MERGED: MBF rule change-Vote No?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rang the MBF office, but the staff who could talk to me about these changes were unavailable. The pleasant lady took my details and said they'd return my call next working day.
They didn't.
I voted no.
They didn't.
I voted no.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MBF policy and treatment of the existing Rule 6 (c) has always used an important principle: Members who can claim other statutory entitlements should do so before they claim from MBF. This includes the workers compensation schemes (WorkCover) that apply in each state. In the new Rule 6 (c) WorkCover is specifically named, but the principle is the same: MBF will not pay monthly benefits whilst a member is entitled to receive WorkCover payments.
Above is an extract from the email.
My concern is with the "entitled" to receive bit, that doesn't mean you are receiving anything from Workcover if they dispute the issue and hold off any payment as was the case in one situation that I am aware of.
Above is an extract from the email.
My concern is with the "entitled" to receive bit, that doesn't mean you are receiving anything from Workcover if they dispute the issue and hold off any payment as was the case in one situation that I am aware of.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original Intent and Failure to keep up with CASA
I may be too late to be making this comment as I am unsure as to whether or not the vote has yet been taken. As I am time expired, I no longer receive communications from AAPMBF. I apologise for the lateness of my warning.
In my view the bigger elephant in the room is the treatment of Rule 1 (a) current v 1 (b) proposed.
To say that "the concept of being downgraded is redundant as a Class 1 with restrictions is a still a class 1 medical certificate" is contextually misleading.
A pilot employed in single pilot operations receiving an "as or with co-pilot" restriction on his class one medical certificate is FINISHED from a piloting point of view. He cannot continue in his current position and the likelihood of him gaining employment in a multi crew environment is about as likely as Phar Lap winning another race. His Class 1 (restricted), is not worth a pinch of pig droppings to him/her. If that is not being downgraded within the original intent of the Rules, I will do the proverbial bum barring in Bourke street"
The rule in respect of "downgrading" was written long before the concept of "Class 1 with restrictions" was conceived, you either held a class 1 or not. From a distant and hazy memory, you were legally able to operate as a co-pilot on another grade of medical, (I think a Class 2)
It was the intent of the founders of the Fund that if you were unfortunate enough to lose your class one medical, but still be able to exercise reduced privileges on another class of medical, in the event that your employer, "downgraded" your salary, you were entitled to compensation from MBF.
Subsequently CASA, has introduced a "new" concept (as or with co-pilot) which allows an RPT Captain to retain his position , conditionally.
Although they have long been aware of this concept and the anomaly it raises, the Board of AAPMBF has chosen to do nothing to address the situation and, to apply the founders original intent.
The proposed rule change reinforces a current view rather than the original intent, and on that basis the comments accompanying the proposed rule changes, are, in my view, misleading.
Any concerns the Board may have regarding possible double dipping, are fallacious, as the current Rule requires that earning ability be downgraded. A Captain keeping his command pay would not be entitled. A Captain downgraded to F/O and paid accordingly, would be entitled.
In my view the bigger elephant in the room is the treatment of Rule 1 (a) current v 1 (b) proposed.
To say that "the concept of being downgraded is redundant as a Class 1 with restrictions is a still a class 1 medical certificate" is contextually misleading.
A pilot employed in single pilot operations receiving an "as or with co-pilot" restriction on his class one medical certificate is FINISHED from a piloting point of view. He cannot continue in his current position and the likelihood of him gaining employment in a multi crew environment is about as likely as Phar Lap winning another race. His Class 1 (restricted), is not worth a pinch of pig droppings to him/her. If that is not being downgraded within the original intent of the Rules, I will do the proverbial bum barring in Bourke street"
The rule in respect of "downgrading" was written long before the concept of "Class 1 with restrictions" was conceived, you either held a class 1 or not. From a distant and hazy memory, you were legally able to operate as a co-pilot on another grade of medical, (I think a Class 2)
It was the intent of the founders of the Fund that if you were unfortunate enough to lose your class one medical, but still be able to exercise reduced privileges on another class of medical, in the event that your employer, "downgraded" your salary, you were entitled to compensation from MBF.
Subsequently CASA, has introduced a "new" concept (as or with co-pilot) which allows an RPT Captain to retain his position , conditionally.
Although they have long been aware of this concept and the anomaly it raises, the Board of AAPMBF has chosen to do nothing to address the situation and, to apply the founders original intent.
The proposed rule change reinforces a current view rather than the original intent, and on that basis the comments accompanying the proposed rule changes, are, in my view, misleading.
Any concerns the Board may have regarding possible double dipping, are fallacious, as the current Rule requires that earning ability be downgraded. A Captain keeping his command pay would not be entitled. A Captain downgraded to F/O and paid accordingly, would be entitled.
