AOPA, what do YOU want???
Bill
Welcome to the thread. You ask:
The “threat” to which you referred was what you describe as:
My understanding is that strict liability in the upcoming addition to the traincrash is the Attorney General’s policy. If that’s true, it’s not a “CASA power grab” and AOPA will look sillier if it describes it that way.
Secondly, I suggest you get an expert to advise you as to what liability applies under the pre-existing regs. If it’s strict liability, AOPA’s going to look sillier if it’s zealously promoted position is that strict liability will cause the sky to fall in.
Finally, and most importantly in the context of this thread, if a majority of AOPA members do not perceive the threat that you do, or indeed take a different view from you on any issue, are you capable of abiding by that view if elected?
Welcome to the thread. You ask:
why is it … that I can see the threat and you guys cannot?
the CASA power grab for "strict liability"!
Secondly, I suggest you get an expert to advise you as to what liability applies under the pre-existing regs. If it’s strict liability, AOPA’s going to look sillier if it’s zealously promoted position is that strict liability will cause the sky to fall in.
Finally, and most importantly in the context of this thread, if a majority of AOPA members do not perceive the threat that you do, or indeed take a different view from you on any issue, are you capable of abiding by that view if elected?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My advice on "strict liability", and we have two barristers on the board, is that the regulator has a choice as to which offences should be strict liability, and they should be minor or administrative offences, ie parking fines, size of registration markings and other mind numbing stuff. The CASA interpretation of the Attorney Generals guidelines is such that they want all sorts of regulations strict liability using the excuse that "they made us do it". I believe that this excuse is dishonest, be I right or wrong. If I am wrong then the fight is with the AG's Department, but fight we should, wherever the battle field. It is to my mind absurd that a pilot should be required to defend himself if cabin crew don't stow baggage. Should the Captain of a supersonic airliner, asleep in the bunk, be guilty of an offence if the F/O goes supersonic without a clearance? Should a pilot be guilty of an offence for not obeying an ATC instruction he did not see or hear? I don't believe so, and I assume that the "majority" agree with this? The only safety involved here is safe convictions.
As for Poofcream's insulting question
"are you capable of abiding by that view if elected?"
All who vote for me should know how I think, and I would therefore continue on my established track. If that is not the wishes of the "majority" I will be happily unelected. I am do work as part of a team, provided I am not the only one working. I am not good at taking orders from the drone board members. Bill Hamiliton is a good worker and I agree with most of what he does, but he would not, whatever I said, report to the Board on his activities, and that has caused great, and unnecessary, unrest.
As for Poofcream's insulting question
"are you capable of abiding by that view if elected?"
All who vote for me should know how I think, and I would therefore continue on my established track. If that is not the wishes of the "majority" I will be happily unelected. I am do work as part of a team, provided I am not the only one working. I am not good at taking orders from the drone board members. Bill Hamiliton is a good worker and I agree with most of what he does, but he would not, whatever I said, report to the Board on his activities, and that has caused great, and unnecessary, unrest.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad some people can recognise Bill Hamilton’s good work. If we loose Bill Hamilton we can just about kiss AOPA good bye when it comes to good sound technical knowledge and advice. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Bill Pike and I have had some 'frank' exchanges of view, but he never in his time on the Board pushed his own barrow or a position not in accorance with that decided by the Board.
Your mate and his mate on the other hand, weeellll
* (illegally or imorrally .. whatever) changing the size of the next Board.
* meetings, opinions, NPRM responses without Board knowledge or santion.
* changing a notice from the secretary without authority
* nominating persons to positions without Board knowledge or sanction
and the list goes on.
You have a lot of knowledge which would be very useful in our struggle to simplify regulation and thus reduce cost. Don't make the mistake (as others have) of linking your allegience to one man. He might not get reelected.
C182, whether Hamilton's work was good or not I shall never know. It was never discussed with the Board or members. That is my issue and that is why I won't be too upset if Hamilton and hit 'pet cronies' are defeated.
AK
Bill Pike and I have had some 'frank' exchanges of view, but he never in his time on the Board pushed his own barrow or a position not in accorance with that decided by the Board.
Your mate and his mate on the other hand, weeellll
* (illegally or imorrally .. whatever) changing the size of the next Board.
* meetings, opinions, NPRM responses without Board knowledge or santion.
* changing a notice from the secretary without authority
* nominating persons to positions without Board knowledge or sanction
and the list goes on.
You have a lot of knowledge which would be very useful in our struggle to simplify regulation and thus reduce cost. Don't make the mistake (as others have) of linking your allegience to one man. He might not get reelected.
C182, whether Hamilton's work was good or not I shall never know. It was never discussed with the Board or members. That is my issue and that is why I won't be too upset if Hamilton and hit 'pet cronies' are defeated.
AK
Hmm, aggressive defensive condescending tones to a prospective member definitely won't attract me or my colleagues, no matter what the substance behind it.
Will reply more this arvo when I have slept.
CS
Will reply more this arvo when I have slept.
CS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
compressor
The Board is/will be made up of a lot of different personalities. Judge us by our actions, not individually.
Bill can make enemies very quickly with the written word, quite bluntly (and he will have a go at me for this) in my view he shouldn't be allowed to use e-mail or forums (and I can be guilty of this too). In the flesh however I doubt very much that you would dislike him, in fact I'd go as far as to say he would impress you and convince you to join.
AK
The Board is/will be made up of a lot of different personalities. Judge us by our actions, not individually.
Bill can make enemies very quickly with the written word, quite bluntly (and he will have a go at me for this) in my view he shouldn't be allowed to use e-mail or forums (and I can be guilty of this too). In the flesh however I doubt very much that you would dislike him, in fact I'd go as far as to say he would impress you and convince you to join.
AK
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: To your left
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally, and most importantly in the context of this thread, if a majority of AOPA members do not perceive the threat that you do, or indeed take a different view from you on any issue, are you capable of abiding by that view if elected?
Will you work as part of a team? Will you continue to do so even if the barrow the team is pushing is not loaded with your opinion but the collective (and majority) team opinion?
This be the mark of someone worth voting for.
And Bill, keep the name calling for the sandpit where it belongs. This be serious business for serious adults. Resorting to it does not endear you to the punters.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After several years of not flying while I changed career, had a family, bought a house blah blah blah.. I'm back at it. During this time I'd let my membership lapse - lets face it when you're not flying, >$100 pa is a lot for a magazine that I didn't always have time to read.
Now that I'm back in the air, I rejoined AOPA and started to take an interest in all of this elections stuff etc. One thing that I've found is that AOPA don't seem to be explaining their reasons for the decisions they make. When I left AOPA before, it seemed the past presidents were encouraging members to support certain decisions - "Pay our own way and have our own say" wasn't it? 6 years later we're paying more but that's about all we got?
An example - I learnt that AOPA support the closure of Camden Tower. My initial reaction was "What the F^%K?!?!" On a weekend there can be 8 aircraft in the circuit - and they want to close the tower? What sort of concessions would GA get for this piece of ASA cost saving? Were they guaranteed or will they be whittled down over time? As an ex-public servant I'm using to seeing the unions give up rights for certain concessions that still get eroded over time.
It was only after I spoke to one of the candidates (Ron Bertram) that he was able to explain the reasons that AOPA supported this decision. Hopefully some compromise might happen that allows the tower to remain open on weekends.
Anyway - that's my 2 cents...
Now that I'm back in the air, I rejoined AOPA and started to take an interest in all of this elections stuff etc. One thing that I've found is that AOPA don't seem to be explaining their reasons for the decisions they make. When I left AOPA before, it seemed the past presidents were encouraging members to support certain decisions - "Pay our own way and have our own say" wasn't it? 6 years later we're paying more but that's about all we got?
An example - I learnt that AOPA support the closure of Camden Tower. My initial reaction was "What the F^%K?!?!" On a weekend there can be 8 aircraft in the circuit - and they want to close the tower? What sort of concessions would GA get for this piece of ASA cost saving? Were they guaranteed or will they be whittled down over time? As an ex-public servant I'm using to seeing the unions give up rights for certain concessions that still get eroded over time.
It was only after I spoke to one of the candidates (Ron Bertram) that he was able to explain the reasons that AOPA supported this decision. Hopefully some compromise might happen that allows the tower to remain open on weekends.
Anyway - that's my 2 cents...
Snarek
Point taken. The only actions I have seen are the bickerings on this board. Hardly encouraging.
I have not met nor am aware of the names of many board members. I have only met a prospective board member in the flesh once. As such I'd say I have a pretty unbiased view of things. (not that I know much about things at all for reasons outlined yesterday).
Bill Pike
I will look over the condescending tone for now.
You raise some issues that are of importance to many pilots both professional and otherwise. The ignorance of most professional pilots of the above issues suggests that AOPA has failed in its quest to rally troops to combat the issue. If professional pilots are not aware of these issues, they wont join.
Where's the publicity? Where's the call to arms? Where's the add in Fridays Ozjobs (which everyone reads) saying CASA want to do x,y,z help us fight against it. Just look at the US AOPA re the Miegs Field closure.
And pilots are a pretty laid back, every-one-for-his/herself group in general, who are often very sick of politics. You'll also need to entice them with something that directly benefits individual pilots (the likes of what are discussed above).
And please...remember YOU (and others) as a representative(s) of AOPA have a product to sell. Sell it to me. Hell I walk out of restaurants and shops with bad service and rude/unhelpful staff.
CS
The Board is/will be made up of a lot of different personalities. Judge us by our actions, not individually.
I have not met nor am aware of the names of many board members. I have only met a prospective board member in the flesh once. As such I'd say I have a pretty unbiased view of things. (not that I know much about things at all for reasons outlined yesterday).
Bill Pike
I will look over the condescending tone for now.
You raise some issues that are of importance to many pilots both professional and otherwise. The ignorance of most professional pilots of the above issues suggests that AOPA has failed in its quest to rally troops to combat the issue. If professional pilots are not aware of these issues, they wont join.
Where's the publicity? Where's the call to arms? Where's the add in Fridays Ozjobs (which everyone reads) saying CASA want to do x,y,z help us fight against it. Just look at the US AOPA re the Miegs Field closure.
And pilots are a pretty laid back, every-one-for-his/herself group in general, who are often very sick of politics. You'll also need to entice them with something that directly benefits individual pilots (the likes of what are discussed above).
And please...remember YOU (and others) as a representative(s) of AOPA have a product to sell. Sell it to me. Hell I walk out of restaurants and shops with bad service and rude/unhelpful staff.
CS
Bill: Whoah big fella! I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. I’m just trying to work out whether to vote for you or not.
Do you really think that strict liability means that you will be convicted for not obeying an ATC instruction that you did not see or hear? Really? Do you really believe that?
Go back to “the two barristers on the board”, and ask them what strict liability means, and in particular, ask them whether and if so what defences there are to a strict liability offence. And while you’ve got their attention, ask them whether offences under the ‘old’ regs are strict liability.
Do you entertain the possibility – the slightest possibility - that the AFAP and AIPA are actually awake but don’t share your view?
I urge you to get an understanding of what strict liability means and does not mean, and what the liability regime is now and has been for years.
You’re of course entitled to hold any opinion you like, and fight any causes you like, in your personal capacity. Wearing an AOPA hat: that’s different.
I’ve got this image of a telephone conversation between a heavy hitter from CASA and a heavy hitter from the Department. Here’s the conversation:
Elapsed time: 30 seconds.
Game over.
While there might be some entertainment value in watching AOPA wail and gnash its teeth and huff and puff at strict liability, I’m not prepared to pay AOPA to be a source of amusement.
My third question was not intended to be an insult, and I say again: whoah big fella. The answer was a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Do I take your 99 words to mean ‘no’?
C182 Drover: I’ll bet you don’t comprehend the slightest irony in your exquisite solecism. The word “loose” means “adrift” or “let free”. e.g. “That cannon is loose”.
If AOPA looses him again, indeed!
TT, ugly and Stallie: good points, at least from my perspective.
Do you really think that strict liability means that you will be convicted for not obeying an ATC instruction that you did not see or hear? Really? Do you really believe that?
Go back to “the two barristers on the board”, and ask them what strict liability means, and in particular, ask them whether and if so what defences there are to a strict liability offence. And while you’ve got their attention, ask them whether offences under the ‘old’ regs are strict liability.
Do you entertain the possibility – the slightest possibility - that the AFAP and AIPA are actually awake but don’t share your view?
I urge you to get an understanding of what strict liability means and does not mean, and what the liability regime is now and has been for years.
You’re of course entitled to hold any opinion you like, and fight any causes you like, in your personal capacity. Wearing an AOPA hat: that’s different.
I’ve got this image of a telephone conversation between a heavy hitter from CASA and a heavy hitter from the Department. Here’s the conversation:
Ministerial staffer: We assume that this latest AOPA campaign is the usual damp squib, but we’d better go through the motions. They say that strict liability will be adverse to the interests of air safety, and that for instance, a pilot can be convicted for failing to obey an air traffic control instruction that the pilot did not see or hear.
CASA staffer: If the pilot honestly and reasonably failed to hear or see the instruction, he will have a good and complete defence to a prosecution. I doubt whether the DPP would even bother considering a prosecution in those circumstances, but that’s a matter for the DPP. On the strict liability issue generally and its impact on safety, AOPA’s position is not borne out by the facts. It’s been strict liability under the regs for years, and the sky hasn’t fallen in.
Ministerial Staffer: Ta. I’ll draft the usual palm off. NFA.
CASA staffer: If the pilot honestly and reasonably failed to hear or see the instruction, he will have a good and complete defence to a prosecution. I doubt whether the DPP would even bother considering a prosecution in those circumstances, but that’s a matter for the DPP. On the strict liability issue generally and its impact on safety, AOPA’s position is not borne out by the facts. It’s been strict liability under the regs for years, and the sky hasn’t fallen in.
Ministerial Staffer: Ta. I’ll draft the usual palm off. NFA.
Game over.
While there might be some entertainment value in watching AOPA wail and gnash its teeth and huff and puff at strict liability, I’m not prepared to pay AOPA to be a source of amusement.
My third question was not intended to be an insult, and I say again: whoah big fella. The answer was a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Do I take your 99 words to mean ‘no’?
C182 Drover: I’ll bet you don’t comprehend the slightest irony in your exquisite solecism. The word “loose” means “adrift” or “let free”. e.g. “That cannon is loose”.
If we loose Bill Hamilton we can just about kiss AOPA good bye.
TT, ugly and Stallie: good points, at least from my perspective.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh hello, Bill et all, but pardon me I thought this was a thread for members and others to say what they want, not get bogged down in the same old same old.
You know what I want? Over and above all that has been said here already, I want to see an organisation that conducts itself PROFESSIONALLY. I am sorry to say that I think that some of the rhetoric I see in the AOPA Magazine does not do the organisation credit at all (and I'm not talking about the letters page). I often wonder if the reason why it doesn't seem to make any headway in Canberra is that the language used in providing "feedback and opinions from the aviation community", if it approaches anything used in the magazine, is not at all diplomatic. And maybe an acceptance that CASA aren't the evil empire, just people doing their jobs with a different perception of what is best for the aviation community (which they occasionally need to be persuaded out of - and, I might add, vice versa).
I don't like the fact that one more than one occasion in the magazine people who have views more closely aligned with the regulator are bluntly put in the category of "wrong" if the board doesn't agree with it. I think AOPA should be more accepting of the fact that they may feel that they represent the majority but that doesn't mean that the opinions of non-aligned members should be discounted or unappreciated. No organisation can afford to lose members by insulting them because of their views, because sooner or later everyone will have cause to disagree at some point or another leading to an eroding membership base... Ho hum.
I also think that AOPA as an organisation could be doing more behind the scenes to popularise aviation. I recently heard that an organisation had been formed to promote aviation by doing things like raising interest amongst businesses. For example they promote the fact that sometimes chartering an aircraft can be more cost effective than time lost waiting around for scheduled services. Great, I thought - why doesn't AOPA do this kind of thing?
Just my 2c.
You know what I want? Over and above all that has been said here already, I want to see an organisation that conducts itself PROFESSIONALLY. I am sorry to say that I think that some of the rhetoric I see in the AOPA Magazine does not do the organisation credit at all (and I'm not talking about the letters page). I often wonder if the reason why it doesn't seem to make any headway in Canberra is that the language used in providing "feedback and opinions from the aviation community", if it approaches anything used in the magazine, is not at all diplomatic. And maybe an acceptance that CASA aren't the evil empire, just people doing their jobs with a different perception of what is best for the aviation community (which they occasionally need to be persuaded out of - and, I might add, vice versa).
I don't like the fact that one more than one occasion in the magazine people who have views more closely aligned with the regulator are bluntly put in the category of "wrong" if the board doesn't agree with it. I think AOPA should be more accepting of the fact that they may feel that they represent the majority but that doesn't mean that the opinions of non-aligned members should be discounted or unappreciated. No organisation can afford to lose members by insulting them because of their views, because sooner or later everyone will have cause to disagree at some point or another leading to an eroding membership base... Ho hum.
I also think that AOPA as an organisation could be doing more behind the scenes to popularise aviation. I recently heard that an organisation had been formed to promote aviation by doing things like raising interest amongst businesses. For example they promote the fact that sometimes chartering an aircraft can be more cost effective than time lost waiting around for scheduled services. Great, I thought - why doesn't AOPA do this kind of thing?
Just my 2c.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foyl
Eerm it is hard to hear what's going on whilst there is all this shouting going on, but we have been a bit preoccupied with the Horatio at the bridge routine, see my last post in the Elections thread.
You make some excellent points and they are in fact part of our policy platform.
In regard to the "strict liability" issue whilst I would normally demur to my friend Creampuffs usually well researched and thought through posts, I am, as I am not a Leagle and having heard other views, not yet ready to lie down on this subject.
Just because it is doesn't mean it must be so and I believe that there are some philosophical and codification issues that I would like to get to understand first.
I suspect Bill might be much more up to speed on this than I.
It is after all why we have a hierarchical court system, where at the end of the day the High Court can make the definitive statement on these matters if they must be tested.
Creamies 30 second scenario is I'm sure pretty accurate, but the staffies are not necessarily the final arbiters in these matters.
It is but one matter though, in a whole raft of.
Good question and I agree that this could be a legitimate role for AOPA.
Keep em coming, but until we get the spin recovery completed and get this puppy back to straight and level and the dust that usually results settles and the maps and bits out of the nav bag, back into their proper slots
we can only keep adding to the list of the things we might be able to do.
We won¡¦t know until, I believe, the 13th of this month, what the results are and then we can see in which direction the members wish us to go.
Oh and BTW, Bill might be a little more direct in print than some of us are used to, but in person he is a charming and delightful person.
snarek shamed me into rejoining, something he probably regrets ƒº, but it wasn¡¦t until I had a private meeting with Marjorie and Bill in Perth to attempt to straighten out what I believed were some misconceptions that they held about PPRuNe, that I came to understand the real problems.
When I suggested that I didn¡¦t really have the time to be involved with AOPA due to my personal and business commitments, Bill fixed me with a level gaze and said, ¡§none of us have¡¨. Can¡¦t argue with that.
So remember and it is easy to forget, that these people are working for you and giving you their time, energy and enthusiasm ¡§gratis¡¨. They may not get it right all or any of the time and you know what to do if that happens, but they are doing it.
There¡¦s no pay, benefits, super or even the prospect of a gong, just the joy and privilege of trying hard to represent your interests and copping the flak that comes with it.
Interesting stats out of the last few wars, something like 30-40% of the combatant injuries and casualties are the result of ¡§friendly fire¡¨.
Lets see what the 13th brings.
Eerm it is hard to hear what's going on whilst there is all this shouting going on, but we have been a bit preoccupied with the Horatio at the bridge routine, see my last post in the Elections thread.
You make some excellent points and they are in fact part of our policy platform.
In regard to the "strict liability" issue whilst I would normally demur to my friend Creampuffs usually well researched and thought through posts, I am, as I am not a Leagle and having heard other views, not yet ready to lie down on this subject.
Just because it is doesn't mean it must be so and I believe that there are some philosophical and codification issues that I would like to get to understand first.
I suspect Bill might be much more up to speed on this than I.
It is after all why we have a hierarchical court system, where at the end of the day the High Court can make the definitive statement on these matters if they must be tested.
Creamies 30 second scenario is I'm sure pretty accurate, but the staffies are not necessarily the final arbiters in these matters.
It is but one matter though, in a whole raft of.
I also think that AOPA as an organisation could be doing more behind the scenes to popularise aviation. I recently heard that an organisation had been formed to promote aviation by doing things like raising interest amongst businesses. For example they promote the fact that sometimes chartering an aircraft can be more cost effective than time lost waiting around for scheduled services. Great, I thought - why doesn't AOPA do this kind of thing?
Keep em coming, but until we get the spin recovery completed and get this puppy back to straight and level and the dust that usually results settles and the maps and bits out of the nav bag, back into their proper slots
we can only keep adding to the list of the things we might be able to do.We won¡¦t know until, I believe, the 13th of this month, what the results are and then we can see in which direction the members wish us to go.
Oh and BTW, Bill might be a little more direct in print than some of us are used to, but in person he is a charming and delightful person.
snarek shamed me into rejoining, something he probably regrets ƒº, but it wasn¡¦t until I had a private meeting with Marjorie and Bill in Perth to attempt to straighten out what I believed were some misconceptions that they held about PPRuNe, that I came to understand the real problems.
When I suggested that I didn¡¦t really have the time to be involved with AOPA due to my personal and business commitments, Bill fixed me with a level gaze and said, ¡§none of us have¡¨. Can¡¦t argue with that.
So remember and it is easy to forget, that these people are working for you and giving you their time, energy and enthusiasm ¡§gratis¡¨. They may not get it right all or any of the time and you know what to do if that happens, but they are doing it.
There¡¦s no pay, benefits, super or even the prospect of a gong, just the joy and privilege of trying hard to represent your interests and copping the flak that comes with it.
Interesting stats out of the last few wars, something like 30-40% of the combatant injuries and casualties are the result of ¡§friendly fire¡¨.
Lets see what the 13th brings.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, anyone who was in any doubt as to why AOPA has failed (both financially and as a representative group) only has to read Pikey's posts.
Much like the mentality of some P&Fs or other volunteer groups. "I'm a volunteer, no one else wanted the job, therefore I can do what I like".
Who gets to decide who's a "drone" board member and who's not? Or is the ballot form divided into Drone and Non-Drone positions?
Now I see where the "AOPA" position on subjects such as NAS came from. I also recall a post by young Pike which went something along the lines of " ..I don't have to listen to anyone who is not a member of AOPA..". I guess that includes prospective members and anyone who has a contrary opinion.
You must be an absolute pleasure to fly with in a multi - crew environment!
Much like the mentality of some P&Fs or other volunteer groups. "I'm a volunteer, no one else wanted the job, therefore I can do what I like".
Who gets to decide who's a "drone" board member and who's not? Or is the ballot form divided into Drone and Non-Drone positions?
Now I see where the "AOPA" position on subjects such as NAS came from. I also recall a post by young Pike which went something along the lines of " ..I don't have to listen to anyone who is not a member of AOPA..". I guess that includes prospective members and anyone who has a contrary opinion.
You must be an absolute pleasure to fly with in a multi - crew environment!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UGLY
Interesting and accurate assessment IMHO from someone who has had the benefit of a break “during a lot of the rot”. Perhaps you see the differences from then to now in greater contrast than those of us that have watched Rome burn over the long haul. I have said it before and I will say it again, we tried to warn industry of what would happen with LSC and the loss of the Oil companies excises.
At the commencement of Indiana’s (AOPA’s) LSP, industry approached me to ask if we would refuse “Facilities and services” if bill’s were not paid?. (About that time GAAP based operators had woken up to LSP and its real effect and were intending to fight by not paying bills and court action!.) We (Coalface ATC’s) were not aware that we would be required to deny safety services based on unpaid bills until the booklet stating such was thrust under my nose on the apron at BK.
That of course was not on and we wrote to industry immediately to confirm we would not be denying anyone a service. That was two fold in that it provided industry the ability to operate whilst they fought LSC (Was all ATC’s had within our power to do to help!) ASA were “not happy Jan”!.
The rest is history as they say, and the events surrounding the “out of court” whilst nothing to do with ATC’s were IMHO a complete sell out of the GA industry. Those involved in that “class action” will know to whom I refer in QLD.
Again a stupid, stupid thing AOPA supported (AOPA/Indiana’s baby again!!).
For years various management within CAA, ASA tried and failed to close CN Tower with AOPA's support (Indiana used to fly out there and sit on the grass in the slowtation and count chickens or something!!
). The reasons were simple, the traffic complexity, density particularly on weekends, runway configurations, and mix of operations made any assessment easily justify continued service. All sorts of attempts were made to see the formula arrive at a value less than that required (One such attempt was “I heard
” to reduce the value of a human life in the formula!
). Many people at CN were kept quietly abreast of these issues Jim, Lindsay X 2, Steve, Joe and others. John Fay the federal member was also across the issues and intervened when the “Brave Arsouls" (read Sheep) at KSA decided they would close it anyway!!!. Foremost in the battle to save the service for industry was the resident ATC “G.O” who worked tirelessly to help the local operators as AOPA were apparently happy to kill the service as LSC was creating bills unsustainable for the operators.
It will be interesting to see what if any reduction in cost occur if they go to weekends only as it will need to be staffed from BK and the weekend staffing requirements dictate that it will not enable staff reductions in general terms, add to that that the cost of the tower running during the week (Equipment, aircon, maintenance etc) will all still continue even if it only runs on weekends!!!.
The industry lost a great bloke when “G.O” went, I am sure the local industry would concur!!!.
The Safety case apparently has been tendered to an ex ATC consultant as ASA do not want dirt on their hands if anyone gets killed.
Brave Man signing that bit of paper for money!!!!.
Foyl
Spot on 
Got over Narromine yet?!?!
What a hoot!!!
When I left AOPA before, it seemed the past presidents were encouraging members to support certain decisions - "Pay our own way and have our own say" wasn't it? 6 years later we're paying more but that's about all we got?
At the commencement of Indiana’s (AOPA’s) LSP, industry approached me to ask if we would refuse “Facilities and services” if bill’s were not paid?. (About that time GAAP based operators had woken up to LSP and its real effect and were intending to fight by not paying bills and court action!.) We (Coalface ATC’s) were not aware that we would be required to deny safety services based on unpaid bills until the booklet stating such was thrust under my nose on the apron at BK.
That of course was not on and we wrote to industry immediately to confirm we would not be denying anyone a service. That was two fold in that it provided industry the ability to operate whilst they fought LSC (Was all ATC’s had within our power to do to help!) ASA were “not happy Jan”!.
The rest is history as they say, and the events surrounding the “out of court” whilst nothing to do with ATC’s were IMHO a complete sell out of the GA industry. Those involved in that “class action” will know to whom I refer in QLD.
An example - I learnt that AOPA support the closure of Camden Tower. My initial reaction was "What the F^%K?!?!" On a weekend there can be 8 aircraft in the circuit - and they want to close the tower? What sort of concessions would GA get for this piece of ASA cost saving? Were they guaranteed or will they be whittled down over time? As an ex-public servant I'm using to seeing the unions give up rights for certain concessions that still get eroded over time.
It was only after I spoke to one of the candidates (Ron Bertram) that he was able to explain the reasons that AOPA supported this decision. Hopefully some compromise might happen that allows the tower to remain open on weekends.
It was only after I spoke to one of the candidates (Ron Bertram) that he was able to explain the reasons that AOPA supported this decision. Hopefully some compromise might happen that allows the tower to remain open on weekends.
For years various management within CAA, ASA tried and failed to close CN Tower with AOPA's support (Indiana used to fly out there and sit on the grass in the slowtation and count chickens or something!!
). The reasons were simple, the traffic complexity, density particularly on weekends, runway configurations, and mix of operations made any assessment easily justify continued service. All sorts of attempts were made to see the formula arrive at a value less than that required (One such attempt was “I heard” to reduce the value of a human life in the formula!). Many people at CN were kept quietly abreast of these issues Jim, Lindsay X 2, Steve, Joe and others. John Fay the federal member was also across the issues and intervened when the “Brave Arsouls" (read Sheep) at KSA decided they would close it anyway!!!. Foremost in the battle to save the service for industry was the resident ATC “G.O” who worked tirelessly to help the local operators as AOPA were apparently happy to kill the service as LSC was creating bills unsustainable for the operators. It will be interesting to see what if any reduction in cost occur if they go to weekends only as it will need to be staffed from BK and the weekend staffing requirements dictate that it will not enable staff reductions in general terms, add to that that the cost of the tower running during the week (Equipment, aircon, maintenance etc) will all still continue even if it only runs on weekends!!!.
The industry lost a great bloke when “G.O” went, I am sure the local industry would concur!!!.
The Safety case apparently has been tendered to an ex ATC consultant as ASA do not want dirt on their hands if anyone gets killed.
Brave Man signing that bit of paper for money!!!!.
Foyl
Spot on
Got over Narromine yet?!?!
What a hoot!!!
Last edited by Capcom; 1st May 2003 at 20:31.
Gaunty: I’m not saying don’t fight the strict liability fight. What I’m saying is, fight it from a well-informed position on valid bases. Time and time again, AOPA raises issues that may have a kernel of merit, but argues them on unmeritorious bases.
An analogy: We don’t like daylight savings ‘cause it fades our curtains. Compare: We don’t like daylight savings because the people with whom we trade do not keep the same hours. We have no choice but to work an extra hour or risk weakening our external markets.
Same outcome sought in each case, but only one has a chance of getting up, unless the faded curtain brigade is in a marginal electorate.
Just as daylight savings doesn’t fade curtains, strict liability does not make criminals of pilots in the circumstances cited by Bill. The pilot vote makes no difference in any electorate, marginal or otherwise. So why would the government drop everything to make strict liability go away?
If AOPA takes the view that strict liability is a bad thing (and you’re absolutely right and prudent to critically analyse the status quo) AOPA must be very careful not to run the equivalent of the faded curtain arguments. Those arguments might rally the ever-dwindling troops, but they won’t get anywhere where it counts.
Carthage must be destroyed! Whoops: I mean’t “Vote 1 Gaunty”.
An analogy: We don’t like daylight savings ‘cause it fades our curtains. Compare: We don’t like daylight savings because the people with whom we trade do not keep the same hours. We have no choice but to work an extra hour or risk weakening our external markets.
Same outcome sought in each case, but only one has a chance of getting up, unless the faded curtain brigade is in a marginal electorate.
Just as daylight savings doesn’t fade curtains, strict liability does not make criminals of pilots in the circumstances cited by Bill. The pilot vote makes no difference in any electorate, marginal or otherwise. So why would the government drop everything to make strict liability go away?
If AOPA takes the view that strict liability is a bad thing (and you’re absolutely right and prudent to critically analyse the status quo) AOPA must be very careful not to run the equivalent of the faded curtain arguments. Those arguments might rally the ever-dwindling troops, but they won’t get anywhere where it counts.
Carthage must be destroyed! Whoops: I mean’t “Vote 1 Gaunty”.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting and accurate assessment IMHO from someone who has had the benefit of a break “during a lot of the rot”. Perhaps you see the differences from then to now in greater contrast than those of us that have watched Rome burn over the long haul. I have said it before and I will say it again, we tried to warn industry of what would happen with LSC and the loss of the Oil companies excises.
For years various management within CAA, ASA tried and failed to close CN Tower with AOPA's support (Indiana used to fly out there and sit on the grass in the slowtation and count chickens or something!!). The reasons were simple, the traffic complexity, density particularly on weekends, runway configurations, and mix of operations made any assessment easily justify continued service.
It just seems to defy logic. I know a few instructors out at CN who emailed me various memos, reports etc regarding the closure of the TWR - it seemed to be a foregone conclusion and the various meetings were simply 'going through the motions' to make it looked like industry consultation was happening. I hear that there aren't actually enough controllers to man CN and ASA won't hire any more. BK has 300,000 movements p/a so CN obviously loses....
Hopefully commonsense will prevail and CN gets manned on weekends.
Another thing AOPA need to get happening is encouraging tomorrow's pilots. I work for the Air League in my spare time and its great to see the young people so keen and wanting to fly. 3 kids from my local 'Squadron' (Blacktown) went solo after Xmas at CN and should have their GFPT soon. AOPA had a crack at a 'young eagles' program similar to the USA around the time I left, however that seemed to have died quietly. They couldn't do worse that work with the AAL - we have the infrastructure and have been doing it for 69 years now, the 2 organisations could compliment each other. However a few of the leaders in AAL are amongst the disgruntled ex-members I discussed above...
I was pleased to hear that Ron Bertram is running for the board of AOPA. As well as being a working pilot (ops manager/instructor at a BK flying school) he's also a member of the Air League and gives a considerable amount of his time to work with young people who have an interest in aviation. He's also a nice bloke - most of the time ;-)
Having Ron on the board might open up an opportunity for AOPA to work with the next generation of aviators. If you haven't already voted - give a thought to giving Ron a vote
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
help us perhaps
Creampuff
Despite your unfortunate choice of profession
you have a lot of experience to offer in the regulatory sense. You and I also see eye to eye on a lot of things, especially Hamilton.
So how about you help the new Board (which may or may not include me).
Means you might have to endure some 'robust' debate with Bill Pike though. But I think Bill has learned a lot from his 'experience' with hamilton over the last two years and that the 'robust' debate could be particularly useful.
You have described the current NPRM storm as a 'trainsmash' and I am inclined to agree. So...what do you suggest to pull it up and get it back on the right (FAR) track????
By the way, it is now my firm view that McKeown has aligned with Hamilton. I haven't found out yet and, while I still consider him a good friend, I look forward to punishing the b@stard with a huge hangover in the process of establishing his motives. What are your thoughts.
ugly
YES, YES, YES, YES
I would like to see AOPA providing training aids and awards to AAL kids who go solo, get a PPL etc etc. Same for any AOPA affiliated club. I reckon I could get QBE to sponsor some or all of it in the interests of safety and a viable GA.
You wanna help us do this?????
AK
Despite your unfortunate choice of profession
you have a lot of experience to offer in the regulatory sense. You and I also see eye to eye on a lot of things, especially Hamilton.So how about you help the new Board (which may or may not include me).
Means you might have to endure some 'robust' debate with Bill Pike though. But I think Bill has learned a lot from his 'experience' with hamilton over the last two years and that the 'robust' debate could be particularly useful.
You have described the current NPRM storm as a 'trainsmash' and I am inclined to agree. So...what do you suggest to pull it up and get it back on the right (FAR) track????
By the way, it is now my firm view that McKeown has aligned with Hamilton. I haven't found out yet and, while I still consider him a good friend, I look forward to punishing the b@stard with a huge hangover in the process of establishing his motives. What are your thoughts.
ugly
Another thing AOPA need to get happening is encouraging tomorrow's pilots. I work for the Air League in my spare time and its great to see the young people so keen and wanting to fly. 3 kids from my local 'Squadron' (Blacktown) went solo after Xmas at CN and should have their GFPT soon. AOPA had a crack at a 'young eagles' program similar to the USA around the time I left, however that seemed to have died quietly. They couldn't do worse that work with the AAL - we have the infrastructure and have been doing it for 69 years now, the 2 organisations could compliment each other. However a few of the leaders in AAL are amongst the disgruntled ex-members I discussed above...
I would like to see AOPA providing training aids and awards to AAL kids who go solo, get a PPL etc etc. Same for any AOPA affiliated club. I reckon I could get QBE to sponsor some or all of it in the interests of safety and a viable GA.
You wanna help us do this?????
AK
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YES, YES, YES, YES
I would like to see AOPA providing training aids and awards to AAL kids who go solo, get a PPL etc etc. Same for any AOPA affiliated club. I reckon I could get QBE to sponsor some or all of it in the interests of safety and a viable GA.
You wanna help us do this?????
I would like to see AOPA providing training aids and awards to AAL kids who go solo, get a PPL etc etc. Same for any AOPA affiliated club. I reckon I could get QBE to sponsor some or all of it in the interests of safety and a viable GA.
You wanna help us do this?????
Some areas might be scholarships. The AAL gives these to cadets in each state who have started flying training (powered or gliding) to provide financial assistance. I see in the April mag that AOPA and ASA are doing the same.
Perhaps the AOPA mag could run a monthly or bi-monthly column on the activities that the AAL undertakes. Its not just aviation the AAL teaches but leadership, self-discipline, music, sport and PA, camping and hiking etc.
The AAL currently only operates in the eastern states (and soon SA) - running a self funding voluntary group isn't the easiest job in the world
- perhaps AOPA could assist promoting the AAL in other states via the mag 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course "AOPA orter" be doing more, unfortunately there are only so many hours in the day, and while the "experts" at CASA come up with proposed regs that say, for example, that aircraft may not operate when the FORECAST or actual weather is below minimas, we are busy playing catch up. We just don't have the time to re-enervate the industry, fix instructing standards, or even "act professionally" as sidelines. Poofcream, we would get along better if you shared your knowledge rather than adopting a "you don't know what I know" attitude. One is expected to know everything about everything as President of AOPA, but that isn't feasible in real life. My understanding is that at present the Court decides whether an offence is strict liability or not, but under the proposed change, CASA will decide for them, and they will all be! Yes I am well aware that there are "defences" against strict liability, good lawyer games I am sure; I would prefer that the pilot wasn't put in a position where he has to rely on such "defences", as most of my mates don't like supporting the legal profession more than they have to. As for those who believe that AOPA Board members should be spending their own valuable time and effort "persuading" them to join, I frankly say that those who are unable to see that a strong lobbying body, however flawed, is essential to the survival of general aviation will remain so despite anything said to them. I don't have the time or the patience. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I am willing to do my bit, but I am not a politician, so please, if my attitude offends, punish me, by all means vote elsewhere. This is a game where winning isn't much of a prize.
Poor attempt at reconciliation
Pikey baby,
If you keep referring to my good friend from Utah as Poofcream, how much respect do you think you'll gain from that god-fearing mormon. Or are you trying to tell us something about your particular leanings.... which is OK, really - what better forum than PPrune to out someone - especially if it's yourself.
How would you like it if everytime someone referred to you they used the term "Piker the Pillow-Biter". Knowing full well that you have an outwardly masculine persona.
In my experience, one ignores legal advice at their peril. You seem certain that anything that challenges YOUR opinion, must be incorrect in some way.
A good leader (read: President) listens to, and acts on advice from their community to the betterment of the organisation they represent, not to prop up their own (in some cases damaged) ego. Not saying that the old Creampuff is always right, but I can't find many posts that he's done on this forum to be factually incorrect (he's often brave enough to admit when he's made an error) and no-one has ever really put a clear and concise argument to refute any of his claims. Ohhh... except of course to call him a poof - now that's proof that he must be wrong, isn't it?
If you keep referring to my good friend from Utah as Poofcream, how much respect do you think you'll gain from that god-fearing mormon. Or are you trying to tell us something about your particular leanings.... which is OK, really - what better forum than PPrune to out someone - especially if it's yourself.
How would you like it if everytime someone referred to you they used the term "Piker the Pillow-Biter". Knowing full well that you have an outwardly masculine persona.
In my experience, one ignores legal advice at their peril. You seem certain that anything that challenges YOUR opinion, must be incorrect in some way.
A good leader (read: President) listens to, and acts on advice from their community to the betterment of the organisation they represent, not to prop up their own (in some cases damaged) ego. Not saying that the old Creampuff is always right, but I can't find many posts that he's done on this forum to be factually incorrect (he's often brave enough to admit when he's made an error) and no-one has ever really put a clear and concise argument to refute any of his claims. Ohhh... except of course to call him a poof - now that's proof that he must be wrong, isn't it?