RAAus Aircraft Register

[kasper]

That's still going to cost us money to fight it in court. Just give them the data.

Ah but then I'll play devils advocate and be an obnoxious member and point out that the RAA had no right to hand over the data without either a legal obligation or direct consent from me. Hand over the data and the member can take the RAA to court ... just giving the data is a very troublesome double edged sword.

 

 

[robinsm]

If people just paid their landing fees there would not be a problem, after all, some of the forumites here think that we should be paying more anyway so what the heck. Try dodging landing fees at an airport where cta charges apply, which arm and leg do they want....just saying..

 

 

[robinsm]

andy, I have received 3 bills for landing fees so far from Raa Aus (ex avdata) that I did not run up. I proved they were not mine and they were withdrawn by avdata. How much did that cost us (Raa Aus) to do this for no result, (I always attempt to pay fees if I can.)

 

 

[terryc]

I think that is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time.I have nothing at all against paying my landing fees where due, however fail to see why RAAus should hand our details over on a silver platter. You cannot just log on to the RTA and find out who drives car ABC-123, why is it considered acceptable for aircraft?

you can

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The issue is that when someone sends RAAus an invoice for $7 we then spend $10 in labour, postage and lost opportunity for the labour (ie instead of doing this they could have earnt money for the association) moving it on. We also then end up in the middle of the transaction where we have no need or want to be. If someone wants to recover some $ from the owner of vehicle ABC-123 are they really going to sue the RTA or dept motor transport (or whatever your state calls it) for not providing them with owners detail???? Will someone really commence legal action over $7 or even $700......Saying you'll sue a collective for the sins of some of the individuals seems flawed to me...would someone sue a council if 3 people had wronged you and all you knew was that they lived in the town the council serviced?

That happens all the time in terms of Car Parks, they don't "sue" the RTA but they apply through the court for the details.

 

If Avdata can email the invoices, then why not setup [email protected] that forwards to the members inbox (i.e. [email protected]). Costs RAA nothing to process and means the airport gets their money and RAA isn't looked down on further as trying to avoid the system.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Yeah

 

not a bad technology idea and in fact when we do the modernisation we are talking about might well be possible. Definitely not possible today however

 

Andy

 

 

[timb]

In the earlier days (here I go again nurse) the main reason given by the members for not publishing details of the aircraft registry was that they didn't want the ex-wife or (soon to be ex) wife to know that they had the aircraft in the first place, or to keep it well out of the line of fire of divorce settlements.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I think that is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. . . .

I agree 100% for the reasons others have detailed above. Certainly not something I would ever advocate being done.

 

I also strongly agree with RA-Aus thinking on why they have stopped forwarding bills to members. If anything, Andy has probably understated the cost to RA-Aus of doing forwarding invoices. I would put the cost as more than $20 to receive the invoice, register its receipt, look up the members details, re-address and forward on the invoice.

 

There is no way I can think of that RA-Aus can be sued for the actions or inactions of its members in the same way that members cannot be sued for actions or inactions of RA-Aus - these are different legal identities and RA-Aus in this case is a third party to a debt between a member in their own right and an airport operator.

 

I do advocate paying landing fees. It would be nice if all aircraft operators recognised the low impact of a 600kg aircraft compared with much heavier GA aircraft but airport operators are free to set their fees. We can accept their fee structure and land at their airport or reject and go somewhere else. No different to any other normal business situation.

 

If you land at an airport you have formed a contract. The airport operator offers their runway facility for a price (consideration) and you accept their offer. The moment the rubber hits the tarmac you have a debt. But, it is a commercial matter between the parties to that contract and RA-Aus has no business being involved in any way. It is up to airport operators to develop cost-efficient billing and collection systems as is the case for every business in the world.

 

The airport operator can't blame RA-Aus because the airport operator has ineffective commercial systems. As an example, Wyong Shire Council decided that it wanted to manage, inter alia, collection of airport fees at YWVA. They had one of their employees attend the airport and note the registration details of each aircraft as it landed. Hardly an efficient system but that is up to the WSC and other airport operators as to how they manage their commercial relationships and not RA-Aus.

 

There are a great number of good reasons, many listed above, why privacy must be respected.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . might well be possible. Definitely not possible today however . . .

Not possible without the agreement of every single member. Not just a majority Board decision.

 

RA-Aus would be stepping in between two other parties contract. Bad idea without permission, however "nice to do" it might seem to be.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Yeahnot a bad technology idea and in fact when we do the modernisation we are talking about might well be possible. Definitely not possible today however

 

Andy

Hello spam!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The issue of invoicing the wrong aircraft can come about by unscrupulous pilots using a call sign not their own when landing. Some attempt to dodge the issue by not using their radio at all. Both unwise as well as not lawful or ethical. But, RA-Aus is not responsible for such behaviour by individuals who may be members. Again, if the airport operator is concerned about the practice, it is up to them to improve the effectiveness of their commercial systems and not RA-Aus.

 

 

[AVOCET]

It wont be long before airport operators have cameras that record every movement ,like police cars have rego reading .

 

That will sort out false radio transmitions and will be enough to prove , or not , that you were there .

 

Mike

 

 

[DonRamsay]

And then with Mode S and ADSB they won't need cameras.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

There's no point collecting registration details if you don't have a way to match it with a name and billing address.

 

Not possible without the agreement of every single member. Not just a majority Board decision.RA-Aus would be stepping in between two other parties contract. Bad idea without permission, however "nice to do" it might seem to be.

That's actually the easy part, should the decision be made to supply the details, then it's just a matter of requiring the consent as part of the annual re-registration. It doesn't need agreement from every member, only those who own registered aircraft.

 

There are so many options to go with, it's just a matter of time to see whether the one that's been chosen will work.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There's no point collecting registration details if you don't have a way to match it with a name and billing address. . . .

True. But it is up to the Biller to know who they are doing business with not a third party.

 

. . . That's actually the easy part, should the decision be made to supply the details, then it's just a matter of requiring the consent as part of the annual re-registration. It doesn't need agreement from every member, only those who own registered aircraft.

That just might be harsh and unconscionable conduct on the part of the Board. Not sure they can act in that way and maintain their duty as a Director. They should get legal advice before attempting to step into somebody else's contract.

 

There are so many options to go with, it's just a matter of time to see whether the one that's been chosen will work.

An airport operator could have an employee join RA-Aus. As a member you are at liberty to view any record maintained by RA-Aus (according to the Constitution). There could always be privacy issues that the Constitution does not overrule.

 

Not a simple matter and one in which RA-Aus is between a rock and a hard place. Needs to tread very carefully to avoid breaching the law.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

True. But it is up to the Biller to know who they are doing business with not a third party.

The biller doesn't have a choice on when someone lands at their airport, unless they take on a NO RAA AIRCRAFT policy, i'm sure that's not something you'd want to see. I'm not suggesting RA-AUS get involved in the billing, but how hard would it be to provide a quarterly registration list to AvData and Airservices.

 

That just might be harsh and unconscionable conduct on the part of the Board. Not sure they can act in that way and maintain their duty as a Director. They should get legal advice before attempting to step into somebody else's contract.

You need consent to give out the privacy information, people with VH regos have to do the exact same thing, why should be avoid it?

 

An airport operator could have an employee join RA-Aus. As a member you are at liberty to view any record maintained by RA-Aus (according to the Constitution). There could always be privacy issues that the Constitution does not overrule.

Or you charge airports/avdata etc a "membership fee" to access the information.

 

Not a simple matter and one in which RA-Aus is between a rock and a hard place. Needs to tread very carefully to avoid breaching the law.

And upsetting aerodrome operators who have a legal right to prohibit our access. Damned if we do, damned if we don't

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The biller doesn't have a choice on when someone lands at their airport,

I think they do have a choice as to whether they grant permission for you to land. If they put "PPR" in ERSA you are trespassing if you enter their property without permission. A precondition of entry is rego and email, agreement to pay the landing fee, etc.

 

. . . unless they take on a NO RAA AIRCRAFT policy, i'm sure that's not something you'd want to see. . . .

Why would they need to do that? Surely it is only a minority of RA-Aus members who cheat on landing fees?

 

. . . I'm not suggesting RA-AUS get involved in the billing, but how hard would it be to provide a quarterly registration list to AvData and Airservices.

Not difficult I presume. However, there would need to be a reason to do it. Perhaps a negotiation could get the light weight of RA-Aus aircraft recognised and the fee to RA set a lot lower than GA (50% off?).

 

You need consent to give out the privacy information, people with VH regos have to do the exact same thing, why should be avoid it?

A bad decision by CASA does not warrant the same bad decision being made by RA-Aus. Trouble is the Government often does not have to obey the laws it sets for everybody else and nobody can challenge them because the Government has the deepest of deep pockets and money to burn to prove a point.

 

Or you charge airports/avdata etc a "membership fee" to access the information.

Yes, along the lines of my negotiation suggestion above. You don't just give away something for nothing. If you are looking after your members best interest you get something for something. Eliminate not just the inequity for the airport operator but the inequity for the RA-Aus aircraft operator as well.

Andy Saywell, please note the above if anyone suggests RA-Aus pass rego info to Airport Operators or their agents.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Not difficult I presume. However, there would need to be a reason to do it. Perhaps a negotiation could get the light weight of RA-Aus aircraft recognised and the fee to RA set a lot lower than GA (50% off?).

That's a very good idea indeed, maybe the CEO could talk with AvData about such an arrangement (provide up to date billing info for members to receive 50% of all landing charges).

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Perhaps we just did?

 

 

[frank marriott]

It is interesting to see how simple things are when explained by "internet/back yard" laywers - it makes one wonder if they have ever been in a court of law.

 

For example: (and I will not go into the details) I know personally of an airport operator who took an owner (VH reg) to court to recover $6000.00 plus parking fees and not only got the claim dismissed but awarded costs as well.

 

Every case will be decided on the evidence presented to the court in the particular case - general statements by bush lawyers are both unhelpful and misleading.

 

 

[ave8rr]

That's a very good idea indeed, maybe the CEO could talk with AvData about such an arrangement (provide up to date billing info for members to receive 50% of all landing charges).

AVDATA don't collect for ALL aerodromes. Some airport operators send out their own invoices.

I do like Avdata as you receive one invoice showing times and places of landing and that Operators fee.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Yes so it would work in their favor aswell to signup new aerodromes

 

 

[kgwilson]

Some good discussion since my post yesterday morning. Seriously though we should not be any different than GA owners relating to the availability of data to aerodrome operators. The public availability of address info is from an era before we all became "on line" but government & other agencies systems & processes have not kept up with the risks or perceived risks and our new obsession with privacy so they remain. Given that address details of GA aircraft owners is available here, in NZ, USA & the UK & probably most other countries it may have come from an old ICAO agreement or something.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with my details being on the register. I don't keep my aircraft in my garage so how would someone find it. I could also state my postal address as a PO Box number although I use that and the street address. There are plenty of other ways that my details can be accessed such as the phone book, electoral roll etc. If anyone was after an "expensive" aeroplane there are heaps more on the GA register worth way more than mine. Where is the evidence here to suggest extorsions or such things from someone having access to the register. Anecdotal comments that it has happened in the US or UK is hardly cause for major alarm.

 

The comment that it is only a small minority who do not pay landing fees is not true in my experience & those getting false invoices is also evidence of someone not using their own callsign.

 

The Avdata idea seems to be the best option af far as I can see.

 

 

[REastwood]

As the operator of a private airfield that doesn't subscribe to AvData and is used by various flying schools for training I can say that on average only 30% of people coming here get Prior Permission (despite PPR in the ERSA) and of the 70% that don't, 20% will do a touch and go without a by-your-leave or thank you, and will often ignore you when you call on the unicom to ask for details, and of that 20% one third will be RA-Aus which equates (on average) to about 300 per year. If we choose not to charge because of the time and effort to chase the money then all that happens is the people doing the right thing end up paying more to cover costs. The only other option is to pass the account to RA-Aus for forwarding to the owner/operator. If RA-Aus will no longer provide this service then our only option is to charge each person that doesn't get prior permission with Trespass and pass details to the Police, which of course is a lot of time and effort both on our part and the Police. The cheapest, easiest option is to ban all RA-Aus aircraft not stationed here.

 

It is unfortunate that a small number of people who do the wrong thing ends up punishing a lot of people who do the right thing but other than having big net cannons on the sides of the runways to catch the offending pilots (which is probably illegal) I cannot think of another way that is fair to all who do pay to use the airfield.

 

 

[Ignition]

It wont be long before airport operators have cameras that record every movement ,like police cars have rego reading .That will sort out false radio transmitions and will be enough to prove , or not , that you were there .

Mike

Merimbula Airport has had cameras for a number of years.