RAAus stopping membership

[Admin]

To safeguard the site, its content, the domain names, hosting accounts, servers etc etc etc, ownership is all entwined, and setup by a Solicitor and Accountant, in a web that includes a Family Trust, a PTY LTD Company, a separate Registered Trading Name, Corrine, Myself and a mixture of leases and ownerships of different components and more...all this is done to ensure no matter what happens, the site can always continue for everyone.

 

 

[Guest Wigg]

Thank you for that Ian. Sue

 

 

[Captain]

The only little, niggly fear I have is that the promised RA-Aus responses to these straightforward, unambiguous and detailed questions will not be straightforward, unambiguous and detailed answers. Does anyone else have this apprehension??

80 knts

 

Based on what we witnessed at the Temora Meeting of Members when the current Prez made his run for the top job by jumping onto the microphone, and the then Prez & CEO's reaction to my questions as outlined above, I share your concerns ..... but my concerns have long gone past "niggly".

 

However based on that Temora Meeting and subsequently I am of the view that both David Isaac and Don Ramsey will pursue their issues dilligently and professionally and not allow themselves to be snowed.

 

It will be a fascinating AGM ...... but I am still very worried about how this will all be handled by the questionees (although some on the Board are good men).

 

Those questions deserve and demand straight answers for the good of the members and the organisation as a whole.

 

IF the supposed Tizzard-Tully note to the Coroner, or to the police assisting the Coroner, was indeed sent as reported elsewhere I would like to know what authority the CEO had from the Board to suggest to the Coroner's Inquiry that the Board should be reduced in size. IF that is a genuine note that did go from the RAA, be it in draft form or otherwise, it reads to me like the CEO and/or Ops Manager may have been looking to possibly use a set of potential Coroner's recommendations to make changes to the RAA Board structure. Irrespective of what you think of the existing number and structure of the Board that seems a strange, suspect and sanctionable way to go about such a change within an organisation of members.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

7. It appears the CEO failed to provide appropriate surveillance of the previous Operations Manager for the whole of the time that he was the Operations manager’s immediate superior. This lack of supervision allowed serious errors with regard to registration of LSA aircraft to go uncorrected until detected by CASA who issued a Safety Alert to RA-Aus. Three aircraft types whose LSA credentials were not correct even though their registration had been accepted by RA-Aus, were involved in either fatal, multi fatal or potentially multi-fatal accidents. This appears as another example of how the CEO has clearly demonstrated that he is not suited to the role.

Apologies for the nitpicking David but shouldn't this refer to Technical Manager rather than the Operations manager ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[facthunter]

Depends what the chain of comand is. I would have thought the operations manager MANAGES just that. (Operations including the function of techman) I don't know if many of you have followed the fortunes of the "techmen". They seem to disappear suddenly, all the time. WHY?

 

The CEO is just another term for General Manager.( which might be a bit Passe). Probably CEO's can think they are worth more. Regardless of the name used they are responsible to the BOARD. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Apologies for the nitpicking David but shouldn't this refer to Technical Manager rather than the Operations manager ?Cheers

 

John

Yes John, good pick up; it was a typo on my part and I have already corrected my letter to the Board and resent it advising them of the typo. I have also corrected my post.

I took the time to correct it because I didn't want some argumentative point distracting from what really went on. Even with the typo in place the point should be clear to any 'reasonable person'.

 

Regards

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

The AGM is this Saturday Guys.

 

I've attached a proxy form file that Sue sent me so I could hand them out.

 

The file has the instructions on how to fill out and file the proxy form.

 

The proxy needs to be in by 10:00 AM Friday, which means to get it in now, it's going to have to be FAXED or hand delivered (via email won't be acceptable) to the FAX # or address listed on the form.

 

The proposed changes are listed on the proxy form, including a copy of the new proposed proxy form, which is not to be used this time because it hasn't been approved yet (hows that for yuk speak?)

 

If you don't know someone going to the AGM, you can nominate on the form whether you are for or against the individual changes, and nominate the AGM Chairman as your proxy holder.

 

Good luck guys. And if you haven't sent in your proxy vote yet, please do. We need to know what the MAJORITY want.

 

Proxy_form_LJ_September 2012_final_2.doc

 

Proxy_form_LJ_September 2012_final_2.doc

 

Proxy_form_LJ_September 2012_final_2.doc

[Bandit12]

it's going to have to be FAXED or hand delivered (via email won't be acceptable) to the FAX # or address listed on the form.

Can I just say that this sort of thing is what keeps organisations in the dark ages. Since when is a faxed copy any more legitimate than an emailed copy? Both can be fraudulent.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

A set of total instructions and pointers to other posts dealing with the AGM can be found here

 

Andy

 

P.S Shane, your right, but the ironic thing is that the ability to have members change the rules is effectively stifled until the proposed changes are voted in.... chicken or egg, please follow the bouncing ball (medieval as it is) for now so that we might have a chance of bringing in some technology advances through the resolution mechanisms...

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

PeopleA set of total instructions and pointers to other posts dealing with the AGM can be found here

 

Andy

 

P.S Shane, your right, but the ironic thing is that the ability to have members change the rules is effectively stifled until the proposed changes are voted in.... chicken or egg, please follow the bouncing ball (medieval as it is) for now so that we might have a chance of bringing in some technology advances through the resolution mechanisms...

Thanks for putting this together in one pile for us Andy.

 

After having reread it all, and especially as now you've sort of collated it, it appears to me we may have a case of "Group think" going on.

 

If you haven't heard of it before, "Group think" is a phenomenon I first heard of during "crew resource management" (CRM) training in QANTAS back in the early 90s. It's where a group come together to do something, go off the rails, and then maintain their course with a, "If you're not with us, then you're against us, and we'll crush you," mind set. The Bay of Pigs Cuban crisis disaster was given as a classic example. And it was pointed out on the course that the higher the intelligence of the group, the more susceptible they are to the phenomenon. The fix is to A/ recognise the problem, and B/ dismantle the group's pecking order, explain to them what's just happened to them, then put them back to work under a new management system that monitors their behavior and outcomes closely. It is a delicate balancing act, because the Captain has to be allowed to command. But in my experience, it works well if everyone, especially those in the "Group", are aware of the phenomenon, and their susceptibility to it, AND if they have the tools they need to "Manage upwards".

 

With that in mind, may I suggest we really need to get these resolutions through that Don Ramsay, Andy Saywell, David Isaac and the late David Hunt worked so hard to prepare for us.

 

If you haven’t sent in your proxy, PLEASE, down load the form, fill it in, and then FAX it in…

 

Proxy_form_LJ_September 2012_final_2.doc

 

Proxy_form_LJ_September 2012_final_2.doc

 

Proxy_form_LJ_September 2012_final_2.doc

[Thirsty]

Proxy faxed and thanks Andy for putting all that info in one place.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Remember we need an affirmative vote from 75% of the members in attendance or attendance by proxy at the AGM to get these special resolutions passed.

 

As Andy has said on the other thread, for every 'NO' vote we need three (3) 'YES' votes to counter the 'Nos'. That just what the rules say when voting for constitutional change.

 

If you read all the details on the purpose of the resolutions you will find that in all cases the changes give more power to the members to ultimately keep the Board accountable.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I wont be there so who can I name as my Proxy?

 

 

[JabSP6]

Proxy faxed today.

 

Thanks Andy for helping to explain the 4 motions being voted on.

 

Hopefully they will all get thru.

 

Safe Flying

 

JabSP6

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Jab

 

Who did you put down as your proxy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

JabWho did you put down as your proxy

Kyle

Put the proxy down as "The RAAus 2012 AGM Chairman" with Address of RAAus HQ Canberra. There must be a chairman for the AGM to go ahead. Then FAX through to the RAAus Fax number 02 6280 4775 which is on the instruction page at the back of the proxy form (See post a few above by Wayne Mathews if you've lost your form and need a new one to print a new one quickly....Do it now tonight before the world interupts and you loose the opportunity :<)

 

Andy

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Thanks Andy

 

I was pretty sure I did have to nominate someone as my proxy...anyway done and dusted and now faxed

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

People

 

I was sent a pre AGM BVSAC newsletter today. I'd like to be able to add it for people to see but with Ian mid stream changing hosting locations I think he's needing 48hrs in the day and can't help atm because the size is too big. I will reproduce the text of that Newsletter that is relevant to this thread and the AGM...Makes for interesting reading:-

 

A house divided

 

Last month we were all very surprised by RA-Aus Management’s attempt, without Board approval, to submit a list of recommendations to the Lismore enquiry, some of which were clearly political in nature. I wrote to the three people connected with that submission, Steve Tizzard, Zane Tully and Steve Runciman, inviting them to justify their involvement, but did not receive replies. I did, however, get a lot of correspondence (from far and wide) in response to last month’s Flyer, much of it from current and former Board members. It seems that there are many other outstanding issues.

 

So this month I again wrote to Steve Tizzard asking him once more about the Lismore submission, as well as the grounding of the Junior Flyers program on the day before Xmas Eve, and his failure to seek legal advice on that matter. (For an example of the personal repercussions caused by this action, see Cedric Rodrigues’ letter on page 4.) I also asked Steve about his commencement of an action against Ian Baker using RA-Aus funds, the isolation of the same person’s membership application, his failure to complete the RA-Aus Operations Manual after more than three years and a recent failure to provide continuous insurance cover for staff and Board members. So far I have not received any reply.

 

Furthermore, credible information has lately been received about suspect RA-Aus recruitment procedures and the lack of supervision of the former RA-Aus Technical Manager, which resulted in the eventual grounding of three types of aircraft. Pursuant to all these matters, David Isaac, RA-Aus member from NSW, has sent the Board 34 questions on notice for the AGM (see David’s letter in full on page 14). Also, Peter Gilmour, long-time RA-Aus member from Victoria, who last month wrote to Board member Rod Birrell in support of Ian Baker (see BVF Sept.), has now written to RA-Aus President, Steve Runciman, calling for the resignation of the entire RA-Aus Board Executive (see next page).

 

Comment from SQ Board member, John McKeown

 

Arthur, the Board did not know of, or approve the CEO taking legal action against Ian Baker. The President approved this action on his own. I do not know if he had approval of the other ex-members. You would need to ask. Also note that the President can NOT approve any "out of budget" expenses, only the Treasurer can do this up to a limit, then further expenditure must be approved by the full Board. If the President did not have the Treasurer's approval, he is guilty of two issues: acting on his own in contentious issues, and approving expenditure he has no power to approve.

 

Re your request for comment on the questions you recently sent to the CEO, I would not expect formal comment from the CEO, and that is proper and understandable. The CEO is directly responsible to the Board, not the individual membership. He is directed and managed in his day to day duties by the President and the Executive. It is the President and Executive that you should be directing your questions to, not the CEO. You could do that individually, collectively, or even by both means. They are the persons directly responsible to the Membership and must answer your questions.

 

If there are failings by the CEO, (as you list) and they are not addressed, then you have failings by the President and the Executive for not having correct control, management and oversight of the CEO. If there are failings by the President and the Executive and they are not addressed by the Board, then you have negligence and failure by the Board members themselves. If you have negligence and failures by the Board that are not addressed by the membership itself, then you have ultimate failure by the Membership. This usually comes down to member apathy, and laziness.

 

My personal view is that individual members must first become informed and involved in their association, and secondly, demand honesty, transparency, and accountability, from their elected representatives. We continue to have people elected to the Board by default; that is, they are the only candidate, generally because of member apathy. When this happens accountability is lost.

 

Legal advice on the proposed changes to the Constitution (from RA-Aus website)

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, you should all be aware that there are four proposed changes to the constitution that will be addressed at the AGM. I announced in my reply to the submission, put forward by Mr Ramsay and his team, that legal advice had not been received on the proposed changes and that as soon as it was received, you would all be notified…. The Secretary, Paul Middleton, received notification last week that there

 

is no problem with any of the proposed changes to the Constitution put forward by Mr Ramsay and his team. Steve Runciman, President, RA-Aus.

 

Going to the AGM? Flying or Driving? Contact Brooksy

 

The Club President, Paul Brooks has mentioned that the club would appreciate some feedback from members as to whether they are planning to attend and, if so, whether they will be flying or driving. He would also like to know who of those planning to fly might choose to drive if the weather is unfavourable. The club needs a rough estimate for catering, aircraft marshalling, car parking and seating requirements. While certainly not essential, particularly as many members may not receive this email, I'm sure the club would appreciate it if you could let Paul know via email brooksy68(at)gmail.com if you are thinking of coming. Further information about the airfield can also be obtained from ERSA, the GCSFC Club President or from their website www.gcsfc.org.au

 

Farewell Nick (and well done!)

 

My fellow recreational aviators, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing me to be your Southern Queensland Board representative for the last six years. It has certainly been an interesting experience and I'd like to wish my replacement, Mike Smith, best wishes with his Board endeavours. Nick Sigley.

 

From:

 

Peter Gilmour To: 'sjrunciman Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:47 PM Subject: Unconscionable Conduct - Resignations Essential

 

Hello Steve,

 

Further to my email of 27 August 2012 to my State RA-Aus representative, Rod Birrell and which was forwarded to Board members, I am now writing to encourage you and your supporters to resign.

 

Note that I am not contacting you on behalf of Ian Baker ("IB") – he has a lawyer for that purpose. Also note I am not a personal friend of "IB".

 

There are a great number of governance issues which are of concern to me and others and which I believe cannot be rectified until the current incumbents; primarily, the Executive (Steve Runciman ("SR"), Eugene Reid ("ER"), Paul Middleton ("PM")) and the CEO (Steve Tizzard ("ST")) are removed. Board members that support this group should also resign.

 

Your (I use this to include the above collective) action to deny "IB" (yes, it was deny - your deferral was a constructive denial) membership of RA-Aus without according "IB" natural justice was, in my view, a breach of s 50 of the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (ACT). The fact that, at the time of the denial, "IB" was not a member, is of minor interest. He was an "interested party" and a prior member. I am confident that the Court would find this inclusive definition valid in determining the application of s 50. There are other Sections of the Act which I believe also capture your action against "IB". Acting outside the law puts you in conflict with the Deed between RA-Aus and CASA and gives "IB" a cause for action against RA-Aus.

 

Further, it has been suggested to me that the denial of "IB’s" application may have been a move to stop him running for the Victorian State representative position. This is a serious issue and you can be sure it will be investigated. Leaving aside the legality of the denial of "IB’s" application for membership, I can see no clear reason why "IB’s" application would be considered by the Board on 22 September when the Board makes many decisions by circular resolution. On the balance of probabilities, there may be a sinister reason for the delay.

 

Not Acting in the Member’s Best Interests

 

During the GYFTS evaluation process (I was the Chairperson of the Committee), I was, in my opinion, hindered by "ST". I contacted you and told you of my concerns and also told you it had been brought to my attention that he was not properly appointed to the CEO position, i.e., not a short-listed candidate. You stated that that others had brought this to your attention but that you have done nothing to rectify this and he apparently continues to lurch from tragedy to tragedy – Junior Flyers is an example where he disobeyed a Board directive, RA-Aus insurance is another – there are more.

 

You have failed to reply to Member emails about the "ST" coronial inquest submission.

 

As a past Treasurer and current President, you have failed to insure the implementation of management reporting. During this year’s GYFTS process, I could not get an accurate figure of member contributions to the GYFTS fund – bizarre.

 

I regard the recent action against "IB" and the previous (I understand unauthorised) action by "ST", as indicative of a vexatious use of legal process and thus a misuse of members’ funds.

 

What Is Required

 

Steve, RA-Aus has developed a disturbing culture under your stewardship. You, and the CEO who you blindly support, clearly lack the skills to manage the organisation and deliver maximum member benefit. Valuable Board members have been forced to resign and, as a result, RA-Aus has been denied access to considerable skills and is now left with a Board of which the majority, considering the above, are incapable of clear thought. You should resign now and so should the rest of the RA-Aus Executive and the CEO. The Board members that support you should also resign. None of you should ever offer yourselves for re-election again. I find the collective intelligence of the Board in supporting your move against "IB" disturbing. To even consider that you can prevent someone from flying because you don’t like what they say about you shows a serious disconnect in your thought process. Do you think it was CASA’s intention that you should have this power?

 

Steve, you are mistaken if you think that natural causes, resignation and failure at an election are the only ways you can be removed from office. CASA and the ACT Office of Regulatory Services have already been advised of your conduct. RA-Aus, as a Registrable Australian Body, is accountable to ASIC. They are yet to be advised of concerns about the use of member funds for vexatious use of legal process.

 

I have been provided with other information about election concerns, "ST" failings, constitution amendments etc. I have kept this email short but you can be sure if my concerns move to the investigation stage, other information will surface.

 

Please resign now and encourage your supporters to do so. An investigation by an external organisation will not be to your benefit.

 

Regards, Peter Gilmour

 

One consequence of the grounding of Junior Flyers on 23rd December 2011

 

Attention: Board Members Recreational Aviation Australia.

 

Good afternoon all. My name is Cedric Rodrigues. I have been a member since 2007. Over eight months ago, my son Bailey Rodrigues was informed that his Junior Flying membership had been cancelled and therefore his ability to learn with an instructor was no longer possible. This occurred with little or no explanation that made any sense whatsoever. You can imagine his bitter disappointment (and mine) with this decision, particularly as it happened only days before Christmas.

 

I have a great deal of respect for this organisation, however this decision has yet to be justified to me and many other parents and Junior Flyers eight months on, and as such I have sought legal advice. I will if I have to take the legal path to find out who made the decision and on what basis. Was it a Board decision, or that of an individual? Did RA-Aus seek legal advice and if so, what was that advice? Did they follow the advice given? There are many questions that need to be answered to members now, not in another eight months.

 

In my absence from the AGM, I would appreciate this topic be put on the agenda for the meeting and I respectively ask that a motion be put to the floor that "allows for the removal of the age restriction membership of RA-Aus". I would also request that Junior Flying membership be re-instated so that the next generation can learn to fly. Let’s forget about politics and personnel egos, and start promoting a positive organisation that supports and listens to its members.

 

Respectively submitted, Cedric Rodrigues (Mackay QLD) Email:

 

Ian Baker’s membership application finally accepted (albeit per non sequitur)

 

In his letter to IB of 13th August, RA-Aus President, Steve Runciman’s stated, "In accordance with By-Law 12, the Board of RA-Aus may reject an application for membership where the applicant’s previous history indicates his/her behaviour has the potential to bring the RA-Aus into disrepute." On 6th September, after the intervention of IB’s solicitors, Steve wrote again, first referencing IB’s solicitors’ letter, then stating, "The Board was unaware that it was illness that led you to become unfinancial and we have renewed your membership." The really interesting point is that IB’s solicitors made no reference at all to any health issues IB might have had. Perhaps Steve read about it in the Brisbane Valley Flyer?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Yeah, I understand, last year when Turbo and Captain were telling us that things werent quite cosher I didnt believe them and was quite vocal in my oposition but over the last year I have watched as a whole series of events have happened and also listened to the various claims that litigation by X, Y and Z was underway and I wonder just how well protected we are as an organisation. For many of us who own aircraft its vital that we give a shit! and dont find out things arent well when suddenly the organisation gets wound up as a result of legal action concluding and the liability to RAA is well in excess of the insurance policies and our financial reserves. If taht were to happen then all of us who own aircraft on the RAA register and those who earn an income from RAA activities migh well be in a very uncomfortable place....... Last year I would have said what a crock, what a "sky is falling post" but the reality is that because we dont get told enough about what is happening I have no idea if that scenario is "way out there" or imminent. As a member why should I be so uninformed?

 

But if despite my attempts to get people to look at what is happening people think, as I did a year ago, that Im just a vocal stirrer just like I thought of those a year ago then lets see what happens at the AGM. If people think Im a trouble maker then so be it, If I can change my view then perhaps so to can the rest of the membership.

 

Andy

 

 

[Captain]

Andy,

 

In addition to the points that you have made, I was startled and it rang additional alarm bells for me when the Treasurer resigned.

 

And with that Treasurer having been Don Ramsey, who I see as a pretty conservative professional that I was pleased to support and vote for in his quest for the Board, it made me even more alarmed.

 

Particularly when I learnt the various reasons for Don's resignation.

 

Competent answers to David's questions and the adoption of Don's suggested Constitutional changes at this AGM will go a long way to the average member being aware of what is (really) going on.

 

All that has been requested for years has been better communication with the Members ..... and it hasn't really happened. The fact that it hasn't happened makes me wary/suspicious and encourages members to consider the organisation as an OBC, as the cfic*#@ has said.

 

If the facts & actions behind David's questions have merit and if the points contained in your post #360 of this thread are also correct, a major clean up or out will be essential to ensure that good governance is assured.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Andy,........... a major clean up or out will be essential to ensure that good governance is assured.

 

Regards Geoff

I know it's out of context Geoff. But I can't he'p being a smartarse at times. It's a character flaw of mine... Freud would have a field day with the tail end of your last sentence, eh?

 

 

 

[Riley]

Yeah, I understand, last year when Turbo and Captain were telling us that things werent quite cosher I didnt believe them and was quite vocal in my oposition but over the last year I have watched as a whole series of events have happened and also listened to the various claims that litigation by X, Y and Z was underway and I wonder just how well protected we are as an organisation. For many of us who own aircraft its vital that we give a ****! and dont find out things arent well when suddenly the organisation gets wound up as a result of legal action concluding and the liability to RAA is well in excess of the insurance policies and our financial reserves. If taht were to happen then all of us who own aircraft on the RAA register and those who earn an income from RAA activities migh well be in a very uncomfortable place....... Last year I would have said what a crock, what a "sky is falling post" but the reality is that because we dont get told enough about what is happening I have no idea if that scenario is "way out there" or imminent. As a member why should I be so uninformed?But if despite my attempts to get people to look at what is happening people think, as I did a year ago, that Im just a vocal stirrer just like I thought of those a year ago then lets see what happens at the AGM. If people think Im a trouble maker then so be it, If I can change my view then perhaps so to can the rest of the membership.

 

Andy

Despite the possibility that we may not be totally successful this AGM in the endeavours to inaugurate the clean-up of the curious activities of some of the Board seniority, it is certain sure that general member interest and participation in ensuing agenda items has been and will continue to increase massively as a direct result of yours, David's, Peter's and many others determination to put things right. Should all not be achieved at this meeting, the growing groundswell of members dis-satisfaction must surely force changes for the better in the coming year. Thank you all very much for rallying the troops and please keep it up for as long as it takes.

 

 

[David Isaac]

the fact that we have 10000 or so members is our downfall.If members were required to decide the direction /membership of the Board ....we may see something happen. As it stands...nothing will happen!

My guess is that the changes to the constitution will fail (less than 75%)...members questions won't be answered...rather deferred....basically no changes in the Board or Exec......would like to think I'm wrong.

Phil,

I like the style of your challenge ... let me rise to it ...

 

Even though we have 10,000 members and even if 9,900 did not give a toss (I hope that is not the case, but would not matter if they didn't give a toss) ... the remaining 100 interested members can change the whole direction if we get the special resolution up that allows 100 members to call a meeting. All we need is 100 angry interested members at a meeting or by proxy and we can rewrite the constitution, turf out the current Executive and set up the framework for proper corporate governance.

 

In terms of getting the 75% to get the special resolutions up, that should not be difficult; the constitutional requirement is for 75% of those in attendance and by proxy at the AGM, not 75% of the total membership. No one could claim the proposed special resolutions are unlawful (that has been legally cleared now) and no one could claim the special resolutions are harmful to the membership, in fact to the contrary, the special resolutions give the membership the opportunity to have a solid contribution to governance which is certainly not the case at the moment.

 

How could any reasonable thinking person justify that we need 5% of membership (500 members at present) to call a general meeting when only 100 Telstra shareholders can call a general meeting for the size of a public company like Telstra.

 

Regards,

 

 

[turboplanner]

So get your vote in fast CFI - make a difference.

 

 

[winsor68]

IMHO the seriousness of this situation is being underestimated.... if this is not resolved by direct action by what remains of our functional board... if there are not some pretty serious sackings or resignations by the end of this month... RaAUS will likely fall. I am guessing that like so often many are unaware of just how far this has gone behind the scenes. This is so much bigger than IB... these Exec turkeys woke the sleeping giant.