LIPS / API CLAIM DENIED

[footballfanppl]

LIPS/API

I have a query addressed to contributing company pilot members to the LIPS / API scheme able to advise if Harvey Watt & Co the US assessors used by the scheme are regulated by a statute of limitations regarding claim assessment response time and if so, what that time is.

[Flyingishere]

https://i.imgflip.com/16oauz.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/16oauz)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

[Kamelchaser]

Even though it's not a rock-science question, Flyingisphere your response, or rather the attached pic, did make me laugh after a long week. Month. Year.

[Mister Warning]

Rock-science made me laugh even more! ;)

[BigGeordie]

Is that the same as geology?

[Praise Jebus]

It is the study of many things, one example would be the surprising longevity of Keith Richards.

[footballfanppl]

The LIPS / API appointed US case assessor is non regulated.

NB - THIS IS SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION FOR ANY PARTIES CONTRIBUTING TO THE LIPS/API LOSS OF LICENSE SCHEME.

[LIPS Support]

If you have a question for API (formerly LIPS) please visit the website at Home (http://www.aircrewprotection.org) or use the following link:

https://lipsek1.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Regards,
Member Support at Aircrew Protection International

[LIPS Support]

If you have a question for API (formerly LIPS) please visit our website at Home (http://www.aircrewprotection.org) or click the following link:

https://lipsek1.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Regards,
Member Support at Aircrew Protection International

[helen-damnation]

footballfanppl

Please elaborate.

[El Peligroso]

:= sounds like another wind-up, BS post from a topcover fan.

footballfanppl: If you have SOLID evidence, post it for all to see, otherwise stop wasting our time. The testimonials on LIPS/API website speak for themselves.

[gardenshed]

Guys,

All I will say is that the above is not a Top Cover plant, has been treated abismally by EK. All he is trying to do is claim his money from LIPS.

[littlejet]

If that is the case, put it upfront let's all hear it. One mysterious sentence at pprune on two separate treads makes it troll-like wind-up.

[footballfanppl]

UAE GCAA LICENSE REVOKED ON MEDICAL GROUNDS 6 MONTHS AGO

EMPLOYMENT TERMNATED DUE LOSS OF MEDICAL

FORMER EMPLOYER SETTLED LOSS OF LICENSE CLAIM IN FULL 6 WEEKS FOLLOWING FULL MEDICAL RECORD SUBMISSION AND REVIEW

HARVEY WATT & CO (THE LIPS/API APPOINTED ASSESSOR) HAVE SPENT 16 WEEKS "REVIEWING" IDENTICAL MEDICAL FILE AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR LIPS/API TO PAY OUT

MOST E MAIL COMMUNICATIONS RESPONDED TO BY UNNAMED STAFF FROM "MEMBERS SUPPORT" EVEN THOUGH I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES FOR AN IDENTIFIABLE STAFF MEMBER TO REPLY TO MY REPEATED QUESTIONS

THIS IS NOT THE WAY ONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED A PILOT LED LIPS/API TO CONDUCT THEIR AFFAIR's

[lospilotos]

UAE GCAA LICENSE REVOKED ON MEDICAL GROUNDS 6 MONTHS AGO.....

CAPS LOCK much?

[BobDole]

What is more important? Internet forum etiquette, or the fact that he is saying that LIPS hasn't paid out yet?

What exactly are we paying for if this is how claims are handled? If EK paid out then it should be a pretty simple "investigation"....

[lospilotos]

What is more important? Internet forum etiquette, or the fact that he is saying that LIPS hasn't paid out yet?

What exactly are we paying for if this is how claims are handled? If EK paid out then it should be a pretty simple "investigation"....

Is that what he is saying? My eyes are still hurting from the CAPS LOCK, so thanks for clearing that up.

[my salami]

Is that what he is saying? My eyes are still hurting from the CAPS LOCK, so thanks for clearing that up.

I think Cap Locks is used in lieu of screaming out loud...
If the above situation is proved to be correct.. I would be screaming out loud how p****d off I am..

MS

[The.Humble.Guy]

If what footballfanppl is saying is true, then this is something the collective group should be making a whole lot of noise about. Second to the allegation that API has not paid out his claim, is that he is not receiving proper communication from them. This is completely unacceptable. I have been subscribing to LIPS/API for the last 6 years and if I have to start worrying about them not paying out a potential future claim, then I need to reconsider my loss of license insurance.

[The Turtle]

Agreed. 100%

Certainly there is more to this story. What is it?

[harry the cod]

Would tend to agree.

Have also renewed several times now and never received an acknowledgement they had the yearly payment. Doesn't take much to send a 'Thank you, we have your renewal funds and your policy is still valid'.

Only a small issue I know but a sign that the 'Company' is not as professional as could be. Car insurance, holiday, house etc all send a renewal policy through. I've got nothing and by paying yearly, the funds could have been deposited by mistake into another account for all I know.

Come on LIPS, pull your finger out and be more proactive!

Harry

[footballfanppl]

UPDATE - ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND CLAIMANT - INSURER CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE AVAILABLE ON REQUEST TO CONCERNED CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS

CASE HISTORY

UAE GCAA LICENSE REVOKED ON MEDICAL GROUNDS 6 MONTHS AGO

EMPLOYMENT TERMINATED DUE LOSS OF MEDICAL

FORMER EMPLOYER SETTLED LOSS OF LICENSE CLAIM IN FULL 6 WEEKS FOLLOWING FULL MEDICAL RECORD SUBMISSION AND REVIEW

HARVEY WATT & CO (THE LIPS/API US based NON REGULATED APPOINTED ASSESSOR) HAVE SPENT 16 WEEKS "REVIEWING" IDENTICAL MEDICAL FILE AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR LIPS/API TO PAY OUT

MOST E MAIL COMMUNICATIONS RESPONDED TO BY UNNAMED STAFF FROM "MEMBERS SUPPORT" EVEN THOUGH I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES FOR AN IDENTIFIABLE STAFF MEMBER TO REPLY TO MY REPEATED QUESTIONS

THIS EVENING I RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM A SCHEME "MANAGER" ADVISING ME OF THE FOLLOWING.

"API formally known as LIPS, LIPS holdings LTD,its Directors,committee members,consultants,assistants and Member Support Team have no further role in your claim and have no authority to communicate with you without the express permission of the Trustee as was stated earlier this evening"

"The API Trust as represented by etc etc...."

ALL I ASKED WAS FOR A REPLY TO THE OUTCOME OF MY LOSS OF LICENSE CLAIM EARLIER SUNDAY.

I AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF MY CLAIM LATER TODAY AFTER SUBMITTING A REQUEST BY EMAIL SUNDAY AND WILL ADVISE MEMBERS OF THE RESULT AS SOON AS I RECEIVE IT.

[g109]

I told you guys a long time ago: LIPS is nothing more than another Ponzi scheme, they will not pay out, and they are totally unregulated

[footballfanppl]

PROOF LIPS APPOINTED US BASED ASSESSOR HARVEY WATT & CO IS NON REGULATED.



On June 30 2016, fourteen weeks after submitting my full medical records to Harvey Watt & Co the US based case assessor used by LIPS /API I enquired as to when they anticipated completing the review of my case, and asked a Senior Claims Consultant at Harvey Watt & Co as to whether they are a regulated company. I received the following reply.

Good Day Mr ***

The answer to your question regarding your pending case, no we are not bound by ERISA.
To that end, I anticipate completion of our medical review for your case by next week.
If you have questions please let me know.

Thank you

****




____________________________________________________________ __
NB: My previous employer received my full medical record at the same time as the LIPS/API appointed US based assessor Harvey Watt & Co and settled my loss of license claim in six weeks. Twenty three weeks later and LIPS /API have yet to settle my Loss of license claim and I have yet to receive a cent from them.

Since my last full salary cheque in April 2016 I have been living directly off my savings.



BREAKING DOWN 'Employee Retirement Income Security Act - ERISA'
ERISA also sets minimum standards for participation, vesting, benefit accrual and funding. The law defines how long a person may be required to work before becoming eligible to participate in a plan, to accumulate benefits and to have a nonforfeitable right to those benefits. It also establishes detailed funding rules that require plan sponsors to provide adequate funding for the plan.
ERISA and Accountability

ERISA requires accountability of plan fiduciaries, and generally defines a fiduciary as anyone who exercises discretionary authority or control over a plan's management or assets, including anyone who provides investment advice to the plan. Fiduciaries who do not follow the principles of conduct may be held responsible for restoring losses to the plan. ERISA also addresses fiduciary provisions and bans the misuse of assets through these provisions.

ERISA and Participant Protection
In addition to insisting participants are informed, ERISA also gives participants the right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty. To ensure participants do not lose their retirement contributions if a defined plan is terminated, ERISA guarantees payment of certain benefits through a federally chartered corporation, known as the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.



Read more: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Definition | Investopedia Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Definition | Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/erisa.asp#ixzz4HM6d8eVi)
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

[BigGeordie]

The thing is they HAVE paid out in the past- and on occasion refused to. Putting an anonymous post up on Pprune (which is, after all, a rumor network) is not likely to attract any sympathy without further details.

Which do you trust more, an regulated scheme run by and for pilots which has a proven record of paying out or a scheme run by a (regulated) insurance company which has an army of lawyers looking for reasons not to pay? You pays your money and takes your chances.

[gardenshed]

BigGeordie,

Apart from publicly publishing his medical records for all and sundry here to read what would you rather he do ?
He is a friend of mine and I will guarantee what he says is true.
I think LIPS/API had better get their act together along with Harvey Watt and stop prevaricating, otherwise just why are we paying our monthly/yearly subscriptions.

Yes they have paid out in the past and did so to a friend of mine who sadly passed away from cancer, and at the time they couldn't have done more. However at the time I believe the Harvey Watt conglomerate weren't part of LIPS/API, it was just LIPS/API.

Please also read the opening post Harvey Watt is "Non Regulated" apparently.

[kingpost]

Is API regulated by the UAE central bank?

[Talparc]

It's the same scam as the airline itself!
There are way better options out there, just keep on looking.

[Not from here]

API is not regulated by the UAE central bank
and from my source is not legally allowed to sell on shore in Dubai.

[Talparc]

so you now want to continue your fight on pprune, better you had stayed away from LIPS,
the outcome was crystal clear beforehand.

[BLOGGSON]

HTC. I certainly got the acknowledgment from them that they had received the annual payment and that I was paid up for another year.

Could this be a mailbox issue? I agree however that their chosen method of communicating is lacking. Not sure they even have a phone number you can use to have a rant at them.

Bloggs.

[captainsmiffy]

Communications issues aside, the original threads point was about LIPS conduct. Please see my response in another LIPS thread, started by the same author....I have nothing bad to say about the service received as a claimant, other than a grumble about to what age the payments continue. This may prove to be academic......nevertheless.....

[footballfanppl]

CLAIM DENIED- THIS IS NOT A RUMOUR.

I invite all current members of LIPS / API to see the full and unfettered documented evidence.

The salaried " volunteer " pilot " managers" of the fund are about to spend your hard earned contributions on " defending" a claim denial to a fellow member.


THIS IS WHAT IT IS :


message me for an appointment to view ALL documentation.

[El Peligroso]

footballfanppl;

Could you tell us what reason was given for your claim being denied? Since you placed this on a public forum, I'm sure you will not mind sharing.

I know guys that have successfully claimed from API (LIPS) and are very happy with the way the claim process was handled. To me the API rules are pretty simple; lose your flying license - receive benefits. Unless of course, your case falls into one of the exception categories.

There have to be checks and balances - I am not saying this applies to you, but I certainly don't want my contributions going towards anything other than legitimate claims.

Have also read other threads on this forum referring to "Loss of Income" vs. "Loss of License" - guys are clutching at straws. The rules have never insinuated payments for anything other than Loss of License.

[Mau]

Was his claim denied? If yes based on what ? I understand it is still under investigation..... Sometimes the speed at which you cooperate with their doctors/ experts also influences the investigation time...
We don't know the whole story , say everything or ......... ... ...

[Toruk Macto]

I would probable pull out of a loss of license insurance if the company paid out on every claim . There have been many claims denied all over the world . There are rules and if your claim falls outside the rules that you knew about when you signed then you don't get paid . It's not a right .

[footballfanppl]

The following are details of LIPS/API potential malpractice that need to be confirmed or denied by their legal department and pilot directors.

Harvey Watt & Co receive commissions /renumeration from LIPS/API for case assessments with the amount Harvey Wayy & Co receive being dependent on percentage saved denying a pilots claim. The more saved by denying a potentially large claim, the more commissions Harvey Watt & Co receive.


Harvey Watt & Co have recently sent e mails to members already receiving benefit under the scheme "to arrange a phone call with a certain Robin Elliott from Harvey Watt & Co" to re open a discussion of their case. One such individual approached lost his medical due to a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis.

Pilot managers of LIPS/API receive a salary from the contributions of pilot members. The salary of 6000 AED a month has been alleged If this amount is correct and depending on this being the monthly renumeration received by each individual pilot manager what is the total cost to the fund annually.

[totahoe]

How about full disclosure from you? I sent you a private message days ago regarding your situation which you have never answered. You posted to contact you to see all the information, I did and you didn't reply.

I'm going through some medical problems myself and have lost my medical. The company, LIPS/API and the person you mentioned at Harvey Watt have been VERY helpful. Maybe they are trying to keep people from dishonesty receiving the benefits? The policy is very clear.

I don't have an issue with either Harvey Watt & Company or Pilot Managers of LIPS/API receive compensation, I'd expect that.

I don't know what game you're playing but perhaps you can take it off the public forums!

[footballfanppl]

Totahoe & Bobdole Pm's sent please let me know if you have received them.

[BobDole]

Sure did... Just replied

[LIPS Support]

If you have a question for or about API (formerly LIPS) please visit our website at home (www.aircrewprotection.org) or click the following link:

https://lipsek1.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=35382 and ask us.

Regards,
Member Support at Aircrew Protection International

[Kapitanleutnant]

When I was a member of LIPS, I went to one of their road shows in Dubai. During the break, a number of us were talking to one of the guys who worked for the plan.... cannot for the life of me recall who it was.

The one thing I remember his saying when asked, "So, when would LIPS payout?"
The answer was short and sweet.... "If EK pays you out, LIPS pays you out".

I think somewhere along the years, that somehow changed and as my perception of them was less than I felt comfortable with, I decided to leave.

Having said that, I have a good friend who recently had a medically grounding situation that was/is an obvious disqualifier for getting another medical. He was awarded by LIPS full monthly payouts for something like the next many, many years! I think it starts at around 25,000 dirhams. While I'm sure all of us would prefer to not be grounded medically speaking for major issues, LIPS did come thru for him.

Kap

[Dune]

Sorry but there are 2 threads running on this subject so I posted on both.:mad:

I have no knowledge of this individual’s situation but having read through this thread it is obvious there may some misconception as to how such a disability plan operates. Also I am no longer flying or employed by Emirates (and am not a lawyer) so take the below in this context.

I joined LIPS very early in its existence. My understanding (incorrect at the time) was if I were to lose my GCAA license due to illness/disability I would receive 3 years basic salary from Emirates (paid immediately) and then 3 years later I would begin to receive LIPS coverage paid monthly. This immediate 3 year payout by Emirates would carry me through until I was able to find employment in another non-flying field and the ongoing LIPS payments would supplement my loss of income working in my alternative field. It was only years later I learned the LIPS payouts would begin immediately upon confirmation of illness/disability and not following a 3 year delay (which I thought to be somewhat generous).

I was also fairly confident if I had a very “cut-and-dry” disability (loss of limb, cancer, extensive heart disease, loss of sight, etc.) I would receive my benefits as long as I was never again able to hold a commercial pilots medical. As such, I understood this to be a “catastrophic” type of medical insurance and treated it accordingly. I was also aware I would be required to prove my ongoing disability (at the discretion of LIPS at their expense) and would lose my claim should my medical condition improve to such an extent I would be able to hold a commercial medical in my home country. I assume this is still the case?

Over the years I heard several stories about LIPS payouts which were somewhat suspect. It appears Emirates did not complete its due-diligence on several of their pilot claims and paid out prematurely. LIPS followed suit and only later it came to light the claims may have been fraudulent. In addition, at the odd house party I would hear pilots wistfully speak of how great it would be to have just enough of a health problem to get the Emirates/LIPS payouts and escape Dubai. Sort of a “get out of jail/early retirement scheme” plan.

As a contributor to LIPS, I was aware this sort of abuse could manifest and was disappointed LIPS did not complete more “due-diligence” on claims being paid out with my money. Their decision to use Harvey Watt as an honest broker I found comforting as LIPS (now API at this time) has no medical team employed directly to independently verify claims. Harvey Watts has been around since 1951 and does extensive aviation medical insurance work with many major airlines in the U.S. (inc. American and Delta and mostly in association with their respective unions). They employ aviation doctors whose sole purpose is to verify loss of medical claims. It appears the individual is suggesting Harvey Watt is paid an extra fee to reject claims yet I can find no instances of such on any of the internet searches I took of legal cases against Harvey Watt. If there is such a relationship this would be a very serious situation and the individual should provide us with some data.

I can only imagine how shocking it would be to lose your only source of employment due to a medical issue and I feel for this individual. It would be a very emotional, frustrating and scary experience. However, I can also understand why API (through Harvey Watts) is being cautious with their clients’ money and completing due diligence through a professional aviation 3rd party.

It appears the individual in question is more frustrated with the time it is taking to complete the due diligence process as well as the lack of communication from both Harvey Watt and API. I would agree communication is paramount and would expect better from both agencies (HW and API). However, I do find it odd the individual claims he is being forced to live off his savings when Emirates should have already paid out 3 years basic pay? In my mind even if the process takes a year (I think he mentioned 23 weeks so far?) there should be no financial stress on the individual given the substantial Emirates payout. Also I would expect the API payouts when (if) they are approved would be backdated to the loss of medical event so the time factor (other then frustrating) should not be an issue.

Given the above, if I were still a member of API I would be pleased with the due diligence process they employ. I think it ultimately protects the majority who legitimately use the service as intended (as I did and I am sure 100’s of others do) while weeding out potential frauds. Once again, I am in no way saying this case is such but in general terms I agree with what they appear to be doing. I would also hope at regular intervals (maybe every 3 years?) they review their current payouts and request re-validation from those who may have had an improvement in their health situation over the intervening years.

[footballfanppl]

Sorry but there are 2 threads running on this subject so I posted on both.

The following are details of LIPS/API potential malpractice that need to be confirmed or denied by their legal department and pilot directors.

Harvey Watt & Co receive commissions /renumeration from LIPS/API for case assessments with the amount Harvey Wayy & Co receive being dependent on percentage saved denying a pilots claim. The more saved by denying a potentially large claim, the more commissions Harvey Watt & Co receive.


Harvey Watt & Co have recently sent e mails to members already receiving benefit under the scheme "to arrange a phone call with a certain Robin Elliott from Harvey Watt & Co" to re open a discussion of their case. One such individual approached lost his medical due to a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis.

Pilot managers of LIPS/API receive a salary from the contributions of pilot members. The salary of 6000 AED a month has been alleged If this amount is correct and depending on this being the monthly renumeration received by each individual pilot manager what is the total cost to the fund annually.

[Dune]

footballfanppl:

I assume your response is directed at my post so I will respond in kind.

The following are details of LIPS/API potential malpractice that need to be confirmed or denied by their legal department and pilot directors.


I have gone through your posts and have seen no details of "potential malpractice". The onus is upon the claimant (you) to produce such evidence yet nothing you have provided is close to credible. Please do so as this would be required in order to allow us to assess your claim (not to mention the LIPS legal department and pilot directors). I see a lot of emotion but no evidence.

Harvey Watt & Co receive commissions /renumeration from LIPS/API for case assessments with the amount Harvey Wayy & Co receive being dependent on percentage saved denying a pilots claim. The more saved by denying a potentially large claim, the more commissions Harvey Watt & Co receive.


You have not provided evidence of such. Harvey Watt is retained by dozens of airlines/pilot unions to provide independent services for which they are paid an ongoing remuneration for their services. I would assume API does the same in terms of paying a retainer to Harvey Watts to act as an independent 3rd party. This is totally different from your allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation. Once again you need to provide evidence and not emotionally charged insinuation/speculation.

Harvey Watt & Co have recently sent e mails to members already receiving benefit under the scheme "to arrange a phone call with a certain Robin Elliott from Harvey Watt & Co" to re open a discussion of their case. One such individual approached lost his medical due to a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis.


I am very please to hear this may be occurring (and would expect such as I mentioned in my previous post). I am sure many pilots assume a loss of medical payment is a guaranteed "pension for life" and nothing is further from the truth. If an individuals medical condition improves such that he/she is able to regain an aviation medical in his/her home country then the disability claim is no longer valid (along with the associated payments). Alternately, those with truly ongoing legitimate claims where an aviation medical is not possible (such as your associate with the stated MS) should have no problem providing factually updated medical data to revalidate their ongoing disability. I am encouraged API is reviewing each/every payment (even though I am no longer a member but would be very happy to hear such if I was still contributing to the plan) and would advise those who receive such payments to expect a reassessed every 3-4 years to reconfirm the claims are legitimate to protect those still paying into the plan. I do not see a problem with this for legitimate claims. Do you?

Pilot managers of LIPS/API receive a salary from the contributions of pilot members. The salary of 6000 AED a month has been alleged If this amount is correct and depending on this being the monthly remuneration received by each individual pilot manager what is the total cost to the fund annually.

I would expect those managing the API program would receive remuneration for their work. Why would anyone expect any individual to work for free?

If I could be so kind, could I ask you to respond to my last post reference you being required to live off your savings when I assume Emirates gave you a direct payment of 3 years salary (as you stated)? This part still puzzles me and I would appreciate you taking the time to inform us of how this delay to assess your claim (I mistakenly said 23 weeks in my post when it was a much shorter 16 weeks) has forced you to live off your savings? Not trying to be confrontational as I do not have bone in this fight but when something does not sound right to me I just need to get the facts.

[El Peligroso]

Like me, I'm sure it is important to all API members that the facts be revealed when it comes to cases like this. Since API is obviously bound by non-disclosure, it would be beneficial to hear from footballfanppl why the claim was denied? I asked footballfanppl this question on the other API thread, but so far he has chosen not to reply???

I find that odd.

This is my hard earned money so I took the time to contact support regarding a previous comment. The response is below:

Harvey Watt & Co receive commissions /renumeration from LIPS/API for case assessments with the amount Harvey Wayy & Co receive being dependent on percentage saved denying a pilots claim. The more saved by denying a potentially large claim, the more commissions Harvey Watt & Co receive.

API support answer: API pay HW a flat rate / pilot member every month.

[gardenshed]

However they don't disclose how much this rate is.
Also and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot remember the last glossy brochure that came out with the facts and figures, if they showed how much directors and HW were paid in the financial results.
As I said I cannot remember and don't have copy to hand so happy to be corrected if this is not the case.

[fatbus]

good on LIPS/API for doing due diligence , it's needed

[El Peligroso]

gardenshed, instead of propagating BS, if you want to know specifics of how much directors and HW are paid - then contact API support and ask them. If you make an appointment with the administrator, I'm sure they would be happy to show you the books as well.

PS: If I was involved running this fund, then damn-sure I'd expect compensation. Anyone who thinks otherwise - volunteer your free time. If indeed you're able to make a contribution, I'm sure the guys would love to have you on board.

[gardenshed]

El Peligroso,

Calm down otherwise you might be calling on their services yourself.
I am not propagating anything all I'm asking is some questions having had my fingers burnt with the EPI, which was also pilot run.
Am I, along with hundreds of others not entitled to know just how our money is being spent and where.
As I said I cannot remember if the yearly glossy brochure that comes out has these facts and figures contained. As LIPS/API seems to run more as a business these days, rather than the lets look after our own of the early days. We should be able to all see these figures rather than having to ask, also I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate a thousand and one individual requests to see the books.
Please also note I have said, that several years ago pre HW, LIPS took great care of a friend of mine who has since passed due to cancer, also without the need to regularly "Check up" on him.
As for the compensation bit, I'm sure if questions had been asked from the trusting pilots about how much "Compensation" BC was taking every month, perhaps the EPI might have been saved, who knows. I don't mind the directors being paid for their time, all I would like to know is how much.

[El Peligroso]

Calm down otherwise you might be calling on their services yourself. Seriously? Is that a threat? :D

LIPS/API seems to run more as a business these days
Isn't that a GOOD thing? I certainly think that managing the fund professionally is both commendable and desirable. I don't perceive this as API not "looking after our own". On the contrary.

footballfanppl may be 100% correct - but without all the particulars we'll never know. I'd prefer to look at the evidence before bashing API, which to many claimants (your friend included) has delivered exactly as advertised. The API website shows CLAIM 19 (Claim disallowed due pre-existing condition August 2016) - not sure if this relates?

Last I checked, the website had access to annual reports once you signed in (forgot my password - so couldn't log in now). I'm not surprised the glossy papers stopped being published, there were always a bunch of them in the nearest bin. Honestly, good call - I'd equate that to throwing money away - our money.

If you are concerned about API or have questions, then as a member it is your right to approach the fund managers to seek answers. Other than the last 2 letters of the acronym being the same, you cannot even start to compare EPI to API; chalk and cheese. The API fund managers are compensated for their time, but they do not draw dividends or profit from cash held in the fund (yes, I've asked the question).

[gardenshed]

El Peligroso,

No, no threat, but you seem to be working yourself up into a lather, don't want you having to book off with a High BP.

All I can say at the moment is that LIPS used to pay out on confirmation from Emirates, of Loss of Licence and that they had paid out. One would think that they would have done their due diligence first. So why pay twice for the same service with HW.

If it is a business then HW & co will be looking at always to maintain the funds and not pay out. Seems to be standard insurance practice across the board, these days to avoid paying out, or making it so difficult that people eventually give up.

[footballfanppl]

FACT : IF YOUR LIPS/ API CLAIM IS DENIED FOR ANY REASON THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCEDURE.

What does this mean for you as a contributing member to the scheme should you make a claim after losing your UAE GCAA medical,your job and after being paid out your loss of license by your employer, then LIPS / API deny your claim?

Note well : Regulated Insurers are required by statute to have in place an appeal process LIPS / API / Harvey Watt & Co are NOT regulated.

THIS MEANS SHOULD HARVEY WATT & CO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ANY REASON THEY SEE FIT . and should you dispute that denial, you will receive an e mail from the LIPS & API trustees like the verbatim transcript below:

"Further to my e-mail below, the lead pilots of the scheme have confirmed there is not currently an appeal procedure for you to follow.

You mentioned you were going to seek legal advice in regards to your benefit claim being declined, should you decide to proceed with this course of action then API, if applicable, will respond and deal with the matter accordingly"



This amounts to the legal equivalent of "IF YOU DONT LIKE IT SUE US"'

[Talparc]

Great stuff!
Better look for a proper insurance

[The.Humble.Guy]

Thank you for sharing this. Will start to share this amongst colleagues and will be looking for alternative insurance myself.

[Bluffontheriver123]

Why would there be an appeal? They have assessed the case and denied it. Its a bit like a Written Warning, no right of appeal but you could file a grievance.

If you are so sure of your case go legal, I am sure you will win. But slagging them off on Prune is unlikely to help the situation.

[Talparc]

same as the airline it represents:
if you don't like it you can leave

[QCM]

So...Lips Support Team...what are you waiting to intervene here on this public forum i/o redirecting people to your website FAQs? Nothing to hide so yallah habibi clarify here!

[donpizmeov]

Would think if you need any clarification contacting them direct would be better than getting information from an anonymous site.

[fatbus]

For some people it's not their concern . Should not be dealt with here. The said individual is just frustrated .

[Aluminium shuffler]

When I joined the company, LIPS was the first presentation given on the first day of the admin week. It was presented as a mandatory scheme. The salesman stated that LIPS pays out if the pilot's licence is lost, regardless of reason, "no questions asked". The whole thing was hard sell and misrepresentation. I became convinced from that pitch that it's a scam. I'm not going anywhere near it.

[El Peligroso]

I became convinced from that pitch that it's a scam.

So, if it is a "scam", then who is benefiting from this "scam"? If no-one is benefiting, then can you really call it a "scam"?

[footballfanppl]

scam
skam/
nouninformal
1.
a dishonest scheme; a fraud.
"an insurance scam"
synonyms: fraud, swindle, fraudulent scheme, racket, trick, diddle; informalcon, con trick, flimflam, gyp, kite; informalramp, twist; informalhustle, grift, shakedown, bunco, boondoggle; informalrort
"the scam involved a series of bogus reinsurance deals"
verb
1.
swindle.
"a guy that scams old pensioners out of their savings"

[Dune]

footballfanppl:

Insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Albert Einstein

I have no idea what led to you losing your medical but I fear insanity might be a factor. You have repeatedly come onto this forum spreading your propaganda yet have not replied to a single question from any respondent on the numerous posts you've made. Clearly you are delusional and it is probably best you are no longer in a cockpit.

You really need to sort out your crap or just go away. You are wasting our time and Pprune's bandwidth. Good luck in your future life and get some help. :ugh:

[fatbus]

Dune , well done ! Agree with you.

[footballfanppl]

Dune Don , Peter or whatever your name is ..try and contain your obvious anger sitting behind your laptop. All will be revealed in its own good time. My case is sub judice.

sub judice
sʌb ˈdʒuːdɪsi,sʊb ˈjuːdɪkeɪ/
adjectiveLAW
under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.
"the cases were still sub judice"
Feedback


When you've taken a deep breath and any medication you may be on, please, re read the Freudian ( neurotic ) repeated identical postings by you and other self appointed " lead pilot managers" of LIPS / API on the " Board of Directors " EACH spending AED6000 a month of pilots hard earned contributions on themselves without being transparent by disclosing this to contributing scheme members. A simple circular to all the pilot members of LIPS/ API disclosing this would suffice.

Do you have a calculator to hand ?

THE TOTAL BILL from the "pilot managers " for "voluntary work" taken annually from hard earned pilot funds. AED 400,000 a year.

In between times renewing your medication you might like to look up the definition of volunteer:

voluntary
ˈvɒlənt(ə)

adjective
1.
done, given, or acting of one's own free will.
"we are funded by voluntary contributions"
synonyms: optional, discretionary, at one's discretion, elective, non-compulsory, non-mandatory, not required, open, open to choice, volitional, up to the individual; More
2.
working, done, or maintained without payment.
"a voluntary helper"
synonyms: unpaid, unsalaried, without pay, without payment, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, for free; More
noun
1.
an organ solo played before, during, or after a church service.
2.
(in a competition) a special performance left to the performer's choice.


After my case is heard in court I can officially identify ALL parties and communication involved to readers on this forum AND to the concerned pilot community individually.In the meantime I will continue to pass on what information I can about THE DARK SIDE OF LIPS / API available based on my current experience. IINFORMATION WHICH ,HAD I KNOWN AT THE TIME ,WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ME TO MAKE INFORMED CHOICES AND TAKEN MY CUSTOM ELSEWHERE.

Back to my pending legal case.
To my fellow aviators still out there very busy aviating WAKE UP and DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT YOU FIND

caveat emptor
ˈɛmptɔː/
noun
the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made.
"caveat emptor still applies when you are buying your house"


FOR BELL THE DUNE TOLLS

[ExDubai]

Lios / api this is a public forum dont shoot the messenger

Agreed, but 4 threads in a short time about the same topic is somehow spam.....

[footballfanppl]

Awareness is key.

[footballfanppl]

Yes just like the chickens in the Ardman Animations movie " CHICKEN RUN"
Get the Chickens to write to the chicken farmer about what's really happening on the Chicken farm.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE !

[lospilotos]

Where is a good moderator when you need one?

[footballfanppl]

This is the real world,the free world los p where free speech for all is possible.

Where underhand behavior can be highlighted and lack of transparency exposed for what it is.

Interesting how some would suggest censoring those who do not agree with them or threaten their cosy little interests, and yet who are happy to use this public forum to further their own ends.

[lospilotos]

I'm not suggesting censoring, but as it has been pointed out before... Starting four(?) different threads on the same subject, keeping them alive with duplicate posts, some slightly delirious, is just bad forum etiquette. That's the rule of the moderator, which is just that, not a censor.

When you create your user on here, a moderator reviews your initial posts before making them public, to make sure they are not gibberish. In the same way the moderator should review any further posts, to keep the forum on topic and relevant.

[4HolerPoler]

I'm working my @rse off keeping footballfanppl's multiple threads in some semblance of order.

Here's notice footballfanppl - keep your soapboxing on the LIPS issue to this thread; if you start any more threads they're going in the bin.

[fatbus]

Here here!!

[Emma Royds]

Hallelujah...

[Schnowzer]

Sub-judice if that is the case why are you offering to spill the info via a private message to someone without ensuring client/legal representative privilege?

[El Peligroso]

CLAIM 19
(Claim disallowed due pre-existing condition August 2016)

Submitted: Apr, 2016
Details: Entirety of member contributions returned to member.

Claim Processing time:4 Months

//

This is on the API website. Timeline fits so prob the case being referred to here.

Pre-existing Condition - moving along then..........

[my salami]

This is on the API website. Timeline fits so prob the case being referred to here.

Pre-existing Condition - moving along then..........

Preconditions are not covered by EK either so it would be interesting to know how did he get that paid out...

MS

[fatbus]

Paid out to get rid of him. He had a big big file.

[CautionShortRunway]

Condition causing loss of license could have started during the time that a person has already been employed by the company for number of years. Let's say someone starts having doubts about capability to continue flying one might start looking for an extra loss of license protection.

If joining date to LIPS/API or to any other loss of license insurance/program has been after this condition has started causing symptoms or been diagnosed I would assume all of them would reject the claim based on pre-existing condition.

In this case company loss of license would pay, extra insurance would not.

[gardenshed]

Except the problem wasn't pre-existing. It is a completely different issue.
HW are using it as a tenuous link to deny.
Guys the case is heading to court, the consultant on the case stated that he spent about 25% of his professional time writing up reports to prove that this get of jail cause, used by many insurance agencies are false.

[paddingtonbear319]

I lost my medical last year

EK Paid then LIPS paid (I know of one other colleague who was also paid)

Happy to take any questions privately or publicly.

Would give all the money back tomorrow to still be flying ......

[footballfanppl]

I had no idea there were such serious consequences for conducting insurance business without a license.

Wouldn't envy any Financial Institution or individual found culpable for this:

"Carrying on a regulated activity in the UK without authorisation or the benefit of an applicable exemption, such as effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance, is a criminal offence for which the PRA or FCA can instigate proceedings and for which, on conviction, a fine or imprisonment can be imposed under section 23 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). Notwithstanding the illegality of the unauthorised insurance contract in question, the FSMA provides that the contract (although unenforceable by the insurer) is enforceable by the insured insofar as the insured can recover sums paid under the policy."

[nakbin330]

What’s your point? Most of us don’t give a damn about UK law, we're in the ME!

I had no idea there were such serious consequences for conducting insurance business without a license.

Wouldn't envy any Financial Institution or individual found culpable for this:

"Carrying on a regulated activity in the UK without authorisation or the benefit of an applicable exemption, such as effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance, is a criminal offence for which the PRA or FCA can instigate proceedings and for which, on conviction, a fine or imprisonment can be imposed under section 23 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). Notwithstanding the illegality of the unauthorised insurance contract in question, the FSMA provides that the contract (although unenforceable by the insurer) is enforceable by the insured insofar as the insured can recover sums paid under the policy."

[gardenshed]

Because the money is held in Gurnsey I believe, and hence comes under UK law.

[Schnowzer]

Not sure that's true.
The Channel Islands are not part of the UK or members of the European Union and may be specifically excluded from cover that is available to those living in the UK. For example, if you live in the Channel Islands, you are not eligible for a European Health Insurance Card.

https://www.gfsc.gg/consumers/insurance/types-insurance

[footballfanppl]

The post below highlights the serious and life/career changing consequences facing any Financial Institution or Individual manager(s) representing that entity being the subjects under investigation and more relevantly being found guilty of a finance crime.

On the question of Jurisdiction The Channel Islands Financial Law mirrors UK Finance law both in principle and consequence IE: Custodial sentence and /or significant fines for the offenders.


(original post earlier)

I had no idea there were such serious consequences for conducting insurance business without a license.

Wouldn't envy any Financial Institution or individual found culpable for this:

"Carrying on a regulated activity in the UK without authorisation or the benefit of an applicable exemption, such as effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance, is a criminal offence for which the PRA or FCA can instigate proceedings and for which, on conviction, a fine or imprisonment can be imposed under section 23 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). Notwithstanding the illegality of the unauthorised insurance contract in question, the FSMA provides that the contract (although unenforceable by the insurer) is enforceable by the insured insofar as the insured can recover sums paid under the policy."

[Odins Raven]

IOM, Channel Islands still have laws which offer protection. And tax avoidance, depending on what you’re trying to do.

Unless the money is in the Middle East or Africa, things should be transparent. The same way that theoretically your provident shouldn’t be subject to interference by EK in the Isle of Man.

[harry the cod]

OR

It isn't, apart from the Company contributions, over which they maintain authority until you leave.

Harry

[footballfanppl]

Has anyone noticed there has been a spate of API pilot fund manager resignations these past 12 months, indeed at a rate well above and beyond what could be reasonably attributed to "natural" attrition.

[footballfanppl]

People and in particular those already receiving benefits from the LIPS API loss of license insurance scheme say that the over 20 million dirhams of pilot contributed funds needs taking care of.

How many LIPS API pilots who pay their LIPS API loss of license insurance premiums can honestly say they "know" who the former (now resigned ) and the acting pilot managers of LIPS API are: by "know" I mean how many pilot members could call them up directly on their mobile phone right now ?

More importantly if the LIPS API insurance scheme pilot manager were to answer your phone call, how many of those pilot managers could provide you with a curriculum vitae summarizing their Financial qualification to manage such a substantial amount of money.

Why were thousands of LIPS API Insurance scheme premium paying pilots not given the correct instruction and information from the outset, questions about incompetence, transparency and accountability need to be presented and presented now before it is too late to save this pilots loss of license insurance scheme.

Members need to ask " Who has control? " and with this information obtain honest and verifiable answers to the questions above.

[Thunderbirds54321]

“This footballfanppl claim thing has been on here for months. Anyone know where this is heading or what the outcome ?”

[Talparc]

The questions you are asking, should have been addressed before you signed up.

[correamd11]

Would give all the money back tomorrow to still be flying ......[/QUOTE]

A true aviator..
A rare breed!

[footballfanppl]

Would give all the money back tomorrow to still be flying ......

A true aviator..
A rare breed![/QUOTE]

Judging by posts a year back he probably went to the same school of Due diligence and Compliance as Dune.

[Thunderbirds54321]

The questions you are asking, should have been addressed before you signed up.




“ Has anyone else received this e mail from LIPS/ API recently :rolleyes:.


Hi Member,

Our records do not show that you have filled out the onlineapplication to the API trust. Your application to the Trustee is a mandatory requirementof the Guernsey Financial Services Commission no matter howlong your have been a member of LIPS. BLAH..BLAH… BLAH…


…………………..

We apologize if you received this message in erroror if you have already verified your e mail and started the application to theAPI Trust, we.re not perfect ( ! ) ….etc

Why am I being asked for all this paperwork filling information: I have precious free time as it is :ugh:. What is all this about as I thought I had completed my application to the scheme and was already covered with the API insurance protection ?” :=

[footballfanppl]

Is this the same e mail sent to some of my colleagues last March ?

[Thunderbirds54321]

The questions you are asking, should have been addressed before you signed up.




“Can anyone verify who the active API pilot committee managers are and pm me their contact details . Word on the street is that this reference to them on the API website is not accurate.”


(Screen shot below on todays API website )





3686

[footballfanppl]

DUE DILIGENCE : The Double Edge Sword :all denied insurance premium subscribers PM me. I hold factual information of significant value. FOR THE FEW ALREADY RECEIVING BENEFIT YOUR CONTINUED BENEFITS ARE UNDER THREAT.

Fact is the, excuse "we are not perfect" will not cut the mustard with the Financial Regulatory Authorities....non compliance is non compliance.

[footballfanppl]

Just another wee question for you (now silent) Bell for whom the Dune tolls....do the LIPS API pilot managers have an open mandate to spend the entire fund on a single legal case of wrongful denial?

Guess not, and yet those same LIPS API pilot board individuals are quite happy to spend substantial pilot contributed funds held "in good faith"at SOVEREIGN TRUST (Guernsey) under Managing Director Hare "in good faith" on one single upcoming court case.
Should they lose this case they will be liable for plaintiff costs and same will be drawn from ...you guessed it....the funds intended to support pilots who can no longer fly professionally.


Ive heard some excellent advice for the LIPS API pilot board and repeat it here ....... "IF YOU FIND YOURSELF DIGGING A HOLE YOU DIDN,T INTEND THEN THE SOLUTION IS TO STOP DIGGING"

[jdoe]

This is on the API website. Timeline fits so prob the case being referred to here.

Pre-existing Condition - moving along then..........i

Information required in ongoing Enquiry

[skytango1]

As late Tupac shakur would put..
The Writing is on the wall another scheme going or gone South...................

Sad to see this happen..started off with a bang,,,,........!!!

[nakbin330]

The man in the middle has his grubby little fingers in a lot of pies.

[footballfanppl]

Quote from Dune (now silent Dune for some reason) post earlier:

"I am very please to hear this may be occurring (and would expect such as I mentioned in my previous post). I am sure many pilots assume a loss of medical payment is a guaranteed "pension for life" and nothing is further from the truth. If an individuals medical condition improves such that he/she is able to regain an aviation medical in his/her home country then the disability claim is no longer valid (along with the associated payments). Alternately, those with truly ongoing legitimate claims where an aviation medical is not possible (such as your associate with the stated MS) should have no problem providing factually updated medical data to revalidate their ongoing disability. I am encouraged API is reviewing each/every payment (even though I am no longer a member but would be very happy to hear such if I was still contributing to the plan) and would advise those who receive such payments to expect a reassessed every 3-4 years to reconfirm the claims are legitimate to protect those still paying into the plan. I do not see a problem with this for legitimate claims. Do you?"



So silent Dune you are saying if you were at home receiving LIPS API benefit after you had been diagnosed with MS you would have no problem with an occasional call from ms Elliott to "check" if your MS had cleared up ?


A colleague of mine received an e mail from ms Robin Elliott at Harvey Watt & Co to arrange a phone call to discuss whether he still required benefits.(I am happy to publish a copy of the e mail if you like).


I suggest both you and Ms elliott google "multiple sclerosis" and pay particular attention to the paragraph on "prognosis"

For Bell the Dune Tolls

[footballfanppl]

As late Tupac shakur would put..
The Writing is on the wall another scheme going or gone South...................

Sad to see this happen..started off with a bang,,,,........!!!


...wait ...wait ..... I think there may be,....as promised, a "real live human being" reading this post and available to answer all these questions................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ALL WE HEAR IS THE DEAFENING SILENCE OF TUMBLEWEED :mad: :ugh: :D


https://youtu.be/c5PjZCmlHYI

[footballfanppl]

Dune , well done ! Agree with you.

Silent Dune/ Silent el peligroso/ Silent fatbus


The time has come to confess to any possible breaches of COMPLIANCE which might well demonstrate failure by you and/or your LIPS API "buddies" to apply DUE DILIGENCE to yourselves?


QUESTION 1: WHY did Sovereign Stephen feel the need to write to all the members paying insurance premiums under the LIPS API insurance scheme last March? (one of his key roles as Managing Director at Sovereign (Guernsey) is I believe COMPLIANCE).


I have heard it was because of possible NON COMPLIANCE with Guernsey Financial Authority Regulations

QUESTION 2: WHY are former pilot insurance premium paying colleagues who left the LIPS API "Scheme" six months ago after hearing of the wrongful denial of my legitimate claim and resulting pending lawsuit still receiving warning letters from "the real live human being" at aircrewprotection

QUESTION 3: WHY so many PILOT DIRECTOR RESIGNATIONS from LIPS API of late ?





Of course the real GORILLA IN THE ROOM will be dealt with in due course in the not too distant future........Im sure you know what that GORILLA may be?


By way of background check out the latest trends in law re accountability of financial entities and those working for them found culpable "after the event"....resigning won't get them off the hook. i.e. they will take a bullet for the their team if the breach occurred on their watch. The US DOJ is a trailblazer in this regard.
(in the excerpt below I highlight in bold the pertinent section )



INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY

Fighting corporate fraud and other misconduct is a top priority of the Department of Justice. Our nation's economy depends on effective enforcement of the civil and criminal laws that protect our financial system and, by extension, all our citizens. These are principles that the Department lives and breathes- as evidenced by the many attorneys, agents, and support staff who have worked tirelessly on corporate investigations.

One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the wrongdoing. Such accountability is important for several reasons: it deters future illegal activity; it incentivizes changes in corporate behavior; it ensures that the proper parties are held responsible for their actions; and it promotes the public's confidence in our justice system.

On September 9, 2015, Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued a memorandum entitled, “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing” to guide department attorneys when handling corporate matters. The memo outlined six significant steps in Department policy in order to ensure that corporate investigations are handled consistently across the department:

To be eligible for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide the Department all relevant facts about individuals involved in corporate misconduct;
Both criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individuals from the inception of the investigation;
Criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should be in routine communication with one another;
Absent extraordinary circumstances, no corporate resolution should provide protection from criminal or civil liability for any individuals;
Corporate cases should not be resolved without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases; and
Civil attorneys should evaluate whether to bring suit against an individual based on considerations beyond that individual’s ability to pay.

web page in full available here

https://www.justice.gov/dag/individual-accountability


Im off now to focus on the upcoming lawsuit and the GORILLA IN THE ROOM that comes with it.

[toilet flush]

The latest API website has the following good words from members collecting. I suggest they are factual.

WHEN THE UNEXPECTED HAPPENS - RAN OVER DURING PREFLIGHT WALK-AROUND
I was an Emirates captain for over 4 years, joined the company in 2012. I joined API Emirates Pilot Loss of Income Protection Scheme when I first heard about it. I thought I had a healthy lifestyle, I was actively doing sports, I would most probably not need it, but yes, why not.

The accident: In April, 2016 I was doing a preflight walk-around under the wing of a 777, when a single container truck ran me over. Due to my martial art background I am experienced how to “fall and protect”, but it was not enough this time. The truck hit my head, I fell and I laid unconscious on the tarmac. The accident resulted in a multiple skull fracture, brain contusion and hemorrhage. They took me to ICU then I spent a few weeks in hospital and undergone a long rehabilitation process. It was a naughty one, but I luckily got off with no paralysis or functional deficiency.

The outcome: 8 months later GCAA Medical Board has revoked my medical certificate and Emirates terminated my contract. A long administration process started and to be fair with the company, Emirates was supportive, correctly payed the relevant benefits in line with their Employee Handbook and ERM.

Claim submitted towards API as well. They have an independent medical expert team in the US, all my medical records were submitted (over 200 pages) to them. It took 3 months to wait for the decision of API Trust.

I called the API Administrators and Committee a few times, during the claim process. Garrie and Peter always responded courteously and with professionalism, I received positive support during the waiting period. Once the claim was accepted, API correctly payed backdated to the eligibility date and I am receiving the monthly benefits correctly.

Dear fellow colleagues,

My case has a lucky outcome medically, but it destroyed a career, a lifestyle and it affected a family life. API benefits now keeps us financially stable, assists us establishing a completely different life.

Thank You API, the Administrator Team and to all fellow pilots contributes the the Plan. I truly recommend API as a good institution to all pilots who plan to protect themselves against loss of income.

The unexpected can happen to anyone, anytime.

With appreciation,


Captain Lajos Szabo

I'm glad I had API
We all think we are invincible and nothing will happen to us! Our class 1 medical is one of the most fragile things we have, the gets scrutinised every year until 60 then twice a year thereafter.

I know better than most, 2 years ago whilst at the peak of my physical fitness I was suddenly diagnosed with an autoimmune disease that ended my flying career. It was a terrible time for me & my family not knowing what the future would hold. I went through all the doubts, will the company pay and will API (LIPS at the time) pay? Will they try to wriggle out of paying somehow? But the process was easy, everyone involved were 100% professional with great support from both EK and API throughout and Harvey Watt in the US got involved from an early stage to act as an independent pair of medical eyes.

I can only say I'm glad had API and I don't have to worry about my financial future and would like to thank all the guys at API for holding my hand thru the whole process.

Don't delay get peace of mind, you don't know what's around the corner especially with the current demanding rosters you all fly. If any of you have any questions about my experience don't hesitate to contact me.

Captain David Gaughan

Thank you API
I lost my medical in July 2015 due to depression after my wife passed away. However hard I tried, the doctors recommended another 6 months of recovery was needed after I had been on sick leave for one year. Management did not want to entertain unpaid leave or any other options so that I could regain my medical and continue flying. So I was terminated with my medical still 'pending' with the GCAA. Depression is one of the conditions that Emirates and API will not pay compensation for, so no loss of licence from Emirates or API.

I did however receive a generous 'death of spouse' payout from API for which I was very thankful. While I accepted this final outcome I was surprised to learn that I did not qualify for LSB from API either. After a phone call to one of the committee members and explaining the situation, the committee all agreed to help me out by reimbursing my entire subscription fee from when I first joined LIPS may years ago.

This was a very generous gesture and will go a long way to assisting me financially when I am back home. Thank you API for your generous consideration.

July 2016

Jeremy Roswell

My family will have a secure financial future
If you get a lucky cancer diagnosis it won't take your life but it will destroy it....
It ruins your career,It ruins your family life and relationships,It ruins your hobbies.

Due to my API coverage, one thing that it hasn't affected is my financial stability. No matter what the future holds I can safely say that my family will have a secure financial future ahead of them.

Robert Brown

Frank Bishop - (Emirates Pilot)
I have been a Captain with Emirates for over six years and I joined the Emirates Pilot Loss of Income Protection scheme (API) very soon after I heard about it. My decision to join API (as opposed to other, 'for-profit' schemes) was for two main reasons; First; the annual subscriptions were reasonable. Second; because it is administered by fellow Emirates pilots, I believed (and continue to believe) it's a lot easier communicating directly with fellow Emirates pilot decision-makers, than it would be with a commercial, multi-layered offshore insurance company.

Unfortunately for me and my career as a pilot, in December 2013 it became clear I could lose my pilot medical - permanently. Fortunately API was there for me. As I'd hoped and trusted, any stories I'd heard about API trying to avoid payment at all costs were false - the issue never materialized, at all. After notification from the GCAA on 9th March that I was permanently grounded, I submitted my API claim, along with all the required supporting documentation. Within the timeframe as explained to me, Harvey Watt & Co (the professional API medical claim processor company, located in the USA) had informed me of their findings and subsequent recommendation to API. Again, within the described timeframe, I had heard from the API Directors of their decision to award me API monthly benefits and all that remained was for me to confirm my bank details.

My belief in API that all would be quick and easy to communicate with my fellow-pilot decision makers was indeed correct. ALL my dealings with ALL the people at API have been prompt and professional.As a result of my experiences, it is with pleasure that I recommend API protection to any pilot who may be in any doubt as to whether it is the correct institution with which to protect your Emirates pilot income.

With appreciation - Frank Bishop

What is your plan
Respected Emirates Colleagus,​

One’s career may be likened to a flight. We hope that it will be ultra long range. We plan to make it to our destination at our desired retirement date. Like a well-planned flight, the path of our long-range career may need adjusting. The arc of one’s professional life may be cut short, and we have to manage mid-flight change up to and including relying on our alternate.

LIPS is the alternate. What’s your plan?

Captain Steve Nuttall

Please ensure you have LIPS coverage.
Dear colleagues,

Nobody would like to hear the words from a doctor, “you'll probably never fly again.” With three daughters in either school or university, one of my immediate reactions was “thankfully, I have income protection”. This was quickly followed by “is my coverage in order?”

The LIPS Directors; Garrie, Paulo and Roger, were very quick to assure me that everything in this regard was OK. And Garrie took time to explain coverage and discuss any further queries that I had. He even called me to follow-up, from time to time, to see how I was.

Thankfully, I'm flying again now, following medical attention. I would like to endorse and recommend the LIPS income protection product and their service to every Emirates pilot.

Please ensure you have LIPS coverage. You cannot afford to be without it.

Capt Grayden Thompson

They became involved on both a personal and a professional basis
testimonial1.jpg



Wayne McCone

MAY 15, 2015
Dear Emirates Colleagues, For me 2014 began with bad news regarding my health and by November it was confirmed that my license was revoked. My career as a pilot ended!
As I was a member of API (former LIPS) I notified them and submitted a claim. I cannot say anything else than that the claim was processed very professionally, straight forward and humane. If I had a question, within a day I received a reply.
Shortly after all required documents were submitted and reviewed, Garrie contacted me to inform me that my claim was approved. Special thanks to Joe, who was my primary contact and who still keeps in touch to inquire on my situation. Thanks to the fact that I joined API I am now still able to continue offering my family a stable lifestyle. As we do not know what lies on our path, I highly recommend anyone of you to join API to protect yourself against loss of income.

Appreciative API benefits Cliamant

"It won't happen to me!"
In an unusual turn of events late last year, I was diagnosed with a non-lifethreatening medical condition resulting in a Loss of flight medical and therefore my flying license.

One always thinks that it won’t happen to me, but my situation has proven just how fragile a flight medical can be!

Throughout my Professional Life I have always maintained Loss of Income Insurance, as I consider it to be one of the most important Insurance Policies anyone should have. Prior to joining API, I researched other options and I concluded there was no comparative policy available.What sets API apart is that API is Emirates specific and is run by a team of Emirates pilots. The ‘Benefits’ also continue regardless of whether, after your loss of license, you are able to derive another form of income. Most income protection policies will pay only a percentage of your salary and make an adjustment to your benefit once you acquire a new income.

In other words, depending on your new salary, you may very well not receive any income protection at all under a Policy with a different Insurer.From my perspective what the API Policy allows, is the freedom to choose. It affords you the ability to refocus and prioritize your personal life and professional career with the peace of mind knowing that you will continue to have a regular monthly income source up to age 60.

Throughout the claims process, the API Committee and Administrators acted with courtesy, integrity and professionalism, and finalized my claim expeditiously.

As Pilots we always endeavor to mitigate risk. Therefore, I highly recommend Income Protection through the API Policy for the same reason.

Appreciative API Benefits Claimant

Resigned from Emirates
The words Aircrew Protection International (formerly LIPS) translate to me: Peace of Mind, which as we all know, cannot be valuated, priced or otherwise financially quantified. It means financial assurance at a very low annual cost and without all the games, tricks and traps along the way because the bylaws have been written by Emirates pilots for Emirates pilots and its simplicity and common language are easy to understand.

Over the years I’ve been with API, I’ve observed the common-pilot approach to the language in providing guidance, speed in answering my questions, clarification and what is simply the best transparency I’ve seen in the region. With over ten years at Emirates I never had to exercise our policy but I knew it was always there in the background which has always been a tremendous comfort. You don’t realize how much that means to you until you’ve resigned and you’re temporarily left in no-man’s land until your next career step’s benefits kick in.

A very big Thank You to all those administering the API plan and a very big Thank You to all those pilots within the Plan because the increasing number of members continue to reinforce its actuarial soundness. Thank you.

June 2016

Jeff Wooldridge

In response to request for payment information
Very thorough, speedy and courteous response. Thank you.

Robert Conroy

A word of thanks - November 2016
The support and feedback I received was very good. Quick and accurate thus allowing me to continue with my work daily quickly. Well done to the support team!

Patrick Spiteri

In response to request for payment information
Prompt response even over the public holiday. Excellent work!

David HS Ford

Thank you - September 2016
I love LIPS, thank you for all your help

James Nixon

Message from Member requesting account assistance - November 2016
Very good and fast response! Thank you very much...

Thomas Haubenhofer

[gardenshed]

Toilet Flush I dare say they are factual, but lifted off the LIPS website. Also I’d wager they were before Harvey Watt were involved.
I know about the case being pursued and if the person involved isn’t eligible then god help the rest of us.

[footballfanppl]

Here here!!


https://youtu.be/h4yIzMRfruA



..... the real reason the LIPS API pilot board have boasted that their denial success rate has been 100 % so far

[footballfanppl]

The latest API website has the following
WHEN THE UNEXPECTED HAPPENS - RAN OVER DURING PREFLIGHT WALK-AROUND




toilet flush of the sixteen individuals comments you posted only seven of those received benefit, one didn't qualify as his condition was excluding and the remaining are merely commenting "niceties" on admin response time...wow! thats plain misleading. Can you tell the world why have 80 % of the LIPS API board members you mention in your cut and paste "no bad press allowed" ad resigned from the LIPS API board. The answer to the question in your post title is duly answered in a previous post by Gardenshed as detailed below.

Except the problem wasn't pre-existing. It is a completely different issue.
HW are using it as a tenuous link to deny.
Guys the case is heading to court, the consultant on the case stated that he spent about 25% of his professional time writing up reports to prove that this get of jail cause, used by many insurance agencies are false.






Have a read of the attached page and see if you can join up the dots ... . . . . . . . if you need help at joining up the dots an answer sheet version will be here before Santa drops by...... . . . . . . . . . please be assured a live human Santa wrote this post and will respond.

[Talparc]

Agree, the one in the middle ( from Post #103 ) definitely is a huge dum....
On his way out of EK to shaft other pilots.
Wait, wasn’t there something waiting for him?

[Lindwdy1]

So has anyone been able to contact who is running aircrewprotection international to try to find out what's going on here?

[LIPS Support]

If you have a question for API (formerly LIPS) please send an email to [email protected] and just ask us.

Regards,
Member Support at Aircrew Protection International

[gardenshed]

Recent article may be of interest.
opinionshttp://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/life-insurers-accused-of-cherrypicking-medical-advice-to-deny-and-delay-claims-20170406-gvfhex.html

[Lindwdy1]

“information about API

uae.pilotprotection


The above site appears to be maintained up to date and is unbiased.

Kindly note the column in pink under API.

It states across from plan description :

- “ aircrew protection intl (API) was originally a plan run by Emirates pilots . There now appears to be no current EK pilots involved, either as Directors or decision makers.”


It states across from who operates the plan :

“Sovereign Corporate Services ( operating with paid consultants who are former EK pilots )Mondial Dubai acting as investment & life cover facilitator. There appear to be no EK pilots acting as Directors.”

- It states across from risk rating:

“ as a pure mutual, self - funded plan, risk of reduced payout to the pilot is greater than ‘ insured’ plan.”


-it cites across from plan legal domicile ie any associated legal action:

“the British Virgin Islands.”

- across from does the plan have any Regulatory registration & oversight .

“No LIPS/API currently have nil regulatory oversight.”


- across from what to watch out for:

“It appears there are zero current Emirates pilots acting as Directors of this plan.The scheme is run by Directors who left Emirates some time ago & are now employed elsewhere. Indications are that members have not yet been advised.
According to LIPS / API annual reports investment return on investments has been negative to only 1-2 % for a number of years. Because of this and other factors watch for a possible rate increase. Plan has no insurance regulatory oversight.”



Out of interest the aircrewprotection.org website remains unchanged and still lists ( with photographs ) the API committee.

[footballfanppl]

“information about API

uae.pilotprotection


The above site appears to be maintained up to date and is unbiased.

Kindly note the column in pink under API.

It states across from plan description :

- “ aircrew protection intl (API) was originally a plan run by Emirates pilots . There now appears to be no current EK pilots involved, either as Directors or decision makers.”


It states across from who operates the plan :

“Sovereign Corporate Services ( operating with paid consultants who are former EK pilots )Mondial Dubai acting as investment & life cover facilitator. There appear to be no EK pilots acting as Directors.”

- It states across from risk rating:



“ as a pure mutual, self - funded plan, risk of reduced payout to the pilot is greater than ‘ insured’ plan.”


-it cites across from plan legal domicile ie any associated legal action:



“the British Virgin Islands.”

- across from does the plan have any Regulatory registration & oversight .

“No LIPS/API currently have nil regulatory oversight.”


- across from what to watch out for:

“It appears there are zero current Emirates pilots acting as Directors of this plan.The scheme is run by Directors who left Emirates some time ago & are now employed elsewhere. Indications are that members have not yet been advised.
According to LIPS / API annual reports investment return on investments has been negative to only 1-2 % for a number of years. Because of this and other factors watch for a possible rate increase. Plan has no insurance regulatory oversight.”



Out of interest the aircrewprotection.org website remains unchanged and still lists ( with photographs ) the API committee.



Has anyone heard the US FAA received a heads up report requesting an investigation into possible financial and medical fraud by the doctors retained by Harvey Watt & Co to deny API pilot members disability claims?

[Tiredofbeingtired]

Hi anyone

I paid API for 3 years after reading this I wrote to api and asked for answers and they called me back and these are notes I took to those questions

uae.pilotprotection
Website run by former LIPS manager that now works with Baymac competeing with api.

aircrew protection intl (API) was originally a plan run by Emirates pilots . There now appears to be no current EK pilots involved, either as Directors or decision makers.
On the website one of the committee quit in august but is still carried on some of the legal because the process to remove him takes some time but is being done, one retired from emirates and only works for api, one still is pilot at ek and one lost his gcaa medical and is only working for api. The ones only working for api paid from api the same they did when they were flying full-time for ek. None of them is flying somewhere else.

“Sovereign Corporate Services ( operating with paid consultants who are former EK pilots )Mondial Dubai acting as investment & life cover facilitator. There appear to be no EK pilots acting as Directors.”
Sovereign trust is in UK and manages the bank accounts and has to approved any changes to the Rules after reviewing UK regulatory and approveds or not the benefits to pilots based on recommendation from Harvey watt in the usa. The pilots who run the plan are consultants. Mondial is broker for life insurance and does investments.
I asked about the things on pprune about Harvey watt getting paid to screw pilots and they said that he gets paid a flat rate per pilot per month and he doesn’t get paid more or less if a recommendation is positive or negative its just a flat rate.

“ as a pure mutual, self - funded plan, risk of reduced payout to the pilot is greater than ‘ insured’ plan.”
They don’t have no evidence of such a statement. They are a self-funded that is non-profit because any investments gains or refunds from the life insurance contributions go directly back into the fund. There aren’t shareholders that take dividends and the guys that work there get a flat rate per month and there aren’t any bonus.

-it cites across from plan legal domicile ie any associated legal action: “the British Virgin Islands.”
trust is in the UK and any legal actiions happens there.

“No LIPS/API currently have nil regulatory oversight.”
The trust regulated by guernsey regulatory commission.

“It appears there are zero current Emirates pilots acting as Directors of this plan.The scheme is run by Directors who left Emirates some time ago & are now employed elsewhere. Indications are that members have not yet been advised.
As above. The one who quit in 2015 and his resignation was in 2015 annual report. The one who quit api this year and is still in the legal book will be advice in the next annual report if hes off the book by then.

According to LIPS / API annual reports investment return on investments has been negative to only 1-2 % for a number of years. Because of this and other factors watch for a possible rate increase. Plan has no insurance regulatory oversight.”
Returns were always low because everyone wants to be very cautious investing the fund because the members don’t want their money to be risky invested. In 2017 they went with a new investment company and did really well and will advice in the annual report. The oversight is done by the trust in the uk who is regulated there. The last rate increased was in 2013 and if theres another one it’ll be aobut 50 durham per month because theyre actuarial people recommended it for the last 3 years. The api is investigating is they can get a trust or company that can have reinsurance.

Out of interest the aircrewprotection.org website remains unchanged and still lists ( with photographs ) the API committee.
The one who quit will be remove when all the legal papers are done and until then hes still legally part of api.

I ask why this trust instead of the way it was because the pilots who run api don’t want access medical records because they’re not doctors so Harvey watt is a doctor and makes recommendation to the trust and they didn’t want to access bank accounts because they don’t want to be accuse of being able to steal the money and run off to Australia like some guy did a long time ago at EPC. Only trust can approved pays out of the bank accounts.

Thanks

[harry the cod]

I can understand the scheme and it's directors being registered in a Trust but fail to see what difference it makes for us, the members, to join.

In doing so, we then become part of the system (Trustees) and as such, may restrict our right to take legal action in a contested case. We would, in effect, be suing a Trust that we are directly part of. No doubt I'm missing something here.

Harry

[Murrenfan]

I couldn't care less of which director is on the board or has resigned. What really scares me on API is the fact that you'll only get paid once your medical is revoked and not simply suspended. Problem is after one year on ground you get fired even though your medical is just suspended. Correct me if I'm wrong but API will only pay you in case our employer also pays you.

[footballfanppl]

Hi anyone

I paid API for 3 years after reading this I wrote to api and asked for answers and they called me back and these are notes I took to those questions

uae.pilotprotection
Website run by former LIPS manager that now works with Baymac competeing with api.etc etc ......blah blah
Thanks

Any professional aviator who pays their monthly installment to aircrew protection international (API) reading this barely "brook side" standard of english post will see a red flag.

If this post is real, which on the face of it is unlikely, the only verdict to be arrived at logically is "what a mess " :considering the amount of pilot contributed funds we are dealing with here and the, as described by the post, real absence of the specific identity of the "managers" and complete lack of definition of their accountability and responsibility.

24 million AED dirhams
$6.5 million USD
5.4 million EURO


Whilst the "silent aircrew protection international horse" apparently answered can the same individual who posted ask the vaguely defined API Sovereign management if it is true that the FAA AME "experts" retained by Harvey Watt & Co are about to become the subject of a US FAA investigation for potential financial and medical fraud.


I,m sure ALL aircrew protection international pilot monthly fund contributors would like to know the answer to this question as a matter of urgency. They have a right to know the truth.



https://youtu.be/MPIbXHulFYU

[footballfanppl]

I couldn't care less of which director is on the board or has resigned. What really scares me on API is the fact that you'll only get paid once your medical is revoked and not simply suspended. Problem is after one year on ground you get fired even though your medical is just suspended. Correct me if I'm wrong but API will only pay you in case our employer also pays you.

18 months on and the challenge has brought me to where I stand now......ready to strike back at the lies, smoke and mirrors of API claim denial.

[777-Up]

Two things;

1. Harvey Watt are simply a service provider, used by many other airlines as a "subject matter expert". They just make recommendations & have no financial interest in whether a claim is denied or approved. API are allowed to choose whomever they desire for medical guidance.

2. More important question is; when were/are API Director(s) going to reveal to Members that no current EK pilots (for whom LIPS/API were set up exclusively to serve) are directing/running this plan, on behalf of EK pilots? Surely, Members have a right to know.

Why does this matter? Because many EK pilot members are under the impression they are being looked-after by fellow EK pilots they fly with. That's no longer the case. The Directors as shown on the API site are either; no longer currently EK employed, have moved on, or are about to. API has not made this clear to Members. Why?

[777-Up]

Still no answer. Has anyone received a response from 'API Support' recently, to see what their response is on the above? Question; are there any current EK pilots, who have not resigned, or given employment resignation notice, acting as decision-makers/Directors for this plan?

The standard, response from LIPS/API on PPRUNE; "If you have a question for or about API (formerly LIPS) please visit our website or click the following link:" has not been placed by them, regarding this question.

[Thunderbirds54321]

There are no answers coming out here and we need answers

[donpizmeov]

This thread is mostly mostly just one contributer asking questions, or making statements under one handle, and then answering himself using another handle.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Aircrew protection International API ( formerly LIPS ) have moved the goal posts again on pre existing condition definition

See they’ve moved the goal posts again.without letting us know


“PRE-EXISTING CONDITION: Means an illness, injury or condition for which the member was diagnosed or treated, or received diagnostic or treatment services or was prescribed medication by a physician for a diagnosis or treatment for a specific medical condition if the condition presented itself or made itself known or came to be known following the member’s date of joining as a pilot with Emirates Airline AND re-occurs within the first thirty-six (36) months immediately following the first day of the member’s coverage with API. However, this does not preclude the member from claiming benefits for another, separate loss of income under the Plan that is not related to the aforementioned pre-existing condition. (For reinstated members, see section 4 )”.

(circa 2015)

The goal post moved definition in their rules section now reads as follows:



PRE-EXISTING CONDITION: an illness, injury or condition for which the member was diagnosed or treated, or received diagnostic or treatment services or was prescribed medication by a physician for a diagnosis or treatment for a specific medical condition if the condition presented itself or made itself known or came to be known following the member’s date of joining as a pilot with Emirates Airline AND re-occurs or makes itself known or comes to be known or is diagnosed or treated or receives diagnostic or treatment services or for which is prescribed medication for that illness, injury or condition or a subsequent illness, injury or condition that is directly related to the initial illness, injury or condition within the first thirty-six (36) months immediately following the first day of the member’s membership with API. However, this does not preclude the Member from claiming benefits for another, separate loss of income under the Plan that is not related to the aforementioned pre-existing condition. (For reinstated Members, see Rule 4).

rule changed by API without notification 2018

[777-Up]

As you say, API has changed so many things in recent years, without properly informing those they were meant to be serving.

What's changed in recent years with zero pilot Member say or input?; API Directors, Terms, Rules, Locale of Rules, Claims process, only current EK pilot could be LIPS/API Director (changed unilaterally because one or two API Directors quit EK, moved overseas & desired to continue getting paid), investments, help desk no longer in Dubai... instead, tickets answered by API Director now located part-time in Athens?... Pre-existing condition definitions... it goes on & on...

Don't take my word for any of the above. Ask API about each one via their website and see what they say about it all (if you get a response).

[SOPS]

Sounds "ops normal" for the ME..keep moving the goal posts without any notification.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[The Outlaw]

Does anyone happen to know how much LIPS pays back to a pilot that resigns?

There was something like that many years ago when you signed up.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Turns out the em roids resigned narcissist steering aircrewprotection international to rocky ruin is none other than the superhero himself ..... lmao

[Murrenfan]

Sure, thanks for making it clear!

[Thunderbirds54321]

Sure, thanks for making it clear!

Facebook Peter Davis

[Thunderbirds54321]

Search Risky Risky WTF
On YouTube

He’s removed his Facebook

Why?

[Thunderbirds54321]

Red cape = red flag

[gardenshed]

Still no response from the API apart from the please send email to some obscure address. Are they frightened about their position ?

[777-Up]

The money will be safe. It just requires a new start, back as an entity with pilot Directors who actually work for emma-rates as pilots.

And proper oversight & annual votes from the pilot members.

When the current bunch allowed a Director/'Consultant' to leave Dubai & remain in position, that set a bad precedent. Especially without informing members of the plan. Now, more 'Consultants' are departing, with great timing. Perhaps they'll keep getting paid, as well?

[777-Up]

Does anyone happen to know how much LIPS pays back to a pilot that resigns?

There was something like that many years ago when you signed up.

It's about 20%, on a sliding scale. Ask the site, although there's not too many answers coming out of there, lately...

[fliion]

Anyone know what the meaning in the letter today from API “reduce the benefit payout to six months” means?

Regarding the new joiner DC - excellent individual, full of integrity 👍

[Thunderbirds54321]

1300000 USD lawsuit pending not in newsletter superhero needs to go

[SOPS]

Thunderbirds..no offence..but you need to make you posts a bit less cryptic.

[Thunderbirds54321]

https://youtu.be/GEOriWlXlEE

[SOPS]

Sorry,,I must be stupid..I don't get your point

[gardenshed]

Basically there is a massive lawsuit about to be served on API, which has the potential to absorb a huge amount of money in legal fees etc, and not a peep from the directors.

[Tiredofbeingtired]

So they should make an announcement to something to come that has not even happen yet?

I receive a letter this week from them. They talk about legal things. That not good enough for you I guess.

"There are several, ongoing legal disputes from claimants regarding their entitlements which also increases the legal costs of the Trust’s attorneys. This is an expected by-product of the impartiality of the Trust which bases its entitlement decisions solely on the recommendation of Harvey Watt & Co. which makes its recommendation based on the Rules of the Plan which are written by your fellow Emirates pilots.

For those of you unfamiliar with the API Trust; having placed the bank account where you make your contributions into the Trust, payments from the account can only be directed by the Trustee, not by the pilots who manage the Plan. The Trustee makes that decision based on the recommendation of Harvey Watt & Co. or the Admin team (regarding Leave Service Benefit calculations); the pilots who manage the Plan have no authority to direct the Trustee in that payment process. By placing the Rules into the Trust the pilots who manage the Plan wanted to ensure that the Trustee reviews any changes to the Rules and makes the decision to approve or reject based on the Trust’s legally-regulated duty to protect the members (you) as well as the fund (for everyone); again, the pilots who manage the plan have no authority to direct the Trustee as to whether their suggestions will be followed."

[Thunderbirds54321]

Who told you that ? Superman ?
Sovereign Trust are instructed by the API Board...that’s why things are at a tipping point.
Too much protecting the fund from everyone ( not for everyone )...so the lawsuits

[777-Up]

That letter, quoted above from API (if true) illustrates what's gone wrong.

LIPS/API was set up, around 2004 and promoted as a program to exclusively look after emma-rates pilots. Non-profit mutual. With Directors who were also the same.

Harvey Watt were HIRED as a commercial medical specialist service provider, year-to-year, simply to make medical recommendations (NOT decisions). Directors (fellow ee-kay pilots, remember, whom you could phone anytime & sit down with) would then make the decision. Looking after pilots.

Many of us joined, in good faith, on this basis.

If API is now clearly stating Harvey Watt is calling all the shots on which pilot gets paid, that is a total reversal of the original intent. Tail-wagging-the-dog.

And all without proper notice to Members. Wake up; a single, unelected individual; PD (shown in weird video above) is making all these changes, unauthorised by members. Same guy, PD, wrote the content of that letter. He's not even an emma-rates pilot any more.

The other pilot 'Consultants' are either; walking away or doing nothing.

Why would any pilot hand their fate & family's financial future over to Harvey Watt Inc., when the plan is neither underwritten or insured against legal actions. A single successful lawsuit, or even just the cost defending decisions (made by an unrelated, for-hire service provider, Harvey Watt) can deplete the entire fund.

If Harvey Watt is making decisions, then surely legal liability should be with them, and the fund not be using pilot members' money to defend against legal action.

And why are offshore API pilot 'Consultants' needed or paid, if all decisions are outsourced & fully automatic?

[Praise Jebus]

777, T bird whatever handle you go by clearly you have an issue with API and one basis of that gripe is that it's no longer looking after EK pilots by EK pilots. Many EK pilots are members of API and it's up to them to decide if it's the right fit or not. Your constant talking down of API only weakens the image and strength of a fund that over 2000 of us pay into. Politely back off and stop jeopardizing something we choose to be in or out of. Your persistant attempt to create "a run on the bank" is not in the best interest of the rest of us, your supposed colleagues. If you're in API then get out of it, if you're deep in a legal challenge with it then may justice prevail.

[777-Up]

Praise Jebus; you raise some valid points. And nobody could reasonably argue with you, if;

If pilot members actually were given facts before decisions were made by the paid API 'Consultants'. Or pilots had an annual, or even once vote (as most mutual plans do, even CLUBS such as APC have votes & member oversight) then what you say would have weight.

As it is, we're left to discover surprising details outside. Here, for example. With our money locked-up inside.

Unfortunately, API pilot members have never been asked their view, not once. Nor do they have any say whatsoever, in how their own fund is run, or money is spent. Why not?

[Tiredofbeingtired]

I wrote to API on their website and copy/paste from prune and tell them from me on Pprune is questions about the letter I receive; is it fine to ask for answers to them?

Thanks for taking the time to write us; to be honest we wish more guys with questions would just ask us instead of asking each other.

(Q). That letter, quoted above from API (if true) illustrates what's gone wrong.
(A). I don’t follow Pprune but sounds like he’s using a variation on the famous, “Liar liar, pants on fire” offense. Cunning.

(Q). LIPS/API was set up, around 2004 and promoted as a program to exclusively look after emma-rates pilots. Non-profit mutual. With Directors who were also the same.
(A). We are still a non-profit mutual fund. When LIPS (the original plan) was set up it was, indeed, set up by current Emirates pilots. As time has gone on some of them have moved on as well to other careers or even just to spend time with family; this API stuff eats up a lot of time! As for me, I resigned from Emirates last year because the flying hours were just too much. I stayed with API because I like doing it and helping the pilots.

(Q). Harvey Watt were HIRED as a commercial medical specialist service provider, year-to-year, simply to make medical recommendations (NOT decisions). The Directors would then make the decision. Looking after pilots. Many joined, in good faith, on this basis.
(A). Back when LIPS started, pilots making claims presented their medical records to their fellow pilots who would then make decisions with no medical training to back them up. Furthermore, there was no standard to safeguard protected health information. This is in no way a slight against the original founders; they were just doing what they thought was right to help their fellow pilots.

In practical terms, that means if you were to file a claim you’d get your full medical file from the clinic, bring it to their houses, let them read your entire medical history from the first day you went into the clinic with symptoms of an STD (for example) til now. Then, having read your entire file they are required to make a decision on a complex medical problem based on reports written by doctors. I don’t know about you but I don’t want my fellow pilots looking at my medical records, I don’t want them making judgements about my medical problems. I don’t want them talking to their wives about me, or to other pilots I fly with, starting every conversation with, “Mate, you must promise not to tell anyone but…” (I know, that could never happen because pilots never gossip).

Regarding the pilots making the decisions, could this happen? “Mate, I know this guy, been flying with him for donkey’s years. He’s a good guy! His record is a bit thin but let’s take care of him” or the opposite, “Mate, flew with him, he’s a tw*t, I say don’t pay him.”

Having pilots in charge of your medical records and making decisions based on them was deemed, by everyone involved, to be an idea whose time had come to go away. The directors at the time looked at a group of medical providers and contracted with Harvey Watt & Co. in the USA; they have legal regulations regarding protected health information and their doctors are aviation specialists. They are paid a flat rate / pilot / month to review the medical records for completeness, check if it’s a pre-existing condition or Self-Reported Disability in accordance with the API Rules and forward it to the Trust.

(Q). If API is now clearly stating Harvey Watt is calling all the shots on which pilot gets paid, that is a total reversal of the original intent. Tail-wagging-the-dog. And all without proper notice to Members. Wake up. A single person, PD (shown in weird video above) is making all these changes, unauthorised by members. Same guy, PD, wrote the content of that letter. He's not even an emma-rates pilot any more.
(A). We have not stated in any way that Harvey Watt is calling the shots on which pilots get paid. They simply make a medical recommendation, taking the API Rules into account, and forward it to the Trustee. It is the Trustee’s legal responsibility to make the decision.

The guy who wrote this blames me, alone, for making all these changes. Of course it’s nonsense. No decision made by the managers of API is made unilaterally. Every decision we make from its birth as an idea to its final delivery is discussed with the entire team which includes Harvey Watt & Co. (for medical questions or clarity), our attorneys (for questions on UAE law), our contracted insurance company (for questions regarding life insurance) and the API Trust in Guernsey U.K. (for matters of the Trust, since they are the final arbiter and by law have the responsibility for the Plan and the fund).

I did write the content of the letter you received this week. I’m the guy charged with, for lack of a better term, corporate communications. I wrote a draft, I sent it to the other managers as well as to our accountants (for the financial data), Harvey Watt & Co. (for the medical view on Self-Reported Disability), the actuary in South Africa regarding the number of un-explainable claims), The Trust (for review regarding their mention) and the investment platform (for returns information). After everyone had provided their input we asked several line-serving Emirates pilots to read it and give their feedback. Only after that process was complete did we release it to the membership. FYI that email was months in the making and was viewed by numerous sets of eyes and no one picked up on the confusion point regarding self-reported benefits. So, I apologize to you for that. If you're also confused, the only change to benefits is for those pilots who submit claims that fall under Self-Reported Disabilities. Everything else is still til age 65.

Regarding the ‘allegation’ of “unauthorized by members”, I’m not sure what that means. Did he mean the members told us not to do something and we did? Or did he mean we didn’t ask the members’ approval before we did something? I prefer to think it’s the latter since rarely do we even hear from the members on policy and when we do we take those very seriously. If he’s trying to say we don’t communicate enough, maybe that is a valid point. But we don’t really hear that from the members. We’d be happy to communicate more but most of the stuff we do is just daily ‘day-to-day’ and, to be honest, is pretty dull. That being said, when we do make a big decision we make every attempt to notify you as quickly as we can; we put it in the medical newsletter and deliver it to your mailbox or, as in the most recent case we did a direct email and we always post it on the NEWS in the website. In the past we sent out surveys; shocking how few people even took the time to answer! We can do surveys again, if enough people suggest it. Its not free but if that’s what the members want that’s what we want.

(Q). The other pilot 'Consultants' are either; walking away or doing nothing.
(A). API is like any organization made up of people. They sign on, they do their work, they make a decision to go do something else. There is no one “doing nothing!”. On the contrary (and on this I will speak for the others) not one of us had any idea the colossal amount of time we would be spending on this when we approached LIPS and said, “Can I help?”

(Q). Why would any pilot hand their fate & family's financial future over to such a commercial company, when the plan is neither underwritten or insured. A single successful lawsuit, or even just the cost defending decisions can deplete the entire fund.
(A). We’re a non-profit, mutual benefit fund and we exist solely to help Emirates pilots. Everyone makes their own decision on their financial future but I can tell you there’s a few SFIs at Emirates and quite a few former Emirates pilots who were damn glad they had LIPS / API when they lost their medicals. If you haven’t yet, please visit the Claims section on our website and see just how many of your former pilots we’re helping.

(Q). If Harvey Watt is making decisions, then surely legal liability should be with them, and the fund not be using pilot members' money to defend against legal action.
(A). Harvey Watt & Co. isn’t making decisions. They’re only making a recommendation.

(Q). And why are offshore API pilot 'Consultants' needed or paid, if all decisions are outsourced & fully automatic?
(A). It’s true, we have set up a system whereby the medical recommendations are handled by Harvey Watt & Co. and sent directly to the Trustee who makes the decision based on the recommendation and we did that because we looked at the Plan as it was at the time and asked, ‘what happens if we (the managers of the plan) all die at the same time because we’re in the same car going for lunch? Who’s going to take care of the pilots?’ Under the current system, were we all to be…terminally unavailable…pilots could still send their records to Harvey Watt & Co. who could make a recommendation and forward it to the Trustee. We’ve done our primary duty to the pilots.

However, and this goes to the question of why we (or someone) is needed:

What happens when Harvey Watt & Co. decide they want to re-negotiate their fee per pilot? Who is going to do that for the members? Who would Harvey Watt & Co. even contact? That same question now goes for all our service providers; there are many and they constantly change.

What else do we, the consultants, do? A short list, off the top of my head would be:

Ensure website is functioning properly. Ensure changes to the website are properly tested and validated. Ensure “Emirates” is spelled correctly, not “emma-rates”

Answer this question.

Answer over a thousand questions like this every year on all subjects.

Manage the member’s resignation from Emirates in regards to Leave Service Benefit calculations and gather the required documents from the members to present to the Trustee when it’s time to approve the LSB payment.

Track the members from their first contact with us when their medical record is suspended.

Ensure the Trustee is supplied with the proper documentation as required by the Rules. Maintain the documentation!

Ensure an Annual Report is completed. Ensure the completed Annual Report is distributed. Make a decision that in the past printing the Annual Report was expensive and generally wound up in the bins at HQ so why don’t we just direct mail and post on the website and save money.

Invest the members’ funds. However, prior to investing the members’ funds, find a way to be able to legally and safely invest the members’ funds.

Sadly, to work with the families when there has been a death of a member or spouse. To help them collect their life-insurance from a faceless insurance company.

To give daily direction to the accounting company on policy changes, website problems, data entry problems.

Track who has (and has not) joined the API Trust and send reminders.

Send payment reminders. And Final Reminders.

When a member shows us that there's something wrong in the Rules, re-write the Rules.

When we see there's something more that could be done, do it. Recently one of our beneficiaries passed away and the decision was to continue benefits payments for an additional three months to help the spouse through the process. Would a survey been the proper forum to ask the members should we do this? Your guess is as good as mine, but I doubt it.

The list goes on and on, really. Hopefully this has been helpful to you; if there’s anything else, please don’t hesitate to write.

[777-Up]

Harvey Watt are an 'administrator' designed to assist in making decisions. Who says so? Harvey Watt, here;
Harvey Watt & Co. | Licensed TPA, Group Insurance, Pilot Medical Certification Services, Claim Absence Management, Reporting Technology (http://www.harveywatt.com/home-group/overview)

According to Harvey Watt, they are the; 'Only Third Party Administrator specializing in pilots'. Their own page states they are a commercial service. They are paid to do work the plan desires.

'Administrators' are not 'decision-makers'. Unless someone, PD, deliberately sets them up to be (without first asking the pilots being served, many of whom are too busy working, to research the details).

Pilots only find out after making a claim, their entire financial future (while also dealing with sickness) is now exclusively in the hands of an unknown USA 'administrator,' thousands of miles away they can never meet.

If Members are knowingly & happily willing to be covered under such an arrangement, that's fine.

Fact is, most pilots did not enter the plan on those terms. And they've not been consulted before serious rule & claim process changes were made. They have no say in their own, non-profit plan. Why not?

[Mister Warning]

Thanks for the detailed response, Tired!
There will always be negative posters on this forum.
You guys and LIPS/API are doing a great service for the pilots and most of us are very grateful.

[Thunderbirds54321]

To really know the aircraft you fly on, the Airbus for example, you need to read level 3 notes of the FCOM.

To really know the truth about aircrewprotection international (API) and how they really operate, you need to read the comments included below the videos Risky Risky WTF and Reckless “Superman” on YouTube channel posted by deep throat


Click on ‘show more’ and ‘read more’ to see the whole comment

People say the information in the comments below the videos is free for all to see.

[777-Up]

There will always be negative posters on this forum.
Presenting facts from Harvey Watt's own website, isn't being negative. It's highlighting the truth.

Referring to significant changes made to API; terms, conditions, rules & claim process, without prior consultation & permission of Members falls under same.

Pilots don't appreciate unauthorised changes, whether from a company, protection plan or recreation club.

Especially if they only become aware when they claim.

Highlighting facts isn't being negative. It's being positive & proactive regarding the truth.

The solution is for Members to have an annual vote, approving who runs their own fund, and how. This is a legal requirement for such a fund in certain jurisdictions. It takes 5-minutes the way APC (a social club) do it. Nothing to be afraid of.

Unless you're a paid, overseas Consultant, fearful pilots won't approve or appreciate what you've done.

Speaking of pay, who determines how much an API Consultant gets paid from pilot member contributions? It appears the unelected, unappointed Consultant now decides his own monthly API pay. Where else does that happen? Members have no say or control over such things, that's clear.

[Lynx8]

It is all very true what 777-Up is saying.

I have enquired many things to API and I was not satisfied by their email answers...ofter signed anonymously...yes only email cause no office in DXB, no phone in DXB to talk to bla bla bla.

At the end, as per our pilot instinct, we land or go-around.

I felt uncomfortable. I went around diverting to somewhere else leaving to API full 3 years of contributions, getting back zero, but I did what my instinct said.

It was "Emirates pilots helping Emirates pilots". Now the API website says "Pilots helping pilots". Who are those pilots? Where are working those pilots? Where are nowadays living those pilots? Who appointed those pilots?
It is not was it was anymore for all the 100 reasons you guys mentioned above.

Whoever is supporting API should not be afraid to let the others disclose the truth.

If any information mentioned in this forum is not true, any guy supporting API should just proof the facts with some documentation. Otherwise just keep quite cause things have gone in the wrong direction for a very long time already...isn't it?

[Thunderbirds54321]

Research revealed Mister Warning left the company eight years ago.
(his post history on here shows so)

So why Mister Warning do you write the happy clappy praise for Superman’s purported proxy post by Tired

777-Up is absolutely correct in the points he has made, his advice is sound and to the members who now decide to heed his call to wake up!....

You all need to act sooner than later ....I note deep throat just updated comments on Risky Risky WTF

[Tiredofbeingtired]

So many people write question on Pprune why you do not just answer them and be final with them (except the one who is three or four different screen name)?

Hi there and thanks for asking. We wish more people would contact us directly instead of just talking to each other (or, in the case of that certain individual to himself and himself and himself) but it is what it is. By the way, it’s only been since never that anyone asked us why we don’t engage on Pprune. Here’s why:

1. It’s a rumor network; in fact, its name is the Professional Pilot RUmour Network. We don’t deal in rumor, we deal in fact.

2. Most of the questions aren’t questions, they’re accusations. No answer can ever satisfy the accusation; even if it did it will be ignored, glossed over or called a lie because it doesn’t fit with the narrative of the thread.

3. If we answer even one question or accusation there, if we respond just once we’ve now committed ourselves to the court of anonymous opinion and its a court of discord and disharmony; it’s attractive and compelling but it isn’t fact-based, logical, open-minded or fair and none of us have the time or desire to make that commitment on behalf of API or the membership.

4. If it was policy to answer questions on Pprune then we would have the responsibility to monitor Pprune because when questions are asked and if we didn’t respond within some arbitrary timeline we’d be skewered for being afraid to answer or ignoring the question.

5. I (for one) don’t spend time on Pprune; I only find out something’s been posted when someone sends me an email and then I may look at it, most times I don’t.

6. If we were answering questions on Pprune it would give that website credibility as a place for people to go for answers from us. Our answers are on our website. We’re contactable through our website; come ask us there. You can pick up the phone and call (as you did several weeks ago); the number’s been up there since last year.

7. If someone goes to Pprune for answers about API (or anything) they’re not really serious about the quality of the answer. When you go to your Command upgrade interview (congrats by the way and good luck), would you start any answer with, “Well, according to Pprune…”? You would only if you wanted to fail. Searching for truth or things substantive on an anonymous internet forum is the fool’s failure. I think Socrates said that first, by the way.

Sometimes, man, it’s just simply important to know things. That takes effort and a desire to raise your own level of knowledge above that of the screaming crowd. It applies to everything, whether it’s your interview or this company you’re contributing to. We put everything on our website for you and we ask you to look at it; if you don’t see what you’re looking for or don’t understand it ask us. You pay us to support you and we will, but not on Pprune.


With that out of the way, it would be naïve of us not recognize that you’re trying to give us a voice on Pprune because we won’t shout back there. While we appreciate it, it’s not necessary. The people working at API (present and past) are intelligent and honorable, each one came forward with the sole goal of serving the pilots. The guys whose lives are better because you and the rest of the membership are taking care of them are our best testimonial and our real voice. You have our thanks but you have more important things to be doing and an important milestone approaching. Study hard. Be a good Captain.

[Thunderbirds54321]

So Superman PD you’ve learnt how to type and post legible English. You do post on pprune and feel it’s ok to talk down to the hard working pilots who contribute to the aircrewprotection international fund.

Think you’ll find from now on pilot members can look after themselves and don’t need you because they are getting free legal advice on how to look after themselves.

Before you fly off or fall off can you confirm that’s you in the motorcycle stunt above without the red Superman cape ....I think you ll find it is .....

[Payscale]

I cant see on the API website who are the managers. PD doesnt ring a bell. Would you PM me who guys are?
I been with you for 5-6 years

Thanks

[777-Up]

I can't see on the API website... PD doesnt ring a bell.
See lower portion of this page, here;
http://www.aircrewprotection.org/how-api-works

[Thunderbirds54321]

We all know monies ( pilots contributed money from this scheme ) are in Guernsey Channel Islands .

Anyone know why Aircrew Protection International Limited are registered in the British Virgin Islands under ‘private’ directors and shareholders ?

Why the big secret on who the owners directors and shareholders are?

This is the response received from a company search service British Virgin Islands.

‘Please note these ( the identity of the directors and shareholders ) would only be included if the company have selected to make them available at the registry which, as you can see they have not.

Please note the register of directors and shareholders is held at the registered agent of the company in the BVI, access to this would only be available if you were a director or shareholder or if you had permission from the owner of the company.”


Benefits of registering a company in BVI:

All documents and legislation are in the official business language of English.
The incorporation time for a BVI company is short and any future administration simple and cost-efficient.
A BVI company offers a high level of privacy and confidentiality.
There are no requirement to pay capital gains, inheritance taxes or death duties.
No dividends, interest or royalties are required to be paid.
Registered or bearer shares are permitted.
Only one Director and Shareholder are required. The Directors and Shareholders can be any nationality and are not required to be resident in the BVI.
There is no requirement for an annual meeting to be held. If board meetings are required they can be held anywhere in the world.
Directors can be individual or corporate bodies.
There is no requirement to register initial or ongoing changes in Directors and Shareholders.
There are lenient accounting and auditing requirements.
No foreign exchange controls exist.
Corporate bank accounts can be opened without being present at the bank.


Original source: Key Benefits of company registration in British Virgin Islands (BVI) | Eltoma (http://eltoma-global.com/jurisdictions/british-virgin-islands-bvi/key-benefits.html)

Could this be the real reason behind the vehement defensiveness of this scheme by self serving Superman and Co?

Simple answer call up the manager of the fund in Guernsey and ask for the names of registered director and owners of the fund in the British Virgin Islands

Report update 280118
The date of incorporation /registration date of Aircrew Protection International Limited in BVI was 10/03/2015

[777-Up]

I believe BVI may have been the locale before it was moved to Guernsey. That in itself is NOT a cause for concern. It's fairly common.

Non-profit funds such as this need a shell/'head office' location, particularly because Dubai does not make it easy to set up a non-profit.

As to why there's no votes (on anything) allowed by us regular pilot members, that's a mystery.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Anyone know what the meaning in the letter today from API “reduce the benefit payout to six months” means ?

Under the latest API Rules 4 December 2017
DEFINITIONS

SELF-REPORTED DISABILITIES: A disability characterized by manifestations that are not verifiable or conclusive using tests or procedures accepted as standard medical practice OR are historically limiting to one’s employment from an aviation regulatory point-of-view but are not limiting to a person’s major life activities, such as performing strenuous physical tasks, walking, speaking, learning, eating or breathing OR include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: chronic fatigue, any allergy or sensitivity to chemicals or the environment, chronic pain conditions, obstructive sleep apnoea, insomnia, vertigo, dizziness, nausea, loss of consciousness, headache, pain, Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS), Meniere’s Disease, Migraines, Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome, Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID), fatigue, loss of energy, stiffness, soreness, ringing in the ears, numbness, itching, sudden or rapid or unexplained loss of hearing, sudden or rapid or unexplained loss of visual acuity, colour.


What this means is that if you lose your class 1 medical because of any of the conditions mentioned above (AND Harvey Watt & Co do not cite pre existing condition)you may be awarded six months basic salary and nothing more. Previously the plan would have paid up to age 60 or 65 depending on when you put in your claim.

If you combine the exclusions presented in the above definition with the unannounced new definition of pre existing condition there is a higher chance your claim will be denied.

[777-Up]

"What this means is that if you lose your class 1 medical because of any of the conditions mentioned above (AND Harvey Watt & Co do not cite pre existing condition)you may be awarded six months basic salary and nothing more. Previously the plan would have paid up to age 60 or 65 depending on when you put in your claim."

Surely, this is the kind of significant change in cover, pilot members should be able to vote on, PRIOR to them being implemented? Instead, we are simply TOLD, after the fact. Because 'PD' chooses to do so.

The paid Consultant 'PD' isn't even an emma-rates pilot any more... he doesn't have his own coverage money at stake... so this & other cover changes don't affect him, of course.

[Talparc]

Guys just choose a different LOL provider!

[donpizmeov]

Talpac, its one guy, multiple handles.

[gardenshed]

Err no its not.

[777-Up]

Talpac, its one guy, multiple handles.

Not true, donpizmeov.

[BobDole]

Price is going up... check the latest payment receipt email.

[Thunderbirds54321]

So they should make an announcement to something to come that has not even happen yet?

I receive a letter this week from them. They talk about legal things. That not good enough for you I guess.

"There are several, ongoing legal disputes from claimants regarding their entitlements which also increases the legal costs of the Trust’s attorneys. This is an expected by-product of the impartiality of the Trust which bases its entitlement decisions solely on the recommendation of Harvey Watt & Co. which makes its recommendation based on the Rules of the Plan which are written by your fellow Emirates pilots.

For those of you unfamiliar with the API Trust; having placed the bank account where you make your contributions into the Trust, payments from the account can only be directed by the Trustee, not by the pilots who manage the Plan. The Trustee makes that decision based on the recommendation of Harvey Watt & Co.....the pilots who manage the Plan have no authority to direct the Trustee in that payment process. By placing the Rules into the Trust the pilots who manage the Plan wanted to ensure that the Trustee reviews any changes to the Rules and makes the decision to approve or reject based on the Trust’s legally-regulated duty to protect the members (you) as well as the fund (for everyone); again, the pilots who manage the plan have no authority to direct the Trustee as to whether their suggestions will be followed."


So forensically dealing with the above statement point by point:


Pilot loses medical

Harvey Watt & Co receive pilot medical file for review

Harvey Watt ‘recommend' claim is settled or denied

Trustee follows Harvey Watt & Co recommendation without question (solely)

The fund money (pilot contributed money) is being used to pay Trust hired Attorneys to fight legal action brought against the trustee Sovereign (Guernsey) LIMITED by several API claimant members who feel their claim has been wrongly denied as a result of recommendations made by Harvey Watt & Co.

Seems Harvey Watt & Co recommendations are being challenged and the pilot fund money is being used as a legal fund.

There appears to be no known aircrewprotection rule allowing the fund to be spent in this way.
Members of the aircrewprotection plan would be strongly advised to dowload a copy of both LIPS and API rules for their personal records.This will allow members to note changes made unannounced by the pilot managers (aka consultants).

Copies of the rules are available for download in PDF format on aircrewptotection.org website.


Forensic analysis continued:

The pilots managers write the rules of the plan

Harvey Watt & Co makes its ‘recommendations’ based on the rules of the plan.

The Trustee Sovereign (Guernsey) Limited bases its entitlement decisions solely on the ‘recommendation' of Harvey Watt & Co

Seems pilot managers ( aka consultants ) directly control both Trustee Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited and Harvey Watt & Co by changing the rules at source.
The pilot managers have absolute control of the rules, can change them at will,and they do so.

Why? Because they wrote the rule that says so:

11 VALIDITY AND CHANGES OF RULES

11.1 The Rules of the Plan are posted on the API official website at Aircrew Protection International | Dashboard (http://www.aircrewprotection.org).

11.2 The current version of the Rules posted on the website is the valid, controlling version.

11.3 The current version of the Rules (Rule 11.2 above) on the date a benefits claim is filed shall be the controlling version for the claim. It is the responsibility of API to furnish the current, controlling version of the Rules to the Member when the benefit claim is filed.

11.4 Changes to the Rules will be posted under ‘NEWS’ on the official website at Aircrew Protection International | Dashboard (http://www.aircrewprotection.org). Alternatively, the trustee may elect to notify the Member via newsletter.

11.5 Previous versions of the Rules are obsolete when a newer version is posted on the official website. Terms and conditions of previous versions of the Rules are not controlling and have no validity except on the date that the Emirates Loss of Income Protection Scheme (LIPS) notifies the Members that it has changed its name to Aircrew Protection International:

source aircrew protection.org
RULES API RULES
API 4 december 2017
page 14 0f 27
RULE 11




FACT FYI


The API COMMITTEE (the pilots who manage the plan) have changed their title to

API CONSULTANTS

go to aircrewprotection.org HOW API WORKS and scroll to the end of the
page.

GD ACCOUNT SIGNATORY ONLY (signs the cheques :thought he had resigned from API)

PD TRUST CONSULTANT (aka Superman)

DT TRUST CONSULTANT

DM INVESTMENT COMMITTEE

JP MEDICAL RECORDS

[gardenshed]

Guys and Girls,

Latest update, as of 09:00 UK time a legal warrant was served upon Sovereign Trust Guernsey Ltd, informing them of legal action in the High Court, in pursuant of the claim for denied legal payment from LIPS/API after loss of Medical.
Guys your monthly contributions are now probably going to be used in defending this action, this cannot be acceptable use of our money.
Questions now need to be asked to the board, directors and any consultants as to how they have allowed things to progress this far, as if this goes all the way it isn't going to be cheap, and will probably run into the tens of thousands of UK pounds.

[SOPS]

I would suggest hundreds of thousand pounds in the High Court..ever seen what a QC charges? I should know, my ex SIL is one....

[donpizmeov]

So should they cave with every threat of a court case?

[Thunderbirds54321]

So should they cave with every threat of a court case?

At the risk of teaching you to suck eggs ..this depends on whether

1 Is it legal to risk the pilot money on a case.

2.The potential loss to the fund if you lose.

3.Whether the pilot managers give a d as its not their money...it is pilot money so we are told.



16 INVESTMENTS AND ACCOUNTS

16.4 All contributions paid by, or on behalf of the Members, less any remuneration or expenses shall be invested and/or held to administer the Plan and to fund the liabilities of the Plan to the extent that the Plan allows. The Trustee shall, where there have been deductions made in respect of remuneration or expenses provide the Members with a proper accounting for such deductions.

API Rule 16.4 API – 4 December 2017 Page 20 of 27

[donpizmeov]

That doesn't answer the question though does it? Should they cave with every threat to of a court case? This also would cost the fund money right? I don't know the details of your case. Nor should I, as it has nothing to do with me. But when you get on here with a multiple of different handles having conversations with yourself, it does make me hope you are OK.

[Thunderbirds54321]

donpizmeov

google summons ..... you’ll find tis NOT a threat...its actual action.

[gardenshed]

Donpizmeov,

No they shouldn't cave into every legal action, but where substantial expert evidence from professionals in their field, have disputed the facts, as presented by some unknown faces in Harvey Watt, and by the way what are their qualifications in the medical field,( do they stretch to eminent professors in the subject matter as being argued in this case?)
Then one has to ask why the board,directors and consultants of API have taken things so far, is this some sort of Macho thing ?
And by the way I do not have multiple handles, just some knowledge of this case.

[777-Up]

Without dwelling on Donpizmeov's belief all other participants on PPRUNE are a single person;

if Harvey Watt (a for-profit company) is now running the API show, why are pilot contributions put at risk in such cases, to defend Harvey Watt's own decisions?

Anyone know why? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

I don't recall pilots in the plan being asked about this most recent change, either.

[fliion]

I believe what Don means is - if you get sued and before the court rules, does that automatically mean that the claimant / claim is valid?

Because in that case, just file and forget about the ruling - because ‘hey, I filed, I’m right.’

Claim ain’t a judgment gents.

[toilet flush]

I asked API about this legal action and I received the following response:

As of 18:30 (Dubai time) 29 January, Sovereign Trust Guernsey had not been served any papers, warrants, legal documents, notes or anything that could be construed as a legal notification. This is not to say the Trust won't be served in the future but does highlight the accuracy of his statements.

The Trustee was sent a screenshot of the post from PPRuNe and had no idea to what the poster was referring.

We are well aware of who this poster is. The attorneys for the API Trust and the attorneys for the claimant had agreed to, and were participating in, a mediation / arbitration appeal process; mid-way through the process his attorney notified the Trustee they no longer wanted to participate and would be filing legal papers.

The monthly contributions are used to run the API business. Anything which effects the API business is managed through contributions. Counter claims are a part of the business. Paying the current 21 claimants is also part of the business.

[777-Up]

Claim ain’t a judgment gents.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting a claim is a judgment.

The question members care more about, is; why are pilot members having to pay all fees for the defendant (API), when it's a Harvey Watt Co. decision?

[Tiredofbeingtired]

I call API just now and they say as of 13:30 30JAN18 in Dubai they were just talking to UK Guernsey and that nobody has receive a legal paper from anyone about anything and everybody shaking their head :ugh:

Also that they know who this poster is and that him and his lawyers and UK Guernsey lawyers agreed to a arbortration appeel but halfway through him and his lawyers change their mind and walk out and make threat so they wont be surprised and are prepared because it is just doing business. Can not make everyone happy all the time.

[Thunderbirds54321]

The postman always rings twice

[gardenshed]

Just to tidy things up with further information.
I was under the impression that the summons had been served upon the trust, however I will quote directly from the email sent to the claimant today from his legal team, and I quote.

" In Guernsey the rules require personal service.Therefore the Summons was handed to HM Sergeant on Monday for the sergeant to serve by hand on Sovereign today.I expect to receive confirmation of service tomorrow." end quote.

So in essence the Summons was served but has to go in a slightly roundabout way, end result is the same.

While I cannot directly comment on Toilet Flushes statement about mediation/arbitration etc as I do not have sufficient knowledge of what was on offer, and unless they were personally involved with it, neither would they , nobody in their right mind wants to go to court due to the time and expense involved, therefore one has to assume that the gap between the parties remains unabridged,unresolved, and unlikely to be so.

One of the good things to come out of this may be just how much of an influence Harvey Watt will have over future cases, when presented by expert medical evidence to the contrary.

[Townie]

From personal experience, wide gaps between parties in negotiations is usually due to the naivety of one side. Their ignorance (and/or greed) will be fueled by a lawyer who intends to cash in on their ignorance.

I'm unaware of any details in this case and do not post as an endorsement to AIP or otherwise, but I'm getting tired of the highly emotional posts and personal insults.

Poster of said messages seems to think they have a valid claim. If they're not bias (hard to believe giving the emotion they post with), then it could be ignorance on the part of HW and AIP.

Time will tell, but one things for sure.....the lawyers will end up richer regardless.

[Thunderbirds54321]

I asked API about this legal action and I received the following response:

As of 18:30 (Dubai time) 29 January, Sovereign Trust Guernsey had not been served any papers, warrants, legal documents, notes or anything that could be construed as a legal notification. This is not to say the Trust won't be served in the future but does highlight the accuracy of his statements.

The Trustee was sent a screenshot of the post from PPRuNe and had no idea to what the poster was referring.


The monthly contributions are used to run the API business. Anything which effects the API business is managed through contributions. Counter claims are a part of the business. Paying the current 21 (soon to be 22 ) claimants is also part of the business.


FACT The Summons has been served by H M Sergeant.

FACT you revealingly use the word API ‘business’:members take note your small & friendly pilot hand holding mutual has mutated and is now a business.

FACT Sovereign (Guernsey)Limited through Managing Director SH have a Fiduciary duty to protect pilot members money. They do not have the right to an open blank cheque book to the pilot fund.

FACT Most at risk are the 21 current (soon to be 22 ) claimants as they are net beneficiaries from the fund:they would do well to point this out to SH and keep a close watch on this case which goes on public record Friday.

Reminder: nowhere do the rules state the funds can be spent on “ anything which effects the API business”. (see the purported quote from API above).The current rules of the plan contain no mention of the funds being squandered on ‘liabilities’ arising out of legally challenged ‘recommendations’ made by Harvey Watt & Co who contracted the doctors who write their opinions in those reports.
As the API Consultants can change those rules at will members need to remain diligent and note any changes to the rules.

For the record the current rules state:


16 INVESTMENTS AND ACCOUNTS

16.4 All contributions paid by, or on behalf of the Members, less any remuneration or expenses shall be invested and/or held to administer the Plan and to fund the liabilities of the Plan to the extent that the Plan allows. The Trustee shall, where there have been deductions made in respect of remuneration or expenses provide the Members with a proper accounting for such deductions.

API Rule 16.4 API – 4 December 2017 Page 20 of 27

( notice how the ‘to fund the liabilities of the Plan to the extent that the Plan allows’ has become “to fund anything which effects the API business” and ‘The monthly contributions are used to run the API business’). Eyes wide open ? Point made.


Free legal advice: the 21 (soon to be 22 )claimants already receiving benefits who oppose their pilot fund being squandered on legal fees can ultimately write to the Guernsey Financial Services Commission and Channel Islands Ombudsman to complain using the following links:

https://www.gfsc.gg/consumers/complaints/how-make-complaint

https://www.ci-fo.org/submit-a-complaint/

These two authorities effectively police (regulate ) the Trustee holding your fund and they will take your concerns seriously. Their service is free.

This is your legal right SO USE IT !



opinion : behavioral evidence (Reckless video page 8 above) suggests the PD ‘superman’ will attempt to instruct the Trustee Sovereign to use the pilot funds on a Risky Risky court case.(by changing the rules or poetic license ) After all its not his money.

Likely fallout /collateral damage to the brand reputation of employers and businesses involved is a real possibility.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Members can rely on being updated as required.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Notes of appreciation have been received from claimant awarded benefit by API two days ago expressing gratitude for this current challenge to API .

[gardenshed]

Gents & Ladies,

This is the alleged address in the BVI that is used by the fund & managers etc.
The question surely has to be, that in a "Tax Free" country such as Dubai, with a fund that is used for EK pilots in their hour of need, why does the money have to be kept in a "Tax Haven" such as BVI.

[777-Up]

This is the alleged address in the BVI that is used by the fund & managers etc.why does the money have to be kept in a "Tax Haven" such as BVI.

Because it's impossible to set something non-profit up, as LIPS was, in Dubai.

While there may be concerns about LIPS/API, this isn't one of them.

[gardenshed]

But why the BVI ?
There are plenty of other "Tax Havens" around, could it be because of a high level of secrecy about who actually is involved and where money is moved to.
Let's face it if Dubai was a problem there are plenty of other more open destinations, where they could plonk the money each month, and earn a reasonable return the rather large lump sum that must be involved.

[777-Up]

I'm told Sovereign (business services) in Dubai (Google them, same Sovereign as who set up current API structure) was consulted at the time, BVI is what Sovereign recommended.

There's no wrongdoing in that.

[gardenshed]

The same structure that is now being called into question.
A fund such as the one the API hold has no need for such high levels of secrecy at all, or am I missing something.

I shall leave these links attached as it might well be relevant, and as no one seems to be able to answer the question as to why our money has to be held in such a secretive offshore haven.

https://youtu.be/g1msuVpQ5uo

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/25/offshore-secrets-british-virgin-islands

[Thunderbirds54321]

Notice on the aircrewprotection website under “how it works” there are some BIG new faces posted under API Consultants ...DC and DW. They allegedly work for the very same company as members do and crew scheduling will have their mobile contact details for certain.

You can ask them directly about the British Virgin Islands connection and report back on pprune.

Meantime news just received that yet another pilot claim has been denied by aircrewprotection after the company paid loss of license. Harvey Watt & Co strikes again. Details to follow.

777-up pm me please: toward an additional class of action.

[gardenshed]

Sadly it is true, and I happen to know this person, and before anyone asks his case is unrelated to the main topic.
It would appear that HW are now in the business of denying claims by fair means or foul, with the mealy mouthed reason of "preexisting" even though yet again in this case it wasn't, and EK have paid up on the loss of licence on his case too.
API now have to justify as to why there appears to be no right of appeal,how HW can refuse to accept the claim when yet again his medical has been pulled by the GCAA.
To quote Shakespeare " There is something rotten in the State of Denmark" and the API need to sort it out pdq, otherwise they may end up facing further legal action from a myriad of pilots, who have been regularly paying into a scheme that now seems shy of paying out when the need arises.

[nakbin330]

Hey Gardenshed ... you know this isn’t going to be sorted out on Pprune right? The innuendo doesn’t help either. Write something that the majority can understand and follow, because I, for one, have lost interest in your crusade.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Hey naggybin

No one is forcing you to read the truth.

[gardenshed]

Nakbin330 in very simple english then just for you.

Two separate cases where both pilots have had their claims for payment from API declined.
Both have received Loss of Licence from EK.
In both cases API via Harvey Watt have declined to pay out citing the reason of "Preexisting" with no right of appeal.
One case is now heading to the UK courts with a hefty payout if proven that API & Harvey Watt are in the wrong.
If API and Harvey Watt don't sort themselves out there may well be other court cases, especially if the one above wins, which will further drain funds needlessly , by pilots who have paid into the scheme, followed the rules only to be told sorry, an unknown somebody has decided that you are not going to receive what is rightfully yours.
The reference to Shakespeare and Hamlet,why not have a read, it's quite telling.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Fact :The decision to save or obliterate the fund is about to be made.

"The purpose of the Plan is to provide benefits to Emirates Pilots (protect Emirates pilots from financial hardship) in the event of permanent loss of Class 1 Medical Certificate and termination as a pilot by Emirates Airlines for medical reasons"


Members standby for updates

[Thunderbirds54321]

Fact Preliminary indications are that the “founding partners ” ( those whose identities remain undisclosed on Aircrew Protection International BVI company registration paperwork and sanctioned by the API “consultants “ including “sewerman” and as referred to in the quoted reference below by Stephen Hare of Sovereign (Guernsey) Limited as “the leaders or API ") are indeed embarking on a legal spending spree using pilot members money effectively using the fund as a legal fund to defend opinions of doctors commissioned by Harvey Watt & Co to deny members claims.


Currently beneficiaries, the recipients of notice of entitlement need to realize this is YOUR money. If the fund folds as a result of this action current beneficiaries and members alike cannot hold these individuals responsible . The API board wrote the rules of no liability themselves to ensure they will remain immune from prosecution.


RULES OF AIRCREW PROTECTION INTERNATIONAL

17 INDEMNITY

17.1 Neither the Trustee, Aircrew Protection Incorporated, Ltd., its Directors, advisors, consultants, secretarial administrator or administrative staff or any person holding office for the time being or who has in the past held office under the Plan shall be liable for any damages, losses or expenses arising from their acts or omissions in carrying out their respective duties unless arising from their gross negligence or dishonesty in the jurisdiction(s) in which said persons live or work or where funds are maintained.

17.2 No Member, their Nominated Recipient, or their Nominated Beneficiaries shall have any claim against API Limited, the Trustee, the Directors, the Committee or their appointees or representatives should the Plan be legally and properly depleted within the Rules of the Plan or unable to meet the liabilities of the Plan to the Members, or their Nominated Recipient, or their Nominated Beneficiaries concerned. This limitation shall apply irrespective of whether or not a Notice of Entitlement has been issued by the Trustee.

API – 4 December 2017 Page 21 of 27



On point of legal direction:

Whilst Rule 17.1 is clearcut

Rule 17.2 contains a clause that assists beneficiary and member alike:

Rule 17.2 states that the boards indemnity will only stand in so far as the Plan be legally and properly depleted within the Rules of the Plan

So what can current beneficiaries do right now to protect their future payment entitlements ?

Write to the Ombudsman and GFSC and question the legality and propriety or otherwise of the funds managers and Trustee allowing depletion and or collapse of the fund being caused by the boards decision to illegally and inappropriately allocate funds to finance defending legal liabilties.

Your only effective course of action is to review post #187 above and protest to the Ombudsman and Guersey Financial Services Authority using the links provided.


https://www.gfsc.gg/consumers/compla...make-complaint

https://www.ci-fo.org/submit-a-complaint/



Here is a direct quote from Sovereign Trust Guernsey Limited viewable on the aircrewprotection.org website since 2016:

"INTRODUCTION FROM THE API TRUST
Introduction from the API Trust
August 2016

Dear LIPS members,

My name is Stephen Hare and I represent Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited which acts as the Trustee of the Aircrew Protection International (API) Trust in Guernsey, UK.

As you may be aware, in May of 2015 the Emirates Pilot’s Loss of Income Protection Scheme (LIPS) was rebranded as Aircrew Protection International. Over the past year the API leadership has been instrumental in making your loss of license plan and the fund, where you have been making your contributions, more secure and an important part of that effort was the establishment of the API Trust.

Before I go further, let me explain what a trust is. A trust is a legal relationship whereby property (the fund) is held by one party (the trustee) for the benefit of another (the members, who are all beneficiaries of the Trust). While the trustee is given legal title to the fund, in accepting it the trustee owes a number of fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries including:utmost good faith, impartiality and acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The Trustee is licensed and regulated by the Guernsey (UK) Financial Services Commission.”

end of quote


What is 'Doctrine Of Utmost Good Faith'
The Doctrine Of Utmost Good Faith, also known as uberrimae fidei, is the minimum standard requiring transacting parties to act honestly and not mislead or withhold critical information from one another. The doctrine of utmost good faith applies to many everyday financial transactions and is one of the most fundamental doctrines in insurance law.


Squandering notice of entitlement sanctioned beneficiary funds (funds already allocated to disabled pilots) on extortionate legal liability costs cannot be in the best interest of those beneficiaries.

Members pay their premiums monthly and believe this money is kept securely to support them should they lose their medical and their employment is terminated:
No one pays their monthly premium knowing this money is now being used as a legal fund to fight liabilities incurred by the API board and Sovereign Guernsey Limiteds choice to solely (without question) accept and consequently defend opinions made by Harvey Watt & Co contracted doctors at astronomical cost to the fund.

[Switchboard]

Hello Everyone.

This is David with API. I’m new to this, but I’ve been with EK for over 10 years. If you ever have any questions, concerns, or want clarification on anything (rumour or otherwise) you’ve read or heard about API, feel free to PM me, or just ask me here. I’ll do my best to answer quickly and accurately. Thank you.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Hello Everyone.

This is David with API. I’m new to this, but I’ve been with EK for over 10 years. If you ever have any questions, concerns, or want clarification on anything (rumour or otherwise) you’ve read or heard about API, feel free to PM me, or just ask me here. I’ll do my best to answer quickly and accurately. Thank you.




Hello David, your answers to the questions below in utmost good faith are required:

as an aide memoir


The Doctrine Of Utmost Good Faith, also known as uberrimae fidei, is the minimum standard requiring transacting parties to act honestly and not mislead or withhold critical information from one another. The doctrine of utmost good faith applies to many everyday financial transactions and is one of the most fundamental doctrines in insurance law.


1. Is it true that Aircrew Protection International are about to attempt to defend a major lawsuit in the Channel Islands using the pilot fund to finance same ?


2 .How much is the plaintiffs claim against the API fund ?


3.How much will the defense of the lawsuit cost the pilot fund ?


4 What if any are the statute of limitations on spending limits Sovereign Trust place on decisions made by the API board with regard to legal expenditure defending Harvey Watt & Co opinions when those opinions are legally challenged ?

5.Who exactly are the registered Owners/ managers/ shareholders listed under “private” in the aircrew protection international British Virgin Islands limited company incorporation /registration documentation in BVI as registered by agent Sovereign Corporate (BVI) Limited ? Stephen Hare as Sovereign API Trustee manager holds a Fiduciary duty of utmost good faith. Why are the identities of the “private” owners of the fund in The British Virgin Islands being withheld ?

6.Is PD "superman “ really “tiredofbeingtired” and “toilet flush”and just pretending to be a pilot with sub grade 4 aviation English ?

7.Have the “founding members” or “consultants” of aircrew protection international ever intervened post claim submission in any process or decision on process involving interaction and communication /correspondence between Harvey Watt & Co, the doctors providing opinions for Harvey Watt & Co and Sovereign Trust Guernsey Limited so as to influence decision making or choice course of action ?

8.Why is there no appeals procedure in place in cases where a pilot has his/her claim denied based on a API-Sovereign contracted Harvey Watt & Co doctor (s) opinion (as so many pilots recently have) where the pilot after obtaining and presenting expert and scientifically proven medical evidence that totally disproves the Harvey Watt & Co contracted doctors opinions to deny must resort to a lawsuit against Sovereign API to obtain justice ?


9.Do the aircrew protection international board have any medico- legal- financial qualifications whatsoever and if they do what are they?


10.Exactly how many individual pilots have current lawsuits against API /Sovereign Guernsey Limited ?

[Payscale]

Looking forward to reading those answers

[The Turtle]

Except for #6. I couldn't give a toss about.... It was all going so well, but personal attacks simply weaken your argument and credibility.

I, too am interested in the reply

[Switchboard]

Hello Thunderbird. Just back from a layover. Thanks for your questions.

1. Do you mean the API Trust in Guernsey? There is a legal proceeding involving the Trust (which makes the decisions for claims benefits) but you'd have to ask them directly. I can provide you with their contact info, if you'd like.

2. & 3. You will have to ask the Trust. We, the consultants, are not involved. It's just the cost of doing business. The fund is used for everything needed to support our members. We have money coming in and money going out. It's a non-profit, mutual benefit fund.

4. I don't understand what you're asking with this question. Please rephrase it and I'll be happy to try and answer it.

5. Which document are you referring to? Please present the document and I'll be happy to try and answer those questions.

6. I have put myself out here on this forum, as who I am, to help answer questions about API, not to engage in other antics. I don't know who anyone is on this forum, I would have no way of knowing. And I don't care. Please keep it professional and respectful when you refer to any of the people I work with or our members, or I won't answer your questions.

7. I'll explain how this works in a way we can all relate. Harvey Watt is Medlink (or now it's Ground Medical Support). The Trust is the Captain. Harvey Watt (Medlink) gathers medical facts and information sent to them by the member (the passenger). They then come up with a recommendation to the Trust (The Captain). We, the API consultants, are the FO, following along (or we are SATCOM, helping facilitate communications between the member, Harvey Watt and the Trust). But, to be clear, it's the Trust's (like the Captain's) decision by law based on legal guidelines and it's their responsibility to make the correct decision (just like us Captain's). All we can do (us "FOs", or Harvey Watt & Co.) is provide the best input we can, but we do not make the final decision. And we wouldn't want to. It's not our area of expertise, it's the Trust's. That's why the system has been set up the way it has.

8. There is an appeals process. In regards to the pilots "...who've so many have recently had their claims denied...". Which pilots are you referring to? If you reference the "Claims" section on our website, you'll see that since inception, 30 claims have been approved (including 2 in the past month) and only 5 denied in the 11-year history of the plan. 25 of those claims are still active and the members are receiving monthly benefits and 5 claims have expired with the member reaching the term of the benefit. There was one claim denied in 2016 and one in 2017.

9. I only know my qualifications, not everyone else's. We hire professionals with professional credentials, such as Harvey Watt & Co. for expert medical advice, Hamdan Al Harmi & Associates as our attorneys, Mondial and Takaud for investment guidance, and Sovereign Trust to make final independent, legally regulated decisions on claims. We're just pilots, which is why we hire experts in these fields.

10. There is 1 legal proceeding involving the Trust from 1 former member whose claim was denied due to a pre-existing condition. See answers 1, 2, and 3.

[Thunderbirds54321]

So to paraphrase your answers Dave

1.ask someone else

2 & 3.ask someone else

4. I don’t understand you.

5. I don’t understand what document you are talking about

6. I don’t understand your question

7. I will avoid the question

8. there is an appeals process(really where ?)

9. none

10.one

And you required a lawyer to help you provide the response above ?

Hopefully the above paraphrasing of Dave’s answers will provide an insight to current beneficiaries and members alike how the fund ended up in a position where members money is heading for a serious and needless squandering.

To put that squandering in perspective and using conservative estimate, a single monthly members contribution to the fund would barely finance 6 minutes of legal consultation at this level.

Professional services at Barrister level can run at 81000 AED (180 members monthly contributions) an hour.

Most multinational corporations would baulk at the prospect of risking such a significant percentage of their capital on one court action and for this reason alone prefer to settle out of court.

How can squandering money that legally belongs to active beneficiaries and is contributed to from monthly members premiums be acting in utmost good faith and in the best interests of the beneficiaries?

Where you request I will provide you with simplified (less legal) English to assist you provide comprehensive answers members need from you on questions 4 5 7 8 and 10.
Meantime I’m sure members would require from you the contact details for Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited preferably including the direct e mail address and telephone number for Trust Manager Stephen Hare to answer and clarify on record, answers to questions 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 and 10.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Questions for Dave with API ( reframed ).


1. Is it true that Aircrew Protection International are about to attempt to defend a major lawsuit in the Channel Islands using the pilot fund to finance same ?


Members are awaiting your post providing contact details for Sovereign Trust(Guernsey) Limited preferably including the direct
e mail address and telephone number for Trust Manager Stephen Hare.


2.How much is the plaintiffs claim against the API fund ?
as in question 1 above.

3. How much will the defense of the lawsuit cost the pilot fund ?
as in question 1 above.


4. How much as a percentage of the fund can Sovereign Trust Guernsey Limited legally spend on fighting lawsuits arising from decisions made by Trust manager Stephen Hare and still be judged as acting in utmost good faith and acting in the best interests of the current Beneficiaries ?




5. Refer to post #194 page 10 of this thread and watch and listen to the narrative in the video. The question is What is the identity of the registered Owners/ managers/ shareholders listed under “private” in the aircrew protection international British Virgin Islands limited company incorporation document and why was this information withheld on Registration ?




6. (The original question has been replaced with a more pertinent one.).

Referring to the plan rules 5.9-5.11 inclusive below, will members be provided with three months notice of reduction of benefit due legal expenses
incurred by the Trust ?


5.9 Benefits payable under the Plan to members cannot exceed the vailue of the assets held in the Plan at any time.

5.10 If the balance of the funds becomes insufficient to pay the claimants as per Section 6, then the income of the fund shall be distributed to the claimants to the maximum extent possible on a pro-rata basis as determined by the Directors.

5.11 Under certain unlikely conditions, (for example a sudden, massive increase in the number of claims due the same tragedy ie. a large group of pilots travelling together) the Plan allows for monthly payments to claimants to be reduced, at the discretion of the Directors. This would only be towards ensuring viability of the Plan. In the unlikely event this facility of the Rules is required, members and claimants will be provided with three months' written notice.

API – 4 December 2017
Page 6 of 27.



Below is a direct quote from

The API 2017 annual summary

"We also ask you, the member, if you can suggest anything we might have missed as a way to increase membership beyond word-of-mouth? Perhaps you have ideas, seen from the outside, that we haven’t considered. It is in every member’s benefit to increase the number of contribution-paying members to keep the mutual-benefit fund growing!”

end of quote



Fact

The API 2017 annual summary states that the number of members (those contributing to the funds and referred to you david as “money going in”) stands at 1546.

Basic mathematics here

1546 members each contributing 450 AED a month = 695700 AED a month “coming in”

25 Current beneficiaries each receiving 25000 AED a month = 625000 AED “going out”

This would leave 70700 AED a month remaining before expenses are deducted.


Using financial data from the API 2017 annual summary the following “expenses” are incurred by the fund each month :

Fuller Admin and Fuller Accounting Services:Accounting and data entry from service provider

210000 AED /12 = 17500 AED (money going out)

Banking /Financial Services Dubai & Guernsey (Sovereign Trust)

211088.56 AED/12 = 17590.71 AED (money going out)


Corporate Contracts ( Oman Insurance,Harvey Watt & Co USA , Website management)

1,221,142.27/12 AED/12=101761.85 AED (money going out )

Employee costs (Consultants, admin)

300413 AED /12= 25034 AED (money going out)

Conclusion:

Funds available balance each month

70700 AED

less monthly expenses

70700 AED - 17500 - 17590.71 - 101761.85 - 25034= - 91186.56 AED a month in the negative.

That’s a monthly deficit (loss to the fund ) of -91186.56 AED
(202 individual pilot monthly contributions)
an annual deficit (loss to the fund ) of - 1,094,238.72 AED
(2,431.64 individual pilot monthly contributions)

members can cross check the above figures on the aircrewprotection.org website
under the NEWS tab

https://www.aircrewprotection.org/news/1



David
have the pilot consultants considered the annual running cost or what you refer to as “just the cost of doing business" already running at 1942643.83 AED (4316.98 individual pilot monthly contributions ) a year indicates aircrewprotection international cannot afford to finance a pending colossal legal drain from the fund.

With audited accounts as published in the API annual summary 2017 indicating running costs are on a monthly deficit, an astute observer as seen from inside or out could not miss the fact that any additional legal costs incurred in defending any lawsuit would have to be drawn from the source fund (capital) held in The API Trust and managed by Sovereign Trust Guernsey Limited and sanctioned by Trust manager Stephen Hare.


7. A member of the plan loses his license on medical grounds and puts in a claim to API.

The question is have the “founding members” or “consultants” of aircrew protection international ever intervened in any process or decision on process involving interaction /correspondence between Harvey Watt & Co, the doctors providing opinions for Harvey Watt & Co and Sovereign Trust Guernsey Limited so as to influence decisions that effected the potential or actual outcome of that claim being settled or denied?


8. Why is there no appeals procedure in existence ? You say there is :to date 040318 where is it documented in the rules of LIPS, API or anywhere ?


10.Exactly how many individual pilots have current lawsuits against API /Sovereign Guernsey Limited ?

You answered one .

Fact

The API 2017 summary states:

“There are several, ongoing legal disputes from claimants regarding their
entitlements which also increases the legal costs of the Trust’s attorneys....”.

So exactly how many individual pilots have current lawsuits against API / Sovereign Trust Guernsey
Limited ?

[Payscale]

When I joined LIPS many years ago, it was explained. If the company pays, LIPS pays. When and why did this change?

[gardenshed]

Just having a read through the new rules, can David please explain to me how and I quote directly,

13.3.8 injury incurred as a result of deliberate exposure by the member to Exceptional
Danger (except in an attempt to save human life); this does don’t apply to extreme
sports. so Scuba Diving, Skiing and Sky Diving etc are covered, yet and again I quote directly,

SELF-REPORTED DISABILITIES: A disability characterized by manifestations that are
not verifiable or conclusive using tests or procedures accepted as standard medical
practice OR are historically limiting from an aviation regulatory point-of-view versus a
medically or life-limiting point-of-view OR include (but are not limited to) one or more of
the following: chronic fatigue, any allergy or sensitivity to chemicals or the environment,
chronic pain conditions, obstructive sleep apnea, insomnia, vertigo, dizziness, nausea,
loss of consciousness, headache, pain, Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms
(MUPS), Meniere’s Disease, Migraines, Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy, Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome, Systemic
Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID), fatigue, loss of energy, stiffness, soreness, ringing
in the ears, numbness, itching, sudden or rapid or unexplained loss of hearing, sudden
or rapid or unexplained loss of visual acuity or colour blindness.


Which you have no control over are not, the exclusion list seems to get longer all the time.

The cynic in me would guess that the directors are all fans of "Extreme Sports" where you take a calculated risk of permanent injury, whilst many of the diseases can be proven medically, which are not lifestyle choices are they ! And surely this is what you are paying the monthly fees to protect yourself and your family against.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Hello Thunderbird. Thanks for your questions.

1. Do you mean the API Trust in Guernsey? There is a legal proceeding involving the Trust (which makes the decisions for claims benefits) but you'd have to ask them directly. I can provide you with their contact info, if you'd like.

10. There is 1 legal proceeding involving the Trust from 1 former member whose claim was denied due to a pre-existing condition. See answers 1, 2, and 3.

Hello David with aircrewprotection international

The members are waiting for the contact details for a Mr Stephen Hare,API Trust Manager at Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited.

In seeking answers to questions 1 2 and 3 in post #209 we require the following for Stephen Hare

Direct e mail address

Direct mobile and landline telephone number

current beneficiaries and members also look forward with anticipation to answers to the questions 4 5 6 7 8 and 10 in post #209 above.

Thank you

Thunderbirds54321 on behalf of the beneficiaries and contributing members of the api scheme.

[skyvan]

Thunderbirds54321 on behalf of the beneficiaries and contributing members of the api scheme.

Who made you our representative? :mad:

You have a beef with API, deal with it.

You are very quick to sprout a whole pile of accusations, if you have the details, pass them on, but if not, then stop trying to bully API over the internet.

This thread is pages of you and your alter ego being obnoxious and demanding, with no substance. From the outside, it looks like you have had a claim turned down, and now, like a kid in the playground, are having a serious dummy-spitting episode.

If you do have a valid claim, then take it up with them, this "internet shaming" is childish and doing nothing to advance your cause.

[fliion]

Who made you our representative? :mad:

You have a beef with API, deal with it.

You are very quick to sprout a whole pile of accusations, if you have the details, pass them on, but if not, then stop trying to bully API over the internet.

This thread is pages of you and your alter ego being obnoxious and demanding, with no substance. From the outside, it looks like you have had a claim turned down, and now, like a kid in the playground, are having a serious dummy-spitting episode.

If you do have a valid claim, then take it up with them, this "internet shaming" is childish and doing nothing to advance your cause.

Well said...

[gardenshed]

Skyvan & Fliion,

If you bothered to read the recent posts, you would see that the accusations if you want to call them that are backed by fact.

One can only hope that neither of you ever have to rely on having to make a claim on your LIPS/API Protection scheme, as if you do, you might be in for a nasty shock, unless of course that the reason that your permanent loss of a medical was for "Extreme Sports".

Do you really think that the person involved hasn't been dealing with the API behind the scenes , and only posting here on Pprune.

You don't get down to the point of a imminent UK High Court hearing without substantial evidence to back up a case.

[skyvan]

Gardenshed,

I have a friend currently receiving the API payout, and a couple who did receive it, so I do know that it does work for those with a valid claim, I am also not saying that any other claim is or is not valid.

What I do object to is this incessant, aggressive posting when there is a case ready to go before the courts!

If it is going to the High Court, then he does not need public opinion on his side. If he has questions, let his legal team ask them. Once the answer is given in court, it becomes a matter of public record and then he can flood the internet as much as he likes, but until then, pushing innuendo and fluff at us just about every day is merely serving to make us hope for a resolution, either way, just to shut him up!

I am surprised his lawyers have not advised him to keep this off social media, once there is a court action the matter is sub-judice and anything he says now could jeopardise his case.

Either way, please, for now, just shut up and let the law take it's course. Nobody cares anymore, you have lost any support you might have had by not knowing when to be quiet!

[gardenshed]

Skyvan,

The Law will take its course no doubt.

But do you really think that all the members know exactly what is going on behind the scenes after they have paid over their dues, I didn't thats for sure, I am far more informed now.

Some of the information that is up on this site is not on the API website but it is documented, some of it is, and all has been published.

When one has documented medical evidence from a World Leader in his field Consultant, who has no axe to grind either why, rejected by a nameless face in Harvey Watt without any right of appeal one has to ask questions, and this is a public forum.

LIPS was set up with the best of intentions, but has now become a business no more no less, like you I had a friend who claimed under the "Old Lips" and was covered until he sadly died. I also have a friend who has lost his medical and has been paid out by EK, who API have rejected his claim via Harvey Watt, using the old insurance chestnut of Preexisting,it's a shame he didn't loose his medical while engaging in an extreme sport, rather than down to a medical condition of which he has no control over, and can be proven medically, but now seems to fall under the new exclusions category that I've copied off the API website and posted.

If you look at the financials that are on the API Website again many questions as to why so much money is being spent on anything other than pilots, and again one has to wonder why certain questions remain unanaswered, for example the need for a Tax Haven in the BVI which is notorious for secrecy, when Guernsey is also a Tax Haven and seeing that Sovereign seem to be based there, wouldn't that of made more sense.

As I said PpruNe is a public forum and it is a free society, if you are tired of reading this stuff, the simple answer is don't, bury your head in the sand if you wish, makes zero difference to me, just be aware that it costs a huge amount of money to fight a High court case,how are the API intending to finance that, also if they loose where is that money coming from ? If I was a claimant I would be asking more questions as to how my future payments are still going to be made.

[fliion]

Gardenshed,

I have a friend currently receiving the API payout, and a couple who did receive it, so I do know that it does work for those with a valid claim, I am also not saying that any other claim is or is not valid.

What I do object to is this incessant, aggressive posting when there is a case ready to go before the courts!

If it is going to the High Court, then he does not need public opinion on his side. If he has questions, let his legal team ask them. Once the answer is given in court, it becomes a matter of public record and then he can flood the internet as much as he likes, but until then, pushing innuendo and fluff at us just about every day is merely serving to make us hope for a resolution, either way, just to shut him up!

I am surprised his lawyers have not advised him to keep this off social media, once there is a court action the matter is sub-judice and anything he says now could jeopardise his case.

Either way, please, for now, just shut up and let the law take it's course. Nobody cares anymore, you have lost any support you might have had by not knowing when to be quiet!

Well said ...eh...again

[Thunderbirds54321]

David from API

kindly answer the re framed questions post #209 in response to your request for questions in post #203, or let members of the plan know if you are unable to answer the questions.

The questions concern financial account data published by API on the
aircrewprotection.org website and focus on concerns arising from the data they contain.

David you offered in post #207 to provide the contact details of the API Trust fund at Sovereign Trust Guernsey Limited.

Stephen Hare is identified as The API Trust Fund Manager, again in information published on the API website here.

https://www.aircrewprotection.org/introduction-from-the-api-trust




This will allow members to pose questions to Stephen Hare that you stated you were unable to answer.

thank you


Thunderbirds54321

[gardenshed]

Fliion,

Same advice I offered to Skyvan.

This is a public forum still, here on PpruNe, if it bores you simple thing is do not read it, stay away etc.

I am more than happy to enter into constructive Adult conversation if that is what you wish though.

Toodles.

[fliion]

Doesn’t bore me. I agree with Skyvans thoughts - and the way that this is being handled by you & Tbird.

It is a legally tricky business and you and I know their hands are tied and cannot litigate this on pprune- but you can because of your anonymity- and in effect are. The fact they they are not answering certain specifibv legal issues as pointed out by Dave is because they cannot.

If you two go unchecked - it makes the appearance that you hold the moral high ground because of no response - when in fact any first year law student will tell API - not to engage in the specifics on social media.

You and T bird use this fact against API - which to the casual observer might cause distrust and damage the financial health of API - which could hinder future pay outs to valid claims.

A healthy API is in the members best interests...and I just like to see a fair fight, which this is not for reasons above.

If Tbird et al didn’t engage is the petty hit job and name calling - he might have had people a bit more trusting of his position.

Dave has put himself out there and tried his professional best to post what he can.

You guys and the “Superman” name calling act - destroyed your credibility

[Thunderbirds54321]

Doesn’t bore me. I agree with Skyvans thoughts - and the way that this is being handled by you & Tbird.

It is a legally tricky business and you and I know their hands are tied and cannot litigate this on pprune- but you can because of your anonymity- and in effect are. The fact they they are not answering certain specifibv legal issues as pointed out by Dave is because they cannot.

If you two go unchecked - it makes the appearance that you hold the moral high ground because of no response - when in fact any first year law student will tell API - not to engage in the specifics on social media.

You and T bird use this fact against API - which to the casual observer might cause distrust and damage the financial health of API - which could hinder future pay outs to valid claims.

A healthy API is in the members best interests...and I just like to see a fair fight, which this is not for reasons above.


Fliion

Certain behaviors from API have shown improvement because of deficiencies pointed out on this thread

-previously unannounced changes to core rules eg: the re written definitions of pre existing condition, addition of newly excluded medical conditions, and re affirmation of coverage for extreme sports are now given more specific mention in the info section on the API website.

-API now has a declared Emirates pilot acting as a consultant eg David who has offered to answer members questions.

-members are now provided with accurate identity information on who the managers now called consultants are.

- the role of consultants as facilitators has been defined and the ultimate responsibility for decisions and cosequences arising from those decisions rest with API Trust Manager Stephen Hare.


-with respect to this thread, facts as published by API are being hi lighted eg: the API annual summary 2017, open questions are being encouraged by David with API, and rumor is where possible given no quarter.

these improvements show promise.

Stephen Hare has a Fiduciary duty to provide answers to the questions and concerns beneficiaries and members present irrespective of the Trust’s legal position.

Thus the requirement the members are provided with an e mail address and phone number we can use to contact Stephen Hare directly, moving forward and before it is too late....... David?

[Switchboard]

Hi Thunderbird. Thanks for your follow up questions. I’m going to just answer the third edit of your post as I can’t keep going back to gather information each time you re-edit the same post.

When I first answered your questions, I had not looked at any of the previous posts and I was a bit shocked by your anger, resentment towards API and personal aggressiveness towards me. A look back at previous posts now shows that you are constantly posting negative accusations and comments.

I came on this forum, by name, to help members, or potential members, with any questions or concerns regarding API. I certainly didn’t come on to be a punching bag for your crusade to satisfy whatever agenda you have. As its apparent to me that you are not a member this will be our final communication unless you care to go to our website and open a support ticket so we can verify your membership. We just received a satisfaction rating of 100% for February from our support desk platform for our ability to solve members’ issues in an expeditious manner so I’m sure we can solve yours quickly, too.

With all the above in mind, I’ll answer what I can though, again, pending something from you to validate your membership this’ll be the last time; I’m sure your issues with us will certainly not be solved on this thread.


1. We will be happy to provide an introduction to the Trustee on behalf of any of our members. Simply send a request to our member support on the website, we’ll verify your membership and that you are a beneficiary of the API Trust.

2, 3 and 4. As I stated before, we the Consultants are not involved. If a member wishes to inquire about any legal proceedings involving the Trust, they are welcome to contact the Trust. We will be happy to make an introduction.

5. I asked you to present the document. You’ve posted an edited .jpeg. I’m sure you’ll continue to look for a way to make everything we do look suspicious. You claim to be concerned and have anointed yourself as representing the API members. To be clear, the Trust represents the members.

6. Your question refers to expenses incurred by the Trust. Again, anything involving the Trust should be referred to the Trust. For the remainder of this section, you didn’t really ask a question. You stated some rules, did some math, made some comments, and cherry-picked what you thought was relevant. You did not consider the increase in new members signing up each week, the benefits we’re reaping from smart, conservative investing, and the refunds from OIC, just to name just a few.

7. I cannot answer for previous directors or consultants, most I’ve never even met. I’ve only been involved with three claims (all of which were successful) since I joined and they were straightforward and professional. I reject your assertion that anyone has done anything otherwise. We are working too hard to make this a great product for our members to have someone continually trying to discredit us with nothing more compelling than jpegs, YouTube videos, and accusations.

8. Until recently (last year) no one ever mentioned an appeal; when it came up we worked with all our people to write a formal process. The appeal process is with the Trust. We’ve asked that the Trust amend the Rules and we expect that to happen soon. The Trust has also given tentative approval for our members keeping their API cover when they resign from Emirates and move to another airline! That’s a huge benefit to the members and we hope to have more benefits announced very soon.

10. There is one legal proceeding involving the Trust, it may be taking place in a courthouse or it may be just lawyers talking. You’re the only one who has used the word “lawsuit”. Again, I reject your characterizations because it’s just you making accusations with no apparent foundation. In our 2017 summary, we did reference several ongoing disputes; anytime a member, or a member’s lawyer, contacts the Trust, we consider that a dispute. And each one costs money regardless of what the questions or contents might be.

[Switchboard]

Hi Gardenshed.

I didn’t actually see a question in here. In order to include ‘extreme sports’ as an exclusion, we’d have to define it. Emirates defines skiing and kayaking as extreme sports. I'm a skier; I do not consider it to be an extreme sport. It’s not our job to tell people how to live or to penalize them for their life-style choices.

In regards to the “self-reported” disabilities, we didn’t make that list, we asked medical and risk-assessment professionals to come up with one.

[Switchboard]

Hello Payscale. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I’m currently on a layover.

I don’t know when you joined, but when LIPS first started there were no restrictions, except pre-existing condition or suicide (obesity and smoking were added but then deleted as being too vague); but it was a different time at Emirates when pilots stayed until retirement. They were just being pilots and not everyone was an amateur lawyer looking to exploit a good thing. Unfortunately, LIPS became a victim of its own generosity and because the payout is so good it morphed into an attractive alternative to work.

It became obvious to the Directors of the Plan that something had to be done or a few less-scrupulous pilots would ruin it for everyone. They approached medical risk-assessment companies to get their guidance and a list of ‘self-reported disabilities’ was drafted. Is it sad that this had to be done? Absolutely. Is it a shame that a few bad apples had to spoil it for everyone else? Absolutely.

As an example, to use one of the self-reported disabilities on the list, ‘dizziness’…all a pilot has to say is, “I’m dizzy.” He doesn’t have to prove it…all he has to do is say it for 364 days, at which point Emirates will terminate him and give him a check for 3 years salary. Then he could come to LIPS and say, ‘pay me until I’m 65’. Let’s take it a step further…lets say this pilot is 25 years old. Is it fair to the rest of the members that he gets paid for the next 40 years just for saying two magical words, “I’m dizzy”? I’d think you’d agree that it’s not and that’s why the Plan had to change with the times.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Just consulted with an Emirates Captain whose claim was declined after Harvey Watt said pre existing ....FRAUD...Joe Pack from Namibia ...Know Cliff Webster (Doctor Death) ?

Guys get the picture.

API can expect class actions from now on in.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Take it all back as far as switchboard is concerned....David from API you couldn’t even provide an e mail for Stephen Hare...I will on behalf and for the members leave you to face the law of the land thats ok ...with this link with a dubai mobile members and “payout” receivers can call with the hope someone picks up ....

https://www.aircrewprotection.org/contact-us

One of my best friends is a beneficiary and thats why I have cared to spend time nailing this lot down.





FACT meantime heres what a beneficiary who recently wrote to me and finally had his claim paid after six months of waiting for Harvey Watt & Co trying to find a reason to deny his claim.If a pilot who had his claim finally approved says this about API .

Im am happy to arrange my advocate meet any LIPS API pilot member in Dubai over the next two dasy to confirm this

(direct quote)

“of course a big thanks to you :) i am pretty sure you have contributed with your case and I am grateful.


But I also think that if the management is not changing that it is possible could collapse. That makes me also sad as it could be great system.But not the way it is run right now. A very strange setup. Definitely not what it should be. I don’t know where they are heading right now. Very concerning and I am aware of the danger that this won’t take long to go wrong.”

end of text quote




Im signing off here games over https://www.aircrewprotection.org/contact-us...current beneficiaries are invited to do what you need to do to prolong your “payouts”


best of luck and from here on in checkout your legal fees....so far they have been on the house

[Thunderbirds54321]

Gardenshed,

I have a friend currently receiving the API payout, and a couple who did receive it, so I do know that it does work for those with a valid claim, I am also not saying that any other claim is or is not valid.

What I do object to is this incessant, aggressive posting when there is a case ready to go before the courts!

If it is going to the High Court, then he does not need public opinion on his side. If he has questions, let his legal team ask them. Once the answer is given in court, it becomes a matter of public record and then he can flood the internet as much as he likes, but until then, pushing innuendo and fluff at us just about every day is merely serving to make us hope for a resolution, either way, just to shut him up!

I am surprised his lawyers have not advised him to keep this off social media, once there is a court action the matter is sub-judice and anything he says now could jeopardise his case.

Either way, please, for now, just shut up and let the law take it's course. Nobody cares anymore, you have lost any support you might have had by not knowing when to be quiet!



Two indications you’ve just lost any argument sky van

telling your opponent to shut up

and if you are in a down market establishment ...punching someone (facing legal arrest )

your mates who you claim are already receiving “payouts” (installments paid by from the pockets of still fit working pilots) need to rise up (get off their ass and call Stephen Hare at Sovereign for any good that will do )or their free money will dry up.

The only way to stop someone using a credit card is to make them realize they can’t afford the interest and consequent repayments and cut the credit card in half.

Have any of you read “ Who moved my cheese”? It has little to do with the cheesy declarations of like "pilots helping pilots and we are few good men whose only ambition is to help pilots” kinky thoughts indeed.

On the subject of extreme dangerous sports Andy Bell used to fly around sand dunes with a propeller strapped to his hinterland....one of his mates had a propeller failure and fell 150 feet into the sand dunes and suffered significant leg injuries . dangerous indeed but no worries ...no pre existing condition .....extreme sports covered(benefits paid for by "pilots helping pilots")

I would be grateful for help from a friend or relative ...I remain suspicious of any “pilot" who goes around this world saying his to her only ambition is to “help" pilots.. pilot by nature can look after themselves ...so go away...give us a break ..help the poor, help the disabled.......pilots don’t need your creepy “help"


lets have this out in Dubai......I have documents to show the LIPS API members that will make their rare day off a ball

My advice to everyone is should you feel the need for insuring your flying license rule one says only do so with an insurance policy underwritten by Lloyd’s of London ... LIPS API are a very unfunny joke.
Better off treating yourself to a fine meal and a nice glass of wine that wasting your cash on BS

[Thunderbirds54321]

Hello Payscale. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I’m currently on a layover.

I don’t know when you joined, but when LIPS first started there were no restrictions, except pre-existing condition or suicide (obesity and smoking were added but then deleted as being too vague); but it was a different time at Emirates when pilots stayed until retirement. They were just being pilots and not everyone was an amateur lawyer looking to exploit a good thing. Unfortunately, LIPS became a victim of its own generosity and because the payout is so good it morphed into an attractive alternative to work.

It became obvious to the Directors of the Plan that something had to be done or a few less-scrupulous pilots would ruin it for everyone. They approached medical risk-assessment companies to get their guidance and a list of ‘self-reported disabilities’ was drafted. Is it sad that this had to be done? Absolutely. Is it a shame that a few bad apples had to spoil it for everyone else? Absolutely.

As an example, to use one of the self-reported disabilities on the list, ‘dizziness’…all a pilot has to say is, “I’m dizzy.” He doesn’t have to prove it…all he has to do is say it for 364 days, at which point Emirates will terminate him and give him a check for 3 years salary. Then he could come to LIPS and say, ‘pay me until I’m 65’. Let’s take it a step further…lets say this pilot is 25 years old. Is it fair to the rest of the members that he gets paid for the next 40 years just for saying two magical words, “I’m dizzy”? I’d think you’d agree that it’s not and that’s why the Plan had to change with the times.



Bad apples find themselves David and Co (your Captains salary for some reason isn’t cutting the mustard or whatever...) please stop posting API glupe and post Stephen Hares mobile and e mail ( no guarantees he will answer but the GFSC and ombudsman may find other wise )

Actually I will provide members with it here Hares contact details... ....stand by

[donpizmeov]

So who should pay for the lawyers if not the fund? Shouldn't you have the right to argue your case legally and they have the right to legally respond?

[gardenshed]

Hi Switchboard,

My point is that most insurance companies deem things like Skiing, Scuba diving etc as extreme sports and hence require separate cover.
API should not cover things like this as it is your personal choice, when an ever increasing list which you say comes from medical experts, declines to cover diseases which aren't.
As you say you ski, that is your choice and your right, but why should my contributions go towards you if you loose your medical if God forbid something was to happen to you doing that, when coverage was declined to friend of mine who lost his medical through no fault of his own.

[Lascaille]

Tbird, I've read this whole thread from start to finish a couple of times now...

Correct me if I'm wrong - you (posting as footballfanppl) posted because your claim was extensively delayed. That claim later was rejected due to 'pre-existing conditions'. You indicate you have extensive, diverse or at the very least multiple medical opinions to the contrary. You've discovered there's no appeal process and you feel, to be blunt, screwed.

You're making some good points. The members should be concerned about there being no appeal process. The members should be concerned if a provider of professional services to the scheme isn't a member of their service's standard 'association' when the vast majority of other providers are.

On the other hand you are making some absolutely ridiculous howlers.

You 'asked a Senior Claims Consultant at Harvey Watt & Co as to whether they are a regulated company' and claim to have received the reply 'no we are not bound by ERISA' and based on that titled your post "PROOF LIPS API Appointed US based Assessor Harvey Watt & Co is Non Regulated".

ERISA is an American law. Why on earth would you even begin to expect it to apply to a scheme marketed to pilots based in the UAE? Also - why would somebody from a medical assessment firm ever think to say such a thing? Their employer (the scheme) would be the party to confirm or deny ERISA applicability.

I checked the Harvey Watt website and found they were based in Georgia. They claim to be a Licensed Third Party Administrator, I checked the Georgia state registry and was quite unsurprised to find them listed accordingly with 'active' status, license # 94153. Don't just take my word for it, check yourself. The website is www.oci.ga.gov

You can find them in 'insurers->search' as a Third Party Administrator and also in 'Agencies->Agency Search' as an agency.


As to their medical staff, I've had no correspondence with them so don't have any particular doctors to look up. I found a couple of names after trawling through some industry circulars and inserted them into the AMA's 'doctor finder' website, both came up as Aeromedical specialists.

You also repeated several times "Harvey Watt & Co receive commissions /renumeration from LIPS/API for case assessments with the amount Harvey Wayy & Co receive being dependent on percentage saved denying a pilots claim." It's a ridiculous thing to even suggest, isn't it? No reputable 'independent' third party firm would accept those terms. Even if you hypothecate up a situation where a 'reputable' firm took a contract on that basis, their doctors - much like pilots - are licensed personally and liable for malpractice personally. It's ridiculous.

Then you go on again to make a reasonable point - "Carrying on a regulated activity in the UK without authorisation or the benefit of an applicable exemption, such as effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance, is a criminal offence." That's a good point to follow up but you never did, you just ranted yourself down a hole claiming a 'conflict of interest' between CAMA and HW - if HW sponsor CAMA and a doctor who works for HW is a CAMA member there's only a conflict of interest if HW will gain or lose as a result of the decision. And if that were the case then - as explained above - merely being employed by HW would create a conflict of interest, forget CAMA.

"If Harvey Watt is making decisions, then surely legal liability should be with them, and the fund not be using pilot members' money to defend against legal action."

Giving a medical opinion isn't making a decision. If the trust has clear rules then they will be given a report template which maps to the trust rules. If trust rules are 'we pay out for all conditions barring angina and epilepsy' then their report template would just be two questions: 1. Is the debilitating illness angina? 2. Is the debilitating illness epilepsy? This is the only professional way to do it: the medical team shouldn't even know how the answers equate to a claim's success or failure, and of course all the files should be anonymised.

A pre-existing claim decision complicates matters - one doctor may see a file which says 'consistent right frontal headaches for 3 months in 2004, ten years later right frontal brain cancer' and say 'pre-existing' and another may look at the same file and say 'probably pre-existing but I can't prove it'.

You should focus your energy along these lines.

Here are some good questions:


Are medical files anonymised prior to assessment?



To the greatest extent possible is sex, age, religious or racially identifying information removed from the medical files before assessment?



If the formatting or wording of some documents clearly indicates their origin in a way that may cause bias (imagine Syrian Air Force medical records) are they retyped or obfuscated?



Is the medical team given a strict yes/no reporting format which matches only the trust rules?



Does the reporting format disguise or randomise, where possible, questions and desired answers to avoid 'pattern bias' or 'result bias' (a person may be subconsciously inclined or disinclined to either tick yes 20 times in a row OR to tick no after ticking yes 20 times.)



If a freeform report is produced is it possible that the reviewer would include biasing information unrelated to the larger claim. For example, a pilot may have a perfectly valid claim - something entirely physical such as a whole-arm amputation - but discover during their hospital visit they're HIV+. A fully comprehensive report in such a case produces bias risk.



If there is a yes/no check box for a judgement based decision such as 'is this a pre-existing condition' are there clear written instructions readily to hand which specify the applicable standard such as 'beyond any reasonable doubt' or 'beyond mere balance of probability'?



If a freeform report is produced containing the words 'in my opinion this is a pre-existing condition' then likewise - have they been instructed to only write that if they are convinced 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or can they write that if they are convinced 'beyond the balance of probability'?



Who decided which standard is to be followed? for what reason?



If a freeform report says 'it is likely that the condition is pre-existing' is the trust's decision going to to be consistently approve, consistently deny or a dice roll?



Is a review risk mitigation process followed - such as having all evaluations performed separately by two randomly selected assessors followed by secret ballot?



In the event of a tie requiring another reviewer, is the assignment of the other reviewer guaranteed to be entirely random and un-influenceable by the prior reviewers?



Is a more senior reviewer selected in the event of a tie?



If a reviewer's decision is overruled by a senior reviewer (once, twice, thrice) are their historical decisions audited?


Ask the questions that matter. The medical evaluation is your problem, so get stuck into it. Be systematic.

Don't ask ridiculous questions like 'Is it true that Aircrew Protection International are about to attempt to defend a major lawsuit in the Channel Islands using the pilot fund to finance same?'



If they have no reason to think the trust rules have not been followed they are obliged to defend the trust assets, and remember, the loser pays everyone's legal fees.



There will (should!) be zero provision in the trust rules for them to be able to pay you off or give you some shut-up money. If the rules allow this, uhoh.

I'm guessing some members want you to win and some want you to lose. I'm pretty damn sure no members want you to get paid off for being obnoxious.

[MusingMonk]

@Lascaille

That's one of the most well-written posts ever on Pprune.

[Thunderbirds54321]

a visit from a claimant denied who through a recommended and trusted colleague required help to counter a claim denial based on a harvey watt pre existing conditional denial ......after consultation with expression of intention to sue within two weeks claim approved.....then semi endorsement on scam

[Thunderbirds54321]

a visit from a claimant denied who through a recommended and trusted colleague required help to counter a claim denial based on a harvey watt pre existing conditional denial ......after consultation with expression of intention to sue within two weeks claim approved.....then semi endorsement on scam



SO quick turnaround or cost extreme to the members....lets see

[Thunderbirds54321]

I believe what Don means is - if you get sued and before the court rules, does that automatically mean that the claimant / claim is valid?

Because in that case, just file and forget about the ruling - because ‘hey, I filed, I’m right.’

Claim ain’t a judgment gents.


ain't. 1706, originally a contraction of am not, and in proper use with that sense until it began to be used as a generic contraction for are not, is not, etc., in early 19c. Cockney dialect of London; popularized by representations of this in Dickens, etc., which led to the word being banished from correct English.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Member Terms and Conditions (https://www.aircrewprotection.org/terms-and-conditions)
Privacy Policy (https://www.aircrewprotection.org/privacy-policy)
AIRCREW PROTECTION TRUST MEMBER TERMS & CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS:

“Trust” means the Aircrew Protection Trust.
“Member” means such individuals who pay contributions into the Trust.
“API Rules” means the current rules of the Trust applicable on Member.
“Contributions” means the Monthly and/or Yearly Contributions payable by Members into the Trust Account.
“Yearly Contributions” means the sum of AED 4,939 per year payable by Members who sign up for payment of Contributions on yearly basis.
“Monthly Contributions” means the sum of AED 4495 per month, payable by Members who sign up for payment on monthly basis.
“Trust Account” means the account controlled by the Trust into which the Member pay their respective Contributions.

2. API RULES

These Terms & Conditions are complementary to, and shall be read in conjunction with, the API Rules. In case of any conflict between the API Rules and the Terms & Conditions, terms of the API Rules shall be deemed to prevail. By accepting these Terms & Conditions, Members accept the API Rules in entirety in addition to the following terms. API Rules can be found at Aircrew Protection International | Dashboard (http://www.aircrewprotection.org)

3. MEMBERSHIP & CONTRIBUTIONS

Members may become members of the Trust by registering with the Trust and agreeing to pay either into the Trust Account :

Monthly Contributions
Yearly Contributions.

Members who sign up for payment on monthly basis are obliged to pay the Monthly Contributions into the Trust Account. Any Monthly Contribution received in a particular month shall be accounted for a Monthly Contribution towards that particular month. For example, a Monthly Contribution received into the Trust Account on 25th day of July will count as a Monthly Contribution pertaining to the month of July.
Members who sign up for payment on yearly basis are obliged to the Yearly Contribution into the Trust Account. Payment of the Yearly Membership allows a Member to enjoy membership of the Trust for one year following the date of payment of such Yearly Contribution and includes one free month’s eligibility.
Eligibility of Members shall be determined in accordance with the API Rules.
In the event no payment of Contribution is received in respect a month when such Contribution is due, the Member is deemed to be in default of payment, and issued a thirty (30) days’ notice to effect payment of pendin g Contributions. In the event the Member’s default continues beyond expiry of the notice period, the defaulting Member’s membership from the Trust shall be automatically terminated, and the Member is notified by the Trust to such effect.
In the event a Member inadvertently pays twice, or more, in the same month then, upon notification to the Trust, the Member shall be given the option of either:

a refund to his bank account to be sent on the last day of the month following the Member supplying his/her banking details.
carrying forward the excessive payment as credit (“Credit”)
In the event a Member resigns as a pilot from Emirates Airlines or the Trust and, upon notification to the Trust, such Member shall be immediately instructed by the Trust to stop paying his/her Contributions. In the event such Member does not stop paying his/her Contributions, such payments shall be deemed to be overpayments, and shall be refunded to his/her bank account for as long as the Trust continue s to receive Contributions from such Member.
In the event a Contribution is paid by a Member, but not received into the Trust Account, the Trust shall not be responsible for the same, and such Contribution shall be deemed to have not been received by the Trust. The Member shall be required to repay the Contribution, and in the event the Trust receives the earlier Contribution at a later point in time, such Contribution shall be dealt with in accordance with clause above.
If, after a Member receives his Benefit(s) from the Trust , a determination is made that he/she was not eligible to receive such Benefit(s) , an amount equal to the entirety of a Member’s Contribution to the Trust will be refunded to the Member. This refund will constitute termination of the Member from the Trust and the Member will receive no further Benefit (s) or consideration therefrom.
Members will pay 3.95% of the transaction amount and $0.65 per transaction.
4. BENEFITS

Upon membership in accordance with the clause above, and regular payment of Contributions, and subject to the API Rules, Members are entitled to the following benefits (“Benefits”)

Payment of AED 25,000 per month, which is subject to an increase at the rate of 3% per annum, and capped at an amount of AED 35,000, payable until the Member’s 65th birthday in the event the Member loses his/her GCAA Class 1 Medical Certificate, and is terminated by the Emirates Airlines as a consequence thereof (please refer to detailed mechanism set forth in API Rules);
Life insurance in the sum of $100,000, extendable to $500,000, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a third - party insurer.
Life insurance in the sum of $50,000 life insurance Member’s spouse, fiancé or life partner, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a third - party insurer
Legal insurance in the sum of $50,000 in the event the Member is involved in an incident while acting as flight crew.
5. TERMINATION & EFFECTS OF TERMINATION

Termination of membership shall be in accordance with the API Rules.
In the event a Member withdraws his/her membership from the Trust, but continues to serve as a pilot with Emirates Airlines then, upon notification to the Trust, any such Member shall be immediately instructed by the Trust to stop paying his/her Contributions. In the event such Member does not stop paying his/her Contributions, such payments shall be deemed to be overpayments, and shall be refunded to the Member’s bank account to be sent on the last day of the month following the Member supplying his/her banking details.
In the event it is found that a Member is not eligible to receive the Benefits stipulated above, after his termination by the Emirates Airlines:

any Credit held by the Trust in his favor shall be immediately refunded into the Member’s bank account to be sent on the last day of the month following the Member supplying his/her banking details; and
Any and all Contributions paid by the Member via credit card since the commencement of his membership with the Trust shall be refunded to his/her bank account to be sent on the last day of the month following the Member supplying his/her banking details. Meanwhile, such portion of the Member’s Contributions as may have been paid by him/her via means other than credit card, shall be refunded to the Member by means other than credit card.

In the event a Member resigns as a pilot from Emirates Airlines or the Trust, such Member shall be immediately instructed by the Trust to stop paying his/her Contributions. In the event such Member does not stop paying his/her Contributions, such payments shall be eemed to be overpayments, and shall be refunded to his/her bank account to be sent on the last day of the month following the Member supplying his/her banking details for as long as the Trust continues to receive Contributions from such Member.
6. INDEMNITY

The Members agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Trust, its directors, trustees, officers, employees, consultants, agents, and affiliates, from any and all third party claims, liability, damages and/or costs (including, but not limited to, legal fees) arising from their payment using this online platform, and/or from their breach of the se Terms & Conditions or the API Rules.7. PRIVACY

The Members agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Trust, its directors, trustees, officers, employees, consultants, agents, and affiliates, from any and all third party claims, liability, damages and/or costs (including, but not limited to, legal fees) arising from their payment using this online platform, and/or from their breach of the se Terms & Conditions or the API Rules.8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The Members agree and acknowledge that the Trust is the sole legal and beneficial owner of all trademarks, patents, copyrights, logos, names, symbols, fonts, images and other intellectual property of, or connected to the brand “Aircrew Protection International ” , whether such intellectual property is displayed by the Trust on its website, marketing materials, social media, forms, advertisements, publications, or any other form of media.

9.VARIATION

The Trust shall have the right in its absolute discretion at any time and without notice to amend, remove or vary the contents of these Terms & Conditions and/or the API Rules.

10. SEVERANCE

If any part of the Terms & Conditions is unenforceable, the enforceability of any other part of these Terms & Conditions will not be affected, and all other clauses shall remain in full force and effect. So far as possible where any clause/sub - clause or part of a clause/sub - clause can be severed to render the remaining part valid, the clause shall be interpreted accordingly.11. WAIVER

If a Member breaches any part of these Terms & Conditions, and the Trust takes no action, such inaction will, by no means amount to a waiver in respect of any of the Trust’s rights and remedies.12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

The above Terms & Conditions, along with the API Rules, constitute the entire agreement between the Trust and Members .13. JURISDICTION

All disputes arising in any way out of or affecting this agreement shall be subject to the non - exclusive jurisdiction of the Guernsey courts to which the parties hereto agree to submit.

[Thunderbirds54321]

1. PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS.

1.1. API hopes that any disputes, if they arise, can be resolved with as little inconvenience and delay as possible. To that end, the API Plan Rules provide a procedure whereby a Member may appeal an Initial Benefit Determination.
THE INITIAL BENEFIT DETERMINATION
2.1. The Initial Benefit Determination is made entirely at the discretion of the Trustee and is based upon the guidance contained in the recommendation of the Trustee’s Medical Advisor (the“Recommendation”) and the API Plan Rules, and shall be consistent with the applicable laws of the Island of Guernsey (“Guernsey Law”) and the regulations set forth by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “GFSC Regulation(s)”).
2.2. When deliberating how to implement the Recommendation, the Trustee give full consideration to any conflicts between the Recommendation and Guernsey Law, the GFSC Regulations and the API Plan Rules, all of which govern how the Trustee administers the Plan. In the event of a conflict between the Recommendation and any Guernsey Law, GFSC Regulation or API Plan Rule, the relevant Guernsey Law, GFSC Regulation or API Plan Rule shall govern.
2.3. In carrying out its respective responsibilities, the Trustee shall have the sole discretion to interpret the API Plan Rules and to determine the eligibility for an entitlement to any benefits under the API Plan.
2.4. The Trustee has sole discretion to interpret the API Plan Rules in deciding whether to allow any appeal, determining the outcome of any appeal, and make all benefit determinations.
2.5. Any interpretation or determination made pursuant to the discretionary authority of the Trustee shall be given full force and effect except as set forth to the contrary herein.
2.6. For the avoidance of doubt benefits under the API Plan shall only be payable if the Trustee, in its sole discretion, decides that the Member is entitled to them.

SUBMISSION OF APPEAL.
3.1. Timeline: If a Member wishes to dispute an Initial Benefit Determination, he or she must initiate a request for appeal within 90-calendar days after receiving their Notice of Entitlement or notice that the claim has been denied. All requests should be submitted to API the Trustee using the following email address: [email protected]. Any request received by API after this 90-calendar day filing period will be denied.
3.2. Evidence:
3.2.1. The revocation of a Class I Medical Certificate by the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) is made by an autonomous regulator and is based upon the Medical Certificate Revocation Documents.
3.2.2. It is outside the control and authority of API and the Trustee.
3.2.3. The Recommendation, which the Trustee considers in making its Initial Benefit Determination, is also made on the basis of the Medical Certificate Revocation Documents and any reports or correspondence furnished to the Trustee’s MedicalAdvisor by the review board of the GCCA (or respective aviation regulatory body) pursuant to their review (where applicable).


https://www.pprune.org/blob:https://www.pprune.org/d9b4008b-2071-4c11-af6b-6f70a9d576a7
3.2.4. In support of any appeal, a Member may submit additional evidence, provided that any evidence presented by the Member must be received within the 90 calendar day filing period referenced in section 3.1 above and must pre-date the Revocation Date.
3.2.5. Any evidence which post-dates the Revocation Date would not have been considered by the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) and, therefore, cannot beconsidered by the Trustee’s Medical Advisor or the Trustee.

THE APPEAL PROCESS – STAGE 1 – TRUSTEE RE-EVALUATION.
4.1. Where a Member wishes to appeal an Initial Benefit Determination, he or she may do so by requesting the Trustee to exercise its discretion to conduct a re-evaluation of the Member’sclaim in the first instance.
4.2. The Trustee will only conduct a re-evaluation based upon the provision by the Member of new evidence (as described in 3.2 above), and only if the Trustee, in its sole discretion, decides on the balance of the evidence provided it is necessary to do so.
4.3. In conducting its reassessment, The Trustee may seek guidance or clarification from theTrustee’s Medical Adviser, the Consultants to the API Trust, the Plan administrators and its consultants, the accountants contracted to the Trust and / or the attorneys contracted by the API Trust (the Appeal Tribunal).
4.4. The Appeal Tribunal shall conduct a review of the Initial Benefit Determination, and such review shall be based on evidence the Member provides as noted in Section 3.2; the evidence may or may not be of a medical nature and is wholly at the discretion of the Member to provide.
4.5. During the Review:
4.5.1. No deference will be given to the Initial Benefit Determination; and
4.5.2. The Appeal Tribunal shall have the discretion to interpret the Plan.

4.6. When the review is complete, the Trustee shall, in its sole discretion, make a decision regarding the outcome of the review, will notify the Member of its decision and may, if so required, issue a revised Notice of Entitlement.
4.7. If the appeal is denied, in whole or in part, the Member will be informed of the specific reason(s) for the denial and a reference to the specific API Plan Rule or point of law or decision point on which the decision is based.
4.8. If the Member does not agree with the outcome of the review, the Member may request a review under Stage 2 of this process. In such instances, the Trustee shall have the sole discretion to allow or deny such appeal.

THE APPEAL PROCESS – STAGE 2 – AEROMEDICAL ADVISORS ASSESSMENT.
5.1. The Member shall, at his or her own cost, choose an Aeromedical Advisor and notify the

Trustee of the details of the chosen Aeromedical Advisor in writing.
5.2. The Trustee shall choose an Aeromedical Advisor and notify the Member of the details of the chosen Aeromedical Advisor in writing.
5.3. Both Aeromedical Advisors shall form a panel and review:

5.3.1. the Member’s records;
5.3.2. Medical Certificate Revocation Documents;
5.3.3. the findings of the medical panel of the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) (as applicable);
5.3.4. the API Plan Rules; and
5.3.5. if necessary, examine the Member.
The Aeromedical Advisors may consult with licensed, board-certified medical specialists trained in the medical field in question if they encounter queries or specific medical or technical terms beyond the scope of their usual expertise.
5.4. Each Aeromedical Adviser shall draft a report of their assessments, following which they will arrange a mutually convenient time to discuss their respective reports and produce a joint report containing their joint and/or respective recommendations.
5.5. If the two Aeromedical Advisors come to an agreement:
5.5.1. they will send the joint report to the Member and to the Trustee;
5.5.2. the Trustee will consider the joint report and use its discretion to decide the outcome of the appeal;
5.5.3. the Trustee will notify the Member of its decision; and
5.5.4. if so required, issue an amended or new Notice of Entitlement.

6. THE APPEAL PROCESS – STAGE 3 – AEROMEDICAL ARBITRATOR ASSESMENT
6.1. If the two Aeromedical Advisors are unable to agree, they will mutually agree upon a suitably qualified Aeromedical Arbitrator.
6.2. The Member and the Trustee shall execute any agreements as may be necessary to implement the arbitration process.
6.3. The Aeromedical Arbitrator will examine:
6.3.1. the joint and individual reports of the Aeromedical Advisors;
6.3.2. all Medical Certificate Revocation Documents;
6.3.3. the findings of the medical panel of the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) (as applicable);
6.3.4. the API Plan Rules;
6.3.5. any other relevant information pertinent to the claim, including the reports submitted by the two Aeromedical Advisors; and
6.3.6. if necessary, shall examine the Member.

6.4. The Aeromedical Arbitrator may also, if necessary, meet with the two Aeromedical Advisors ata mutually acceptable time and place to formulate their final opinion regarding the Member’sdisability and compliance with the benefit conditions and eligibility under the API Plan
Rules. This meeting may be held by means of a remote electronic communication system, including video or telephone conferencing technology or the Internet, or any combination.
6.5. The Aeromedical Arbitrator may also consult with licensed, board-certified medical specialists trained in the medical field in question if they encounter queries or specific medical or technical terms beyond the scope of their usual expertise.
6.6. The Aeromedical Arbitrator may also consult with the Trustee if they require clarification regarding the wording of the API Plan Rules.
6.7. Following a thorough assessment, the Aeromedical Arbitrator shall submit the final opinion in writing to the Member and to the Trustee.
6.8. The Member and the Trustee shall be bound by and shall implement such final opinion of the Aeromedical Arbitrator, and if required the Trustee shall issue a revised Notice of Entitlement.
6.9. Aeromedical Arbitrator Compensation: When the Aeromedical Advisors select an Aeromedical Arbitrator, the Aeromedical Arbitrator will submit an estimate of the fees of such evaluation to the Member and to the Trustee prior to any information being disclosed to him / her. Thereafter:
6.9.1. API and the Member will each post with an escrow agent nominated by the Trustee,an amount equal to half (1/2) of the Aeromedical Arbitrator’s fee.
6.9.2. If the final opinion of the Aeromedical Arbitrator is in favor of the Member, the Trustee shall pay the total cost of both Aeromedical Advisers and the Aeromedical Arbitrator’s fee and the Member’s portion of the funds in escrow will be released back to theMember.
6.9.3. If the final opinion is in favor of the Trustee, the Trustee shall pay half (1/2) of the cost of the Aeromedical Arbitrator. The Member will pay half (1/2) the cost of the Aeromedical Arbitrator; the total cost of the Aeromedical Arbitrator will be paid from the funds placed in escrow. The Trustee or the Member may request additional time to post funds in escrow but in no event, such funds shall be posted no later than 30 days from the date notified and no final opinion will be given by the Aeromedical Arbitrator until such funds have been placed in escrow.

7. THE RULES OF THE PLAN AND MEMBER ACCEPTANCE.
7.1. The current version of the API Plan Rules posted on the API website (as may be amended from time to time) shall be the valid controlling version. By virtue of the Member applying to become a member of API, the Member accepts and acknowledges that the API Plan Rules shall govern any decision regarding benefits.
7.2. This appeal process is a part of the API Rules.
7.3. In accepting the API Plan Rules, the Member agrees that the decision of the Trustee (or the Aeromedical Advisors or Aeromedical Arbitrator (where applicable)) reached as a result of the appeal process detailed herein with regard to his/her claim shall be final and binding, and the Member shall have no right to contest such decision(s) except as set forth below. The Member further acknowledges and agrees that the appeal process described herein is the sole and exclusive recourse for any and all controversies or claims arising out of or in connection with the API Plan and the Member expressly waives his / her right to file court actions disputing the decision of the appeal process except to enforce the appeal process and/or its legally binding decision except as set forth below.
8. APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE TRUSTEE FOLLOWING THE APPEAL PROCESS ALLOWED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

8.1. In the event the Member is not satisfied with the decision of the Trustee, he / she may contest the decision before a competent court of Guernsey, based solely on the following grounds:
8.1.1. The Aeromedical Arbitrator failed to address the relevant Medical Certificate Revocation Documents and / or other relevant information pertinent to the claim, including the reports submitted by the two Aeromedical Advisors in reaching their decision. For clarity, in addressing the relevant Medical Certificate Revocation Documents and / or any other relevant information pertinent to the claim, the Aeromedical Arbitrator fulfills the obligation by considering the same regardless of the final opinion forwarded to the Trustee; or
8.1.2. There was a misapplication of relevant law or procedure by the Trustee and it can be demonstrated that the decision of the Trustee was arbitrary, capricious or failed to address the final opinion of the Aeromedical Arbitrator.
9. DEFINITIONS:
Aeromedical Advisor means a physician who is a licensed specialist, certified in aviation or

aerospace medicine. The Member and API may each select an Aeromedical Advisor.

Aeromedical Arbitrator means an independent physician who is a licensed specialist, certified in aviation or aerospace medicine and suitably qualified in aeronautical and medical arbitration, whose selection is mutually agreed upon by the Aeromedical Advisors.

Air Carrier shall have the meaning prescribed to it in the API Plan Rules.

API Plan Rules means the current version of the rules of the API Plan posted on the API website, asmay be amended from time to time (each individual provision a “Plan Rule”). For the avoidance of doubt the current version of the API Plan Rules on the date that a benefit claim is filed shall be the controlling version for the claim.

Initial Benefit Determination means the decision of the Trustee contained in a Notice of Entitlement to deny benefits to any one member or to award any Member a reduced benefit entitlement. SuchInitial Benefit Determination is based upon the recommendation of the Trustee’s Medical Advisor, the API Plan Rules, and shall be consistent with the applicable laws of the Island of Guernsey and the regulations set forth by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission.

Medical Certificate Revocation Documents means the medical documents and interviews submitted by the appropriate Air Carrier and medical service provider(s) contracted by the GCAA
or other respective regulatory body.

Notice of Entitlement shall have the meaning prescribed to it in the API Plan Rules.
Revocation Date means the date of the revocation of the Class I Medical Certificate by the GCAA or

other respective regulatory body.

Trustee means Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited as Trustee of the Aircrew Protection International Trust.

Trustee’s Medical Advisor means the medical service provider(s) whose recommendation the Trustee considers when making the Initial Benefit Determination.

[Thunderbirds54321]

Thank you for your detailed response.

The night before your post below a meeting was hosted for an aggrieved declined claimant (name withheld for now for confidentiality) . This Captain concerned met to obtain information to initiate a lawsuit. He stated he had been wrongly declined for benefit based on a claim of pre existing condition cited by Harvey Watt & Co and was provided with details of legal counsel to support pursuance of his case. The individual concerned stated that in response to his contestation of denial he had received a call from a CPT JP from API who on being advised of intention to sue stated he would be in touch. Two weeks after this meeting the individual concerned was advised the decision had been reversed and his claim was approved overruling Harvey Watt & Co “recommendation".



Tbird, I've read this whole thread from start to finish a couple of times now...

Correct me if I'm wrong - you (posting as footballfanppl) posted because your claim was extensively delayed. That claim later was rejected due to 'pre-existing conditions'. You indicate you have extensive, diverse or at the very least multiple medical opinions to the contrary. You've discovered there's no appeal process and you feel, to be blunt, screwed.

You're making some good points. The members should be concerned about there being no appeal process. The members should be concerned if a provider of professional services to the scheme isn't a member of their service's standard 'association' when the vast majority of other providers are.

On the other hand you are making some absolutely ridiculous howlers.

You 'asked a Senior Claims Consultant at Harvey Watt & Co as to whether they are a regulated company' and claim to have received the reply 'no we are not bound by ERISA' and based on that titled your post "PROOF LIPS API Appointed US based Assessor Harvey Watt & Co is Non Regulated".

ERISA is an American law. Why on earth would you even begin to expect it to apply to a scheme marketed to pilots based in the UAE? Also - why would somebody from a medical assessment firm ever think to say such a thing? Their employer (the scheme) would be the party to confirm or deny ERISA applicability.

I checked the Harvey Watt website and found they were based in Georgia. They claim to be a Licensed Third Party Administrator, I checked the Georgia state registry and was quite unsurprised to find them listed accordingly with 'active' status, license # 94153. Don't just take my word for it, check yourself. The website is www.oci.ga.gov (https://www.pprune.org/www.oci.ga.gov)

You can find them in 'insurers->search' as a Third Party Administrator and also in 'Agencies->Agency Search' as an agency.


As to their medical staff, I've had no correspondence with them so don't have any particular doctors to look up. I found a couple of names after trawling through some industry circulars and inserted them into the AMA's 'doctor finder' website, both came up as Aeromedical specialists.

You also repeated several times "Harvey Watt & Co receive commissions /renumeration from LIPS/API for case assessments with the amount Harvey Wayy & Co receive being dependent on percentage saved denying a pilots claim." It's a ridiculous thing to even suggest, isn't it? No reputable 'independent' third party firm would accept those terms. Even if you hypothecate up a situation where a 'reputable' firm took a contract on that basis, their doctors - much like pilots - are licensed personally and liable for malpractice personally. It's ridiculous.

Then you go on again to make a reasonable point - "Carrying on a regulated activity in the UK without authorisation or the benefit of an applicable exemption, such as effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance, is a criminal offence." That's a good point to follow up but you never did, you just ranted yourself down a hole claiming a 'conflict of interest' between CAMA and HW - if HW sponsor CAMA and a doctor who works for HW is a CAMA member there's only a conflict of interest if HW will gain or lose as a result of the decision. And if that were the case then - as explained above - merely being employed by HW would create a conflict of interest, forget CAMA.

"If Harvey Watt is making decisions, then surely legal liability should be with them, and the fund not be using pilot members' money to defend against legal action."

Giving a medical opinion isn't making a decision. If the trust has clear rules then they will be given a report template which maps to the trust rules. If trust rules are 'we pay out for all conditions barring angina and epilepsy' then their report template would just be two questions: 1. Is the debilitating illness angina? 2. Is the debilitating illness epilepsy? This is the only professional way to do it: the medical team shouldn't even know how the answers equate to a claim's success or failure, and of course all the files should be anonymised.

A pre-existing claim decision complicates matters - one doctor may see a file which says 'consistent right frontal headaches for 3 months in 2004, ten years later right frontal brain cancer' and say 'pre-existing' and another may look at the same file and say 'probably pre-existing but I can't prove it'.

You should focus your energy along these lines.

Here are some good questions:

Are medical files anonymised prior to assessment?


To the greatest extent possible is sex, age, religious or racially identifying information removed from the medical files before assessment?


If the formatting or wording of some documents clearly indicates their origin in a way that may cause bias (imagine Syrian Air Force medical records) are they retyped or obfuscated?


Is the medical team given a strict yes/no reporting format which matches only the trust rules?


Does the reporting format disguise or randomise, where possible, questions and desired answers to avoid 'pattern bias' or 'result bias' (a person may be subconsciously inclined or disinclined to either tick yes 20 times in a row OR to tick no after ticking yes 20 times.)


If a freeform report is produced is it possible that the reviewer would include biasing information unrelated to the larger claim. For example, a pilot may have a perfectly valid claim - something entirely physical such as a whole-arm amputation - but discover during their hospital visit they're HIV+. A fully comprehensive report in such a case produces bias risk.


If there is a yes/no check box for a judgement based decision such as 'is this a pre-existing condition' are there clear written instructions readily to hand which specify the applicable standard such as 'beyond any reasonable doubt' or 'beyond mere balance of probability'?


If a freeform report is produced containing the words 'in my opinion this is a pre-existing condition' then likewise - have they been instructed to only write that if they are convinced 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or can they write that if they are convinced 'beyond the balance of probability'?


Who decided which standard is to be followed? for what reason?


If a freeform report says 'it is likely that the condition is pre-existing' is the trust's decision going to to be consistently approve, consistently deny or a dice roll?


Is a review risk mitigation process followed - such as having all evaluations performed separately by two randomly selected assessors followed by secret ballot?


In the event of a tie requiring another reviewer, is the assignment of the other reviewer guaranteed to be entirely random and un-influenceable by the prior reviewers?


Is a more senior reviewer selected in the event of a tie?


If a reviewer's decision is overruled by a senior reviewer (once, twice, thrice) are their historical decisions audited?

Ask the questions that matter. The medical evaluation is your problem, so get stuck into it. Be systematic.

Don't ask ridiculous questions like 'Is it true that Aircrew Protection International are about to attempt to defend a major lawsuit in the Channel Islands using the pilot fund to finance same?'

If they have no reason to think the trust rules have not been followed they are obliged to defend the trust assets, and remember, the loser pays everyone's legal fees.


There will (should!) be zero provision in the trust rules for them to be able to pay you off or give you some shut-up money. If the rules allow this, uhoh.
I'm guessing some members want you to win and some want you to lose. I'm pretty damn sure no members want you to get paid off for being obnoxious.


1. PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL PROCESS.

1.1. API hopes that any disputes, if they arise, can be resolved with as little inconvenience and delay as possible. To that end, the API Plan Rules provide a procedure whereby a Member may appeal an Initial Benefit Determination.
THE INITIAL BENEFIT DETERMINATION
2.1. The Initial Benefit Determination is made entirely at the discretion of the Trustee and is based upon the guidance contained in the recommendation of the Trustee’s Medical Advisor (the“Recommendation”) and the API Plan Rules, and shall be consistent with the applicable laws of the Island of Guernsey (“Guernsey Law”) and the regulations set forth by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the “GFSC Regulation(s)”).
2.2. When deliberating how to implement the Recommendation, the Trustee give full consideration to any conflicts between the Recommendation and Guernsey Law, the GFSC Regulations and the API Plan Rules, all of which govern how the Trustee administers the Plan. In the event of a conflict between the Recommendation and any Guernsey Law, GFSC Regulation or API Plan Rule, the relevant Guernsey Law, GFSC Regulation or API Plan Rule shall govern.
2.3. In carrying out its respective responsibilities, the Trustee shall have the sole discretion to interpret the API Plan Rules and to determine the eligibility for an entitlement to any benefits under the API Plan.
2.4. The Trustee has sole discretion to interpret the API Plan Rules in deciding whether to allow any appeal, determining the outcome of any appeal, and make all benefit determinations.
2.5. Any interpretation or determination made pursuant to the discretionary authority of the Trustee shall be given full force and effect except as set forth to the contrary herein.
2.6. For the avoidance of doubt benefits under the API Plan shall only be payable if the Trustee, in its sole discretion, decides that the Member is entitled to them.

SUBMISSION OF APPEAL.
3.1. Timeline: If a Member wishes to dispute an Initial Benefit Determination, he or she must initiate a request for appeal within 90-calendar days after receiving their Notice of Entitlement or notice that the claim has been denied. All requests should be submitted to API the Trustee using the following email address: [email protected]. Any request received by API after this 90-calendar day filing period will be denied.
3.2. Evidence:
3.2.1. The revocation of a Class I Medical Certificate by the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) is made by an autonomous regulator and is based upon the Medical Certificate Revocation Documents.
3.2.2. It is outside the control and authority of API and the Trustee.
3.2.3. The Recommendation, which the Trustee considers in making its Initial Benefit Determination, is also made on the basis of the Medical Certificate Revocation Documents and any reports or correspondence furnished to the Trustee’s MedicalAdvisor by the review board of the GCCA (or respective aviation regulatory body) pursuant to their review (where applicable).


https://www.pprune.org/blob:https://www.pprune.org/d9b4008b-2071-4c11-af6b-6f70a9d576a7
3.2.4. In support of any appeal, a Member may submit additional evidence, provided that any evidence presented by the Member must be received within the 90 calendar day filing period referenced in section 3.1 above and must pre-date the Revocation Date.
3.2.5. Any evidence which post-dates the Revocation Date would not have been considered by the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) and, therefore, cannot beconsidered by the Trustee’s Medical Advisor or the Trustee.

THE APPEAL PROCESS – STAGE 1 – TRUSTEE RE-EVALUATION.
4.1. Where a Member wishes to appeal an Initial Benefit Determination, he or she may do so by requesting the Trustee to exercise its discretion to conduct a re-evaluation of the Member’sclaim in the first instance.
4.2. The Trustee will only conduct a re-evaluation based upon the provision by the Member of new evidence (as described in 3.2 above), and only if the Trustee, in its sole discretion, decides on the balance of the evidence provided it is necessary to do so.
4.3. In conducting its reassessment, The Trustee may seek guidance or clarification from theTrustee’s Medical Adviser, the Consultants to the API Trust, the Plan administrators and its consultants, the accountants contracted to the Trust and / or the attorneys contracted by the API Trust (the Appeal Tribunal).
4.4. The Appeal Tribunal shall conduct a review of the Initial Benefit Determination, and such review shall be based on evidence the Member provides as noted in Section 3.2; the evidence may or may not be of a medical nature and is wholly at the discretion of the Member to provide.
4.5. During the Review:
4.5.1. No deference will be given to the Initial Benefit Determination; and
4.5.2. The Appeal Tribunal shall have the discretion to interpret the Plan.

4.6. When the review is complete, the Trustee shall, in its sole discretion, make a decision regarding the outcome of the review, will notify the Member of its decision and may, if so required, issue a revised Notice of Entitlement.
4.7. If the appeal is denied, in whole or in part, the Member will be informed of the specific reason(s) for the denial and a reference to the specific API Plan Rule or point of law or decision point on which the decision is based.
4.8. If the Member does not agree with the outcome of the review, the Member may request a review under Stage 2 of this process. In such instances, the Trustee shall have the sole discretion to allow or deny such appeal.

THE APPEAL PROCESS – STAGE 2 – AEROMEDICAL ADVISORS ASSESSMENT.
5.1. The Member shall, at his or her own cost, choose an Aeromedical Advisor and notify the

Trustee of the details of the chosen Aeromedical Advisor in writing.
5.2. The Trustee shall choose an Aeromedical Advisor and notify the Member of the details of the chosen Aeromedical Advisor in writing.
5.3. Both Aeromedical Advisors shall form a panel and review:

5.3.1. the Member’s records;
5.3.2. Medical Certificate Revocation Documents;
5.3.3. the findings of the medical panel of the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) (as applicable);
5.3.4. the API Plan Rules; and
5.3.5. if necessary, examine the Member.
The Aeromedical Advisors may consult with licensed, board-certified medical specialists trained in the medical field in question if they encounter queries or specific medical or technical terms beyond the scope of their usual expertise.
5.4. Each Aeromedical Adviser shall draft a report of their assessments, following which they will arrange a mutually convenient time to discuss their respective reports and produce a joint report containing their joint and/or respective recommendations.
5.5. If the two Aeromedical Advisors come to an agreement:
5.5.1. they will send the joint report to the Member and to the Trustee;
5.5.2. the Trustee will consider the joint report and use its discretion to decide the outcome of the appeal;
5.5.3. the Trustee will notify the Member of its decision; and
5.5.4. if so required, issue an amended or new Notice of Entitlement.

6. THE APPEAL PROCESS – STAGE 3 – AEROMEDICAL ARBITRATOR ASSESMENT
6.1. If the two Aeromedical Advisors are unable to agree, they will mutually agree upon a suitably qualified Aeromedical Arbitrator.
6.2. The Member and the Trustee shall execute any agreements as may be necessary to implement the arbitration process.
6.3. The Aeromedical Arbitrator will examine:
6.3.1. the joint and individual reports of the Aeromedical Advisors;
6.3.2. all Medical Certificate Revocation Documents;
6.3.3. the findings of the medical panel of the GCAA (or other respective regulatory body) (as applicable);
6.3.4. the API Plan Rules;
6.3.5. any other relevant information pertinent to the claim, including the reports submitted by the two Aeromedical Advisors; and
6.3.6. if necessary, shall examine the Member.

6.4. The Aeromedical Arbitrator may also, if necessary, meet with the two Aeromedical Advisors ata mutually acceptable time and place to formulate their final opinion regarding the Member’sdisability and compliance with the benefit conditions and eligibility under the API Plan
Rules. This meeting may be held by means of a remote electronic communication system, including video or telephone conferencing technology or the Internet, or any combination.
6.5. The Aeromedical Arbitrator may also consult with licensed, board-certified medical specialists trained in the medical field in question if they encounter queries or specific medical or technical terms beyond the scope of their usual expertise.
6.6. The Aeromedical Arbitrator may also consult with the Trustee if they require clarification regarding the wording of the API Plan Rules.
6.7. Following a thorough assessment, the Aeromedical Arbitrator shall submit the final opinion in writing to the Member and to the Trustee.
6.8. The Member and the Trustee shall be bound by and shall implement such final opinion of the Aeromedical Arbitrator, and if required the Trustee shall issue a revised Notice of Entitlement.
6.9. Aeromedical Arbitrator Compensation: When the Aeromedical Advisors select an Aeromedical Arbitrator, the Aeromedical Arbitrator will submit an estimate of the fees of such evaluation to the Member and to the Trustee prior to any information being disclosed to him / her. Thereafter:
6.9.1. API and the Member will each post with an escrow agent nominated by the Trustee,an amount equal to half (1/2) of the Aeromedical Arbitrator’s fee.
6.9.2. If the final opinion of the Aeromedical Arbitrator is in favor of the Member, the Trustee shall pay the total cost of both Aeromedical Advisers and the Aeromedical Arbitrator’s fee and the Member’s portion of the funds in escrow will be released back to theMember.
6.9.3. If the final opinion is in favor of the Trustee, the Trustee shall pay half (1/2) of the cost of the Aeromedical Arbitrator. The Member will pay half (1/2) the cost of the Aeromedical Arbitrator; the total cost of the Aeromedical Arbitrator will be paid from the funds placed in escrow. The Trustee or the Member may request additional time to post funds in escrow but in no event, such funds shall be posted no later than 30 days from the date notified and no final opinion will be given by the Aeromedical Arbitrator until such funds have been placed in escrow.

7. THE RULES OF THE PLAN AND MEMBER ACCEPTANCE.
7.1. The current version of the API Plan Rules posted on the API website (as may be amended from time to time) shall be the valid controlling version. By virtue of the Member applying to become a member of API, the Member accepts and acknowledges that the API Plan Rules shall govern any decision regarding benefits.
7.2. This appeal process is a part of the API Rules.
7.3. In accepting the API Plan Rules, the Member agrees that the decision of the Trustee (or the Aeromedical Advisors or Aeromedical Arbitrator (where applicable)) reached as a result of the appeal process detailed herein with regard to his/her claim shall be final and binding, and the Member shall have no right to contest such decision(s) except as set forth below. The Member further acknowledges and agrees that the appeal process described herein is the sole and exclusive recourse for any and all controversies or claims arising out of or in connection with the API Plan and the Member expressly waives his / her right to file court actions disputing the decision of the appeal process except to enforce the appeal process and/or its legally binding decision except as set forth below.
8. APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE TRUSTEE FOLLOWING THE APPEAL PROCESS ALLOWED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

8.1. In the event the Member is not satisfied with the decision of the Trustee, he / she may contest the decision before a competent court of Guernsey, based solely on the following grounds:
8.1.1. The Aeromedical Arbitrator failed to address the relevant Medical Certificate Revocation Documents and / or other relevant information pertinent to the claim, including the reports submitted by the two Aeromedical Advisors in reaching their decision. For clarity, in addressing the relevant Medical Certificate Revocation Documents and / or any other relevant information pertinent to the claim, the Aeromedical Arbitrator fulfills the obligation by considering the same regardless of the final opinion forwarded to the Trustee; or
8.1.2. There was a misapplication of relevant law or procedure by the Trustee and it can be demonstrated that the decision of the Trustee was arbitrary, capricious or failed to address the final opinion of the Aeromedical Arbitrator.
9. DEFINITIONS:
Aeromedical Advisor means a physician who is a licensed specialist, certified in aviation or

aerospace medicine. The Member and API may each select an Aeromedical Advisor.

Aeromedical Arbitrator means an independent physician who is a licensed specialist, certified in aviation or aerospace medicine and suitably qualified in aeronautical and medical arbitration, whose selection is mutually agreed upon by the Aeromedical Advisors.

Air Carrier shall have the meaning prescribed to it in the API Plan Rules.

API Plan Rules means the current version of the rules of the API Plan posted on the API website, asmay be amended from time to time (each individual provision a “Plan Rule”). For the avoidance of doubt the current version of the API Plan Rules on the date that a benefit claim is filed shall be the controlling version for the claim.

Initial Benefit Determination means the decision of the Trustee contained in a Notice of Entitlement to deny benefits to any one member or to award any Member a reduced benefit entitlement. SuchInitial Benefit Determination is based upon the recommendation of the Trustee’s Medical Advisor, the API Plan Rules, and shall be consistent with the applicable laws of the Island of Guernsey and the regulations set forth by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission.

Medical Certificate Revocation Documents means the medical documents and interviews submitted by the appropriate Air Carrier and medical service provider(s) contracted by the GCAA
or other respective regulatory body.

Notice of Entitlement shall have the meaning prescribed to it in the API Plan Rules.
Revocation Date means the date of the revocation of the Class I Medical Certificate by the GCAA or

other respective regulatory body.

Trustee means Sovereign Trust (Guernsey) Limited as Trustee of the Aircrew Protection International Trust.

Trustee’s Medical Advisor means the medical service provider(s) whose recommendation the Trustee considers when making the Initial Benefit Determination.

[Switchboard]

Hello!

We are pleased to announce you can now take your API membership with you when you leave Emirates and go to another carrier. We have updated the Rules on the website and under HOW API WORKS we have included a flowchart to easily explain the process.

The highlights are:
1. You must be a current member for 3 continuous years as of the date of your resignation from Emirates.
2. Your membership after Emirates is valid (you are covered) only while you are employed by another air carrier, however there is no time limit between leaving Emirates and going to another air carrier.
3. Your LSB continues to accrue after leaving Emirates.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us on the API Website.

[puff m'call]

To set the record straight.

I joined LIPS now API many years ago after I joined EK not thinking I would ever need it, but still having comfort in the knowledge that I was covered.
Last year I got grounded and lost my medical permanently, a huge shock and a devastating blow as you can imagine. Once I had my letter of revocation from the GCAA I filed my claim with API, an easy process with no issues. EK were happy to provide me with a full copy of my medical records since my date of joining so I duly sent them off to Harvey Watt as requested. Research into HW lead me to discover that they are a professional medical organisation who have been in aviation medical and insurance business for many years.
It took several months for them to process my claim and contact was difficult, but there again they are dealing with API and the trust, not you!
Then came the long awaited email from API only to read that my claim had been denied due to a pre existing condition based on my date of joining, after close examination by myself I discovered that API's details were if fact incorrect and my joining date they had was wrong, they said they would look in to it. Within a few days they contacted was and apologised profusely admitting a mistake had been made and would resubmit my claim.

Needless to say it came back as all ok and my claim approved. I received many emails and phone calls from members of the API team apologising for the error that was made and the inconvenience to myself. My claim was back dated to the initial application and I'm now receiving full benefits. If you have a legitimate claim they will pay you, simple as that.

API is there for us the pilots and I would recommend anyone who is without cover to join right now!! You can't afford to be without it.

[donpizmeov]

I hope you are doing OK Puff.

[footballfanppl]

To set the record straight.

I joined LIPS now API many years ago after I joined EK not thinking I would ever need it, but still having comfort in the knowledge that I was covered.
Last year I got grounded and lost my medical permanently, a huge shock and a devastating blow as you can imagine. Once I had my letter of revocation from the GCAA I filed my claim with API, an easy process with no issues. EK were happy to provide me with a full copy of my medical records since my date of joining so I duly sent them off to Harvey Watt as requested. Research into HW lead me to discover that they are a professional medical organisation who have been in aviation medical and insurance business for many years.
It took several months for them to process my claim and contact was difficult, but there again they are dealing with API and the trust, not you!
Then came the long awaited email from API only to read that my claim had been denied due to a pre existing condition based on my date of joining, after close examination by myself I discovered that API's details were if fact incorrect and my joining date they had was wrong, they said they would look in to it. Within a few days they contacted was and apologised profusely admitting a mistake had been made and would resubmit my claim.

Needless to say it came back as all ok and my claim approved. I received many emails and phone calls from members of the API team apologising for the error that was made and the inconvenience to myself. My claim was back dated to the initial application and I'm now receiving full benefits. If you have a legitimate claim they will pay you, simple as that.

API is there for us the pilots and I would recommend anyone who is without cover to join right now!! You can't afford to be without it.



Isn’t this infringing the first rule of Prune posting

No advertising or promoting of business/commercial ventures.