Avdata

Who on the board owns a RAA aircraft - and what is its rego number - shall we all have a week of flying with the same rego number!!!!

 

A cunning plan?

 

 

Why do you folks want to avoid the landing fees? GA pays them. The fees encourage owners and councils to continue running the airfields. They help people advocate for better facilities.

 

 

Who on the board owns a RAA aircraft - and what is its rego number - shall we all have a week of flying with the same rego number!!!!

 

A cunning plan?

That, would go down faster than a 747 made of concrete :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

Why do you folks want to avoid the landing fees? GA pays them. The fees encourage owners and councils to continue running the airfields. They help people advocate for better facilities.

It is not about paying (or avoiding) the landing fees - the issue is the breach of the Privacy Act by RAAus - see post #23

 

 

I'm informed that it is 40%

 

BTW, if you believe that Avdata, or any airport owner, have billed you for ops that you didn't do - then simply photograph your M/R, or logbook, to show that neither you nor the aircraft were the identified party. Never had it disputed.

 

happy days,

Poteroo, whilst I agree with your statement, and have been involved with this rubbish with GA over the years, it does come to the point of reverse onous i.e you have to prove your innocence.

 

The suggestion has been made on numerous occasions that the approach should be to ignor false billing and wait for the summons, prove your innocence in court and claim costs. Naturally nobody does this as they just want the rubbish to go away.

 

Why RAA has gone down this path is up to the individuals opinion whether it is acceptable or not and outside of a few overt “followers” I believe the action is that of an administration not interested in the wishes of members.

 

The issue is not about paying landing fees BUT the method and the releasing of personal information. The comment of Linke in Sports Pilot relatively recently that he knew it would upset some members but he didn’t care speaks volumes about the CURRENT administration.

 

 

jackc.. Just a moment have a think''''they''''' want people with degrees..

 

What you need to consider is what the members want. It is something like what the pollies are, that is get elected and tell us what we are going to get, I thought it was -- we give them our wishes and they go from there, nup, they tell us what we got to do for them.

 

This RAAus board is the same, except for those rusted on supporters, they would stay loyal even if they were being fleeced of their last cent.

 

I do not know what you want I need someone with practical common sense.

 

KP.

Kieth I totally agree with the last bit about needing someone with practical common sense, but who said "they" want someone with degrees?

 

Plenty of us might have the best interests of our movement in mind, but...

 

Do we have the experience and skills needed to deal with government departments?

 

Are we articulate enough to communicate with members, the public and government?

 

Have we enough energy and resilience for the long slog ahead? (Speaking of which, I recently shared breakfast with the head honcho of AOPA and he had more drive and vision to save us from the stifling hand of bureacracy than anyone else I've heard.)

 

I always read everything I can about each candidate, but my vote is still not not well-informed. Those election blurbs tell us precious little about the direction they want to take RAA.

 

 

Being a good company director requires training and experience. Just like being a good pilot. Experience running a comparable sized business is very useful. Completing a company directors course is very helpful. Experience as an operator or employee in the industry is of limited value, that is not what being a director is about.

 

 

Being a good company director requires training and experience. Just like being a good pilot. Experience running a comparable sized business is very useful. Completing a company directors course is very helpful. Experience as an operator or employee in the industry is of limited value, that is not what being a director is about.

But this is NOT a for profit company. It is a special purpose company with a dictate to work within recreational aviation for the betterment of the members. So yes as a director you do have responsibilities and obligations around governance BUT these can very easily be managed and learned from either a course or time on the job. I’m the finance manager of a medium sized not for profit -$25m income - and our board is mixed with over half coming directly from the target of the not-for-profit and they get the need to maintain the core focus on the charitable purpose of the company. Finance and governance are absolutely still in their mind and is governed but the strategic direction is not driven by process and governance but by their personal knowledge and enthusiasm for the charitable purpose.

 

The worst that could happen here is ‘career’ directors come on or enthusiastic directors are scared off with focus on the responsibilities.

 

 

Kasper I agree with you. As long as you have all the skills covered by board members or access to advisors, then you can afford to have one or two novice directors. Over time they can become really valuable board members. They can also become time wasters and completely derail the proper functioning of the board. Fortunately in my experience the voters generally make the right decisions.

 

 

I just received an invoice for $10 from Avdata for a landing fee at Chinchilla, Qld.

 

I had landed there for a quick pee beside the runway then away again in minutes.

 

We often joke about the $100 hamburger, but this is a $10 pee fee......

 

 

If we land at airports that have a fee for landing but we don't pay up. Those airports could well say RAAus aircraft are not allowed to land there. The airport owner probably has a right to say that and if we then land there he can take action against us.

 

I really can't see why we should be able to hide our identity and still use the facility.

 

You just work out if it is worthwhile going to an airport, which charges a fee. I used to buy all my fuel at my local airport, but now they charge a fee I no longer go there. I have to get fuel elsewhere and it may even cost more, but I think Gladstone Aerodrome Board is really the loser.

These new release of info just allows airports (councils mostly) who DONT charge fees currently , to begin. Avdata make it a free kick for them. Id reckon a large portion of RAA operates off airfields without fees

 

 

Avdata are the leeches in all of this.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

They "make" a market monopoly and take their cut . Morally you should have an alternative way of making the payment where you save the amount equal to their cut. You should have the right to choose to NOT deal with Avdata. . who you have signed NO contract with. If you don't pay monies due anyone could place the collection with another body after warning you, but we don't have that here. Nev

 

 

They "make" a market monopoly and take their cut . Morally you should have an alternative way of making the payment where you save the amount equal to their cut. You should have the right to choose to NOT deal with Avdata. . who you have signed NO contract with. If you don't pay monies due anyone could place the collection with another body after warning you, but we don't have that here. Nev

Something the RAA should look at for the members benefit?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

I was going to suggest that. Why not? Solves quite a few problems in one move. Nev

 

 

I just received an invoice for $10 from Avdata for a landing fee at Chinchilla, Qld.

 

I had landed there for a quick pee beside the runway then away again in minutes.

 

We often joke about the $100 hamburger, but this is a $10 pee fee......

That's where I see the problem. One may argue that $10.00 isn't much, but it I consider excessive for what you get and I it a deterrent if you are just stopping for a look and a slash. It wouldn't be hard to work up a hefty monthly bill when you hop around 4 or 5 local airfields for a visit and a chat on a Saturday and/or Sunday.

 

Tara is another good example..... a small airport miles out of town, nothing to see, no hangars, nothing to do except relieve yourself on the grass/dirt and tenner for the privilege. Won't make that mistake again. Won't be stopping at any of them unless I actually have business there and even then will be making every effort to avoid business there.

 

 

Simple solution, people on the forum note their findings and a list is made in a sub forum that has RAA “friendly” airfields.

 

People then can make a choice as to whether they land there or elsewhere and/or make use of any services.

 

I have never objected to fees charged if they are fair and reasonable.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

Expecting people to provide a serviceable airfield for free is a bit much. Having it there might save your plane or your life one day. The insurance would be considerable and if there's grazing animals etc you need to fence it. It has to be mowed and repaired. It just has to be a reasonable figure and it can't be charged on each circuit if you are fair dinkum. Nev

 

 

RE my post below - THATS THE POINT. Need to get some attention from the board . Not a word about from RAA that I have read about with this deal with AVDATA.

 

Serious Question are RAA getting a kickback as well??

 

I must be under a rock, not getting any monthly news from our leaders in email either like I used to either unless the system is broken.

 

Who on the board owns a RAA aircraft - and what is its rego number - shall we all have a week of flying with the same rego number!!!!

 

A cunning plan

 

Like your comment Jack - where is the RAA office located

 

That, would go down faster than a 747 made of concrete :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

Lead balloon will do me. You could probably get a 747 made of concrete to fly if you designed it properly. Might not carry much payload tho. Nev

 

 

Every time you enter a competition or join a newsletter etc online your details go out, with no control over them or much chance of a win( in case of a comp). Runways/airfields cost money. paying a small fee is not such a big imposition. The really high charging ones could be avoided, especially in our category. Offers of no fee for fueling up there could be a sweetener for most and bring in business for them. Privacy does not really exist anymore for people who access/use the internet and we should be expending energy on more important things. Just my thoughts on this matter

 

 

Kasper I agree with you. As long as you have all the skills covered by board members or access to advisors, then you can afford to have one or two novice directors. Over time they can become really valuable board members. They can also become time wasters and completely derail the proper functioning of the board. Fortunately in my experience the voters generally make the right decisions.

An important aspect which is missing, is "vision".

 

This is a team effort, management has a handle on governance. A board has to have some type of vision to move forward or it will bog down in governance.

 

KP

 

 

I would like to have a stated POLICY on most matters that is referred to when thinking of doing something " clever.". Does that accord with our general Policy? If not why not? Why are we going in another direction? Justify it or don't go there. Policies can be varied from time to time, but again must be "wanted" by the vast majority of the members then you might get a more consistent pattern of development. and less unpleasant surprises being sprung on you out of the blue. governing on simple majorities is not stable enough.. Use the memberships talents and judgement where you can without being totally moribund with confusion and apathy. Nev.

 

 

Every time you enter a competition or join a newsletter etc online your details go out

I don’t know about you but I don’t give my residential address to anyone lightly, nor accept someone else doing it.

 

 

I'm informed that it is 40%

 

BTW, if you believe that Avdata, or any airport owner, have billed you for ops that you didn't do - then simply photograph your M/R, or logbook, to show that neither you nor the aircraft were the identified party. Never had it disputed.

 

happy days,

Do what I do. Ignore it. You are under no legal obligation to contact them, or lift a finger to dispute, an incorrect bill they have issued. They have the onus to provide a true and correct invoice before expecting payment.

 

Expecting people to provide a serviceable airfield for free is a bit much.

No more so than driving down the main street. I don't pay a toll to drive from Gosford to Wyong, yet the local council - of which I am a ratepayer - expects me to pay $8.25 for each and every landing. Now given I can achieve a landing every 3.3 minutes that is $150 in landing fees for an hour of circuit training, in an aircraft that I own, and that is before the operating cost of the aircraft is considered. Or, put another way, it is a toll of $41.60 / kilometer of runway used, based on 200m ground roll multiplied by 18 circuits.

ARTC charge less than 20% of that to run a bloody 2000-tonne freight train from Brisbane to Sydney. And if I refuel - from my own jerrycan - after that hour of circuit training, well then that's another $110 just for the 'privilege' of refuelling on council land.

 

Having it there might save your plane or your life one day. The insurance would be considerable and if there's grazing animals etc you need to fence it. It has to be mowed and repaired.

So, just like the Council parks, boat ramps, ovals and roads that I don't pay to use?

 

It just has to be a reasonable figure and it can't be charged on each circuit if you are fair dinkum. Nev

And what happens when they're not? Warnervale is the only north-south runway between Cessnock and Wollongong, it serves an LGA with a population approaching a third of a million direct residents and probably 1.0m indirectly, yet they charge more than any other airport I've seen, with a taxiway that is worse than some "4wd tracks" I've driven on...