RAAus to disclose member details

[frank marriott]

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

 

The only way to get ANY satisfaction from the current administration is to call a General Meeting with the potential to overthrow them aka the “freedom to fly” fiasco.

 

 

[Downunder]

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

If someone wants to get a legal letter wtitten, I'm happy to share costs to get my name on it.

 

A hundred or so names and it would only be a few dollars? 

 

 

[Downunder]

It's ironic that identity theft, online privacy, security and personal details in general is a hot topic these days.

 

Main stream media is straight on to any large company with data breaches.

 

Yet here we have a "company" that intends to reverse previous policy, without member/client approval, and hand out what was previously private information. 

 

Sounds like the AOPA patent saga mark two.....

 

 

[KRviator]

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

At a guess, they response you (we) will get is "Well, the new privacy policy allows it, suck it up, princess!"

 

The thing is though, I didn't provide my details when that privacy policy was in effect, and there is no alternative but to use RAAus, for many things they are effectively a monopoly. I am still waiting on a further reply from the CEO, but am seriously lodging a complaint with the OAIC, given the sneaky way in which RAAus brought this in, and has not notified the membership.

 

 

[Yenn]

Given that the average RAAus member only wants to fly and not get involved with politics and that the management of RAAus know this, we have no leverage at all.

 

We could of course not pay our fees as they come due, but where would that take you.

 

At some time in the future there will be another directors election and you can have your vote then. The CEO doesn't get booted out because he is not an elected member.

 

If enough people had the sense to vote against the present set up when we had the chance, we wouldn't be in this situation now.

 

What can we do? Bury our heads in the sand as we did before.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thinking about this current situation of RAAus handing over our privacy with our consent.

 

I  am wonder what others are thinking - to me the members are too quiet or have they given up?

 

The other important issue - I am wondering are all audit results released?

 

It is an important governance issue that members get a hear about the results of the audits.

 

Being honest and transparent I think would cover the thoughts.

 

We have all heard, "All done in secret". Could still be the case.

 

KP

 

 

[KRviator]

Thinking about this current situation of RAAus handing over our privacy with our consent.

I  am wonder what others are thinking - to me the members are too quiet or have they given up?

 

The other important issue - I am wondering are all audit results released?

 

It is an important governance issue that members get a hear about the results of the audits.

 

Being honest and transparent I think would cover the thoughts.

 

We have all heard, "All done in secret". Could still be the case.

 

KP

I would say the vast majority don't even know about it, Keith. I didn't until I read a post on PPRune, and then went looking (And found the old privacy policy they had never bothered updating...)

 

Apart from a short spiel in the latest Sport Pilot magazine - that no one gets in the mail anymore - there has been absolutely no communication from RAAus about this change. No email, no letter, no SMS - NOTHING at all.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I get Sport Pilot in the mail. I believe hundreds of others do too.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I would say the vast majority don't even know about it, Keith. I didn't until I read a post on PPRune, and then went looking (And found the old privacy policy they had never bothered updating...)

Apart from a short spiel in the latest Sport Pilot magazine - that no one gets in the mail anymore - there has been absolutely no communication from RAAus about this change. No email, no letter, no SMS - NOTHING at all.

This is the current method of control.

 

No notice will ever be taken of the membership whilst total control of a roughly 10,000 membership organisation is vested in 4 people - just running their private agenda.

 

Short of another General Meeting to regain control disagreement by members will continue to be treated as only NOISE.

 

Electing 2 members each year  will never accomplish change (as it was designed to prevent).

 

General feeling of everyone I have spoken to is discust & annoyance but certainly not surprise. Seems to be an acceptance of an inevitable implosion.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I would say the vast majority don't even know about it, Keith. I didn't until I read a post on PPRune, and then went looking (And found the old privacy policy they had never bothered updating...)

Apart from a short spiel in the latest Sport Pilot magazine - that no one gets in the mail anymore - there has been absolutely no communication from RAAus about this change. No email, no letter, no SMS - NOTHING at all.

If they are hiding this what else is being hidden?

 

I am a bit interested in the audits we do not hear about.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

This is the current method of control.

No notice will ever be taken of the membership whilst total control of a roughly 10,000 membership organisation is vested in 4 people - just running their private agenda.

 

Short of another General Meeting to regain control disagreement by members will continue to be treated as only NOISE.

 

Electing 2 members each year  will never accomplish change (as it was designed to prevent).

 

General feeling of everyone I have spoken to is discust & annoyance but certainly not surprise. Seems to be an acceptance of an inevitable implosion.

You are not too far from the truth, every time when things are moved the voting is always 4-3..when one sees that regularly -- comes in the category of a non functional board.

 

One would expect an occasional unanimous or 5-2, 6-1 but never a constant 4-3.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

The only way to get ANY satisfaction from the current administration is to call a General Meeting with the potential to overthrow them aka the “freedom to fly” fiasco.

Going from past experience this has to be  set up privately to avoid being met on the day by a majority of proxy votes. (Not saying the people in power would do it today, just a strategic protection. secondly it needs a bullet proof agenda, thirdly the people involved need to know the part they have to play. Fourthly the future needs to be mapped out ready to go.

 

 

[octave]

You are not too far from the truth, every time when things are moved the voting is always 4-3..when one sees that regularly -- comes in the category of a non functional board.

One would expect an occasional unanimous or 5-2, 6-1 but never a constant 4-3.

 

KP

 

 

 

If most votes are 4-3 then surely the answer DOES lie in electing 2 new board members each year.  I don't recall much discussion of the candidates during the recent election.   

 

I am not particularly fussed by the disclosure of MY details BUT I do understand that some people are and I understand and respect that. 

 

I have little tolerance for merely restating a problem without proposing a rational solution. If I were to become concerned about this (and I could with anger free rational argument)  my first step would be to confirm whether this disclosure was legal and constitutional, if not then what are the legal remedies?    If it is legal and constitutional then perhaps it is still not the direction the members want to go.  Then it is about presenting the case against to fellow members.

 

If it is true that the usual board vote is 4-3 (I have no idea if this is correct) and if there is a good argument to be presented and if a mere 2 candidates stand on this issue then the answer does seem to be found at the ballot box.

 

The way to get me on side is to present a rational fact-based well-researched argument and discussion of possible solutions. I do tend to switch off when problems are merely restated over and over again or it becomes an angry rant.

 

Apart from legality and member sentiment has anyone who is concerned contacted RAAus and enquired about it?   This surely would be the first logical step. 

 

 

[turboplanner]

If most votes are 4-3 then surely the answer DOES lie in electing 2 new board members each year.  I don't recall much discussion of the candidates during the recent election.   

 

I am not particularly fussed by the disclosure of MY details BUT I do understand that some people are and I understand and respect that. 

 

I have little tolerance for merely restating a problem without proposing a rational solution. If I were to become concerned about this (and I could with anger free rational argument)  my first step would be to confirm whether this disclosure was legal and constitutional, if not then what are the legal remedies?    If it is legal and constitutional then perhaps it is still not the direction the members want to go.  Then it is about presenting the case against to fellow members.

 

If it is true that the usual board vote is 4-3 (I have no idea if this is correct) and if there is a good argument to be presented and if a mere 2 candidates stand on this issue then the answer does seem to be found at the ballot box.

 

The way to get me on side is to present a rational fact-based well-researched argument and discussion of possible solutions. I do tend to switch off when problems are merely restated over and over again or it becomes an angry rant.

 

Apart from legality and member sentiment has anyone who is concerned contacted RAAus and enquired about it?   This surely would be the first logical step. 

Two parts:

 

1.  Does it breach the Privacy Act?

 

2.  If it does not,  the the better way would have been to put it to the members to either:

 

(a)  Agree for RAA to release registration details to the airfields at the going feeds for aircraft movements, or

 

(b)  To instruct RAA to come up with an agreement more suited to the lower cost (and income) structure of recreational aviation, where smaller aircraft arguably do negligible damage to the airfield surface, and which might included zero payments for training aircraft, which are the source of potential new customers for the airfield.

 

 

[Nobody]

Guys,

 

This is all about the politics of Controlled Airspace Access and a higher MTOW. Did you note that RAAus are not providing information to any airport operator but only those that are members of the Australian Airports Association. 

 

CASA has a committee from the "industry" that provide advice to it on new regulations, called the ASAP. RAAus need that committee not to stand in the way of their request for greater privileges.  The AAA won't endorse a regulation change that would result in their members not being able to send invoices to aircraft owners. RAAus's change in position is a quid pro quo for not opposing the CTA and a higher MTOW.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Guys,

This is all about the politics of Controlled Airspace Access and a higher MTOW. Did you note that RAAus are not providing information to any airport operator but only those that are members of the Australian Airports Association. 

 

CASA has a committee from the "industry" that provide advice to it on new regulations, called the ASAP. RAAus need that committee not to stand in the way of their request for greater privileges.  The AAA won't endorse a regulation change that would result in their members not being able to send invoices to aircraft owners. RAAus's change in position is a quid pro quo for not opposing the CTA and a higher MTOW.

That might or might not be the crux of it, but bypassing 10,000 members is no way to run aviation, and nor are handshake deals.

 

 

[frank marriott]

RAAus are not providing information to any airport operator but only those that are members of the Australian Airports Association. 

Just have a look at the number of airports that are members of this association will answer any doubt.

 

Remember this CTA push is ONLY about RPC holders and RAA Reg  qualifing aircraft ALREADY have access, have had for years.

 

If anyone thinks they are going to get CTA without a CASA medical, at this stage anyway, are in a different world to me.   

 

RPC with a CASA medical is effectively a RPL, already available.

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree, all the talk of RAA medical arrangements and RAA maintenance for either CTA or higher MTOW is wishful thinking.

 

In which case why would you move to RAA with a VH reg aircraft? Cheaper to stay where they are.

 

Building RAA numbers via this path is wishful thinking by RAA. In which case don't trade off few advantages RAA has.

 

Contrary to AOPA thoughts, RAA has these different requirements because of less risk due to lower weight, lower stall and only 1 PAX

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I am happy flying GA or RAA according to needs on the day. Would not like to think that all my work for a GA licence was unnecessary.

 

 

[KRviator]

Apart from legality and member sentiment has anyone who is concerned contacted RAAus and enquired about it?   This surely would be the first logical step. 

Dunno about anyone else, but I sent the CEO an email about it:

 

Good morning Michael,

 

I was recently advised by another member that RAAus had introduced a policy to disclose the memberships details to airport operators in an attempt to recoup landing fees accrued by the RAAus membership.

 

I pointed out that RAAus had previously published a statement that they would not do so and highlighted the relevant statement in the March 2017 Sport Pilot magazine. However, on reviewing the November 2018 magazine, it would appear that RAAus has performed a backflip on its' previous stance and come to some kind of commercial arrangement with the Australian Airport Association that will allow them access to members private details, with independent airports able to 'apply' for access to the member database as well.

 

I have several concerns with this stance.

 

Firstly, it clearly goes against the RAAus privacy policy. The reason given by RAAus for the collection of my private information is to manage my membership of RAAus, in the context of my RPC and aircraft registration. This would be defined as the "Primary Purpose" per the Australian Privacy Principles, and align with RAAus' privacy policy.The privacy policy is quite clear that such information is only for the purpose of managing their aircraft and membership needs. Chapter 4.2.1 refers.

 

Secondly, the disclosure of members details is a breach of Chapter 5.3 of the RAAus privacy policy, in that RAAus is planning on disclosing members details to private companies and local government organizations in contravention of the purpose for which such information was collected - I dare say most RAAus members have not consented to such disclosure, meaning the APP6 reference is irrelevant. In any event I hereby advise that under no circumstances do I authorize RAAus, its' employees or contractors to disclose my personal details for any purpose whatsoever, to any party whatsoever, without my express permission (in accordance with Chapter 5.3 of the RAAus Privacy Policy).

 

Thirdly, That RAAus has effectively gone back on its (well publicized) stance about keeping members details private raises several concerns about just how far RAAus will take this newfound disclosure. That is to ask, RAAus will now disclose members details to airfield operators. Who will they consider disclosing them to next? Advertising brokers, aircraft sales brokers or even other other aviation organisations such as AOPA could be next to enter into an arrangement with RAAus to benefit from confidential member data, and it would appear the RAAus membership have no say in the matter - even assurances previously provided by RAAus in writing do not appear to hold any merit as RAAus' stance can change 180* in less than 18 months.

 

Fourthly, any information provided by RAAus to organizations external to it, is no longer bound by the RAAus privacy policy, and may be used in any way the other party may see fit. RAAus has provided no assurance to its' membership that any data provided will be held in confidence, not disclosed to a fourth party, or used in any other manner in which it was originally provided by RAAus to the other party. This represents a gross breach of trust of the membership by RAAus.

 

Finally, given this proposal violates several sections of the RAAus Privacy Policy, the membership can only speculate what other policies, procedures or regulations RAAus might be willing to violate?

 

Given the trigger for this action appears to be RAAus wanting to demonstrate it is a 'good corporate citizen' among aviation organisations at a time it is pursuing CTA access and increased MTOW limits, it seems this is a somewhat cynical attempt to use its' members personal data as a bargaining chip - and given the recent data breaches at all levels of private enterprise over the recent months, one can only wonder just how seriously RAAus takes their responsibility to members and the respect those members deserve from RAAus as an organisation.

 

I would urge RAAus to reconsider this decision while at the same time, assure the membership it will comply with their own policies.

 

Regards,

 

The KRviator

 

The reply was less than inspiring, basically saying 

 

"We amended the Privacy Policy in August and uploaded it to our website, you must be looking at an old version" and "There are a number of drivers for this change, access to CTA and higher MTOW are also a driver, as is Part 149..."

 

I replied 

 

Good morning Michael,

 

I regret to inform you you are mistaken, or at the very least, have been misinformed.

 

The Privacy Policy on the RAAus website prior to penning my email was Version 2.1, approved for use from May 2017, which makes no reference to disclosing member details to airport operators. I note it has now been updated to "Version 2.0", approved for use from August 2018. I have published unedited sections of the policy, as well as a link to the actual policy, on aviation newsgroups from 0730 yesterday confirming the "for the purposes of collecting fees associated with airport use and access" line item was not included, as well as the actual URL. This URL, current yesterday, now shows a "404" error, indicating the destination file has been removed. I would suggest the RAAus Webmaster may have uploaded the new policy, but neglected to update the links in the site map that pointed to it.

 

That being said, I have reviewed emails received from RAAus, the "Latest News" section of the RAAus website, as well as searched through the Sport Pilot magazines from August 2018 using the keyword "Privacy" and found no notification to the membership that RAAus, as a private company, has arbitrarily changed its' Privacy Policy to disclose members confidential data to third parties. Given the nature of this change, that is now nearly 4 months old, this in itself is a startling breach of trust to make such a change but fail to notify the membership about it...

 

RAAus has also neglected to address in what manner third-party access to the memberships private data will be protected by these third parties, as they are obviously not bound by the RAAus privacy policy and so may do with our data what they wish. As this data was provided to RAAus (for the vast majority of members, anyway), for the primary purpose of managing their membership and registrations, it is difficult to reconcile under what authority, or consent, RAAus actually has to disclose this information - particularly as there has been no notice to members of the change in the privacy policy.

 

Given your email that the Board can arbitrarily change policy at will, the question must be asked what assurance can you offer me, and the rest of the membership, that RAAus will not make further alterations to the Privacy Policy to the detriment of members, including disclosing our data to further external parties?

 

Kind regards,

 

The KRviator

 

 

Deafening silence has been my only reply. Not that I am surprised, but I am drafting a complaint to the Office of the Information Commissioner about it, as I provided my details to manage my RPC and aircraft registration - NOT for RAAus to use as an olive branch to the rest of the industry in an attempt to feather their own nest at my expense (both literally and figuratively).

 

Afterall, if they're happy to change this policy willy-nilly, and disclose our details to whoever they want, what else will they change, and to whom might they give our data to next time?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Typical aggorance on display.  

 

 

[up-into-the-air]

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.

And have you dealt with AVdata?

 

A totally corrupt private organisation. No likelihood your information will be safe, much Lee's charged accurately. A landing fee is between you and the organisation charging it. If you feel like this, pay the airfield operator direct. Don't give AVdata a 30 plus percent fee.

 

 

[Keith Page]

KRvitor.. Changing a privacy policy at will is illegal, isn't it?

 

We all signed the privacy policy which we know, then what we know has changed unannounced but as we are signed the original we must abide by this amended privacy policy. 

 

They think we are all stupid. To me looks like a pile of dictators.

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

Id suggest this is a process, no info will be released until Sept next yr

 

-alter privacy policy

 

-Let is run for 12 months 

 

-Release information with full membership approval in writing - everyone agreed at renewal

 

 

[frank marriott]

Is anybody in close contact with any of the board to ascertain what is really going on in secret?  Most people wouldn’t know any of the board personally which was the obvious intention of the nationwide selection process.