Wombat wrote:-
With the very greatest of respect Super Moderator, while your prediction of Mr. Morgan’s options and the future of AOPA are probably correct, that is as far as it goes. The only ones laughing are CASA, Ben has given CASA an excuse to freeze AOPA out. However it is a moot point whether AOPA or any other organisation should be participating in what appears to me to be sham consultation, as explained by BM, which gives legitimacy to an intellectually corrupt process. This is especially so when one considers the bloody punishment CASA metes out to industry participants like Glen Buckley; I mean how can anyone sit around the table with these apparent butchers? But I’m off topic.
As for comparison with AOPA USA, that is unfair and inaccurate. AOPA USA reminds me very much of Don Corleone - the fictional godfather. There is a certain ponderous nobility and strength about it backed up by the capacity, totally lacking in Australia, of metaphorically leaving a bloody horses head on the the bedclothes of any legislator that wishes to cross swords.
This is because AOPA USA has its own Federal political action committee and it is very, very effective at lobbying Federal Politicians. They can make and break political careers. Believe me, when AOPA asks for a favor, it gets done. Their political action committee(PAC) is in the top five percent nationally in terms of contributions and in the top three percent of lobbying expenditure. AOPA Australia and the whole GA sector has zero political clout compared to AOPA USA as we are about to find out again when the green and white papers are released.
The AOPA PAC by the way is independent of AOPA and it’s Board, so the PAC can be as mean and rude and crass as will get a politician’s attention, while the AOPA Board can be noble, generous and charitable like Don Corleone. Their PAC does the dirty work that gives AOPA its strength and don’t forget the 2,500 AOPA volunteers as well.
Criticizing Ben for pointing out the bleeding obvious doesn’t help. Being part of a sham consultation gives legitimacy to the CASA product which it doesn’t deserve. You may leave AOPA because of Bens uncouth Whitlamesque “crash through or crash” approach. He is the reason I joined because I happen to believe that all the old school consultation stuff as practiced for the last forty years(?) is a waste of time when one side is obviously not acting in good faith.
It’s time for more people to spit the dummy like Ben, mate, before this Canberra mob - CASA, ATSB, AsA, cause a series of smoking holes in the ground.
A courteous reply.
P7 – TOM is 'busy' so the task of courteous reply and sensible discussion landed on my desk. Good post Wombat - and worthy of serious consideration. MTF a racing certainty.
But, well said Sirrah - Good logic from Wombat (and 100% agreed - in principal) – however; although things are arranged differently overseas; the demographics, governance of the regulator and 'history' are different (USA Civilian based – Australia Military). But that should not preclude the Australia AOPA from applying /adopting the common or garden sense approach, based on past and present knowledge of how the CASA functions; the likely outcome; and, the ways and means of making friends and influencing people to your way of thinking. Big ask with CASA – almost mission impossible - almost.
Morgan's appearance at the 'indaba' was, IMO unnecessary; the whole bun-fight and consequences could have been avoided had a 'submission' or statement of AOPA's position on the SDM's etc been made, backed up with a polite note, declining the invitation to attend, the AOPA position being made crystal clear. With that position established and made very clear beyond any doubt; there was no requirement to become embroiled in a group session with folks of different 'interest' and agenda groups. A logical assessment – based on objective, factual sector risk management would have at least – perhaps - provided CASA with food for thought – particularly on the arbitrary weight limitations affecting the more popular 'light twin' and single engine private operations; would another two or three hundred Kg have any real impact on 'safety'? That to me seemed to be a justifiable, sensible way to break the first barrier to a clear win.
As for Morgan – the CEO of any company or organisation may well be furious; maybe even righteously so; fully justified but; to behave in a manner which will effectively lead to being excluded from any future discussion on matters between a government agency and the industry served, destroys credibility, ruins any chance of future success and leaves others wondering what sort of operation is he representing, this cannot be allowed, no matter the provocation. Yes, Rant, rave, kick chairs over, all jolly good fun – in private. But when in a known hostile environment, where even the slightest 'off' word, let alone action will provide an excuse to take the CEO 'off the dance card' has never been a good move. An apology may be 'graciously' accepted – but don't think, not for a moment, that all is forgiven and forgotten – it ain't – certainly not by CASA. QED.....
Maybe a short educational course on winning the day taken from the pages of the Cannane or Hurst method and approach would help – then again, perhaps not.
Toot – toot......
With the very greatest of respect Super Moderator, while your prediction of Mr. Morgan’s options and the future of AOPA are probably correct, that is as far as it goes. The only ones laughing are CASA, Ben has given CASA an excuse to freeze AOPA out. However it is a moot point whether AOPA or any other organisation should be participating in what appears to me to be sham consultation, as explained by BM, which gives legitimacy to an intellectually corrupt process. This is especially so when one considers the bloody punishment CASA metes out to industry participants like Glen Buckley; I mean how can anyone sit around the table with these apparent butchers? But I’m off topic.
As for comparison with AOPA USA, that is unfair and inaccurate. AOPA USA reminds me very much of Don Corleone - the fictional godfather. There is a certain ponderous nobility and strength about it backed up by the capacity, totally lacking in Australia, of metaphorically leaving a bloody horses head on the the bedclothes of any legislator that wishes to cross swords.
This is because AOPA USA has its own Federal political action committee and it is very, very effective at lobbying Federal Politicians. They can make and break political careers. Believe me, when AOPA asks for a favor, it gets done. Their political action committee(PAC) is in the top five percent nationally in terms of contributions and in the top three percent of lobbying expenditure. AOPA Australia and the whole GA sector has zero political clout compared to AOPA USA as we are about to find out again when the green and white papers are released.
The AOPA PAC by the way is independent of AOPA and it’s Board, so the PAC can be as mean and rude and crass as will get a politician’s attention, while the AOPA Board can be noble, generous and charitable like Don Corleone. Their PAC does the dirty work that gives AOPA its strength and don’t forget the 2,500 AOPA volunteers as well.
Criticizing Ben for pointing out the bleeding obvious doesn’t help. Being part of a sham consultation gives legitimacy to the CASA product which it doesn’t deserve. You may leave AOPA because of Bens uncouth Whitlamesque “crash through or crash” approach. He is the reason I joined because I happen to believe that all the old school consultation stuff as practiced for the last forty years(?) is a waste of time when one side is obviously not acting in good faith.
It’s time for more people to spit the dummy like Ben, mate, before this Canberra mob - CASA, ATSB, AsA, cause a series of smoking holes in the ground.
A courteous reply.
P7 – TOM is 'busy' so the task of courteous reply and sensible discussion landed on my desk. Good post Wombat - and worthy of serious consideration. MTF a racing certainty.
But, well said Sirrah - Good logic from Wombat (and 100% agreed - in principal) – however; although things are arranged differently overseas; the demographics, governance of the regulator and 'history' are different (USA Civilian based – Australia Military). But that should not preclude the Australia AOPA from applying /adopting the common or garden sense approach, based on past and present knowledge of how the CASA functions; the likely outcome; and, the ways and means of making friends and influencing people to your way of thinking. Big ask with CASA – almost mission impossible - almost.
Morgan's appearance at the 'indaba' was, IMO unnecessary; the whole bun-fight and consequences could have been avoided had a 'submission' or statement of AOPA's position on the SDM's etc been made, backed up with a polite note, declining the invitation to attend, the AOPA position being made crystal clear. With that position established and made very clear beyond any doubt; there was no requirement to become embroiled in a group session with folks of different 'interest' and agenda groups. A logical assessment – based on objective, factual sector risk management would have at least – perhaps - provided CASA with food for thought – particularly on the arbitrary weight limitations affecting the more popular 'light twin' and single engine private operations; would another two or three hundred Kg have any real impact on 'safety'? That to me seemed to be a justifiable, sensible way to break the first barrier to a clear win.
As for Morgan – the CEO of any company or organisation may well be furious; maybe even righteously so; fully justified but; to behave in a manner which will effectively lead to being excluded from any future discussion on matters between a government agency and the industry served, destroys credibility, ruins any chance of future success and leaves others wondering what sort of operation is he representing, this cannot be allowed, no matter the provocation. Yes, Rant, rave, kick chairs over, all jolly good fun – in private. But when in a known hostile environment, where even the slightest 'off' word, let alone action will provide an excuse to take the CEO 'off the dance card' has never been a good move. An apology may be 'graciously' accepted – but don't think, not for a moment, that all is forgiven and forgotten – it ain't – certainly not by CASA. QED.....
Maybe a short educational course on winning the day taken from the pages of the Cannane or Hurst method and approach would help – then again, perhaps not.
Toot – toot......