AOPA election results

[Bart Ifonly]

The unofficial AOPA election results are now in. See below for the successful candidates.

Gary Gaunt
Ron Lawford
Michael (Mick) Kennedy
Fw (Bill) Pike
Jane Errey
Andrew Kerans
Marjorie Pagani
Trish Mahlberg
Bill Hamilton

[Torres]

Congratulations Gaunty!!!!!!!!!!

[Creampuff]

Congratulations to the successful candidates, and in particular Gaunty.

If the rumoured results are correct, and if the various posts on PPRuNe accurately reflect the allegiances of the candidates, it appears the Gaunt/Pagani faction might scrape the balance of power.

Interesting.

I’ve posted elsewhere my views as to the broad strategy approach that I think AOPA should take.

I’ll now make one specific suggestion: Allocate to Mssrs Pike and Hamilton one task, and one task alone. Allocate to them the task of drafting the rules that AOPA wants. Relieve them of any pressure or responsibility for diverting any of their very valuable time and energy to criticising the existing rules, or to reacting to proposed rules, or to commenting on any aviation-related issue.

The single most impressive thing that AOPA could do to establish some credibility in the regulatory reform process would be to put on the table the set of rules that AOPA wants word for word.

Don’t like strict liability or indeed any criminal liability – don’t put it in.

Want automatic stays on suspensions – put it in.

Don’t like the proposed forecast requirements – don’t put them in; put in what you want.

Want simple, clear rules that are truly harmonised – simply copy the ones with which you want to harmonise.

What could be simpler? Those awfully complicated, convoluted, and incomprehensible original 1988 CARs took up about the same space as a C172 POH. The simple, clear and harmonised version would have to be a doddle, surely?

Draft them up, tie them in a nice bow, and slide them across the table: this is what we want

[antechinus]

Results

Results to be verified and accepted at the AOPA AGM -

Pagani 765
Pike 644
Lawford 643
Kennedy 624
Errey 573
Kerans 534
Gaunt 514
Mahlberg 484
Hamilton 454

Unsuccessful:

Williams 440
Bertram 380
McKeown 341
MacDonald 314
Murphie 265
Rudd 210

The people have spoken!!!!

Russell

[Bob Murphie]

Congratulations to the successful candidates, I wish them well.

It behoves other members to run at elections to make a contest of things.

I thank my supporters who should note that of 4600 odd members only 845 took the time to vote.

The 265 who saw fit to put me on their ballot papers represented some 32% of this total, so even in defeat, the percentages are not insignificant.

Thanks once again,

Bob Murphie.

[Bart Ifonly]

Bob Murphie

Looked at another way only 5.8% of the membership voted for you (and I don't intend that as a put down). Only 18% of the membership bothered to vote at all which highlights the appathy of the average member.

Bart.

[Bob Murphie]

Bart;

Your post taken in the spirit it was offered.

We have both identified a very obvious problem that needs addressing before anything else: APATHY.

It is pointless undertaking a membership drive, if we can't get the existing members to take an active interest in even an AGM.

How do we make this happen ????? too easy for me to say now, not my problem, but perhaps others can build on this and find a solution in the ensuing 12 months.

I'll help if I can.

[gaunty]

Bob Murphie

Thanks for you very generous thoughts and a great contest.

Now it's up to ALL of us to harness that corporate vigour to go forward together.

It behoves other members to run at elections to make a contest of things.

And a contest it was, in itself helping to generate more interest.
Long may it continue to be so.

The voting numbers as a percentage were not a surprise to me from my past experience in participation in similar organisations.

Australian Governments are elected on similar margins and they seem to work, it's only the compulsory voting that whilst it makes the number look bigger encourages a donkey vote.

Paul Sheehan in his brillant read, "Amongst the Barbarians" sugests that Oz electors "strike with surgical precision", never letting the balance go too far one way or the other.

We should all be ever mindful of that.

I look forward to having a beer with you at Murray Bridge.

[Blue Sky Baron]

Now let the games begin!

Congratulations to all nominees, both those who were successful and those who were not. It is a credit to you all for standing up to represent all AOPA members, even the vast majority who either didn't care who got in, or was too confused to decide.

The mix of personalities who are now going to take AOPA into the future is an interesting one, and STRONG leadership will indeed be a major requirement, as will a willingness to cooperate with each other for the good of all, be equally important.

I agree with Creampuff above, that we need to tell 'those who have told us' for a long time, WHAT WE WANT!, and then go into bat for it in a firm but reasoned way, giving logical reasons why our rules will work.

Hopefully the MEMBERS will be asked for opinions and then kept well informed by this new leadership and AOPA will be all the stronger for it. I feel we may now have the opportunity to 'turn the corner' and that AOPA will once again have the respect of all the industry both from within as well as from ASA, CASA, the Minister, and the rest of our elected representatives that we call 'Our Government'.

The only other thing I have to say at this time is that I hope the bitterness shown on PPRuNe by some members can be put aside and we can all be friends working toward a common goal, more flying without unnecessary restriction and cost.

I will try to get to the AGM to meet our representatives in person but it's a long way to walk!!

Regards,

BSB

[awetzel]

Congratulations to all elected & nominees, now let’s push on as a “team” with the including of all its members.

Could we members now see some proposed policies on where we are heading for the future? (1 Year, 2 Years, 5 Years & 10 Years) also include how they will be achieved? It would be great to have this sort of information out and available well before the AGM.

[snarek]

SCRAPE????

Creampuff

it appears the Gaunt/Pagani faction might scrape the balance of power.

'Scrape' ???

Look back carefully at the team list, all bar one elected (Hamilton) and one who wouldn't stand (Lyon) are from Marjorie's team. That gives her 8/10.

I agree we will need strong LEADERSHIP to get us over the hump. But Marjorie has the qualities required and that is why I support her.

AK

[brianh]

THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE

I don't mean the above title in a negative sense. Rather, perhaps it supports Chris McK's thoughts on "censorship" so that the Magazine comes across positively - thoughts that may have cost him dearly re the election. I bet 98% of the negative letters to the Mag this year come from those who did NOT vote!

Creamy & BSB
Good thinking. Two dedicated tech experts doing what they like and are good at, unmolested by the daily and distracting Board management issues.

Murph
I said before the election that apathy would rule. The vote certainly indicates this, although 6 of my nominations made it so I won't complain too loudly.

The excuses for stasis are now gone, or will be after the AGM. Let's get back to business!!!!
Cheers

[Bill Pike]

Creampuff,
I welcome the opportunity to focus on an issue, and follow it through, believe me. Your idea has some merit of course, but in practice I wonder how it would work. In a previous life I was negotiating an EBA, and for at least the first full week of negotiations we could not agree whether we should work through the Company log until they looked like ours or vice versa! Mind numbing stuff. The CASA staff given ownership of each section do not appear likely to hand over the running to AOPA at this late stage, (although obviously they are not keen to face a Disallowance in the Senate either.) I do not speak for AOPA but I do not think that I am far off the mark when I say that I believe that AOPA wants Regulations harmonised with those of the US, except where our relatively sparsely populated country requires some latitude. We have said so often to the drafters and in public. Equally we have said many times that prescriptive European type thinking has no place here. CASA are well aware of this, and yet have completely ignored this path and gone either for the prescriptive European model or in some cases invented some themselves. For example Proposed 91.585, Aircraft Lighting Requirements "An aircraft may commence a flight in poor light conditions or at night only if ..." etc. If we ignore the dreadful drafting, (in that nothing in the Regulation precluded an aircraft taking off in day and landing in the dark without lights) no other country has this undefined term "in poor light". That could only be the hobby horse of the drafter! Where a Regulation is proposed that does not exist in the US, we would want to see some carefully argued justification, and we expect that CASA be required to justify their requirements in front of a neutral body of some kind, as was the case when the Program Advisory Panel was in existence. If CASA was required to do this, most of the problems would evaporate. I am not suggesting that there is anything intrinsically wrong with CASA staff, but someone once said that "all bureaucracies tend towards tyranny". It is a natural human condition. They must be made answerable to a neutral party. I for one do not believe for example that private light aircraft flying should be part of Flight Time Limitations any more than driving a tractor is. I might be right or wrong, but I need more convincing than just the words of the responsible CASA officer. "I don't agree with you."
I for one am very very tired of begging for crumbs from the CASA table.

[Creampuff]

Bill

I’m not suggesting you beg for crumbs at the CASA table. To continue the culinary metaphor, I don’t want you to keep trying to digest anything they dish up.

I want you to cook your own dish.

I’ll let you in on a little secret: CASA can’t agree on what it wants. (Ironically, it’s very much like AOPA.) It’s not surprising really, given that this process was never CASA’s idea.

If the US rules are the closest model to what you and Bill Hamilton believe will best serve the interests of a majority of AOPA members, I cannot for the life of me understand why you both don’t sit down with a ruler and a red pen and scratch out the bits of the US rules you don’t want, and write down the (surely minimal) additions you do want.

It’s much easier for the parliament to give you want if you can say: “Here it is”. It’s very difficult for the parliament to give you what you want if all you can say is: “We don’t want this.” or “Please give us [enter vacuous motherhood statement]”.

If folks of your and Bill H’s expertise can’t agree or can’t articulate what rules you do want, when the rules with which you want Australia to harmonise are sitting there begging to be copied, how can you credibly expect CASA to produce what you want?

BTW: congrats again on your election; you’re a tough b*stard, that’s for sure

[Bill Pike]

Creampuff,
There is very little disagreement in AOPA about what rules we want. There is much disagreement about which accounting procedures to use, that gets the press, and while good governance is important of course, almost nothing is less relevant to AOPA's goals. I do not disagree that perhaps AOPA should put a counter proposal before Parliament, it is a novel idea, and I am chewing around it. I am saying though that CASA have been charged by the Minister with the task, they know exactly what we want, but they also know exactly what they want, and have ignored us, There doesn't appear to be any reason for them to listen. We have argued each point with them, as for example when I argued for the less restrictive US oxygen rules, as agreed so long ago between AOPA and the then Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Liddell, the proposal was dismissed because "the US only have those rules because they have high mountains to get over." My ability to continue meaningful discussions with such without an independent arbiter is almost at an end.

[snarek]

Creampuff

I agree with Bill, we know the rules we want. They are called (Oz modified) FARs.

An interesting aside. The advisor who got Part 47 disallowed is Jane Errey. She is now on the Board and is still very much in touch with those who moved the disallowance.

Now Mr Gemmell said he doesn't want to see the milloins spent wasted (and perhaps if he'd listened in the first place they wouldn't have been), but now I'd say he has a far greater reason to listen and work with AOPA.

Disallowance isn't a tool to be used lightly, but it is an effective tool against a regulator who thinks they don't have to listen before making rules.

The new Board will be powerful. It will be powerful because it isn't split. I fully expect debate (and for Pikey to call me a d1ckhead) but that is all par for the course. At the end of the day, this Board will quickly dispense with housekeeping and become a formiddable political lobbyist. All Mick Toller et al have to do is decide to either work with us to achieve joint aims or to establish a sub-department to explain all the disallowance motions to the Minister. I personally would much prefer the former and have confidence that Toller and Gemmel would to.

AK

[brianh]

GO THE FARs

Akkers
Very definitely the FARs. No way the JARs.
However, my discussions with some of the old brigade in CASA indicate that they will do everything possible to undermine any process leading to the FARs.
And keep in mind the sabotage of the first Class E trial by the RPT bus drivers and ATC, when we suddenly had near misses and incidents flowing from their pens.

The problem with the FARs is that it removes even more control from the control freaks. How can we fly safely without them standing by with their penalty notices?

Bill P
I don't want to re-open the accrual accounting debate. But, if AOPA uses a "cash" basis - yes, the finances will look good. Let's apply a cash basis to our daily lives - if we have not put aside the $ for the car rego, insurance, shire rates etc - good, prudent financial "accrual" accounting, how do we pay them when they are due? Long term memberships automatically incur future debts - if only for the magazine - and the prudent steward recognises this and, even if using the $ today, at least has the balance sheet portray a TRUE picture.
Cheers

[Bill Pike]

BrianH,
I am not about to be diverted from my work by accounting procedures. I am ignorant of them and have no interest in being otherwise. However, if I know a system has been in place for years, and the debt stays the same, if the money in the bank is increasing that is good and if it is decreasing that is bad. When it looked bad I put my focus on increasing income, and decreasing ougoings, rather than doing a course in accrual accounting, which would do neither. That is called Wagga economics by Geoff Dixon and it works for me. Direct accounting questions to someone who knows more please.
Snarek, I do not call you a ********. I have said that you waste your talent by bouncing about and wouldn't do anything I asked. Either you were not prepared to allow me to be the leader of your team, or perhaps we disagree on what being the leader means. I agree with most of your policies except that I don't agree that country people should pay for city control towers, aka LSC. I do agree that LSC was not properly followed through and as I remember you were put in charge of doing that. How is that going old son? You are now Marjorie's problem, and I will have no trouble working with you.

[Bart Ifonly]

snarek and Bill Pike.
Congratulations on you election and good luck in fighting the regulatory fiend.

The following is a paragraph out of a letter that I received from the office of John Anderson, Deputy P.M.

In developing regulations, CASA considers the adoption of the US Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) or the Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) of the European Joint Aviation Authorities, where appropriate and practicble. The JARs are the most recently developed international rule set, and their drafting style is uniform, which means that a consistent interpretation can be made. Nevertheless the JARs are only the starting point for the development of some Australian regulations. It has never been intended that JAR standards be applied without being adapted for local circumstances or in situations where better are available such as the US FARs.

It would seem to me from the above quote that CASA is not interested in FAR like regs. Again, good luck.

Bart

[snarek]

Trouble brewing????

I hate to say this but.......

I was on the revceiving end of a phone call from Chris McKeown the other night.

I have just heard he has called a Board meeting for the Thursday before the AGM. Interesting timing.

I sincerely hope he and the other oard members that support him aren't about to try anything silly.

I think if you have been humming and arring about attending the AGM yiou better come along, or send a proxy to Marjorie.

AK

PS, Pikey, I was only joking. I think we will be OK