Mark Whitaker Campaign for AAPMBF Trustee

[Mark Whitaker]

* Members of the AAPMBF, I am posting here on Pprune to campaign for your vote as a Trustee to the AAPMBF.

Some of you may be aware that I lost my Class 1 Medical in June 2009 and have been fighting with the AAPMBF for a Capital Payment since my 15 month rule came into effect in September last year.

I have taken as per the rules my dispute to the Financial Ombudsman and it is currently in their hands.

If elected as a Trustee and my dispute has not been resolved I will not be discussing my claim with the other Trustees and will not be present in any board discussions.

There are a number of reasons why I am using PPrune to campaign:
· 170 words on the ballot paper is nowhere near enough for putting forward my views and values for the fund.
· Having had first hand experience of loosing my Class 1 Medical and how this has effected myself and my family.
· Total lack of correspondence as to why my Capital Claim has been rejected.
· My belief that the rules are not well written and too easily controlled by factions within the Trustees. They have no Standard Operating Procedures for Trustees or I believe Staff to follow.
· Bringing the AFAP back from the cold and having a full time Trustee from the AFAP as the fund was originally set up.

Following is my first Profile to be included on the ballot paper. This was forwarded to the AAPMBF office on 4th October:

I nominate myself for the position of Trustee of the Australian Air Pilots Mutual Benefit Fund.

My full reasons for seeking a position on the Board of Trustees are on the website Pprune.

I have made a Capital Claim to the Fund which I have referred to the Financial Services Ombudsman in accordance with the rules of the AAP MBF. I have never been given an explanation from the Trustees as to why my Capital Claim has been rejected. In May 2011, the Chairman advised that I go to the Ombudsman who can legally only force the AAPMBF to pay me a maximum of $280,000 regardless of what is owed and I will have no recourse to sue for the remainder.

I believe the Trustees intend to force every Capital Claim to the Ombudsman to limit the benefit paid to members at $280,000 regardless of the Nominated Capital Benefit for which members are paying coverage.

If elected to the Board of Trustees, I will not be discussing my claim with the Board.

I then received this email on 10th October from the Chairman, Capt David Harget:

Dear Mark,
I would like to take this opportunity to follow up on earlier communication with you in regard to your claim against the AAPMBF. The Board considers your case in detail each month. In arriving at a decision there is a requirement for the Board to take into account the Rules of the Fund and the views of the Fund's medical advisors. Our medical advice to date is that there is likely hood that you would regain a class one medical, if your heart condition was treated surgically. I can assure you that these are very experienced practioners with a great deal of aviation medical knowledge. The other issue you raise is the paucity of correspondence from me as the Chairman. The Fund Manager is tasked with communicating with claimants and this is recorded when necessary and available for future reference. This maintains a single point of contact. The board will meet again next week, and I can assure you that we will again consider your current medical status, and i will personally will correspond with you following this meeting.
Regards David Harget

This is the first response I have had for the reason why my Capital Claim has been rejected by the board. Even though the Trustees feel that all I need is surgery, David Harget does not provide a reference to the rules to support his statements.

I have since followed up with a revised Profile that will appear with the Ballot paper:

I nominate myself for the position of Trustee of the Australian Air Pilots Mutual Benefit Fund.

My full reasons for seeking a position on the Board of Trustees are on the website Pprune.

I have made a Capital Claim to the Fund which I have referred to the Financial Services Ombudsman in accordance with the rules of the AAP MBF. I have never been given an explanation from the Trustees as to why my Capital Claim has been rejected. I was advised by the Chairman on 10 October 2011 that the Trustees’ Medical Advisor has stated to the Trustees only, not to me, ”there is likely hood (sic) that you would regain a class one medical, if your heart condition was treated surgically”. However, all the medical evidence I have seen has indicated that my condition cannot be treated surgically, including the independent advice of the Trustees Medical Expert appointed by the funds Medical Advisor.

In May 2011, the Chairman advised that I go to the Ombudsman who can legally only force the AAPMBF to pay me a maximum of $280,000 regardless of what is owed and I will have no recourse to sue for the remainder.

I believe the Trustees intend to force every Capital Claim to the Ombudsman to limit the benefit paid to members at $280,000 regardless of the Nominated Capital Benefit for which members are paying coverage.

If elected to the Board of Trustees, I will not be discussing my claim with the Board.

I am posting this on Pprune at 5pm EDST 17th October which is when nominations close.

As of 5pm EDST I have not heard from David Harget, nor the Office of the AAPMBF as to the outcome of last Thursdays meeting.

I have spoken with the Financial Ombudsman about my claim and they have told me some interesting facts that I believe all members should be aware of and that the rules of the fund need to change to reflect this knowledge.

The Financial Ombudsman is legally bound to only look at claims up to $500,000 and if they determine in favour of the person making the claim, the Financial Service, in my case Austair Pilots Pty Ltd, the Financial Ombudsman can only legally force a payment of $280,000. The outcome is enforceable and binding to Financial Service, but not to the Applicant. If they find in my favour, and I agree, I am forced to sign a “Deed of Agreement” that I cannot in any way pursue the Financial service provider for the remaining sum that I am owed.

I believe that if Rule 13 Dispute Resolution remains as it is, this board of Trustees will force all Capital Claims to the Financial Ombudsman so they only have a maximum of $280,000 payout regardless of the amount you believe you are covered and is on your policy statement.

It is also my belief that some of the Trustees and Staff have known of this limitation of the Ombudsman and have “Pulled the Wool Over the Eyes” of the remaining Trustees.

The Rules also need to change the role of the Medical Advisor. I believe he (or she) is there to advise and the Trustees not being Medical Experts must take their Advise, Also, if the Medical Advisor, advises that an independent specialist is required, again in my case a Cardiologist, the Rules must reflect that the advice of the Independent Specialist is binding. In my case, I was sent to an Independent Cardiologist whose name was given to me by the Fund in April this year and that Independent Expert came to the same conclusion as to my Cardiologist and the Cardiologist who performed an Angiogram on me at the direction CASA.

Since then I have never been given an explanation as to why their “Independent Expert’s” advise has been rejected.

CASA does not “Suspend” nor do the “Cancel” a medical, they simply state the pilot Does not meet the Standard for a Class 1 Medical due to “x” regulation. For example, in my case in June 2009, after completing my Medical, CASA renewed my Class 2 Medical, but stated in a Letter that my Class 1 Medical would not meet the standard for a Class 1 Medical until I have completed more tests, a “Nuclear Stress Test” and an Angiogram. I informed the AAPMBF that my Class 1 Medical had not been renewed as per the Rules. I also rang the head of CASA Medical Department and he did renew my Class 1 Medical for another 2 months as I had had no symptoms and 2 months was enough time for me to have the additional tests completed. I had those additional tests and I then received another letter from CASA with the 2 months of my medical stating that I did not met the standard for a Class 1. At no time did they Cancel nor Suspend my Current Class 1 which still had a few weeks left to run.

Since that time, I have tried twice to have my Class 1 Medical approved. In each case CASA stated that I did not meet the standard for a Class 1, this correspondence was from 6th July 2011:

CASA has received the information it requested in support of your application for a medical certificate. Unfortunately, the information indicates that your history of low back pain requiring opiate and benzodiazepine medication and ischaemic heart disease with unrectified reversible ischaemia means that you still fail to meet the criterion for medical standards 1 and 2 as set out in Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Parts 67.150.1.1,1.2,1.3, 1.9 and 67.155.2.1,2.2 and 2.3

CASA has now completed its assessment of your application and in accordance with CASR 67.180, has decided to refuse to issue you with the medical certificate.

CASA’s reasons for refusing to issue you with a medical certificate are:
• You have unresolved back pain that is being treated with sedating medication unacceptable for use in aviation
• You have evidence of reversible myocardial ischaemia, unresolved, which puts you at elevated risk of future myocardial events

Unresolved (my bolding) in this case means surgery. CASA has never given me any advice, nor is it their duty to give any advice, but they will never review a Class 1 Medical application by me until I have surgery. As my original Claim was for my Cardiac Problem, my other medical conditions currently do not affect my Capital Claim, nor have I ask extra from the fund.

I believe the Trustees need to be more involved with those members who have medical conditions and the rules need to change to reflect a more active involvement on a personnel level.

Individual Trustees need to “Case Manage” members who have lost their Class 1. Under Rule 14 (b) Trustees must do everything in the power to help the member, this has not happened in my case. At no time have I been asked for more information from my DAME or my Cardiologist. I have never been given advice as to what the Trustees and their Medical Advisor wanted me to do to regain my Class 1. Nor what they needed to be satisfied that I would not regain my Class 1. A set of SOP’s would rectify this situation and a member should have a Trustee informing him or her progress.

I had no communication from the Trustees, other than the occasional email from the Manager saying my monthly payment had been approved, some months I had no communication from the office, or the money would turn up in my bank account with no communication.

Since I had no communication for more information nor an explanation as to why they disregarded their “Independent Experts” advice, I asked my DAME and Cardiologist the questions that should have come from the Trustees.

Both my DAME and Cardiologist answered those questions and I passed this information on to the AAPMBF. Again, there was no correspondence from the Trustees regarding this information.

This happened at the same time as I was trying to renew my Class 1 Medical, knowing full well that CASA would not approve my Class 1. My DAME added an addendum to my application stating all my medical problems, including my Coronary Disease, Back problems and my mental state due to the lack of communication from the Fund. My DAME put me on anti-depressants and sent me to a physiologist with the reason for my depression and stated this to CASA as he should.

After CASA had rejected both my Class 1 and Class 2 Medicals and I had forwarded all of this correspondence to the Trustees, on my next visit to my DAME, he informed me that The Chairman of the AAPMBF, David Harget, had sent him a personnel letter (on letterhead and signed) roasting him for informing CASA that my mental state was due to the AAPMBF and answering the questions that I had put forward to him. David Harget has never written to me on Letterhead, only vie email and usually from his private email, not [email protected] ([email protected]) nor has he ever called me on the phone.

I believe there are some very good Trustees currently serving on the board, but “Factions” within are holding the fort and this needs to be stopped and the fund put back on its original intended path, “By Pilots, for Pilots” .

I would have lawyers re-write the full rule set and present this to members for a vote. I would not change the intent of the rules, but make them more coherent and easier to understand both from the members and the Trustees point of view, and inline with current CASA policy.

Other rules that I believe need changing are “As or With Co-Pilot” restriction. If you are a Single pilot, CFI, Instructor, Ag pilot your career is over, but it is not currently covered by the current rules.

It has always been my belief that the 15 month rule is for thing like a broken hip, it will mend but it will take time. Also if you are 30 and contract cancer, you would probably want to fight it and get your Class 1 Back even if it does take 4 years, but if you are over 50 your career is effectively over. What is wrong with signing a deed that states if you ever get your Class 1 Renewed you would pay 100% of the Capital Benefit you received back to the Fund?

I would change the rule that only Current Members with active Class 1 Medicals can become Trustees, effusively doing myself out of position of Trustee.

There are other rules such as if you loose your Class 1 due to problems with Pregnancy the fund is exempt from any payout. I believe this is discrimination.

The money in Trust is the members’ money, for the members and the rules must reflect this. I believe the most important rule is Rule 1 (b) OBJECTS, and I believe all other rules are there to back this rule. I would propose that the re-written rules come as a whole with both the lawyers explanation to the change of wording and the Trustees interpretation which would be backed up with a set of Standard Operating Procedures.

I am not trying to get elected just to get my Capital Payout, it is now in the hands of the Ombudsman. I want to become a Trustee to fix the problems I have found within the Rules and the organisation having lost my Class 1 Medical and I have personnel experience with the current system which I believe is broken. I would like to help fix it.

Regards

Mark Whitaker, 53yo, 32 years as a Pilot, ex H.C Sleigh, Skywest, East West Airlines, Lived and Flown in Luxembourg, Malaysia, PNG and all parts of Australia, 8 Years Geophysical Survey Pilot, 8 years as Chief Pilot of Airnorth and Regional Pacific Airlines

[Mark Whitaker]

The Chairman has finally descided to contact me:

From: Chairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Claim
Date: 18 October 2011 10:27:45 AM AEST
To: Mark Whitaker <[email protected]>

Mark, the Board has once again considered your claim and decided to continue your monthly benefit. The Manager has returned from leave and should be your first point of contact. Regards David Harget.

Still no reference to my Capital Claim nor backing up his last correspondance with what Rule my Capital Claim has been rejected after requesting the Rule he is using for rejecting my claim.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[illusion]

Mark,

Before aspiring to manage $85 million of others money you may wish to sort your own issues out.

[flyingfox]

I have great sympathy for your position and hope that a just outcome results for you. However I think it would be inappropriate for you to be a Trustee of the AAMBF while you have a claim pending. The trustees have always managed the fund with care and integrity. You should pursue your claim first before standing for a position there due to the obvious conflict of interest.

[Mark Whitaker]

* It seems that going on Pprune is the only way I can get any answers to my Capital Claim and this is why I am standing for election as a Trustee.

I have just received this email from the Chairman:

From: Chairman [email protected]
Subject: Claim
Date: 20 October 2011 3:44:42 PM AEST
To: Mark Whitaker <[email protected]>

Dear Mark
I am writing to you on behalf of the board of Austair Pilots Pty Ltd (Board), the trustee of the Australian Air Pilots Mutual Benefit Fund (Fund).

Your claim for a capital benefit for the condition of reversible myocardial ischaemia, unresolved, has not been approved simply on the grounds that the Board is currently unable to conclude that the suspension of your Class One Medical Certificate is permanent. The Board's decisions, including its decision to pay monthly benefits, are made under the rules read as a whole (specifically the letter and spirit of Rules 7 and 8) on medical advice.

Please feel free to contact the office of the Fund should you wish to present the Board with further relevant information or to discuss this matter further'

Yours sincerely

David Harget.

For background for all members, about 4 or 5 years ago CASA changed their requirement for the Cardiac "Stress Test" from 9min 30 sec to what the administering Cardiologist required to be satisfied that the Pilots heart met CASA's requirements.

Over the years it became common practise for pilots to "Step Off" the treadmill at 9min 30 sec and CASA would pass their medical.

Any abnormality was not pick up until the Pilot would have a Heart Attack, have bypass surgery and after a period of time later CASA would again approve their Class 1 Medical.

Now we have a situation where any heart disease, such as I have is pick up much earlier and can be treated successfully without surgery, but CASA states that it does not meet the standard for a Class 1 Medical.

On my first stress test where the problem became apparent was at 10 minutes, the Cardiologist stopped the test at 10min 25 sec. If I had "Stepped Off" at 9min 30 sec, I would still have a Class 1 but I would have no idea I had contracted heart disease.

The Cardiologist (independent Expert) who the fund sent me to in Brisbane has me on the Treadmill for over 12 minutes and he came to the same conclusion that both my Cardiologists came to, Medical intervention only, only drugs and no surgery.

My Cardiologist has stated to the AAPMBF Trustees that he believes that 70% of patients with my disease picked up and treated as I have been will never require surgery.

I may have a Heart attack and require bypass surgery when I am 70 or 80 years old, but in the mean time I will still have no Class 1 Medical.

The Rules need to change to reflect CASA requirements and reality. I will never get my Class 1 back, but just because some pilots in the passed have had surgery and regained their Class 1 before CASA changed there own rules, these Trustees think my case is the same.

Having had 3 different Cardiologists state that all I need is drugs, there is no way any Cardiologist would be prepared to operate on me as the likelihood of complications from surgery is greater than doing nothing. This has all been relayed to the Trustees and they still have the above attitude and it is only now that they are giving me any explanation there refusal to pay my Capital Claim.

As I said earlier, I believe the fund is good but it needs to go back to “By Pilots, for Pilots” not just another insurance company!

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Capt OverUnder]

I hope you can resolve this with the MBF asap Mark ...... As an MBF member , I have read the points you raise , ie payout could be limited by the financial ombudsman in reference to a dispute with the board..... I would like to have this explained by the board asap as should the other 1800 or so members!:ugh:
Good luck with your nomination

[Mark Whitaker]

* If elected as a Trustee, I would be proposing changes to the administration and communication of the fund.

· In this day and age, we can fill out the Commonwealth Census is “On-Line”. I believe voting for Trustees should be “On-Line”, it would be cost effective, quicker and I am sure participation would be higher as it is an easy way to vote. Candidates would also not be restricted to 170 words, but put there case forward on the Funds Web Site in as many words they personally require for put forward their point of view, ideals and values for the fund if elected.
· I would also open communication with CASA Medical and get raw statistics from CASA as to what health problems are becoming apparent or changing and passing this info onto members.
· I would also have the Funds Medical Advisor inform the Trustees to any change to the CASA rules such as the 9min 30sec rule for the Cardiac Stress Test and keep fund members informed of these changes.

From talking to CASA Medical Doctors, their charter is now to keep Pilots flying, the Doctor I talked to gave me an example that Epileptics can now hold a Class 1 under strict conditions (as or with Co-Pilot, etc) and show they have not had a seizure for “x” period of time on specific drugs.

I believe the fund needs to change into the 21st century without losing its ideals that formed it in the passed and I believe has it has currently lost its way. This is now why their wording is “you do not currently meet the standard under “x” regulation” and they now no longer Suspend or Cancel Medicals.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Wobby]

So surgery will fix you but you refuse it or what??

[clear to land]

Wobby-1st post-hmmmmm. Mark raises some interesting points. Also, anyone who has had dealings with the medical fraternity would know that no surgeon will operate if they consider it unnecessary. The risks of the GA alone will determine this. The MBF approach in this case certainly appears to be that of an Insurance Company, rather than a Fund FOR the Members. Surely the Fund cannot be advocating what has been determined as medically unnecessary surgery! :confused:

[Wobby]

Yeah long time reader first time poster. As the question was not directed at you I will respect your opinion and leave it at that. Mark??

[Josh Cox]

First let me start by saying I do not know Mark and I wish him well.

But if you'd let me play devils advocate, in this instance:

* There is a medical condition that prohibits flying,

* There is a surgical procedure that can remove/cure this issue, but like all surgery there is a risk,

* A non surgical option is available at considerably less risk, yet CASA will not be able/willing to re-issue a medical,

* Due to the risk associated with the surgery, for no other reward ( in the Cardiologists mind ) other than being able re-obtain a class one medical, the surgery is not recommended, but not prohibited ?.

Perhaps the Cardiologist does not consider the regaining of a Class One medical as a risk worth considering, the big question is whether the required surgery is "stenting" or "open chest surgery", both have very real risks, more so with the open chest.

You have evidence of reversible myocardial ischaemia

So, unless the condition is permanent, the MBF can not / will not pay out.

I would bet they have paid out claims in the past only to find that 2 years later the pilot has the surgery and regains his/her medical, what does the MBF do then ?.

Debt recovery in Australia is a very very long and drawn out process, you can not recover money that someone does not have.

Whilst I see Marks situation as unfortunate, I'd suggest that either:

* the fund needs to change the rules,

* CASA needs to change its standard,or,

* Mark needs to have the surgery.

I do not know which, but again, I wish Mark well.

Mark, I post using my own name, so believe what I am posting, I feel the MBF is a fantastic product and has helped out many many members since its inception.

[Mark Whitaker]

Josh,
CASA will not issue a Class 1 to a person with reversible myocardial ischaemia due to the risk of Heart attack or Cardicac arrest when the Pilot is under stress, ie heart rate increases.

The name reversible myocardial ischaemia does not mean the disease is reversable to a normal heart. In layman’s terms I have myocardial ischaemia at all times and the condition will not improve without surgery, the reversiblemeans under stress, eg high heart rate, the condition becomes worse by restricting blood flow to sections of the heart that those arteries go too reducing oxygen to those heart muscles. When the Stress is reduced, the condition reverses to myocardial ischaemia, it does not stay in the same state as when under stress.

My Cardiologist has ruled out “Stents” as I have 2 arteries partially blocked and 1 of those is just passed a junction fork of 2 arteries, one of which is OK. He tells me that the risk of a stent in this artery is too risky as it may dislodge some particles of the blockage and go into the other artery. Not a good outcome. The only surgery I can have is bypass and as I have stated before, no Cardiologist will undergo this procedure when I have 3 Cardiolgists stating that it is unnecessary with current drugs. That is why the Cardiologist the AAPMBF sent me to had me on the Tread Mill for over 12 min, I had no chest pain and no signs of heart failure, therefore he agrees with my other 2 Cardiologists that all I require is Medication. Cardiologists are only interested in the best interest of the patient, not the requirements of CASA.

*
As for payout a pilot and he then regains his Class 1, the “Deed” is a suggestion that needs debating. Also a Pilot with Type 2 Diabetes (as I also have) 15 years ago he would be unable to hold a Class 1 under the rules of CASA at the time and he would have been paid out. About 12 years ago CASA changed the rules and allowed Type 2 Diabetics there Class 1 “as or with co-pilot” if treated with specific drugs, but not insulin dependant Type 2 Diabetics, they cannot hold a Class 1. A member in the 90’s would have been paid out and then eligible for regaining his Class 1. Obviously a “Deed” would not be appropriate in this case as CASA changed the rules and the Pilot did not “Deceive” the fund. All these arguments need to be debated for the best outcome for members and the fund.



Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Mark Whitaker]

* On Friday afternoon 21st October, I had an email from the Office of the AAPMBF advising that my profile to be included with the ballot paper was over 170 words and must be changed and submitted by COB 24th October. I will not repeat the email as I have done from the Chairman as the Administrator is an employee and under the direction of the Trustees.

My profile as I have just submitted and will appear with the ballot paper is as follows:

I nominate myself for the position of Trustee of the Australian Air Pilots Mutual Benefit Fund.

I believe in the Fund being transparent, communicative and continuing the professional ethic of a fund run by Pilots for Pilots. I believe all voting should be “on-line” and profiles posted on the AAPMBF Website with no restrictions.

My full reasons for seeking a position on the Board of Trustees are on the websites Pprune and pirep.

In May 2011, the Chairman advised that I go to the Ombudsman who can legally only force the AAPMBF to pay me a maximum of $280,000 regardless of what is owed and I will have no recourse to sue for the remainder.

I believe the Trustees intend to force every Capital Claim to the Ombudsman to limit the benefit paid to members at $280,000 regardless of the Nominated Capital Benefit for which members are paying coverage.

If elected to the Board of Trustees, I will not be discussing my claim with the Board.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Algie]

Mark,

I am sure I am not the only one pondering the "how to vote" issue for the MBF.

I am much troubled by your belief that:

"The Trustees intend to force every Capital Claim to the Ombudsman to limit the benefit paid to members at $280,000 regardless of the Nominated Capital Benefit for which members are paying coverage"

This Board intention is a clear betrayal of trust and deserves regulatory if not legal action, not just condemnation. Could you please help my decisions by providing the following:

1. Evidence (for example emails, Board minutes or audit reports) that one or more members of the Board have a plan to subvert the rules

2. The number of cases in the past 5 years where despite qualifying for a Capital benefit under the rules, a member was denied the benefit and instead forced to the Ombudsman.

3. The reports you (or others) have made to the regulatory authorities overseeing the operations of the Board under its financial services licence.

4. The response of the regulatory authorities to reports about the Boards conspiracy to avoid the payouts required by the rules.

5. The dates of any special general meetings of members called (or proposed) to discuss the Board's conspiratorial and unethical behaviour

6. The names of any individual directors known to you to be leaders of the conspiracy.

7.The amount of any benefits the director(s) leading the conspiracy receive (now or in the future) by denying legitimate benefits to members.

8. The number of members in the past 5 years (if any such people exist) who have had Capital or Monthly Benefits paid without recourse to legal or Ombudsman action to force the Board to make a payment

With this information I am sure many would be able to assess better the options available when they receive their voting papers.

Thanks

Algie

[Mark Whitaker]

It appears that I may have implied a conclusion I did not mean, so here is the Nomination Profile that will be with the Ballot Paper:

I nominate myself for the position of Trustee of the AAPMBF.

I believe in the Fund being transparent, communicative and continuing the professional ethic of a fund run by Pilots for Pilots. I believe all voting should be “on-line” and profiles posted on the AAPMBF Website with no restrictions.

My full reasons for seeking a position on the Board of Trustees are on the websites Pprune and pirep.

In May 2011, the Chairman advised that I go to the Ombudsman who can legally only force the AAPMBF to pay me a maximum of $280,000 regardless of what is owed and I will have no recourse to sue for the remainder.

I have no evidence but it is my opinion that the Trustees may intend to force every Capital Claim to the Ombudsman to limit the benefit paid to members at $280,000 regardless of the Nominated Capital Benefit for which members are paying coverage.

If elected to the Board of Trustees, I will not be discussing my claim with the Board.


Regards
Mark Whitaker

[paul makin]

Mark’s case raises interesting aspects for members to ponder when they get their voting papers.

Captain Harget’s latest response to Mark, is the only one where rules used in his case have actually been quoted, and then only in a generic sense ie Rules 7 and 8. Each of those rules have many sub-parts but clearly Capt Harget wishes not to be pinned down on exactly how and why Mark’s claim has dealt with the way it has. Capt Harget’s acknowledgement of the invocation of Rule 8 is a critical one as will be explained in the following.

Mark’s claim, as with most, started out as a claim pursuant of rule 7 Disability Benefits. At sometime after 15 months and prior to the expiration of 60 months the Board may progress a claim to a Capital Benefit claim (Rule 8). If the Board (and medical adviser) are in agreement that the status of the claimant is unlikely to change and that the loss is indeed permanent, then under rule 8(a) capital payment may be made. That is not the case for Mark as the Board do not have a concensus.

Rule 8 (b) applies to Mark’s case. The Board are not in agreement, so under the rules they are to call upon their medical adviser, currently Dr Liddel, to appoint another independent specialist to assess the claimant. The rules state that it is this opinion that should be used in the determination of the case. In Mark’s instance the specialist so appointed, agreed with the other two specialists that medical intervention was the appropriate treatment. As Capt Harget suggests that the Boards determination was made on medical advice, then this advice must have come from Dr Liddel as the three cardiac specialists made no recommendations for surgery. The rules are quite clear that the opinion of the appointed specialist is to be arbiter. Three specialist say medical, Dr Liddel (who is not a cardiac specialist) says surgery.

Rule 8 (b) entertains only two possible outcomes each of which is dependent on the outcome of a reapplication to CASA for the reinstatement of a Class 1 medical certificate. If the certificate is reissued, payments cease and if it is no reissued, capital payment is to occur forthwith.

Mark has jumped through all the hoops, the specialist determined his condition, the results were passed to CASA, and his Class 1 medical was denied. Contrary to Capt Harget’s assertion that rules 7 and 8 have been complied with, the only provision of rule 8, yet to be completed is the requirement of the AAPMBF to make Mark’s payment forthwith.

Instead, having disliked the outcome, the Board has reverted Mark’s case to a Rule 7 Disability claim, and has continued his monthly payments. Curiously this action goes outside the Rules. There is no provision within Rue 8 to revert to Rule 7. The Board in proceeding to Rule 8, as is indicated by their appointment of an independent expert, and confirmed by Capt Harget, are committed to that rule to its logical end. Even if there were a provision to revert to rule 7, by rejecting Mark’s claim in the face of three expert opinions, the Board has in effect said that Mark, through his unwillingness to undergo surgery, is not not taking all reasonable steps to regain his class 1 medical. Under Rule 7(l) this would disqualify him from further payments. By extension, as the Board continue to pay Mark monthly benefits, they must be satisfied that he is indeed taking all REASONABLE steps to regain his medical status. So which is it?

This is where this case becomes relevant to the up coming vote for Board positions.

For the past 12 or so years the AAPMBF has become increasingly polarised and introspective, to the point now where we have a dominant faction of older, retired ex members, who with support from a couple of other individuals with independent agendas, dictate the direction of the fund. Couple that with a Fund Manager who is more interested in commercial outcomes rather than Mutual Benefit, and we have a toxic mix.

For too long the Board has failed to come to grips with changing medical and licensing standards. What was in place in the past is no longer adequate nor will it be in the future. For the past 4 years I have been pushing a barrow in respect of the effect an “as or with co-pilot” restriction has upon a pilots medical certificate. This one aspect, under the current rules, adversely affects that large section of our membership who operate in a single pilot environment. Despite the assurance of Chairman Williams in his 2008 summary, that reviews of the Fund Rules were ongoing, this important aspect of the fund has received no attention. Instead, over the period since 2008 to the present, the only significant changes to the rules have been to strengthen the influence of the Board and the Manager, to decrease the influence of the membership and to shroud the whole organisation in secrecy. How many members are aware that the secret “constitution” imposed last year, advocates payment of Trustee Directors and allows the appointment of an unlimited number “Secretaries” with no reference to the membership. The organisation has been well served by volunteers (most ) with altruistic motivation, since it’s inception, why change it. Capt Harget in response to a direct question on this matter at the last AGM, gave his support to the concept.

Fortunately two members of the old guard are time expired and are unable to re-stand for election. This has the potential to change the dynamic of the organisation.

When considering the candidates remember:
Capt Harget has been in the chairman’s position for the past year, during his tenure no rules have been changed. Single pilot operators had limited protection when he took over the reins and there has been no change, proposed, to the status quo during his tenure.
In respect of Mark’s case his assurance that the Rules have been complied with does not stand scrutiny.
Capt Harget is an advocate of paid Directorships.

The balance of power within the AAPMBF may very well lie with the new board members you elect.

Choose wisely.

Paul Makin
Former Chairman of Trustees AAPMBF
37 years membership AAPMBF

[Capn Bloggs]

we have a toxic mix.
You are a disgrace.

[Red Jet]

Compare the eloquence between Captain Paul Makin and the rude Capt. Bloggs, and judge for yourself who is disgraceful! The legal profession lost a big resource, when young Makin decided he'd fly rather than make his living in a Court of Law. Our gain, their loss!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Red Jet, I don't have a problem with Mark and Paul et al putting their side of the story. However, I am not going to tolerate anybody calling the MBF board and the manager "a toxic mix". How about you ask Paul to stick to objectivity instead of making statements such as that? I didn't think you would. As I said, disgraceful.

[Wobby]

Red Jet how much did Makin pay you to post that rubbish:=:=:=

The fund rules are beyond him, his posts might look ok but they are full of his opinion with no fact. He has a political axe to grind and will say or do anything. The sciolist.:mad:

[The Kelpie]

When do the voting papers get issued?

The intention of the fund is clear, 'for pilots by pilots' time to change the dynamic and fight for a fund that offers a level of protection for the pilots of today and the future - all of them, not just multi-crew guys!! That will never happen with dinosaurs on the board.

As a ex legal eagle myself I recognised some time ago that the scheme's policy needs an overhaul in the face of constantly changing CASA policies etc. The members gave the Chairman the mandate to do so, but this never eventuated. The matter of single pilot provisions raised by Paul Makin is of particular concern as is the boards apparent continued reluctance to review and make changes where necessary.

The fund can not just be a vehicle to extract premiums from companys through the award provisions to line the pockets of a few chosen individuals, it must be a real safety net to those it was originally designed to protect!!

My vote this year will be a well considered one and you very well may get it Mark as your intentions, claim aside seem to be in the right place.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[slice]

hmmmm Wobby, you better put up or shut up! Please tell us why the rules are 'beyond' Paul Makin ? Explain in detail what about his posts make him a sciolist ? I, not being intimately familiar with the fund rules, can't be sure one way or the other, but as mentioned previously at least he puts forward an eloquent argument as opposed to the silly accusation from yourself. I don't find the term 'toxic mix' in any way outrageous if in someones' opinion that is what we have.

[clear to land]

True colours shown Wobby? I sent correspondance to the Fund Director asking about the changes required to protect single pilot ops (which is not me btw). The reply would be worthy of a Labour politician! As you appear to be knowledgeable about current fund management, and condemning of PM's rational and well put arguement, perhaps you would like to counter it in a similar vein. If you can I will certainly pay attention. If not-then I, and anyone else reading, can only come to one conclusion. Over to you.

[Capn Bloggs]

The fund can not just be a vehicle to extract premiums from companys through the award provisions to line the pockets of a few chosen individuals
You know Kelpie, I had a lot of respect for you over the senate stuff, but with comments like the one above, I am now beginning to wonder why. That is in the same class as Paul's toxic mix.

As for public spats on the internet, obviously the MBF board are not into that sort of thing, and fair enough too. Perhaps if the truth was revealed to the masses the critics may have a slightly different view on the whole MBF situation. I have said before that I have the utmost respect for the MBF board members I know and some of the conspiracy theories espoused here about them and their actions are so far wide of the mark it's a joke. The incumbents have worked bloody hard to tidy the whole show up to the point of it being a first-class operation.

Fortunately two members of the old guard are time expired
Old...and wise.

12 months to make a big change a rule? Are you actually aware of the process that is required to get it right?

[The Kelpie]

You know Kelpie, I had a lot of respect for you over the senate stuff, but with comments like the one above, I am now beginning to wonder why. That is in the same class as Paul's toxic mix.

Thank You Bloggs.

Unfortunately it is just a way of the world that our views will not always align and I just deal with issues as I see them based on the information I have to hand.

Cheers

The Kelpie

[Mark Whitaker]

* Capn Bloggs

Perhaps if the truth was revealed to the masses the critics may have a slightly different view on the whole MBF situation.You have nailed the problem with the current Trustees.

Their communication skills are non existent, they have not corresponded with me and I have a claim and they do not correspond with the general membership.

That is why if I am elected I would push for a transparent, open and communicative MBF.

Your statement re-enforces the general conception, true or false, that it is a “Secret Society”.

All of the above accusations all come down to their refusal to communicate with membership.


Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Algie]

Hypothesis: Lack of transparency in the Board's deliberations?

Reality: If the Qantas Board, or Rex, or Federal Cabinet, or CASA or any other outfit which is the subject of complaint posts on Prune had the same level of access, accountability and transparency the posts on Pprune would fall by 80%

I am not a fund member, have not made a claim on the Fund, am not a secret supporter of the election of any Board member, am not standing for election and don't even live in Australia any more.....but I have had a long career with peace of mind knowing the MBF is there. I would bet my Collingwood membership that there are no secret societies involved in the MBF. No black helicopters, secret handshakes, slush funds, Area 51 or hideaways for the Second Gunman.

There is however an impressive list of member privileges and protections:


It only takes 20 members to call for it and there has to be a Special Meeting where questions can be asked, motions put, positions spilled. The quorum for a Special meeting is only 10.
There is an Annual General Meeting each year
The Fund has a Financial Services Licence and is answerable to that regulator for both regular reports as well as as mandatory reporting of key events
The Fund’s accounts are audited
The Fund’s rules are published
Members get to vote on every rule change
The address and telephone number of the Fund are published
All the board members are elected
Member claims are reviewed every month an grievances can be taken to court or the Ombudsman


Two things will never change-and thank goodness:

1. The Board DOES NOT discuss private and confidential members medical situations in public forums
2. The MBF has only one purpose, to look after pilots and their families.

Mark-you are receiving a handsome monthly payment with no strings and for no work from the very Fund you are publicly bucketing. I don't know you but may I suggest that is beneath you. The fact that the Board has not yet decided on an outcome that suits you is not by itself prima facie evidence of collusion, conspiracy or malevolence.

I am sure you are working extremely hard to get your medical back and I am sure I join all Pruners in wishing you well

Algie

[twodogsflying]

Algie,

I am not sure where you are coming from; your first post on this thread looks like a bunch a questions from a Lawyer.

Your handle has you from Brisbane, but you no longer live in Australia.

You are not a member:

.....but I have had a long career with peace of mind knowing the MBF is there.

If you are not a member why would you use that statement and post in the way you have?

Sui Generis

[Algie]

Fairly clear-I am retired, I am not a lawyer, was a happy MBF member for many years, Brisbane is home, but I live elsewhere. I remain an ardent fan of the AFAP and the MBF.

I have simply posted some facts-from my old copy of the rulebook and yes it might be out of date-and some opinion about the board-which has Mark W has pointed out we are all entitled to.

I might note that I, like many others beaten to death by the stock market, live in retirement on (probably as I do not know the detail) a lower monthly income than Mark has from the Fund and unlike Mark I do not have years left in me to get my licence back and return to flying.

I am sure Mark is working hard to get back to the cockpit and I sincerely wish him well. Though I am no longer eligible to vote for Mark I wish him well for the elections knowing that if elected he will be duty bound to act diligently in the interests of all Fund members, not just those who are vocal or aggrieved.

Algie

[Capn Bloggs]

they have not corresponded with me...
Really? You have posted here various correspondences between you and the MBF. It's just that you don't like what the MBF is saying. Are you telling us everything about the communication between you and the MBF?

I say again: Perhaps if the truth was revealed to the masses, the critics here may have a slightly different view on the whole MBF situation.

As for your AFAP point:
· Bringing the AFAP back from the cold and having a full time Trustee from the AFAP as the fund was originally set up.
The MBF is far better off with the new structure. The AFAP/MBF "old boys club" is no longer appropriate in this day and age of accountability. Serious money is involved and serious, unbiased decisions need to be made. I am a member of the AFAP but not the MBF, and I or the people repesenting me at the AFAP have no business in the affairs of the MBF. What exactly is the point of having an AFAP appointee on the MBF board if not to influence it's activities, obviously for the good of the AFAP?

At the instigation of the current board members (those old has-beens), the MBF is more transparent than ever, with all members getting to opportunity to vote via secret ballot as opposed to the previous show of hands of interested members at AGMs.

.....but I have had a long career with peace of mind knowing the MBF is there. If you are not a member why would you use that statement and post in the way you have?
Perhaps he's retired?

[Mark Whitaker]

Capn Bloggs,

Yes you have pulled me up with an untruth, They have corresponded with me, but I had no correspodanse as to the reason why my Capital Claim has been rejected for the passed 12 months since the 15 months clause came into effect. I only got that correspondance after starting this thread.

If you believe that acceptable fair enough, I on the other hand do not think that is acceptable. That is why I am standing as a Trustee, allowing myself to all and sundry here on Pprune.

At least here on Pprune members are getting to know me, hopefully asking themselves serious questions and then vote according to what they want there elected Trustees to do.

Your statement:
At the instigation of the current board members (those old has-beens), the MBF is more transparent than ever...

Why should I beleive all members should be asking the current Trustees:
1. Did you know of the Ombudsmans restriction of a maximum $280K enforcable payout?
2. Do some Trustees or Staff know of this restriction, if they do, why where some of the other Trustees not told?
3. If none of the Trustees or Staff know of this restriction, then that opens up a can of worms.
4. If the Restriction is known, why was the membership not told?
5. If it was known, why has Rule 13 not changed to reflect full payment if the Ombudsman finds in favour of the Member?

I have no idea what individual Trustees know or do not know, but my finding out this information having being forced down the Ombudsman road and not being informed by the Trustees or the Rules open up all of the above questions and in my opinion is not an Open and Transparent MBF.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Wobby]

Makin,

8b has nothing to do with Whitaker at the moment, he still has years to go on monthly benefits before it is applicable. Where is the evidence to support your claim that " the board is not in agreement"? Rule 7j gives the board the vehicle to obtain another view. There is no rule that demands a unanimous decision amongst board members.
You are a pathetic individual and both the Federation and the Fund would be much better off without you.

[paul makin]

WOBBY

I do not intended not to get dragged into the purile slagging match that seems to be moving, however I cannot let your interpretations of the rules go unchallenged.

Point 1:
Rule 8 (b) states “ Any member who has been receiving benefits from the Fund may be required, at a time designated by the Trustee, prior to the date that the final benefit payments may become due, submit to an independent medical examination at the expense of the Fund for the purpose of determining………………………..”

The time is any time determined by the Trustee, prior to the date of final payment. It does not state “immediately before” “at the time of” “X months before” or anything similar.

At the time of the Trustee’s choosing an independent medical examination may be commissioned. It was and it has been carried out. The specialist opinion confirmed the previous two and they unanamously recommended medical intervention as opposed to surgical.

Point 2: Confidential source

Point 3:
Rule 7 (j) states: “ Any member making application for benefits from the Fund shall, if required by the Trustee, submit to an independent medical examination at the expense of the Fund for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and extent of the notified disability.”

“Making application”, equivalent “ At the time of application” . Where any doubt exists as to the veracity of a claim the Trustee has an obligation to seek verification prior to the commencement of payments. If they have no such doubts they are not obliged to seek that verification. This is the norm and it is the way they treated Mark’s condition. Mark was assessed as genuine and payments commenced accordingly. If they had any doubts, but failed to invoke 7(j) prior to commencing payments they would be in breach.

Point 4: Don’t know where you are coming from on that one, but decisions of the Trustee are required to be a majority of those present in most circumstances, and a majority of all the Directors in other circumstances. (refer to the secret constitution of Austair).

Paul Makin

[Wobby]

1) This rule is how to deal with a member who is approaching their final payment,that is #60 and by Marks posts he is way off that,ergo nothing to do with him at the moment.
2) Very funny
3) Do payments not normally start once the claimant produces evidence of failure? (Remembering the expiration/90 day rule).
4) Your reference to 8b and the board being not in agreement and under the rules is bollocks.

This board is oh so secretive they have been inviting members to participate in the 50 years of the fund with a feed and a bevie or two. :mad:

[paul makin]

Wobby.
The Board's decisions, including its decision to pay monthly benefits, are made under the rules read as a whole (specifically the letter and spirit of Rules 7 and 8) on medical advice. Capt. Harget 20 October 2011.

By Capt Harget’s own words, Rule 8 has been in play. By the actions of the Trustee in calling for an independent opinion, and appointing the appropriate specialist, Rule 8(b) has been in play.

Rule 8 comes into play at any time beyond 15months and before 60 months, as deemed appropriate by the Board. There is no specified requirement to run out to 60 months.

Reference your point 3). Within the rules there are four references to ninety days. 11 (a) and 11(b) refer to notification requirements. Rules 7(f) refers to eligibility (90 days or at expiration of sick leave) and rule 7 (i) deals with recurrence of a disability. Would you clarify your point.

With regards to secrecy, and this goes to a point touched on by ALGIE:
Are you and the general membership aware that around April last year there was created, a constitution of Austair, the Trustee of our Fund.
The membership of Austair is limited to currently serving Directors.
The only business of Austair, is to administer OUR Fund, yet no member of the AAPMBF other than the Directors were involved in the preparation or drafting of that constitution.
The membership of AAPMBF were not consulted in respect of that constitution either during or after formulation.
The membership of AAPMBF had no voice, neither were they given the opportunity to vote on the adoption of that constitution yet the functioning of THEIR Fund is governed by this constitution.
Are you and the general membership aware that each Director, on appointment, is required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Whilst this can be justified in respect of personal medical and claim information, there is absolutely no justification for the general business of the Fund to be kept secret from the membership.
Are you and the general membership aware that Rules of the Fund have been altered (omitted) without proper consultation or mandate from the membership. In Ms Boffas words a rule "simply disappeared".
Are you and the membership aware that subsequent to an unauthorised rule change, the Fund levied a group of the membership a surcharge on their premiums for three consecutive years and then when it was discovered, ceased the extraordinary levy but kept it secret from the individual members and the membership in general until discovered by one of the affected members, me. Although aware of the cicumstances the Board have failed to hold anyone to account for this questionable activity.


Yes extreme secrecy exists in what should be an open and transparent management of OUR FUND.


Paul Makin

[Mark Whitaker]

* This thread on Pprune has brought out a lot of accusations and beliefs and obviously 170 words on the nomination form is a joke.

If elected as a Trustee, I would be proposing changes to the administration and communication of the fund and try my hardest to do the following:

· I would propose a complete re-write of the rules so they flow and everyone knows where they stand and minimize interpretation. I would have the lawyers who propose the new rules give their interpretation and have the Trustees write a “Standard Operating Procedures” so members and Trustees know what will happen and when. I would not change then meaning of the rules and the original intent. These “SOP’s” would be on the members only section of the web site.
· I would have Rule 13 Changed to reflect that the full entitlement as of going to the Ombudsman is paid to the member if the ombudsman delivers in favour of the member, not the maximum $280K legal amount the ombudsman is legislated to enforce.
· If any rules "simply disappeared" I will investigate what rules "simply disappeared" and why this happened and inform all members.
· In my opinion since the AFAP was booted out of the fund the “Corporate Governance” oversight has been lost and allowed the “Secret Society” inference to gain the upper hand, in my opinion, true or false, that the general perception of the membership.
· I would have the AFAP again part of the AAPMBF with Trustee membership.
· I will investigate the Constitution of Austair and make this document available on the members only section of the web site and invite all members to read the document and submit anything they do not like and then have a vote on the “Constitution” by all members.
· In this day and age, we can fill out the Commonwealth Census is “On-Line”. I believe voting for Trustees, Rule Changes, and Constitution Changes should be “On-Line”, it would be cost effective, quicker and I am sure participation would be higher as it is an easy way to vote. Candidates would also not be restricted to 170 words, but put there case forward on the Funds Web Site in as many words they personally require for put forward their point of view, ideals and values for the fund if elected.
· I would also open communication with CASA Medical and get raw statistics from CASA as to what health problems are becoming apparent or changing and passing this info onto members.
· I would also have the Funds Medical Advisor inform the Trustees to any change to the CASA rules such as the 9min 30sec rule for the Cardiac Stress Test and keep fund members informed of these changes.
· I will have individual Trustees communicate as a mentor for members with a claim. I would have Trustees from different companies be the mentor for these members, so a Virgin Trustee will not be the mentor for a Virgin Pilot.
· I believe the current marketing of the AAPMBF product to be non-existent. When I first gained my Commercial License, Danny Murphy was my CFI and he gave me a booklet about the AFAP and MBF. This may still be happening with the AFAP but it is not happening with the AAPMBF, this is another reason why the 2 organisations should be linked again.

The current Rules state that the Annual General Meeting must be held within 15 months of the last meeting. Normally this meeting is held in December and the voting 3 weeks beforehand, so the meeting can be delayed to March 2012. As of today 7th November I have not received any notice of the meeting nor the election ballot.

I am putting myself forward as a Trustee because of the faults I have found within the current Rule set and finding out information that should have been told to all Members by the Trustees.

It is your choice to vote for me or not and if you believe that I am just doing this to get my Capital Claim paid, as I have stated before, it is currently in the hands of the Ombudsman and any vote on my Claim with me as a Trustee removes me from the vote making 1 less vote for me.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[The Kelpie]

Voting papers received.

Not much to choose from!!!

[Mark Whitaker]

AAPMBF members, I have noticed on the ballot paper that the other candidates have included their phone numbers.

If any member wants to talk to me regarding my candidacy, feel free to call me on 0448256633

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[The Kelpie]

Vote cast!!

Good Luck Mark.

I also noticed that the other candidates Had their phone numbers at the bottom of their statement. Was this part of the word limitation?

More to Follow

The Kelpie

[Mark Whitaker]

* One of the reasons I am standing for as a Trustee is the total lack of communication form the Office Manager or the Chairman.

The Trustees had their monthly meeting in Perth last Thursday as of COB today Tuesday 15th some 5 days later, I have had no communication at all from anyone in the organisation as to my monthly payment, nor my Capital Claim.

As some posters believe this is the most open and transparent Board they have seen, they must be on another planet than I am!

I cannot be the only member waiting monthly benefits or Capital Claims.

If you are having the same run around as I am please email me with your details (I don’t need specifics of your medical problems, just what feedback or lack thereof you have had from this Board or Management) and lack of communication and if I become a Trustee I will personally get in touch with each and every one of you who emails or calls me with the respect and consideration that the current Management and Chairman is not doing at the moment.

This total lack of respect for members and non-communication is what is called “Corporate Governance” and it is my opinion, this Management and Chairman has none nor have any notion of what is required of them under the Financial Services Act!

Also I had a phone call from an old friend the other day who is 43. CASA said he did not meet the standard for a class 1 and wanted him to do more liver function tests. This was 2 days before his medical expired. He convinced the Medical Section of CASA to extend his Medical for 2 months so he could have these tests conducted, which they did and his liver is OK.

CASA told him that they have picked up a number of liver problems with pilots from binge drinking spirits.

This information should be coming from the AAPMBF Medical Advisor and distributed to membership. Not by word of mouth from Pilots who have had a problem. This is what I believe we pay our membership money for, Coverage and Advice, not just silence.


[email protected]
0448256633

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Mark Whitaker]

* I have just received this email from the Manager of AAPMBF:

Dear Mark
On behalf of the Trustee directors I would like to thank you for standing for a position as a Director of Austair Pilots Pty Ltd.
Following the receipt of the results from the Fund’s external auditors today, I am writing to advise that in this instance you have not been successful in being elected as a director.
Once again the Board thank you for your willingness to serve the Fund members as a director.
Yours sincerely
Sharon Boffa

I wish the 3 candidates who where successful all the best in their endeavours for the improvement of the Fund.

There are 2 more areas of the rules that I believe need looking into:



If a member has been on monthly benefits for 5 years and there is still no resolution to their claim, what happens to the last 33% of his/her capital benefit? Or if they have not regained their Medical for 5 years and received no monthly benefits, what happens too their 100% Capital Claim? Currently in the rules, this is not covered at all.
What happens to a member who is 62 or 63 and does not regain his/her medical by the time they reach 65 (automatic ineligibility from the fund)? I know of Pilots who are in the 70’s and still flying. The MBF would have been taken yearly contributions from these members for 2 or 3 years, even up to 5 years then dropped like a stone. There is nothing in rules 7 or 8 regarding age, I believe there is a moral responsibility of the fund to cover these pilots and it should be made clear in the rules what happens to them.


Thank you for those who voted for me, I hope the new Trustees and old Trustees can move forward for the benefit of all the membership.

The Ombudsman has given Austair PTY LTD until the 12th December to reply to my claim and the Ombudsman has have advised that they negotiate before that date with my Lawyers. As of today my Lawyers have heard nothing from Austair so it will be interesting to read what they have to say after the 12th December.

Regards

Mark Whitaker

[Mark Whitaker]

The AAPMBF has called another election due to a Director resigning.

Applications have closed today at 5pm Melbourne time 14th February 2012.

I here enclose my “Profile” for the Election Ballot Paper:

I nominate myself as Director of the AAPMBF.

My case against the Fund is ongoing with the Financial Ombudsman and as nothing has changed since last year’s election, please see Pprune and ********** for my beliefs and objectives for the fund including repairing the relationship with the AFAP.

Despite several promises that rule changes would be forthcoming, the only changes in the past 5 years have been related to administrative matters and not member benefits.

If members wish to discuss my candidacy or any MBF matters you wish to raise with me personally, I am available at any time on 0448256633 or I can be emailed on [email protected]

Geoffrey Mark Whitaker

Ex: HC Sleigh, Skywest, Eastwest, GAM, Luxair (Luxembourg), Nusantara Sakti (Malaysia), KSS Aviation (PNG), Airnorth (Chief Pilot), Regional Pacific (Chief Pilot).

As my case has not been resolved with the Financial Services Ombudsman, (this may take up to 18 months to resolve) I will not be discussing anything further here on Pprune or on pirep.

If members wish to talk to me directly about my case, candidacy or any other matter involving the MBF please call or email me.

Regards

Mark Whitaker