National Day of Action
 

The latest from AOPA:

09 September 2004 - For immediate release

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association calls on pilots to SAFELY join Aviation Day of Action

AOPA President Ron Bertram today called on all pilots to join in the Aviation day of Action on November 27, but to do it safely. “We encourage all pilots to show that they are angry at the Government and Oppositions lack of credible aviation policy, to show that we have had enough of ad-hoc regulation and a discriminatory airspace system, we encourage them to fly on November 27.”

“We don’t support flying illegally,” said Mr Bertram “Nor do we support any calls to be rude or contemptuous to Air Traffic Controllers. These people are doing an excellent and professional job, we may disagree on aspects of airspace, but this should not result in personal attacks”

“What we are calling for is for all pilots to get an aeroplane and go flying on November 27. When they do we call on them to fly showing the utmost professionalism and fully within the law and regulations.

“We also ask them to make sure they file flight plans and where possible, to check the correct operation of their transponders with air traffic control.”

Transponders are devices which show air traffic control where an aircraft is, airline aircraft can also receive transponder signals to better enable them to see and avoid other aircraft.

Mr Bertram also condemned the lack of credible policy direction of both Government and Opposition and pointed out that this day of action would serve to show that Australia’s pilots were not impressed.

“It is time Government realise that General Aviation is a vibrant industry and needs proper support from Government, not the haphazard and untenable mish-mash of policy and regulation we see at the moment.”

For more information
Ron Bertram
President
0407 367 203

Andrew Kerans
Vice President
0439 209 343

This is a much better idea. A protest within the rules. I suppose civil disobedience is OK as long as it doesn't endanger the innocent, the 'bindook' day of action would have done that.

Flying 'within the regs' heh heh, carefully worded 'no give way to RPT straight in approaches' :E

Shirl

I can assure you that I will have both feet planted firmly on the ground on 27 November.

I want no part of this absurd exercise.

:mad:

A

Why???

Do you think GA should just keep copping it in the ar$e from Govt???

Why do you think they are not entitled to protest???

Shirl

This does not sound productive or wise to me. It sounds awfully like a very bad idea.

Australians know what "work to rule" means. Government, ATC, Professional Pilots and Airlines will simply and easily label AOPA as a rogue organisation and its members as cowboys and hooligans and/or priviledged silvertails who play around in an expensive sport.

They will do this in the minds of the general public and accuse AOPA (rightly or wrongly) of compromising the safety of the travelling public. In addition if there is ANY accident on this day of protest AOPA will wear the blame.

Its the public perceptions that count, and AOPA should be focussing on what the general public think about GA. Its the public that will force change, not AOPA.

Disclaimer: Anyway this advice is provided free of charge. I'm not an AOPA member, nor am I likley to be at this rate. I'm a newbie student pilot even if I am an old fart.

For what its worth, if AOPA wants to change the regulatory environement and the cost structure of GA, then the case needs to be made to the GENERAL PUBLIC about what good fellows GA pilots and AOPA members are, and how they are an asset to the community and worthy of support - you know, like surf lifesaving clubs, the CFA, SES and so on.

Even the Victorian motorcycle riders federation knows this - they organise an annual Christmas toy run to prove they are not drug dealing hells angels.

You will keep copping it in the @rse from Government because no one knows or cares - and the Government knows it.

(Hint - Maybe AOPA needs a PR consultant?)

Hot diggety........ there's a job for gaunty ya all stay well hear.



You're sailing very close to the wind! :mad:

Anymore "names" and you won't be here. Again!

Woomera

Unfortunately I cant be part of the "day of action", cause I will be on holidays then and wont be going anywhere near a plane!!

And I'm certainly not paying to fly!! :ok:

Cheers, HH.
:ok:

Really: I rolled on the floor laughing when I read it.

A National day of action where pilots 'check their transponders are working' and 'file flightplans'?

I wish you would make every day a National day of action if that is what you intend to do - it would allow the Air Traffic Controllers to get on with the job without prying information like a dentist trying to pull a tooth. That is the 'everyday' reality.

If you file a flightplan, activate your transponder, and call up in plenty of time for clearance, there is rarely a reason you will not get a clearance anyway, assuming WX is legitimate VMC around the Control Area.

That whole point has been overlooked in this entire ridiculous debate. And the fact that there was no cost for VFR clearance before Dicks NAS anyway.

Sounds like a whole lot of 'Rebels without a Cause - or a Clue'.

Nice one AOPA. Glad I dumped my membership 10 years ago. You just lost even more of your dwindling support by giving the 'diagonal nod' to this stunt proposed by one unbalanced anonymous amateur webpage designer!

Flichik,

I did not say that "they" are not entitled to protest, what I did say was that if it goes ahead, I will not be taking part.

I do not consider the changes to be an imposition.

The fact that AOPA, who are little more than a lobby group that presupposes to represent aircraft owners and pilots, encourage this exercise is not justification enough.

I would be interested to know if anyone could tell me just one positive and tangible outcome this exercise will have.

AS

When one reads the two press releases from AOPA, one can see that they engage mouth before brain. Yes, I am a member of AOPA until this current dose of membership runs out. And at the last election I did vote - for 'none of the above'.

And what inference will be drawn by the supporters of the 'rollback', if 27 November turns out to be an average day for Aus aviation, with no appreciable increase in activity (rebellious or otherwise)?

Atlas

Copied from the AOPA forum. I rang him, but apparently he won't post here because he is banned for disagreeing with gaunty :)

Seems AOPA has developed vision for a change :E

I think the benefits outlined are tangible, even if it is only a mass transponder check!!!

Shirl

All

The day of action isn't solely about NAS. The NAS wreck is a result of a lack of cohesive Government policy for GA.

We see CASA almost daily doing their own thing on stuff like ADs, medicals etc and ignoring the FAA lead (where the majority of GA aircraft are managed). We see airservices claiming fees of up to $200 a landing at unnecessary towers and the Department looking at imposing costs on us to manage (and they admit it) a public perception.

So, the day of protest, as called by us, is about showing Govt that we have had enough of haphazard multidirectional regulation and that we are calling for cohesive well thought out policy designed to sove the problems caused by the current mish-mash of policy (including NAS).

There is an answer, we just need to get together to find it and we need to make Government listen.

The one thing I don't condone (and the rest of the Board for that matter) is any call to be contemptuous of Air Traffic Controllers or to fly in an unsafe manner. There are very few ATC actively opposed to NAS (as opposed to quietly opposed) and even the few on PPRUNE each have a multitude of user names so as to reduce that thread to around 6 real posters by my reckoning. Not a particularly representative or influential number.

So, we are flying to make ourselves heard. We will fly safely with flight plans wherever possible and on that day we urge every pilot to call ATC and check the mode C on their transponder is working properly. If it isn't, put it on the MR for checking.

At the end of the day Government will take notice and hopefully every aircraft in the fleet would have had a transponder check.

By the end of the year we should have a Government White Paper containing rational policy aimed at revitalising an industry that employs over 200,000 people and has the potential to attract significant 'export' dollars.

If we can get costs down and services up as well as making certification of new Oz aircraft easier (possible???), Harmonise RAA (ex AUF) training and PPL training so that the unbalanced competition no longer exists, to the benefit of both organisations. If we can make sure those who NEED AsA services pay for them and make the Government realise safety and security is NOT a user pays policy area, then we will have more planes, more pilots, cheaper flying, more controllers and so it goes.

Benefits for everyone!!!!

Just imagine, 10,000 foriegn pilots trained in Oz every year.

Now that has to be good.

As for the ney sayers :p

Andrew Kerans
VP AOPA

Flichik,

I know RB personally, although haven't seen him for some time. He is a man of integrity and a man for whom I have a good deal of respect. I do however, have certain issues with AOPA, but that's my problem and quite another story.

You said:What exactly will this exercise achieve and what if anything, will it change?

A

With regard to your point about ATC's actively/silently opposed to NAS.

It depends what you call NAS.

If 'NAS' is the attempt by Dick Smith using all the political influence at his disposal, to enforce his personal airspace regime upon the entire Australian aviation community and it's customers, with inadequate consultation & modelling, for nil economic benefit, and questionable other benefits to anyone, then YES - practically all ATC's would be against it.

If 'NAS' is about real airspace reform that is well thought out and benefits all and inclusive of all parties, then YES - practically all ATC's would be for it.

The word NAS has come to be associated with Dick Smith - it is therefore a 'tainted; brand name.

Come up with something new - do it properly, keep Smith and the usual suspects away from it, and you will get all the support you want.

PS: I would suggest you could substitute 'All ATC's' in the above comments to 'All Pilots', 'All Airline Passengers', 'All Reasonable Persons'....

That wasn't my post.

But I think you can see there is an attitude of cooperation there, so why not try to find common ground instead of all the anti-GA merde on this site.

http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/dayofaction.cfm

Shirl

Flichik

To quote John McEnroe,

Quote:

---

You can't be serious?!

---

You need to have a quiet word with your foot-stomping hero in glasses about cooperation and common ground.

Don't think this has anything to do with Mr Smith, it isn't really even about NAS.

It seems it is about the total #$%^ up this govt has made of aviation, really, I think it will be good for ATC, regionals, everyone.

Shirl

Flichk

Afraid your wrong. It has every thing to do with Smith and NAS. NAS is just the latest in a long list of costly mistakes paid for by the industry generated by the Smith/AOPA combination of freedom to fly.

One of the reasons a few years ago, I like many others didn't renew my membership to AOPA after nearly forty years. The ship was rudderless and out of control, and recent events have convinced me not to rejoin.

Roll on the National Day of action, lets make the RPT's fly full circuits, lets block up frequencys with transponder checks. Not a problem to me, my response will be on the pa to the fare paying passengers apologising for any delays caused. When people realise that airfare rises are due to GA being given more reduced costs so that the airlines have to pay for costly blunders such as NAS, should create considerable discussion.

AOPA is sad and pathetic, representing only 7% of licencees with medicals. So don't take what they have to say too seriously.

Dick Smith continues to use as AOPA as his political stick with the cronies there not knowing any better and oblivious to having their limited minds manipulated.

The day of disobedience is cute but will only be supported by the ratbag fringe of GA. They have the right of course but it does their "cause" no good.

The "cause" ? Well that is difficult to determine. A few lines of rhetoric and populist stuff but nothing of substance whatsover. Where is their policy paper on NAS and the plight of GA ? Where is the reasoned argument. It doesn't exist, that is too hard. There is no cogent argument about anything. No wonder no one will listen.

AC

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

Hmmm about time, I seem to remember a couple of us being tarred, feathered and run out of town by a pack of slavering baying hounds for just suggesting that as a possibility.:} It must be lonely going now for a man of your intelligence and intelectual capacity.:p

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: