The word "weasel" comes to mind.
I'm sure AOPA appreciate your subscription and your accountants bend on the facts of life. Why don't you and your mates resign? |
Jeeez
Can you children stop it. I think AC is wrong, I think he is wrong about a lot of things and becoming a little bitter too, but all opinions are valid, it is just that his are in the minority. I KNOW this is not about Smith. the organiser, Kerans, while not a NAS detractor, and I quote from an e-mail to me: 'NAS is good, but it has got bogged down in a quagmire of personalities and personal attacks...besides, there are other solutions, I'm not wasting my time on it there are enough others involved already. What I want is a cohesive policy to rebuild GA, get costs down and get CASA and Airservices under control. What I'd really like to see is a Government that recognises that safety and transportation infrastructure are a State responsibility and should NEVER be subject to 'user pays' dogma'. Grow up you pair. Reasoned debate works, childish sniping, either at each other or AOPA, does not. Shirl |
I gun reckon the ex treasurer started it. Sounds more akin sour grapes to me. But then agin he had opinions on evethin, mostly wrong.
Mebe he done missed out last night. |
poison_dwarf
Your pathetic one liners belong at the aero club bar after a shandy or two while you recount your latest efforts on FS2000, not here. Toddle off little dwarf. :yuk: |
Ibex:
A goat, how appropriate. With backwards pointing horns, even more appropriate. In case someone gets you from behind I guess? A few AOPA members get a lot of pleasure putting the organisation down. If it no longer represents your needs, (or your scabby mates), why do you join? |
Cripes! Poison_Dwarf can write like a normal educated person. I wish you'd write like that more often. Otherwise you sound like a 10 year old who's playing around on Daddy's computer.
|
Gli oggetti del nano anti all'immondizia di AOPA
|
Oh No.
The National Day of Action campaign isn't unravelling already is it? I hope you haven't ordered the commemorative Terry Towelling hats yet. |
g'day
i'm just going to say the day of action seems a little weak to get any response and i also think it is aimed at the wrong target. if a day of action was to be held in this matter i think it would be better done before the election to demonstrate that we are a good number of voters willing to back a party that has policies to help GA. already the buget is increase fees on GA and it will end up running the small buisness into the ground. We need to let the government not CASA know we are out there and willing to make action if things continue the way there are heading |
pilotads
I suppose it is a tactical thing. Before an election both sides will promise anything, afterwards they become the 'non-core promises' of a pack of cowardly liars. Probably best to cause a long festering wound on the first month of the new Govt and keep up sustained but non-damaging pressure. Works for me ;) Shirl |
good point. but a nation wide transponder check isn't going to wound let alone be festering i think its only going to end up being a huge maintaince bill for shocked private pilots or at worst case a new reason for insurance companies to raise there rates
|
It actually doesn't cost that much even for a mode C encoder. Usually though it is just an adjustment.
Since we don't need Transponders in E if NAS is rolled back it won't really matter, but it will be good to get a Txp check for most of the fleet, a faulty Mode C can be more dangerous than not having it on. Shirl |
but it will be good to get a Txp check for most of the fleet, a faulty Mode C can be more dangerous than not having it on. BTW which of the last two letters do I thow in the bin, you must keep a tighter reign on who gets to use the company pencil you know.:) |
Meanwhile, on the planet Coosebane…
Political Staffer: Bad news boss: the private pilots are going to teach us a lesson by complying with the rules!
Party Leader: Oh no! Which seats will we lose if we get all the private pilots off side? Staffer: Not single one. Party Leader: I see. We must immediately divert our resources from wooing voters in marginal seats, to making private pilots happy. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth…. |
HAHAHAHA!!!
Love ya work Creamie! |
A wake up call for those who forget.
This is courtesy of Pprune. Do the search......
OUTLINE OF CIRCUMSTANCES PRECEDING MY RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD OF AOPA. (Note: I had posted on the AOPA web forum a similar account immediately following my resignation, however, this post was removed by Gaunt, the then moderator. Gaunt no longer holds the position of Vice-President, Secretary, or forum moderator). 1. At the board meeting held in Sydney on 7th November, the issue of Gary Gaunt's having written to both the office of the Minister for Transport, via his aviation political adviser, Peter Marchi, and to the Democrats' aviation spokesperson, to effect that I had no authority to speak for AOPA on the issue of the disallowance of the amendments to the 1988 CARs, was raised. The following had transpired, and the board was advised of these matters at the 7th November board meeting: ? I had been negotiating with the minister's office to find a suitable manner in which the amending regulation would be disallowed, but that a further regulation be passed enabling the continuance of the demerits points system pursuant to the amended Civil Aviation Act. The effect of the proposal would have been firstly, to give AOPA and other interested sections of industry a six month period within which to make submissions as to which of the regulations ought be conferred with strict liability status, and at the same time allow those applicable under the demerits points system to be conferred with that status. I had been having discussions with the minister's aviation adviser on the issue, and also with the Democrats, who had filed a Notice of Motion for Disallowance on our behalf, following my written submissions to them. Each and every communication I had with the Democrats and the Minister's office had been forwarded by e-mail to all board members, with 'read' receipts being obtained, amongst others, from Gaunt. ? Notwithstanding my advices to Gaunt and the others as to the progress I was making (which was with the assistance of the Democrats), Gaunt telephoned a bare majority of the board to advise them that we should not pursue the disallowance. He did this on the basis that we (and that stage, meaning only Gaunt) had received a letter from the minister promising that he would amend the sections we wanted amended, after he received our submissions. The other board members did not have a copy of the letter, but relied upon Gaunt's representations. Moreover, he did not tell me what he proposed, nor did he contact Hamilton or Lyon. It was never, therefore, a board decision. However, to the extent that a bare majority of the board initially agreed to rescind our proposal for disallowance, that decision was taken relying solely upon Gaunt's representations. ? Approximately one hour after Gaunt received my final proposals for putting pressure on the government to allow the disallowance on the basis I had proposed, Gaunt wrote to the minister's office and the Democrats to effect that AOPA no longer wanted to proceed with the disallowance motion; that AOPA was satisfied with the minister's offer; and importantly, that any actions I took in the matter were taken independently of the board. Gaunt did not advise me of his actions, and nor did he receive the authority of a single board member to make the statement to effect that I was not acting with the authority of AOPA. I canvassed this at the board meeting at Bankstown on 7th November, and not one board member agreed that they knew of, or authorised, Gaunt's statement in respect of my role. ? Immediately after Gaunt's letter was written, directors Errey and Kerans obtained a complete copy of the minister's letter. They correctly assessed it as being platitudinous, and not offering what was represented to them by Gaunt. Errey canvassed the board again, apprising them of the true situation, whereupon a majority of the board rescinded the previous decision to discontinue the disallowance motion. However, it was too late, as the Democrats, on the advice of Gaunt, had withdrawn the motion. ? During the process whereby the board was being asked to rescind the previous decision, after having been now fully apprised of the contents of the minister's letter by Errey, both Gaunt and Lawford notified the board that if the board voted to continue with the disallowance process (i.e, reversed the decision taken by Gaunt), then both of them would resign. The majority of the board did make that decision to reverse Gaunt's action, however, neither Gaunt nor Lawford resigned as they had undertaken to do. ? Gaunt had written to the board, advising that we should not upset, or 'snub' the minister, and that we should accept in good faith his offer to look at our submissions after the offending regulations were passed the disallowance period (i.e., passed into law without the further ability to disallow them). ? Gaunt had not advised the board that he had taken this action (supporting the minister's position) whilst he (in his view) was being considered as a replacement for Mr Toller. He had advised myself and Lawford of his interest in the position, and that fact had been kept confidential, at Gaunt's request. He did not advise the board that there may have been, at least, the appearance of conflict between his seeking the CASA job, and his support of the minister in direct conflict with AOPA's policy on strict liability, thereby denying the board the opportunity of assessing whether such a conflict existed, prior to the board agreeing (initially) with Gaunt's representations (or at least part of them). It is important to note, however, that at no time did any board member give Gaunt the authority to advise any party that any actions on my part would be taken independently of AOPA. 2. At the meeting on 7th November I advised the board that Gaunt's actions had caused me personal embarrassment, and caused the company, in my view, to lose significant credibility with both the government and the opposition parties. I said this also in the knowledge that Gary had advised the federal opposition, through Martin Ferguson's political adviser, that we no longer intended to pursue the disallowance. I was concerned not only that Gaunt had failed to canvass the entire board, but that he had not ensured those he did contact had full knowledge of the actual contents of the minister's letter. And importantly, I was most concerned, and stunned, that Gaunt had taken the liberty of advising the minister and the Democrats that any actions I took would be independent of the board. I foreshadowed a member backlash when the members learned that AOPA, through Gaunt, had capitulated on the issue of strict liability in respect of the regulations, notwithstanding that opposition to strict liability has long been an AOPA policy, and further notwithstanding the government had tabled the Regulations without notice to AOPA, or industry. 3. I confirmed my previous position expressed to board members that I could not continue on the board if Gary remained on the executive, and that his removal from such a position was the minimum necessary to regain some credibility both for myself and for the company, in the eyes of the government, CASA, DOTARs and the members. My views were that unless Gaunt were relegated to the equivalent of the back bench, both my authority and the influence of our association would be severely jeopardies in any future negotiations in respect of aviation legislation. 4. A majority of the board agreed that Gary should not continue to be a member of the executive. It was proposed that he be removed from the vice-president's position and that he remain as secretary. A majority of the board appeared to be of the view at that time, that the secretary's position was not an executive position. I accepted this view in good faith, and I believe it was given in good faith. A copy of the articles of association of the company were not to hand at the time. 5. Upon my return to Townsville I read the articles and confirmed that the secretary's position was indeed an executive position. Thereupon I advised the members of the board that, in the circumstances, I thought Gary should not continue in the role of secretary, and that another ought take his place. I did so on the basis of my position taken the previous week, which had not changed, and which has not changed. The board agreed that Gary should not have an executive position at that time. I asked that the board maintain its position. 6. At the meeting I read out the chronology of events, and had with me the supporting documentation leading up to Gary's statement to the minister's office and to the Democrats to effect that I no longer spoke for AOPA on the issue of the disallowance. Indeed, the meeting clearly accepted AOPA's policy to pursue the disallowance, such acceptance having been confirmed by the gathering of votes by Errey on the issue, albeit too late to make a difference, Gary's actions already having caused a position of no return for AOPA. In short, Gary did not have the support he alleged (when the entire board was consulted, and when they had to hand the minister's letter), and had no authority to make the written representations he did, relating to my position, to the minister. I have a copy of all of my board communications on this matter, and of Gaunt's letters, and have requested that they form part of the minutes of the meeting of 18th November. The dates and content of the correspondence confirm that the board, and in particular Lawford and Gaunt, knew what my communications with the Democrats had been up to the time when Gaunt sent his e-mail transmission which negated any prospect at all of AOPA succeeding in making a compromise deal with the minister's office on the issue of the disallowance. 7. The board, at the further meeting, decided to allow Gaunt to continue as secretary, whereupon I offered my resignation. I did so on the basis that I would continue in my role to the end of December 2003, in order to fulfil my responsibilities and tasks partly completed. However, Lawford successfully called for a spill of the board, and nominated himself as president, to take effect immediately. Hence my resignation took effect immediately. SECRETARY'S RESPONSIBILITIES I have sent e-mails to the board outlining some of the secretary's duties which have not been completed as at the time of my resignation, and which have put us at risk in respect of breach of the Corporations Law, in respect of at least ten issues. |
And he turned me into a newt!
|
A newt with a gaunt expression no doubt.
|
WOFTAM :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
|
Here here!:yuk:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.