Prior Permission Required Non VH Registered - Archerfield

[Aldo]

It was with dismay last night when doing a plan to fly to Archerfield (had to be there by 0800) that I noticed a new item on the NOTAMS which directed me to note 6 in the remarks section of the ERSA.

 

In the most up to date version (OzRunways) note 6 states that all non VH registered (RA registered) require permission to land at Archerfield, new to me as I had only been there in my Jab 2 weeks earlier.

 

Following calls to the briefing office (knew nothing about it even stating he had not seen anything like it in the 7 years he had worked at the briefing office), the ARO (no answer), I imagined it was probably something to do with landing fees. As Avdata have my details I went ahead and planned the flight and submitted a flight plan with no problems.

 

Early this morning I rang the ARO again to ascertain the requirements of the PPR requirement, he knew nothing about it but suspected it was about landing fees.

 

I have since found out that it is about landing fees and as RAA will not give out contact details for members so that Avdata are able to send a bill to the appropriate person this is the way airport operators are going to go about it. Give us your details or you don't have permission to land

 

If one place is doing this it will not be long before all airports require PPR for recreational aviation aircraft.

 

I have no issue with this as Avdata have had my details for several years and I pay landing and parking fees.

 

Interesting times ahead. Time for RAA to play the game or risk members not having access to airports.

 

Aldo

 

 

[turboplanner]

It was with dismay last night when doing a plan to fly to Archerfield (had to be there by 0800) that I noticed a new item on the NOTAMS which directed me to note 6 in the remarks section of the ERSA.In the most up to date version (OzRunways) note 6 states that all non VH registered (RA registered) require permission to land at Archerfield, new to me as I had only been there in my Jab 2 weeks earlier.

Following calls to the briefing office (knew nothing about it even stating he had not seen anything like it in the 7 years he had worked at the briefing office), the ARO (no answer), I imagined it was probably something to do with landing fees. As Avdata have my details I went ahead and planned the flight and submitted a flight plan with no problems.

 

Early this morning I rang the ARO again to ascertain the requirements of the PPR requirement, he knew nothing about it but suspected it was about landing fees.

 

I have since found out that it is about landing fees and as RAA will not give out contact details for members so that Avdata are able to send a bill to the appropriate person this is the way airport operators are going to go about it. Give us your details or you don't have permission to land

 

If one place is doing this it will not be long before all airports require PPR for recreational aviation aircraft.

 

I have no issue with this as Avdata have had my details for several years and I pay landing and parking fees.

 

Interesting times ahead. Time for RAA to play the game or risk members not having access to airports.

 

Aldo

Maybe not Aldo; this blew up four or five years ago at other locations and everyone expected a backlash, but nothing major has happened. If you pay, no reason for them to get upset.

 

 

[TK58]

Time for RAA to play the game or risk members not having access to airports.Aldo

RAAus's position on giving out members' details is driven by the collective wishes of the members (who by and large don't want their details disclosed) and the requirements of the Privacy Act (which says that personal information may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose(s) disclosed at the time the information was collected except in response to a lawful request from an authority - for example CASA or a coroner, or if the person concerned gives explicit permission).

 

RAAus believes members should pay landing fees and any other charges they may incur. However providing contact details to airfield operators in order to facilitate debt collection is not part of the role of RAAus and members repeatedly indicate they don't want their details made available.

 

Having said that, Part 149 will require the RAAus aircraft register (and HGFA and ASRA, etc.) to be public the same as the VH register. So change is coming.

 

 

[Aldo]

RAAus's position on giving out members' details is driven by the collective wishes of the members

Tony

 

It won't matter what the collective wishes of the members are if they have no airfields (apart from private ones) to land at, there won't be any members if we are not able to land where we want to.

 

In saying the above I do understand RAA's position and it is up to the individual members to provide their details to Avdata, in my opinion if you are not able to afford landing fees you are not able to afford to fly.

 

Allan

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Having said that, Part 149 will require the RAAus aircraft register (and HGFA and ASRA, etc.) to be public the same as the VH register. So change is coming.

This is the proposal for Registration under part 149:

 

Key Proposal 7

 

 

 

 

 

Information relating to registration of aircraft/authorisations issued by ASAOs to be made available to CASA, but not necessarily to the public ( nprm_1502ss_preamble.pdf | Civil Aviation Safety Authority )

 

Unless you have other information it seems making rego details public has not yet been agreed upon.