Hall of Shame candidate.
I shuddered, then groaned when I saw the ‘headline’ “GA peak body” etc. For starters, it is grossly misleading; the first paragraph announces that “an independent inquiry” etc. is enough to raise the hackles of many. Consider – David Forsyth, supported by a minister, with full RRAT backing, using overseas contracted ‘experts’ took months to provide a ‘first class’ report to the parliament, dubbed the ASRR. “An opinion” was the official response, the report was all but completely ignored except that it resulted some minor, cosmetic repairs.
The Archerfield Chamber of Commerce amongst others have spent years and a small fortunes in attempts to protect the public, investors and aviation businesses from the developers; all to no avail. Questions in Parliament and Senate have been raised; the RRAT estimates panel have relentlessly hammered the ‘crats in an attempt to halt the march and to protect the public from events such as the last, where an aircraft ran out of time, room and luck, all at the same moment. The carnage would have been dreadful had the event occurred at a different time; Lady Luck smiled her warning – again.
The ‘tactics’ AOPA are using along with the ‘headline’ grabbing are becoming repellent. The whole show smells of grease paint, spot lights and snake oil salesmen. Take for example the ‘hi fidelity sim’ exercise; sounds top notch and will produce a ‘result’ defining exactly what? That an aircraft hit a building – we know that; that the buildings are too close, we know that too. Can AOPA explain why & how only AOPA can demonstrate that under the present rules, those buildings are a danger to safe operations – all operations? Can AOPA prove categorically that allowing the airport land to be developed places the public at an unacceptable risk level, with any credibility? The short answer is no, most certainly not.
It all may be absolutely true, in fact it probably is. However a careful study of the failed Archerfield attempt to prove the case and the official response to that case demonstrates very clearly which way the land lies – uphill, in very slippery mud, all the way.
AOPA need membership; but how many will want to be represented by this half baked showcase of self advertisement. The comments following the article on the ‘Plane Talking’ blog summarise what I believe to be ‘industry’ response. There were still smouldering bodies in the crashed Be20 aircraft when AOPA was on Channel 7 convincing the world that Essendon should be closed, then having to spend time recanting and retracting and re explaining what was meant. Just a publicity stunt; even GT made more sense. Will the powers that be take anything AOPA come up with seriously; to be of value? What will the public remember of the AOPA ‘interviews’? I feel embarrassed for them, I really do.
This type of behaviour only has two results; the public believe that air operations endanger shopping and airports should be closed; and, more importantly, it provides the mandarins with valuable ammunition and ‘sneer factor’. Can you imagine the minister entertaining AOPA or the CASA board supporting the AOPA ‘independent’ report? I can’t.
I have no doubt that the AOPA (Oz) President is sincere, means well and is as disgusted with the whole ‘system’ as everyone else is. I have even less doubt that De’Stoop would change it for the better, tomorrow; given the chance. But first, he must gain that chance, which means gaining the support of those folks who can advise and have entre into the areas where change may be initiated. Without that, it’s just another bloody dog barking at the moon. There is such a thing as bad publicity, there is such a thing as a silent majority and; there are some very serious, well supported groups who would be prepared to assist a genuine attempt at improvement. AOPA need to seriously think about how they ‘look’, where they are going, with whom; and how best to get there.
Toot (it needed IMO to be said) toot.
I shuddered, then groaned when I saw the ‘headline’ “GA peak body” etc. For starters, it is grossly misleading; the first paragraph announces that “an independent inquiry” etc. is enough to raise the hackles of many. Consider – David Forsyth, supported by a minister, with full RRAT backing, using overseas contracted ‘experts’ took months to provide a ‘first class’ report to the parliament, dubbed the ASRR. “An opinion” was the official response, the report was all but completely ignored except that it resulted some minor, cosmetic repairs.
The Archerfield Chamber of Commerce amongst others have spent years and a small fortunes in attempts to protect the public, investors and aviation businesses from the developers; all to no avail. Questions in Parliament and Senate have been raised; the RRAT estimates panel have relentlessly hammered the ‘crats in an attempt to halt the march and to protect the public from events such as the last, where an aircraft ran out of time, room and luck, all at the same moment. The carnage would have been dreadful had the event occurred at a different time; Lady Luck smiled her warning – again.
The ‘tactics’ AOPA are using along with the ‘headline’ grabbing are becoming repellent. The whole show smells of grease paint, spot lights and snake oil salesmen. Take for example the ‘hi fidelity sim’ exercise; sounds top notch and will produce a ‘result’ defining exactly what? That an aircraft hit a building – we know that; that the buildings are too close, we know that too. Can AOPA explain why & how only AOPA can demonstrate that under the present rules, those buildings are a danger to safe operations – all operations? Can AOPA prove categorically that allowing the airport land to be developed places the public at an unacceptable risk level, with any credibility? The short answer is no, most certainly not.
It all may be absolutely true, in fact it probably is. However a careful study of the failed Archerfield attempt to prove the case and the official response to that case demonstrates very clearly which way the land lies – uphill, in very slippery mud, all the way.
AOPA need membership; but how many will want to be represented by this half baked showcase of self advertisement. The comments following the article on the ‘Plane Talking’ blog summarise what I believe to be ‘industry’ response. There were still smouldering bodies in the crashed Be20 aircraft when AOPA was on Channel 7 convincing the world that Essendon should be closed, then having to spend time recanting and retracting and re explaining what was meant. Just a publicity stunt; even GT made more sense. Will the powers that be take anything AOPA come up with seriously; to be of value? What will the public remember of the AOPA ‘interviews’? I feel embarrassed for them, I really do.
This type of behaviour only has two results; the public believe that air operations endanger shopping and airports should be closed; and, more importantly, it provides the mandarins with valuable ammunition and ‘sneer factor’. Can you imagine the minister entertaining AOPA or the CASA board supporting the AOPA ‘independent’ report? I can’t.
I have no doubt that the AOPA (Oz) President is sincere, means well and is as disgusted with the whole ‘system’ as everyone else is. I have even less doubt that De’Stoop would change it for the better, tomorrow; given the chance. But first, he must gain that chance, which means gaining the support of those folks who can advise and have entre into the areas where change may be initiated. Without that, it’s just another bloody dog barking at the moon. There is such a thing as bad publicity, there is such a thing as a silent majority and; there are some very serious, well supported groups who would be prepared to assist a genuine attempt at improvement. AOPA need to seriously think about how they ‘look’, where they are going, with whom; and how best to get there.
Toot (it needed IMO to be said) toot.