AOPA Australia. Chapter 2.
The 'research' has been, lets say, interesting. Opinion varies, depending (as always) on how the questions were framed. Motivation, individual 'requirements' and a wide range of personal opinions' with regard to the 'way things are' although expressed in many different formats can be boiled down to half a dozen 'headings'.
One stand out 'opinion' is framed in the form of a question: to wit, is AOPA (Australia) even relevant to today's situation?. RA Oz provides for, represents and supports the 'private' operator within the weight limited category; there are 'Unions' which do the same for pilots operating in the charter and RPT area; there are business groups which may be approached for the non-airline commercial operations. There is more, but you get the drift. There seems to be little on the table to support AOPA. Not at first glance at least, seems to be of little intrinsic or practical value. However – (always one)....
The 'international' AOPA track record and 'influence' they have is impressive. They have 'entre; influence and numbers to take to any table at which they are invited to sit. This stand alone really matters, any casual research reflects this. So, it begs the question; is the Australian version worth continuing? That is a fair question all things considered.
It stands as a question for the 'membership' to be asked by the 'Board'. But: to get to that point there are several elements which must coalesce. The first of these elements is, without doubt, Corporate governance and compliance with the rules related to that.
“Oh, the dogs once held a meeting, They came from near and far.
Oh, some they came by aeroplane And some by motor car.”
Once that element is settled 'right' – then the membership may attend a properly convened meeting. Now the membership / Board relationship is clearly drafted; what is not available is the list of members. This list is fully and freely available on a proper application, made as prescribed. Once that is established, the financial members may ask the questions which demand answers; and, there are many.
“Before into the meeting hall They were allowed to look,
Each dog had to take his arsehole off And hang it on a hook.”
IMO, the first two questions which must be addressed are: an accounting of the membership fees paid? How is that money used: and, is it worth considering rejoining the international body in order to assist addressing some of the tenets which 'restrict' the membership ability to progress? Like, perhaps parity with RA Oz in some areas of proven safety and training easement. The most often heard demand is for a new Board; and, an agenda which may attract some much needed sponsorship to assist rehabilitation – particularly with 'the Authority'.
“Oh, hardly were they seated there, Each mother, son and sire,
When a dirty little yellow dog Began to holler ‘Fire!’.”
General opinion is: it's about time someone, somewhere 'hollered Fire'.
Please don't shoot the messenger; I hold no opinion, one way or t'uther, nor have any skin in the game.
Toot – toot....
The 'research' has been, lets say, interesting. Opinion varies, depending (as always) on how the questions were framed. Motivation, individual 'requirements' and a wide range of personal opinions' with regard to the 'way things are' although expressed in many different formats can be boiled down to half a dozen 'headings'.
One stand out 'opinion' is framed in the form of a question: to wit, is AOPA (Australia) even relevant to today's situation?. RA Oz provides for, represents and supports the 'private' operator within the weight limited category; there are 'Unions' which do the same for pilots operating in the charter and RPT area; there are business groups which may be approached for the non-airline commercial operations. There is more, but you get the drift. There seems to be little on the table to support AOPA. Not at first glance at least, seems to be of little intrinsic or practical value. However – (always one)....
The 'international' AOPA track record and 'influence' they have is impressive. They have 'entre; influence and numbers to take to any table at which they are invited to sit. This stand alone really matters, any casual research reflects this. So, it begs the question; is the Australian version worth continuing? That is a fair question all things considered.
It stands as a question for the 'membership' to be asked by the 'Board'. But: to get to that point there are several elements which must coalesce. The first of these elements is, without doubt, Corporate governance and compliance with the rules related to that.
“Oh, the dogs once held a meeting, They came from near and far.
Oh, some they came by aeroplane And some by motor car.”
Once that element is settled 'right' – then the membership may attend a properly convened meeting. Now the membership / Board relationship is clearly drafted; what is not available is the list of members. This list is fully and freely available on a proper application, made as prescribed. Once that is established, the financial members may ask the questions which demand answers; and, there are many.
“Before into the meeting hall They were allowed to look,
Each dog had to take his arsehole off And hang it on a hook.”
IMO, the first two questions which must be addressed are: an accounting of the membership fees paid? How is that money used: and, is it worth considering rejoining the international body in order to assist addressing some of the tenets which 'restrict' the membership ability to progress? Like, perhaps parity with RA Oz in some areas of proven safety and training easement. The most often heard demand is for a new Board; and, an agenda which may attract some much needed sponsorship to assist rehabilitation – particularly with 'the Authority'.
“Oh, hardly were they seated there, Each mother, son and sire,
When a dirty little yellow dog Began to holler ‘Fire!’.”
General opinion is: it's about time someone, somewhere 'hollered Fire'.
Please don't shoot the messenger; I hold no opinion, one way or t'uther, nor have any skin in the game.
Toot – toot....