lesterpk wrote:The original letter asked SWMAC to do 3 things, provide an undertaking that SWMAC and its members will fly to MFNZ and CAA rules, provide a copy of current club rules, and the take the steps neccesary to register the site so as to ensure insurance cover.
Yes we we sent a copy of our club rules, a commitment to enforce CAA and MFNZ regulations/rules and advised MFNZ that we would seek written permission from the SWDC to prove that we were authorised to use the field for model flying.
We approached the SWDC who said that they would only give us that permission once we had satisfied all of MFNZ's requirements.
Can you see the catch-22 situation?
The SWDC would not sign off on giving permission until we had the approval of MFNZ. MFNZ would not give us their approval until we had the permission needed from the SWDC.
One of our members, who is a lawyer, attended our meeting with the SWDC and pointed out that as affiliated members of MFNZ, any rules that our club might have would be additional to those of MFNZ so our simple "two rules" were more than adequate and in fact, filled in the gaps and voids that may exist within the MFNZ and CAA regulations.
Where do you go from there?
I would be interested in seeing when Bruce posts it, the letter in reply to the MFNZ one. Did the SWMAC try and satisfy any of the 3 things? Did the letter say, heres what you asked for, now about those complaints, can we have some information so we can identify times/places etc.
I will post it from another computer but it does address the issues as I described above -- but left us with the catch-22 situation I've described.
The were/are options available to Bruce and SWMAC, but it seems to me the "go nuclear" option has been used up already.
It was not our intention to "go nuclear" -- we actually encouraged people to *thank* the SWDC. It is just unfortunate that their decision to ban us was delivered a day after we invited people to deliver that thanks through the media. If we were still flying there then I'm sure the TV story would have been nothing but positive...
"Small Kiwi council helps local club become a world-wide hit on YouTube"
Instead, it turned around and bit the SWDC and MFNZ on the arse. We made the video unlisted as soon as we received the banning letter from the SWDC but by then the media had already received many hundreds of letters of thanks. When they contacted us I had to tell them that the situation had changed and we were now banned -- seemingly at the diktat of our national model flying body.
Also remember that:
MFNZ is unwilling or unable to provide the list of allegations and evidence to back them up.
We were faced with a catch-22 situation in respect to meeting the demands of the parties involved.
We were then threatened with trespass and forbidden to fly.
I think our options for a reasonable, sensible resolution were near-exhausted.
I think you'd have to agree that MFNZ owes all of its affiliated clubs the right to review any complaints laid against it and any allegations of wrong-doing.
We have been denied that.
I think you'd also have to agree that a representative body such as MFNZ has a responsibility to liaise with an affiliated club to try and resolve any issues that might arise *before* they bring in third parties.
I think you'd also have to agree that it beggars belief that MFNZ would go out and actively solicit complaints against one of its member clubs in the way they have.
I also think you have to agree that for MFNZ to blatantly lie about their involvement in this matter, in a way that was very clearly captured on national TV must challenge the veracity of all the vague, unspecified, claims of wrongdoing that it is leveling at the SWMAC.
Based on the feedback I've received over this issue -- all we've seen is the detonator - not the nuke.
However, I really hope everyone will put their sensible-shoes on and come to their senses over this ridiculous situation.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.