c182d

if you looked at the big picture you would realise that an egm is not the way to go now

it would make things worse not better

the agm is not that far away and best to give this board a fair go

after all they are doing a good job

let them get on with it

you get what you vote for
 

Piper

You are suggesting one of two things, we (the current Board) resign and let a very small vocal group, who I personally think would destroy GA, take charge. (without any flow on policy, or treasury in house memory!!!).

That's it??? We just give in and hand it over to the lunatic fringe???

OR, we go to an election (I suppose you are suggesting the whole Board, again) and yet again, as we have this time, we get two or three 'destroyers' who white ant our efforts with continued requests for stuff that technically they are entitled to, but realistically, as a volunteer organisation, we don't have the time to respond to AND get on with the business.

The people on this Board were elected with a big majority of votes. There is an election coming up, half the Board (6 positions) will be vacant. Lets see if we can get it right.

My phone is 0429 667117 and I answer all e-mails.

AK

Pesawat_terbang. You would like "acid rain" if your puppetmaster told you to like it.

Gaunty. YOU are peddling the misinformation and the problem on the AOPA website is YOU.

Snarek. The "lunatic fringe" are saying "Gaunt's Gotta Go" Remember it takes 100 lunatics to get an EGM not just a few that refuse to condone your the Board's antics. How did your "flow on policy or treasury go? Not too good it appears? Regarding troubling these overworked volunteers, you took the job on and
told us you knew what you were doing. Now we can't even get the correct paperwork to frame a resolution at the next AGM that were denied us last year by your A Team. We can't even get it from ASIC who should have a copy of the amended Articles, because you haven't given it to them.

Think about another Board member who got a substantial amount of votes. You and your lot decided to have a "preferential poll" (which is highly illegal) and left out 3 of the Board you knew would oppose you to get a majority.

Brilliant "girl guide stuff", now we have to put up with a wad of extra strict liability offences because someone took it in his head to make a big fellow of himself with the Minister.

We can hear the hissing of deflating ego's already. Can you hear the 100 lunatics? :ok:

Only 4
 

There are only 4 lunatics, but they like most lunatics are loud :}

I don't understand much of what you say below, 'flow on treasury???'

Put it in a question and I will try to answer it.

As for the 'A team' well I wasn't on the Board at the last election. Why doesn't matter. I too tried to get a motion up about democratically back filling vacant positions, it too was defeated (ironically with the vote of someone who would have been offered a position now if it were won).

The 'Board member who got a substatial amount of votes' was actually the last elected. That alone says a lot!!!

What's this about a preferential poll, got me beat what you mean by that. If you mean the 'last elected' should be the first to go this time around, sounds fair to me and (I think) means I will be one of them (I will have to go back over the results to know for sure).

Oh, and if Gaunt is the problem, call on him to volutarilly stand aside. If he gets re-elected, accept the will of the members and shut up (mind you, you have found a whole bunch of nit-picking reasons to not accept the will of the members this time around, so I have little faith you will be able to next time).

I personally think Gaunt has a (deserved) big following and will get up again. So I don't think such a challenge will worry him too much.

AK

"AOPA_members"

your handle does zip to give you any credibility whatsoever and the cr@p that you carry on with shows that you neither represent the members of aopa nor i suggest do you have the greater good of the association foremost in your mind.


put up or shut up i say


and to the moderator of this forum, the user name for this person is a blatent lie and should be removed so as not to give the wrong impression to those that might believe such dribble

:*

bonez

Thank you we happen to agree and have been thinking about it for some time, of he will be thread banned and his user name banned.

If he/she cares to email us we will make arrangements for another 'nic of his choosing as long as it does not purport to represent part of a group or organisation.


In the meantime cries of censorship, free speech and all the other drivel that goes with it, will go unheeded.

Further "links" directly to "other" forums in the "cause of so called free speech" will no longer be tolerated.

Says it all
 

Ron Lawford
AOPA President


Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 3
Location: Darwin
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:45 am Post subject: AOPA Board News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary Gaunt today offered his resignation as Secretary of the AOPA Board.

The President Ron Lawford accepted his resignation as being in the interests of the members of AOPA.

Ron said that while a number of accusations of misconduct had been levelled at Gary Gaunt no evidence had been produced by anyone to substantiate these allegations.

Mr. Lawford said he hoped that the resignation from the executive would remove the ill feeling that has become evident in the last few months and expressed the hope that the Board can now move forward united in improving the well being of General Aviation in Australian.

Mr. Lawford said that the resignation should not be construed as any admission of the allegations made against Mr. Gaunt, which still remain allegations only.
_________________
Ron Lawford
AOPA President

ah, a thorn by any other name
 

How does that song go.

"Oh so your back, from outer space"

And I get accused of having a pseudonym :E

Anyway, what will please you pair.

You threaten an EGM if Gaunt won't resign. You have no proof or basis for your threat other than the ramblings of a couple of AOPA has-beens.

Gaunt analyses the situation, he decides that if an EGM is called it will destroy AOPA, and so, despite the fact that your allegations are baseless vomit, he resigns to appease you and to save AOPA.

That in my view is selfless courage. What you are doing, in my view, is cowardly terrorism.

If we were dealing with honourable sane people, that would be the end of it. But it won't be, will it???? :yuk:

AK

If your a member go check out the AOPA forum development! Very Juicy.

“NEW Interesting Developments now emerging on the AOPA forum.” If you’re a member go and check it out.

Bonez,

By what criteria are they doing a good job? It looks more like a dissaster.

AOPA is doing just fine.

here are always idiots in the wings (no pun intended) intent on destroying anything or refusing to accept that their time is over.

The people to whom I refer, who in my view are the true cause of discontent are

1. Bill Hamilton. Thanks for your contribution in the past, but you are past your use-by date. Please retire gracefully.

2. John Lyon. Hmmmm, no comment!!!

3. Tony Mitchell. He seems to me to be just plain anti-everything. Very destructive.

Oh and AGAF, one of the moderators, an ex AOPA employee Rob Loane. Sure you just don't have an axe to grind Rob??? Mitchell is another 'moderator' what a joke!!!

As for the others, guys, you started with good intent, but your forum is now little more than a soapbox for anti-GA activities. It has become a joke!

Sampai Jumpa Lagi

PT

I didn't like what went on at the AGM, from either side.

The Chair wouldn't hear a motion from the floor, and then the new President seemed to be determined to sieze control.

Very confusing.

But the members elected this Board, so to the trouble makers named above, and others, shaddup and let the members decision stand!!!

Bill Hamilton, you have been around since the decline of AOPA, I actually hold you personally responsible for much of that decline, please Sir, go away!!

As for AGACF, can only get in every now and then, but from what I've seen I'd never bother joining the 'Tony Mitchell Memorial Whinge Forum'

Pat

You fools!!!

How can a GA Association run without a QANTAS Capatain at the helm!!!

My god man, have you see the resumes, the resumes, and trillions of hours, oh and such negotiation skills.

You Idiots Idiots Idiots, you got it wrong, we must have an EGM to get back control, the stupid members, they got it wrong, they just weren't listening...

THEY DIDNT READ THE RESUMES!!!!!!!

ME, ME ITS ALL ABOUT ME, LOOK AT ME, LOOK YOU FOOL

Non, down here you putant!!!!

Nappy

There are none so blind as those that cannot see.

This warning says it all about this forum

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.,

The truth from Majorie paints a slightly different picture, definately not a pretty one..........

There are always two sides to a story

The story I hear is of lack of communication, directors who can't work together, dummy spits, threats and intimidation. Read all the carefully worded retractions on here and AOPA forums - certainly seem to have been posted under duress..

In the words of my 9 year old son 'Build a bridge and get over it already!'

The behaviour that has been shown has been appalling - I wonder sometimes why I bothered forking over the bucks to rejoin.

I have been trying to convince some young Air League student pilots to join AOPA, get some young blood into aviation, but I'm now too ashamed to recommend it.

Actually, they would probably make a better board - at least they have self discipline, a positive attitude and would know there's no 'I' in team.

Ugly

There are certainly two sides to every story, and yes there were quite a few 'if you don't do/vote/act in accordance with my wishes I will resign' from more than one member of the then executive.

As for Marjorie's post, I don't intend to revisit it, it was twenty or so bridges ago, but it does not fully accord with my recollection, and I was there!!!

The majority of the Board have had enough of this and are just getting on with it.

AK

snarek - can you tell me what the former VPs agenda is and why he has become so vicious towards yourself (well towards everybody actually - it is just that because you post on AGACF you cop it). If you went to that site for the first time you would think you were dealing with a 13 year old. It is hard to believe that he was once an AOPA VP but that might explain the downhill slide AOPA suffered in years gone by. Does he have a following or is he just an online lunatic ?

Slice

I don't wish to get into the personalities, just say I am proud to be one of about 20 million Australians he doesn't seem to get on with.

Why me in particular, well many moons ago CASA wrote to all aircraft owners telling us that under the new, and AOPA approved, Part 47 we could now hand our C of Rs over to our nominated LAME along with a signed book of cheques.

Said person was part of the Board at that time, I was not (never been on a Board with him).

As aircraft owners, Jane and I said FARKTHIS loudly and so, via Democrat Senator Brian Griegg, and amongst howls of protest (well insults actually) from said person and one other still on Board, we had it disallowed in the Senate.

So the reason, because I am obviously a fool who fails to recognise the enormity of their collective wisdom I suppose :E

AK

Bart Ifonly

The only person blind my son is you if you really think your hearing the truth shoot yourself now.

You would be better of on the AGACF forum where In my view they advertise bringing down AOPA, their administrator has been sending out emails to organizations with an address to give out damaging information, of course that would probably the information they want you to hear not the truth. AGACF the forum where most people visit once and never return, at least most people are constructive on pprune.

I see Ms ExPres is on the AOPA forum threatening litigation again. WELL - THAT'S A SURPRISE.

GET a life, love.....

Poison dwarf, what a fitting name. Yes i would be much better off on AGACF than here in cowards castle.

Poox

I noticed that litigation lils post has appeared on the AGACF forum, well now how does that work? An ex-pres attempts to bring down the board because it does not do what it’s told and jump through the hoops when told to do so, joins forces with the same forum that in my view has attempted to bring down AOPA since it started.

Now how does this jigsaw fit together? What is the common denominator? Well in my view AOPA boards have had internal fighting for a number of years now, at least 4 or 5 that I can remember. One director has been on the board all that time. Rumors have it that the same director was passing out AGACF leaflets at an AOPA function.

Call me sinister but what is the real agenda here?

Perhaps when they whittle AOPA's membership down to nothing we will have a new organization. I wonder what the website would be (AGACF home page) perhaps? Or maybe after its founder the person that brought down AOPA.

Bart Ifonly

Go back to using you real name on AGACF or perhaps moderate the truth, as it seems to be the case on that forum. In my view that forum is a joke it cannot even stick to a policy, maybe that’s because the moderator only moderates the truth?

d_concord

Just realised who you were. Must be so hard for you, who actually wears the trousers?

Fom what I hear, the AOPA board are doing fine. I hear they are working on new strategic direction. I reckon we should all contact them and let them know what where we want GA to go. (And I don't mean crap about the past). All the phone numbers and email addresses are in the mag.

I'm going to, because I want a viable aviation lobby group in this country, one that I have a say in, not one that is run by rich men with ther own agenda.

Happy Chrissie flyers!;)

Hi Poison Drawf,

If you knew who I was you certianly wouldn't have written what you did. Wrong again!

However, note that you have just registered and all you have done is spew vitriol on all and sundry in this topic and others on the same subject without any constructive debate or logical defense of AOPA's position. So what is your other nick? I doubt that a new forum member would act the way you have.

The reality is that I suspected Gaunt had done what it turn's out he did and alluded to it in my first postings on this topic. I however without proof didn't expouse it.

I don't even suggest that the conflict was thought of, or that the intention was to favour himself with the selectors for the esteemed position for which he applied as I don't know. It really doesn't matter, you not only have to do the right thing, you have to be seen to do the right thing. (However I do admit that CASA have chosen the right person though!). It also doesn't matter whether the conflict was intentional or a mistake, the same outcome results and let's hope that this isn't a big error for the industry as a whole. The decision to withdraw with working with the democrates is tainted either way and in question.

The current board only diminish themselves by not being able to acknowledge that this was all wrong, that a board member acted while having a conflict. Instead of facing the issue they instead go on the attack with the one person who acknowledged the issue and felt strongly enough to put herself on the line in an effort to defend the correct position. Some lied and now have had to confirm the truth which has further cast their individual integrity into doubt and this is a shame where Bertram is concerned because I personally felt that he was a quite a capable advocate (and to some extent still do).

The issue here is not if the legislation is correct, it's whether the AOPA board goings on are appropriate.

The result of all this is that AOPA is now gridlocked in it's own politics, it's representation is in question by those organisations with which it is supposedly negotiating as GA's self appointed representative, and also with those people it supposedly represents. "I" feel AOPA is badly wounded as a representative organisation. In fact I think it's irrelevant now. It has given power to AUSAC in a way that money couldn't buy. Time will tell.

If this is about going forward, looking to the future etc as so many say, then surely AOPA needs to acknowledge the mistake of the past so the industry can be sure they are not likley to make it again. But they don't, they just lie, defend the indefensible and insult members or people with a differing opinion. Very representative!!!

Anyway, enough of this, the truth is out and it's up to AOPA to go forward, Fix the problems which they won't do by denial, however as can be seen, they are their own worst enemy so let's not hold our breath.

d_concord


first time in many years i have seen the pres on tv... thats a start.. whats more it is good to see the egos going out the back door

d-c please explain?


my feeling now is that the management is the best it has been since patroni

now lets get on with it

d_concord

May I suggest that your version of the truth is not even close and your sources disingenuous.

You may if you care to read it, find the Dec AOPA in a mailbox near you this week, instructive.

Coupla simple things you need some instruction on.

There was not then or at any time a so called "conflict of interest".

I did not apply for the position, it was not advertised.

It was the subject of an executive search by a world class executive search firm.

I was invited to interview and both the Pres and other VP were advised as a matter of principle before I accepted.

The list was supposed to be and has since remained highly confidential except for my name which was made public here within 48 hours????

In the end they found exactly the right man.

I was advised that the search was concluded the preferred candidate identified and final negotiations were taking place in late August, some weeks before the "notice of motion to disallow" was gained and way before the Regs 1988 issue was brought to a head on the 27th October.
The appointment could not be made before the Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003 was passed which also contained the new softer enforcement regime whose operation also required the Regs 19898 to be in effect.

Read the Ministers Letter in the AOPA mag, there are two serious wins for AOPA in it and a demonstration of why it was pivotal to the working of the new Act.

There are still a couple of Board members backed by a huge majority of about 3 or 4 other members who continue to try and destabilise AOPA and have been doing so since the last election, in the interests of "members rights". Well I guess the members, as they should, will decide at the next election whether they agree with them or not.

There is a great deal made of the so called calamitous end of GA as we know it, as a result of AOPA's "rolling over" on "strict liability" by "allowing" the Regs 1988 amendment to pass, all of course as a result of my personal intervention.
The same sort of tabloid journalism and PR that we complain about here so often.
"Airliner death plunge" after there is a routine inflight shutdown.

Gets attention drives the troops onto the guns but does not want to go near the facts.
I am vaguely flattered that there are some who ascribe such powerful influence and personality to me, that I am able to singlehandedly deceive and manipulate AOPA, the Government, CASA and the Dems.

I can only refer you to Creampuffs post on this issue which gives the lie to some of the fatuous statements made around here on it.

There is another Director of AOPA who previously held a much more senior position than now, who had aspirations to employment as the Deputy Director of CASA, which was advertised, whom it appears did not have any issues of conflict at the time.

But then I've been around here long enough to understand that the truth is not important to the many who cover themselves in self righteousness for a cause for the same reason that the wolf wears a sheepskin.

There will always be some who play the old cowards castle game of asserting a certain thing then threatening to sue any one who says otherwise. There is an inevitable result of that.

You will not find me doing so, I do not need to, I am well enough know around these parts for a good many years for most to be able to work out whats what and what isn't.

I have had many a puzzled call from people who know me well, trying to reconcile the evil person being portrayed with the one that they actually know. They are not disappointed.

I hear tell that the residents of a loony bin near you are rioting, they have either stopped taking their medication or are finding that their peculiar version of "free speech" actually does carry responsibilities and has come back to bite them.

AOPA is NOT gridlocked and is going forward even more strongly and is doing just fine thank you.

MaxyB

Sounds like a good idea.

I'd like to see AOPA representing me - a private pilot who doesn't want to see the costs of flying go up anymore.

As far as direction goes, I'd like AOPA to pressure the transport minister to deliver a GA policy.

I believe the current board understands this and is working towards it.

Have a happy new year too!

D-Concorde.

I have a lot of time for Marjorie, but she has moved on.

AOPA is doing very well, the majority of Directors are working towards a better GA WITHOUT the personalities. The current Board will no longer tolerate personality above GA!!!

As for the problems, yes there are a few. I challenge you to find the common denominator on this Board and previous ones where disharmony has been a problem.

As for Gary gaunt, what if he were to stand again next year and was re-elected, would you repspect the members' confidence in him, or just keep sniping???

AK

Like AK I'm proud to be one of the 19,999,999 likewise.

Maxy B points up a mystery to me.

My number along with all the other Directors is in the mag along with our emails.

Funny thing is, I have had many calls from members with constructive and proactive comments and yes even the odd "good onyer"

But I have not had ONE that has challenged me for the facts or rationale for my or the Boards decisions.

I think the others have had a similar experience.

As Prof. Sumner Miller would say "Why is this so?"

Is it because they are not interested in the facts or feel intimidated by me/us.

The former seems likely the latter unlikely.???:confused:

Snarek,

If Gaunt is elected again next year, I'd say good on him, AOPA would have a good person and I would hope that he doesn't get involved in an apparent conflict of interest again. If he does he needs to choose and do the right thing.

I would hope that the board in general would be able to handle it a lot better and in particular not perpetuate the issue by not exactly telling the truth.

I've made my point, I don't think anyone has come up with a defensible position for what went on, I just say it should have been handled better after the event.

AOPA is not the first board to get caught up in these sorts of things and won't be the last, but there is plenty of evidence on how to handle these sorts of things.

I would also hope that processes be put in place to make sure that there is ownership through consensous on the board and that doesn't mean everyone's agreement. What is the use of having a president or chairman(person) if you don't keep them informed and people act unilaterily.

I read the directors reports in AOPA lat night adnd I see Bertram explanation and then I see another drectors reply to Murphy?. That other reply was the first time someone said it was wrong and came up with constructive ways to go forward. There might be hope for you yet.

And as for sniping!. Except for Dwarf I don't think i have taken a personal swipe at anyone.

Seems Mr Kerans has called their bluff over on the Gerriatric Q-Captain anti-GA Whinge Forum.

Heh heh, he did an insult count after being threatened with censorship, seems it was Mitchell 86 him 12 and he gets threatened.

Just shows there must be a hidden agenda over there.

Jangan Gidu Dong!!!!!

PT

Gaunty,

I didn't see your post this morning so apologise for just reponding to snarek. It does deserve a considered reply however I am having to do things aviation (and Crissy things) until early next week and will respond then.

I will make the point between now and then that at no stage have I suggested I thought you evil( or any lesser adjective for that matter.) It's not the issue. As I keep saying the perception is as important as the reality sometimes. The issue also hasn't been the conflict or apparent conflict, it's been how the Pagani issue has been handled, the statements, the withdawal and correction of statements etc.

I actually rejoined AOPA after watching your considered posts, the principles your faction put forward and hoped that the mire that AOPA has got itself into since the Patroni days may be over. What do we get but more of the same.

The shame here is that now AOPA though it's own internal goings on have lost the effort of two capable, good people and damaged it's reputation in the process.

You being one of the two and Pagani being the other, however if I read anything into Snareks post you may be up for a comeback. Not knowing Pagani, I can only assume she won't so that is a loss to Aopa and an aviation industry in decline.

This months AOPA Mag look's quite good too. AOPA is starting to look up and get back on track with things.

http://www.dotars.gov.au/transsec/fact_sheet6.aspx

Transport Security
General Aviation


Aircraft theft measures
General aviation aircraft including private/corporate non-jet aircraft that are not required to have a security program will be required to put measures in place to reduce the risk of theft. :mad:

Practical measures to mitigate against the risk of theft would be determined by the aircraft operators as appropriate and might include fitting auxiliary locks (for example to propellers or prop controls), securing aircraft in hangers or fitting door locks.

DOTARS Transport Security Investigators will be auditing compliance and undertaking random compliance checking in relation to aircraft anti-theft measures.

Background checking and licensing of pilots
All pilots and trainee pilots will be required to undertake background checking prior to being issued with new photographic licences by 1 July 2004.

Ensuring that pilots and trainee pilots are subject to background checking will reduce the likelihood of persons who might pose a threat to aviation gaining access to aircraft through legitimate means.

The cost of background checking and the photographic licence will be borne by individual pilots. Licences will be valid for two years and will cost around $200. :mad:

Please note: Sport aircraft are not included in the category of aircraft required to be secured from theft. Background checking will not be carried out on pilots of sport aircraft and they will not be required to have a photographic licence.

AOPA have attended the DOTARS briefing with the airlines and peak industry body and will be formulating our response over the break.

There are a number of proactive alternatives being considered that can deliver a win win solution for us all.

I, personally, don't believe it will be necessary to man the barricades and roll out the tumbrils.

And whilst I am on the subject, when I were a lad, getting an pilot license issued was a similar process to getting a passport. That is positive identification, birth certificate, signed passport photo, the whole schlemeil.

The issue of a license then allowed you to operate as a crew member or exercise the privilege of your license internationally using the license without necessarily the benefit of a Passport .

Why should it now be any different?


In the meantime if you have any ideas we would be grateful to hear them.

Andrew Kerans is running with this for the moment

[email protected]

Let's hope AOPA & ASA can see this defeated;

I see on couple of other major forums there has been some real heated debate.