AOPA "The Election" (merged)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a GOOD idea
Ax me old dropshort mate.
It is a good idea. It will remain a good idea, even if Hamilton supports it. But my guess is that if Hamilton gets back on the Board it will rot away as an unused idea. You see it will water down his power base. I bet he won't support it after the fact.
I will support it.
You associating the idea amd the man (Murphie) with Hamilton has done Murphie no good in my eyes. There are many of us that know AOPA needs a change, and perhaps Murphie can provide some of it (I won't have a bar of one-man-bands anymore, so I hope he aint that). How about you drop Hamilton and give Murphie a fighting chance.
As for Leadsleds conspiracy theories. I put a number of motions up. They were mucked around with by the Board and essentially rejected (or so I believe). So Marjorie put them up as a Board member (I think).
Leadsled needs to have a careful look at reality before writing such waffle.
I am particlularly interested in knowing where my motion to dissmiss Lyon and Hamilton went. I will be requesting copies of the minutes as soon as I get time.
AK
It is a good idea. It will remain a good idea, even if Hamilton supports it. But my guess is that if Hamilton gets back on the Board it will rot away as an unused idea. You see it will water down his power base. I bet he won't support it after the fact.
I will support it.
You associating the idea amd the man (Murphie) with Hamilton has done Murphie no good in my eyes. There are many of us that know AOPA needs a change, and perhaps Murphie can provide some of it (I won't have a bar of one-man-bands anymore, so I hope he aint that). How about you drop Hamilton and give Murphie a fighting chance.
As for Leadsleds conspiracy theories. I put a number of motions up. They were mucked around with by the Board and essentially rejected (or so I believe). So Marjorie put them up as a Board member (I think).
Leadsled needs to have a careful look at reality before writing such waffle.
I am particlularly interested in knowing where my motion to dissmiss Lyon and Hamilton went. I will be requesting copies of the minutes as soon as I get time.
AK
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE THLOT PLICKENS
The debate is hotting up; hopefully this will enable the AGM to be constructive and a demonstration to the members that the ship is in good hands.
There has been much character assassination but as an "independent" member I have still to make my decisions but I do agree with the hope that the bulk of members do not take this Forum content as indicative of the caliber of the Board.
Surely you jest that M has threatened someone else with defamation. We never did get an explanation of the precise alleged defamatory content of the previous case from far to my West. I thought this was to be a Board that didn't threaten a gunfight at the OK Corral at the drop of a hat?
As an AOPA member I have several desires (not in priority order):
1. Prudent financial management including accruing for future debts for long-term memberships.
2. Support for GA in Oz (more on this below), even where non-members are involved but the matter is sufficiently important.
3. Support for members - I won't elaborate on this, the current Board knows my opinion of allowing ATSB to censor the AOPA Forum. And yes folks, they did!
4. State Chapters - and even if it does not get up now due to the legal constraints there is nothing to stop an infrastructure being put in place as a trial and ready for an official launch.
5. A monthly or two-monthly magazine.
Doggie - yours is the most positive posting for yonks (Woomera you are always positive so don't feel left out) and that's why I have noted as above and also previously suggested the need for a member survey. Well said.
Coggie - I spent 25 years negotiating high level stuff. You and I are going to remain divorced in our views on the relationship with CASA - and don't forget the ATSB with the TSI Bill either. When the AOPA 16 inch guns across the horizon regime ended I felt good. On reflection, I think there is a need for a mix of diplomacy
and combat. Yesterday I was looking through a current file (not mine) with absolute disgust at the CASA deliberate misinformation and obfuscation to the Ombudsman. As an example "CASA is required to be advised when X changes, Mr Z did not advise CASA". Very true as Mr Z was not the delegate (ie the Certificate holder). But to the Ombudsman the obvious interpretation is that Mr Z is at fault. The file is full of this sort of subterfuge. Until CASA is prepared to be accountable for its errors, instead of taking a papal approach and using any means possible to be seen as infallible even when wrong, there is a place for the approach for which Bill Hamilton is being criticised. This does not mean I am in his camp but I certainly understand the frustrations that he must face in his dealings and i value someone with the intestinal fortitude to walk a hard mile instead of a pleasant lunch.
Likewise the AFM debacle. Mine is a non-AFM aircraft. I raised with CASA and ATSB the stupidity of throwing out the old FM - for which I would have been fined for 20 years if not in the aircraft - as if the CASA rules are followed to the letter of the law the W&B etc are turfed. No bloody way would they change the policy and suggest that non-AFM aircraft retain the old FMs etc. ATSB advised that they cannot act against CASA policy. So, after some poor dumbo kills himself outside the envelope I suppose at least CASA and ATSB will have something to investigate. Oh surprise, pilot arror yet again.
Until the Regulators are prepared to act sensibly and ethically, I cannot condone a complete soft relationship. I do love my Gordon Setters trust in rolling over on his back and exposing his vulnerable tummy to attack - but he knows I'm fully trustworthy.
OK, long winded but I want the Board to understand that the members feel passionate about various things and that's where the focus needs to be.
Cheers
There has been much character assassination but as an "independent" member I have still to make my decisions but I do agree with the hope that the bulk of members do not take this Forum content as indicative of the caliber of the Board.
Surely you jest that M has threatened someone else with defamation. We never did get an explanation of the precise alleged defamatory content of the previous case from far to my West. I thought this was to be a Board that didn't threaten a gunfight at the OK Corral at the drop of a hat?
As an AOPA member I have several desires (not in priority order):
1. Prudent financial management including accruing for future debts for long-term memberships.
2. Support for GA in Oz (more on this below), even where non-members are involved but the matter is sufficiently important.
3. Support for members - I won't elaborate on this, the current Board knows my opinion of allowing ATSB to censor the AOPA Forum. And yes folks, they did!
4. State Chapters - and even if it does not get up now due to the legal constraints there is nothing to stop an infrastructure being put in place as a trial and ready for an official launch.
5. A monthly or two-monthly magazine.
Doggie - yours is the most positive posting for yonks (Woomera you are always positive so don't feel left out) and that's why I have noted as above and also previously suggested the need for a member survey. Well said.
Coggie - I spent 25 years negotiating high level stuff. You and I are going to remain divorced in our views on the relationship with CASA - and don't forget the ATSB with the TSI Bill either. When the AOPA 16 inch guns across the horizon regime ended I felt good. On reflection, I think there is a need for a mix of diplomacy
and combat. Yesterday I was looking through a current file (not mine) with absolute disgust at the CASA deliberate misinformation and obfuscation to the Ombudsman. As an example "CASA is required to be advised when X changes, Mr Z did not advise CASA". Very true as Mr Z was not the delegate (ie the Certificate holder). But to the Ombudsman the obvious interpretation is that Mr Z is at fault. The file is full of this sort of subterfuge. Until CASA is prepared to be accountable for its errors, instead of taking a papal approach and using any means possible to be seen as infallible even when wrong, there is a place for the approach for which Bill Hamilton is being criticised. This does not mean I am in his camp but I certainly understand the frustrations that he must face in his dealings and i value someone with the intestinal fortitude to walk a hard mile instead of a pleasant lunch.
Likewise the AFM debacle. Mine is a non-AFM aircraft. I raised with CASA and ATSB the stupidity of throwing out the old FM - for which I would have been fined for 20 years if not in the aircraft - as if the CASA rules are followed to the letter of the law the W&B etc are turfed. No bloody way would they change the policy and suggest that non-AFM aircraft retain the old FMs etc. ATSB advised that they cannot act against CASA policy. So, after some poor dumbo kills himself outside the envelope I suppose at least CASA and ATSB will have something to investigate. Oh surprise, pilot arror yet again.
Until the Regulators are prepared to act sensibly and ethically, I cannot condone a complete soft relationship. I do love my Gordon Setters trust in rolling over on his back and exposing his vulnerable tummy to attack - but he knows I'm fully trustworthy.
OK, long winded but I want the Board to understand that the members feel passionate about various things and that's where the focus needs to be.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hehehehehehehe
Our little mate from WA getting served with a writ.
What delicious irony
Ask Gaunty why/(who) RACWA won't affiliate with AOPA.
Lot of fence meding to be done there!!!
Hey Axiom. How about a modification to the Murphy idea. Make the Board in each state up of members of all the 'other' organisations (Like RACWA, GFA, AUF etc etc) plus some generally elected state members, and then have them vote in their federal AOPA Board member.
From the perspective of the NT (where I come from) and the ACT (where I live now), do they get a rep each??? (or does bl@@dy Tasmania get over-represented in AOPA too!!!) I say they do, so that makes 7 states and 2 Territories. 9 person Board.
BUT...what about the North??? Those in Townsville don't want a Brisbane rep (mighjt as well have one from Hobart). Hmmm
Ex-offico positions perhaps. Like 'Technical Advisor' rather than a technical director. So, one elected Director and one elected 'Advisor' from each state??? How about ex-officio advisors from sectors?? GFA, PFA, AUF etc......???
Just having brain-farts, nothing firm.
AK
What delicious irony
Ask Gaunty why/(who) RACWA won't affiliate with AOPA.
Lot of fence meding to be done there!!!
Hey Axiom. How about a modification to the Murphy idea. Make the Board in each state up of members of all the 'other' organisations (Like RACWA, GFA, AUF etc etc) plus some generally elected state members, and then have them vote in their federal AOPA Board member.
From the perspective of the NT (where I come from) and the ACT (where I live now), do they get a rep each??? (or does bl@@dy Tasmania get over-represented in AOPA too!!!) I say they do, so that makes 7 states and 2 Territories. 9 person Board.
BUT...what about the North??? Those in Townsville don't want a Brisbane rep (mighjt as well have one from Hobart). Hmmm
Ex-offico positions perhaps. Like 'Technical Advisor' rather than a technical director. So, one elected Director and one elected 'Advisor' from each state??? How about ex-officio advisors from sectors?? GFA, PFA, AUF etc......???
Just having brain-farts, nothing firm.
AK
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom;
What was the indecent act you did to generate such a response.
I am not suggesting that this is a lousy idea, but I am making the point that there are already some moves underway to increase the involvement of the membership through the use of Reps for a start. Ron has supported the idea by saying
I apologise for making you sick. I did not mean to.
It is not the ideas that are the problem here - it is the method of implementation.
The rules have to be followed: if you don't like them, change them. In the interim, follow them - as you are required to.
brianh - your turn,
Knowing Marjorie, I can tell you that she does not go around 'threatening defamation, - that is not her style. She is a qualified negotiator and spend most of her day day doing just that. She wouldn't want a gunfight at the drop of a hat and in fact, she has spent most of her time diffusing the squabbles amongst the board members. This has gained her considerable respect from most Board members, and has led to the considerable support that she has. However, she does stand her ground. This has caused discomfort to some. In short, the truth hurt.
Yes, she was defamed, and sought a retraction, which she immediately got, as you know. And then was again attacked by the same person, so she was left no option but to commence proceedings, just as you would if you were attacked in the same way, if you had any guts. She does.
Murphie emailed 4 of the area reps seeking input to his proposal and the correspondence was subsequently directed to the Secretary who promptly put him on notice of legal action for some sort of gross indecency.
Now Hamilton is openly supporting the concept, it is a lousy idea.
"I think this could be flagged to the AGM as a proposal the Board will consider over the next 12 months".
It is not the ideas that are the problem here - it is the method of implementation.
The rules have to be followed: if you don't like them, change them. In the interim, follow them - as you are required to.
brianh - your turn,
Surely you jest that M has threatened someone else with defamation. We never did get an explanation of the precise alleged defamatory content of the previous case from far to my West. I thought this was to be a Board that didn't threaten a gunfight at the OK Corral at the drop of a hat?
Yes, she was defamed, and sought a retraction, which she immediately got, as you know. And then was again attacked by the same person, so she was left no option but to commence proceedings, just as you would if you were attacked in the same way, if you had any guts. She does.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek;
Errrr / dunno?
The crux of Murphie's idea is that he (and I concur), stay apolitical and divorced from factional fights etc.
I am pleased to see your achievements and promises put forth. I am yet to see the profiles in the April magazine which should put the candidates to public exhibition and examination.
As such, I am sure if you would like to see a State based representational committee set up to "keep the ba$tards honest", you would respect Bob's neutrality. Remember he and you may have to work with each other and I am sure he would not prostitute his ideals over a personal dilemma.
If you believe in the concept, help get the proxies and nobody on the Board will be able to take control of the committee which should be an amalgum of all States and Territory (perhaps ACT?), and equal roughly 3 per State geographically dispersed.
Maxima;
read about page 5 or 6 of this thread for the offending email, I would prefer not to go there again and the matter is best left alone for the sake of sensible electoral input.
Woomera;
Bob advises that you may print his profile, if you are doing the other candidates,once the magazine is circulated and he has read it.
Good evening all.
Errrr / dunno?
The crux of Murphie's idea is that he (and I concur), stay apolitical and divorced from factional fights etc.
I am pleased to see your achievements and promises put forth. I am yet to see the profiles in the April magazine which should put the candidates to public exhibition and examination.
As such, I am sure if you would like to see a State based representational committee set up to "keep the ba$tards honest", you would respect Bob's neutrality. Remember he and you may have to work with each other and I am sure he would not prostitute his ideals over a personal dilemma.
If you believe in the concept, help get the proxies and nobody on the Board will be able to take control of the committee which should be an amalgum of all States and Territory (perhaps ACT?), and equal roughly 3 per State geographically dispersed.
Maxima;
read about page 5 or 6 of this thread for the offending email, I would prefer not to go there again and the matter is best left alone for the sake of sensible electoral input.
Woomera;
Bob advises that you may print his profile, if you are doing the other candidates,once the magazine is circulated and he has read it.
Good evening all.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUICK DRAW MCGRAW
Maxi
I guess I come from an environment where we accepted the cut and thrust of debate and comment within limits that were set just a tad harder than egg shells.
If Murph says he is "whiteanted' and someone wants to rush in and seize the cap then claim defamation I personally do not find that the skill of a seasoned negotiator. On reflection, I don't think that's defamatory thinking on my part but I'd better rescind it now or I'm next aren't I? I could even claim to have whiteanted him as I haven't sent the promised proxy back yet - right Murph, now I'm defamed by you too - look out. Is AOPA to become the new Slater and Gordon - wonder if I hurt my back during that hard landing and whom I can sue?
Perhaps I can add to my earlier wish list " A Board comprised of members with thick enuf skins to understand that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and capable of the sort of statesmanship John has shown over the current involvement in Iraq, rather than trying to gun down anyone who dissents".
We, the electors, (royal plural) laugh at the posturings and inanities of our elected MPs as they, so to speak "roam while their fiddle burns'. If those desirous of being our elected AOPA Board keep diverting to crossfires with dissenters we return to the very same position that everyone is whingeing about with the current Board.
And I'm not even going to name a previous re-standing Board member who recently sent me a snakey dirty livered unnecessary email, undoubtedly after a third scotch, trying to justify his/her position weks after the event. Scratch one from the list as far as I'm concerned. That sort of vindictive approach is totally unproductive.
It will be a shame if the informed AOPA members have to vote on an exclusion basis rather than a field of mature capable candidates.
Anyway, the more character assassination we can resolve on this Forum the more chance of a successful AGM and year to follow.
Vive la debate!
I guess I come from an environment where we accepted the cut and thrust of debate and comment within limits that were set just a tad harder than egg shells.
If Murph says he is "whiteanted' and someone wants to rush in and seize the cap then claim defamation I personally do not find that the skill of a seasoned negotiator. On reflection, I don't think that's defamatory thinking on my part but I'd better rescind it now or I'm next aren't I? I could even claim to have whiteanted him as I haven't sent the promised proxy back yet - right Murph, now I'm defamed by you too - look out. Is AOPA to become the new Slater and Gordon - wonder if I hurt my back during that hard landing and whom I can sue?
Perhaps I can add to my earlier wish list " A Board comprised of members with thick enuf skins to understand that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and capable of the sort of statesmanship John has shown over the current involvement in Iraq, rather than trying to gun down anyone who dissents".
We, the electors, (royal plural) laugh at the posturings and inanities of our elected MPs as they, so to speak "roam while their fiddle burns'. If those desirous of being our elected AOPA Board keep diverting to crossfires with dissenters we return to the very same position that everyone is whingeing about with the current Board.
And I'm not even going to name a previous re-standing Board member who recently sent me a snakey dirty livered unnecessary email, undoubtedly after a third scotch, trying to justify his/her position weks after the event. Scratch one from the list as far as I'm concerned. That sort of vindictive approach is totally unproductive.
It will be a shame if the informed AOPA members have to vote on an exclusion basis rather than a field of mature capable candidates.
Anyway, the more character assassination we can resolve on this Forum the more chance of a successful AGM and year to follow.
Vive la debate!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
croooooooooks!!!!!!
axiom
I will be doing an e-mail out later in the week. I will get proxies and discuss with Murphie prior to the meeting.
I now have advice that the move of the Board is illegal. Will table it at the next Board meeting. Now that McKeown has changed the numbers and the statement (without it seems the permission of the author) it creates the problem of tellin the members.
Apparrently Kennedy, Lawford and some other 'innocents' voted for the motion. They now, knowing its illegality and immorality, may wish to reconsider. I think they were lead down the garden path by someone. Anyhow, they will get the opportunity.
Either way, those who continue to try and support this rort must be held accountable by the members. Interesting they wouldn't let my motion to put it to a vote of the MEMBERS through, but then did it to, in my view, attempt to keep control.
B@stards!!!!
Maxima, gotta agree about Marjorie. An excellent negotiator and listener, but with balls!!!!
Brian. Sorry, the bloke deserved it!!!! I used to get about a threat a week from him. That's what is so delicious about it.
Andrew
I will be doing an e-mail out later in the week. I will get proxies and discuss with Murphie prior to the meeting.
I now have advice that the move of the Board is illegal. Will table it at the next Board meeting. Now that McKeown has changed the numbers and the statement (without it seems the permission of the author) it creates the problem of tellin the members.
Apparrently Kennedy, Lawford and some other 'innocents' voted for the motion. They now, knowing its illegality and immorality, may wish to reconsider. I think they were lead down the garden path by someone. Anyhow, they will get the opportunity.
Either way, those who continue to try and support this rort must be held accountable by the members. Interesting they wouldn't let my motion to put it to a vote of the MEMBERS through, but then did it to, in my view, attempt to keep control.
B@stards!!!!
Maxima, gotta agree about Marjorie. An excellent negotiator and listener, but with balls!!!!
Brian. Sorry, the bloke deserved it!!!! I used to get about a threat a week from him. That's what is so delicious about it.
Andrew
Last edited by snarek; 8th Apr 2003 at 20:32.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Axiom;
Murphie is naive to think he could "stay apolitical and divorced from factional fights etc."
Everyone starts off believing that they can leave that part aside, but the difficulty will be remaining neutral while "keeping the ba$tards honest," because what is he going to do when he finds out some are not being honest or ethical? How will Murphie handle that? Will he not "prostitute himself" and be a YES man, or will he take a stand and demand truth and accountability?
Snarek;
You have hit the nail on the head.
Murphie is naive to think he could "stay apolitical and divorced from factional fights etc."
Everyone starts off believing that they can leave that part aside, but the difficulty will be remaining neutral while "keeping the ba$tards honest," because what is he going to do when he finds out some are not being honest or ethical? How will Murphie handle that? Will he not "prostitute himself" and be a YES man, or will he take a stand and demand truth and accountability?
Snarek;
You have hit the nail on the head.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies, Gentlemen.
The problem remains, who do I vote for????.
I have two simple questions for the people up for election and that are using this post.
In your view, what are my concerns?
What are you going to do about resolving my concerns?
Cut out the crap!
At this time I am only discovering people I DON’T want to vote for.
The problem remains, who do I vote for????.
I have two simple questions for the people up for election and that are using this post.
In your view, what are my concerns?
What are you going to do about resolving my concerns?
Cut out the crap!
At this time I am only discovering people I DON’T want to vote for.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkey;
Vote for Gaunty - he's a good bloke.
Vote for Kerans - he thinks he's a good bloke ( but axiom is not sure about that)
Murphie is gunna be a good bloke!
In fact they are all good blokes, but some can do more good for AOPA (and you) than others.
1. Only you know what your concerns are.
2. You can resolve your own concerns, based on the information available and soon to be released. Watch this space.
brianh has posted a good wishlist - most nominees seem to support those ideals. Some nominees have even more ideas to bring to AOPA.
The mag should be out soon; it will have the profiles in it - there is a start. This forum will have the profiles on it soon, and those may contain the info you are after.
The ballot papers have not been sent out yet, so no hurry.
Hey, why don't you be a Rep?
Vote for Gaunty - he's a good bloke.
Vote for Kerans - he thinks he's a good bloke ( but axiom is not sure about that)
Murphie is gunna be a good bloke!
In fact they are all good blokes, but some can do more good for AOPA (and you) than others.
1. Only you know what your concerns are.
2. You can resolve your own concerns, based on the information available and soon to be released. Watch this space.
brianh has posted a good wishlist - most nominees seem to support those ideals. Some nominees have even more ideas to bring to AOPA.
The mag should be out soon; it will have the profiles in it - there is a start. This forum will have the profiles on it soon, and those may contain the info you are after.
The ballot papers have not been sent out yet, so no hurry.
Hey, why don't you be a Rep?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although
looks like half the aopa members that post here are as dribbly as their director co-horts.
Bar one..BrianH, there isn't much of what the members want, just whose pants they want to see down.
I want discounts for my flying dollar.
I want scholarships
I want AOPA to be the public face of GA.
I want to see AOPA have airshows.
I want AOPA in government
I want mature directors
I want committed directors
I want someone to interpret what the hell CASA is trying to do to me, and then I want AOPA to fight or push on my behalf.
But I also thank all who have been directors past, no matter who you are. It must be a crap job and a thankless one at that. You all have done a job where no part timer should. You have all expended great personal and professional costs (bar a few, but they still tried) to see that we can fly in some sort of chaos.
Thank you.
I will consider the candidates and vote accordingly. I will not vote for someone just because another director wants them by their side. Thats for both teams!
Dog.
Bar one..BrianH, there isn't much of what the members want, just whose pants they want to see down.
I want discounts for my flying dollar.
I want scholarships
I want AOPA to be the public face of GA.
I want to see AOPA have airshows.
I want AOPA in government
I want mature directors
I want committed directors
I want someone to interpret what the hell CASA is trying to do to me, and then I want AOPA to fight or push on my behalf.
But I also thank all who have been directors past, no matter who you are. It must be a crap job and a thankless one at that. You all have done a job where no part timer should. You have all expended great personal and professional costs (bar a few, but they still tried) to see that we can fly in some sort of chaos.
Thank you.
I will consider the candidates and vote accordingly. I will not vote for someone just because another director wants them by their side. Thats for both teams!
Dog.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
monkeyfly
For my part.
Going back to the beginning.
The reason for my many years absence as a financial member was the result of what I then believed to be and still do, what I can only describe as the 'hijacking' of the organisation by some high profile individuals in order to pursue "their" views on reform and perhaps, their own personal agenda.
It was perfectly kosher and legally executed.
They would argue that this action was necessary to "save" us from the "enemy", the dreaded "Regulator" monster and prevent AOPA being consigned to an irrelevancy in this process.
It would be difficult to argue that at the time there were and as a result, still many unresolved Regulatory "difficulties" in policy and execution.
It is, however, equally difficult to argue that AOPA was totally incapable of responding properly and effectively without this high powered "help".
AOPA was then a strong, vibrant, well financed and resourced asset of the members. The Executive General Manager was skilled in the daily contact with Govt and Regulator and in conducting the necessary research and administration required by the Board on issues important to the members.
The financial membership numbers might have been steady at around 8,500 or so, but perhaps not paying as much as they should, but that is not unusual for any Association.
But it was alive and well and worked, notwithstanding some people’s ideas to the contrary.
We are now faced with the possibility that AOPA will indeed become an irrelevancy unless something is done about it as a result of that "little" adventure. There has been some good work done in the meantime by their successors but the financial membership that then existed does not now. Maybe 4,500.
AOPA no longer owns its own premises, has lost or been unable to keep quality Executive General Managers, the research resources previously available to the Board are no longer so and in the most part must be conducted by the individual Board members in their own unpaid time, in addition to the time that they voluntarily give up to the Board function.
And there is anecdotal evidence that the very people whom we must have on side aren't and to whom we need access are not as easily available as they should be.
As has been described elsewhere on this thread there has been too much shouting and table thumping on all sides.
I do not know the reason for shifting the "Office", I believe that we owned, from Canberra to Sydney, but it seems to me that a lobby organisation needs to be where the lobbying needs to be done. Where did the money go! I am not for one moment suggesting any impropriety, but "selling the farm" to feed the stock, isn't IMHO a smart economic move, unless you are not particularly interested in the long term.
All of that, is what caught my attention. Perhaps I should have stayed.
I had been very critical on PPRuNe of the state of AOPA, the way they were doing business and the ever continuing loss of membership.
Kerans told me quite bluntly, you can't change or add anything if you are not a member.
And he was right, I was compelled to rejoin
I had a long talk with Bill Pike and Marjorie Pagani when they were over here for the last meeting about my feelings.
I was asked then why didn't I nominate, as if I had nothing better to do with my time already, in my very busy business.
Bill Pike fixed me with his eyes and said "none of us have, but we make the time.”
Can’t argue with that, so I put my mouth where my money is.
It is a fact that we are now in the throes of a rewrite of the rewritten Regs, to replace those original Regs that they threw away, without an examination of why they were so in the first place and there is still no end in sight.
I have to say though that there is some evidence that CASA are now in a listening mode that they were not in before.
I have a background in this business that goes back to almost the very beginning, nearly as long as Bill Hamilton, but then he's older than me.
I have a unique understanding of the why and the wherefore of this journey the industry has made from the time of the introduction of the modern aircraft, around 1967, to replace the venerable Austers, Chipmunks. Miles Gemini and so on by C150/172 on to the modern turboprops and jets.
At every step of the way, new tricks, new regs, reworked regs, operational and maintenance "wars" had to be fought, to bring the Regulator and Government along with the new technology.
The Government Two Airline policy was driving the administration of the Regulator. But somehow with determination, mutual respect and goodwill we all got there.
Reform was definitely necessary, no question. But it needed to recognise the effects of the past and that there was a change in attitude and thinking required by ALL participants. It needed to be done carefully, thoughtfully whilst bringing everyone along at the same pace.
The ground was not new and didn’t need the crash through or crash mentality.
For a golden moment in time that looked possible, but was sadly lost.
Through all of this I was able to conduct a successful career in General Aviation. See my profile on page 2 I think, on which I am happy to expand.
Why should you vote for me?
We need to press the reset button as far as the Board is concerned and settle once and for all the divisiveness that for one reason or another has set in.
I will be a new face.
I have strong management, people and negotiating skills that I derive a very excellent living from and with good will and participation from all sides can usually find a way through the inevitable “controversial” issues that crop up.
Until and unless this is achieved, it will be difficult to make any progress.
I have much faith, given my discussions to date, that this WILL be achieved to the satisfaction of all and the benefit of the membership.
To have strong representation, we must have a strong and representative membership.
It is an urgent priority to rebuild that in a way that fairly represents the enormous diversity of environment and the specific State and Territory issues.
There is a Motion by Murphie that will provide the means for discussion of this perhaps in a more formal manner, that I would support.
There are a number of large and influential, currently non-affiliated organisations, that need to be brought back into the fold, I believe that in time I am able to do so.
We need to first identify whether our policies and actions to date, are, or have been what our membership actually wants us to be and to do.
The answer is not as obvious as our credo suggests.
We need, as a Board to reconnect with you and NOT, as in the past, just tell you what is "good" for you.
This will be a personal priority and will be achieved by constructive two way communication through your State or Territory representation, working together with you, for our common aims. The Murphie Motion is a constructive platform from which to work and will be given my earnest consideration.
We need to keep you fully informed of the results of our collective research, the likely directions they reveal and how you want us to deal with it.
We need to restore the mutual respect and communication with our opposite numbers at ALL levels in the Government and Regulator, but NOT as supplicants.
It may not be all sweetness and light at first, but there is no reason it cannot be for the future, if we have quiet reason, the rationale and the membership support. In the final analysis, it is the alignment of what is realistically possible with the desired outcome in any scenario, that wins the day.
We need to keep in our view at ALL times, that it is the Membership we serve, NOT our personal interests or prejudices and in the words of that great song, know when to hold em and when to fold em, in our negotiations on your behalf.
And whilst it sounds trite, I mean it sincerely, when I say to you, that I WILL work together with whatever team and whoever the members decide they wish to represent them, without fear or favour and to use all of the skills at my command to promote effective and constructive work on your behalf.
For my part.
Going back to the beginning.
The reason for my many years absence as a financial member was the result of what I then believed to be and still do, what I can only describe as the 'hijacking' of the organisation by some high profile individuals in order to pursue "their" views on reform and perhaps, their own personal agenda.
It was perfectly kosher and legally executed.
They would argue that this action was necessary to "save" us from the "enemy", the dreaded "Regulator" monster and prevent AOPA being consigned to an irrelevancy in this process.
It would be difficult to argue that at the time there were and as a result, still many unresolved Regulatory "difficulties" in policy and execution.
It is, however, equally difficult to argue that AOPA was totally incapable of responding properly and effectively without this high powered "help".
AOPA was then a strong, vibrant, well financed and resourced asset of the members. The Executive General Manager was skilled in the daily contact with Govt and Regulator and in conducting the necessary research and administration required by the Board on issues important to the members.
The financial membership numbers might have been steady at around 8,500 or so, but perhaps not paying as much as they should, but that is not unusual for any Association.
But it was alive and well and worked, notwithstanding some people’s ideas to the contrary.
We are now faced with the possibility that AOPA will indeed become an irrelevancy unless something is done about it as a result of that "little" adventure. There has been some good work done in the meantime by their successors but the financial membership that then existed does not now. Maybe 4,500.
AOPA no longer owns its own premises, has lost or been unable to keep quality Executive General Managers, the research resources previously available to the Board are no longer so and in the most part must be conducted by the individual Board members in their own unpaid time, in addition to the time that they voluntarily give up to the Board function.
And there is anecdotal evidence that the very people whom we must have on side aren't and to whom we need access are not as easily available as they should be.
As has been described elsewhere on this thread there has been too much shouting and table thumping on all sides.
I do not know the reason for shifting the "Office", I believe that we owned, from Canberra to Sydney, but it seems to me that a lobby organisation needs to be where the lobbying needs to be done. Where did the money go! I am not for one moment suggesting any impropriety, but "selling the farm" to feed the stock, isn't IMHO a smart economic move, unless you are not particularly interested in the long term.
All of that, is what caught my attention. Perhaps I should have stayed.
I had been very critical on PPRuNe of the state of AOPA, the way they were doing business and the ever continuing loss of membership.
Kerans told me quite bluntly, you can't change or add anything if you are not a member.
And he was right, I was compelled to rejoin
I had a long talk with Bill Pike and Marjorie Pagani when they were over here for the last meeting about my feelings.
I was asked then why didn't I nominate, as if I had nothing better to do with my time already, in my very busy business.
Bill Pike fixed me with his eyes and said "none of us have, but we make the time.”
Can’t argue with that, so I put my mouth where my money is.
It is a fact that we are now in the throes of a rewrite of the rewritten Regs, to replace those original Regs that they threw away, without an examination of why they were so in the first place and there is still no end in sight.
I have to say though that there is some evidence that CASA are now in a listening mode that they were not in before.
I have a background in this business that goes back to almost the very beginning, nearly as long as Bill Hamilton, but then he's older than me.
I have a unique understanding of the why and the wherefore of this journey the industry has made from the time of the introduction of the modern aircraft, around 1967, to replace the venerable Austers, Chipmunks. Miles Gemini and so on by C150/172 on to the modern turboprops and jets.
At every step of the way, new tricks, new regs, reworked regs, operational and maintenance "wars" had to be fought, to bring the Regulator and Government along with the new technology.
The Government Two Airline policy was driving the administration of the Regulator. But somehow with determination, mutual respect and goodwill we all got there.
Reform was definitely necessary, no question. But it needed to recognise the effects of the past and that there was a change in attitude and thinking required by ALL participants. It needed to be done carefully, thoughtfully whilst bringing everyone along at the same pace.
The ground was not new and didn’t need the crash through or crash mentality.
For a golden moment in time that looked possible, but was sadly lost.
Through all of this I was able to conduct a successful career in General Aviation. See my profile on page 2 I think, on which I am happy to expand.
Why should you vote for me?
We need to press the reset button as far as the Board is concerned and settle once and for all the divisiveness that for one reason or another has set in.
I will be a new face.
I have strong management, people and negotiating skills that I derive a very excellent living from and with good will and participation from all sides can usually find a way through the inevitable “controversial” issues that crop up.
Until and unless this is achieved, it will be difficult to make any progress.
I have much faith, given my discussions to date, that this WILL be achieved to the satisfaction of all and the benefit of the membership.
To have strong representation, we must have a strong and representative membership.
It is an urgent priority to rebuild that in a way that fairly represents the enormous diversity of environment and the specific State and Territory issues.
There is a Motion by Murphie that will provide the means for discussion of this perhaps in a more formal manner, that I would support.
There are a number of large and influential, currently non-affiliated organisations, that need to be brought back into the fold, I believe that in time I am able to do so.
We need to first identify whether our policies and actions to date, are, or have been what our membership actually wants us to be and to do.
The answer is not as obvious as our credo suggests.
We need, as a Board to reconnect with you and NOT, as in the past, just tell you what is "good" for you.
This will be a personal priority and will be achieved by constructive two way communication through your State or Territory representation, working together with you, for our common aims. The Murphie Motion is a constructive platform from which to work and will be given my earnest consideration.
We need to keep you fully informed of the results of our collective research, the likely directions they reveal and how you want us to deal with it.
We need to restore the mutual respect and communication with our opposite numbers at ALL levels in the Government and Regulator, but NOT as supplicants.
It may not be all sweetness and light at first, but there is no reason it cannot be for the future, if we have quiet reason, the rationale and the membership support. In the final analysis, it is the alignment of what is realistically possible with the desired outcome in any scenario, that wins the day.
We need to keep in our view at ALL times, that it is the Membership we serve, NOT our personal interests or prejudices and in the words of that great song, know when to hold em and when to fold em, in our negotiations on your behalf.
And whilst it sounds trite, I mean it sincerely, when I say to you, that I WILL work together with whatever team and whoever the members decide they wish to represent them, without fear or favour and to use all of the skills at my command to promote effective and constructive work on your behalf.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIGHT GLOWING AT TUNNEL'S END
Oh joy, some positives are coming thru at last.
Dog, top stuff. We need a few more to post their wish list.
Gaunty, I'm impressed and probably prepared to put you to the test. You never did get back re the balance with CASA but I think this current statement covers it.
Akkers, I think we generally agree. I have to say though, and this is addressed generally not personally, that I have already made my appreciation of past Directors public but I feel for Bill H - no matter what his frictions at Board level - as the public character assassination of him by many and on this Forum is inappropriate recognition of his efforts and probably a significant message that the Board could not sort itself out, much less member issues.
ALL - DIVIDED WE FALL
I have not seen much, if anything, on the issue of AOPA isolation. And, with the declined membership and the current economy, I remain uncertain how much membership ground even a reborn AOPA will make. The GA hours are not looking good although as usual all the schools will up their rates as the clientele drops off!
As AUF aircraft zoom past my C172 and anyway didn't we start off as rag, string, and unreliable pommie donks anyway (I have to fix pommie cars at times and believe every Spit and Hurry pilot should have got a valour award just for taking off, knowing how the poms built their cars much less planes) I wonder again about amalgamation and where we sit with the AUF.
That's one. The other, and I note the earlier comment re AOPA research needing extra - so proven by the Pres belated reversal note re the TSI bill - is our colleagues from ASA (who did the research and triggered the uproar). likewise got the strength and publicity at Horsham.
Can we afford splintered small groups representing the merging GA population. Do we need the Board to revisit merger options.
Let's have some comment from the candidates - accepting that they don't at present have a premium product to offer.
Cheers
Dog, top stuff. We need a few more to post their wish list.
Gaunty, I'm impressed and probably prepared to put you to the test. You never did get back re the balance with CASA but I think this current statement covers it.
Akkers, I think we generally agree. I have to say though, and this is addressed generally not personally, that I have already made my appreciation of past Directors public but I feel for Bill H - no matter what his frictions at Board level - as the public character assassination of him by many and on this Forum is inappropriate recognition of his efforts and probably a significant message that the Board could not sort itself out, much less member issues.
ALL - DIVIDED WE FALL
I have not seen much, if anything, on the issue of AOPA isolation. And, with the declined membership and the current economy, I remain uncertain how much membership ground even a reborn AOPA will make. The GA hours are not looking good although as usual all the schools will up their rates as the clientele drops off!
As AUF aircraft zoom past my C172 and anyway didn't we start off as rag, string, and unreliable pommie donks anyway (I have to fix pommie cars at times and believe every Spit and Hurry pilot should have got a valour award just for taking off, knowing how the poms built their cars much less planes) I wonder again about amalgamation and where we sit with the AUF.
That's one. The other, and I note the earlier comment re AOPA research needing extra - so proven by the Pres belated reversal note re the TSI bill - is our colleagues from ASA (who did the research and triggered the uproar). likewise got the strength and publicity at Horsham.
Can we afford splintered small groups representing the merging GA population. Do we need the Board to revisit merger options.
Let's have some comment from the candidates - accepting that they don't at present have a premium product to offer.
Cheers
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brianh
Thank you for your kind words and yes I stiil owe you on the CASA bit which as you say is pretty much covered by attititude.
But I will, when I square some income earning activities away.
I also have to agree with you on your comments re Bill Hamilton, love him or hate him, he has made very siginificant contributions.
Hopefully in the spirit of reconciliation and renewal we can find a constructive way through that, we really don't have any choice.
Re the AUF, I need to get myself more up to speed on this, but my instinct is telling that we and they perhaps becoming us at some time in the future, is an inevitable and natural part of our future in GA.
The more they develop the homebuilts and ultralights the more they look like what we have been flying around for yonks!
Hamilton informed me the other day that the number of motor gliders in Austria outnumber the number of "real" aircraft by, if I got it right, 4:1 around 17,000 of them. Interesting stat indeed.
And leads me to the necessity to re resource the AOPA research effort as a matter of urgency, rather than rely on the "reactive", "third party" or "heard in the halls" information, on which we have been forced to rely.
Nirvana, I guess, should be AOPA leading rather than following the Government and Regulator in the public debate necessary to evolve public policy.
That just requires the right brainpower, working together, applied in the right place.
They, after all work for us.
Its getting the cart behind the horse that is the trick at the moment.
Thank you for your kind words and yes I stiil owe you on the CASA bit which as you say is pretty much covered by attititude.
But I will, when I square some income earning activities away.
I also have to agree with you on your comments re Bill Hamilton, love him or hate him, he has made very siginificant contributions.
and probably a significant message that the Board could not sort itself out, much less member issues
Re the AUF, I need to get myself more up to speed on this, but my instinct is telling that we and they perhaps becoming us at some time in the future, is an inevitable and natural part of our future in GA.
and anyway didn't we start off as rag, string, and unreliable pommie donks anyway
Hamilton informed me the other day that the number of motor gliders in Austria outnumber the number of "real" aircraft by, if I got it right, 4:1 around 17,000 of them. Interesting stat indeed.
And leads me to the necessity to re resource the AOPA research effort as a matter of urgency, rather than rely on the "reactive", "third party" or "heard in the halls" information, on which we have been forced to rely.
Nirvana, I guess, should be AOPA leading rather than following the Government and Regulator in the public debate necessary to evolve public policy.
That just requires the right brainpower, working together, applied in the right place.
They, after all work for us.
Its getting the cart behind the horse that is the trick at the moment.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time Voyeur
I have been an AOPA member for many years, a long-time lurker of pprune and the AOPA Forum site. and an 'old & bold' enthusiast.
Like a lot of the other 'silent' AOPA members out there I have been disappointed and dismayed by the fall of the AOPA empire since Mr Hamilton took control in 1997.
During that time the finances have been depleted from a once healthy position to where the organisation is broke. Membership has halved, and AOPA has been marginalised by both CASA and the Government because of the way it does business.
Now I read here that there is no Directors Insurance and that the board has resorted to meddling with the accounts to make the situation look better than what it is. Coupled with a steady stream of resignations from the board it would be reasonable to assume that we members need to do something drastic to save AOPA.
I have not as yet received my April Magazine to read the candidate's CVs but I can tell you that I will not vote for the return of Mr Hamilton or any of his supporters (this includes Messrs McKeown & Rudd). Unlike many of the contributors to these pages, I am not privy to the inside dealings of AOPA but Hamilton and his loyal followers should not assume that the membership is totally stupid and cannot work out what has been going on.
The new board will be starting from ground zero and will need to redefine AOPA. There is a lot of work to do and I am impressed by some of the wise words from at least two of the candidates.
I will also vote for candidates who will support responsible financial management because without this AOPA is dead in the water. My understanding is that Hamilton, McKeown & Rudd are behind the madness in not funding long-term liabilities and as a 5 year member I wonder whether I am goin to be left high and dry?.
I cannot attend the AGM but would like someone who could accept my proxy.
Like a lot of the other 'silent' AOPA members out there I have been disappointed and dismayed by the fall of the AOPA empire since Mr Hamilton took control in 1997.
During that time the finances have been depleted from a once healthy position to where the organisation is broke. Membership has halved, and AOPA has been marginalised by both CASA and the Government because of the way it does business.
Now I read here that there is no Directors Insurance and that the board has resorted to meddling with the accounts to make the situation look better than what it is. Coupled with a steady stream of resignations from the board it would be reasonable to assume that we members need to do something drastic to save AOPA.
I have not as yet received my April Magazine to read the candidate's CVs but I can tell you that I will not vote for the return of Mr Hamilton or any of his supporters (this includes Messrs McKeown & Rudd). Unlike many of the contributors to these pages, I am not privy to the inside dealings of AOPA but Hamilton and his loyal followers should not assume that the membership is totally stupid and cannot work out what has been going on.
The new board will be starting from ground zero and will need to redefine AOPA. There is a lot of work to do and I am impressed by some of the wise words from at least two of the candidates.
I will also vote for candidates who will support responsible financial management because without this AOPA is dead in the water. My understanding is that Hamilton, McKeown & Rudd are behind the madness in not funding long-term liabilities and as a 5 year member I wonder whether I am goin to be left high and dry?.
I cannot attend the AGM but would like someone who could accept my proxy.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me, what do I believe???
Brian and Axiom.
I'm a bit like Gaunty. While I did tell him to 'put up or shut up' (and quite valiantly, he did) I was on the verge of quitting two years ago.
Then I thought that was gutless. So I ran for the Board, (unfortunately) unseating Brian Harwood in the process. I say unfortunately because I repected the man.
I didn't join the Board because I supported what Hamilton had done over the past 8 years to AOPA. I plainly didn't.
Problem was, once on the Board you are expected to sing the same tune, and in my view, Hamilton knows only one tune. His own.
Whenever I refused to sing to that tune I was abused. By him, other 'egos' and a little man from WA who seemed to have up-to-the-second advice on what went on a Board level.
This is why I am warming to Murphie's ideas (which I also shared at Narromine). Even Axiom is getting nicer...but only a bit!!! With state based reprs we won't have single opinions driving the show anymore. This is why I support Marjorie, she is able to listen, form a policy based on the view of all and professionally negotiate or represent it. In my view Hamilton is not able to do this.
I joined the Board then, and am running now on some basic beliefs.
1. LSC was a bad idea! But we are stuck with it now so we must negotiate price breaks for members.
2. Private aviation needs less regulation, charter needs more.
3. There must be middle 'regulatory' ground. Joyflights from little flying schools are NOT charter nad cannot be treated the same way or they will die out (and become way too expensive).
4. There must be a merger of AUF and Private training so there can be progression for AUF pilots and a better share of the booty for GA schools. But that means less regulation NOT MORE.
5. I believe in supervised pilot maintenance. That doesn't mean back yard fixes, it means LAME supervised learningand money saving.
6. I don't believe in mandatory equipment levels. If airlines want us to fit ADSB then they or Airservices can pay. I'd rather spend the money on flying (and keep the flying cheaper for members).
7. I believe in AOPA sponsored Aero Clubs. Not them affiliating, us sponsoring them to run programs in our name for members. (yeah, we will need to fix the finances first, wish we had the money that was in the bank in '92!!!).
8. I believe we need to establish a professional lobbying relationship with CASA and the Government. We should negotiate, NOT LECTURE.
9. MOST OF ALL, I believe AOPA should talk to and represent the views of Members the best it can. I am personally sick of the one man bands we've had since the Partoni days. (And people who put self serving ideas to the Senate!!!)
Oh Gaunty, to answer one of your questions on the AOPA office in Canberra. It was sold at one of the worst moments in ACT property price history. It is now worth (at a guess) three times what it was then. I think it was a stupid move then, but in the interests of stability and retention of some good staff, I wouldn't change things right at this moment.
Oh, and if you would like me to hold your proxy, download the official version from the AOPA site and send it to me at
[email protected]
Please also tell me what you generally support and don't support. I won't use it to vote for something you don't.
AK
I'm a bit like Gaunty. While I did tell him to 'put up or shut up' (and quite valiantly, he did) I was on the verge of quitting two years ago.
Then I thought that was gutless. So I ran for the Board, (unfortunately) unseating Brian Harwood in the process. I say unfortunately because I repected the man.
I didn't join the Board because I supported what Hamilton had done over the past 8 years to AOPA. I plainly didn't.
Problem was, once on the Board you are expected to sing the same tune, and in my view, Hamilton knows only one tune. His own.
Whenever I refused to sing to that tune I was abused. By him, other 'egos' and a little man from WA who seemed to have up-to-the-second advice on what went on a Board level.
This is why I am warming to Murphie's ideas (which I also shared at Narromine). Even Axiom is getting nicer...but only a bit!!! With state based reprs we won't have single opinions driving the show anymore. This is why I support Marjorie, she is able to listen, form a policy based on the view of all and professionally negotiate or represent it. In my view Hamilton is not able to do this.
I joined the Board then, and am running now on some basic beliefs.
1. LSC was a bad idea! But we are stuck with it now so we must negotiate price breaks for members.
2. Private aviation needs less regulation, charter needs more.
3. There must be middle 'regulatory' ground. Joyflights from little flying schools are NOT charter nad cannot be treated the same way or they will die out (and become way too expensive).
4. There must be a merger of AUF and Private training so there can be progression for AUF pilots and a better share of the booty for GA schools. But that means less regulation NOT MORE.
5. I believe in supervised pilot maintenance. That doesn't mean back yard fixes, it means LAME supervised learningand money saving.
6. I don't believe in mandatory equipment levels. If airlines want us to fit ADSB then they or Airservices can pay. I'd rather spend the money on flying (and keep the flying cheaper for members).
7. I believe in AOPA sponsored Aero Clubs. Not them affiliating, us sponsoring them to run programs in our name for members. (yeah, we will need to fix the finances first, wish we had the money that was in the bank in '92!!!).
8. I believe we need to establish a professional lobbying relationship with CASA and the Government. We should negotiate, NOT LECTURE.
9. MOST OF ALL, I believe AOPA should talk to and represent the views of Members the best it can. I am personally sick of the one man bands we've had since the Partoni days. (And people who put self serving ideas to the Senate!!!)
Oh Gaunty, to answer one of your questions on the AOPA office in Canberra. It was sold at one of the worst moments in ACT property price history. It is now worth (at a guess) three times what it was then. I think it was a stupid move then, but in the interests of stability and retention of some good staff, I wouldn't change things right at this moment.
Oh, and if you would like me to hold your proxy, download the official version from the AOPA site and send it to me at
[email protected]
Please also tell me what you generally support and don't support. I won't use it to vote for something you don't.
AK
Last edited by snarek; 9th Apr 2003 at 15:00.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trust Andrew to do what is best for the crew;
But for those not so inclined, send yours to
[email protected]
I am sure between the two of them, and their supporters, they will get the State Chapters matter up and away.
While attempting to stay in the middle of things for my Mates sake, I have to ask,( because someone else will if I don't),
Of Emeus,
Hamilton hasn't been in charge for the last two years and, (I could be wrong), perhaps not with the fiscal situation either.
This postee has tried to look at both sides of the equation, but this sort of thing is a little trying with the election at nigh.
On matters liability, I would sincerely like to see what Marjorie Pagani has come up with on Incorporated Associations viz the current AOPA being a Company, because a lot support this concept.
If the State Chapters goes to ground this election, (God, Allah or whoever forbid), perhaps a concerted effort should be mounted to bring about discussion in the future on both.
And Snarek, don't call me a dropshort, it's not nice.
But for those not so inclined, send yours to
[email protected]
I am sure between the two of them, and their supporters, they will get the State Chapters matter up and away.
While attempting to stay in the middle of things for my Mates sake, I have to ask,( because someone else will if I don't),
Of Emeus,
Hamilton hasn't been in charge for the last two years and, (I could be wrong), perhaps not with the fiscal situation either.
This postee has tried to look at both sides of the equation, but this sort of thing is a little trying with the election at nigh.
On matters liability, I would sincerely like to see what Marjorie Pagani has come up with on Incorporated Associations viz the current AOPA being a Company, because a lot support this concept.
If the State Chapters goes to ground this election, (God, Allah or whoever forbid), perhaps a concerted effort should be mounted to bring about discussion in the future on both.
And Snarek, don't call me a dropshort, it's not nice.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My perceptions
Axiom.
I know you are trying hard to stay in the middle. But from where I stood Hamilton still dominated AOPA and Pike let him (out of loyalty???).
There was even a pantomime played out at Narromine between the two when secret ballots were suggested. Pike walked out, hamilton dragged him back. The 'newbies' on the Board fell for it.
There is no doubt Bill Hamilton works hard. But is it good for AOPA?? Is it good for GA?? Or is it just an old man who has lost focus and direction but can't let go??? The latter is my view.
I doubt the state based thing will get up this time round. Because we need to change the articles, to do that we need to give notice. But we can do that at an EGM, and if Murphie or I get in then we can call that EGM. But I really think it needs discussion via the Magazine and the forums for a couple of months anyway.
Sorry to be a bit of a drag Axiom, but I have had two years of dictatorship, I'd like a little member input this time round
There were other things we called 'dropshorts', but if I used them Woomera would sin bin me
Andrew
I know you are trying hard to stay in the middle. But from where I stood Hamilton still dominated AOPA and Pike let him (out of loyalty???).
There was even a pantomime played out at Narromine between the two when secret ballots were suggested. Pike walked out, hamilton dragged him back. The 'newbies' on the Board fell for it.
There is no doubt Bill Hamilton works hard. But is it good for AOPA?? Is it good for GA?? Or is it just an old man who has lost focus and direction but can't let go??? The latter is my view.
I doubt the state based thing will get up this time round.
Because we need to change the articles, to do that we need to give notice. But we can do that at an EGM, and if Murphie or I get in then we can call that EGM. But I really think it needs discussion via the Magazine and the forums for a couple of months anyway.Sorry to be a bit of a drag Axiom, but I have had two years of dictatorship, I'd like a little member input this time round
There were other things we called 'dropshorts', but if I used them Woomera would sin bin me
Andrew