Why every aviator should act to swell AOPA membership

[jetjr]

The issue Nev is that there are 2 major components of the newest proposal that can see the end of advantages RAA currently has.

 

THIS has been an open gripe from old GA attitudes sometimes seen within AOPA.

 

CASA wont level the playing field by reducing restrictions on others, its against their nature and interests.

 

I cant see logic in supporting someone who isnt supporting us just because they are the only ones who could support us if they chose to???

 

With credit however they have started the process of getting media attention for aviation.

 

If they want RAA or RAA members (they are different groups) support they do need to seek it and maybe change things to get it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Another possibility is to join and make a concerted representation and present your case. There are plenty of people out there who are "concerned" about RAAus and it's growth, who think if we were gone everyone would go over to their patch, which is not the case, I feel/ Most would (and will) give it away if things don't improve. I'm in contact with a large number of people, and they are not happy Alice. Believe me. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

Another possibility is to join and make a concerted representation and present your case. There are plenty of people out there who are "concerned" about RAAus and it's growth, who think if we were gone everyone would go over to their patch, which is not the case, I feel/ Most would (and will) give it away if things don't improve. I'm in contact with a large number of people, and they are not happy Alice. Believe me. Nev

RAA have acted on my views and expressed their views also on the Eureka document ! If AOPA want support they would need to be listening to RAA not a few individuals who claim to be acting for RAA ! Which has been acted upon ! I'm totally unhappy for AOPA doing what they have done ! Showing serious contempt for RAA ! Also I believe AOPA did not seek support from SAAA ! So a bunch of silver tails decide everything !

 

AOPA doing the same as years ago causing a split !

 

 

[coljones]

AOPA would have been better to discuss the issues with RAA and get their support but they didn't ! AOPA blatantly said " they were not interested in RAA or LSA aircraft ! Read the AOPA document ! Not in RAA interest !

"they were not interested in RAA or LSA aircraft" can you provide an authoritative source for this?

 

 

[Camel]

"they were not interested in RAA or LSA aircraft" can you provide an authoritative source for this?

Yes ! Several phone calls and emails to AOPA ! after promising to get back to me and never did ! I have the emails I sent but I don't have replies because there aren't any ! After chasing him by phone he stated AOPA not interested in RAA or LSA aircraft !

 

If AOPA were listening and interested in all things aviation it may have helped improve the situation !

 

 

[dsam]

Personally, I like AOPA’s overarching strategy tackling Prime Ministers & key Ministers, rather than regulators that merely become bitter and vindictive to their detractors, without ever changing or improving. (Eg. the ongoing failure to implement the Forsyth recommendations)

 

With political pressure to change CASA's Act of Parliament in ways that deprive it of much of the power they currently have, they can subsequently force positive changes for all aviators, regardless of which organisational body they come from.

 

Each aviation group may well quibble over a number of details in their Project Eureka document (eg. GFA, SAAA RA-Aus, etc), but the legislative move for major structural change helps all aviators, IMHO

 

If AOPA's initiative is coupled with an effective media strategy in an election year, AOPA may garner wider community & political support for the woes of the long-suffering aviation community.

 

I note that their campaign launch had involved politicians Barnaby Joyce, & Tony Windsor. Also there were Dick Smith, Benjamin Morgan (Aviation Advertiser), and (I believe) reps from RA-Aus, AMROBA, plus some media & journalists. Much more political pressure is needed.

 

I wish AOPA luck with motivating real change in Australian aviation - something most of us would agree on, I believe.

 

 

[DWF]

AOPA has 2,600 members

 

RAAus has 10,000 members

 

If just half the RAAus members joined AOPA 'we' would outnumber 'them' 2:1

 

Perhaps then the RAAus interests would prevail -

 

We will even soon have 6 or so Board members looking for a job.

 

 

DWF

 

 

[jetjr]

If RAA members are offsided by AOPA proposals, then aopa risk being seen as not having support from possibly largest group of private owners and pilots.

 

Any business needs to see where its role is and who is going to fund it and adjust accordingly.

 

The overarching goal of pushing back on regulator is admirable, but the details in Eureka are not widely supported outside GA as they are GA issues and others are clear detriment to RAA.

 

The revision of medical and self maintenence privaledges in their primary recent releases indicate they dont understand their market very well and are not looking for RAA members support.

 

Have to also be clear, is it members that are wanted or membership fees to continue their push with same agenda? A block of new members could, if not for legendary ambivalence, change the organisation and its goals

 

 

[coljones]

If RAA members are offsided by AOPA proposals, then aopa risk being seen as not having support from possibly largest group of private owners and pilots.Any business needs to see where its role is and who is going to fund it and adjust accordingly.

The overarching goal of pushing back on regulator is admirable, but the details in Eureka are not widely supported outside GA as they are GA issues and others are clear detriment to RAA.

 

The revision of medical and self maintenence privaledges in their primary recent releases indicate they dont understand their market very well and are not looking for RAA members support.

 

Have to also be clear, is it members that are wanted or membership fees to continue their push with same agenda? A block of new members could, if not for legendary ambivalence, change the organisation and its goals

There is a call for nominations to the AOPA Board out there now - an opportunity for someone to make their mark on AOPA.

There was once a person on both the AOPA Board and RAA Board - it was the RAA Board that kicked up a stink and forced the Board member off the RAA Board. A grubby little affair.

 

I think the relationships are much better these days but you would have to ask the RAA Exec how that actually pans out in real time.

 

 

[Camel]

There is a call for nominations to the AOPA Board out there now - an opportunity for someone to make their mark on AOPA.There was once a person on both the AOPA Board and RAA Board - it was the RAA Board that kicked up a stink and forced the Board member off the RAA Board. A grubby little affair.

 

I think the relationships are much better these days but you would have to ask the RAA Exec how that actually pans out in real time.

There is now one who is an AOPA signatory to the Eureka document that is an RAA board member and that is part of the problem as he hasn't consulted RAA or doing anything in the interest of RAA and it is a serious issue in my opinion.

 

Col it seems you don't really know what's going on. It is real important that RAA issues need to be addressed politically before the GA mob ruin our freedoms because of jealousy and ignorance. I have a PPL and have owned GA aircraft and a former member of AOPA, I started in trikes many years earlier than that ! This is about the future of RAA and if AOPA stick their nose in any further they will destroy RAA and I'm not going to be quite about the wrong actions of others.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Personally, I see the intent of the Eureka Project, to petition politicians to wind back CASA's attempt to regulate everything and take 25+ years and hundreds of millions of dollars and finish up with regulations even less intelligible than the Tax legislation, is admirable.

 

The strategy is broadly good but their tactics have been lacking. There is no point going to the politicians representing 2,500 aviators when they could go with the backing of all non commercial pilots in the tens of thousands. To have not sought the support of Australia's largest pilot organisation (RAAus) demonstrates either shallow thinking or some odd form of arrogance.

 

NZ was prudent to review and then entirely revise their approach to regulation. In doing so, they have saved vast sums of pilots and taxpayers money and achieved vastly more progress in a fraction of the time. It was a bold decision but the payoff has been very substantial.

 

The arrogance that has the (desirable) ADS-B being forced in years before the USA shows just how commercially ignorant CASA is and how much of a transformation is desperately needed.

 

The RPL continues to be a failure because of the "Claytons" drivers licence medical. Until that is fixed it will never be successful.

 

We as pilots can not get into a game that says giving GA pilots access to a drivers licence medical would harm RAAus. We all must fight for the removal of unjustifiable restrictions imposed on us by CASA. Any restriction current or proposed must have a credible risk analysis supporting the regulation.

 

Regulation in Australia, the world for that matter, must move forward from post WWII thinking and adopt a philosophy that it is up to the PIC to conduct safe aviation. Simple as that. Bodies like CASA must evolve into an organisation that supports safe aviation by providing guidance and education and training. The standard approach has to move to CAAP style advice instead of the CAOs and CASRs and the abhorrent "strict liability" punishments. A pilot must be allowed the opportunity to prove that their conduct of a flight reasonably addressed perceivable risks.

 

I can dream.

 

 

[jetjr]

Well said and the broad approach taken is better than previously seen.

 

BUT

 

Today, as we stand, we DO have the CASA you imdicate. Approaching them with talk of medical harmonisation and discussing problems with self maintenence, many cant predict the outcome.

 

Maybe after theres some changes this might be a less risky option. Get RAA members on board first. Not ask for review of issues that are core to its existance.

 

 

[Camel]

Well said Don and Jetjr.

 

Some important points in my opinion that need attention !

 

. CASA used data not relevant to Jabiru engine problems so why chase owner maintenance issues as this is not the cause but AOPA says so !

 

. AOPA did not consult RAA.

 

. A signatory to Eureka document is a RAA board member.

 

. If AOPA want equal medical as RAA and they can't get it we lose it ?

 

. If AOPA say LAMEs should inspect Jabiru engines because owner maintence is sub standard do you think CASA will let the owner work on a Rotax ?

 

. The 2003 National Airspace Reform headed by Dick Smith was a disaster and I recommend that anyone that is interested in safety research this as some may remember it was very concerning issue for Air Traffic Controllers.

 

. There may be valid issues in AOPAs document but unfortunately there is bad news too, would have been better to talk to RAA but I'm afraid they don't !

 

. The fact AOPA are lobbing politicians is great but they should have got on board with ALL AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS OF AUSTRALIA !

 

 

[kgwilson]

I can dream.

Or move to NZ or USA.

 

 

[Downunder]

To have not sought the support of Australia's largest pilot organisation (RAAus) demonstrates either shallow thinking or some odd form of arrogance.

 

A signatory to Eureka document is a RAA board member.

The Board member using the RAA "title of authority" on this document (RAAus Director) must mean it has been signed on behalf of the RAA?

 

To anyone reading it, it looks this way.

 

Signing as an individual, this "title" would not be used of course, unless we are heading back to board members making unilateral decisions....

 

 

[kgwilson]

So which way was it signed? If as an individual, no problem but if on behalf of the organisation, authority to do so must have been given. If not then RA-Aus should take some sort of disciplinary action or publicly declare support, whatever is the Boards decision.

 

 

[Camel]

He should face very serious action !

 

http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/587/Project_EUREKA_120416.pdf

 

Page 63

 

Signed as.

 

RAAus Director .

 

 

[Camel]

The Board member using the RAA "title of authority" on this document (RAAus Director) must mean it has been signed on behalf of the RAA?To anyone reading it, it looks this way.

Signing as an individual, this "title" would not be used of course, unless we are heading back to board members making unilateral decisions....

The RAA was unaware until I raised it and are aware now ! I agree with what your saying and am disgusted by the behaviour !

 

 

[coljones]

Snip snip snipThe strategy is broadly good but their tactics have been lacking. There is no point going to the politicians representing 2,500 aviators when they could go with the backing of all non commercial pilots in the tens of thousands. To have not sought the support of Australia's largest pilot organisation (RAAus) demonstrates either shallow thinking or some odd form of arrogance.

 

Snip snip snip

AOPA is a voluntary organisation, one has to make a positive decision and pay to join.

RAA is like compulsory unionism, if you want to fly small planes you are compelled to join.

 

The amount of interest in the doings of RAA can probably be measured by the nominations received and the votes cast in recent elections. The last time there was an election in NSW there were no more than about 300 votes. On that basis there are probably only about 1000 activist members in RAA. AOPA has 2500 members who choose to join without conscription. That says to me that AOPA is probably much more representative of pilots than RAA.

 

I agree, it would have been much better to have had a broad consensus across the industry and formal signatures on the submission.

 

 

[coljones]

He should face very serious action !http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/587/Project_EUREKA_120416.pdf

 

Page 63

 

Signed as.

 

RAAus Director .

At least he signed his name.

If you checked out the voting in his last election he had a significant power base. Perhaps there is a strong group inside RAA that we would be supportive of his action and the views of the proponents of Eureka.

 

There are many things that RAA does without testing the membership. The last published one was the new tech manual, which appears to be done and dusted. This follows on from the Ops manual review and call for comments that didn't happen either.

 

Perhaps he resolved himself into a committee of one and forgot to call from comments from the rank and file and the board.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's more than one RAAus signature I can't see much (if any) RAAus input. We must see ourselves as part of the whole scene and be part of it. Pro active. It won't just come to us. By and large we are apathetic. Shown by the insignificant voting numbers. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There was zero input from RAAus and RAAus was unaware of the document until after its release.

 

The RAAus Board Member who signed did so, no doubt meaning well but perhaps without being conscious of the implications of his mentioning that he was a Board Member of RAAus. AOPA have been asked to remove the reference to RAAus Board Member from the Eureka document.

 

The RAAus Board Member who signed the Eureka document is well supported at elections because he is a very able person with more aviation experience than perhaps anyone in Australia still flying.

 

 

[jetjr]

Difficult to believe the issue of misus of "RAA board member" title was overlooked.

 

There was a strong debate over another submission to CASA with similar problem.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Difficult to believe the issue of misus of "RAA board member" title was overlooked.There was a strong debate over another submission to CASA with similar problem.

Not sure I understand this jetjr - is there a typo in that post?

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes ....... misuse

 

Previously, its thought a highly damaging report was sent from an RAA board member using his title to add effect to the complaint. Subsequently fierce denials it occurred.

 

The effects are still being felt today with millions of dollars damage.

 

I assume at the least, the board was advised of the seriousness of this issue at the time.

 

I have no interest dragging it up again.