Prelude::::-
Who cares and Why?
Two vexed questions; and, little in the way of 'real' answers. I would call it a puzzle, others a conundrum
“Ever feel like an enigma, wrapped in a dilemma, surrounded by a conundrum? - Yeah, so do I”
The AOPA dilemma is an exquisite 'conundrum'. Many unhappy hours spent researching and in discussion with 'peers and betters' – experienced people who grant their time and knowledge to assist (as they say) with my inquiry. The opinion as mixed and diverse as those of whom 'inquiry' was made.
So, basics must be applied; Qui bono? AOPA; GA or RA? Well in one way or another all of them, with plus and minus results about equal. Much seems to depend on 'what' is of most benefit to the individual elements. Whilst this produces many song-sheets, it also fractures, divides and mostly conquers any serious 'push' toward the well being of the general aviation sector – as a whole, integrated unit. Classic divide and conquer tactic and it works. Rice bowl protection writ large in various prescriptions.
For the amateur, week end warrior, RAOZ is a blessing, for the flight schools selling a 'product' it is a life line, to those with 'medical' problems who simply wish to go for a Sunday jolly, it is manna from heaven. What could possibly be wrong with that ? Nothing is the correct answer. For the 'private' aircraft owner or aircraft hire folk much of the onerous imposed 'requirements' drift away. But what of the instructors and qualifiers – the young ones, next airline candidates; those instructing or qualifying folk to fly the RA air frames? Say 1500 hours as a top grade RA instructor applying for that first, much needed 'twin': IMC multi engine time in the log book? NO. Here we find an inequity; there should not be a divide; check and training is on the same 'plane' no matter the aircraft – in terms of the basics: barring time on type and a rating. Not so; RA pilots seriously disadvantaged – no multi engine time for example; no IFR or night for another. You see the 'gap'. In real life, that gap should be insignificant; but it ain't. Airlines don't seem to care, different POV; but to the charter/ Fifo operator, it matters a great deal. QED...
So we come to potential AOPA operations within this gap. Could AOPA Australia be a 'voice' which assisted good, young pilots to achieve 'hiring' value? As it stands, the answer is a resounding NO. In primus, the 'Australian' version is almost moribund, drowning slowly, like a frog in hot water, unaware of its peril. Research indicates enough corporate anomalies to create 'headaches' for the incumbent board. There exists a hint of 'bankruptcy' and an insular one man band achieving not too much, allowed to 'run on' with little impact on the overall mess general aviation has diminished into. So, who cares?
Well, IMO we all should, from RAOz to FIFO and Charter operators. It seems, by and large, that most are aware of the current regulations, the way they are applied, to whom and how. Almost all must be aware of the never ending make-work of regulatory reform and all, everyone, must be at least aware of the gross mismanagement of regulatory 'reform' etc. A silk purse, artistically reduced to a pig's ear (with the pig still attached: some say).
AOPA (Australia) may be, at the moment, essentially, despite the braggadocio, a non entity in terms of influencing, moving and shaping government opinion of the deep hole their 'independent' agencies are digging, not only for the industry but for the ministry. In the USA and Europe, AOPA have a seat at the table; they are heard and even influence policy. The best Australia AOPA have offered in recent times is to tell (by shouting) the principal MO to 'Shove up your arse! This cannot be 'helpful'.
So, (nearly done) – perhaps it is time to sort out the AOPA Corporate tangle, develop a clear platform, work out a delivery system to those who can 'influence' a Minister and ring in the much needed changes to assist a once thriving industry to shake off the shackles which bind.
If (big one) IF it was up to me, AOPA would call on the USA AOPA and the European AOPA for guidance and acceptance back into the fold. An apology perhaps beforehand, and utilise the real 'power' that global AOPA holds to better the local situation. That has to be better than the pathetic, moribund efforts of little impact currently achieving nothing but bluff, bull-shit and almost in deep bother with Corporate affairs crowd. AOPA Australia is out of countenance, control and probably membership money.
“It's when we don't see the writing on the wall that we run into the bricks.”
All strictly my opinion of course; there is however something scribbled on the walls which should be attended to. The tooter the sweeter IMO. Just saying:-
Toot – toot.....418227...
Who cares and Why?
Two vexed questions; and, little in the way of 'real' answers. I would call it a puzzle, others a conundrum
“Ever feel like an enigma, wrapped in a dilemma, surrounded by a conundrum? - Yeah, so do I”
The AOPA dilemma is an exquisite 'conundrum'. Many unhappy hours spent researching and in discussion with 'peers and betters' – experienced people who grant their time and knowledge to assist (as they say) with my inquiry. The opinion as mixed and diverse as those of whom 'inquiry' was made.
So, basics must be applied; Qui bono? AOPA; GA or RA? Well in one way or another all of them, with plus and minus results about equal. Much seems to depend on 'what' is of most benefit to the individual elements. Whilst this produces many song-sheets, it also fractures, divides and mostly conquers any serious 'push' toward the well being of the general aviation sector – as a whole, integrated unit. Classic divide and conquer tactic and it works. Rice bowl protection writ large in various prescriptions.
For the amateur, week end warrior, RAOZ is a blessing, for the flight schools selling a 'product' it is a life line, to those with 'medical' problems who simply wish to go for a Sunday jolly, it is manna from heaven. What could possibly be wrong with that ? Nothing is the correct answer. For the 'private' aircraft owner or aircraft hire folk much of the onerous imposed 'requirements' drift away. But what of the instructors and qualifiers – the young ones, next airline candidates; those instructing or qualifying folk to fly the RA air frames? Say 1500 hours as a top grade RA instructor applying for that first, much needed 'twin': IMC multi engine time in the log book? NO. Here we find an inequity; there should not be a divide; check and training is on the same 'plane' no matter the aircraft – in terms of the basics: barring time on type and a rating. Not so; RA pilots seriously disadvantaged – no multi engine time for example; no IFR or night for another. You see the 'gap'. In real life, that gap should be insignificant; but it ain't. Airlines don't seem to care, different POV; but to the charter/ Fifo operator, it matters a great deal. QED...
So we come to potential AOPA operations within this gap. Could AOPA Australia be a 'voice' which assisted good, young pilots to achieve 'hiring' value? As it stands, the answer is a resounding NO. In primus, the 'Australian' version is almost moribund, drowning slowly, like a frog in hot water, unaware of its peril. Research indicates enough corporate anomalies to create 'headaches' for the incumbent board. There exists a hint of 'bankruptcy' and an insular one man band achieving not too much, allowed to 'run on' with little impact on the overall mess general aviation has diminished into. So, who cares?
Well, IMO we all should, from RAOz to FIFO and Charter operators. It seems, by and large, that most are aware of the current regulations, the way they are applied, to whom and how. Almost all must be aware of the never ending make-work of regulatory reform and all, everyone, must be at least aware of the gross mismanagement of regulatory 'reform' etc. A silk purse, artistically reduced to a pig's ear (with the pig still attached: some say).
AOPA (Australia) may be, at the moment, essentially, despite the braggadocio, a non entity in terms of influencing, moving and shaping government opinion of the deep hole their 'independent' agencies are digging, not only for the industry but for the ministry. In the USA and Europe, AOPA have a seat at the table; they are heard and even influence policy. The best Australia AOPA have offered in recent times is to tell (by shouting) the principal MO to 'Shove up your arse! This cannot be 'helpful'.
So, (nearly done) – perhaps it is time to sort out the AOPA Corporate tangle, develop a clear platform, work out a delivery system to those who can 'influence' a Minister and ring in the much needed changes to assist a once thriving industry to shake off the shackles which bind.
If (big one) IF it was up to me, AOPA would call on the USA AOPA and the European AOPA for guidance and acceptance back into the fold. An apology perhaps beforehand, and utilise the real 'power' that global AOPA holds to better the local situation. That has to be better than the pathetic, moribund efforts of little impact currently achieving nothing but bluff, bull-shit and almost in deep bother with Corporate affairs crowd. AOPA Australia is out of countenance, control and probably membership money.
“It's when we don't see the writing on the wall that we run into the bricks.”
All strictly my opinion of course; there is however something scribbled on the walls which should be attended to. The tooter the sweeter IMO. Just saying:-
Toot – toot.....418227...
![[Image: andrew_andersen-2.jpg]](https://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dmImage/StandardImage/andrew_andersen-2.jpg)
