Financial assistance after a fatal

[JohnMcK]

Hi All,

 

I was asked by a well respected member to bring a proposal to the Board to set up a fund that would make an immediate small payment (say, $500) to Next of Kin to help with out of pocket expenses after a fatal. We currently average around 6 fatals a year.

 

Well such a simple request got complicated, and I told the Board I would take it away for discussion. What name will you call the fund? Do we fund it from an RAA grant, or from member donations like GIFTS? Will a payment from RAA be seen as admission of guilt? etc, etc.

 

Guys may I please have some feedback. What do you think of the idea for a start? If a positive answer, what form do you feel it should it take?

 

Thanks,

 

John McK

 

 

[ave8rr]

Hi All,I was asked by a well respected member to bring a proposal to the Board to set up a fund that would make an immediate small payment (say, $500) to Next of Kin to help with out of pocket expenses after a fatal. We currently average around 6 fatals a year.

 

Guys may I please have some feedback. What do you think of the idea for a start? If a positive answer, what form do you feel it should it take?

 

Thanks, John McK

John, I would rather see any (money) be put towards a proper ATSB type investigation of the accident. IF we were to get this information then we might reduce the current accident rate.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

John, I would rather see any (money) be put towards a proper ATSB type investigation of the accident. IF we were to get this information then we might reduce the current accident rate.

Yes I agree, frankly I don't think a small amount like that would make enough of a difference. Perhaps paying for Kin's travel, accommodation and meals etc during a search for example might be a good and welcomed gesture but a small cash handout seems kind of tacky, maybe that's just my take on it.

And I couldn't agree more on the concept of a fund for crash investigation, fatal or otherwise.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

John quick thought off the cuff........

 

I believe its time we took our entire insurance business out to tender through a process that tests and chooses a broker. In determining what we want as we put a formal requirements document together it seems to me that this could become one of the requirements that can be written in to the requirements document.

 

My view would be that this should (if we chose to include it) be optional in nature and members can choose to pay an extra $X per year as part of their membership costs to have this option.

 

I do not believe it should be something we try to do with existing funding streams. It was clear to me at Saturdays AGM that this year the organisation will make a loss, registration revenue will be decreased by at least $70k probably closer to $100k, we have the additional cost of a consultant, the cost of Middo's mailout (>>$10k) and the cost of the GM itself. These things combined will easily cost > $200k which as I recall was the rough order of surplus earnings made last year.

 

If our aim is to keep things simple and affordable so that those trying to break in to the sport can do so, then to me making this compulsory just lifts the bar. I personally believe that if we can do something that can reduce the fatality numbers then that should be more compulsory than anything like this.....Not thats its a bad idea, just that its always easy to increase costs, but more difficult to constrain them.

 

Andy

 

 

[cscotthendry]

John, I would rather see any (money) be put towards a proper ATSB type investigation of the accident. IF we were to get this information then we might reduce the current accident rate.

+1 for this idea. I'd rather put money into preventing accidents than trying to compensate for the consequences. I appreciate the idea to help the surviving family members through a tough financial time though.

 

 

[damkia]

I would be questioning if such a payment "gift" would be considered an admission of guilt on the RA-Aus side.

 

A gift of sorts done by passing the hat around at a meeting would be the actions of individuals, and not seen as the governing organisation actions to placate a situation that may involve a conflict of interests on their behalf.

 

Keep the RA-Aus (ASTB?) investigation away from any payments. There should be some sort of insurance that should cover personal loss, and if money was to be paid by or through the RA-Aus, this is where it should originate.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I guess the other thing to consider is whether there is any precedent, or whether many people are actually asking for it. If Turbo was competing in drag racing in Brisbane and had an accident, would the association that governs that sport pay to fly a family member up from Mexico? And how many members are asking for such an arrangement to be made? At least one is mentioned, but is it something that is seen as desirable in the wider group?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

maybe an optional insurance policy for members to consider when they renew. We could get clive robertson to promote it.

 

I think insurance would be the way to go on this. Another would be a seperate investment account to fund it. But that could turn into a nightmare if some lawer challenged it as some have said an admission of guilt or similar.

 

But then maybe this should be the sole responsibility of the member to consider obtaining his own funeral insurance. (clive again)

 

 

[facthunter]

It could come from a "provident fund" or insurance scheme. It would have nothing to do with guilt admission. These things have a cost which is relatively small and would be in the nature of a "welfare" consideration. It would be for members ot decide one way or another. On the death of any member of a family there are costs that immediately appear, that are unexpected by the very nature of the way it happened. It would have to be paid quickly to be effective, and you would need an amount that relates to the need.

 

It's done in many other organisations that have members they represent. I have no feelings one way or the other of an "urgent or must do" nature but I would probably vote for it, but if others decided flying is all we are for I would understand that also. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

John, I agree with the sentiment but mightn't it be better to get the RAA registered as a fund raising organisation and setup the infrastructure for accepting donations for any killed or injured pilots benefit?

 

 

[Gibbo]

I guess the other thing to consider is whether there is any precedent, or whether many people are actually asking for it. If Turbo was competing in drag racing in Brisbane and had an accident, would the association that governs that sport pay to fly a family member up from Mexico? And how many members are asking for such an arrangement to be made? At least one is mentioned, but is it something that is seen as desirable in the wider group?

My racv total care would cover the costs in this situation. There is roadside insurance and then there is insurance.

 

 

[Bubbleboy]

Here is the Funeral Director coming out in me again. Some good points above and any financial assistance would be appreciated at that time but the other option is to take out a Pre paid funeral plan! You can pay in to these the same as paying a little extra to the insurance company. At least your funeral expenses would be covered which is a big chunk! I have dealt with many families at tragic times like this and funeral expenses are a big stressor.

 

Scotty

 

 

[terryc]

I can see no reason at all for raa to be considering such a thing. If it became part of our insurance cover as a cost free option then I might agree.

 

We should be focusing on business matters and dare I say it plane registrations.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Maybe members who feel their next of kin would be un-duely impacted finacially by their involvement in a fatal accident should consider only making local fights to minimise the impact, next of kin could sleep in their own beds. Alternatively they could consider not flying at all, minimise the likelihood completely, unless they drive instead.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Anyone concerned about this should take out some form of life insurance, it isn't an RA-Aus matter.

 

 

[Gentreau]

I have to agree with the insurance idea.

 

My french microlight insurance, negotiated by our national federation, automatically includes an unconditional payment to next of kin in case of fatality (16k Euros).

 

The RAA could perhaps look at negotiating a deal on that kind of insurance for members rather than thinking of direct hand-outs.

 

.

 

 

[Tomo]

Anyone concerned about this should take out some form of life insurance, it isn't an RA-Aus matter.

Couldn't agree more.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Anyone concerned about this should take out some form of life insurance, it isn't an RA-Aus matter.

I agree in principle except that doing it yourself generally means paying full retail rates, if we include it in our insurnace portfolio as an optional extra then:-

 

1) We get bigger total transacvtion value which drives importance and discount

 

2) We generally should be able to buy it at a rate cheaper than an individual does

 

3) If we finally get to do the enhanced web based renewals, we can do so without driving in extra work to the team

 

So if possible we should look at this and perhaps full aircraft insurance for members as well. In my case I pay just over $3k pa if we could drive in a volume based 10% reduction I'd be happy to share that 50-50 with the organisation after all its something I couldnt achieve myself without the volumes discussed....

 

Andy

 

 

[kgwilson]

I agree with others that it is an insurance process. Whether we include this as an additional membership cost (like CTP) or leave it to individuals will no doubt be subject to much debate. I am a user pays person but in saying that a collective will always be the most cost effective option. Personally though I'd sooner see more spent in accident prevention and reporting to establish direct causes rather than a token handout which does have overtones of guilt admission with it.

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for the feedback. I will let this one go. There are other more important issues to concentrate on at the moment.

 

John McK

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

John,

 

Just before you let it go altogether . . .

 

I think we would all agree that an immediate (within 24 hours) cash payment of say $5,000 to the next-of-kin would be appreciated by the immediate dependants of a pilot who suffers fatal injuries in an aircraft accident. It takes one worry right out of a truly terrible situation.

 

The only question is how would RA-Aus accommodate that desirable thing?

 

It is unfair to rely on the always generous few making donations.

 

What would it cost? Well, based on the average 6 fatals p.a. mentioned above, that would equate to a cost of $30,000 per annum

 

Insurance companies could do that same calculation and charge $50,000 p.a. to allow for bad years and profit.

 

Or, RA-Aus could just self-insure (i.e. absorb the cost). What impact would that have on the bottom line for RA-Aus?

 

With revenue from members running around the$2.5 million and an annual surplus target of $250k the answer is bugger all, to use the technical bean-counters' terminology. In a bad year (10 fatals) it might $50k off the surplus that, with cash reserves of $1.75 million and net assets of $2.5 million, we just don't need.

 

To me this is a no-brainer. It is desirable and affordable. Why not just do it?

 

A.B.

 

 

[terryc]

John,Just before you let it go altogether . . .

 

I think we would all agree that an immediate (within 24 hours) cash payment of say $5,000 to the next-of-kin would be appreciated by the immediate dependants of a pilot who suffers fatal injuries in an aircraft accident. It takes one worry right out of a truly terrible situation.

 

The only question is how would RA-Aus accommodate that desirable thing?

 

It is unfair to rely on the always generous few making donations.

 

What would it cost? Well, based on the average 6 fatals p.a. mentioned above, that would equate to a cost of $30,000 per annum

 

Insurance companies could do that same calculation and charge $50,000 p.a. to allow for bad years and profit.

 

Or, RA-Aus could just self-insure (i.e. absorb the cost). What impact would that have on the bottom line for RA-Aus?

 

With revenue from members running around the$2.5 million and an annual surplus target of $250k the answer is bugger all, to use the technical bean-counters' terminology. In a bad year (10 fatals) it might $50k off the surplus that, with cash reserves of $1.75 million and net assets of $2.5 million, we just don't need.

 

To me this is a no-brainer. It is desirable and affordable. Why not just do it?

 

A.B.

Self insure is an interesting proposition and one that I like but you won't get any support from management or conservative thinkers and certainly not the insurance company supplying our other insurance. They may well punish you for trying and up our premiums. I think the better way to go would be to put out to tender our insurance requirements with a list of extra's that we might include at the right price. Self insurance for all of our requirements is also worth looking at but alas those conservative thinkers again. Last time I looked at our insurance premiums I nearly fell off my chair and then when we might have a claim against us we hear we might not be covered. Banks and insurance companies are the only business I know that can make a record profit year after year and still cry poverty. It's not surprising their one and the same. Just my opinion.