AOPA "The Election" (merged)

[Dogimed]

Woomera

One would assume after 250 + post's we would get a new thread.

Dog

[brianh]

SEAT BELTS

Axy
No, don't know the chute harness regs but as the Commando Skydivers are currently setting up at Tooradin and I'm going down today to get the Cessna ready for the Anzac flyby tomorrow, I will check with them and advise.

It may have some bearing but I think that chute harnesses are far more involved with impact, sunlight, etc. My aircraft is covered, flies under 100 hrs per year, etc and doesn't do aeros. When I read the full text of the email I can now find even more reasons to challenge the mandatory replacement. I suppose next we will have to reco engines at 10 years! At least one has the joyous feeling that CASA looks upon us as officers and gentlemen with funds to match - or is this another millstone to remove the private owner from the sky?

Gaunty
Wow, a quite heavy letter mate. Shrewd bit of politics and a good opening gambit with the AUF. I don't notice ASA in the love list yet they have the superior research expertise and recent track record. Undoubtedly your letter received better pre-publishing legal support (to ensure no defamation) than the lack of help I received in my wasted effort with the ATSB but I do not think the "Team" has done itself a service in naming Bill and Chris and pointing to an email allegedly written either tongue in cheek or tongue in claret. It looks a tad unsporting from out here in the Members grandstand.

Have a little think down the track - depending on the election result we may have an immediate consequence of this letter to the AUF as two factions ar war in the Board room. If I was bill and Chris I'd be a tad peeved and even more agro than before. Likewise, if Bill and Chris are on the new Board, I am not sure what conclusion the AUF will draw about AOPA and its intentions. Best from here on in we keep our poo in our own potty until the Board is elected, eh?

I still luvves ya mate but I'm reminded that those who live by the sword .........
Cheers

[axiom]

Brian;

The thing with parachute harness longevity is just that. I don't believe (but still don't know), if there is a lifespan or just an inspection span. If so CAR schedule 5 already has an inspection requirement for safety harness and if signed out as airworthy in an annual/100 hourly, should be OK.

Wooden propellers are an "on condition" affair also and have no life span, simply inspected and if serviceable, put back into the air until the next inspection.

If things look out of proportion, we should be looking for someone's brother's aunty's cousin working for CASA who has an interest in a seatbelt business.

Gaunty;

I think you may have gone too far with this one mate.

But by the way, congratulations on winning the election. Did Hamilton get any votes?

[Woomera]

I was happy to let this thread run past the 100 in the interests of continuity.

It is now over 250 so for the sake of server bandwidth and for those with slower connections, I have split the subject and closed the first bit.

It is still available for reference.

Thank you Dogimed.

[cubl]

WHAT YOU’VE NOT BEING TOLD
about the matter of the pre-paid memberships is that the board could use all the funds available at a given time, if it so chose.
Even Russell Kelly acknowledges that reality.

WHAT YOU’R ALSO NOT TOLD is that there is NOT ‘just one way’ to treat these payments within AOPA’s accounts.

The accounting treatment is important only to the extent that it could be used to prevent AOPA from doing its job.
It is, to a large degree, a matter of accounting academia, other than the need to present an accurate view of the company’s financial position.

The ‘job’ of AOPA is the business of assisting members & gaining a set of regulations that are ‘clear, concise, unambiguous & truly harmonised’ whilst enhancing member benefits & facilities.

The board can elect to treat these funds in a number of ways, as it has in the past.
This year it has decided, on advise, to treat them as ‘income in this year’. The salient point is that, this year to do otherwise, is to run the risk of creating the very conditions that could prevent AOPA from being effective. That is the reason why I have taken the stance that I have. It is the ONLY reason. It certainly had nor has anything to do with any matter of insurance.

What is needed is for members to elect to the board people who support the position that AOPA must be positively pro-active in its dealings with CASA. This style of approach means that, until real reform of CASA is achieved, we will be in what ‘some’ will call ‘open conflict’ with CASA.

There are some on the board & some seeking election to the board, who state that they believe that AOPA can ‘negotiate’ with CASA. They maintain that AOPA could then still achieve the above objective whilst maintaining the existing mission statement, that “AOPA stands for its members right to fly without unnecessary restrictions & costs”. Such a ‘negotiating’ approach flies in the face of 80 years of experience.

It is not possible to ‘negotiate’ with an organisation like CASA, simply because the organisation is not under direct management control. If it were, then we would see the application of consistent policy, even if we disagreed with it. What is so often seen is significant differences in interpretation & application of the rules, even within the one CASA office or region. You simply can not ‘negotiate’ with such a body, because of its amorphous nature.

The financial situation then simply needs to be managed to allow AOPA to do its ‘job’. We do have some difficult issues to deal with. It is not a matter of disregarding the current financial situation. It is a matter of careful planning & budgeting. This will ensure that AOPA can undertake, on your behalf, the role you have ascribed to it.

JOHN LYON 24/4/2003

[gaunty]

cubl

John

Leaving aside the dilemma of the finances for the moment, I am glad to see that we are in general agreement of the problems we have had in dealing with the Regulator.

I am equally glad to see that you believe that we should be "positively proactive" in our relations with them.

John.

I am one of those who believe that we can "negotiate" with Government and CASA and still maintain fidelity with the mission statement
“AOPA stands for its members right to fly without unnecessary restrictions & costs”.
I do not believe that it flys in the face of 80 years of experience, maybe recently, but it has not always been so.

I agree, that there has NOT been,

the application of consistent policy, even if we disagreed with it. What is so often seen is significant differences in interpretation & application of the rules, even within the one CASA office or region. You simply can not ‘negotiate’ with such a body, because of its amorphous nature.

Surely that must be one of the first items on the negotiating agenda.

The organisation is under direct management control and we must for our sakes ensure that it stays that way.

May I suggest that the simplest way forward for ALL the partners, AOPA, Government and Regulator, is for us ALL to recognise that there are a number of realities.

Reality No.1

There will be matters that are going to become the subject of Legislation or Regulation, whether we, AOPA, like it or not. Government and Regulator have a statutory responsibility to serve and protect the interests of the people of Australia.

Reality No. 2

The time to deal with them is NOT when they become an NPRM or proposed Legislation but when the idea is first "born" or the "action" is considered to be necessary or desirable.

Reality No.3

Government and Regulator would I believe much rather have “cleared the ground” on ANY issue before it becomes a REAL ISSUE with us or anyone else affected, so to speak.

The idea that they may try to "sneak" anything through, whilst we are “not watching” just does NOT hold in reality, unless of course we are asleep or are not properly "connected".
If we have built a sufficient respect and trust with them, then they will become to understand that this is not GOOD POLITICS and it will make their lives much easier in the long run.
Hands up anyone who doesn't really want to make their life easier?
This is not a game where someone wins and someone loses.
That is why I believe the "office" with an Executive GM in Canberra is so important.
The day to day personal contact and discussion with them, of what will and will not "fly" and what matters need or do not need our attention in order to mitigate the effects of what might perhaps be an inevitable result is where we need to be.

They and any sensible person will understand that dealing with these realities in such a manner will reduce the resources they and we need to be efficient and effective on a daily, not catch as catch can basis.

Doesn't that go to the heart of our mission statement?

Reality No.4

without unnecessary restrictions & costs

has IMHO come to mean to some, "without restrictions and costs", which is an clearly an unrealistic expectation.

It is the sorting out of the "necessary" and "unnecessary" costs that is OUR and THEIR job TOGETHER.
The Government requires it of them also.

It is not reasonable to expect Govt and Regulator to "know" ALL of the effects a proposed change to its constituent groups may have.

It is our job to be sufficiently "close" to them to "help" them with the research and advice at "ground zero" BEFORE it becomes an issue for us BOTH.

I am not suggesting that we have to become part of the Government and Regulator, but we do need to become an intrinsic part of their processes not hostages to it

Reality No.5

Their will be occasion when this process requires, either because of personalities, or, because they believe that their responsibilities demand, that it be tested in the public domain.

That is when the seriously political part of our business starts. But we will not then be on the back foot as we have been occasionally in the past.

I, if I am elected, look forward to working together on this with you.

Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.


edited to include a very important NOT

[brianh]

NO WAY UNDER DIRECT CONTROL

John
Some good points. Re the $, yes the treatment is not critical but there needs to be enuf fuel in the tanks to reach the destination. I cannot accept a treatment method of "it's all this year, next years subs will top us up" although I know that is not what you personally are suggesting.

Gaunty
Lucky John posted as it provided you a diversion from my earlier comments. I think you have twisted John's comment a tad.

I have been involved in corporate change and re-organisation. I suspect from your belief that CASA is under direct control that you have not been.

An organisation of this size and compartmentation is quite skilful at mushrooming the manager; altering the intention; self-preservation at all costs; and of course always carrying a yellow envelope or a broom in best military fashion so no one queries where one is going or what doing.

A directive from the Minister or CEO can be totally perverted by the time it reaches third row of organisational level.

In the ultimate, if AOPA rolls over on its back to talk to CASA it will get what I would have if I had accepted Jen's kind offer and stayed in the cot instead of jumping up to write this post - thoroughly screwed!

CASA sometimes takes the .001% case and tries to make it the norm. This must stop but not sure how. Anyway, forget taking a deep breath, spreading your arms, and trusting your cape - you don't really think Superman would ever have got off the ground in a country where CASA controls flying, do you?
Must fly (hope the fog clears so we can do our Anzac fly)
cheers

[Creampuff]

Well well well. The battle’s well and truly joined, at least between the Gaunt/Pagani faction and the Hamilton/McKeown faction.

Better hope the provenance of that email attributed to Mr McKeown is beyond doubt.

Mr Hamilton’s response to the Gaunt/Pagani suggestion in today’s Australian, that the AOPA relationship with government has been counter-productive, was a telling but unsurprising one. Most of the ‘wins’ claimed by Hamilton were wins for the AUF and the sports aviation sector.

Gaunty: I’m not sure that the AUF is necessarily one of the organisations that should be on the receiving end of one of your olive branches, if you want to boost the number of members of AOPA.

One of the reasons AOPA has lost a substantial part of its ‘traditional’ GA member base is because Hamilton considers – I am sure quite earnestly – that the AUF and 95.55 and other sports aviation regulatory regimes are the way of the future, and ‘traditional’ GA is dead. Witness his contemptuous dismissal of the views of GA training school representatives at the FLOT conference.

Have a chat with GA instructors and flying school/charter operators and ask them what they think of AOPA. Get PPRuNer CFI to tell you what he thinks of AOPA.

AOPA is no longer perceived, and in my view deserves not to be perceived, as representing ‘traditional’ GA. And that would be fine except for the fact that AOPA claims to represent ‘traditional’ GA and keeps sticking its hands out to it for money.

The AUF must be laughing all the way to the bank. It already has a statutory monopoly and a regulator in the back pocket, then Hamilton comes along to further the AUF cause on AOPA members’ money, and now the Gaunt/Pagani AOPA faction extends the olive branch. As if the AUF needs the help or the money. It’s like Australia saying to the USA: Good news George, we’ll send over a squadron of F18s so you can beat the Iraqis. It’s AOPA that needs the help and the money.

One of the very tricky issues with which you are going to have to deal when you’re elected, Gaunty, is that whilst the interests of the AUF and ‘traditional’ GA overlap to some extent, they are not co-terminus and in some cases diverge.

If you want to re-capture the ‘traditional’ GA membership base, you’re going to have to explain to the likes of CFI why he should pay money to AOPA so AOPA can spend it making sure the AUF keeps its statutory monopoly and minimum regulation, while ‘traditional’ GA dies a slow death under the traincrash of regs, which traincrash was the brilliant idea of the Hamiltons of this world.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the AUF’s a great organisation and it’s a great way to fly. Hamilton may well be right in leaving ‘traditional’ GA for dead. But if and when I jump ship too, I sure won’t be paying AOPA to represent my interests.

So here’s the first toughy for you: The owner of a flying school comes to you and says she’s going broke because CASA lets the AUF flying schools next door and down the road operate without an AOC. She can’t compete on price, because the schools next door and down the road don’t have the same regulatory and aircraft overheads. She thinks that there should be some control over entry into the flying training industry, that there should be standards set by law, and that those standards should be enforced across the board by a disinterested regulator. Her young instructor’s not getting work, but the AUF guys next door and down the road are. Neither the existing rules nor the proposed next addition to the traincrash excludes commercial flying training from the requirement to have an AOC.

Explain to the owner and the instructor why they should join AOPA and what AOPA would do to protect and promote their interests.

Mr Lyon: at last someone has touched on the issue that is at the heart of the accounting argument. When someone pays 3 years’ membership to AOPA, AOPA’s only obligation to that person is to provide them with 3 years’ membership. That obligation does not include an obligation to, for instance, give the member a magazine each month for 3 years. If AOPA was obliged to give the member a magazine each month for 3 years, then AOPA would be obliged to account for the income and liability in the way preferred by Mr Kelly. But because it isn’t, it’s not.

Now some directors might consider that AOPA is morally bound to give the member a magazine and other benefits for the 3 years. Those directors would be more than a little hypocritical if they did not insist on accounting for the income and liability in the way preferred by Mr Kelly.

Those directors who want to treat membership in advance as today’s income with no corresponding liability can do so. However, they should look members in the eye and tell them that so far as those directors are concerned, AOPA has no obligation to give the member anything other than bare membership in return for their fees.

[triadic]

"The Australian 25April03"

The following is from todays "Australian"

Little joy as flyers give poll big stick
By Steve Creedy
April 25, 2003

AIRCRAFT Owners and Pilots Association members are being urged to vote in a heated election described by candidates as crucial to the organisation's survival.

Fifteen people have nominated for nine available board positions, with a group headed by Townsville lawyer Marjorie Pagani attempting to oust veteran technical director and vice-president Bill Hamilton and several of his supporters.

Major differences in the bitter campaign centre on the Pagani group's push for a less confrontational approach to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the federal Government.

The group argues that making an enemy of the regulator has proved counterproductive and undermined AOPA's effectiveness as a lobby group – a claim hotly contested by Mr Hamilton.

It also claims the hijacking of regulatory reform by "high-profile personalities and agendas" has contributed to a halving of AOPA's membership in the past decade, from almost 11,000 to about 4400.

"There is a view among the general aviation fraternity that CASA has shut its doors to the association because of the attack method," Ms Pagani and Perth aviator Gary Gaunt said in a statement to The Australian.

"We do not believe, as Bill seems to, that negotiation necessarily means capitulation.

"Open dialogue, round-table discussions and, of course, heated debate from time to time, are healthy and progressive tools."

But Mr Hamilton described his opponent's view as "just too silly for words".

"That CASA doors are closed to representatives of AOPA who don't meet CASA prescriptions for doing business just flies in the face of political reality," he said.

"AOPA experience is that without political pressure, CASA does not move.

"And if that political pressure is eased, those in CASA who have never agreed with reforms that have been imposed upon them will always do their best to wind them back."

Mr Hamilton said he had always supported the guiding principles of AOPA, the free dom to fly responsibly and to fly without unnecessary costs or restriction.

"In pursuing that policy, AOPA has had some notable successes, including the regulations for aircraft certification, manufacturing . . . which gave us the experimental category," he said.

Ms Pagani and Mr Gaunt said they hoped a board freed of the shackles of "entrenched warfare" would inspire a return to the AOPA fold.

They said they planned to expand member communications by adding substantially to the number of area representatives and by inviting other organisations on board.

Voting closes on May 9 ahead of the organisation's annual general meeting at Murray Bridge, South Australia, on May 24.

hmmmmmmm!

[axiom]

The letter to the AUF by Gaunt and Co. plus the write up in The Australian today only goes to emphasise the duplicity of the of the anti Hamilton antagonists.

One would only hope that both will be epithet to "TEAM AOPA" as they go out the door.

On this ANZAC day, I am saddened and indeed perplexed (possibly because I too, have used this platform for political motive), to remind you all of some evil and despicable remarks made to and about John Lyon and other nominees who have been at the "two way rifle range".

One in particular,

"GUTLESS"

How does it feel today to be the author of this spiteful post?

How does it feel to be part of this TEAM who use such tactics, yet preach a softly, softly, don't kick the door down approach.

"DUPLICITY" you gutless patronising morons.

How are my remaining points now, Woomera?

[Woomera]

axiom

For the moment quite safe.

I am sure the PPRuNers are capable of making up their own minds about your feelings about this and that from your contributions.

It appears that the other participants are quite capable of handling themselves, without me getting sucked into the fray.

Whilst I am, as they say "riding with a light rein" here for both sides, please give me some respect and do not provoke me.

[brianh]

THE PUBLICITY

At least the public airing may get some of the AOPA silent majority thinking. We might double the interest from the few on this Forum to get at least 20 members awake?

Creamy, some good stuff in your posting and probably the best articulation so far of the future funding issue.

Axy, I checked the droppers and the harness is 20 years then an annual inspection for safety. Given this is rather fundamental to their survival, one has to seriously question any CASA dictate re 10 year seat belt matters for us. Ah well, time will tell.

I think a fair point by you re the internal negotiation. Looking at it from a different perspective, if what has been on this Forum is to be their friendly fire perhaps we do have some hope of a tough stance with CASA if that team is elected.

Be gentle with the Moderator. Remember Woomera is a restricted area!

I believe the alternative forum has removed the Gaunty posting.
Cheers

[axiom]

Woomera;

I promise not to antagonise you. I was just a little upset that's all.

Brian;

Look at who has a relative in seatbelts and CASA, again, are you going to be a one man band on this matter or will the fiddlers at AOPA help instead of watching the ship burn?

To everyone;

It has taken me some time to finally get a reply to the insurance problem which we have been told is of so much importance. I was still under the impression that we were uninsured.

NOT TRUE.

Part of the problem was that I wasn't lied to, but simply not told. However upon talking to some of the Board members it transpires:

Marjorie unilaterally ordered the AOPA Forum shut down, because she was unable to renew Directors Liability Insurance, and her concern for her personal financial liability. The rest of the Board were NOT consulted.

Chris McKeown SUCCESSFULLY negotiated the insurance renewals, once the audited accounts, in a form agreed by EVERY Board Member, except Marjorie, (that is, Pike, Hamilton, McKeown, Kennedy, Lawford and Rudd), were presented to the insurance Company.

I am told if anybody doubts the accuracy of this information, they should ring Marjorie and ask her why she, nobody else, closed down the forum.

This flies in the face of what has been alluded to here on Pprune.

Who called me paranoid ?

[cogwheel]

AOPA WEB PAGE

CHRIS MCKEOWN....

If the above post is true, why have you not now returned the forum to active use?

Why is the web site not updated? Bill Pike is still listed as President and there have been NO updates of late.

What are you afraid of? I am sure there are many members that would like to have a say or to be informed on what you are on about.

Don't you have the fortitude to enter this arena?

[Blue Sky Baron]

Time to stand up for the good of AOPA

Well,

I've trolled through most of the 25 odd pages of this discussion and I have now come to the conclusion that it is now time to do something.

I bailed out of AOPA many years ago, just after Mr Munro threatened to sue me and a few others for placing a letter in the AOPA mag that he thought made him look bad. (That was the point of the letter by the way!)

I've since moderated my views on him and have little problem with him.

HOWEVER:

I now feel it is time for all those other ex AOPA members to 'put up' to help make AOPA an effective organisation that may once again support us as members.

So, if someone could be so kind as to tell me who to contact at AOPA so that I may rejoin and vote in this election I would be most grateful.

Axiom, your rantings have continued throughout these pages unabated, however you keep shovelling out the same diatribe without any real direction for the future of AOPA. Your attitude alone has made it clear to me that my vote will certainly be going in the OPPOSITE direction to you!

I have met Mr Gaunt and have found him to be a very astute gentleman and without doubt the type of person AOPA needs to ensure its viability and inject some vitality back into AOPA. There are still many issues that need clarification, not the least the multi year subscrition accountability issue, so I will only be rejoining for ONE year until this issue is corrected.

To whoever is installed to run AOPA for the next year or two I issue this challenge: JUST FOR ONCE, PLEASE ASK THE MEMBERS WHAT THEY WANT!!

Regards to all,

BSB

[triadic]

Hamilton again !

I have just received the Summary of Responses to CASA DP 0223FS "Medical Certification of Cabin Crew Members"

I note that WJR Hamilton made a submission on behalf of AOPA.

I would be interested to know how this very specific matter is or might have been of interest to the rank and file of AOPA. (not many flight attendants in our members aircraft I would say) I would also like to know what guidelines or authorization Hamilton was given by the Board in making a response to this DP.

Further, why is this response (and the responses to all the other DP/NPRMs) not on the AOPA web site for all members to see? It would be nice to see how AOPA are representing us.

Nobody from AOPA has ever asked me an opinion on matters raised in DPs or NPRMs, even those that I might have experience or expertise in (!!). I don't recall ever within the magazine or on the web page seeing any requests from the board canvassing opinion on any such matters. Why?

It might be ok for some people to do when they have a very broad and comprehensive understanding of and listen to the views of the membership, but experience suggests that it is otherwise in Hamilton's case.

Is this another case of Bill doing his own thing?

If so, it is not acceptable.

[axiom]

BSB;

Seeing as you have already made your mind up as to who NOT to vote for, it is a simple matter to ask someone who you ARE going to vote for. Surely this simplistic approach would have you in the right hands and I'm sure even they can get you signed up. I'm sure you will all be happy together.

You obviously liked snareks ramblings better than mine.

As a matter of interest, what will you do with your new found membership if your mob don't get up? Support the winners as the choice of the majority or sit around wringing your hands writing rantings to the undevoted?

Cogwheel;

McKeown advised that it will be up shortly, they are waiting for software updates I believe. the office should be able to confirm.

Triadic;

I thought Mr Hamilton is the VP who looks after this sort of thing and reports on progress. One would suppose he has read the Brian H post re seatbelts and would do something and report also.

I don't suppose Brian asked for AOPA permission to check this matter out either, he being an A/C owner and all in his own right.

[triadic]

More on Hamilton !

Mail opening day! Well further down the pile is the "Summary of Responses to NPRM 0112AS" on "Aerodrome Certification and Operation"

Now here is a subject that is of significant interest and perhaps concern to General Aviation and to the rank and file that AOPA say they represent. Many of the standards proposed have the potential to force the same standards applicable to large capital city RPT and GAAP airports onto rural airports that have only regional RPT services or perhaps no services at all. This has the potential to inflict costs on those aerodrome owners that would obviously be passed on with little justification other than compliance. Yet in the acknowledgement section where all the organisations and individuals that offered comment, there is NO MENTION OF AOPA as having provided a responce.

The question I now ask is why did AOPA respond to the former and not this one?

Where were you this time Bill ?

Axiom

I thought Mr Hamilton is the VP who looks after this sort of thing and reports on progress.

Well I suggest he may be, but is it in name only? Show me where he reports to the Board and the membership? I have certainly not seen any summary of what AOPA has submitted to any DPs or NPRMs.

• Who does Hamilton talk to in order to obtain the views he expresses on behalf of AOPA?
• Are all his submissions tabled to the Board for endorsement/approval prior to submission?

If not, why not?

[gaunty]

Creampuff

Thank you for your as ever insightful post and it is indeed a “toughy” with which we are going to have to deal.

The "olive branch" to which you refer was not intended to signal that we would agree with everything that they want to do, simply inform them that if we were to work together where

the interests of the AUF and ‘traditional’ GA overlap to some extent,

that we wanted to do so in the spirit of sincere cooperation.

Where;

they are not co-terminus and in some cases diverge.

AFTER we have had debate with them on those particular issues, then in the same spirit of sincerity we will inform them so, why and the action that we intend to take, they deserve no less than that, if we are to work together on our mutual interests.

I am sure that they will have the same concerns and if there is mutual respect then we can only hope that they will behave likewise.

The same applies with any of the other organisations.

Trust and respect for others regardless, of their station in life or perceived status in the industry by others is fundamental to our view.

I get really cross when people say to me "oh, but I'm only a............." , not at them, but because they have been taught by someone or thing to perceive themselves to be so and will make some effort to disabuse them of their view.

Most of the ‘wins’ claimed by Hamilton were wins for the AUF and the sports aviation sector.

One should not lose sight of the fact that Bill Hamilton is quick to claim personal responsibility for and in the name of AOPA for the pushing through the legislation that "guarantees" their continued existence.

I have had a few conversations with AUF members and in the SAAA and some are more than a little miffed, that whilst it was they who put it all together and did the hard yards it was Hamilton who jumps on the train proclaiming it as a personal and AOPA victory.
Now I don't profess to know the in and outs of that, but I have sufficient respect for those with whom I spoke, to accept that there was a fair bit of truth in it. Maybe it needed a bit of a push from AOPA to get it over but it was their baby.

Question;
Did the then AOPA Board support this venture or was it another of Hamilton’s unilateral efforts.
If so, were the effects that you describe thought through?
Were the membership and the "flight schools" you describe consulted?

Too late and the egg cannot be unscrambled, maybe it is going to be the "way".

One way or the other AOPA are going to have to deal with it and I'd rather act in an atmosphere of transparency, trust and sincerity.

I do not yet have a quick answer to your "first toughy", the answer may yet lie in;

Neither the existing rules nor the proposed next addition to the traincrash excludes commercial flying training from the requirement to have an AOC.

that being one of the first truly AOPA concerns, rather than as triadic suggests, wasting our precious resources on issues such as CASA DP 0223FS "Medical Certification of Cabin Crew Members".

We also recognise very clearly that;

One of the reasons AOPA has lost a substantial part of its ‘traditional’ GA member base is because Hamilton considers – I am sure quite earnestly – that the AUF and 95.55 and other sports aviation regulatory regimes are the way of the future, and ‘traditional’ GA is dead. Witness his contemptuous dismissal of the views of GA training school representatives at the FLOT conference.

Have a chat with GA instructors and flying school/charter operators and ask them what they think of AOPA. Get PPRuNer CFI to tell you what he thinks of AOPA.

AOPA is no longer perceived, and in my view deserves not to be perceived, as representing ‘traditional’ GA. And that would be fine except for the fact that AOPA claims to represent ‘traditional’ GA and keeps sticking its hands out to it for money.

And is a number one priority for reengagement and consultation, as it is from whence, encouragement for their clients and members to join and support our mutual concerns derives.

brianh

Likewise, if Bill and Chris are on the new Board, I am not sure what conclusion the AUF will draw about AOPA and its intentions. Best from here on in we keep our poo in our own potty until the Board is elected, eh?

I still luvves ya mate but I'm reminded that those who live by the sword .........

We expect that is a possibility, but at least the AUF will know from whence we come and can make their decisions accordingly.

Mate, I agree but if somebody draws a sword on you, you have to, at the very least, unsheathe yours.

We didn't/can't run around the country speechifying at official functions as senior representatives of AOPA against our intention to roll over for CASA, or professing undying love and affection for organisations that they don't particularly like, to get their vote.

Or censor the mag for dissenting opinion and then use several pages and a thousand or so words, to advance our cause, whilst the rest of those dumbos are getting emails asking us to reduce our profile "spiel" from 256 words to 250. (Sorry Mr Editor, we know it was under instruction and according to the rules, just wanted to make the point )

Thanks though for the thoughts and expression of affection , and keep the thoughts coming please.
I am a follower of the maxim; "if you can't stand the heat then get out of the sun"

BlueSkyBaron

Thank you for your kind words and like you am coming to a more moderate view of Mr Munro.

You put your finger right on the problem of how to join or rejoin.

There is nowhere on the AOPA site nor in the mag that has an application form or details on how to. If elected, that is a number one on my list.

Ring or email Kris Lovell AOPA
Tel; 02 9791 9099
email [email protected]
and he will get you sorted before the close of voting.

JUST FOR ONCE, PLEASE ASK THE MEMBERS WHAT THEY WANT!!

will be changed, to steal Clintons simple but brilliant election focus;

IT'S ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP STUPID!

axiom

I always save the best bits for last.

Marjorie unilaterally ordered the AOPA Forum shut down, because she was unable to renew Directors Liability Insurance, and her concern for her personal financial liability. The rest of the Board were NOT consulted.

You perhaps deliberately conflate two issues here.

Yes it may have been Marjorie who as you put it "unilaterally" ordered the Forum closed down as a result of;

the Insurance companies refusal to renew the liability as a result of the accounts.

it was NOT

and understand this very clearly, NOT

because she was unable to renew Directors Liability Insurance

Further it was her statutory and legal responsibility as the AOPA Secretary and Treasurer at the time to mitigate and protect the Board and your AOPA from the possibility of any legal action that might be taken from activity therein.

Notwithstanding that that, or any action could have only come from or be generated by someone within the AOPA membership itself, as access to the Board was denied to any but AOPA members. Sad state of affairs don't you think.

and her concern for her personal financial liability. The rest of the Board were NOT consulted.

Hey, and lets get this straight too, NOT just Marjorie’s' but EVERY Board members financial liability.

Ask your "expert legal" friends to explain to you the principles of "joint and several" and "duty of care" amongst other Board, Secretarial and Treasurers responsibility.

You mate Murphie should take great comfort that there are, such as Marjorie and Russell to look after his backside for him and not the bar room barristers who seem to abound around here.

As Secretary you are required to take whatever action is necessary to protect the assets of the company , whenever and however it is required, it may be later ratified by the Board but it's too late after the fact, if the company becomes exposed.

If your car insurance company calls and advises that you are no longer covered for accident or third party damage, you have a responsibility to NOT drive the car until such time as it is.
To do so would be irresponsible in the extreme, if not illegal in some States.

'Kay

Chris McKeown SUCCESSFULLY negotiated the insurance renewals, once the audited accounts, in a form agreed by EVERY Board Member, except Marjorie, (that is, Pike, Hamilton, McKeown, Kennedy, Lawford and Rudd), were presented to the insurance Company.

You may very well live to eat those words. There is very much more to this than meets your eye.
I will not discuss it here and will leave that for the AGM and the accounting and legal professionals to sort out.

axiom

McKeown advised that it will be up shortly, they are waiting for software updates I believe. the office should be able to confirm.

C'mon get real mate, the Forum worked quite well without the updates and in any event thay can be installed when they arrive.

It's like the Capt of the Titanic deciding not to abandon ship because there are some new Regulations on better ship construction about to come out.

I'll bet it'll get restored on or about the 9th May, I'll be very happy to stand corrected on that.

[axiom]

Triadic;

Dunno.

Gaunty;

Thanks for directing that lost soul to a neutral corner. I am so paranoid I was believing "wild blue yonder", or whatever is his name to be another throw away identity put up by the "putsch".

In answer to the rest;

Yes, No, No, Yes, I think so, probably OK, don't blame me it was a "typo", You may be right.

But, I am here for your amusement remember. Even Lead Balloon thought I was "brilliant".

Taking the p!ss out of me keeps the others alone to concentrate on winning an election. Even snarek caught on that I was baiting him.

On a more serious note, I, as a member, would like to know if you will all get on with whoever wins and has a controlling interest in this multi billion dollar general Aviation Industry lobby group?

I have a horrible feeling that given the posts here and talking to people around the traps (yes, from both sides), the election results are going to divide AOPA even more unless we have mass resignations.

Perhaps Murphie's State Chapters being a stabilising influence is not so silly after all.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,