RAAus to disclose member details

[frank marriott]

The real problem is about 1000 members who returned the same directors to the board.  No change means no change -  I honestly give up - we are getting what we deserve ultimately.

 

 

[walrus]

Read the first paragraph of your privacy policy.

 

You are called "customers" not "members".

 

This has huge strategic implications because the association is now a "business". There are huge implications for members control over RAA implicit in that.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Had RAAus aircraft owners operating into those aerodromes that publish a landing fee given their contact details to AVDATA then this thread would not exist in my opinion. 

 

 

[ave8rr]

It is not only the CASA Aircrsft register that is public. The ACMA Register of radio frequencies and callsigns is also public.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Read the first paragraph of your privacy policy.

 

You are called "customers" not "members".

 

This has huge strategic implications because the association is now a "business". There are huge implications for members control over RAA implicit in that.

 

In there is the beast.

 

The agreement we all signed, "Our information is to be kept private".

 

Q1 As to where did we give permission to change the agreement? (Not at all).

 

The other point which the press are currently up in arms, "Your right to Know". We have heard it all for the last two weeks.

 

Q2 Is this a case of the member's "Right to Know" disregarded? I think so.

 

All this has surfaced after a few strokes of a pen which no member has had a clue about.

 

If the issue of landing fees is so big?

 

Why not Avdata send a list of landings and RAAus pays that bill, then we all will get a bill from RAAus.

 

If a member does not pay their bill,  the plane can not be registered for the following year till the fees are paid. Problem solved. No breaching of privacy.

 

I suspect very much that RAAus are getting a percentage out of this action.

 

KP

 

 

[Guest Bristell]

Of course they will be having turkey for dinner Keith! A little birdie told me a number of them went to Singapore for the Red Bull Race. I’m not sure how it was paid for though and could well have been a private trip but you do wonder don’t you? 

 

 

[KRviator]

Had RAAus aircraft owners operating into those aerodromes that publish a landing fee given their contact details to AVDATA then this thread would not exist in my opinion. 

 

Had AvData developed a business model that issues timely and accurate invoices and had councils developed a fair and equitable charging system - instead of one that charges $495 in landing fees for an hour of circuits - though they have "generously" introduced an RAAus rate that reduces that to "only" $150 an hour now - it probably wouldn't exist either...

 

Then again, you can't simply point and say "Those pesky RAAus pilots are avoiding landing fees..." when you look at the various threads on PPrune et al. and see the commentary from GA pilots that utilise false callsigns in an effort to avoid AvData owned charging systems as well.

 

The publication of aircraft owners details is a separate issue, wrong as I feel it may be, the root issue is the majority of Councils do not see their airport as "just another council asset" that they are responsible to maintain in accordance with their ratepayer budget. "All them noisy airplane owners is rich" seems to be the common mentality and they then think we should be charged to operate from a 1.5km strip of bitumen when they wouldn't dare introduce a toll-gate on the road into town, or a $10 fee to launch your tinny at the local boat ramp (of which my local council has 46 across the shire and receives no income from). Now, Private strips are another story - and I agree yes the owners are entitled to charge for use, but it should be fair, something that isn't always the case. Though for example, I pay $300/month for hangarage and unlimited use at Somersby and I am quite happy with that.

 

 

[Guest Bristell]

Leaving aside the specific problems at Warnervale , I wish we could move on from the notion of being charged for the use of 1.5 km of bitumen. Both aerodromes that I use every week being Moruya and Merimbula have RPT operations and accordingly have all the associated costs like an ARO to do inspections, lighting , mowing etc. I have seen the figures for Moruya and I can assure you it is a very expensive exercise . Fortunately the council have been smart enough to realise they need to attract high value operators such as parachuting, seaplanes and rescue helicopter etc rather than bleed GA operations to death. 

 

 

[KRviator]

Leaving aside the specific problems at Warnervale , I wish we could move on from the notion of being charged for the use of 1.5 km of bitumen. Both aerodromes that I use every week being Moruya and Merimbula have RPT operations and accordingly have all the associated costs like an ARO to do inspections, lighting , mowing etc. I have seen the figures for Moruya and I can assure you it is a very expensive exercise . Fortunately the council have been smart enough to realise they need to attract high value operators such as parachuting, seaplanes and rescue helicopter etc rather than bleed GA operations to death. 

 

I am sure the maintenance figures, are not cheap - I'm not disputing that at all. The problem is "they", councils etc, are passing on those distinct airport mowing-and-maintenance charges to the users but not anywhere else. They are not passing on the mowing and lighting charges for the use of my local park to me when I take my kids down to kick the footy or ride their bikes on the waterfront cycleways. They are not passing on the boat ramp maintenance charges to my neighbour when he launches his tinny at the brand-spanking $1.5-million-dollar facility at Koolewong, or ties up to the local pier, nor are they passing on the maintenance charges to park my car at the car park at the beach.

 

Why not? Because in each of the previous examples, they are community assets, and their maintenance has been incorporated into Councils annual operating budget - as should be airport maintenance, at least for Private fliers - no matter how expensive it is, for anything else is discriminatory. I can understand if a Council wanted to charge business operators as I believe they charge cafe's a lease fee if they want tables on the footpath for example, and if you are making money out of a community asset, the community should be reasonably reimbursed for it, but to use a community asset for my own private use (note - not exclusive use, if you leased a hall for a party, etc), then I fail to see a reasonable expectation that I should pay extra to use it when I am already a ratepayer in the shire. AAhhhh you say, but what if I am not a ratepayer in the shire? Then your ratepayers are welcome to fly down here and use my local airport, or the boat ramps - let's face it, Cessnock and Hornsby shire councils don't have a lot of waterways...

 

Sure, it can be argued, "You use the facility, you should pay for it", but I have yet to hear anyone who actually uses that argument, provide a substantive case for why it only applies to the local airport not every other piece of council-owned infrastructure, like carparks, beaches, sporting fields. About the only example of "user-pays" for my local council I can think of is the pool - and at less than $25 for a family of 4 for all-day access, and free parking, even that doesn't compare to a lot of airports that charge well over $10/tonne landing fees. Even for a small four-seater like a Mooney you're still up for $15-20+ just to land, with parking often extra. Cessnock, $17 for a Mooney to land + 12.80 to park per day, Toowoomba $16.75 to land (per landing too, another airport that results in $180/hour for circuit training in my RV-9) plus $16.60 just to park - it isn't just Warnervale where they are gouging pilots, though that is my oft-used example as it is my local airport.

 

 

[kasper]

Just to keep this item alive and note a change in application of law to the RAAus that aligns with an RAAus Director set date for review of the policy I sent the email below to them today. 

 

 

"Board members,

 

I have previously raised with management that the August 2018 privacy policy was not, in my opinion, compliant with the Privacy Act in relation to para 2.7 7th dot point as the Privacy Act (as explained within APP6) does not allow a privacy policy to create secondary purposes that are not in line with the Act.

 

I note that the turnover for the 2018/19 year exceeded $3m and that as a result the RAAus became legally subject to the Privacy Act from 1 July 2019 and the RAAus privacy policy was required to comply with that act from that date.

 

As the published non-compliant privacy policy dated August 2018 was due to review in August 2020 can I ask when the Privacy Policy will be re-published and made available to Member so we can assess the policy to legal obligations.

 

Thank you."

 

[Jim McDowall]

1 hour ago, kasper said:

I note that the turnover for the 2018/19 year exceeded $3m

My understanding is that because RAAus has a contractual relationship with CASA, a government agency, there is no minimum turnover threshold. The Privacy Act has always applied. See 

Australian Privacy Principles guidelines  Chapter para A.15

contracted service provider, for a government contract, means:

                     (a)  an organisation that is or was a party to the government contract and that is or was responsible for the provision of services to an agency or a State or Territory authority under the government contract; or

                     (b)  a subcontractor for the government contract.

The agreement with CASA to provide certain services in return for a paltry sum clearly makes RAAus a "contracted service provider"

[kasper]

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 unarguable so that was my reason ... and to wait for that and aligning with a scheduled review of an already questionable policy made it a no brainer.  
 

plus I had lunch at my desk and had time after reading a few threads here so dash of an email. 

[Jim McDowall]

CASA is undoubtedly an agency as defined by the Act:

agency means:

                    (c)  a body (whether incorporated or not), or a tribunal, established or appointed for a public purpose by or under a Commonwealth enactment, not being:

                              (i)  an incorporated company, society or association; or

                             (ii)  an organisation that is registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 or a branch of such an organisation; or

                     (d)  a body established or appointed by the Governor‑General, or by a Minister, otherwise than by or under a Commonwealth enactment; or

As to the terms of the contract, as members we have no idea what is in the agreement with CASA but maintaining the aircraft register, administering aviation safety and other legislation etc must surely be undertaking a service on behalf of CASA

[kasper]

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.  
 

when in doubt I tend to wait and go for the simplest way ... esp. as RAAus have all our funds behind them to legally defend and/or challenge an individual member ... I have my flying kitty of cash to work with and I’m using that on petrol and parts