AOPA "The Election" (merged)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all, sorry I’ve not posted in a while, had to clean off some mud.
ELECTIONS
Firstly, what are the problems with the previous elections? Don’t the AOPA rule outline the requirements for a proper election? If there was a problem with the last elections, why has nothing been said before now? Snarek, your post in regards to John Lyon looks like you have a target. “Lyons remains on the Board and is not required, in this election, to nominate”. Snarek, why are you attacking him? John, (if you read this post) have you not. Who else does not have to nominate for re-election? Why have you done (or not) so? Snarek, in a pervious post, you state that you resigned due to not being able to work with Bill Hamilton or John Lyon. This sounds like person egos are coming into play. (Opps, this is a leadership issue).
NOTE THE QUESTION MARKS, they are questions!!!!
HEARSAY
I have been accused (?) of using “Second hand hearsay” as “a basis for important decisions.” This would be correct, except for the fact that I followed my comment with “People please note, I am looking for information!” My intent was not to make a decision, but to stimulate conversation.
TEAM
Axiom was correct in my assessment of “Team APOA” I do not see some of the people involved as being team players. I have stated in previous posts that I have had experience in teamwork both in the practical and in the classroom. (I have completed 3 teambuilding courses now). With this background I read the various articles written by various members. Even in this post there are I find interesting things. Gaunty stats that AOPA needs someone like Bill Hamilton, yet snarek can’t work with Bill. Has not “team AOPA” gotten together and determined their “game plan” before each member post their own ideas. As a team, the individual ideas are joined to form one. This is but one example.
Maxima, you strongly questioned my apparent lack of team skills. You suggested that, “To be in command, which you talk about, requires taking command, and exhibiting some leadership”. Please note the definition of leadership is “Leadership is the art of consistently influencing and directing people in tasks is in such ways as to obtain their willing obedience, confidence, respect and co-operation in a manner desired by the leader.” Where do I TAKE COMMAND.
WORKING WITH CASA
It takes some work but there is some great POSITIVE stuff in here. People are capable of disagreeing without knives. People are putting some good suggestions as to the problems faced by private pilots. Some (if not all) might wonder why a CPL is concerned with the private pilot. It’s quite simple. No private pilot, no flying schools/FBO, no maintenance organisations, no bank runners, etc, etc, etc. I believe that without private flying the whole industry will go.
Do we appease CASA or “fight then on the beaches”? I feel that that should depend on the situation. I agree with the people who say that some in CASA are good and some are bad. From what I’ve seen (and comparing with what I saw when I was a Public servant) the good have their hands tied by procedures and rules. The guys and girls can give a straight answer because they can work it out themselves. Others in CASA simply don’t know which hat to where today, promoter, regulator, enforces or prosecutor.
Is the board too big? Considering that pilots in the main like to “take command” (as the PIC is trained to do), I agree. Yet with good teamwork a group of twenty or more can work very well. (Personal experience in this one, boy did we “kill” that exercise).
How are we going to get CASA to change? Any change will be seen be CASA as more work and less control. People will not freely move into this position unless they see a gain to themselves. There is nothing making them do so. Their superiors are the government, who care about the public. Why does (should) the public care about the private pilot?
ELECTIONS
Firstly, what are the problems with the previous elections? Don’t the AOPA rule outline the requirements for a proper election? If there was a problem with the last elections, why has nothing been said before now? Snarek, your post in regards to John Lyon looks like you have a target. “Lyons remains on the Board and is not required, in this election, to nominate”. Snarek, why are you attacking him? John, (if you read this post) have you not. Who else does not have to nominate for re-election? Why have you done (or not) so? Snarek, in a pervious post, you state that you resigned due to not being able to work with Bill Hamilton or John Lyon. This sounds like person egos are coming into play. (Opps, this is a leadership issue).
NOTE THE QUESTION MARKS, they are questions!!!!
HEARSAY
I have been accused (?) of using “Second hand hearsay” as “a basis for important decisions.” This would be correct, except for the fact that I followed my comment with “People please note, I am looking for information!” My intent was not to make a decision, but to stimulate conversation.
TEAM
Axiom was correct in my assessment of “Team APOA” I do not see some of the people involved as being team players. I have stated in previous posts that I have had experience in teamwork both in the practical and in the classroom. (I have completed 3 teambuilding courses now). With this background I read the various articles written by various members. Even in this post there are I find interesting things. Gaunty stats that AOPA needs someone like Bill Hamilton, yet snarek can’t work with Bill. Has not “team AOPA” gotten together and determined their “game plan” before each member post their own ideas. As a team, the individual ideas are joined to form one. This is but one example.
Maxima, you strongly questioned my apparent lack of team skills. You suggested that, “To be in command, which you talk about, requires taking command, and exhibiting some leadership”. Please note the definition of leadership is “Leadership is the art of consistently influencing and directing people in tasks is in such ways as to obtain their willing obedience, confidence, respect and co-operation in a manner desired by the leader.” Where do I TAKE COMMAND.
WORKING WITH CASA
It takes some work but there is some great POSITIVE stuff in here. People are capable of disagreeing without knives. People are putting some good suggestions as to the problems faced by private pilots. Some (if not all) might wonder why a CPL is concerned with the private pilot. It’s quite simple. No private pilot, no flying schools/FBO, no maintenance organisations, no bank runners, etc, etc, etc. I believe that without private flying the whole industry will go.
Do we appease CASA or “fight then on the beaches”? I feel that that should depend on the situation. I agree with the people who say that some in CASA are good and some are bad. From what I’ve seen (and comparing with what I saw when I was a Public servant) the good have their hands tied by procedures and rules. The guys and girls can give a straight answer because they can work it out themselves. Others in CASA simply don’t know which hat to where today, promoter, regulator, enforces or prosecutor.
Is the board too big? Considering that pilots in the main like to “take command” (as the PIC is trained to do), I agree. Yet with good teamwork a group of twenty or more can work very well. (Personal experience in this one, boy did we “kill” that exercise).
How are we going to get CASA to change? Any change will be seen be CASA as more work and less control. People will not freely move into this position unless they see a gain to themselves. There is nothing making them do so. Their superiors are the government, who care about the public. Why does (should) the public care about the private pilot?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MURPHIE CONCEPT LOOKS GOOD TO ME
The Murphie concept of State based Chapters overcomes the current situation where the Board have to do it all and cannot easily control volunteer assistance.
It enables an AOPA presence in each State at no cost of travel, provides a focal point for member meetings, communication, contribution, political lobbying, and so on - particularly recruitment which is AOPAs life blood.
Leaving the Board with policy management enables them to control AOPA and aviation key portfolios without the clutter of the still essential day by day matters. Likewise enables the delegation to individual State Chapters of specific key projects / analyses. EG My suggestion of a recruiting presence at the CASA Safety Seminars (canned last year, agreed this year although the Pres did give me the flick - as recruiting is not a major issue is it -and suggested I organise it myself - thanks to CASA for offering the space and furniture FOC proving there are good guys (in this case gals) there). Each State Chapter could ensure a presence at Seminars, ASirshows, etc particularly for recruiting - once we overcome the current stigma attached to AOPA in retreat at present that makes it very hard to convince anyone to join
I have worked from the 1 man to the 100,000 man level and a properly managed National organisation with State branches overcomes the tyranny of distance in Australia. And, while we in outer Melbourne cannot get to the Bankstown BBQs, we can get to Moorabbin!
So why are not people supporting this Murphie concept? Let's hear the down side!
BJ
It enables an AOPA presence in each State at no cost of travel, provides a focal point for member meetings, communication, contribution, political lobbying, and so on - particularly recruitment which is AOPAs life blood.
Leaving the Board with policy management enables them to control AOPA and aviation key portfolios without the clutter of the still essential day by day matters. Likewise enables the delegation to individual State Chapters of specific key projects / analyses. EG My suggestion of a recruiting presence at the CASA Safety Seminars (canned last year, agreed this year although the Pres did give me the flick - as recruiting is not a major issue is it -and suggested I organise it myself - thanks to CASA for offering the space and furniture FOC proving there are good guys (in this case gals) there). Each State Chapter could ensure a presence at Seminars, ASirshows, etc particularly for recruiting - once we overcome the current stigma attached to AOPA in retreat at present that makes it very hard to convince anyone to join
I have worked from the 1 man to the 100,000 man level and a properly managed National organisation with State branches overcomes the tyranny of distance in Australia. And, while we in outer Melbourne cannot get to the Bankstown BBQs, we can get to Moorabbin!
So why are not people supporting this Murphie concept? Let's hear the down side!
BJ
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkeyfly;
Don't let this mob get to you. Most will attack if you don't agree with their own agendas. But more important, respond in the spirit of the forum.
That is, it is anon. You can say your bit without fear of reprisal from our regulator (isn't that so woomera?)
Some of us have burnt our bridges with CASA and choose to remain anon.
As far as your future goes, CASA are proposing, (read that as it is now law), there are only private, airwork and RPT operations. Great for the passenger, they now get to have increased safety in their C172 charter (sorry airwork) ops that probably require a 2 pilot, IFR with cabin attendant and a CASA approved schedule of maintenance.
CAR schedule 5 is apparantly no bloody good any more.
GA in Australia cannot be without a powerful opposition and lobby group to some of the madness that comes out of Canberra.
This lobby group has to be AOPA.
There are moves afoot to destroy AOPA because someone doesn't like someone else. There is a possibility that AOPA is being used as an experiment by some politically minded demagogues.
Back to your post and your advices of prior, remember;
"A critic is a man who knows the way but can't drive the car"
The Murphie team thank you brian for your provisional support. I likewise haven't heard any negative responses to the project and this postee is still yet to hear a relevant piece of opposition.
I have heard;
1) It would beuracratise the AOPA.
2) it would reduce the power base.
3) I don't like it because you stick up for Hamilton.
None relevant.
Murphie's proposal is simply using what talent the organisation has and-by passing the personal clique syndrome we have now.
He has pledged 12 months of his life toward the project and I believe if it fails it will be because it was "whiteanted".
There is still the possibility that the powers to be will not let it see the light of day and, for this reason it needs as much support as possible. 100 proxies is being touted as the minimum.
This proposal is possibly the last opportunity we members have of reclaiming the organisation and if done properly would be a powerful tool to keep the show on track.
I ask friend and foe alike to give it consideration.
Don't let this mob get to you. Most will attack if you don't agree with their own agendas. But more important, respond in the spirit of the forum.
That is, it is anon. You can say your bit without fear of reprisal from our regulator (isn't that so woomera?)
Some of us have burnt our bridges with CASA and choose to remain anon.
As far as your future goes, CASA are proposing, (read that as it is now law), there are only private, airwork and RPT operations. Great for the passenger, they now get to have increased safety in their C172 charter (sorry airwork) ops that probably require a 2 pilot, IFR with cabin attendant and a CASA approved schedule of maintenance.
CAR schedule 5 is apparantly no bloody good any more.
GA in Australia cannot be without a powerful opposition and lobby group to some of the madness that comes out of Canberra.
This lobby group has to be AOPA.
There are moves afoot to destroy AOPA because someone doesn't like someone else. There is a possibility that AOPA is being used as an experiment by some politically minded demagogues.
Back to your post and your advices of prior, remember;
"A critic is a man who knows the way but can't drive the car"
The Murphie team thank you brian for your provisional support. I likewise haven't heard any negative responses to the project and this postee is still yet to hear a relevant piece of opposition.
I have heard;
1) It would beuracratise the AOPA.
2) it would reduce the power base.
3) I don't like it because you stick up for Hamilton.
None relevant.
Murphie's proposal is simply using what talent the organisation has and-by passing the personal clique syndrome we have now.
He has pledged 12 months of his life toward the project and I believe if it fails it will be because it was "whiteanted".
There is still the possibility that the powers to be will not let it see the light of day and, for this reason it needs as much support as possible. 100 proxies is being touted as the minimum.
This proposal is possibly the last opportunity we members have of reclaiming the organisation and if done properly would be a powerful tool to keep the show on track.
I ask friend and foe alike to give it consideration.
Brian H – If I misrepresented what you said, I apologise. When you said:
I thought you meant that the Ombudsman was a vehicle through which CASA had run or is running a vendatta. Do I take that you mean CASA has run or is running a vendatta against the Ombudsman? If so, I’m not sure that that’s the kind allegation the advocacy of which will help AOPA’s cause either. CASA’s as accountable to the Ombudsman as any other Commonwealth agency.
Monkey fly - In response to Mr Gaunt’s suggestion that CASA should not be styled an “enemy”, you said:
You then asked for his comments. Mr Gaunt can speak for himself, but I reiterate what I said to you earlier: Making important strategic decisions on the basis of what someone tells you they heard someone else say, is fraught with danger. If Mr Gaunt is silly enough to do that (which I very much doubt he is), I will cease to support him.
Ax – AOPA can’t have a foot on the ship and a foot on the shore. It can’t scream “corruption” when CASA does something dodgy that AOPA doesn’t like, but cheer when CASA does something dodgy that AOPA does like. The AUF flying training AOC issue is the perfect example of that kind of duplicity. AOPA, at least at Board level, cheered when CASA decided that it simply isn’t going to enforce the law on the AUF. What a great day for GA! Not! What a great day for AOPA’s credibility! Not! And then AOPA has the audacity to claim it represents GA and commercial pilots!
Boxing with CASA is boxing with shadows. That’s why nobody in AOPA woke up to the TSI bill until the 11th hour, and only after prompting. And I’ll bet my bottom dollar nobody in AOPA (with perhaps the exception of McKeown) has read the latest aviation bill that is in the Parliament NOW.
A professional representative body would have had its one page summary of its submissions on the bill ready to go within a week.
Snarek – Errey, yes; Pagani maybe.
The CASA vendettas, one at Ombudsman level, …
Monkey fly - In response to Mr Gaunt’s suggestion that CASA should not be styled an “enemy”, you said:
I have hear[sic] a quote from a trusted source who overheard two senor[sic] CASA people. "There should be only two forms of aviation, Airlines and miltary"[sic].
Ax – AOPA can’t have a foot on the ship and a foot on the shore. It can’t scream “corruption” when CASA does something dodgy that AOPA doesn’t like, but cheer when CASA does something dodgy that AOPA does like. The AUF flying training AOC issue is the perfect example of that kind of duplicity. AOPA, at least at Board level, cheered when CASA decided that it simply isn’t going to enforce the law on the AUF. What a great day for GA! Not! What a great day for AOPA’s credibility! Not! And then AOPA has the audacity to claim it represents GA and commercial pilots!
Boxing with CASA is boxing with shadows. That’s why nobody in AOPA woke up to the TSI bill until the 11th hour, and only after prompting. And I’ll bet my bottom dollar nobody in AOPA (with perhaps the exception of McKeown) has read the latest aviation bill that is in the Parliament NOW.
A professional representative body would have had its one page summary of its submissions on the bill ready to go within a week.
Snarek – Errey, yes; Pagani maybe.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McKeown
Creampuff
I for one want McKeown back on the Board. He just didn't join the ticket, that's all.
I know both he and Marjorie well. McKeown is very capable but not, in my view, as good an overall negotiator and leader as Marjorie. He will make a great Senior VP.
Some members of the current Board have attempted to reduce the number of the next Board to 10. This in my opinion is contrary to the Articles and, again in my view, is an attempt by this Board to try to ensure they can influence the next.
I had sought advice from ASIC, but I am advised that Elections Australia has been advised of 11 vacancies. So I will let it rest at the moment.
In my opinion this attempted move smacks of the sort of manipulation that has got AOPA in so much trouble and is to be condemned along with anyone who supports or defends it.
I agree that the Board is too big. But the size, and who comes and goes, should be left to the Board it affects. Certainly any member never properly elected should be the first to go. That is, in my view, Mr Lyon.
Members who have lived through past manipulations of the Board will possibly share my concerns, so watch this space, if any member does try to pull this stunt ASIC will take action if requested.
Axiom, on the Murphie thing. I don't believe you.
AK
I for one want McKeown back on the Board. He just didn't join the ticket, that's all.
I know both he and Marjorie well. McKeown is very capable but not, in my view, as good an overall negotiator and leader as Marjorie. He will make a great Senior VP.
Some members of the current Board have attempted to reduce the number of the next Board to 10. This in my opinion is contrary to the Articles and, again in my view, is an attempt by this Board to try to ensure they can influence the next.
I had sought advice from ASIC, but I am advised that Elections Australia has been advised of 11 vacancies. So I will let it rest at the moment.
In my opinion this attempted move smacks of the sort of manipulation that has got AOPA in so much trouble and is to be condemned along with anyone who supports or defends it.
I agree that the Board is too big. But the size, and who comes and goes, should be left to the Board it affects. Certainly any member never properly elected should be the first to go. That is, in my view, Mr Lyon.
Members who have lived through past manipulations of the Board will possibly share my concerns, so watch this space, if any member does try to pull this stunt ASIC will take action if requested.
Axiom, on the Murphie thing. I don't believe you.
AK
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised Snarek about your devotion to Chris McKeown. He had my support until I discovered the duplicity. Chris desperately wants to be President and decided that the only way this can be achieved was to be a disciple of Bill Hamilton. It was only a few months ago that Chris was campaigning for Hamilton's removal, how the worm turns!
No, having McKeown, Hamilton and Rudd back would be a disaster for AOPA. Marjorie would be an excellent President but I can't imagine that she would ever take the job on as long as Hamilton and/or McKeown held any executive positions.
In my opinion if Hamilton comes back there will be a continual stream of resignations as the hapless directors realise that he is impossible to work with.
It's time for a regime change, a fresh approach to dealing with CASA.
Russell
No, having McKeown, Hamilton and Rudd back would be a disaster for AOPA. Marjorie would be an excellent President but I can't imagine that she would ever take the job on as long as Hamilton and/or McKeown held any executive positions.
In my opinion if Hamilton comes back there will be a continual stream of resignations as the hapless directors realise that he is impossible to work with.
It's time for a regime change, a fresh approach to dealing with CASA.
Russell
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree to disagree
Russell
We are going to have to agree to disagree over McKeown.
I find he might be a little Machiavellian at times, but he also works hard for AOPA. I find too that he, at least in my perspective, can be abrasive and threatened by talent. But then, if we are comparing diestrutive egos he aint anywhere near the problems others are.
He isn't on our ticket, so I'm not voting for him. But I genuinely hope he gest back in just as I am genuinely sad you didn't nominate.
Besides, he will either work productively with Marjorie or I shall punish him with the mother of all hangovers
AK
We are going to have to agree to disagree over McKeown.
I find he might be a little Machiavellian at times, but he also works hard for AOPA. I find too that he, at least in my perspective, can be abrasive and threatened by talent. But then, if we are comparing diestrutive egos he aint anywhere near the problems others are.
He isn't on our ticket, so I'm not voting for him. But I genuinely hope he gest back in just as I am genuinely sad you didn't nominate.
Besides, he will either work productively with Marjorie or I shall punish him with the mother of all hangovers
AK
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek
Chris McKeown has called to tell me that he is NOT a disciple of Hamilton, which is apparently at odds as to how Hamilton sees the relationship. Will they still love each other in the morning?
And Snarek, are you going public with your ticket?
Russell
Chris McKeown has called to tell me that he is NOT a disciple of Hamilton, which is apparently at odds as to how Hamilton sees the relationship. Will they still love each other in the morning?
And Snarek, are you going public with your ticket?
Russell
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ticket
Hamilton sees a lot of things that when I look, I can't see. He remembers a lot of things really differently to me as well.
You and McKeown should kiss and make up, I think you have both supported Hamilton when you shouldn't have. Everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, remember 'the pantomime' at Narromine
But, the ticket, here it is from a previous post.
Andrew
Marjorie Pagani (Townsville)
Trish Mahlberg (area rep Mackay)
Adrienne Williams (area rep Adelaide)
Ron Lawford (Darwin)
Gary Gaunt (Gaunty ... Perth)
David McDonald (area rep Brisbane)
Ron Bertram (Bankstown)
Mick Kennedy (St George)
Bill Pike (the Hunter)
Jane Errey (Murrumbateman, soon to be Cairns),
oh yeah, and me if you feel inclined
Andrew Kerans
You and McKeown should kiss and make up, I think you have both supported Hamilton when you shouldn't have. Everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, remember 'the pantomime' at Narromine
But, the ticket, here it is from a previous post.
Andrew
Marjorie Pagani (Townsville)
Trish Mahlberg (area rep Mackay)
Adrienne Williams (area rep Adelaide)
Ron Lawford (Darwin)
Gary Gaunt (Gaunty ... Perth)
David McDonald (area rep Brisbane)
Ron Bertram (Bankstown)
Mick Kennedy (St George)
Bill Pike (the Hunter)
Jane Errey (Murrumbateman, soon to be Cairns),
oh yeah, and me if you feel inclined
Andrew Kerans
Well, folks, I am quite amazed at some of the claims and counterclaims of “insider” knowledge of intimate thoughts and opinions of various “personalities” involved in the annual fracas of the AOPA elections.
I can only conclude that the services of a clairvoyant are in very great demand. Given that the “significant other” of a very immediate past President apparently possesses such powers, could this be the source of all the alleged claims for such intimate knowledge. Even if you are a member of Australian Sceptics.
Or perhaps the rational explanation is two disgruntled former directors of AOPA suffering a severe attack of imaginitus.
Tootle pip!!
I can only conclude that the services of a clairvoyant are in very great demand. Given that the “significant other” of a very immediate past President apparently possesses such powers, could this be the source of all the alleged claims for such intimate knowledge. Even if you are a member of Australian Sceptics.
Or perhaps the rational explanation is two disgruntled former directors of AOPA suffering a severe attack of imaginitus.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
memories
I remember Bill Hamilton's version of events at Merimbula.
I recall his version of the same events at Narromine.
My recollection of his narrative at those two places failed to coincide.
I remember a Board dominated by 'appointees'. I remember Bill was on that Board.
I remember a Board spending $500,000 (or thereabouts) on a futile attack on AOPA US. Apparently the minutes are lost. Bill was on that Board.
I remember a Board member raising an issue in the Senate without anyones knowledge or approval. I recall Bill defending that.
I remember an attack on CASA that spent the other half of AOPA's funds. It went nowhere and achieved nothing, but at what cost. Apparently the minutes are lost. Bill was on that Board.
I remember getting a letter from CASA telling me my mechanic was to be the owner of my aircraft. Now it is only a boring old PA28-140, but i didn't want to give it away. Bill told me it was all OK. Thankfully someone somewhere made that threat go away. It wasn't AOPA. Bill was on that Board.
I recall his version of the same events at Narromine.
My recollection of his narrative at those two places failed to coincide.
I remember a Board dominated by 'appointees'. I remember Bill was on that Board.
I remember a Board spending $500,000 (or thereabouts) on a futile attack on AOPA US. Apparently the minutes are lost. Bill was on that Board.
I remember a Board member raising an issue in the Senate without anyones knowledge or approval. I recall Bill defending that.
I remember an attack on CASA that spent the other half of AOPA's funds. It went nowhere and achieved nothing, but at what cost. Apparently the minutes are lost. Bill was on that Board.
I remember getting a letter from CASA telling me my mechanic was to be the owner of my aircraft. Now it is only a boring old PA28-140, but i didn't want to give it away. Bill told me it was all OK. Thankfully someone somewhere made that threat go away. It wasn't AOPA. Bill was on that Board.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA "The Election"
This thread has been moved to admin for review of a couple of posts.
It will be returned after.
In the mean time have at it on this one, but just remember the Rules of PPRuNe.
It will be returned after.
In the mean time have at it on this one, but just remember the Rules of PPRuNe.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia, NSW
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Woomera,
Thanks for the positive comments the other day in regards to “Australian General Aviation Forum”.
A group of us AOPA members miss the old AOPA forum so we started a tempory fix until AOPA resolve the forum issues.
It is a good way to get to know other pilots who just love flying with out the politics & maybe meet them one day.
Thanks
Andrew
http://www.aimoo.com/agaf
Thanks for the positive comments the other day in regards to “Australian General Aviation Forum”.
A group of us AOPA members miss the old AOPA forum so we started a tempory fix until AOPA resolve the forum issues.
It is a good way to get to know other pilots who just love flying with out the politics & maybe meet them one day.
Thanks
Andrew
http://www.aimoo.com/agaf
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera;
While you are reviewing the prior posts, especially with regard snarek's obvious and trying attemt to "out" axiom, I would advise the following;
1) Axiom has burnt a lot of bridges with CASA and is their nemises.
2) Murphie has had a few bad times with the CASA and political heirachy.
3) Murphie is trying to mend bridges with CASA and by standing for the election and with a positive proposal that has the corollary to bring about a mediation of sorts.
4) Axiom will never break his cover.
5) Murphie and Axiom have a symboitic relationship and a common goal.
6) If snarek choses to break with tradition and opt to "out" axiom, the "outor", will demand he and his "alter ego", or dual posts be sin binned until after the election.
7) Have I made myself clear Woomera?
cranky axiom.
While you are reviewing the prior posts, especially with regard snarek's obvious and trying attemt to "out" axiom, I would advise the following;
1) Axiom has burnt a lot of bridges with CASA and is their nemises.
2) Murphie has had a few bad times with the CASA and political heirachy.
3) Murphie is trying to mend bridges with CASA and by standing for the election and with a positive proposal that has the corollary to bring about a mediation of sorts.
4) Axiom will never break his cover.
5) Murphie and Axiom have a symboitic relationship and a common goal.
6) If snarek choses to break with tradition and opt to "out" axiom, the "outor", will demand he and his "alter ego", or dual posts be sin binned until after the election.
7) Have I made myself clear Woomera?
cranky axiom.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
axiom
Points 1 thru 5. Quite so, it is your right and you should be commended for commitment to your cause. It is for others, not me, to judge your past and the efficacy of your case presented here.
Point 6, is a game that is played daily here and I don't imagine for one moment that those who are regular contributors here don't know pretty much who is whom (or should it be whom is who, grammar police please.) ?.
I will deal with that issue if and when it arises.
Point 7, having been well schooled by Danny the Despot, the Big Kahuna CP around here, before being checked to the line, I do not respond well to demands as to my behaviour
Points 1 thru 5. Quite so, it is your right and you should be commended for commitment to your cause. It is for others, not me, to judge your past and the efficacy of your case presented here.
Point 6, is a game that is played daily here and I don't imagine for one moment that those who are regular contributors here don't know pretty much who is whom (or should it be whom is who, grammar police please.) ?.
I will deal with that issue if and when it arises.
Point 7, having been well schooled by Danny the Despot, the Big Kahuna CP around here, before being checked to the line, I do not respond well to demands as to my behaviour
Just in case my references to that cozy lunch are a cause of the move to administration, I quote the following from pages 296-299 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5365.pdf
…
Senator O'BRIEN --At the last hearings I asked you about the regulatory arrangements as they relate to pilot training for ultralight aircraft. You told me there were no differences in the types of pilot training provided on a commercial basis. On page 263 of the Hansard of 30 May, you said CASA was attempting to find a means by which people could “undertake commercial flying training as opposed to flying training for their members on a not-for-profit basis”. Mr Yates referred to a meeting with the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation on 10 April, and he said that at that meeting CASA officers put to the group a plan to facilitate the issuing of an AOC for sport aviation activity. He referred to a paper which was tabled at that meeting. I do not know if it was actually tabled before the committee. I think Mr Yates offered to table it, but I do not think we actually received it. Can the committee be supplied with a copy of that paper, please?
Mr Toller --Yes, we will try and trace it.
Senator O'BRIEN --Thank you. I understand you wrote to Paul Middleton, the executive director of the AUF, on 11 February this year and said:
“Thank you for hosting me for lunch today. It was good to get together and clarify some important issues. We must do it more often.
“As discussed I believe there is a sensible resolution to the issue of the proposed requirement for AOCs for all commercial flight training organisations including ultralights. Although the NPRM is open for comment until 28 February, it is now clear in my mind that a better path is to amend CAR206. I intend to propose to do this in the near future prescribing that sports aviation and ultralights do not require an AOC for flying training.
“Hence I believe your best response to the NPRM would be to write that you would support an amendment to CAR206 as discussed with the Director on 11 February 2002.
“I look forward with interest to see how the other issues we discussed progress.
Was it such a good lunch that you decided to take a U-turn on the previous position you put before this committee on the provision of commercial pilot training?
Mr Toller --No, I certainly would not claim that the lunch had anything to do with any U-turn, Senator. This has always been a difficult issue to resolve. The previous policy approach was that we did not--while we were trying to undertake the complete review of all the new regulations--want to undertake an amendment to CAR206.
CAR206 is the regulation which prescribes those activities which require an AOC. It has long been one of the more difficult regulations for us in many ways. The reason that we were looking for a means to provide certification for commercial flying training for sports aviation was because specifically it was prescribed within CAR206. It was clear to me that there would have been immense resistance from the sports aviation movement, and particularly I think from the ultralight movement, to the proposal that was put forward. Therefore it was worth considering whether there were other ways to achieve the same end and, let us be quite frank about this, the same safety end, because that is what we are talking about at the end of the day.
I therefore, after some discussions with the board, the secretary and the minister, proposed that we review the whole issue of which aerial work activities actually require an AOC. We brought in a consultant who had international knowledge in this subject and had worked with us previously. As a result of his report we are currently internally, within the authority, undertaking a review of all those aerial work activities. Equally, as a result of his report, he made it clear that he believed that the government policy--going back to 1985 or 1986--was that sports aviation should be allowed to be self-administering and that it should be allowed therefore to continue to do this and should not have an extra imposition put upon it. I was prepared to accept that view. In accepting that view it leads you down virtually the only other logical avenue, which is that you amend CAR206.
Senator O'BRIEN --Notwithstanding the view that you put on 30 May, does the acceptance of this other view amount to a direction, effectively?
Mr Toller --It retains the status quo that has existed since 1985 or 1986 without imposing the requirement for an air operator's certificate on sports aviation and all that would have entailed for those bodies. I do not believe it has any effect on anything other than the administrative burden.
Senator O'BRIEN --Is it usually your practice to form a view about a proposal to change a regulation or rule before the comment period for an NPRM has closed?
Mr Toller --No, most definitely not, Senator. You will recall that in this particular case, though, we have extended the comment period. I think it is safe to say that, even though some comments may still be coming in over the next nine days, or however long it is, the overwhelming view of all the comments--and a large number of comments have come in so far--was that the proposal as put in the NPRM was not acceptable to industry.
Senator O'BRIEN --To industry or to parts of industry?
Mr Toller --To those affected, I think, is probably the best way to put it.
Senator O'BRIEN --The providers in the sports and ultralight aviation field?
Mr Toller --Yes.
Senator O'BRIEN --That is the industry you are talking about?
Mr Toller --The majority of the responses would come from those people.
Senator O'BRIEN --Who else have you communicated this view to? You communicated it to Mr Middleton before the end of the NPRM comment period. Who else did you communicate it to?
Mr Toller --I have communicated it to two people, and there was one reason for both of them. The reason is to try and prevent them from having to write a 50-page response to the NPRM and achieve the same end, if you like. In other words, I knew that they were quite capable and probably had drafted very lengthy responses but I just believed that they should know the way that we were thinking. I have also explained this position to Mr Henk Meertens, the President of the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation, who is the other person who is affected. It was with Mr Meertens and the members of his committee that we in fact formulated the original plan for a lower form of certification, which was called an AOC for sports aviation.
I think it is probably fair to say that the politics of sports aviation is quite complex. For reasons that I do not think I even yet understand, the Ultralight Federation split from the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation in about September of last year, and in so doing created sort of a split of opinion within the sports aviation body from that which had existed when we first put together our proposal, so it was really a very different environment in which we were working and I think that what we have achieved is a sensible result for all those who are involved.
Senator O'BRIEN --So you have asked one industry participant to write and support a view that you have taken? That is what you have done, isn't it?
Mr Toller --I have done it to both of those two, whose organisations represent all the people who were responding to us as individuals.
Senator O'BRIEN --Do you commonly lobby for submissions to be made in response to a notice of proposed rule making to support a view you have about the rule making?
Mr Toller --Not at all. I just believe that, when it is clear from work that has been done since the NPRM was put out, and the weight of the responses to the NPRM suggest that it has no support at all from the respondents, if it is clear that we will be taking another line and that is agreed by the board, why would I not communicate that in advance?
Senator O'BRIEN --This is a board decision?
Mr Toller --It is a decision that has been made by me and ratified by the board. In other words, it is made by me as the chief executive with the advice of my team, and ratified by the board.
Senator O'BRIEN --Before the end of the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller --Sorry, Senator?
Senator O'BRIEN --Before the end of the consultation on the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller --The board has reviewed the whole situation by asking and agreeing to a review of the requirement for aerial work AOCs. The change that has been made effectively is an agreement that, rather than not amend CAR206, which was the previous board position, the board now accepts that there are occasions--and this is one--when amending the current regulations is probably the best way to go.
Senator O'BRIEN --So it has been determined by CASA that you will propose to the minister an amendment to CAR206 which will exempt all sports aviation training, whether it be commercial training or training for members of an AUF from a requirement to hold an AOC.
Mr Toller --That is one of the proposals of the amendments. We would also review the whole of the current requirements for certification for aerial work, and it is in that context that we are including commercial sports aviation. Non-commercial sports aviation has never required an AOC for flying training.
Senator O'BRIEN --I understand that.
Mr Toller --And one of the difficulties we have, Senator, and I think you will understand this particularly, is that the Civil Aviation Act was amended to remove the word `commercial'; however, CAR206 has never been amended. We have this anomalous position whereby the Civil Aviation Act asks that the regulations prescribe the activities that require an AOC, but it has deliberately removed any hint of commercialism because it should be risk based, and yet the word `commercial' still stays within CAR206. Another part of that amendment, I believe, should be to remove the word `commercial' to be consistent with the amendments that were made recently to the act.
Senator O'BRIEN --Have there been any consultations with the minister or the minister's office about this?
Mr Toller --The minister's office was informed of our thinking, but that is all.
Senator O'BRIEN --Before or after this lunch?
Mr Toller --Before or after I--
Senator O'BRIEN --Told Mr Middleton at lunch.
Mr Toller --Way before.
…
Senator O'BRIEN --At the last hearings I asked you about the regulatory arrangements as they relate to pilot training for ultralight aircraft. You told me there were no differences in the types of pilot training provided on a commercial basis. On page 263 of the Hansard of 30 May, you said CASA was attempting to find a means by which people could “undertake commercial flying training as opposed to flying training for their members on a not-for-profit basis”. Mr Yates referred to a meeting with the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation on 10 April, and he said that at that meeting CASA officers put to the group a plan to facilitate the issuing of an AOC for sport aviation activity. He referred to a paper which was tabled at that meeting. I do not know if it was actually tabled before the committee. I think Mr Yates offered to table it, but I do not think we actually received it. Can the committee be supplied with a copy of that paper, please?
Mr Toller --Yes, we will try and trace it.
Senator O'BRIEN --Thank you. I understand you wrote to Paul Middleton, the executive director of the AUF, on 11 February this year and said:
“Thank you for hosting me for lunch today. It was good to get together and clarify some important issues. We must do it more often.
“As discussed I believe there is a sensible resolution to the issue of the proposed requirement for AOCs for all commercial flight training organisations including ultralights. Although the NPRM is open for comment until 28 February, it is now clear in my mind that a better path is to amend CAR206. I intend to propose to do this in the near future prescribing that sports aviation and ultralights do not require an AOC for flying training.
“Hence I believe your best response to the NPRM would be to write that you would support an amendment to CAR206 as discussed with the Director on 11 February 2002.
“I look forward with interest to see how the other issues we discussed progress.
Was it such a good lunch that you decided to take a U-turn on the previous position you put before this committee on the provision of commercial pilot training?
Mr Toller --No, I certainly would not claim that the lunch had anything to do with any U-turn, Senator. This has always been a difficult issue to resolve. The previous policy approach was that we did not--while we were trying to undertake the complete review of all the new regulations--want to undertake an amendment to CAR206.
CAR206 is the regulation which prescribes those activities which require an AOC. It has long been one of the more difficult regulations for us in many ways. The reason that we were looking for a means to provide certification for commercial flying training for sports aviation was because specifically it was prescribed within CAR206. It was clear to me that there would have been immense resistance from the sports aviation movement, and particularly I think from the ultralight movement, to the proposal that was put forward. Therefore it was worth considering whether there were other ways to achieve the same end and, let us be quite frank about this, the same safety end, because that is what we are talking about at the end of the day.
I therefore, after some discussions with the board, the secretary and the minister, proposed that we review the whole issue of which aerial work activities actually require an AOC. We brought in a consultant who had international knowledge in this subject and had worked with us previously. As a result of his report we are currently internally, within the authority, undertaking a review of all those aerial work activities. Equally, as a result of his report, he made it clear that he believed that the government policy--going back to 1985 or 1986--was that sports aviation should be allowed to be self-administering and that it should be allowed therefore to continue to do this and should not have an extra imposition put upon it. I was prepared to accept that view. In accepting that view it leads you down virtually the only other logical avenue, which is that you amend CAR206.
Senator O'BRIEN --Notwithstanding the view that you put on 30 May, does the acceptance of this other view amount to a direction, effectively?
Mr Toller --It retains the status quo that has existed since 1985 or 1986 without imposing the requirement for an air operator's certificate on sports aviation and all that would have entailed for those bodies. I do not believe it has any effect on anything other than the administrative burden.
Senator O'BRIEN --Is it usually your practice to form a view about a proposal to change a regulation or rule before the comment period for an NPRM has closed?
Mr Toller --No, most definitely not, Senator. You will recall that in this particular case, though, we have extended the comment period. I think it is safe to say that, even though some comments may still be coming in over the next nine days, or however long it is, the overwhelming view of all the comments--and a large number of comments have come in so far--was that the proposal as put in the NPRM was not acceptable to industry.
Senator O'BRIEN --To industry or to parts of industry?
Mr Toller --To those affected, I think, is probably the best way to put it.
Senator O'BRIEN --The providers in the sports and ultralight aviation field?
Mr Toller --Yes.
Senator O'BRIEN --That is the industry you are talking about?
Mr Toller --The majority of the responses would come from those people.
Senator O'BRIEN --Who else have you communicated this view to? You communicated it to Mr Middleton before the end of the NPRM comment period. Who else did you communicate it to?
Mr Toller --I have communicated it to two people, and there was one reason for both of them. The reason is to try and prevent them from having to write a 50-page response to the NPRM and achieve the same end, if you like. In other words, I knew that they were quite capable and probably had drafted very lengthy responses but I just believed that they should know the way that we were thinking. I have also explained this position to Mr Henk Meertens, the President of the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation, who is the other person who is affected. It was with Mr Meertens and the members of his committee that we in fact formulated the original plan for a lower form of certification, which was called an AOC for sports aviation.
I think it is probably fair to say that the politics of sports aviation is quite complex. For reasons that I do not think I even yet understand, the Ultralight Federation split from the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation in about September of last year, and in so doing created sort of a split of opinion within the sports aviation body from that which had existed when we first put together our proposal, so it was really a very different environment in which we were working and I think that what we have achieved is a sensible result for all those who are involved.
Senator O'BRIEN --So you have asked one industry participant to write and support a view that you have taken? That is what you have done, isn't it?
Mr Toller --I have done it to both of those two, whose organisations represent all the people who were responding to us as individuals.
Senator O'BRIEN --Do you commonly lobby for submissions to be made in response to a notice of proposed rule making to support a view you have about the rule making?
Mr Toller --Not at all. I just believe that, when it is clear from work that has been done since the NPRM was put out, and the weight of the responses to the NPRM suggest that it has no support at all from the respondents, if it is clear that we will be taking another line and that is agreed by the board, why would I not communicate that in advance?
Senator O'BRIEN --This is a board decision?
Mr Toller --It is a decision that has been made by me and ratified by the board. In other words, it is made by me as the chief executive with the advice of my team, and ratified by the board.
Senator O'BRIEN --Before the end of the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller --Sorry, Senator?
Senator O'BRIEN --Before the end of the consultation on the NPRM, the board has determined the matter?
Mr Toller --The board has reviewed the whole situation by asking and agreeing to a review of the requirement for aerial work AOCs. The change that has been made effectively is an agreement that, rather than not amend CAR206, which was the previous board position, the board now accepts that there are occasions--and this is one--when amending the current regulations is probably the best way to go.
Senator O'BRIEN --So it has been determined by CASA that you will propose to the minister an amendment to CAR206 which will exempt all sports aviation training, whether it be commercial training or training for members of an AUF from a requirement to hold an AOC.
Mr Toller --That is one of the proposals of the amendments. We would also review the whole of the current requirements for certification for aerial work, and it is in that context that we are including commercial sports aviation. Non-commercial sports aviation has never required an AOC for flying training.
Senator O'BRIEN --I understand that.
Mr Toller --And one of the difficulties we have, Senator, and I think you will understand this particularly, is that the Civil Aviation Act was amended to remove the word `commercial'; however, CAR206 has never been amended. We have this anomalous position whereby the Civil Aviation Act asks that the regulations prescribe the activities that require an AOC, but it has deliberately removed any hint of commercialism because it should be risk based, and yet the word `commercial' still stays within CAR206. Another part of that amendment, I believe, should be to remove the word `commercial' to be consistent with the amendments that were made recently to the act.
Senator O'BRIEN --Have there been any consultations with the minister or the minister's office about this?
Mr Toller --The minister's office was informed of our thinking, but that is all.
Senator O'BRIEN --Before or after this lunch?
Mr Toller --Before or after I--
Senator O'BRIEN --Told Mr Middleton at lunch.
Mr Toller --Way before.
…
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff;
I think you know what I think I am doing but what your legal gobbligook is doing is exacerbating an already confused situation that has nothing to do with a reincarnation of AOPA but a "I told you so scenerio".
I can quote RRA&T of Hansard with the Murphie debacle and our Director and his ILK when they tried to cover their Ar$es over a complete stuff up that cost that poor sod over $100K.
And Senator Kerry O'Brien took them to task on that matter also.
I can't in all honesty say I have any intimate knowledge of the AUF / CASA / Politics that appear to be the subject of "CORRUPTION", but nothing would surprise me.
In the interim, where do we go from here, shaft AOPA and let CASA reign free, Give GA to the AUF, the flapless and inane ornithopter society or the school for the chronically earthbound?
Why can't some people say something positive about anything?
Bob Murphie has proposed something that has massive support, yet is ridiculed or ignored by the same people who see Hamilton as a threat to their very existence.
And woomera;
Take this in the spirit in which it is given. I have not blown the whistle on anyone and I don't pretend to tell you anything, and, I haven't tried to "out" anyone.
Take note of this however,
GET STUFFED.
buggaitall
I think you know what I think I am doing but what your legal gobbligook is doing is exacerbating an already confused situation that has nothing to do with a reincarnation of AOPA but a "I told you so scenerio".
I can quote RRA&T of Hansard with the Murphie debacle and our Director and his ILK when they tried to cover their Ar$es over a complete stuff up that cost that poor sod over $100K.
And Senator Kerry O'Brien took them to task on that matter also.
I can't in all honesty say I have any intimate knowledge of the AUF / CASA / Politics that appear to be the subject of "CORRUPTION", but nothing would surprise me.
In the interim, where do we go from here, shaft AOPA and let CASA reign free, Give GA to the AUF, the flapless and inane ornithopter society or the school for the chronically earthbound?
Why can't some people say something positive about anything?
Bob Murphie has proposed something that has massive support, yet is ridiculed or ignored by the same people who see Hamilton as a threat to their very existence.
And woomera;
Take this in the spirit in which it is given. I have not blown the whistle on anyone and I don't pretend to tell you anything, and, I haven't tried to "out" anyone.
Take note of this however,
GET STUFFED.
buggaitall
What a mess!
I do stand back and wonder about all of this. What are we here for? The future of AOPA is at risk and we now seem to have a few self chosen few who have egos they can't feed believing they are essential to the future of AOPA and GA in general.
Creampuff as usually your posts are on the mark, but the length is often quite exhausting… no offence – I believed you the first time you said it.
It is quite obvious that the existing Board lack any direction (did they ever have it) and absolutely no leadership whatsoever. It seems that there is now a move (by the acting/interim Chairman?) to reduce the number of vacancies available PRIOR to the election from eleven to nine.
I have no idea of the legality of doing this, but it would be quite morally wrong and I for one would not support any existing Board member that proposed or supported such a move. Whilst I agree that the present Board size is far too large, this is not the way to change it and keep the members on side. Remember us, the members??
I would be only too pleased to join the ensuring revolt to turf the lot out at the EGM which would no doubt follow such an ill advised move.
Again it seem the magazine has been delayed in part because the interim Chairman has written some 800 plus words in an editorial which I am told is nothing more than an election statement. FIGJAM!
One good way to turn the members off! Will just have to wait and see on that one I guess, and then we can all make up our own minds.
Creampuff as usually your posts are on the mark, but the length is often quite exhausting… no offence – I believed you the first time you said it.
It is quite obvious that the existing Board lack any direction (did they ever have it) and absolutely no leadership whatsoever. It seems that there is now a move (by the acting/interim Chairman?) to reduce the number of vacancies available PRIOR to the election from eleven to nine.
I have no idea of the legality of doing this, but it would be quite morally wrong and I for one would not support any existing Board member that proposed or supported such a move. Whilst I agree that the present Board size is far too large, this is not the way to change it and keep the members on side. Remember us, the members??
I would be only too pleased to join the ensuring revolt to turf the lot out at the EGM which would no doubt follow such an ill advised move.
Again it seem the magazine has been delayed in part because the interim Chairman has written some 800 plus words in an editorial which I am told is nothing more than an election statement. FIGJAM!
One good way to turn the members off! Will just have to wait and see on that one I guess, and then we can all make up our own minds.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard the resolution was shafted by the majority of the board (only one was for the aye's), and shouldn't see the light of day.
If that is the case, the status is as it stands unless there are resolutions that haven't been accepted for tableing and may be supported by a 100 member proxy.
If the magazine is corrupted in any way shape or form to preach someones agenda, perhaps snarek will bring his threats of ASIC to bear. Depends on whether he likes what he reads of course.
In the meantime, I told woomera to get stuffed today and I am still here. Perhaps this is an anon/forum in spite of snarek's attempts to "out postees.
Wonder what you have to do to get "sin binned?"
bugga!
If that is the case, the status is as it stands unless there are resolutions that haven't been accepted for tableing and may be supported by a 100 member proxy.
If the magazine is corrupted in any way shape or form to preach someones agenda, perhaps snarek will bring his threats of ASIC to bear. Depends on whether he likes what he reads of course.
In the meantime, I told woomera to get stuffed today and I am still here. Perhaps this is an anon/forum in spite of snarek's attempts to "out postees.
Wonder what you have to do to get "sin binned?"
bugga!