RIS to read
 

Horatio; Re the idea of GARP.

Count me in.:ok:

Leafie,

I actually think there is a greater chance of success leveraging off the S&FP than starting afresh.

There is less dilution of the vote, and GA could bring significant numbers to the S&FP.

They are the only common sense no BS kind of folk on the political landscape at present. I have never voted for them and never been a member, but they make more sense than the rest of the numpties, including the Liberal party who have had my constant support for all my voting life.

When the Libs or the ALP start seeing sensible folk swinging away to "common sense" you might get more overall impact.

Just my $0.22 inc GST worth.

Jabs,

Having been involved with a couple of political groups over the years, I would suggest that we will never get traction with an established party due to their own internal politics.
If Abbott pulls an early election as speculated or a Double dissolution, it will be very interesting indeed. We will not have time to get it up through some other party's mechanisms.

...and to illustrate a crack before we even start, I personally don't view the shooters and fishers to be uniformly "common sense".I suspect that you would view my personal political position to be somewhere in the "loony left" spectrum.

A single-issue party (for all the limitations that would bring) keeps it all very neatly and narrowly focussed for the people we are going forth to represent.

I think you have just described the very reason for failure to succeed already.

The intentions are good but execution is flawed. :ok:

So... let's make it a single issue party and keep "religion" out of it :ok:

Imagine if all of us out there in G.A. land could actually get together to fight for a political cause? Pure fantasy from my thirty years involved. :sad:


The politicians and bureaucrats well know that.


Where's Kharon when we need him?

He's off in a small group of like-minded ex PPRuNers, shouting at their computer screens, spittle flying, shaking their fists in the air. The cat has learnt to keep a wide berth lest it gets another kick to emphasise some point about the injustice of it all.

The good ship SS General Aviation cannot be picked up and moved to another place, no matter how loudly Kharon and UITA and the rest of them scream. We are currently steaming at a leisurely pace towards the rocks - we need to turn the ship, and that will take time (of which we have precious little)

We need to land a SWAT team on the deck, kill the zombie (CASA) crew currently at the helm, and turn it away from the reef. I suspect this has started when Jeff Boyd (played by Steven Segal) managed to sneak aboard last year.

The longer we spend fighting about who gets to climb the ladder to the wheelhouse, and what they do when they get there, the less likely we will be able to shoot the dead bad guy who comes back to life at the end of the story.

Never forget the dead bad guy. :=

Aviation Business May 14 2015 Editor's Insights

:ok::ok:

The editor is obviously reading my PPRuNe stuff.

:8

Senate campaigns don't need to be national
 

only need to pick one state

Any news on what came out of the budget thats relevant to Aviation?

I believe that a significant amount was announced prior to the budget to be spent on regional aerodromes in NT, FNQ & maybe WA. It would be part of the budget but where it's embedded? Dunno............

Fly in
 

Ill make the trip.

I put to my neighbor, a pilot who doesn't follow aviation blogs, the following:

Of the names and acronyms below, which would you see as having the most public and political respect and recognition in The Senate as a potential cross bench member who would represent your needs and concerns.

PUP.
Lambe.
GARP.
Dick Smith.
Shooters/Fishers/aviation Party.
Ronald McDonald.

Guess what he said?

im going with the last one..

He's a pilot acutely aware that more people have been killed on the roads taking the pickle out of Ronald's burgers than anything our aviation regulator could prevent by more regulation were they given the chance.


But you're close.

Franky.
 

I wonder if you offered him "GA Revival Party" instead?

....i also wonder if you think someone attempting this would just get their name on the Ballot paper and hope for the best? ....or would they do a little bit of campaigning and advertising?

I look forward to your respose because you always have something positive to add.

I don't think people who vote for party's that garner the preferences for these minor party's would be too keen on general aviators or their little machines. However Palmer did get in with LNP preferences as well as the left's. I guess what I'm trying to say is a yachting party by any acronym would get the same result good or bad.


I don't think voters are too keen on acronyms these days anyway. Having your name as number 1 on the ballot paper has distinct advantages though.


I'm simply saying Dick is a household name and his identity is his trademark. Being a businessman reliant on that image I don't think he will bankroll any political party unless his name is on it. Not even DSGARP.


I hope this positive feedback has made your day more pleasant.

Warren Truss – What Does He Believe In?
 

Can anyone advise me if, in the ten years Warren Truss has been either Minister or Shadow Minister responsible for aviation - he has ever articulated a view on any substantive issue that he believes in and that affects us in aviation? That is, has Warren Truss ever identified with one statement or one issue that he could be held accountable for?

Over the years I and others have given Warren Truss very thorough briefings on everything from airspace to rescue and firefighting, to Unicoms and Part 61 and the unique, costly ADS-B requirements for general aviation. Yet I don’t believe he has ever made one statement that illustrates his views on these issues. For example, has he ever made a comment about Part 61? Or the ADS-B mandate for general aviation aircraft?

Warren Truss is paid more than $300,000 a year and knows that, just like his predecessors, after he completes his term he will no doubt end up with a prodigious and highly paid position on the Virgin Airlines Board or chairing some type of fracking company destroying our valuable and productive rural land.

From time to time journalists phone me to ask my view on some aviation regulatory issue. I suggest they phone the Minister, but the journalists invariably don’t even know who the Minister is! Why a person would want to be in this important position but then actually not have any stated view that could help Australia is beyond me.

I am planning to give a number of talks around Australia and I want to know if ever in the last ten years Warren Truss (Deputy Prime Minister - unbelievable!) has made a statement in relation to aviation that he could actually be held accountable for. That is, I want to find out if there is one statement Warren Truss has ever made that depicts what he actually believes in relation to aviation. Or has he been cautioned by his political advisors not to go down that route, you know, in true “Yes Minister” style - i.e. the dishonest, never-say-anything-that-actually-means-something approach? But surely there must be something!!