Jump to content

RAAus to disclose member details


Recommended Posts

I pay $250 plus for membership at Caboolture. The club does its own mowing and most of the maint PLUS I think the hangar owners are up for around 4K per year for lease fees. No landing fees at Ycab

Landing fee equivalents are built into your membership fee.  It is kind of you to forgive the itinerants the expense of wear and tear on the airfield.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Don’t disagree Jim but as the contract is not directly for the provision of service and is through a semi autonomous body it was always arguable.   $3m turnover is absolutely clear and unarguab

Don’t have to agree or disagree with you Jim.  The privacy act may apply under CASA or it might not.  The $3m turnover in the previous financial year us a simple unarguable tick of being under the act

Posted Images

It would pay for everyone to take a look at the charter review ( in the latest from the CEO newsletter) and see how you think that lines up with the releasing private details.

 

lve just sent my thoughts to them about this stupid decision.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

because the RAA is a commercial organisation, you may not be able to vote away or waive your privacy rights, someone could clarify this via the OAIC  [email protected]

 

my limited knowledge of privacy law is that the RAA has no contract with the airport owner and there for can't disclose your information.

 

it will probably only take one disgruntled RAA member to test this through the courts.

 

When I worked in the ISP business we used to get numerous requests to disclose identities of our customers who were alleged to be pirating movies. we just deleted them.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

yawn.......only a matter of time with all the moaning about landing fees and RAA aircraft reluctant to pay, that councils and the like will simply deny access to all RAA unless they ( RAA pilots ), conform to the requirement. When that happens, and it will, then you'll have something to really bitch about. Personally if i'm asked to pay a fee, i'm only too happy to, for the "priviledge" of using someones elses property ( council ) RAA pilots want to be real carefull they don't end up shooting themselves in the foot re this matter. Just last yr we needed to refuel enroute, ersa said non VH registered were denied use, after protracted tooing and fro, i managed to get ongoing use as required. ( they were ANTI   RAA ) i now treat that permission with great care. The GA pilots know RAA evade these fees, and it rightfully erks them, my guess they feedback to local councils etc re this matter. 

 

 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
yawn.......only a matter of time with all the moaning about landing fees and RAA aircraft reluctant to pay, that councils and the like will simply deny access to all RAA unless they ( RAA pilots ), conform to the requirement. When that happens, and it will, then you'll have something to really bitch about. Personally if i'm asked to pay a fee, i'm only too happy to, for the "priviledge" of using someones elses property ( council ) RAA pilots want to be real carefull they don't end up shooting themselves in the foot re this matter. Just last yr we needed to refuel enroute, ersa said non VH registered were denied use, after protracted tooing and fro, i managed to get ongoing use as required. ( they were ANTI   RAA ) i now treat that permission with great care. The GA pilots know RAA evade these fees, and it rightfully erks them, my guess they feedback to local councils etc re this matter. 

Not as simple as that.  GA by use of incorrect call signs or non use of radio already rife in some areas, Charters Towers a prime example.  I am “informed” they now use camera information at the terminal for these offenders.

 

I would not like to see the non use of radio become anymore prevalent. I have had a light twin taxing towards me down the runway at YCHT when I was on short final & only turned off just before I did a goround.  No talking, in fact not even listening on CTAF or AREA, then departed and still without a call.  

 

AVDATA introduces its own problems along with costs.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

it is "as simple as that"....RAA pilots openly whinge having to pay a fee, all other users know RAA generally get away with non payments. The bulk of GA pay, and yes "some" evade. Councils will seek a better way to get users paying, cameras being one. When........RAA are told to rack off, with appropriate legislations by councils, then RAA pilots will say WTF, we just stuffed ourselves. Most councils are strapped for funds, most see airstrips as a burden to them, can see councils simply closing strips, or banning non VH aircraft totally as some are now doing. RAA pilots should be encouraging councils to embrace RAA pilots, not p!ssing councils off. Continue the line of " we won't pay fees".....then your days are numbered.  

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils are charging fees to RAA users to cover RPT security and runway lengthening isn't fair or reasonable, then in fact moving to CLOSE smaller cross strips.

 

this is ON TOP of rents and rates for hangers being doubled or more and contracts rewritten to allow this every 2 years

 

This is an acceptance of councils cash grab with little in return.

 

RAA need the AAA support for CTA and increased MTOW - the members who are keen on this, (75% according to research) may not have been aware what was being traded off for these benefits. Nor that it would apply to very few and would not be available under existing RAA exemptions ie with self Maint or self declared medicals.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

many councils are selling off their local airports as a source of revenue.   The purchaser then has the option, depending on the right palms being greased, of bending and breaking contracts to suit themselves.   Increase fees, shut down runways, restrict free access to hanger owners etc.   No one complains about ocal sports grounds and do not pay council fees for them on a per user basis.   Remember, these days its all about money, people dont matter any more.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Councils are charging fees to RAA users to cover RPT security and runway lengthening isn't fair or reasonable, then in fact moving to CLOSE smaller cross strips.

this is ON TOP of rents and rates for hangers being doubled or more and contracts rewritten to allow this every 2 years

 

This is an acceptance of councils cash grab with little in return.

 

RAA need the AAA support for CTA and increased MTOW - the members who are keen on this, (75% according to research) may not have been aware what was being traded off for these benefits. Nor that it would apply to very few and would not be available under existing RAA exemptions ie with self Maint or self declared medicals.

I pay a fee automatically to land at a runway, which, without it would be a residential or industrial area; I don't bother analysing the airfield's business model for them; they are entitled to charge what they want for the service and it's my decision to use it or not.

 

If they want to go after the scumbags who try to use their facilities by deception, that's fine with me; they should be prosecuted on the same basis as shoplifters.

 

You must have been one of the few out of the 10,000 members that didn't understand that going into the GA weight groups was going to involve GA regulations and costs, which was one of the reasons not to go there. In addition to that, the potential double standards of GA and RAA operating side by side on the same runways and in the same airspace will have GA operators putting pressure on CASA for RAA to have the same maintenance and training standards.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

l have no issue paying landing fees the issue l have is that our organisation is releasing our details to the likes of Avdata which says to me 

 

that our organisation feels it needs to be the moral lighthouse for us all. Question who are they representing us or Avdata ? as l have said  in a email to mr Linke

 

l am well capable of doing that myself and l don't want my details disclosed to  profiteers.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received 5 avdata bills in the last few years that bear no relation to where my aircraft was at the time.   Apparantly I was in WA for one of them whilst proving I was at work in NSW at the time.   Same as the others.   At the time I had an agreement with the airport owners to pay a regular yearly fee for landings etc.  

 

I agree, the privacy issue is the problem with me, given they agreed not to do it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have received 5 avdata bills in the last few years that bear no relation to where my aircraft was at the time. 

 

Happens a lot with VH rego aircraft.  I don't throw a hissy at Avdata - just take a pic of your Maintenance Release entries and send it to them. Because the MR is a legal doc - Avdata have always accepted that without a murmour.

 

You must have been one of the few out of the 10,000 members that didn't understand that going into the GA weight groups was going to involve GA regulations and costs, which was one of the reasons not to go there. In addition to that, the potential double standards of GA and RAA operating side by side on the same runways and in the same airspace will have GA operators putting pressure on CASA for RAA to have the same maintenance and training standards.

And, the CTA push will exacerbate this outcome.

 

As I noted a year or two back - ' be careful what you wish for'

 

In any event, just having CASA agree to MTOW increases does not mean that you will automatically be allowed to do this. With factory built aircraft, he manufacturer will then have to agree to an increase, and most will NOT. This is because it will require them to conduct more flight testing to justify the MTOW increase, which will need to be included in the POH. For kits and EXP category - the owner will have to satisfy RAAus that they have established these new parameters.

 

 It may increase the Vso to above 45kts in some cases, and it will also significantly decrease take-off and climb performance. Same HP + bigger load  =  lower performance!!  Given this, I predict an increase in accidents in the take-off and early climb flight phases. It's not a nice feeling when you can see the top of the ridgeline, or the trees, rising in your windscreen and you are flat chat! 

 

happy days,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happens a lot with VH rego aircraft.  I don't throw a hissy at Avdata - just take a pic of your Maintenance Release entries and send it to them. Because the MR is a legal doc - Avdata have always accepted that without a murmour.

I am not quite so amenable as you...I shouldn’t have to prove I don’t owe them money, they should have to prove I do.

 

ive also had bills no doubt courtesy of poor radio transcripts or perhaps someone using my call sign to mislead. But it’s a poor show when companies invoice you for a service and their system is so fraught with issues they can’t get it right but want you to provide proof you should be exonerated at your expense.

 

Perhaps pilots in that situation need to invoice Avdata for the expenses they incurred in responding in those circumstances?

 

kaz

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get a fine for speeding past a fixed camera they send you a copy of the photo with the time stamp details on it. You have an opportunity then to dispute the fine & if that fails go to court. I can't see any difference here.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you get a fine for speeding past a fixed camera they send you a copy of the photo with the time stamp details on it. You have an opportunity then to dispute the fine & if that fails go to court. I can't see any difference here.

Possibly the difference is that a govt department applying laws passed by an elected parliament accessed information collected under legal means ... rather than a company that collected your data  for one purpose the turning around and allowing another group of people to access your data for their financial benefit despite their being federal privacy laws that specifically prevent a company from legally doing that exact thing.

 

and to be clear I have NEVER in 25 years of flying ultralights, Microlight’s it GA not paid a landing fee. BUT I absolutely do not want my personal data being made available to groups just because it is simple and it I might get a group to support the RAAus. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t loose site of the fact that 95.55 complying aircraft ALREADY have CTA access  (with owner maintenance) with a GA licence pilot.  It won’t  be automatic for Raa certificate holders anyway -  it would appear it is all about increased weight with LAME maintenance and CASA medicals aka mini GA.  I would suggest when people have a closer look at what is being sort the reported “support” may well be overstated.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Councils are charging fees to RAA users to cover RPT security and runway lengthening isn't fair or reasonable, then in fact moving to CLOSE smaller cross strips.

this is ON TOP of rents and rates for hangers being doubled or more and contracts rewritten to allow this every 2 years

 

This is an acceptance of councils cash grab with little in return.

 

RAA need the AAA support for CTA and increased MTOW - the members who are keen on this, (75% according to research) may not have been aware what was being traded off for these benefits. Nor that it would apply to very few and would not be available under existing RAA exemptions ie with self Maint or self declared medicals.

"This is an acceptance of councils cash grab with little in return"... Except for the use of the runway. I have never seen the books, but my guess is that RAAus fees do little to make up the cost of maintaining the airport. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you spend a lot  to get the money It's counter intuitive. It brings activity to the town like a road does. An aerodrome is a potential asset to any place. The main problem is the councils want a high return on rates. IF you did the same for agriculture you would kill that off too, unless it was opium poppies..   Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...