circuitsun

Any one who would vote yes to this proposal is either asleep, totally apathetic, or dense as lead. Members have already lost most of their rights & influence after the coup changing to a corporate administrative model. To give away more of your last few rights, to simply & unnecessarily solidify the power of the entrenched "drivers at the wheel" to remove a director, effectively without recourse. Think ! down the track it may be a director you have supported/elected, who rebels & actually tries to work for the members. Do not give them more power, it is not necessary, and certainly not in the members interest. Keep your few remaining options open. Circuitsun

with the following PDF attachment Eligibility-Criteria-Update.pdf

just received this email from my asic card provider: WTH have you received this ?? http://veritasengineering.com.au/veritas-logo-(CMYK)-without-engineering.jpg Reference Number: VEA xxxxxx Important Notice: Updated Card Holder Obligations Dear xxxxxx As your ASIC issuing body, Veritas is alerting you to expected changes to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Act 2021 which will impact your reporting obligations as an ASIC cardholder. It is expected that from 23 August 2021, a person’s eligibility to hold an ASIC and work in the most secure areas of Australia’s airports will be assessed against new tiered and harmonised criteria. The introduction of the new criteria aims to strengthen the ASIC scheme and focuses on combating serious crime. The majority of current ASIC holders will be unaffected by the new criteria, however existing cardholders will need to self-report any prior convictions based on the new criteria to the Department of Home Affairs or to Veritas as your ASIC issuing body. Action Required Read the attached correspondence from the Department of Home Affairs outlining the expected changes to the criteria from 23 August 2021. You must do one of the following: A. If you have not been convicted of any offence, then you do not need to self-report (or respond to this email). or B. If you have a conviction for any of the new offences (listed in the centre column of the last page of the attachment) or if you’re not sure whether a conviction relates to the new criteria, please contact the Department of Home Affairs (contact details are listed in the attachment) or Veritas to avoid any penalty. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact us for further assistance. Kind Regards, Veritas

Hey B , that looks suspiciously like a Bravo , yeah ?

Ah yes, I am still waiting for the Privacy commission's ruling on that one, I have not been paying attention lately & thought maybe there had been a another backflip to rescind that foul decision, always the hopefull ! Sorry about that, I'll just go back now & bury my head in the sand again. Cheers

I haven't been paying much attention to RAA antics of late, So would you mind enlightening me on this RAA backflip re landinf fees ..??? on the side, I've heard nothing from the Privacy commission!

Nope

Michael Monk is true politician, Very clever at looking good & carefully saying what will be well received. Quite a polished operator. BUT, MM is there for MM only, not for RAA, & certainly NOT for the members, they are the simple mug's that keep him in a job.

yeah I had one of those card detectors, bloody thing went black, so I threw it away. won't get another one of those !

That is very sad to hear KR, a real shame. I am looking for something else to do instead, [ gotta have something !] but so far, still looking looking looking....

Oh, thank you very much spacesailor, that's a novel idea ! ....... it is on the horizon.

Yes, I also spoke to M. Monk for some tine & was disappointed to learn the AAA agreement is for 3 yrs before review, & RAA legal team advised NOT to CEASE divulging our personal information. so is is business as usual. My complaint will also go to arbitration. Apparently one of the stipulations of this AAA agreement was, it was NOT to be used for backdated invoices. So I would guess anyone in that category could ignore those invoices. Again apparently, the airport involved was put on notice that any further abuse would block them from the RAA database. yidity yidity yidity. it is this sort of abuse of our privacy that I was concerned about enough to make the complaint. To give Michael his due, he did listen well & admitted it was handled badly, I suggested an apology to all members, we'll see about that, I suspect he will be gagged by legal advice. He did seem to take on board some of my suggestions and concerns. I will be waiting & watching, for some sign of changes in the wind,...... but not holding my breath. One thing that was confirmed by our conversation, was the almost total apathy of RAA members. Appears close to 90% don't give a shit about RAA governance, [ ..until it affects them negatively.] So RAA's policy direction is being driven by a very active minority. That is how democracy ends up working, & with apathy & laziness at these levels, we can blame no one but ourselves. Members will get what they deserve. I still believe, with a concerted effort from pilots, & administration, we could make a huge difference to landing fees, Avdata, & diminishing airfields, but while apathy reigns so supreme, things will continue as they are, with increasing landing fees & decreasing landing fields, not a real bright future.

I would give Ian credit for having sufficient intelligence, and maturity to know better than that rubbish. He appears to encourage a courteous debate of issues generally. Ie respect for other opinions. Not pointless bagging.

Absolutely brilliant, Awesome footage from the past, great post Garfly

KRviator summed it up very clearly for my complaint also OME, he is more eloquent than I

It would not be practical for RAA to collect direct for the airports, due to the sizable investment in hardware owned by avdata, to record CTAF. or ........mmmm maybe that hardware is owned by the airports, .... anyone know ?

Yes !! all a little step the right direction. wonder how many other complaints against RAA

Yes, Facthunter, my thoughts also, & great idea about RAA being the "avdata" the problem [not insurmountable] is, avdata was set up by connections with AAA and there are some "close ties" there, Also unfortunately, RAA has been to busy to bother with this issue, & too arrogant to consult with members, so this this sore has festered too long, & generated much angst with AAA.

following the rejection of my original privacy complaint against RAA by the OAIC, with help from members of this forum, my appeal has been successful, & my complaint recognized. It will now go the the final resolution [in approx 7 - 9 months] Meanwhile RAA has been requested to negotiate with me for a settlement. This is where I'd appreciate some feed back from all members affected by this. I would like: a/ an apology from the RAA board, esp Mr Monk, with some assurance that future policy decisions by the board be more transparent, with input from the members. b/ the privacy breach be closed immediately & not re-opened without members consent. [ yes maybe I am in dreamland but one can only work toward a positive result. However this does leave an important issue, due to, RAA's abysmal results of negotiations with AAA, - that of landing fees. If a landing fee is clearly charged, & you land at that field, you are obliged to pay it, I don't think there is any argument there. Whilst there is valid controversy, on councils charging for use of public airfields, and the insidious use of Avdata, a third party cashing in on those fee's. this is a secondary argument, lets not muddy the waters with that just yet. I really need some input & constructive ideas, for an alternate solution, to this issue. One member has suggested, to have RAA pass on the invoices, as in past years, it became to cumbersome and expensive then, but with the digital age & RAA having upgraded it's systems somewhat, this may now be feasible. While constructive suggestions are welcome from anybody, this thread is primarily for affected RAA members. So please don't clog this forum with old rehashed arguments about RAA flyers paying landing fees, CONSTRUCTIVE is the primary goal here. This issue has to be solved. I think another thread perhaps, or latter in this one we could concentrate on passive ways of rewarding councils without charges, followed by councils with reasonable charges, & penalizing councils with high charges, or avdata. we spend a substantial amount of money in towns, when touring, directing where it goes could be a worthwhile start. But that is for later, lets concentrate on the urgent issue at hand. Thanks you, Circuitsun.

Hats off to the innovators ! Go guys go, ignore all the dim sims negativity pushing you into the dull mainstream, go your owm path, brilliant, great to see ! & hey guys, stop knocking Colin, he's my hero !?

I have just received the following email from OAIC, seem they have their own way of reading a Privacy complaint about Recreational Aviation Australia Dear Mr Norwood Thank you for your complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) of 5 August 2019 about Recreational Aviation Australia (RAA), made under s 36 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act). The OAIC has considered your complaint about RAA and formed the view that there has not been an interference with your privacy. The reasons for this view are explained below. You now have an opportunity to comment before I make a final decision. Your allegations You allege RAA has interfered with your privacy by altering its privacy policy. You say that in April 2018 RAA added a provision in its privacy policy that allowed the disclosure of personal information to a third party. You say that you were not notified of this and that a disclosure was made to the third party without your consent. In our call on 22 October 2019 you stated that RAA had updated its privacy policy to disclose your personal information to the Airport Owners Association for the purpose of the Airport Owners Association billing individuals for using their runway. The law The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in the Privacy Act regulate the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information held by Australian government agencies and certain private sector organisations. APP 1.3 requires an APP entity to have a clearly expressed and up-to-date APP Privacy Policy about how it manages personal information. Under APP 6, an organisation is able to use personal information it holds if it is for the same purpose for which it was collected, or for a secondary purpose if the individual has consented, or an exception under APP 6 applies. Our view Based on the available information, it is my view that RAA has not interfered with your privacy as defined by the Privacy Act. APP 1 does not prevent RAA from amending its privacy policy from time to time. APP 1.3 requires that RAA keep its privacy policy up to date. Further, under APP 6, RAA is able to disclose personal information to third parties if the disclosure directly relates to RAA’s functions and activities and is a disclosure that you would be reasonably aware could occur. The disclosure of personal information for the purpose of collecting fees associated with airport use and access would generally be considered to be related to the primary purpose of collection. If RAA has updated its privacy policy to reflect which organisations it discloses to, you can be considered reasonably aware that this is a disclosure that could occur. I note that RAA also notified you by placing a notice in its monthly magazine, further making you aware of the circumstances of its disclosures. Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure. As such it appears that RAA has met the requirements of the Privacy Act. I'm no law expert , but this line flies in the face of reality, " Where you are reasonably aware of that a disclosure may take place and the disclosure is directly related to purpose for which the information was collected, RAA would not need to gain your consent for this disclosure." it appears this is the basis for their rejection of my appeal. Could any of you more law literate folks out there enlighten me on this ?? I have about 14 days to appeal this.

Well at least one of the M & M's will benefit hugely, but isn't that what WHO are working for, through OUR organization, so I guess congratulations are in order! I so regret letting this happen RAA, and so resent the sod's that would do this for their own ends. But regrets are no damn use at all. Interestingly, I hear more pilots & a/c owners are letting their plastic expire , nowadays, & going back to the bad ol days. Yeah, Viva a revolution !

You get Billed by Avdata in Canberra [ logical really, appears to be the home of the parasites ] good luck on any help with RAA recognizing anything, but what they want ! Fly by up here sometime, & I'll get photographic evidence for you to present to them !

yeah, we"ve been over all this before, I was just checking to see if they were still billing certificate flyers [RAA]

That's interesting, I have been to a number of Avdata during my travels but have not received any invoices since april ( 1 ) Was hoping a hold may have been put on them, since lodging complaint with P.C. Ah well, can't shoot me for being optimistic.