Tell me im wrong.

[motzartmerv]

Maj. I am confused a bit here. You seem pretty insistant that they havnt cut FTF's from the policy. But if i can quote his letter to me :

 

" The Board decided last October to delete FTFs and SFTFs from the provisions of this Policy when it was realised that Facilities were not being asked to make any recurrent contribution towards recurrent administration"

 

Have i got something crossed up here..? Or has mark miss spoken?

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The information I have is that the FTFs were never covered anyway....at least as far as the insurance companies were concerned. There is work afoot to look at buying coverage for them this time around, if possible............Maj.....

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I have just read the actual policy document on the RAAus website and did not find any reference to the exclusions of a FTF. There is however reference to an instructor and student pilot/passenger being covered. There is also reference to the property being used for flying activities being covered, it did not exclude a registered FTF. (which is after all a property being used for flying activities). From what I can understand of it, FTFs have not been excluded. IF i am correct, and If they are to be excluded in the future, I think it must be as a result of a request from RAAus to exclude them in an attempt to reduce the premium. (which is a pretty low act in my opinion, as the number of instructors would be a very small percentage of the total membership and those operating the FTF's are still members, still paying full membership fees, including the insurance component)

 

Anyone else read it and come up with a different opinion?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ok. before i post this, I just want to add that i know Maj personally and I would trust his word unreservedly.Here is the response i received today from the GM.

 

Andrew

 

 

 

Thank you for your prompt response which I was interested to read, most other respondents having been altogether unaware that they were – until October 2013 – even covered. The Board decided last October to delete FTFs and SFTFs from the provisions of this Policy when it was realised that Facilities were not being asked to make any recurrent contribution towards recurrent administration, auditing, or insurance costs. This was seen as inequitable given that all other member categories, including Clubs, are required to pay recurring fees. I agree that this decision could have been communicated in a more timely manner.

 

 

 

The option of reinstating this liability cover remains, should FTFs/SFTFs be willing to also make annual premium contributions. I have requested an indicative pricing from our broker, which I’ll be sure to pass on.

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Clayton

 

 

 

General Manager

 

 

Maj, this is no way aimed at you...But here goes..

 

SERIOULSY!!!! What the hell!!! Im speechless. Im not responding to this. I did some quick maths, my club has 40 members, each paying $185 OR MORE in anual fees. Thats $7400 per year just from our small club alone in memberships. To be told we are not contributing is ...well.. mind boggling.. And to add insult to injury, he agrees that the news should have been conveyed in a more timely manner.. No explanation, no apology..nothing...Just cut and paste from the original letter. Its a sad day. Im almost ashamed to be a part of this circus.

Major, this is a formal communication from Recreational Aviation Australia.

 

It is unambiguous.

 

You and the other board members are seriously exposed, and I don't have any sympathy for you at all after months of warnings.

 

"The information I have is that the FTFs were never covered anyway....at least as far as the insurance companies were concerned. There is work afoot to look at buying coverage for them this time around, if possible............Maj...."

 

If this is true, and if it was implied the FTF's were covered, you and the board members have a further potential liability, because there have been fatalities where potential public liability claims would still be in the timeline where litigation is yet to be started.

 

To say you urgently need to resolve this would be an understatement.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I have written to Mark asking for the meeting minutes indicating the board resolution to delete FTFs from the policy.

 

Something tells me he will not be able to furnish my request. If so, im going to get very noisy. Stand by.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Turb

 

Major, this is a formal communication from Recreational Aviation Australia.It is unambiguous.

You and the other board members are seriously exposed, and I don't have any sympathy for you at all after months of warnings.

 

"The information I have is that the FTFs were never covered anyway....at least as far as the insurance companies were concerned. There is work afoot to look at buying coverage for them this time around, if possible............Maj...."

 

If this is true, and if it was implied the FTF's were covered, you and the board members have a further potential liability, because there have been fatalities where potential public liability claims would still be in the timeline where litigation is yet to be started.

 

To say you urgently need to resolve this would be an understatement.

Turbs, If a student and instructor have an incident incurring public Liability, the student is covered by the RAA member Liability insurance if sued. The instructor is also covered by RAA membership liability insurance. However if the person affected sues the FTFS facility as a business, there is no coverage by RAA there. RAA is not in the business of insuring private businesses, that's for the operator to ensure he carriers sufficient and appropriate professional liability insurance.

 

That all being said, there are current board members who really want to increase the scope of Membership coverage for more protection this time round, and some believe that coverage may be available , however everything costs and it may reasonably be expected that an additional contribution may be required by an operating private business for the additional coverage.

 

No doubt there will be an increase in civil law suits against operators in the future, and one would be wise to cover ones butt in any way shape of form available.

 

By the way, are you a paid-up contributing member of the RAAus yet Turbs ?.................Maj....

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So how does removing FTFs insurance from the RAA policy improve members services? Wouldn't the RAA be better off passing on the cost to the FTFs

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Maybe you could add a 10% margin to the FTFs insurance premium and make a small profit?

 

 

[SDQDI]

So how does removing FTFs insurance from the RAA policy improve members services? Wouldn't the RAA be better off passing on the cost to the FTFs

I must admit FT I don't normally agree with you but I think that makes sense I wouldn't mind a little increase in fees to cover costs maybe if there was to much of a stir they could do a voluntary payment similar to the GYFTS setup, I am sure that quiet a few members would be happy to make a contribution

Edit I just reread your post did you mean for the members to contribute the extra or the FTFs? I originally read it as the members

 

 

[Powerin]

Maj, you really need to get your story straight, for your own sake. You or the GM have the wrong end of the stick. It is very clearly stated in the GMs letter that FTFs were covered but no longer are covered, dating back to October, due to a decision by the board.

 

You have said here two conflicting things...that FTFs were never covered, and previously that the decision to end cover was never made by the Board. If Motz is unsuccessful in seeing the minutes perhaps you better have a look at them and see exactly what decisions were made and whether the GM is acting in line with those decisions.

 

Either way, changing an insurance policy to delete some RAAus stakeholders and exposing them to liability (if indeed that is what has happened) without telling them for two months is very poor form. The GM's argument that nobody knew about the cover anyway is no excuse. A claim against any FTF who believed they were covered when they were not could have ruined them for life.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

F

 

So how does removing FTFs insurance from the RAA policy improve members services? Wouldn't the RAA be better off passing on the cost to the FTFs

FT, reread some of the previous posts, the FTFs were never insured in the first place, and now your getting the idea ..yes the RAAus would be better off passing on the costs ( or contributions) to the FTFs.............Maj.....

 

 

[Powerin]

The board had made a decision back in October to exclude FTFs, a decision that may have had serious consequences for any FTF or instructor and no mention of it has been made until now. This is a communication breakdown of major proportions that could have been avoided if all reps were not gagged.

I understand your sentiments here Kev, but I think this thread is an example of the NEED for board confidentiality. The channels of communication from any organisation need to be managed carefully to avoid confusing and potentially damaging information being spread. The breakdown in communication is entirely the fault of the GM in this case. It is not the job of a board member to communicate operational things like this to the membership and things often go badly if they do.

It is, however, the job of the Board to keep an eye on the actions of a GM, and also his official communications, to make sure what he is doing is in line with the board's intentions. In this case the board should censure the GM for the lack of timeliness of his letter and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

And with the greatest of respect to Maj, Board members need to get their facts straight before making information public. This takes time and work so it is perhaps understandable that board members don't communicate often using forums like this.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I thi

 

I understand your sentiments here Kev, but I think this thread is an example of the NEED for board confidentiality. The channels of communication from any organisation need to be managed carefully to avoid confusing and potentially damaging information being spread. The breakdown in communication is entirely the fault of the GM in this case. It is not the job of a board member to communicate operational things like this to the membership and things often go badly if they do.It is, however, the job of the Board to keep an eye on the actions of a GM, and also his official communications, to make sure what he is doing is in line with the board's intentions. In this case the board should censure the GM for the lack of timeliness of his letter and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

And with the greatest of respect to Maj, Board members need to get their facts straight before making information public. This takes time and work so it is perhaps understandable that board members don't communicate often using forums like this.

I think the problem here is no one would be complaining about the confidentiality if the board had a very good method of communication that informed members of decisions/ general information in a timely manner. Quite simply, the board members are gagged and those that should be communicating, are not. There is no reason in this technological age that minutes of any meeting could not be made available within a week. (3 months and still no minutes of the board meeting in Oct 2013)

 

You can't have secrecy AND a lack of information to the members. This will always result in members feeling left in the dark and that they have deliberately been excluded or ignored for unknown reasons.

 

Until our board is capable of providing information in a timely manner, they do not deserve to be able to also keep everything secret.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, If a student and instructor have an incident incurring public Liability, the student is covered by the RAA member Liability insurance if sued. The instructor is also covered by RAA membership liability insurance. However if the person affected sues the FTFS facility as a business, there is no coverage by RAA there. RAA is not in the business of insuring private businesses, that's for the operator to ensure he carriers sufficient and appropriate professional liability insurance.

It's a side issue but the last time I looked at RAA Public Liability I think the member cover was $1.75 million. Since a quadriplegic will cost the member around $6 to 7 million plus legal costs getting up towards the same for both sides, and since you can't guarantee you will not cause a QLink Rex to go down or drop debris on to a populated area, I think my recommendation was around $20 million coverage, which by the way is not all that expensive. That being the case, my thought was that it would be better for RAA to drop the cover and lower the subscription rate, to allow the pilot to manage his own protection, perhaps with a minimum insurance requirement.

 

The instructor would fall into the same category.

 

I'm also of the opinion, from very successful experience with a large number of Associations that the body deriving the income should be the one paying the Public Liability Insurance, and this is then reflected in the rates that body charges. So the FTF insures to a safe level and charges that as part of the fee.

 

Under that model RAA operates specifically as an administering body rather than part pilot, part FTF, etc guaranteeing itself as seat at every legal claim.

 

That's a pretty rough picture but I know it has worked for about 30 years.

 

As I see it there are two issues here:

 

1. The FTF's appear to have been given the impression they were covered; that will sort itself out one way or the other

 

2. At the present time I can't find any serious responsible structure above the level of FTF to ensure that those they certify are satisfactorily trained and enforced to operate safely, so I see a huge risk factor on the head of the FTF. This has been greatly exaggerated by the discovery that RAA board members did not put in place an SMS in 2010, and RAA board members and presumably CASA employees again failed to take immediate action when the issue came up this year. The situation may well make nice pickings for a grieving family, including those who have lost members since 2010.

 

No doubt there will be an increase in civil law suits against operators in the future, and one would be wise to cover ones butt in any way shape of form available.

I don't see any increase; the lawsuits have been at a steady rate since the mid 1980's where there has been negligence. It's up to the family members left behind to decide what to do, and not all decide to go after the alleged culprit. The problem is, once you get one, you live it for maybe 7 years - it just does not go away.

 

By the way, are you a paid-up contributing member of the RAAus yet Turbs ?.................Maj....

No, but I may well be when a suitable aircraft configuration becomes available. In the meantime I'm supporting Motz who with his contributions over the years has given me plenty of food for thought and practice.

 

I certainly haven't been trespassing on your site, because it seems to me to be not much more user friendly than it was for years ago.

 

You may also have overlooked the fact that you are rather cheekily using someone's open forum site to publicly discuss something it isn't possible to discuss on the site you're in charge of. Hugs and kisses.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

This show just seems to get crazier and crazier

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am a bit confused, the board voted to remove the insurance cover that the FTOs don't have but many have thought they did have. And they sent a letter in January reminding the FTOs that the insurance they don't have may be introduced like it was prior to the vote. The insurance may be introduced but at a cost.

 

Can't we stick to FTO = flight training organisation instead of splitting it into sftf and ftf?

 

 

[terryc]

FTFs and SFTFs are currently no longer covered by these policy provisions

 

the above is lifted from motz's letter from the GM.

 

just a small item that leaves me some what confused, could someone explain it to me please. If they are no longer covered then they were covered before they weren't covered so the Major or the GM has it wrong, they both can't be right.

 

 

[terryc]

Also,

 

The board has acted quickly to correct this.

 

The above was lifted from Motz's letter from the GM.

 

What has the board acted quickly to correct, 1/cease the cover, or look into the matter

 

If the above is true then what the Major is saying is wrong, or the Gm is wrong, they both can't be right.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I feel im really gunna have a big X on my back now. But anyway..

 

lets all wait and see what Marks response to my request for the minutes is. Im pretty sure I know whats happened here, but until Mark admits the board made no such 'resolution'(which I suspect) we are all just guessing.

 

Once the minutes are NOT produced. then we can start to jump up and down..(And will)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

I think its time for some blunt truths to be discussed. Turbo has started it, but lets continue:-

 

1) Aviation is a dangerous pastime. Does anyone disagree?

 

2) Given 1) anyone who is involved in aviation needs to protect themselves and their family from any consequences of involvement.

 

3) The degree of protection you need is directly proportional to what you have to loose. If you have lots, you can loose lots, if you have little, then its very unlikely that you'll find your self in the litigation crosshairs.

 

So, with all that said, let me ask:-

 

1) Who has read the RAAus policy document and knows where to find it? It seems to me that if you had read it then there is very little to post about and complaints about something being taken away that never existed in the first place would have gone away.

 

2) Anyone who has read 1) and has the usual trappings of a successful career/business will know absolutely that what RAAus offer is completely ineffectual at offering the protection you would likely need.

 

3) Anyone who makes a living from recreational aviation and who hasn't sat down with an insurance broker and discussed the exposures he has is skating on thin ice. Don't rely on RAAus, get your own insurance affairs in order before worrying about this sideshow. The fact that RAAus does offer some cover will afford you some protection and the best you can hope for is a reduction in premium because your own policy should specify that it only covers anything not covered by the RAAus policy first. As such your own insurance policy insurance company's risk reduces and your policy should also reduce.

 

I see this current issue as storm in a D cup and an example why any widespread communication from anyone within RAAus to a wide group of people should be checked by another independent reader(s) before being sent. In this case a quick review would likely have picked up that rewording might have been required.

 

Andy

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thanx for that Andy. The issue of who or what is covered died a natural death within hours of the letter going out.

 

The problems are a little deeper than just what was in the letter.

 

For instance. If the GM has it wrong, and the cover never existed, where does the statements"The board has acted quickly to correct this. " And "The Board decided last October to delete FTFs and SFTFs from the provisions of this Policy "- where did that come from? It appears to be either a complete misunderstanding, posted out of the blue on some idle friday afternoon, by the manager of our organisation...OR... A straight out PORKY"... Which is it? id like to know, before i go and put my a$$ on the line tomorrow with the knowledge that my BOSS either is incompetent, or a liar.

 

 

[Powerin]

1) Who has read the RAAus policy document and knows where to find it? It seems to me that if you had read it then there is very little to post about and complaints about something being taken away that never existed in the first place would have gone away.

Andy

Yes, I knew where to find it and read it several times before posting anything here. But who can tell how old the document is? Has it been revised since this alleged decision was made?

I totally agree with everything else you said. But the problem is as Motz has said....it all doesn't add up. In this case it probably doesn't matter, but one would like to hope that if an issue that does seriously affect members comes up that we are informed of it in less than two months. Proper policies and procedures would ensure this and I hope RAAus is working towards towards putting some in place.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...what RAAus offer is completely ineffectual at offering the protection you would likely need....Andy

Thanks for bringing this up, Andy. The last time I made enquiries about increasing my PL cover the brokers were pretty dismissive of the need. Rather than all of us start shopping around, maybe someone could share their experiences and recommend a good broker.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I am a bit confused, the board voted to remove the insurance cover that the FTOs don't have but many have thought they did have. And they sent a letter in January reminding the FTOs that the insurance they don't have may be introduced like it was prior to the vote. The insurance may be introduced but at a cost.Can't we stick to FTO = flight training organisation instead of splitting it into sftf and ftf?

Are we talking about different things? My understanding of a Flight Training Facility is the physical property used to conduct flight training. It is not the people that actually conduct the flight training (FTO) at that facility.

When a CFI wants to use a property for training it is assessed by RAAus as either suitable, or not, for the type of flying training to be conducted there. If approved it becomes a Registered Flight Training FACILITY. With a FTF or STFT being only property, that property seems to me to be clearly covered under the policy as "property used to conduct flight training".

 

Have the Board and GM been referring to FTF when they are in fact meaning the people or business (instructors) actually conducting the training (which you refer to as FTO)?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

It's a side issue but the last time I looked at RAA Public Liability I think the member cover was $1.75 million. Since a quadriplegic will cost the member around $6 to 7 million plus legal costs getting up towards the same for both sides, and since you can't guarantee you will not cause a QLink Rex to go down or drop debris on to a populated area, I think my recommendation was around $20 million coverage, which by the way is not all that expensive. That being the case, my thought was that it would be better for RAA to drop the cover and lower the subscription rate, to allow the pilot to manage his own protection, perhaps with a minimum insurance requirement.The instructor would fall into the same category.

 

I'm also of the opinion, from very successful experience with a large number of Associations that the body deriving the income should be the one paying the Public Liability Insurance, and this is then reflected in the rates that body charges. So the FTF insures to a safe level and charges that as part of the fee.

 

Under that model RAA operates specifically as an administering body rather than part pilot, part FTF, etc guaranteeing itself as seat at every legal claim.

 

That's a pretty rough picture but I know it has worked for about 30 years.

 

As I see it there are two issues here:

 

1. The FTF's appear to have been given the impression they were covered; that will sort itself out one way or the other

 

2. At the present time I can't find any serious responsible structure above the level of FTF to ensure that those they certify are satisfactorily trained and enforced to operate safely, so I see a huge risk factor on the head of the FTF. This has been greatly exaggerated by the discovery that RAA board members did not put in place an SMS in 2010, and RAA board members and presumably CASA employees again failed to take immediate action when the issue came up this year. The situation may well make nice pickings for a grieving family, including those who have lost members since 2010.

 

I don't see any increase; the lawsuits have been at a steady rate since the mid 1980's where there has been negligence. It's up to the family members left behind to decide what to do, and not all decide to go after the alleged culprit. The problem is, once you get one, you live it for maybe 7 years - it just does not go away.

 

No, but I may well be when a suitable aircraft configuration becomes available. In the meantime I'm supporting Motz who with his contributions over the years has given me plenty of food for thought and practice.

 

I certainly haven't been trespassing on your site, because it seems to me to be not much more user friendly than it was for years ago.

 

You may also have overlooked the fact that you are rather cheekily using someone's open forum site to publicly discuss something it isn't possible to discuss on the site you're in charge of. Hugs and kisses.

In response to Turbs comment above,re lawsuits. I'm not a lawyer but I am led to believe that the whole lawsuit thing has changed recently, which may now allow quicker and easier 'civil lawsuits' for compensation to be filed. Especially so if a decision has already been made against a person, IE pilot error, or some other area of proven blame by a court.

 

We are rapidly catching up with the standards of those in the US, where it's not 'if' a lawsuit will be filed , but when, and for how much ?......... And a civil lawsuit for damages is just a normal follow on after a judgement for the plaintiff.

 

There is a case ongoing at present in this country, which demonstrates this new era very well, and as usual the only real winners are the law firms.....there is no such thing as a gentleman s' game anymore......Maj.....