RA Aus and landing fees

[stevron]

Not being fully conversed with the workings of flying organisations like RA , SAAA or AOPA. It seems to me that these organisations are hunting and gathering members in a race to be the biggest . At the end of the day the pressures from compliance , aircraft running expenses, governance ,landing fees , airport fees , air craft housing costs ,will keep a large number of potential flyers away from this exciting past time.

 

Organisations such as above should be fighting for our rights to use airports that are alread owned by the community , Airports like Shepparton and Maryborough these communities received government money to build the air ports , our money , why do we need to pay again or if payment is necessary to run these leisure/business centres then council should start charging push bike riders for using the roads and cycle tracks they do not contribute to. Landing fees could be considered discriminatory against one group of the community.

 

If these organisations as Listed are for pilots and flying they would start to pursue cost reduction in areas such landing fees or the flying community Will not the attract younger people.

 

It Is ok for older folk to spend their leisure time and money in pursuit of flying pleasures and aircraft ownership but the young people have more options to spend their hard earned cash and flying is see as cost prohibitive.

 

So inclusion make it easy , make it affordable and stop this erosion of our rights to visit cities/towns at minimal expense.

 

Landing fees, airport fees, air services fees, fight reviews , association fees , medicals and aircraft hire or ownership costs are just too great for the next generation of flyers and I have not mentioned fuel costs .

 

Flying associations please put more effort into the above or watch this flying pleasure fade away and die.

 

 

[pylon500]

You're forgetting a very important point;

 

The other 99.8% of the common population think we're rich, and deserve to be screwed for all we're worth

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're forgetting a very important point;The other 99.8% of the common population think we're rich, and deserve to be screwed for all we're worth

That might be so at Taree, but across Australia there's a vast difference between the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I was about to give some examples, but realised there are hundreds of different examples from airfields which people built or bought, and maintain neatly and safely, with excellent communications with the local Council, flying members, flying visitors, fuel supply, club room toilet facilities etc. to run-down fields with runways needing maintenance, wild life/stock roaming all over the place and no facilities of any type, and in some cases these facilities are rented from Councils, who unsurprisingly view them as a place waiting for an accident to happen.

 

GA has never made an over-arching effort to protect these priceless assets (if you haven't go any landing fields, where are you going to travel to), but at least there is a method of collecting revenue for upkeep.

 

RA hasn't made an effort either, and what seems to be a widespread avoidance and effort to use the fields while remaining anonymous, is not a good look, and in fact could be a good reason for Councillors to get their noses out of joint and walk away from their airfields.

 

With the rate of attrition that's occurring, protection of fields should be very high on RAA Ltd's priority list.

 

 

[Possum1]

Landing fees will become more common I believe. The thing is to keep some lid on the amount charged.

 

Gympie council has identified RA-AUS "widespread avoidance and effort to use the fields while remaining anonymous." Fortunately, their PPR for the airfield appears in the last week to have morphed into an annual permit provided on application with no fee attached as yet. This removes their problem of identifying RA-AUS aircraft and the clerical work involved in tracking GA aircraft via the CASA website.

 

 

[old man emu]

Now lets be fair. Local councils are as equally negligent to motorists. Get onto local roads and you will soon discover why everyone is driving $50,000+ 4WD vehicles. It's so they can negotiate pot-holed, broken, and otherwise unsafe roads without having to spend time after every trip tightening and replacing damaged suspension components.

 

You're forgetting a very important point;The other 99.8% of the common population think we're rich, and deserve to be screwed for all we're worth

It's that 99.8% who are spending their money on other recreations like golf, or boats, car racing who have been hoodwinked by the Government and meedja into forming that opinion.

 

I still reckon that the 99.8% should be told that if they don't like light aircraft, try getting to Bali as a backload on a people smuggler's boat.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Most council facilities require payment like entrance fees at pools, rent for halls and so on. I have no problem paying a landing fee and am embarrassed that RAA doesn’t cooperate.

 

 

[ClintonB]

There is a good letter to the editor of last issue of AOPA pilot magazine, from an operator of a private field in response to the previous article on avoiding charging airports. There are always costs in operating anything nowadays. A fair fee to everyone is far better than not having nowhere to land.

 

 

[stevron]

Can anyone offer light on how many aircraft land at these out field airports per period of time. Not resident aircraft but air craft landing for a stop over. Just an average , I think people would be surprised at the small number. So all this wind blowing is likely to be over a insignificant amount of money. As I have said before, planes have to take off from some where and they are most likely are contributing to that site , so do we need to pay twice? I see it maybe different to some, airport facilities are for everyone, car clubs, flying doctors, fire, ambos, and the small amount of money returned after spending time tracking down payments is ludicrous

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I am gobsmacked at the willingness/acceptance by the Australian population to accept "user pays" fees and stand alone economics for every aspect of our basic infrastructure (roads/rail/air & sea ports, water & energy reticulation, etc). What ever happened to the understanding of economic synergy?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Can anyone offer light on how many aircraft land at these out field airports per period of time. Not resident aircraft but air craft landing for a stop over. Just an average , I think people would be surprised at the small number. So all this wind blowing is likely to be over a insignificant amount of money. As I have said before, planes have to take off from some where and they are most likely are contributing to that site , so do we need to pay twice? I see it maybe different to some, airport facilities are for everyone, car clubs, flying doctors, fire, ambos, and the small amount of money returned after spending time tracking down payments is ludicrous

Whether it’s one person stealing from you or a thousand, it’s still stealing. The thieff doesn’t get to debate the terms.

 

 

[coljones]

Stop moaning!! Just pay the fee, it is usually much less than the price of a movie ticket or two beers at Birdsville. Airports are expensive assetts and need to be maintained out of rates or user contributions. If you go to, say, Thargominda you will see a modern fuel faculty that must have cost a bomb. Usage on Thursday? Maybe 4 planes and a chopper! Who pays for this? The ratepayers! Cyclists? They pay rates as well but get bugger all in return all the while allowing cars and trucks to have more road and parking spaces while these same cars and trucks rip up the roads while paying the same rates as cyclists. Rant over.

 

 

[Possum1]

the small amount of money returned after spending time tracking down payments is ludicrous

Hopefully the councils will have someone with some business nous running their airfield and realise this. The amount of effort they will expend collecting individual landing fees for the return is ridiculous.

 

They are much better off collecting on a wide variety of aviation related leasehold income which is predictable year in and year out and very cheap to administer. If they keep these leasehold rates reasonable, they will continue to attract hangar owners, businesses and services which will in turn, attract visiting pilots and passengers.

 

The alternative is to drive customers away with charging landing fees for a has-been, wind-swept airfield with few facilities - my wife(co-pilot) mentioned dirty toilets - and vacant crumbling concrete slabs where once upon a time, there was aviation activity.

 

 

[gareth lacey]

the most i have ever paid in landing fees is 10$ it is a user pay system in the real world, and most airports dont charge ie Bunderberg, Hervey bay,Caloundra , caboolture, Ballina cheap for overnite and for the security in some airfields

 

 

[PapaFox]

It appears it's a sign of the times with councils expecting aerodromes to cover their costs. West Wyalong (with as little activity as there is) is now actively charging landings, and Temora is looking at ways to get more revenue from users. I agree, the amount that would be recovered is a small portion of the overall annual costs, so it won't really affect council funds significantly, but will affect the popularity of the fields

 

 

[M61A1]

Gympie council has identified RA-AUS "widespread avoidance and effort to use the fields while remaining anonymous."

I do not frequently visit Gympie, but do so often enough to know that statement just isn't correct. I know that one significant bone of contention is/was helicopter training, and they certainly aren't RAA.

 

 

[Possum1]

M61A1. This is called inferring. RA-Aus will not give out any of the info details required on the Permission to Operate form .

 

The Gympie council cannot obtain basic name and address info of an owner and operator for an RA-Aus registered plane from RA-Aus, but they can with a GA registered plane via the CASA website. I therefore infer that this council is getting rather sick of this attitude from RA-Aus and the details on the form is one way to go towards working around RA-Aus' lack of co-operation, but not a thorough way as many/most of visiting aircraft will not have applied for permission to land. As I mentioned before, it will also save them the clerical work of looking up VH-registered aircraft on the CASA website.

 

"Council would like to better understand the types, numbers and frequency of aircraft movements at the airport" - quote from minutes of August 14 meeting between Gympie Aero Club and Gympie Council. I haven't seen the helicopter issue brought up anywhere in recent times except in the ERSA.

 

 

[stevron]

I have had a thought , a revaluation really . Let’s have all VH planes pay a yearly Reg fee, license fee and share this money around the needy airport operators.that would solve the problem . VH plane operators currently save money by not paying registration fees like we do in RA , so let’s collect $ 280 a year licence fee and say another $150 registration fee , hell , what a great idea. Correct me if I am wrong , but fuel companies own petrol pumping equipment. Well the do around here anyway

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have had a thought , a revaluation really . Let’s have all VH planes pay a yearly Reg fee, license fee and share this money around the needy airport operators.that would solve the problem . VH plane operators currently save money by not paying registration fees like we do in RA , so let’s collect $ 280 a year licence fee and say another $150 registration fee , hell , what a great idea. Correct me if I am wrong , but fuel companies own petrol pumping equipment. Well the do around here anyway

VH Aircraft are the legitimate aircraft as laid down by the Government, with CASA administering. You are flying, for the moment, (if it's not VH) a machine which operates under exemptions to the law approved by CASA. CASA can withdraw those exemptions, or the Government can order CASA to withdraw them; so I wouldn't go poking sticks in a thread about RAA and landing fees, you don't want to be seen a just a bunch of nuisances.

 

 

[stevron]

And soon you can be part of RA , I could go on but I will leave it

 

 

[M61A1]

M61A1. This is called inferring. RA-Aus will not give out any of the info details required on the Permission to Operate form .The Gympie council cannot obtain basic name and address info of an owner and operator for an RA-Aus registered plane from RA-Aus, but they can with a GA registered plane via the CASA website. I therefore infer that this council is getting rather sick of this attitude from RA-Aus and the details on the form is one way to go towards working around RA-Aus' lack of co-operation, but not a thorough way as many/most of visiting aircraft will not have applied for permission to land. As I mentioned before, it will also save them the clerical work of looking up VH-registered aircraft on the CASA website.

 

"Council would like to better understand the types, numbers and frequency of aircraft movements at the airport" - quote from minutes of August 14 meeting between Gympie Aero Club and Gympie Council. I haven't seen the helicopter issue brought up anywhere in recent times except in the ERSA.

RAA not publishing names and addresses is hardly the same as "widespread avoidance and effort to use the fields while remaining anonymous.", by rec pilots.

 

 

[frank marriott]

RAA not publishing names and addresses is hardly the same as "widespread avoidance and effort to use the fields while remaining anonymous.", by rec pilots.

I wonder how well people are informed about either No Or False callsigns being used now by aircraft, (and at times no radio calls at all) I think worrying about a couple of RAA aircraft is probably misguided. AVDATA has it limitations.

 

 

[turboplanner]

RAA not publishing names and addresses is hardly the same as "widespread avoidance and effort to use the fields while remaining anonymous.", by rec pilots.

It has that effect though doesn’t it; in fact it couldn’t be more widespread.

 

 

[M61A1]

It has that effect though doesn’t it; in fact it couldn’t be more widespread.

Perhaps, but it implies that most pilots are deliberately avoiding fees, which just isn't true, as you have seen here, most are fine with reasonable fees.

It would have been more accurate to say that they are introducing a process because RAA won't release the data.

 

 

[jetjr]

The collection of landing fees etc is a net COST on small council airfield operators.

 

Further building belief that aerodromes are loosing money. It costs more to administer than they recover.

 

RAA not sharing members data is simply the law, CASA violate this law with complete disregard

 

You can always register voluntarily with AVDATA?

 

 

[old man emu]

User-pays systems are OK if there is a No-fee alternative.

 

I frequently convey passengers to and from southwest Sydney to Mascot or the cruise terminals. When I have passengers aboard, I will use the toll road as far as practicable (ie until I get to the traffic jam), then I'll get off and use back streets. With no passengers, it's back streets all the way.

 

You've got no choice with an aircraft. If you haven't got your own strip on your property, then you have to use public strips.

 

I wonder how much airport owners actually spend on maintaining and improving runways and taxiways at local airports. That is what landing fees are supposed to cover. Therefore, isn't it reasonable for those who use runways and taxiways to pay a toll? If you don't want to pay a toll, then try landing in a paddock nearby and take the risks associated with paddock landings.