AIFA, O!O, DBC, and objectivity

Bewilderment. Discombobulation.

News with intent!

Your advertising is only as good as the people who see it – repeatedly! You want to do business with O!O readers – people with money and control of corporate budgets. Click here


Click here for an invitation to subscribe to urbi

Oudtshoorn. 16 November 2012. 07h45. Objectivity. O!O has been accused of not being objective as many times as readers have differed from O!O’s reports.

At this time it’s about the flight school.

The general accusal is that O!O supports AIFA, because, as ORPA chair Lizanne Pelham says, AIFA is a DBC client. As is the Oudtshoorn Business Chamber.

I’m here to tell ya’all that the Oudtshoorn Business Chamber would rather disband than do business with DBC! Ask any of the executive members. Even the few that do appreciate the contribution of O!O will confirm the chamber’s horror at any possibility of association with O!O. Some paymaster!

Valued reader Johan van Noordwyk says: “Ek het heeltemal begrip dat hierdie nie ‘n objektiewe nuusbron is nie. Jy is ‘n kommunikasiekonsultant, en dit sou redelik wees om aan te neem dat jy kliënte op die dorp het…”

Well, I have lost a number of clients who have taken umbrage to my views. My opinions cost me money. I lose clients and advertisers. I don’t run away from my convictions. I share my views readily and force them on no one.

Let’s evaluate O!O’s reporting and stance on AIFA.

O!O first reported on the AIFA presence on May 8:

All legislation governing relevant contracts and operations must be strictly adhered to. This includes environmental impact demands; comprehensive safety regulations and ordinances; and public participation as the ratepayers own the aerodrome, being “shareholders” of the Municipality.

Daarna het O!O gereeld oor AIFA berig:

AIFA het reeds op 11 Oktober 2010 in ‘n formele ondernemingsbrief aan die munisipale bestuurder aangedui dat hy ‘n vliegskool op die Oudtshoorn vliegveld wil bedryf.

Die munisipaliteit het op 15 Oktober 2010 ontvangs van die ondernemingsbrief erken en op 10 November 2010 is ‘n raadsresolusie geneem vir toestemming vir die oprigting van ‘n loods. Dié toestemming is op 23 November 2010 skriftelik bevestig.

Op 28 Januarie 2011 het die munisipaliteit die bouplanne vir die konstruksie van die loods goedgekeur.
Op 2 Maart 2011 het AIFA ‘n getekende kontrak, wat deur die munisipaliteit opgestel en aangebied is, aan die munisipale bestuurder oorhandig. AIFA het tot vandag toe nie weer van die munisipaliteit verneem oor dié kontrak nie.

Tog het die munisipaliteit nog nooit te kenne gegee dat AIFA nie die vliegveld regmatig gebruik nie.
Op 2 Februarie 2011, byvoorbeeld, het die munisipaliteit ‘n fondasie-inspeksie op die loods-bouperseel gedoen. Die gebou is op 19 Julie voltooi.

Die munisipaliteit het AIFA eers na die voltooiing van die loods meegedeel dat daar geen kragvoorsiening was nie en dat AIFA dit op eie kosste sal moet voorsien. AIFA het R260,000 spandeer om ‘n substasie op te rig. AIFA het ook op eie koste die noodsaaklike water- en riool-opgraderings gedoen.
In Januarie vanjaar het AIFA besluit om ‘n beheertoring op te rig omdat dit addisionele veiligheid op die vliegveld verseker. Hierdie toring kos AIFA R1.6m.

Die toring het tot gevolg dat Oudtshoorn ‘n klas G vliegveld verkeersone word; en dat ‘n toegewyde radio-frekwensie aan die Oudtshoorn lugruim toegeken word; en dat alle lugverkeer sentraal aan die toring rapporteer.

Dat AIFA se bouplanne nie goedgekeur is nie, soos in die hoof-opskrif en teks van die OBV-verklaring van 31 Mei 2012 beweer word, is ‘n infame leuen. Alle bouprojekte, insluitend die loods en die beheertoring, is afsonderlik skriftelik goedgekeur deur die munisipaliteit. Die departement van omgewingsake het ook skriftelike toestemming verskaf dat die beheertoring-projek voltooi kan word.

Die bekladding dat AIFA bepaalde lugruime “onwettig binnedring”, soos deur die OBV beweer word, is ‘n belediging in die lugvaartbedryf. Sulke onverantwoordelike optrede sal die opskorting van lugvaartlisensies tot gevolg hê. Oudtshoorn het ‘n geregistreerde lughawe en as sodanig word AIFA wetlik verplig om slegs die geregistreerde naderingspatrone en kringvlugte te gebruik.

Op 29 Mei 2012 word ‘n gewysigde bouplan (nommer 16/12) vir die beheertoring deur die munisipale bestuurder verskaf.

AIFA has permission, without a velleity of doubt, but at least tacitly, to use the aerodrome and to operate a flight school.

The only people – the only people – actively pursuing a lethargic and ignorant municipality to formaly comply with legal and environmental and social requirements and demands to reify the existing agreement without huge cost to Oudtshoorn’s ratepayers… are the members of the Oudtshoorn Business Chamber. And AIFA executives. Supported by O!O reports.

The Chamber wants the obligations met. They have been on record to this effect so many times that only the most obtuse individual and the the most prejudiced organisation can possibly not acknowledge it.

Why did the chamber become involved?

Because the chamber has a duty to ensure that business is conducted legally.

Here is AIFA CEO Willie Marais:

As businessmen we trusted the Council to follow all rules of Corporate Governance.  Nowhere it was ever mentioned that a EIA is required.  As aviation people it was normal for us to erect hangars at a registered airfield and to conduct aviation business operations from such facility.
The hangar with adjacent offices were inspected regularly as the project progressed and a final inspection was completed.
We submitted further plans for an Air Traffic Control Tower as we wanted to enhance flight safety.  At this stage an official complaint was lodged by a resident that our structures are illegal as no EIA was done.  We received a letter from the Department of Environmental Affairs (George Office – Dr Palmer) to stop building.  Correspondence between the Council and EA took place and after a 20 minute visit by some EA officials (who did not even look outside) we were instructed to submit a S24G application.
We liaised with the Council who instructed us to fund such application as they don’t have the funds to do so.  We appointed AGES to drive the process.  We received further instruction to also complete a noise impact study.  Both were done and on 20 November 2012 the 40 day period for comments will be over.
From day one we requested the council to conduct a public participation process and to advertise our requested contract.  We received a contract from the council that we signed early in 2011, BUT we negotiated a better rate as well as a longer lease period based on the size of our investment.  Up to today we have not received a contract from the council.  In fact we are battling to get any correspondence from them.  Verbally we were promised a contract and a 25 year commitment during various meetings with the MM, but received nothing in writing.

O!O not objective about the flight school?

Whomever so concludes probably believes also in the tooth faerie.

Now let’s do talk objectivity.

ORPA and Afriforum and the OBB and the Rose Valley Residents’ Association are continuously screaming blue murder – about whatever, even though nobody knows, at this time, whom these organisations represent and we do not even know if they all agree with statements their “leaders” sign and then retract… and, apparently retract the retraction… and then again retract.

If these organisations were in fact campaigning for legal compliance why are they not assisting AIFA in its indefatigable efforts to have the municipality issue the necessary contract?

The answer is as obvious as a lightning bolt over Volmoed: ORPA and its choirs are not campaigning for legal compliance, ORPA and its choirs simply want the flight school banished for own selfish reasons mostly relating to some paradisiacal peace and quiet without even a consideration for economic advancement.

And O!O is being accused of not being objective!?

Ye gods and faeries!

ORPA and its choirs even dismiss AIFA’s economic benefit for Oudtshoorn.

And O!O is being accused of not being objective!?

Ye gods and faeries!

Choir members are obviously blatantly racist and xenophobic.

On 31 August one of the most clamant choir members says, in an email, “What about refusing to take Asian guests in accommodation establishments and not serve them in restaurants etc – I for one will be doing that – irrespective of what the Consumer Act says!!!!!!”

Note: “… irrespective of what the Consumer Act says!!!!!!”

This from someone accusing AIFA of not complying with legislation.

And O!O is being accused of not being objective!?

Ye gods and faeries!

Choir members warn of Chinese imperialist agendas…

And O!O is being accused of not being objective!?

Ye gods and faeries!

Choir members caution against earsplitting jet engines and jet fuel mist…

And O!O is being accused of not being objective!?

Ye gods and faeries!

The ORPA cabal speak not for the people of Oudtshoorn. Unless, of course, ORPA and it’s partners prove the opposite by making known their memberships.

If the ORPA cabal was driven by transparent governance, it would have been at the municipal doors for the finalisation of the AIFA contract. It isn’t at the door; it isn’t driven by transparent governance.

And O!O is being accused of not being objective!?

Ye gods and faeries!

And no, “cabal”, yet again, is not indicative of subjectivity. A cabal is a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue. A more apposite noun can hardly be found in the circumstances.

Click here to receive updates.

Advertise on O!O

Click here to return to the title page.


12 thoughts on “AIFA, O!O, DBC, and objectivity

  1. Messrs ORPA

    Please indicate where I have claimed possession of a contract.

    Ye gods and faeries.

  2. The Municipality not having the finance to undertake the required Municipal Process including EIA is not an excuse or the reason. The reason why the Municipality is not the current applicant of the Section 24 G Rectification Application is because by being the applicant the Oudtshoorn Municipality acknowledge they did not follow and apply due Municipal Process and defrauded the public and are therefore liable.

    AIFA was and still is not the official tenant of the Oudtshoorn Aerodrome through applied Municipal Process and approved council decision. The Oudtshoorn Aeroclub is the current official tenant who in fact may not sublease in terms of their official contract with the Oudtshoorn Municipality.

    It is normal practice that the ‘defendant / applicant’ pay the necessary fines in terms of the National Environmental Management Act of 2000 – in the case of the illegal erection of the control tower and hanger which amounts to a possible dine R 5 million. However, the Oudtshoorn Municipality as the ‘owner’ of the aerodrome remains the only body that can provide a ‘Public Notice’ launching a Public Participation Process in terms of the Land Use Management Act of 1985 (Ordinance 15 of 1985) and an EIA in this so called Section 24 G Rectification Application and not AIFA as they are not the lawful tenant of the Oudtshoorn Aerodrome!

    The Oudtshoorn Municipality is mandated through public election to launch proper Municipal Process in regards to the use of the Aerodrome by AIFA. AIFA cannot negotiate a contract without proper due Municipal Process in support of such a deal and as a member of the Oudtshoorn Business Chamber with direct channels to the Municipality they can also not claim ignorance. Herewith the correct step:

    • AIFA approach Municipality to use Aerodrome and submit business plan and necessary motivations why they want to use the Oudtshoorn Aerodrome for public participation disclosing and describing full 15 year business expansion strategy disclosing intended aircraft types; quantities; frequencies (day and night) altitudes; flight paths and additional activities such as development of site and growth plan and development of site proposal.
    • This document plus the necessary Environmental; Social and Economic Impact Assessments and Studies are then advertised in local newspapers for Public Participation. The site/erven might have to be rezoned as the use of the site/erven has changed from being an aerodrome to a flight training facility.
    • The Publics comments are then tabled to council as well as all the necessary due diligence work and EIA. Rules of conduct are established etc all of the above has to be formulated in a contract.
    • Then ONLY can contracts be negotiated if in fact the PUBLIC gave permission!

    How can AIFA have a contract in their possession if none of the above has been done Mr Baird?

    Individuals (Greg Baartman; Llewellyn Coetzee; Noel Pietersen and Gordon April) in the Municipality cannot issue contracts, it is outside of their mandate and illegal in terms of the Oudtshoorn Municipality Delegation Register.

    Mr. Baird stop writing Public Relation Statements on your blog for AIFA whilst you advertise your blog as independent news intended to notify the Public of Municipal Maladministration, which in this case it reeks of!

  3. Johan, ek ervaar jou nie as iemand wat kerm nie. Jy is rasioneel en aanvaar argumente. Die meeste “objectors” klink vir my maar na eiegeregtigde skuimbekke. Na iemand soos jy luister ek graag.

    Die feite is op die tafel!

  4. Baie dankie Drewan — dis wonderlike nuus. Daarmee sluit ek my gekerm af, en sal ek die woord versprei waar ek kommernis hieroor teëkom. Groete.

  5. Mary-Anne

    Alhoewel ek en jy ‘n bars kan baklei weet ek ons laaik mekaar erg! En jy is spot-on. Spot-on! Kolskoot!

  6. Johan

    Ek was in AIFA se opskamer toe jy jou laaste kommentaar gepos het en ek kan jou kategories verseker dat daar nie straleropleiding op Oudtshoorn gedoen sal word nie.

    Ek het pas met Willie Marais gepraat wat my ándermaal hiervan verseker het.

    Die twee stralers wat TFASA vir instrument-opleiding op Oudtshoorn geberg het, ‘n Strikemaster en ‘n T2 Buckeye, is verlede week Oos-Kaap toe geneem – permanent.

  7. Dankie Drewan, goed om te weet.

    Weereens die vraag oor die beplande gebruik van jets… ek het gou jou blog gesoek vir die soekwoord “jets” of “jet” en vind nie ‘n verwysing nie. As die PR-man, kan jy dalk duidelikheid gee hieroor? Ek reken dit sal baie gemoedere kalmeer, of aanhits. Sover dit my aangaan is dit die #1 bekommernis as die wetlike aspekte aan voldoen is. Dankie by voorbaat.

  8. Johan, Johan, Johan… Die berig is nie teen jóú gemik nie.

    Al die feite is lank reeds beskikbaar. Wie nie wil verstaan nie, wíl nie verstaan nie. Dis nou nie my probleem nie.

  9. Wow Drewan, I didn’t even know AIFA was your client. Lucky guess. If you’re responsible for PR, I’m afraid this could be done better. I think most of the complainants would be shut up if you, instead of fanning the flames of conflict, provide information.

    Your insinuation that the complainants are “obviously blatantly racist and xenophobic” is absolutely pathetic. I for one take offense to that.

    If you actually listen to the actual concerns over the cabal of the likes of ORPA (of whom I certainly am not a member) – there are some legitimate concerns. Instead of bashing complainants in general, provide the public with information. That is what PR agents are supposed to do. (Any answers on the planned use of jets? No?)

    As I have said before, you provide a valuable service to the community and in this case I think you are in a best position to help everyone move along.

  10. Ai Apartheid het darem maar met baie van onse breins gespeel. Een ietsie wat swart en wit nou maar albei met ons gaan saamsleep is dat Apartheid het seker gemaak ons dink nie. Van ons was so baie gelukkig dat ons iewers iemand raakgeloop het wat daai vuurtjie in ons aan die brand gesteek het. Maar nou ja die negatiewe kant van die seening is dat die paar wat dink konstant deur al die “wil nie lees of dink brigade” aangeval word en tot die dood toe getreiter word om tog net “normaal” te wees.

    Hier praat almal van werkloosheid, buitelandse beleggers, ens, ens ens. Oudtshoorn se boere is besig om van hulle boerdery aktiwiteite ontlslae te raak en baie is alreeds werkloos. Dit is in Oudtshoorn se belang om sy ekonomie uit te brei en te diversify. Maar nou ja ons mensies moet nie later kla en se die ANC het die land se ekonomie befoeter as dit so gaan in die klein dorpies nie.

  11. I always find it interesting that people just keep on digging and digging if they don’t get the answer they like. As in the case of those opposed to AIFA. “I am neither for nor against the flight school.” All will agree (or should) that this an objective statement – not so? But in my objectivity I have to recognise that two things happened here – 1. a well planned sound business which provides jobs and economic input has been established
    2. certain rules and regulations were not adhered to and are being addressed.
    Unless I am also an individual of limited education both these issues have been addressed by O!O – as well as several others.
    The problem here is that people opposed to the flight school will do all they can to have it removed, wiped away, nullified, gone, squashed. How objective is that? Stop beating about the bush – say what you really want; You want the chinese to go home you want AIFA to disappear you want peace and tranquility – its not going to happen unless you allow a court to judge objectively and rule objectively.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s