AOPA "The Election" (merged)

[Creampuff]

Vote 1 Gaunty (or at least give him your first tick)

Heaven forbid! Some recognition and considered analysis of the complexity of the problem.

You’ve still got my first vote, Gaunty. (And I do confess to having overstated the nature of your approach to the AUF, just to see your reaction.)

Yes – I never cease to be impressed by Mr Hamilton’s energy and enthusiasm, but, like many others, remain perpetually perplexed at his priorities and claimed achievements in the context of his AOPA duties. One could be forgiven for believing that rather than AOPA deciding how his energies would be best applied to further AOPA members’ interests, Mr Hamilton has decided that he knows what they are and how they should be promoted.

His priorities appear to me to reflect those of someone who is paid to fly heavy metal during the week, while yearning to escape the shackles of employment and air traffic control on the weekend. From one end of the spectrum to the other, but not much in between.

Ask a bus driver with a Harley how much he cares for taxi and car drivers.

AOPA used to represent the aviation equivalent of taxi and car drivers, and needs to again.

Ax – increase the dosage.

[Blue Sky Baron]

Poor old Axiom

Well Axiom you didn't let me down.

You were so quick to slag off at me for my comments that you showed your true colours yet again on this thread.

You obviously do not have AOPA at heart or you would have been the first to give me the info that I asked for. (But then again why would you support a vote that was not to your liking.)

If those that I vote for are not elected I will do as I do any other time someone I vote for does not get up, I LIVE WITH IT and hope those in the positions of power do the right thing. Would you rather I did not join???

As for your throw away line that I might be a throw away identity even the most stupid of people would notice that I have been on this forum for several years now and my identity has been no secret. If you want to take the time to troll through all my posts all will be apparent. (At least the time you spend doing that will keep you away from this thread for a while so that some sensible discussion may take place.)

I would like to finish here with a request for others who may not be AOPA members to seriously consider investing in your future because the time has come - I believe that AOPA is at the crossroads of a dead end street.

BSB

[monkeyfly]

brainh, I give up.

To all.

Was looking through the AOPA “rules” and came up with this interpretation. How this is going to be sorted out is beyond me, the rules were never written for this. Maybe the people who wrote the “rule” assumed.....

This year several board members “stepped down” and offered themselves for election. The rules outline that half of the board must step down very year. These people can nominate for re-election. OK, that’s covers 5 people.

4 others have also “stepped down”. The rules covering this mean that they resign. Their position on the board can be replaced. The replacement is a member selected by the remaining board. The person coming onto the board serves out the remainder of the term held by the person who left.

John Lyon is the only current board member. AOPA members selected by John can fill the positions of the people who did not have to step down. These people can remain in office until, not the upcoming AGM, but the next. (Right now I think some people might be saying “Opps”, or something)

Interesting thought??? I wounder if anyone thought about this before??? I wounder if anyone will pick up on the real points of this post???? Careful, you may need to stop and think.

NOT FOR A MOMENT DO I BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN. IF JOHN HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT NOW, IT’S TOO LATE. THE FIREWORKS WILL BE AT THE AGM!!!!!

[brianh]

ALL GOOD STUFF REALLY

Monkey
Don't give up, although the weight of the world does seem to be on the up

BSB
Welcome back to AOPA, and I like your comments.
If you want representation, also join ASA. If I could liken CASA/ATSB to Iraq - actually that's a thought to explore - then ASA is Bush and AOPA the U.N. in my humble opinion.
But the most significant part of your post was the reminder to "ask the members".

As far as Axy is concerned, whether I agree or disagree with all his points his hand grenade throwing technique has at least driven some comments out of the bunkers.

Gaunty
I know you skilfully avoid my hard points but I'm not yet at hand grenade stage. As far as the AOPA Forum re-starting I am 100% in agreement with you. If we can censor the magazine why not the Forum, after all it's only for the members not the real people. I have faith that you will both get in and get it running.

All
As you know I am critical of the old brigade of "regulate don't educate" at IRAQ (I'm Regulating Aviation (to) Quietness") but I have to express joy at receiving an email from my colleagues at the NAS group sent yesterday. Just a little item but good customer service on their part re an issue I had asked about - praise where it is due.
Have a good Sunday, I'm working then flying - our Anzac Day flight went off well.
Cheers

[axiom]

Blue sky baron;

You started it first !

And if you thought that was "slagging off", you obviously haven't read any of the many faces Dr Fu Man snarek !

[gaunty]

brianh

an email allegedly written either tongue in cheek or tongue in claret. It looks a tad unsporting from out here in the Members grandstand.

Thats the problem from out here, no one know which one is true, but it is nonetheless "out there" and neither interpretation is all that flattering.


Oh the CASA hard points.

I think you have twisted John's comment a tad.

I thought I was being a "inclusive" and "proactive"

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.

Very good point that.
Me too, (involved i.e.), if you really understand and recognise that as a problem then you aren't going in there as a "wide eyed innocent" and can be really tough and specific about what you expect in negotiations and outcomes.

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.

Yup been there and done that too, again, I'm sure you will agree, if you really understand and recognise that as a problem then you aren't going in there as a "wide eyed innocent" and can be really tough and specific about what you expect in negotiations and outcomes.

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

See above and they will be put directly on notice to that effect.

Isn't this after all one of the things that we are supposed to be doing. They, (the third level) are as much a part of the respect, inclusivity, consultative and "education" process as the top guys.
As you would know from your "organisational change" experience, oftentimes they are the ones who actually know whats going down..

I am not suggesting a fifth column approach here just a global one.

We are not the ones who should be kicking down doors or bang heads within their organisation at that level, should they choose to subvert an agreed process, that is done much more effectively at senior management level. If they don't or won't, then thats why politics was invented.

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!

Hmmm there is a Management 101 lesson in there somewhere on setting and assessing priorities. Had I been marking your assignment I suspect a fail would have been appropriate.

And on the CASA bit, I don't think so.

CASA sometimes takes the .001% case and tries to make it the norm. This must stop but not sure how.

Yup and neither am I, but we wont find out until and unless we reengage with them proactively.

You said in another post here;

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.

Yes but with mutual trust, respect and goodwill. My organisational experience like yours I'm sure tells me, that winning the "hearts and minds" is the fundamental part of the process.

Lip service just doesn't cut it.

Anyway, forget taking a deep breath, spreading your arms, and trusting your cape

Means if you don't believe that you can then you'll never find out whether you could.

- you don't really think Superman would ever have got off the ground in a country where CASA controls flying, do you?

Well yes I do, however it is uncertain as to whether he would come under the supervision of the AUF or control of CASA.

I haven't got the time to look up the number of penalty points he would nevertheless collect from CASA, for;

"emitting innaprropriate and unshielded, nuclear and electromagnetic radiation" , or X-Ray vision within 30 metres of an aircraft in the process of refuelling etc blah blah.

Blasting things to bits from the air whilst not being a State aircraft.

Flying over built up areas below 1500ft.

The use of take off and alighting areas that do not meet the take off and obstacle clearance requirements of 20.7.1 and 1b in the event of a Kryptonite attack from the evil Zorg and others.

Entering controlled airspace without a clearance.

Carrying passengers without the appropriate seats and seatbelts (<10 yrs old of course).

Not carrying a properly certified C of R, Cof A, valid M/R or pilots license.

and so on. Creampuff where are you, when I need you.

Hope the ANZAC fly was a saitsfying one.

[monkeyfly]

A couple of errors in my last post.

The members of the board who must stand down are still on the board.

The numbers are probally incorrect. I based the numbers on the fact that there are 10 positions open, 1/2 of 10 is 5. 9-5 =4.

[antechinus]

Dud Information

Axiom

For someone who has established himself as an expert on all matters AOPA, you are terribly wrong with your information:

Quote
____________________________________________________
I note Ms Pagani has been very quiet about the Kelly institutated Gregg Lucas affair and the subsequent loss of a valuable members advocate and a good bloke
____________________________________________________

I assume by the "Gregg Lucas affair" you are referring to is his resignation? If so, I was not on the AOPA board at the time and had nothing to do with it.

Oh, and by the way, you are also wrong about the costs to AOPA for the Loane legal action. It was covered by insurance. The net cost for memory was the excess on the policy. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Russell

[axiom]

Antechinas;

So we did have insurance, what was all the misinformation about.

I note there is a big silence on the Monkeyfly post, someone should say something or has the cat got someones tongue?



On matters ameliorating, and I say this toward the end of the electoral sh!tfight from some ideologues who prefer to quit and run and snipe from the outside,

Axiom has championed the cause of Bob Murphie who has stood for the principles of the AOPA charter,

And added;

State based Chapters who would independantly hold 100 proxy votes to per State keep the ego's in check on the Board.

Open committee meetings.

A membership drive in conjunction with the Chapters idea.

A steadfast programme to hold CASA accountable for their actions and,

A prolonged and emphatic lobby to politicians and their advisors.

the idea that the judiciary can be influenced by reminding them of the Separation of the powers in the Australian constitution and the reinforcement within the aviation fraternity.

If whoever you are that see this as diatribe, "slagging off", being the fool for the idiots who respond, or not the thoughts of an AOPA member who values his association, YOU have not got AOPA's interests at heart.

Simply saying, "I think you haven't got AOPA's interests at heart" just wont wash. Members are smarter than this and will be evident at the AGM.

On matters CASA, it would interest many to read that Murphie has been offered employment with CASA, much to the didgust to a few loud postees here who have been trying for years applying for CASA jobs and getting knocked back time and time again.

Murphie saw and antagonised the conflict of interest thing with CASA and has been held in high esteem by a lot of senior exectutives in the organisation and the Political spectrum for his principles and scruples.

I have documented proof of this which I will show publically at the AGM but not before to be ridiculed and lamblasted by the politically insensitive in the meantime.

This brings me to matters of treachery.

The worst possible war one could be involved in is a CIVIL WAR.

Fighting for one's ideals and one's Country is HOUNOURABLE.

This election is being fought on the basis of a Civil War between Ego's and is nothing more than a POWER GRAB.

When you see the likes of wild blue yonder or whatever, you will get an idea of the unscrupulous behavior of some who simply want Hamilton deposed. No guts to throw the hat in the ring, no guts to do anything but take up the "what do we want, when do we want it"? chant of the lower levels of the trade union movement.

With Murphie, I will champion the fight with Hamilton, Rudd, McKeown, Bertram, Lawford and Lyon simply because they are right and the others are wrong.

Perhaps since Gaunt is making a concerted effort at Number one on the ticket, we should ask Kerans and Pagani where they stand.

My guess is that they couldn't work with each other.

How does anyone expect my crew to get along with their crew when their crew seem at odds with each other. Perhaps a little bonding might be in order.

Who is going to champion the members if Murphie doesn't?

Remember he has at least a cohesive crew to work with.

An old drunks hymn included

Accepting things

Courage and

Wisdom.

Feel free to elaborate.

[cubl]

Gaunty
By ‘positively pro-active’ I mean that we get on the front foot and push our agenda, not react to theirs.

Re ‘negotiating’ …… negotiating requires the parties involved to have, amongst other things like commitment, the authority to execute whatever settlement is achieved.

If ‘central office’ can’t get the regions to follow their policy, which they can’t, then any ‘negotiating’ is valueless, because it will not produce an effective solution.

Additionally ‘good faith’ is also needed. You can do all the talking you like, but if the other side, in reality, doesn’t want to change, then nothing is achieved.

Take the situation regarding the exams for instance. Many discussions, much gathering of factual information & a great deal of hard work, but no result.

The reality in this area is that CASA does not want to change. If we are to achieve an ‘improved’ situation the approach will have to change. We talk to the ‘butcher rather than the block’. That, in turn means public disputation with the authority, amongst other tactics, so that the politicians start getting the message.


Regarding ’80 years of experience’ …… it has “ever been thus”.

In the “good old days”, if you ‘got on with’ your local Examiner then all was okay.
If not, then …….well you guess. Then, if and when your Examiner changed you started all over again.

Here’s a question for you ……. When did the FIRST ‘Manual of Standards’ for use by FOIs come into use ?.


Re : your realities …….. yes, well, some are ‘matter of fact’. The point is that NO REGULATOR (in any industry) talks to its industry UNLESS compelled to do so. That compulsion comes from the industry having a representative body that the ‘regulator’ is compelled to deal THROUGH. Aviation is the one industry, as far as I know, that still lacks such a body. Most, if note all, other industries have “consultative councils” of one kind or another which filter the regulatory onslaught.


Brianh
Re the $$$$ ……. Suffice to say, we have a lot of homework to do there, before we KNOW exactly the total picture.


Creampuff
The answer to your question about how AOPA can appeal to “traditional GA” is to get a set of rules that are “clear, concise, unambiguous & truly harmonised”.

By the way, there is a quite well developed network which continues to beaver away in association with AOPA is this area.

Regarding your comments about Bill Hamilton & the AUF …… are you saying that the introduction of Parts 21-35 had no beneficial effect for “traditional GA” ?.


Triadic
Re the ‘airports’ NPRM ……… don’t believe all you see.
Sometimes CASA has not recorded responses because they weren’t on the ‘right’ bit of paper.
This NPRM was presented in September 2001 ….. 18 months ago.
It deals with the proposed part 139 which relates to aerodromes to be used in ‘Air Transport’ operations, hitherto referred to as licensed aerodromes.
Also, it was released prior to the NPRM for the proposed part 121B.

The ‘interest’ to GA arises from the proposed provisions of part 121B not part 139 per se & they are principally of concern to the ‘charter’ operators rather than private aviators.


All,
Remember one thing ………. If we don’t all hang together, we’ll all hang separately.

Happy flying,
John Lyon

[brianh]

FIRST, AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE

All
The message below is for information and i gladly supply it because of my high regard for the person, his ability, and his ethics.

"JIM DAWSON

I am a former contract Research Officer for AOPA. I am a former director, elected by members vote, of AOPA. I have been named several times during the course of this and previous threads.

Rumour has been relayed to me from two sources, on opposite sides of the country, that I have "struck a deal" to return to AOPA following the election. Any statement by anyone to this effect is false!

It is true that I was approached prior to the nominations closing by no less than 4 individuals to re-join and nominate. As flattering as those approaches were my answer was polite and consistent. "Thanks but no thanks."

No approach has been made to me by anyone purporting to represent AOPA with a view to returning to the research chair at AOPA. Anyone who is suggesting otherwise is being mischievous at best or attempting to pervert the course of the election at worse. It has not happened, no deal has been struck.

My thanks to brianh for agreeing to post this for me. Stay safe out there gang!"

Thank you to Jim for removing any misconceptions.

BSB - now you know why ASA must be in your equation.

Gaunty
I posted the vote today, and you know you are in my nine. I like your style and knew the earlier post would draw you out. We are on similar wavelengths and despite my stirring I feel there is a place for rational relationships with rational CASA people. I'm convinced you have got the smarts.
Anzac Fly was good, I must conside a formation endorsement coz even "in company" is bloody hard wurk! But, the local RSL diggers appreciate our efforts and that makes it worthwhile.

John
Yes agreed. And with your comments to Gaunty.

Axy
I'm reading your posts with an open mind. Keep em coming.
Must run, dinner calls.
Cheers

[monkeyfly]

web site

The AOPA web site is out of date. Why? I have produced a web site for our workplace. The biggest task is to keep it up to date. I simply don’t have enough time.

The AOPA office has what, two full time staff. Pay bananas and you get monkeys. (No the people at the office are not monkeys, I am. It’s just a good way of making my point).

[Dogimed]

monkeyfly

If defence of office staff , Gregg requested numerous times to BP to give him new words to update the website. Unfortunately BP was pressed for time and did not see it as important. Where else is it out of date?


I dont think it is the staff falling down.

Dog

[gaunty]

I see one of the axiom doppelgangers weighs in once more.

Perhaps since Gaunt is making a concerted effort at Number one on the ticket, we should ask Kerans and Pagani where they stand.

Gaunt supports, unequivocally and without reservation Pagani and her “Team”.

Period.

You do your cause no good whatsoever by having at Blue Sky Baron

How could you disagree with?

You obviously do not have AOPA at heart or you would have been the first to give me the info that I asked for. (But then again why would you support a vote that was not to your liking.)

I happen to have in the past, supped with the gentleman concerned and I am certain that the first he would have known about my nomination was when he saw it here or in the AOPA.

When you see the likes of wild blue yonder or whatever, you will get an idea of the unscrupulous behaviour of some who simply want Hamilton deposed. No guts to throw the hat in the ring, no guts to do anything but take up the "what do we want, when do we want it"? chant of the lower levels of the trade union movement.

And you wonder why most of the ex membership are p!ssed off.

chant of the lower levels of the trade union movement

What a sad bitter, elitist and twisted view of life you hold.

On matters CASA, it would interest many to read that Murphie has been offered employment with CASA

Gee whillickers and well done Murphie and I mean that sincerely, the only really scary bit about your proposed employment is, do CASA know about your several other "alter egos" (counted 3 so far) that keep appearing here on your behalf and are they too on the payroll.
I'd say they are getting a bargain 3 for 1 isn't bad doogs by any measure, part of the new efficiency programme I'm sure.
And.
Do they know which one to whom they speak, when they are giving him their instructions and moreover which one is speaking when he reports the results of his endeavours..
"It wasn't me sir, it was him sir, no not that him sir, the other him."

This AGM is going to be one helluva lot of fun.

much to the didgust (sic.) to (sic.) a few loud postees here who have been trying for years applying for CASA jobs and getting knocked back time and time again

And yup, if it's me you're talking about I've stuck my head up no less than five times so far and would do so yet again, if the opportunity arose, notwithstanding a reduction in lifestyle.
There can be no shame in offering yourself for Public Service, to suggest otherwise, demeans those who have successful careers therein.

Ask your big mate how many times he has, with the same result.

cubl

I'm getting really confused now with friend axioms several alter egos and now you are at it too.

I don't know what's come over this place; suddenly every one is taking it in turns to use other people’s nics to have a go.

Why don't they just all come out and fight in the open like real men?

Reminds me of that wonderful scene in the Monty Python movie "The Search for the Holy Grail" when the Knight who, after having had all his limbs hacked off and is reduced to a torso and head and just keeps, having at em.

The point is that NO REGULATOR (in any industry) talks to its industry UNLESS compelled to do so. That compulsion comes from the industry having a representative body that the ‘regulator’ is compelled to deal THROUGH. Aviation is the one industry, as far as I know, that still lacks such a body. Most, if note (sic.) all, other industries have “consultative councils” of one kind or another which filter the regulatory onslaught.

Oh really. So the Government has no control whatsoever, over the bodies it is elected to supervise. In a word Bullsh!t.

Funny I always thought that's what they were elected to do.

The same way that the AOPA Board is elected to do the bidding of the membership.

The same way that an "Executive" member of the Board has been consulting with and is given his instructions by the Board and the membership on a monthly basis for the last several years.

The same way that an "Executive" member of the Board has been reporting to the Board and the membership on a monthly basis, the progress of his activities and the results if any for the last several years.



Don’t recall ever seeing that in practise.

Don't recall ever as a member being consulted.

Don't recall ever being apprised of the progress or results of AOPA issues, other than grandstanding in the Press, by the "Executive".

Don't understand why the rest of the Board and members only find out about “AOPA Executive" representations on their behalf to CASA and other organisations and the results, in the press, other Forums and the "grapevine".

Haven’t seen any explanation or justification of actions or expenses incurred in the prosecution of which, were taken on our behalf.

I don’t recall the Board or the membership actually abdicating their responsibilities, unfettered, to any individual to act and do as they feel fit.

If we are to be a one man band, then let’s vote for just one and stop wasting everybody else’s time.

Common courtesy would have informed the Board at least, about the President and VP Technicals’ invitation and speeches to Natfly and generated a discussion of the content and policy direction thereof. Hmmm. Of course that was done wasn’t it.


Generally;
And one other thing, everybody in the world who works for or represents an organisation that is not owned by them personally, has to justify and have someone in this case I guess, the Board, to sign off on or approve budgeted expenditure, expenses, travel, accommodation and fixed and mobile communication expenses.
No exceptions, no excuses, the law in relation to Companies requires it.
I do so hope that this is in order, we really don’t have any money to spare.

[Creampuff]

Cubl: you suggest the answer to my question about how AOPA can appeal to “traditional GA”, is to:

get a set of rules that are “clear, concise, unambiguous & truly harmonised”.

You then asked, regarding my comments about Bill Hamilton and the AUF, whether I was saying that:

the introduction of Parts 21-35 had no beneficial effect for “traditional GA”

I'm sure there have been some beneficial effects for 'traditional GA' - thousands of pages of amendments for the kiddies to draw on, lining for the cockie's cage, income for those runing printing and paper manufacturing on the side.

But are the rules more "clear, concise, unambiguous and truly harmonised" as a result?

I think not.

[brianh]

THE AOPA SITE

Monkey and Dog
The AOPA staff, repeat staff not Directors, have done an excellent job with the site.

What I feel now is that the ability of AOPA to censor their Forum, as already proven, or to turn it off, makes one value the independence of PP and the Aimoo forum (where I see some good debate under the CASA area).

As most of the AOPA "Forum Mafia" have moved to the alternate forums they may be reluctant to "return home", particularly as there has been far more Director input to the alternates than the original. Or should I be cynical and suspect it will cease post the AOPA election?
Cheers

[Marjorie Pagani]

Axiom - Re the Insurance Issue

It is pleasing to know that the board leaks (no prizes for guessing from whom, given the subject matter) are still flowing, and hence the need for adoption of the Board Conduct at the AGM. Disappointing to see, Axiom, that you are allowing yourself to be manipulated by directors who are passing on some information to you, but not all of it. Disappointing, also, that you will leak board information before you are even elected to the board! Perhaps you would share with the readers you position on the Code of Conduct (on behalf, of course, of your 'mate' Murphie).

I shall fully discuss the insurance issue at the AGM. It is not appropriate that I do so on this forum. You might, however, ask your board sources which of them objected to the temporary closure of the web site. I have a documented record of total support for the move - odd that you weren't told that. Also odd (and perhaps the insurance brokers will be a little mystified about this one) that you were told that McKeown "negotiated" insurance cover with the insurers. The brokers may now be wondering why they were paid their commission.

John Lyon

I note that you, also, have a ghost writer - seems to be the one Axiom was using until exposed recently. Seems also very familiar with your changed style of e-mails at the time you admitted having been sending board communications direct to Mr Tony Mitchell (for 'advice' you said at the time). The admission was, of course, quite necessary when you were confronted with the documents in question. "Suffice to say"..."hitherto".... surely this cannot be the same John Lyon who has written previous posts and e-mails?

Exams: There is an adage John, that a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I am pleased with the progress I have made on the exams issue (and, yes, I say "I", because the huge amount of time and effort was mine), and acknowledge that I was given some useful background information from Mr Mitchell, Mr Ferrier, and Bill Hamilton, as well as many others previously involved in the process in the mid-nineties. I am sure the scores of students whom I have assisted, by way of itnervention through direct dialogue with the examination section by telephone, e-mail, and personal meetings in Canberra (none at any cost either to AOPA or to the members concerned) will not agree with you. I have achieved agreement by CASA to change CPL subject fails to passes; to allow a student to pass his PPL where CASA had awarded him a fail; and to delete bad questions from the data base. At my instigation, Bill McIntyre has also agreed to implement an external review scheme (whereby the exams are marked by external theory providers upon application by the student); and to have all the exam questions reviewed and validated by external theory providers. This is a lengthy and time consuming process, and has cost implications. Bill McIntyre has agreed to include my involvement in this process, and it is a matter still in progress. I am hopeful that the passing of the elections and AGM will then allow me to continue the work I am doing with CASA.

I am also working on submissions for the strict liability issue, and have been invited to meet with Messrs Toller and Ilyk on this subject when I have my submissions complete - a big task, being achieved with limited free time.

If you are going to criticise directors on this forum John, for our personal achievements, perhaps it is only fair that you advise the reader members of the following:

1. What submissions have you (ever) made to CASA about any matter;
2. What rules/policies of the aviation regulations have you ever made any attempt to change, by direct involvement with the process?
3. How many members have you rendered direct assistance to in the achievement of any redress in relation to the regulations?
4. What are you acheivements as a director of AOPA?

Whilst on the subject, you might also like to share with the readers the circumstances surrounding your replacement as treasurer and office manager earlier this year. I have no doubt it will be a matter raised by others at the AGM, and of course that is the appropriate forum in which to air it, however, you have chosen this forum to criticise the efforts of other directors, so doubtless you will be equally prepared to be self-critical on this forum.


Marjorie Pagani.

[snarek]

save us!!!

Axiom

I was about to vote for you, then I read the threads here. My only view, insane!!!! Axiom, you have lost the plot, either that or you are being fed (and are swallowing) pure bullsh!t.

Folks, the vote is essentially over. How about we now start doing what AOPA is supposed to do, looking after the interets of GA instead of a few old bruised egos!

CASA are trying to classify all 'charter' ops as air transport. Fine, for real charter, but what about joy flights, fire spotting etc etc etc .....

This would kill small flying schools and aero clubs. They are told 'soon you won't need an AOC for training, but you will for joyflights' give with one hand, take away with the other. Grrr.

Please, go to

www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/arc/nprm0304.htm

and have a read.

I am doing a response for Marjorie, but I am interested in your views (from any perspective), post them here (woomera, a new thread???) or send to me at

[email protected]

Oh, and I too fully support Marjorie pagani and her attempts to revitalise AOPA.

[Emeus]

Surprises

As just an 'ordinary' rank and file member I cannot help be astounded by the daily revelations of board behaviour via these postings.

My big shock for the week has been that Bill Hamilton as the "Technical Director" made numerous submissions to CASA without ever consulting the other board members. If this is correct it is no wonder that AOPA has not made any ground with CASA. I would hope that someone will tell me that this isn't true.

One might also wonder why the board put up with this. Did President Pike try to have Hamilton consult with the board? Did the other board members object?.

Have any members been privy to the submissions?

A 'well-connected' member told me over the weekend that Bill Hamilton applied for the CASA Deputy Directors job a few years ago and was knocked out in the first round. Why would Hamilton want to join the organisation he considers to be the enemy and whom he despises? Is this why Bill is so bitter about CASA?

What will the candidates do to make sure that CASA submissions have consensus within the Board and the membership?

Axiom:

Your tired and weary postings made in desparation for the "B" team are passe. At least we now know where everyone stands, we have two voting options. I do pity the future of AOPA though if the B team manage to bluff their way into office.

John Lyon:

I know little of you except you don't appear to have contributed anything to AOPA and that you have never been voted into office. No wonder you didn't demonstrate the guts to spill and stand for these elections. I would love to see your response to Marjorie Pagani's questions.

[axiom]

I as a member have every right to ring a director and ask him or her for clarification of any matter. this apparantly is now officially a "leak".

Why did someone ask me about the AOPA web site, wait for me to spend the 20 cents ringing Chris McKeown and when I posted an answer I'm accused of being manipulated and leaking information.

If this is what your Code of Conduct is all about, I would want nothing to do with it.

It seems to me like it is a code made up by lawyers and accountants to better their own interests in any successful election.

If you want Murphie's reaction, why don't you ring him yourself, or would this be another breach of the code of conduct.

The code of conduct appears to be not only an effort to remove Bill Hamilton from article 38 (b and c), (which makes sense given present day Presidential qualifications), and instill a long winded excuse for what could be achieved anyway within corporate law by a simple disclosure of pecuniary interests and abstinence from conflicting ideologies.

Gaunty:

axioms identitity is well known to you.

You know your post is a lie and only goes to prove how grubby this election has become. You also know how many aliases snarek has, why don't you post this revalation? Doesn't suit your needs perhaps.

Snarek was never going to vote for axiom because axiom is not a candidate in the AOPA elections.

Emeus, are you a member yet? perhaps you should wait until after the election in case you can't abide the outcome.

Posting on Pprune has become boring and monotonous and is counter productive when you are only talking to a mob of people maving a mass debate about their own importance.

Still waiting answers to questions,

Are you going to call an EGM if you don't like to outcome of the election?

How will you ever get on if the votes go 50/50/ How will AOPA cope?

Can't ring any Board members, it's not acceptable with the code of conduct.

Struth !! you lot make me sick