RAAus to disclose member details

[KRviator]

Well, it seems the RAAus leadership team has sunk to a new low. Not content with trying to trademark the "Freedom to Fly" catchphrase - and what a horses arse that turned out to be, they have now entered into a commercial arrangement with the Australian Airport Association to disclose the private details of their membership to members of the AAA to allow them to be invoiced for landing fees. They didn't even have the courtesy to sent the membership an email or letter saying "Hey, we're going to give out your private data now". Nope. Just a 5-paragraph spiel from the CEO in the latest Sport Pilot magazine.

 

This is despite written assurance to the membership in the March 2017 Sport Pilot magazine where they clearly stated they would not share member data - but encouraged the membership to register with Avdata to allow them to be invoiced independently of RAAus.

 

Given this new stance is a 180* backflip, and also violates the RAAus privacy policy, one can only wonder what game RAAus is playing, when they attempt to use the members private data as a bargaining chip to feather their own nest at a time when they are chasing CTA access and higher MTOW's - and who else is going to be able to enter into a commercial arrangement with RAAus to get access to the member database? Insurance brokers? Sales agents? Maybe even generic advertising brokers can have a go too?

 

It's a disgusting breach of trust of the membership, IMHO.

 

 

[coljones]

Not a problem, don't fly into airports that charge landing fees.  A number of airports are now moving towards demanding 24 hour prior notice (c/w Credit card details) from RAA pilots.  This is an outrageous imposition.  Release of details to AvData will mitigate this.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

CASA pushing an ever tighter noose around GA and RA flying

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA pushing an ever tighter noose around GA and RA flying

Airfields collecting fees for use.

 

Where does CASA fit into that?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the security apparatus is part of the safety regime, landing fees is just part of the process

 

 

[ave8rr]

the security apparatus is part of the safety regime, landing fees is just part of the process

If you are talking Aerodrome Security. That has nothing to do with CASA.

 

Seperate Gov Dept.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

but CASA are extremely interested in who's flying in and out of airports

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

As a "contracted service provider" to the Commonwealth, Raaus is quite possibly in breach of the Privacy Act

 

The RAAus Privacy Policy say:

 

5.3.Use and disclosure of personal information

 

RAAus will only use and/or disclose personal information for the purposes for which it was collected (the primary purpose), unless an individual has consented to another use [APP 6].

 

There are certain limited circumstances in which RAAus may use or disclose information for a different purpose (a secondary purpose) without consent, such as where the secondary purpose is:

 

• directly related to the primary purpose for which the information was collected

 

• required or authorised under an Australian law or has been ordered by a court or tribunal

 

• necessary to lessen or prevent an immediate and serious threat to the life, safety of air

 

navigation, health or safety of any individual, or public health or safety

 

• to facilitate the investigation of an occurrence involving an RAAus registered aircraft and the death or serious injury of one or more persons

 

• a permitted general situation or health situation, as defined by the Privacy Act;

 

or

 

•an enforcement related activity and the use or disclosure of the information is reasonably

 

necessary.

 

If RAAus uses or discloses personal information for a purpose other than what it was originally collected for, RAAus will keep a written notice of that use or disclosure as required by the APPs.

 

Clearly the "primary Purpose" is the purpose for which it was originally collected and the envisaged "secondary use does not include passing it on to a third party private company without specific consent.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Naturally the practice already happening of not using a radio or false call signs will cease!

 

An undesirable outcome.

 

Makes one wonder where some of these “clever” ideas come from -  certainly not connected to the real world that most live in.

 

 

[onetrack]

Time to get your lawyer to send out a letter to RAAus, outlining the points of law, whereby it is only legal for private information to be disclosed to third parties. Collecting debts owing, is not one of them.

 

AustLII - Commonwealth Consolidated Acts - PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 16A; Permitted general situations in relation to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information

 

OIAC - Privacy Fact Sheet 17 - Australian Privacy Principles

 

I would have to opine (just as a personal opinion), that the RAAus Privacy Policy is quite possibly non-compliant with current legislation.

 

To give an idea how long it has been since their PP page has been updated, their link to the "Privacy Commissioners" website is seriously out of date, is incorrect, and doesn't work.

 

The Title of the Commissioner has now changed to the "Australian Information Commissioner".

 

RAAus Privacy Policy

 

 

[jetjr]

The same airport operators have last year increased hanger land rents by 100%, also renegotiated leases to allow this to continue annually if they see fit.

 

Justification is extending runways for RPL and emergency helo operations bases.

 

If councils don't charge fees currently, they soon will with RAA help

 

 

[coljones]

There are numbers of ALAs where the owners encourage visits without fees and, presumably, the cost of the airstrip is covered by their other activities or generosity.  There are other airstrips out there that don't have that luxury and the costs are met by the owner with some hope of payment of landing fees paid into an honesty box.  I dare say that most of these honesty boxes are regarded by a proportion of pilots as quaint architectural features best regarded from afar or as a haven for venomous snakes and best kept clear of.  

 

Airfield operators are entitled to have some cost recovery and those pilots who don't pay up are a blight on the society. 

 

Most of us would be pissed off if anyone wandered down the side of the house and pinched a bucketful of apples.

 

Please don't try the canard of council car parking as a lot have paywalls and in any case are used by a far higher number of ratepayers and with a very high turnover.

 

 

[Thruster88]

I am surprised RAA didn't have "landing fees not required" listed as one of the many advantages of membership. I have a foot in both camps and see this as more levelling of the playing field between RAA and light VH private recreational aircraft.

 

 

[KRviator]

Airfield operators are entitled to have some cost recovery and those pilots who don't pay up are a blight on the society. 

Most of us would be pissed off if anyone wandered down the side of the house and pinched a bucketful of apples.

 

Please don't try the canard of council car parking as a lot have paywalls and in any case are used by a far higher number of ratepayers and with a very high turnover.

IMHO, Council run airfields are not entitled to cost-recovery in any way, unless they apply such cost-recovery methods equally across the rest of council-owned infrastructure. Most Council's I've come across seem to be quite selective in who they charge, to minimise the chance of blowback come re-election time.

 

Case in point: Warnervale charges me $8.25 per landing, so an hour of circuits costs $82.50. Plus another $110 just to refuel on council land. But the Central Coast Council have, IIRC, 58 boat ramps across the LGA, for which they don't charge boaties a fee to use - including a brand-new $1.5 million-dollar facility at Koolewong. How is it one recreational activity that costs more to maintain their facilities than the airfield gets a free pass, yet Council feels recreational pilots shouldn't? I can understand charging a landing fee to aero clubs and FTF's as they're running a business, but private owners? Nope.

 

That being said, private airfields should be entitled to recover some of their costs, as they don't have the ratepayer base to fund ongoing maintenance. 

 

How big would the outcry be if the RTA said they're going to disclose Driver's names & addresses to Council's so they can charge a fee to drive down the main street?

 

 

[ave8rr]

How big would the outcry be if the RTA said they're going to disclose Driver's names & addresses to Council's so they can charge a fee to drive down the main street?

The State Transport Authorities give the Police names and addresses so they (Police) can post you a pix of your vehicle with a speeding fine. No different to RAAus giving Avdata details so a landing fee invoice can be sent.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I would suggest there is a BIG difference between Govt. Depts. using supplied information to enforce the law to a PRIVATE COMPANY releasing personal details of customers to another party for monetary gain.

 

I am not up with the current law surrounding this action but I certainly have reservations about its lawfulness.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Councils being selective on charges for use of facilities is a bit on the nose.

 

At our aerodrome we charge a $5.00 fee for RA & $10.00 for GA single engine and it is an honesty box system. The hangar owners operate the aerodrome and it costs us around $50,000.00 a year. This includes lease costs, rates, insurance, maintenance & a bit put away for capital expenditure to cover runway resealing etc & all labour is by volunteers. Some people still don't pay but the majority do. We usually get $900.00 to $1,000.00 a year from this & while it is only about 2% of our costs every bit helps and is much appreciated.

 

 

[facthunter]

Realistically whoever operates the aerodrome is up for costs and YOU choose to use the place so shouldn't expect it for free. The cost should be "reasonable" as most localities don't have multiple competing aerodromes for you to choose from.

 

            I would suggest that supplying RAAus pilot's personal information to people seeking money  without PERMISSION is a breach of privacy. YOU can't find out from VIC roads or equivalent who owns a particular car but everybody who has a VH registered plane has no option Their details are there for all to see. on the CASA website..  TWO wrongs don't make a right.  In Aviation it seems if you wish to fly, you just cop whatever gets dished up (Like strict Liability) a scheme no thinking person would ever except as justice. IF   RAAus have done this without seeking permission (which would appear to be the case) they  are not acting in member's interests and don't really care  or let that get in the way. of "Progress"  of their particular kind. "Empire Building".   .Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

IMHO, Council run airfields are not entitled to cost-recovery in any way, unless they apply such cost-recovery methods equally across the rest of council-owned infrastructure. Most Council's I've come across seem to be quite selective in who they charge, to minimise the chance of blowback come re-election time.

100% with you. As I said to one council officer after they were spruiking about the importance of tourism, " You want me to pay, to come and spend my money in your town?" A landing fee on a rec aircraft is like tolls on motorcycles entering the town. 

 

 

[KRviator]

The State Transport Authorities give the Police names and addresses so they (Police) can post you a pix of your vehicle with a speeding fine. No different to RAAus giving Avdata details so a landing fee invoice can be sent.

IMHO, there's a pretty bloody big difference. Let's look at Warnervale as my oft-used example. As I'm based at Somersby (About 4 minutes away, really), I am classed as an 'itinerant aircraft', so I don't benefit from their new 20-minute blocks available to aircraft based there. So it's $8.25 for each and every landing. Even though I am based - and own a house in - the Central Coast Council LGA, the same Council that operates Warnervale. If I want to refuel there after my hour of circuits, that's another $110 just for the "Privilege" of refuelling on council land - on top of any fuel purchased!

 

The motoring equivalent of that would be to charge me $1.375 for every kilometre I drive on Council roads, with Council being able to get my name and address from the RTA -simply for travelling on a Council-owned and funded asset. And don't forget that if you want to refuel at the local BP (if they've 'just happened' to lease their land from Council) it's another $110 on top of the E10 you just put into your Hyundai...

 

It's a loooong bow to draw when comparing an illegal act (speeding ticket & photo-fine, to use your example) to a legitimate and lawful recreational activity and the provision of data thereof.

 

As it happens, I emailed the RAAus CEO about it today - and he claims the new privacy policy permits it, and was uploaded to the RAAus website in August. UUhhh, no. Nice try. If you look at my PPRune post, date and time-stamped, complete with the relevant section cut-and-pasted, you can see they have only just now put up the new policy after being caught out...

 

 

[Thruster88]

How does the $110 fuel surcharge  work? The fees for warnervale are not not spelled out in the ERSA. AOPA USA had a win recently reqireing fees to be available to pilots so they can choose airports, FBO's. 

 

 

[KRviator]

How does the $110 fuel surcharge  work? The fees for warnervale are not not spelled out in the ERSA. AOPA USA had a win recently reqireing fees to be available to pilots so they can choose airports, FBO's. 

Buggered if I know, I refuel at Cessnock or elsewhere -though I'm hanging out for Rylstone Airpark's bowser to come online! They're spelled out in Council's Financial year fees and charges document. Rotate it clockwise once, then search for "Airport".

 

 

[Thruster88]

I do feel  sorry for any business that operates at warnervale 

 

 

[Keith Page]

As a "contracted service provider" to the Commonwealth, Raaus is quite possibly in breach of the Privacy Act

The RAAus Privacy Policy say:

 

5.3.Use and disclosure of personal information

 

RAAus will only use and/or disclose personal information for the purposes for which it was collected (the primary purpose), unless an individual has consented to another use [APP 6].

 

There are certain limited circumstances in which RAAus may use or disclose information for a different purpose (a secondary purpose) without consent, such as where the secondary purpose is:

 

• directly related to the primary purpose for which the information was collected

 

• required or authorised under an Australian law or has been ordered by a court or tribunal

 

• necessary to lessen or prevent an immediate and serious threat to the life, safety of air

 

navigation, health or safety of any individual, or public health or safety

 

• to facilitate the investigation of an occurrence involving an RAAus registered aircraft and the death or serious injury of one or more persons

 

• a permitted general situation or health situation, as defined by the Privacy Act;

 

or

 

•an enforcement related activity and the use or disclosure of the information is reasonably

 

necessary.

 

If RAAus uses or discloses personal information for a purpose other than what it was originally collected for, RAAus will keep a written notice of that use or disclosure as required by the APPs.

 

Clearly the "primary Purpose" is the purpose for which it was originally collected and the envisaged "secondary use does not include passing it on to a third party private company without specific consent.

To me there is a clear breach by RAAus of a contract for privacy to the members.

 

What is going on, is there warrant out to disenfranchise the members?  

 

We as members give RAAus our private information with the undertaking it is not to given to a third party, there is a contracted agreement regarding that information.

 

KP

 

 

[Bill]

Would (should?) the Board have had a say in this? If so surprising that someone didn't ask the question whether the proposal was legal given that most members indicated they didn't want their details revealed. Anyway - how do we get this reversed? Do we individually write to RAA confirming that we don't our personal  details revealed ? Other suggestions?  Thanks,  Bill