[Kharon]

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...

[Peetwo]

iAOPA perhaps?? - 

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...

Presser link from miniscule Dicky King, June 2024: https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c...isory-body

I would like to thank Mr Andrew Andersen, the outgoing chair, for his passionate advocacy for general aviation and service in the role since 2019.

Mr Anderson will continue to play key roles in the sector, including as the independent chair of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

 Plus from Oz Flying:

Andrew Andersen steps into ASAP Chair

4 June 2024



CASA Director of Aviation Safety Pip Spence announced today that Andrew Andersen has been appointed Chair of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) after the retirement of Pat Murray.

Andersen has been chair of the minister's General Aviation Advisory Network (GAAN) since 2019 and is a former president of AOPA Australia and is vice president, Pacific Region, of the International council of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Associations.

Andersen has already been involved in several ASAP Technical Working Groups (TWG) including the medical and future airspace groups, and has co-chaired the Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group (ASTRA) and is a specialist in SBAS technology.

In welcoming Andersen to the role, Spence also extended her gratitude to Pat Murray, who chaired the ASAP since its inception.

"Pat was a driving force behind the panel," she said. "We thank him for his insight, dedication and the huge amount of work he put into setting it up and ensuring it runs effectively."

ASAP was first formed in 2017 with Murray as the chair, implemented to provide a channel for consultation between CASA and the aviation industry.

Perhaps Andrew Anderson (the former Chair of the GAAN and now the Chair of the CASA ASAP) could offer some assistance?? After all, with some brief research, it would appear that AA is still closely aligned with IAOPA as the VP of the Pacific Region (well at least as late as May 2024??): https://iaopa.aopa.org/world-assemblies/...d-assembly

Several individuals were presented awards in recognition of their enduring commitment, leadership, and service to the international GA community. Distinguished Service awards were presented to Jaime Fabrega, vice president of IAOPA South America Region; Michael Erb, vice president of IAOPA Europe Region; and Hofmann, the IAOPA Representative to ICAO. Andrew Anderson, vice president of IAOPA Pacific Region, was presented with the first-ever Mark R. Baker International Leadership award.

   
Hmm...passing strange that Australia appears to fall under the 'IAOPA Pacific Region' as an 'Affiliate', yet countries like New Zealand and the Philippines are IAOPA Affiliates in their own right?? 

IAOPA AFFILIATE COUNTRIES REPRESENTED AT THE 30th IAOPA WORLD ASSEMBLY:

• AOPA United States
  
• AOPA Brazil
  
• AOPA Canada
  
• AOPA Denmark
  
• AOPA Finland
  
• AOPA France
  
• AOPA Germany
  
• AOPA Korea
  
• AOPA Luxembourg
  
• AOPA Netherlands
  
• AOPA New Zealand
  
• AOPA Philippines
  
• AOPA Sweden
  
• AOPA Switzerland
  
• AOPA United Kingdom
  

However there would appear to be a problem with the Pacific Region affiliate arrangements because when you refer to the IAOPA affiliates webpage - see HERE - under Australia it says the following:

 

Australia

Region: Pacific Region
Contact: Shawn Kelly
Title: President
Address: P.O. Box 26 Georges Hall NSW 2198, Australia
Email: mail@aopa.com.au
Website: http://www.aopa.com.au
Phone: 0415 577 724

This affiliate is currently inactive and contact information may no longer be accurate. If you are interested in reforming this affiliate please contact IAOPA HQ at iaopa@aopa.org.

Hmm...does that mean that AOPA Oz is also inactive and in much need of reform?? -

MTF...P2

[Sandy Reith]

It’s been obvious for some time that our AOPA has been in the doldrums.

Partly due to bumping heads against fortress CASA for so long that enthusiasm wanes?

But whatever the past or circumstances for the present “inactive” condition, there’s no doubt that a reinvigorated Aussie AOPA is solely needed.
I wonder if Andrew Anderson has some contacts that would be willing to step up?

[Kharon]

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....

[Kharon]

“I rest My case M'lud.”.Or: Hoi, cloth ears~!

The paragraph below, cribbed from the - LMH – leads to a succinct, if a little oblique message for AOPA Aus. The hint is contained within the acronym MOSAIC.

Hitch - “But this year, there really is only one announcement that people are aching for: MOSAIC. Unfortunately, the mail is that it won't come ... again. This is the long-awaited modification of the rules surrounding LSAs, which will expand the definition, remove the arbitrary MTOW and permit new technology not imagined when the first LSA standard was written. The FAA is yet to finalise the new regs, and the general aviation community is watching nervously, knowing that the legislative deadline for doing so is November this year.”

'Sport Pilot' provides a satisfactory explanation of the proposal; and for the LSA crowd, it is looking like good news on the horizon, for the USA contingent at least, and perhaps Europe will follow the FAA lead – who knows? But, from both a safety perspective and 'utility' for touring it seems to be an advance. You can bet your boots RA Aus will be hoping CASA adopt the program (with unique Australian codicils Alas). But I digress.

My point is that the proposed changes have been 'husbanded' with much support and lobbying through the efforts of well organized, carefully funded and managed groups who are able to credibly approach and negotiate with the regulator. You cannot gain this level of 'entre' without numbers supporting and the finance to back it. Even then, 'credibility and respect' must (absolutely) have been established. Any organisation which has seriously offended 'the powers that be' has a tiny membership and little to recommend in the way of logical persuasive argument will never influence the regulator.

AOPA could and should be represented in this matter; RA Oz will be and they are a furlong further toward the winning post than AOPA. Time to sort things out, get weaving and gain the same objectives MOSAIC offers.

Toot – toot...

[Peetwo]

AOPA Oz go international??  

Via FB:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia

AOPA Australia at AERO ASIA 2025 — Flag Exchange Moment

AOPA Australia attended AERO ASIA 2025 in Zhuhai and took part in the event’s flag exchange segment, joining representatives from various aviation organisations across the region.

The airshow provided a valuable opportunity to connect with industry participants, pilots, and general aviation stakeholders, and to observe the diverse developments taking place in the Asia–Pacific low-altitude and GA sectors.

AOPA Australia remains committed to supporting aircraft owners, pilots, and the broader GA community in Australia, while continuing to engage internationally with professionalism and an open, independent perspective.

#AOPAAustralia #AeroAsia2025 #GeneralAviation #AviationCommunity

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

AOPA Oz 'Dead, Buried & Cremated??' - UP thread.

Via the UP thread link:

#post 26

girl with a stick

I've worked for AOPA twice.

Once under the Phillip Reiss / Andrew Anderson years, as editor of their mag. It was a time of decline, but the directors were committed to their roles. There were around 3000 members and they received a printed magazine 6 times a year. Unfortunately, poor office management caused me and others to depart. There was a bit of a scandal, and the CEO at the time left hastily.

The second time was under Ben Morgan, as one of 5 digital editors. BM's enthusiasm brought me back, but after begging to be paid one too many times, I, and the other editors, left en masse.

I realise I have a skewed POV here as a magazine editor, but when they stopped putting out a members' mag, membership dropped off really quickly. For the price of the subs, members feel they need something tangible, in addition to advocacy. Now, it seems no one is handling their comms, other than BM on FB. The website is dead, the bus is dead and their reputation hasn't really recovered from scandal after scandal.

The Royal Federation of Aero Clubs has stepped up to fill a much-needed advocacy role, and Lachlan Hyde is doing a stellar job.

As this thread demonstrates, many members have been burnt by AOPA. I think their only hope is fresh blood, a solid marketing strategy, and a collaborative approach to appealing to new members who are already burdened by aviation costs.

---

Clinton McKenzie

The silence from AOPA Australia in response to this thread speaks volumes.

I have had numerous conversations with various people about resurrecting AOPA Australia. The conversation quickly moves to a simple question from me: Who is AOPA’s target constituency in 202X?

There’s been an exodus of private pilots away from ‘traditional’ GA and into RAAus, and CASA has now been captured by RAAus. The RAAus constituency is therefore doing very nicely, thank you very much, and doesn’t need representation from AOPA or anyone else.

Australian Ag Operators have their own and effective Association. Ditto the helicopter industry. Ditto many of the larger aero clubs. SAAA, RVAA, etc, etc. The airlines run their own races. The RAAA is a seriously professional body.

It would be great if they all got together and spoke with one voice along with ordinary private pilots and aircraft owners, but they have different and sometimes conflicting interests. And even if they were willing to get together and speak with one voice, I doubt it would be through AOPA Australia unless it was headed up by a latter-day Chuck Yeager or Neil Armstrong.

I doubt whether AOPA Australia has more than a few hundred members left who pay annual membership fees. I doubt whether any of the current directors would be willing to make a statutory declaration as to how many members who pay annual memberships fees are actually left. But I’m happy to stand corrected.

I have acquaintances who paid for life membership but haven’t been invited to an Annual General Meeting in years. And then there’s the minor point that ‘paid for’ life membership is not a kind of membership permitted by AOPA Australia’s Articles of Association. The Life Membership Article (10) says: “Any member or any other person who the Committee desire to honour with such distinction may without payment be admitted by a resolution of the Committee to be a Life Member. Life Members will be entitled to exercise all the rights and privileges as ordinary financial members.”

Life Memberships of AOPA Australia are supposed to be reserved for the outstanding few who’ve gone ‘above and beyond’ for decades. Dick Smith would be a typical example. And the distinguished few who earn Life Membership of AOPA Australia don’t have to pay membership fees.

Selling a membership category that does not exist, for $2,599, then ghosting those ‘life’ members is the kind of thing that tends to happen when a majority of directors of a public company practically abdicate their duties and obligations under the Corporations Law and Articles of Association to an unelected employee who’s supported and protected in doing whatever that individual chooses to do and not to do, when and how the individual chooses.

Perhaps AOPA Australia could make money to fund a resurrection by taking deposits on a gold smartphone, named e.g. the "AOPA Oz Mobile B1"?

---

Flyer517

Even taking into account the organisational issues AOPA Australia has experienced, is the problem simply that there are not enough people in the country involved in aviation to support more than 1 organisation to represent them? From what is written above, it seems that RAAus has basically supplanted the role of AOPA and it is just a branding matter.

To expect a population as small as Australia to support an organisation representing such a niche pastime to the same extent that AOPA in the US can manage seems unrealistic. Even the US version is losing members if Google is to be believed.

---

Clinton McKenzie

The 'critical mass' factor is significant but I don't think it's what caused the erosion in AOPA Australia's natural constituency. To me it's more that the critical mass of non-heavy metal airline aviation activity in Australia is now spread across many more, separate interest groups.

When I joined AOPA in the mid-80s, much of what was then called "GA" - 'most' of civil aviation other than heavy metal airlines - was AOPA's natural constituency. Flying schools, small charter operators, ag operators etc, CPLs, student pilots and private pilots owned or flew a very large chunk of the non-heavy metal airline aircraft fleet in Australia. All of those pilots had to have CAA/CASA-issued licences and medical certificates. All those aircraft had to have CAA/CASA-issued certificates of airworthiness and Flight Manuals. In a practical sense, most of the non-heavy metal aircraft owners, operators, pilots and maintainers were 'all in the same regulatory boat'. (As I recall, back then AUF (the predecessor to RAAus) operations were not permitted to cross a sealed road. No drone operators, of course. The gliding fraternity have always run their well-oiled operational machine their way and had and continue to have their own federation/organisation.)

There's a much greater diversity of interests, now, some of them conflicting. For example, there are now thousands of pilots who don't have a CASA-issued licence, don't have a CASA issued-medical certificate and fly aircraft that don't have a CASA-issued certificate of airworthiness. And those pilots and aircraft are allowed to mix it with even heavy metal airline aircraft operations at some aerodromes. Those pilots and the owners of those aircraft don't want anything from CASA - other than ever-increasing airspace access and higher MTOWs and stall speeds - and rarely-if-ever get into direct stoushes with CASA so don't need representation from an organisation like AOPA any more. I'm on the Board of the Colour Vision Defective Pilot Association. We fight our own fights against CASA now, with AOPA nowhere to be seen or heard. 'Back in the day' the veteran of those fights - Dr Arthur Pape - was for a time an AOPA Board member!

Covid didn't help.

Whatever the external factors at play, AOPA still had to be governed properly, in accordance with the rules. That might - I'm speculating - have resulted in a little more introspection and focus on strategic planning for a 'reinvented' organisation. It would be tragic if it's too late to be resuscitated.

MTF...P2