Years ago, a special Sub-Committee was created within SC4, whose objective was the creation and the continuous updating of the Information Handbook. The idea was that the information contained in such an IHB would be of great value to the IFATCA Member Associations.

A recommendation from the 1985 Conference, states that the IHB must be continued in close co-operation with the RVP’s, has also to be considered.

The “Continuation of updating the IHB” was kept on the 1987/1988 work programme of Sub- Committee IHB.

After the creation of the IHB, it was the responsibility of SC4 Sub-Committee IHB to update the IHB.

In accordance with the IFATCA Manual, Sub-Committee IHB distributed at the end of 1986 questionnaires to all MA’s, whose last received information dated from 1985. 43 questionnaires were distributed but until now, only 20 replies are received. The result is that the information of 32 MA’s out of 66 is either not contained in the IHB or is dated from 1985.

The problems with the update of the IHB were discussed with EVPP Wim Rooseman at the Hannover SC4 meeting (August 1987). The EVPP was provided with lists of the MA’s per Region which did not yet reply to the IHB questionnaire or which did not update their information since November 1985. In October the matter was brought to the order at the Amsterdam Council Meeting. The RVP’s were provided with a copy of the above mentioned list and were asked to contact those MA’s in order to urge them to reply to the IHB questionnaire. Sub-Committee IHB received one additional reply.

Due to the fact that an important part of the MAs is not replying to the IHB questionnaire, distributed by Sub-Comm. IHB, SC4 Sub-Com. IHB is not able to update the IHB. Since the reliability of the IHB depends upon such updating, it can be concluded that the value of the IHB has to be questioned. Sub-Committee IHB is not in the position, and has no possibility at its disposal to urge the MA’s to return their revised information.

It is the opinion of SC4 Sub-Committee IHB that, as the RVPs have a much better liaison with the MA’s, a better response to the questionnaire could be obtained if the RVPs act as a link between the MA’s and Sub-Committee IHB.

Recommendations