jetjr Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 insurers see a big difference between personal or recreational uses and commercial Flows across everything from buildings, PI, PL, plant and motor vehicles. ATO also shares this view. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I think you will find the insurance is a secondary concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Insurance issue can be resolved. Those 1000 members that left is a real worry. What ever happened to the RAA's 500-600 new members every year? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Maybe they were counting the temporary memberships for the "TIFs" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Maybe originally set up when flight training was just starting out and helped keep costs low? Now the game is maturing time for them to stand alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Maybe they were counting the temporary memberships for the "TIFs" ? must be something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 I wonder what the number of members who have NOT come through an FTF or a club would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Seems fair that they be asked to contribute. Are they not already contributing? Every student they pass becomes another full member, paying their membership and helping the RAAus to grow. So in reality the FTF's are contributing financially more than most ordinary members. Without them RAAus would wither and die. I would think this alone would be a good reason not to alienate them further. I would be happy for instructors to have a substantial DISCOUNT on membership purely on that basis. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_richo Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 My local school also received the same letter friday. The Owner/CFI is absolutely gobsmacked re the statement in the letter regarding the lack of financial contribution, and the total lack of dialog. Well and truly pulling the rug out from under the feet. They are only doing training out of passion, a desire to share that passion, cover costs to be able to come back next week and do it all again. All the people they take for TIFs, BFR's, day trips, maintaining a small community feel, a meeting place for local flyers to drop in for a chat and coffee between students.. a whole range of things to foster aviation in the local area.. remove that and the loss will certainly be felt hard for a school that has only been operating less than 12 months. Someone commented above that they expected to see membership fees drop in response to removing the FTF's from the insurance... Sorry no, they are increasing across the board, I think from memory $210 per year for a full membership. The hourly rate will reflect the increased costs and will be passed onto students. How this is making flying RAAus affordable I dont know, its certainly making GA look attractive again when you look at that avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 FT has hit the nail on the head. Our board members work for the organisation not as representatives of the members. We vote for a board member to represent our interests and as soon as they are elected they are forced by the other board members to sign a confidentiality agreement, meaning they can no longer keep us informed of what is happening or what decisions have been made on our behalf. Where did this agreement come from and what legal basis does the board have to force new members to sign? When I vote for a board member I don't include the proviso that they have to sign a confidentiality agreement so they can only tell us what the executive want us to know. As far as I know the constitution clearly gives access to all information and documents to a board member so who has the right to deny that access unless this agreement is signed?We have a previously very active and vocal member of this forum recently voted onto the board and I have noticed he has been very quiet about board activities since. Aerochute, I'm assuming by the above statement you are probabily referring to either Jim Tatlock or myself. Jim does post occasionally, and if you've taken the time to notice, I have continued to be an active poster also. I don't believe I have seen your hand up recently for board elections. Reality is when one becomes a board member he/she takes on a huge additional daily work load. my inbox has gone from an average of 2-3 emails a day to now 10-15. Many of these require detailed reading, and a response. Unfortunatly there are only so many hours in the day, and remember this is all unpaid and on a volunteer basis !.....on your behalf. Jim additionally has accepted an excutive position as Treasurer, so I can only imagine what his workload entails. The bottom line is when one adds significantly to a daily workload, something has to be reduced to make way for it. I have reduced my postings on this forum, but still fit it in when I can, and also go out of my way to do my best to keep the members informed where and when I can. It is relaxing downtime for me as it has always been. The members who elected me as board member expect me to perform, and I am doing that. Insurance coverage for FTFs.........The RAA insurance coverage is currently due and being activly delt with by the RAAboard. We are on a 12 monthly cycle with our present coverage. RAA has nothing to do with covering, or not covering, particular entities, it is the insurance companies who allow, or deny coverage in particular areas, IE training...RAA has to navigate this as best it can with the coverage available at reasonable cost.........pure and simple...............Maj..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Indeed you have continued to post Maj, and you are a valuable and knowledgeable member of this forum. My point was not that you are not posting, but have been gagged from discussing the issues that we as members need our reps to keep us informed about. The openness and accountability that most of the reps believed in so strongly before their election now means nothing as they cant say anything without approval from the board as a whole, or the executive. Whilst new board members are forced to sign a confidentiality agreement that seems to cover all board activities ,or not have access to the information they need, we can vote in as many new reps as we like and nothing will change. Any such agreement must be on a case by case basis and only if the subject requires confidentiality for commercial of privacy reasons. I am interested to know how our reps are forced to sign an agreement to get information that our constitution demands they have an automatic right to access. As for standing for a position on the board, at this time i can honestly say i have little interest in being a member of RAAus, let alone a board member. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I am only a member of this monopoly at this time because i have no other suitable option if I wish to continue to fly (legally). I don't think the current situation where a new Rep is effectively gagged will encourage anyone to stand for a board position. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 RAA insurance will cover the PIC for up to $10mil. I always thought the increase in Membership fees was because the insurance had been raised to 20mil? Under the terms of the MoU with the HGFA for CAO95:32 I thought it also had to be 20mil now ......... interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I always thought the increase in Membership fees was because the insurance had been raised to 20mil? Under the terms of the MoU with the HGFA for CAO95:32 I thought it also had to be 20mil now ......... interesting The current policy says $10m but is due to be renewed soon I think? RAA has nothing to do with covering, or not covering, particular entities, it is the insurance companies who allow, or deny coverage in particular areas, IE training...RAA has to navigate this as best it can with the coverage available at reasonable cost.........pure and simple...............Maj..... This is an interesting statement Maj, because that's not what the General Manager has written. It was a conscious decision of the Board according to him. I'm not worried either way and am not claiming anything untoward. But it does go to show the reason why board members from any organisation are often subjected to confidentiality agreements and why it can be a good thing. Sometimes misinformation can be spread by different interpretations of the same message. So it's sometimes best if information comes from a single authorised source such as a CEO or GM. Again, I am NOT saying either of these statements from the GM and a Board member are wrong, just that they give different perspectives which may lead to confusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 The current policy says $10m but is due to be renewed soon I think? This is an interesting statement Maj, because that's not what the General Manager has written. It was a conscious decision of the Board according to him. I'm not worried either way and am not claiming anything untoward. But it does go to show the reason why board members from any organisation are often subjected to confidentiality agreements and why it can be a good thing. Sometimes misinformation can be spread by different interpretations of the same message. So it's sometimes best if information comes from a single authorised source such as a CEO or GM. Again, I am NOT saying either of these statements from the GM and a Board member are wrong, just that they give different perspectives which may lead to confusion. Incorrect Powerwin, The 'conscious decision' that was approved by the board at the last (Sept ?) meeting, was to investigate the current charges and fees....The GM makes it clear in his letter to FTFs, that this is currently only a proposal requiring input from interested parties. It will remain so until it is in the hands of the board, for their approval, or disapproval, at the next meeting in early March..........Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Indeed you have continued to post Maj, and you are a valuable and knowledgeable member of this forum. My point was not that you are not posting, but have been gagged from discussing the issues that we as members need our reps to keep us informed about. The openness and accountability that most of the reps believed in so strongly before their election now means nothing as they cant say anything without approval from the board as a whole, or the executive.Whilst new board members are forced to sign a confidentiality agreement that seems to cover all board activities ,or not have access to the information they need, we can vote in as many new reps as we like and nothing will change. Any such agreement must be on a case by case basis and only if the subject requires confidentiality for commercial of privacy reasons. I am interested to know how our reps are forced to sign an agreement to get information that our constitution demands they have an automatic right to access. As for standing for a position on the board, at this time i can honestly say i have little interest in being a member of RAAus, let alone a board member. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I am only a member of this monopoly at this time because i have no other suitable option if I wish to continue to fly (legally). I don't think the current situation where a new Rep is effectively gagged will encourage anyone to stand for a board position. A certain amount of Board confidentiality is necessary for the board (any board), to operate as they do. Believe me, the average member would not even want to deal with half the rubbish a board member has come his way, on a daily basis. You may for a day or two, but after that you would say 'to hell with all that'.....if on the other hand you enjoy that sort of stuff and making difficult decisions on behalf of your fellow sportsman and women , then raise your hand next time an election opportunity comes your way. I do my best to release information that I think the members need and deserve to see, as best I can...on this forum, and to members individually. I have to respect the board confidentially otherwise I would be removed from the loop. And a board member out of the information loop, is of no purpose as a board member to anyone........ask the few ex board members of recent times who couldn't handle confidentially, just how valuable they are now to the membership ........Maj..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 FT could you explain the difference between "us" and "the RAA"? I think he means 'us' the rank and file members and 'the RAA' being the Board. Alan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Incorrect Powerwin, The 'conscious decision' that was approved by the board at the last (Sept ?) meeting, was to investigate the current charges and fees....The GM makes it clear in his letter to FTFs, that this is currently only a proposal requiring input from interested parties. It will remain so until it is in the hands of the board, for their approval, or disapproval, at the next meeting in early March..........Maj.... It wasn't really the point of my post, but the GM's letter says: The Board has however acted quickly to correct this inequitable arrangement by ensuring that the benefits of Member Liability Insurance cover are – as originally intended – only available to those members who contribute to the annual premium cost (viz. full fee paying flying members and Clubs). While FTFs and SFTFs are currently no longer covered by these policy provisions, the option of extending our cover to include these facilities remains available Emphasis is mine. My point however was actually to agree with the need for board confidentiality and used this as an example of confusing mixed messages. If you look at your statements here and those of the General Manager's they are somewhat different. I'm not having a go at you here at all Maj. I totally understand what you have said here and applaud your efforts to keep members informed....but I would class the GMs letter and your followup posts here as far from clear as to the current status of FTFs insurance cover, if any, by the RAAus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Powerwin, Your second quote : reference the board acting quickly , is before my time as a board member, so I 'm not sure I understand this myself. Unless it is reference to a recent decision ( last week) that the current insurance renewal research is to be done by the GM ( that's his job) with his recommendations given to the board for their approval or disapproval. This is how things operate and is inline with normal protocol within the office/exect structure. I also believe this is how the GM prefers to operate, without too much initial interference from board members. It seems to have worked well with the interview process and recruitment/ recommendations of the new tech manager, National Safety coordinator, and more recently the Ops manager. The board had no hesitations in approving those appointments after the interview processes were well conducted and through, by the GM and others on the interview committees. Time will tell if this process is a good one, however I believe the three new appointees are the right people for their positions, from what I have read about the qualifications of all the applicants.............Maj..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Indeed you have continued to post Maj, and you are a valuable and knowledgeable member of this forum. My point was not that you are not posting, but have been gagged from discussing the issues that we as members need our reps to keep us informed about. The openness and accountability that most of the reps believed in so strongly before their election now means nothing as they cant say anything without approval from the board as a whole, or the executive. There are quite a few of us here that do have experience on one board or another. When we see statements like these we shake our heads and sigh..."if only you knew what it was like". Maj has been critical of our board in the past, and rightly so, but now that he is on the inside I get the feeling he is realising just how much is involved and how little it is possible for a board member to divulge on an open forum. There is a lot of (sometimes useless) information a Board member has to absorb and then make informed decisions which affect many 1000s of people. It is a heavy responsibility for little reward. But if you take on the job you have to do it to the best of your ability without fear or favour. To those board members that are doing just that...keep up the good work! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Powerwin, Your second quote : reference the board acting quickly , is before my time as a board member, so I 'm not sure I understand this myself.Unless it is reference to a recent decision ( last week) that the current insurance renewal research is to be done by the GM ( that's his job) with his recommendations given to the board for their approval or disapproval. This is how things operate and is inline with normal protocol within the office/exect structure. I also believe this is how the GM prefers to operate, without too much initial interference from board members. It seems to have worked well with the interview process and recruitment/ recommendations of the new tech manager, National Safety coordinator, and more recently the Ops manager. The board had no hesitations in approving those appointments after the interview processes were well conducted and through, by the GM and others on the interview committees. Time will tell if this process is a good one, however I believe the three new appointees are the right people for their positions, from what I have read about the qualifications of all the applicants.............Maj..... No qualms at all with that Maj. While I may not agree with everything he's doing, it is clear that the GM is taking decisive actions within the parameters and policies set for him by the Board. This is exactly how things should be done and bodes well for the future. I wish you well for your future endeavours as a member representative Ross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Thank you Powerwin, Looks like we have a good working board currently, and a good leader to lead the way, so the outcome for the year looks positive, however there is heaps to be done for the members, and that remains my primary focus..............Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Andrew, Your not the only CFI I have heard from in the last couple of days, one also in my local area has similar feelings as you. I also had a personal phone conversation with Trevor Bange about the subject this morning. Let me be clear that what Mark is proposing ATM is just that, a proposal, nothing more. It then would have to go to the board for their discussion and approval. I for one would not support any additional levy or fee on our hard working instructors and FTFs...you have my word on that. The decision made last October by the board was to examine all fees, that's all. Trevor made a point this morning that the RAAus spends a lot of money carrying out actions or inspections on FTFs who are not conducting their training operations in line with the RAAus syllabus, as they are required to. He gave one example where two ROCs had to attend with the operations manager. This was the second time they had approached this particular FTF, and they still refused to operate their training in line with guidelines. He quoted the costs involved for transportation and accom for three persons at approx $5000. how many times a year do they do this...Idon't know. Additionally the annual costs involved with the travels and accom of the ops manager, who is tasked with continuely visiting FTFs all around the country, is as you can imagine sizeable, and not getting any cheaper. Mark is currently examining allcosts, as he is tasked to do, that is his job as GM. He then reports to the board with any recommendations or findings. As I said before I personally am not in favour of a levy on our instructors, who after all are the ones constantly bringing the organisation new members and pilots, with the associated ongoing income thereoff. Probably the best action FTFs and instructors can do ATM, is to directly let the GM know by letter or Email, of your displeasure with his suggestions. Motz I will Pm you ok..........Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 A certain amount of Board confidentiality is necessary for the board (any board), to operate as they do. Believe me, the average member would not even want to deal with half the rubbish a board member has come his way, on a daily basis. You may for a day or two, but after that you would say 'to hell with all that'.....if on the other hand you enjoy that sort of stuff and making difficult decisions on behalf of your fellow sportsman and women , then raise your hand next time an election opportunity comes your way.I do my best to release information that I think the members need and deserve to see, as best I can...on this forum, and to members individually. I have to respect the board confidentially otherwise I would be removed from the loop. And a board member out of the information loop, is of no purpose as a board member to anyone........ask the few ex board members of recent times who couldn't handle confidentially, just how valuable they are now to the membership ........Maj..... I in no way wish to question your resolve or credibility. I am questioning a system that appears to gag ALL information regarding board matters and not just those that may need a degree of confidentiality. The subject of this thread is a prime example. 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 did notice that the minutes of the Oct 2013 Board Meeting are still not published on the RAAus website, 3 months later) I have no problem with a confidentiality agreement on a particular subject/matter if the board believes it is justifiable or necessary in the circumstances, and votes to introduce it accordingly. As I have previously asked, why do our board members have to sign a confidentiality agreement to get information they are entitled to under our constitution and who decides what is covered under that agreement? Or is that confidential too? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I in no way wish to question your resolve or credibility. I am questioning a system that appears to gag ALL information regarding board matters and not just those that may need a degree of confidentiality. The subject of this thread is a prime example. 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 did notice that the minutes of the Oct 2013 Board Meeting are still not published on the RAAus website, 3 months later)I have no problem with a confidentiality agreement on a particular subject/matter if the board believes it is justifiable or necessary in the circumstances, and votes to introduce it accordingly. As I have previously asked, why do our board members have to sign a confidentiality agreement to get information they are entitled to under our constitution and who decides what is covered under that agreement? Or is that confidential too? Kev, the decision was not made in Oct to exclude all FTFs...........that's just not the truth. The decision was made that current fees needed to be examined, and that is currently being done by the GM...it is ongoing. No proposals or recommendations have yet been passed to the board for their consideration, on any decision relative to FTFs, however there is ongoing discussion amoungst individual board members, as many are instructors themselves. If you are unhappy about the GMs current direction, then as a member you have a right to let him know directly.....Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now