FM and Manufacturers Handbook if you own a C172M as I do) to a "coaching" culture that already exists in some parts of CASA now and just needs the dead wood removed to thrive.
Talk to any small Flying school or operator and they seem to feel they are being driven out of their core business by paperwork to feed the bureaucracy - the ultimate being large businesses who can deal nicely with the regulator. And, why is the AUF looking so wonderful to we GA PPLs?
I could go on but I really would like you to be a little more detailed about your planned liaison with the Regulator.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABILITIES
Two important qualities to seek in tne nominees: -
1. Ability to comprehend that leadership is exactly that and not dictatorship. Understanding that - like John Howard at present - not all the world will love you.
2. Focus. No more sharing the emotional baggage, particularly when the ego is bruised, Focus on the task - ie the ball not the players.
I only raise these coz my recent email corro with two nominees - or more correctly whay I have received - attacks the messenger, wanders off on emotional tangents, and completely avoids the reality of what the issue was about (AOPA missing another train).
In political terms, anyone noting the decline in "votes" - in our case the long term decline in AOPA membership - would have the think tank examining the root causes. I wonder what an AOPA membership survey would bring forth. Also, noting the number on this Forum who are ex-AOPA, what a survey of them would bring out. Trouble with such surveys, however, is that they hurt the egos of those first to admit they are busting their guts for the members.
Ah well, it's time I walked the dogs and cogitated upon things like "Vox Populi, Voc Dei"
Cheers
1. Ability to comprehend that leadership is exactly that and not dictatorship. Understanding that - like John Howard at present - not all the world will love you.
2. Focus. No more sharing the emotional baggage, particularly when the ego is bruised, Focus on the task - ie the ball not the players.
I only raise these coz my recent email corro with two nominees - or more correctly whay I have received - attacks the messenger, wanders off on emotional tangents, and completely avoids the reality of what the issue was about (AOPA missing another train).
In political terms, anyone noting the decline in "votes" - in our case the long term decline in AOPA membership - would have the think tank examining the root causes. I wonder what an AOPA membership survey would bring forth. Also, noting the number on this Forum who are ex-AOPA, what a survey of them would bring out. Trouble with such surveys, however, is that they hurt the egos of those first to admit they are busting their guts for the members.
Ah well, it's time I walked the dogs and cogitated upon things like "Vox Populi, Voc Dei"
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA, the enemy???
I agree with both gaunty and axiom here. CASA can be the enemy, but they can also give great assistance.
At a recent CASA seminar I was manning the AOPA stall (yes axiom, after I resigned, terrible hey!!!).
As soon as I set up a CASA 'lady' attacked me over an article Marjorie had written on you rights while being questioned over a Violation of Controlled Airspace (VCA).
This 'person' though pilots should have no rights. In my view if she wants that sort of power she should get a job a Guantanimo Bay!!! She certainly, to me at least, represented 'the enemy'.
BUT...other CASA people there apologised for her behaviour. Not only that, they came up with some bl@@dy good ideas. Like, if VCAs are happeneing because of out of date maps, then make maps free again. (This would solve our problem of the expence of AsA continumally (and needlessly) updating maps.)
BAD CASA. Handing out ATO-ships to Navy mates.
Good CASA, a guy in the CofR bit of CASA who helped me get three different Grummans, a few Victas and a Taylorcraft through the flight manual process (for members only of course
)
I praised him to Toller who then gave us the extension on the manuals.
CASA is made up of people, you can't keep screaming at them and then expect them to listen when you want to make a point.
If the Minister had no faith in CASA he would have shut it down. If the Minister had absolute faith in the opinion of AOPA he would have made changes. Seems to me an attitude of attack attack attack over the last few years has alienated him and his advisors reducing AOPA to little more than a yapping dog.
This situation needs fixing.
AK
At a recent CASA seminar I was manning the AOPA stall (yes axiom, after I resigned, terrible hey!!!).
As soon as I set up a CASA 'lady' attacked me over an article Marjorie had written on you rights while being questioned over a Violation of Controlled Airspace (VCA).
This 'person' though pilots should have no rights. In my view if she wants that sort of power she should get a job a Guantanimo Bay!!! She certainly, to me at least, represented 'the enemy'.
BUT...other CASA people there apologised for her behaviour. Not only that, they came up with some bl@@dy good ideas. Like, if VCAs are happeneing because of out of date maps, then make maps free again. (This would solve our problem of the expence of AsA continumally (and needlessly) updating maps.)
BAD CASA. Handing out ATO-ships to Navy mates.
Good CASA, a guy in the CofR bit of CASA who helped me get three different Grummans, a few Victas and a Taylorcraft through the flight manual process (for members only of course
)I praised him to Toller who then gave us the extension on the manuals.
CASA is made up of people, you can't keep screaming at them and then expect them to listen when you want to make a point.
If the Minister had no faith in CASA he would have shut it down. If the Minister had absolute faith in the opinion of AOPA he would have made changes. Seems to me an attitude of attack attack attack over the last few years has alienated him and his advisors reducing AOPA to little more than a yapping dog.
This situation needs fixing.
AK
The Nominations are....................
As far as I can find out, the following are the nominations for the AOPA board (committee).
Ron Bertram
Jane Errey
Gary Gaunt
Bill Hamilton
Mick Kennedy
Andrew Kerans
Ron Lawford
Trish Mahlberg
David McDonald
Chris McKeown
Robert Murphy
Marjorie Pagani
Bill Pike
Richard Rudd
Adrienne Williams
From the rules
So that makes it 15 nominations for eleven positions as it seems that Lyons did not stand down like the others.
Ron Bertram
Jane Errey
Gary Gaunt
Bill Hamilton
Mick Kennedy
Andrew Kerans
Ron Lawford
Trish Mahlberg
David McDonald
Chris McKeown
Robert Murphy
Marjorie Pagani
Bill Pike
Richard Rudd
Adrienne Williams
From the rules
COMMITTEE
33. (a) The Committee to be elected as herein provided shall consist of Committee Members
being not less than eight or more than twelve as shall be determined by the Committee. Except
that in the event of a casual vacancy or vacancies arising between Annual General Meetings,
the Committee may consist of seven members until the next Annual General Meeting.
33. (a) The Committee to be elected as herein provided shall consist of Committee Members
being not less than eight or more than twelve as shall be determined by the Committee. Except
that in the event of a casual vacancy or vacancies arising between Annual General Meetings,
the Committee may consist of seven members until the next Annual General Meeting.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a lot of the AOPA members & non-members have started their own forum now @ Australian General Aviation Forum 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the good the bad and the ugly
I applaud Bill Hamilton's decision to stand. It does not change my personal feeling though, I think he is past his use by date and should resign from the Board and continue his work for GA in an ex-officio position.
I condemn John Lyon for not standing. But, whoever gets elected at this election will have been put on the Board at the will of the members. The same cannot be said for Lyon. So, when the motion is moved, and hopefully passed, that the Board be reduced to amore workable seven, it seems obvious to me that the only member to have not been elected by ballot should be the first to go.
In fact, when Mr Lyon did stand in a contested election, he came last. Perhaps this explains his decision not to stand this time.
AK
I condemn John Lyon for not standing. But, whoever gets elected at this election will have been put on the Board at the will of the members. The same cannot be said for Lyon. So, when the motion is moved, and hopefully passed, that the Board be reduced to amore workable seven, it seems obvious to me that the only member to have not been elected by ballot should be the first to go.
In fact, when Mr Lyon did stand in a contested election, he came last. Perhaps this explains his decision not to stand this time.
AK
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Townsville Qld.
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
un-elected Directors
I find it amazing that one Director, never elected, has decided not to stand. That is the same as a vote of no-confidence in himself.
Shame on you John Lyon!!!!
I think I will support 'the team' because we haven't had one for so many years. We have had dictatorial Presidents taking out writs against those that wouldn't agree with them. We have had big ego's pushing thier own barrow and we have seen some pretty poor decision making resulting in a 60% drop in member numbers.
Shame on you John Lyon!!!!
I think I will support 'the team' because we haven't had one for so many years. We have had dictatorial Presidents taking out writs against those that wouldn't agree with them. We have had big ego's pushing thier own barrow and we have seen some pretty poor decision making resulting in a 60% drop in member numbers.
Last edited by pesawat_terbang; 1st Apr 2003 at 10:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely wish Andrew Wetzel and the new Forum well, if it gets the message out to even more AOPA non members.
As far as I can tell, for the reasons that they closed the AOPA Forum and the legal threats to PPRuNe, from the usual suspects, the Moderators will get a really good work out, if there is to be the same passion and vigour applied to the discussion of important or controversial issues as is here.
It would be a pity if it turned into a mutual backslapping arena.
From the new Forum;
Fair enough !
At least here, you and your opinions are respected whether or not you choose to identify yourselves.
I have it on fairly good authority (oftentimes a user will identify themselves to me) and just plain gut feeling that there are more than a few of the AOPA protagonists and Government and Regulatory personnel, who as is their right and which BTW we fiercely protect, choose to post anonymously on PPRuNe in other forums.
They are always welcome to and do test their views and argument in this manner on us, without the baggage of "perception" and "filter" we as humans apply to anything coming from someone we think we "know".
For example: In the context of the current war if Saddam "actually" came upon "and really did have" the cure for cancer and asked for a cessation of hostilites in order to deliver it to the world, I think we would all agree that it is fairly unlikely any one on this side would take him seriously.
On almost every occasion a user has identified themselves to me, for their own reasons, my reaction has been "well I never".!
Just in case anybody gets concerned about their anonymity, worry not, there are only two persons in the whole world (Danny & Rob) who have access to any user information beyond what the user chooses to reveal in their profile. In most cases that information is simply the users email and IP (just a number identifying the ISP) address.
The only way you can be identified from either, is if you use your real name as part of your email addy, the rest is between you, your ISP and the Privacy Act.
Beyond that, the only danger is if the courts or a legally constituted and properly authorised authority comes looking. In which event you have probably gone way beyond the pale and we will not protect you from your own foolishness.
Anonymity is not compulsory here.
Oh, and it is a rhetorical question only (that means it doesn't require an answer) and in the spirit of the new Forum, I don't suppose C182 Drover whose homepage in his profile takes us straight to the new forum and Mooney Operator feel that they need to identify themselves?
But on a serious note, we will support anything that seriously has the support of the future of aviation in Australia as their main objective.
The fact that we choose to do it our way, does not mean that another way is any less valid.
Different strokes for different "persons"
Have fun!!
As far as I can tell, for the reasons that they closed the AOPA Forum and the legal threats to PPRuNe, from the usual suspects, the Moderators will get a really good work out, if there is to be the same passion and vigour applied to the discussion of important or controversial issues as is here.
It would be a pity if it turned into a mutual backslapping arena.
From the new Forum;
"For first time user's, when you register to post or reply on this forum, please register using proper first name, last name details as prompted, and when you create your user ID make sure it identifies you as the person and not some unknown hidden identity."
At least here, you and your opinions are respected whether or not you choose to identify yourselves.
I have it on fairly good authority (oftentimes a user will identify themselves to me) and just plain gut feeling that there are more than a few of the AOPA protagonists and Government and Regulatory personnel, who as is their right and which BTW we fiercely protect, choose to post anonymously on PPRuNe in other forums.
They are always welcome to and do test their views and argument in this manner on us, without the baggage of "perception" and "filter" we as humans apply to anything coming from someone we think we "know".
For example: In the context of the current war if Saddam "actually" came upon "and really did have" the cure for cancer and asked for a cessation of hostilites in order to deliver it to the world, I think we would all agree that it is fairly unlikely any one on this side would take him seriously.
On almost every occasion a user has identified themselves to me, for their own reasons, my reaction has been "well I never".!
Just in case anybody gets concerned about their anonymity, worry not, there are only two persons in the whole world (Danny & Rob) who have access to any user information beyond what the user chooses to reveal in their profile. In most cases that information is simply the users email and IP (just a number identifying the ISP) address.
The only way you can be identified from either, is if you use your real name as part of your email addy, the rest is between you, your ISP and the Privacy Act.
Beyond that, the only danger is if the courts or a legally constituted and properly authorised authority comes looking. In which event you have probably gone way beyond the pale and we will not protect you from your own foolishness.
Anonymity is not compulsory here.
Oh, and it is a rhetorical question only (that means it doesn't require an answer) and in the spirit of the new Forum, I don't suppose C182 Drover whose homepage in his profile takes us straight to the new forum and Mooney Operator feel that they need to identify themselves?
But on a serious note, we will support anything that seriously has the support of the future of aviation in Australia as their main objective.
The fact that we choose to do it our way, does not mean that another way is any less valid.
Different strokes for different "persons"
Have fun!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still not talking to snarek, but although I agree with a smaller board, I am perplexed as to how it applies to this election and to getting rid of hamilton and Lyon?
What resolution is snarek talking about? Mine was rejected by Marjorie Pagani.
Who said that Lyon was not elected? I was at the meeting, and I saw him elected?
What I didn't see was the plethora of the silent and absent who failed to nominate or vote for any alternate candidates and the board stayed as is.
Are we going to have the resolutions? put before the election of officers and then make the whole thing retrospective?
Who wrote this scenerio, I thought it had to follow certain protocols?
Who has a political agenda here? perhaps snarek is not a Democrat but a Nat. Who is pushing for these changes, not snarek obviously? But I do wonder when he makes statements about his personal affiliations with advisors from John Anderson's office !!!!! Perhaps this agenda is aided and abetted by some influenced CASA cronies at the Deputy PM's office who would like to see AOPA castrated. (cop that ladies).
I'll be ringing Bob Katter Jnr to see what he knows tonight.
Finally, a lot of recent posts are inaccurate. For the intelligently gifted, have another look at articles 33(a), (b),(c ),35, and 37.
For those intelligently challenged, like me until I got the articles freely available at AOPA member services, it says that none have done anything wrong, the resignees are making a fashion statement, and the whole aim is to get rid of Hamilton and Lyon who are a pain in the arse to a few of the Board and ex Board who have an axe to grind.
I have heard on good authority that the next (May), magazine will be late in circulation because of technical problems that will prevent anyone from having a say before the AGM.
Great democracy, but what would we expect.
What resolution is snarek talking about? Mine was rejected by Marjorie Pagani.
Who said that Lyon was not elected? I was at the meeting, and I saw him elected?
What I didn't see was the plethora of the silent and absent who failed to nominate or vote for any alternate candidates and the board stayed as is.
Are we going to have the resolutions? put before the election of officers and then make the whole thing retrospective?
Who wrote this scenerio, I thought it had to follow certain protocols?
Who has a political agenda here? perhaps snarek is not a Democrat but a Nat. Who is pushing for these changes, not snarek obviously? But I do wonder when he makes statements about his personal affiliations with advisors from John Anderson's office !!!!! Perhaps this agenda is aided and abetted by some influenced CASA cronies at the Deputy PM's office who would like to see AOPA castrated. (cop that ladies).
I'll be ringing Bob Katter Jnr to see what he knows tonight.
Finally, a lot of recent posts are inaccurate. For the intelligently gifted, have another look at articles 33(a), (b),(c ),35, and 37.
For those intelligently challenged, like me until I got the articles freely available at AOPA member services, it says that none have done anything wrong, the resignees are making a fashion statement, and the whole aim is to get rid of Hamilton and Lyon who are a pain in the arse to a few of the Board and ex Board who have an axe to grind.
I have heard on good authority that the next (May), magazine will be late in circulation because of technical problems that will prevent anyone from having a say before the AGM.
Great democracy, but what would we expect.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom
I think it is the April one that is being held up with May one running smoothly.
Nice try, but you've still got time to have your say (God only knows what that has to do with the release of the magazinE)
Dog
Nice try, but you've still got time to have your say (God only knows what that has to do with the release of the magazinE)
Dog
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog;
The April magazine is already printed and does not include the nominees profiles which I am told will be put in an insert along with some disjointed attempt at a resolution by Marjorie Pagani.
Thus;
It is simply too late to write a letter to the Editor for April Magazine (today is the first I believe).
The May magazine which should come out in the early part of the month is the subject of the information I have been privy to.
Also thus;
If this magazine does not come out in the early part of the month, people who wish to object to the Pagani resolution which is part of an insert in the April edition, will have no time to get their message across before the AGM.
thus, thus and bloody thus;
If this is a democratic way to run an organisation, it's bloody crook.
I will apologise if the majority of the board reject the resolution and it is pulled, but is still not on that Murphie's has been rejected unilaterally.
I believe he has mailed another which only has to be in 21 days prior, but will probably be late because of the magazine.
Struth, do I have to talk you lot through everything?
What's your go anyway Dog? what's wrong with the State Chapters thing?
The April magazine is already printed and does not include the nominees profiles which I am told will be put in an insert along with some disjointed attempt at a resolution by Marjorie Pagani.
Thus;
It is simply too late to write a letter to the Editor for April Magazine (today is the first I believe).
The May magazine which should come out in the early part of the month is the subject of the information I have been privy to.
Also thus;
If this magazine does not come out in the early part of the month, people who wish to object to the Pagani resolution which is part of an insert in the April edition, will have no time to get their message across before the AGM.
thus, thus and bloody thus;
If this is a democratic way to run an organisation, it's bloody crook.
I will apologise if the majority of the board reject the resolution and it is pulled, but is still not on that Murphie's has been rejected unilaterally.
I believe he has mailed another which only has to be in 21 days prior, but will probably be late because of the magazine.
Struth, do I have to talk you lot through everything?
What's your go anyway Dog? what's wrong with the State Chapters thing?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom
I see your point (Re: Magazine) Though I doubt it is anything sinister, but then.....
Also re state chapter thing. I still think that it would water down the power base (whats left) of AOPA and cause more dissention within the ranks particularly if two states don't agree. However, have been thinking it over, and it would probably be not such a bad thing, but definiately would need some rules and structure to ensure that the state chapters stick by the Federal and also do their job. (With complete office). Probably would be good as AOPA could then reset the rules of engagement as well as what they are about.
No bone here....
Dog
Also re state chapter thing. I still think that it would water down the power base (whats left) of AOPA and cause more dissention within the ranks particularly if two states don't agree. However, have been thinking it over, and it would probably be not such a bad thing, but definiately would need some rules and structure to ensure that the state chapters stick by the Federal and also do their job. (With complete office). Probably would be good as AOPA could then reset the rules of engagement as well as what they are about.
No bone here....
Dog
Vote 1 Gaunt
Axiom – The “kick the door down” strategy is very high risk, especially if you don’t really know what you’re talking about when you get to the other side.
Monkeyfly – Making important strategic decisions on the basis of what someone tells you they heard someone else say, is fraught with danger.
Brian H – Alienating the Commonwealth Ombudsman isn’t the best idea either.
Let’s compare and contrast the lobbying methods and success of AOPA and the AUF.
Elsewhere in this forum I posted some Hansard of evidence given by the Director of Aviation Safety to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, about a convivial lunch he had had with a senior officer of the AUF who happens to be ex-CAA. All very cozy. At that lunch the Director of Aviation Safety suggested how the AUF should respond to a legislative proposal relating to AOCs for AUF flying training.
The law requires flying training to be authorised by an AOC but the AUF doesn’t like that. Guess what? The regulator doesn’t enforce the legal requirement on the AUF, and it isn’t going to in the future. The AUF’s making money hand over fist providing flying training without any AOC.
Sure it’s corrupt. But the AUF gets the outcome it wants. It’s got a statutory monopoly and a regulator in the back pocket.
The AUF didn’t get those because it spends its days yelling at CASA. It got them because it’s got a couple of key people that know how politics and regulation works and, generally, those people keep their mouths shut.
And the AUF’s had the added bonus of AOPA working for it, at GA’s expense, over the last few years.
There is a reason AOPA has zero credibility with those who determine the direction of regulatory reform, and consequently doesn’t get what it wants. Nearly every time someone who claims to represent AOPA opens their mouth publicly (or “kicks a door down”), they manage to demonstrate how little they know about subjects in which they claim to be experts, while criticizing and alienating the people who are. The rhetoric’s all well and good in rallying the (ever-dwindling) troops, but it’s met with a yawn from those who run the country. That’s an embarrassment for members or prospective members who would prefer not to be identified as a member of a bunch slack-jawed conspiracy theorists.
AOPA can’t credibly claim to be all things to all people. AOPA’s duplicity on the AUF flying training AOC issue and similar issues has put a pretty bad taste in the mouths of GA operators and instructors. Does AOPA really think it’s going to get a GA instructor to pay money to AOPA so that AOPA can lobby to help the AUF put GA flying training out of business?
Unpalatable fact of life number 1: The number of pilots and aircraft owners in Australia is not sufficient to make one iota of difference to the outcome of an election, even if you could rally them all to the one cause.
Unpalatable fact of life number2: The overwhelming majority of Australians couldn’t give a toss if flying’s getting more expensive, more complicated or more regulated.
Unpalatable fact of life number 3: Being the best pilot on the planet does not provide someone with the knowledge or skills to play expert regulator or lobbyist.
In those circumstances, the “kick the door down” strategy will get you only 1 thing: a bill for a new door. Second hand hearsay is not a basis for important decisions. And alienating the ombudsman’s just plain silly.
In those circumstances, the only way in which to get what you want is to lobby professionally. Whatever else lobbying professionally means, it doesn’t mean what AOPA’s been doing, with the exception of McKeown who’s been scoring wins for GA without shouting at CASA.
With Gaunt as president and sole spokesperson, and McKeown as deputy to reinforce and consolidate Gaunt’s formidable intellect and people skills, AOPA might - just might – have a chance of resurrecting some credibility and relationship with those who can give AOPA what it wants (to the extent that AOPA knows what it wants).
Eleven on a board of this kind and size of organisation is unnecessary. Buy a professional general manager, and a full time accountant and a professional research officer. If you can’t afford them, play flying club.
Then:
1. work out who AOPA claims to represent
2. work out whose interests AOPA actually promotes
3. work out how to reconcile 1 with 2
4. work out what AOPA intends to achieve (other than at the level of vacuous motherhood statements)
5. work out a plan and priorities for achieving 4
6. get some experts to implement the plan
Or get used to chronic irrelevance.
Monkeyfly – Making important strategic decisions on the basis of what someone tells you they heard someone else say, is fraught with danger.
Brian H – Alienating the Commonwealth Ombudsman isn’t the best idea either.
Let’s compare and contrast the lobbying methods and success of AOPA and the AUF.
Elsewhere in this forum I posted some Hansard of evidence given by the Director of Aviation Safety to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, about a convivial lunch he had had with a senior officer of the AUF who happens to be ex-CAA. All very cozy. At that lunch the Director of Aviation Safety suggested how the AUF should respond to a legislative proposal relating to AOCs for AUF flying training.
The law requires flying training to be authorised by an AOC but the AUF doesn’t like that. Guess what? The regulator doesn’t enforce the legal requirement on the AUF, and it isn’t going to in the future. The AUF’s making money hand over fist providing flying training without any AOC.
Sure it’s corrupt. But the AUF gets the outcome it wants. It’s got a statutory monopoly and a regulator in the back pocket.
The AUF didn’t get those because it spends its days yelling at CASA. It got them because it’s got a couple of key people that know how politics and regulation works and, generally, those people keep their mouths shut.
And the AUF’s had the added bonus of AOPA working for it, at GA’s expense, over the last few years.
There is a reason AOPA has zero credibility with those who determine the direction of regulatory reform, and consequently doesn’t get what it wants. Nearly every time someone who claims to represent AOPA opens their mouth publicly (or “kicks a door down”), they manage to demonstrate how little they know about subjects in which they claim to be experts, while criticizing and alienating the people who are. The rhetoric’s all well and good in rallying the (ever-dwindling) troops, but it’s met with a yawn from those who run the country. That’s an embarrassment for members or prospective members who would prefer not to be identified as a member of a bunch slack-jawed conspiracy theorists.
AOPA can’t credibly claim to be all things to all people. AOPA’s duplicity on the AUF flying training AOC issue and similar issues has put a pretty bad taste in the mouths of GA operators and instructors. Does AOPA really think it’s going to get a GA instructor to pay money to AOPA so that AOPA can lobby to help the AUF put GA flying training out of business?
Unpalatable fact of life number 1: The number of pilots and aircraft owners in Australia is not sufficient to make one iota of difference to the outcome of an election, even if you could rally them all to the one cause.
Unpalatable fact of life number2: The overwhelming majority of Australians couldn’t give a toss if flying’s getting more expensive, more complicated or more regulated.
Unpalatable fact of life number 3: Being the best pilot on the planet does not provide someone with the knowledge or skills to play expert regulator or lobbyist.
In those circumstances, the “kick the door down” strategy will get you only 1 thing: a bill for a new door. Second hand hearsay is not a basis for important decisions. And alienating the ombudsman’s just plain silly.
In those circumstances, the only way in which to get what you want is to lobby professionally. Whatever else lobbying professionally means, it doesn’t mean what AOPA’s been doing, with the exception of McKeown who’s been scoring wins for GA without shouting at CASA.
With Gaunt as president and sole spokesperson, and McKeown as deputy to reinforce and consolidate Gaunt’s formidable intellect and people skills, AOPA might - just might – have a chance of resurrecting some credibility and relationship with those who can give AOPA what it wants (to the extent that AOPA knows what it wants).
Eleven on a board of this kind and size of organisation is unnecessary. Buy a professional general manager, and a full time accountant and a professional research officer. If you can’t afford them, play flying club.
Then:
1. work out who AOPA claims to represent
2. work out whose interests AOPA actually promotes
3. work out how to reconcile 1 with 2
4. work out what AOPA intends to achieve (other than at the level of vacuous motherhood statements)
5. work out a plan and priorities for achieving 4
6. get some experts to implement the plan
Or get used to chronic irrelevance.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POINT OF ORDER
Creampuff
I'm not certain whether I've been on drugs but where did I say I wished to alienate the Commonwealth Ombudsman?
After 25 years negotiating and resolving Ministerial, Ombudsman, and Regulator issues I love the Ombudsman and have the highest regard for their involvement. The case I mentioned is one where the Ombudsman is involved in asking CASA some very hard questions about a CASA vendetta and rightly so as the doco I have viewed shows a deliberate attempt by CASA to cover up the errors made by CASA staff and a CASA response that deliberately by omission fails to answer the Ombudsman's questions.
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I believe the ATSB have adequate power WITHOUT the TSI slam the man provisions. I believe CASA needs the "paper and regulation will work, after all it did in the military" dinosaurs removed to allow the new coaching style to grow and enhance aviation regulation and safety.
If CASA was answerable fully to the Ombudsman - which would also require an aviation culture of openness rather than the fear of long-term retribution if anyone takes CASA on - I doubt they would be in business today.
Anyway, if you have misreported me, please correct the matter.
Cheers
BJ - and taking Woomera's point, that certainly makes me identifiable!
I'm not certain whether I've been on drugs but where did I say I wished to alienate the Commonwealth Ombudsman?
After 25 years negotiating and resolving Ministerial, Ombudsman, and Regulator issues I love the Ombudsman and have the highest regard for their involvement. The case I mentioned is one where the Ombudsman is involved in asking CASA some very hard questions about a CASA vendetta and rightly so as the doco I have viewed shows a deliberate attempt by CASA to cover up the errors made by CASA staff and a CASA response that deliberately by omission fails to answer the Ombudsman's questions.
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I believe the ATSB have adequate power WITHOUT the TSI slam the man provisions. I believe CASA needs the "paper and regulation will work, after all it did in the military" dinosaurs removed to allow the new coaching style to grow and enhance aviation regulation and safety.
If CASA was answerable fully to the Ombudsman - which would also require an aviation culture of openness rather than the fear of long-term retribution if anyone takes CASA on - I doubt they would be in business today.
Anyway, if you have misreported me, please correct the matter.
Cheers
BJ - and taking Woomera's point, that certainly makes me identifiable!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken Dog, read on.
Creampuff;
Good positive post, except I can't abide the CASA/AUF corruption bit, it's simply not on, (this sort of thing), and epitomises what is wrong with aviation in Australia. I was a victim of this same sort of corruption.
I concur with your unpalatable facts but itwouldn't matter if Gaunt or Madonna were president or spokesman, you would still get dissention in the ranks.
What AOPA needs is a Board that addresses your suggestions numbers 1 to 6, is focused and cohesive. It is not at the moment and contrary to what is touted here, it is not all Hamiltons fault. If there is blame to be apportioned it should be applied to current and immediately past Board members who have been running the show since last AGM.
I agree, the Board is top heavy.
Murphie's motion to the AGM attempts to bring about much needed change without altering the Articles of Association, without radical clashes with ego's and tries to put a positive spin on something that is so negative it is little wonder doors are closed. Perhaps kicking them down is a bit rough, but my previous point was that appeasement does not work either.
Notes on the Murphie motion, which encourage the establishment of State run Chapters;
As AOPA belongs to the members and should be a powerful lobby group for the general good of GA, it should be given back to the members.
This forum and other interests have been canvassed and the most positive aspects put forth. Others will argue the ammendments to the Articles but this motion needs no such alterations which historically are treated with contempt by the members.
A Joint States Standing Committee be established (a management decision), represented by all States and the Northern Territory. Three representatives be elected that geographically represent their State and each chapter, as part of their membership drive to get more AOPA members, they gather as many permanent proxies which are filed on a data base and ammended as dues fall etc. these can be removed or replaced at the members behest, but kept at a minimum of 100.
These proxies, can be used as a lever to keep the Board in check. (100 can call an EGM for example). The Board would have to listen.
The States can put up policy to the Board for consideration and can enlist other States for support. If it has no support, it is scrapped.
If things need radical surgery, a concensus of the States 700 proxies would guarantee change and truly represent the members wishes. A majority of the States should be listened to anyway.
No State would be disadvantaged by population if each could only use 100 of their proxies in any single issue.
Murphie is canvassing proxies as I write this and needs them to guarantee support for his motion that is having a luke warm reception by certain members (a minority), of the Board who see it as an erosion of their power base.
His Email address is [email protected]
THE MOTION AS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD:
"That AOPA adopt a National Management structure that allows for State based Chapters which are responsible to the National Board in all policy matters but are able to manage local issues with a high degree of independence"
Murphie is prepared to give 12 months of his time to establish this concept and is a nominee for the next elections.
I believe that there is nothing to lose by trying this and it simply needs support. It certainly does not need "whiteanting" and, for those of you with differences of personality agendas, it does away with demagogues and keeps talent where it should be. Not sent to Coventry by a clique.
Axiom has also canvassed some of CASA and they see only good coming out of it.
Also no need for door kicking or appeasement, OR CORRUPTION Creampuff.
Creampuff;
Good positive post, except I can't abide the CASA/AUF corruption bit, it's simply not on, (this sort of thing), and epitomises what is wrong with aviation in Australia. I was a victim of this same sort of corruption.
I concur with your unpalatable facts but itwouldn't matter if Gaunt or Madonna were president or spokesman, you would still get dissention in the ranks.
What AOPA needs is a Board that addresses your suggestions numbers 1 to 6, is focused and cohesive. It is not at the moment and contrary to what is touted here, it is not all Hamiltons fault. If there is blame to be apportioned it should be applied to current and immediately past Board members who have been running the show since last AGM.
I agree, the Board is top heavy.
Murphie's motion to the AGM attempts to bring about much needed change without altering the Articles of Association, without radical clashes with ego's and tries to put a positive spin on something that is so negative it is little wonder doors are closed. Perhaps kicking them down is a bit rough, but my previous point was that appeasement does not work either.
Notes on the Murphie motion, which encourage the establishment of State run Chapters;
As AOPA belongs to the members and should be a powerful lobby group for the general good of GA, it should be given back to the members.
This forum and other interests have been canvassed and the most positive aspects put forth. Others will argue the ammendments to the Articles but this motion needs no such alterations which historically are treated with contempt by the members.
A Joint States Standing Committee be established (a management decision), represented by all States and the Northern Territory. Three representatives be elected that geographically represent their State and each chapter, as part of their membership drive to get more AOPA members, they gather as many permanent proxies which are filed on a data base and ammended as dues fall etc. these can be removed or replaced at the members behest, but kept at a minimum of 100.
These proxies, can be used as a lever to keep the Board in check. (100 can call an EGM for example). The Board would have to listen.
The States can put up policy to the Board for consideration and can enlist other States for support. If it has no support, it is scrapped.
If things need radical surgery, a concensus of the States 700 proxies would guarantee change and truly represent the members wishes. A majority of the States should be listened to anyway.
No State would be disadvantaged by population if each could only use 100 of their proxies in any single issue.
Murphie is canvassing proxies as I write this and needs them to guarantee support for his motion that is having a luke warm reception by certain members (a minority), of the Board who see it as an erosion of their power base.
His Email address is [email protected]
THE MOTION AS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD:
"That AOPA adopt a National Management structure that allows for State based Chapters which are responsible to the National Board in all policy matters but are able to manage local issues with a high degree of independence"
Murphie is prepared to give 12 months of his time to establish this concept and is a nominee for the next elections.
I believe that there is nothing to lose by trying this and it simply needs support. It certainly does not need "whiteanting" and, for those of you with differences of personality agendas, it does away with demagogues and keeps talent where it should be. Not sent to Coventry by a clique.
Axiom has also canvassed some of CASA and they see only good coming out of it.
Also no need for door kicking or appeasement, OR CORRUPTION Creampuff.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bl@@dy hell
I find myself agreeing with Creampuff.
Well a bit anyways.
Now that I've recovered from a state of shock, Puff is right about yelling, screaming and carrying on (axiom???).
I also think he is right about Gaunt. Except I think people need to do a stint as VP before Pres. Gaunty has joined a team, it has not been discussed amongst the team but I believe we are all in agreement who we need as president to get AOPA back on the tracks. Pagani.
I think Puff is peeved at Pagani cos she does so well and actually follows the negotiating pricipals he has laid out. I am impressed anyway. I agree the Board has to shrink, but it must be done in a way that promotes affirmative change and doesn't let the 'old school' regain power.
Axiom, I am neither talking or not talking to you. You have some valid points, but extracting them from the noise is too hard. So I give up.
Oh, and I believe you to be 'Scud' Murphie. Right or wrong????
AK
Well a bit anyways.
Now that I've recovered from a state of shock, Puff is right about yelling, screaming and carrying on (axiom???).
I also think he is right about Gaunt. Except I think people need to do a stint as VP before Pres. Gaunty has joined a team, it has not been discussed amongst the team but I believe we are all in agreement who we need as president to get AOPA back on the tracks. Pagani.
I think Puff is peeved at Pagani cos she does so well and actually follows the negotiating pricipals he has laid out. I am impressed anyway. I agree the Board has to shrink, but it must be done in a way that promotes affirmative change and doesn't let the 'old school' regain power.
Axiom, I am neither talking or not talking to you. You have some valid points, but extracting them from the noise is too hard. So I give up.
Oh, and I believe you to be 'Scud' Murphie. Right or wrong????
AK
