RAAus to disclose member details

[red750]

look at what is being sort

We're not picking on you Frank, but that should be "look at what is being sought".

 

 

[octave]

No return on local parks and sportfields, whats the difference.

 

Councils do charge for organised sport on council grounds.  I think whether or not councils should allow free use of their airfields would be a matter for the ratepayers.    I would imagine that 99% of ratepayers would not be users and therefore it would come down to whether the ratepayers could be convinced that that financial cost of maintaining the airfield was balanced bringing people into the area.

 

I pay my landing fees as part of my aircraft hire so I am not very impressed with people who don't pay.   I think we need a system that ensures everyone pays their fees and then hopefully, more airfields would be open to us and perhaps there may be more incentive for airfields to compete to attract traffic to their airfield. 

 

 

[Downunder]

No return on local parks and sportfields, whats the difference.

Imagine the council having someone at a public park, noting the car rego of attendees, then sending a bill in the mail (disclosed by the state  motor vehicle authority ) for using the park to play cricket with your kids......(5 seaters and up pay more)  oh, the uproar....but of course they SHOULD charge shouldn't they? 

 

I DOES cost money to maintain the grass, reticulation, public toilets, garbage collection and parking infrustructure......

 

We would all want to do the "right thing" and pay.....wouldn't we? 

 

Imagine the council having someone at a boat ramp.....

 

Imagine the council having someone at a beach.....

 

 

[tillmanr]

Generally now sports teams do pay for the use of council grounds. Most boat ramps I am aware of you do pay launching fees.

 

 

[frank marriott]

We're not picking on you Frank, but that should be "look at what is being sought".

Might be some sort of record for the number of glaring mistakes in a short post.

 

 

[Yenn]

If my local airport YGLA didn’t charge landing fees, I would buy my fuel there as I used to. They are missing out, not me. As with most airports they are too far from the town to walk, so a taxi is needed. That puts the cost up so I seldom fly to a town, unless there is something on at the airport.

 

 

[Thunda]

To those of you that believe paying a landing fee is the right thing to do.

 

Consider my previous post on this, we ALL pay through the nose already.

 

Remember the tax we ALL pay on fuel?

 

Avgas or unleaded, the tax rate i've been told is around 65 cents per liter. 

 

But if you use Mogas in your plane you still pay the road fuel tax.

 

It's ALL about REVENUE,  no government ANYWHERE will let you enjoy recreation without paying twice.

 

It's also about world population, the more populated we become the more money is required to support it.

 

This is why they want YOU to pay more for what you already own and the utilities we once owned we're now paying private company's at a rate that we can't afford.

 

The current RAAus executive wants to make things harder instead of fighting for us, so they get into bed with A A A , so much for privacy. 

 

Email the airports that charge a landing fee and ask for an exemption as you are flying in to fuel up, if they wave the landing fee because you bought fuel then you have the email as proof of the exemption. 

 

 

[turboplanner]

No one invited a poll on landing fees.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Our aerodrome is operated by the hangar owners. We pay Crown lands for the lease, Council for rates and water, the electricity supplier for power, public liability insurance premium for $20 million cover. We pay for and supply all signage, cones, markers, fences, gates etc. We also have bought 2 mowers, a tractor and slasher, and a shed to store them. Volunteers provide all maintenance labour such as mowing, slashing, fence repairs, access roads, taxiways and runway maintenance. We also pay for the runway to be resealed at 7-10 year intervals. It costs us about 50k a year and all we ask is for RAA visitors to contribute $5.00 to assist & that is by way of an honesty box. Many pay and some don't. If we are lucky we get about 1k per year (2% of costs) but every $ helps.

 

I pay wherever I go if there is a charge. Why does it matter if the aerodrome is owned & operated by the Council? They still have all the costs of operation as well.

 

 

[Thunda]

I'm finding it hard to understand that.

 

You all pay for all that gear AND and the rates plus lease, and then do all the work and don't own it ? ? ? ?

 

Where are you, North Korea? 

 

 

[facthunter]

Not much at all. It's about a quality of life in diverse activities.  We are all different in what we want to do .Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

We do the same. It’s about putting in to benefit everyone. Some people have lost sight of what community means.

 

 

[Downunder]

Some councils also don't know what community means. ...

 

 

[kgwilson]

I'm finding it hard to understand that.

You all pay for all that gear AND and the rates plus lease, and then do all the work and don't own it ? ? ? ?

 

Where are you, North Korea? 

What's so hard to understand? If you lease a property, you pay rates have to mow the lawns with your own mower or pay to have it done & if the improvements are yours you have to maintain them & replace them. Crown lands lease an unimproved piece of land to us. We own everything else. In any commercial lease the lessee pays all outgoings.

 

 

[M61A1]

If you get a fine for speeding past a fixed camera they send you a copy of the photo with the time stamp details on it. You have an opportunity then to dispute the fine & if that fails go to court. I can't see any difference here.

If you started getting fines with no picture and and no evidence that you were even there, accusing you of doing something, somewhere that you weren't, would you see a difference then?

 

That's what happens with Avdata, then you have to waste your time and money to prove you don't owe them. Maybe cameras would be an improvement, but the cost of the cameras will be built into the fees.

 

 

[Yenn]

The time responding to  Avdata is very little and I have never had a problem with them. If they bill me because someone else has used my call sign I consider the person who used my call sign is the problem. If an airport wants to use Avdata to collect, that is their prerogative. I will decide if I will use that airport.

 

 

[coljones]

If you started getting fines with no picture and and no evidence that you were even there, accusing you of doing something, somewhere that you weren't, would you see a difference then?

That's what happens with Avdata, then you have to waste your time and money to prove you don't owe them. Maybe cameras would be an improvement, but the cost of the cameras will be built into the fees.

AVDATA or the operator has to prove the debt. If you didn't do it or are unsure just ask AVDATA or the operator for the evidence.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I have had no problems with Avdata.  Someone was using my call sign, regularly commuting into Archerfield Mon-Fri, I simply replied that my aircraft had not left Longreach and the charges were reversed.  A Commercial pilot "borrowed" my fuel card and used my call sign - I was charged for landing fees and en-route charges - the refueller noted the VH on the plane as it was different to the card, so I sent that as proof and that my C150 didn't do that amount of knots for Airservices - both reversed without any further ado.  An acquaintance regularly flew into a busy airfield for fuel using someone else's call sign.  Avdata reversed the charges and the airport staff identified the plane and then him, and banned him from visiting without prior permission.  Over the years I have had people use my call sign at Longreach as they knew I had paid the annual fee.  I don't know what transpired there, but I suspect they got rounded up in the end and their bums polished.

 

I have had an aircraft on the VH register for over 20 years.  The list is publicly available; you can download it, with my full name, addresses, etc.  20 years ago I used to get mail advertising things, but I hardly get anything generated by that list now.  I guess Facebook etc give away far more detail on far more people.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

To get this thread back on track.

 

My view is that RAAus cannot disclose any member information to a third party without the individual specifically consenting to the disclosure. My reasoning is as follows:

 

Section 6D(4) of the Act describes small businesses that are subject to the Act irrespective of their turnover. This includes an organisation that “is a contracted service provider for a Commonwealth contract (whether or not a party to the contract)” (s.6D (4)(e)).

 

There is little doubt that RAAus is a contracted service provider by virtue of the annual agreement with CASA and the unique position of RAAus by virtue of the various CAO's.

 

As it is subject to the Act the Australian Privacy Principles (“APP”) apply, in particular APP 6.1 which provides:

 

“6.1  If an APP entity holds personal information about an individual that was collected for a particular purpose (the primary purpose ), the entity must not use or disclose the information for another purpose (the secondary purpose ) unless:

 

                     (a)  the individual has consented to the use or disclosure of the information;”

 

The primary purpose of the collection of registration information is to comply with the requirement of the CAO's and at no stage was the disclosure of personal information contemplated by the Rules of RAAus or has any specific consent been obtained from individual members.

 

It should be remembered that the RAAus aircraft register is not a part of the Australian Aircraft Register established under Part 47 of the CASR's. The RAAus register is an internal RAAus database and as such cannot be regarded as a “public register” as RAAus is a private body.

 

Consequently, the agreement between RAAus and Avdata should be voided as RAAus has no power to disclose the information for the purpose of collecting landing fees.

 

 

[coljones]

RAAus could, as a condition of renewal of an airframe, require consent to disclosure of names and addresses to contracting parties for the purpose of .....

 

 

[jetjr]

Its been on membership renewal forms since last September 

 

 

[kasper]

Its been on membership renewal forms since last September 

Unfortunately the data is not collected on membership renewal it is collected on initial membership application AND in initial registration of an airframe to a member.  

 

So so it cannot be consented to by adding it to a membership renewal.  

 

Plus us you can’t deem or imply consent by changing the privacy statement and/or policy. 

 

Anyone attemptimg to defend RAAus on this area really should read through the privacy principles  ... implied consent or slipping it onto a requirement that is not legally required is not looked favourably upon ...

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

[font=Arial]The following is not meant to impugn the character of any individual.

A review of the RAAus Constitution has not revealed a specific power to enable the disclosure of shareholder information as held in the "Register of Members" defined in Clause 10.2(a) of the Constitution.

Besides the Privacy Act issues there may also be a problem with compliance with the Corporations Act, in particular S.183 which provides that a person who obtains information because they are, or have been, a director or other officer or employee of a corporation must not improperly use the information to [/font]gain an advantage for themselves or someone else.

Directors are required to exercise their powers for a proper purpose. A purpose is proper if it is motivated by the desire to benefit the company. All actions founded on it, therefore, become a permissible and appropriate use of directorial powers.

The proper purpose rule states that if a director uses their power for reasons other than the benefit of the company, it is improper. The director has failed in fulfilling their fiduciary duties to the organisation. That is, their obligation to act in good faith and for the benefit of it.

The powers of the Directors of RAAus are to be found in Clause 38 of the Constitution:

38.1 The Directors are responsible for the oversight of the activities of the Company to achieve the purposes set out in Clause 6.
38.2 The Directors may use all of the powers of the Company except for powers that, under the Corporations Act or this Constitution, may only be used by members.

Clause 6 of the Constitution says:
[i]The Company's object is to pursue the following purposes:[/i]
[i](a) the advancement of aviation in Australia including to take all actions however connected with the design, manufacture of all and any machine, object, device and/or concept that relates directly or indirectly to the advancement of flight whether powered or otherwise whereby such flight is under the control, supervision or participation in any degree by human activity, and[/i]
[i](b) to encourage training in the art and science of aviation, piloting, operation, design, manufacture of aviation and/or spacecraft of whatsoever design and capability.[/i]

Members have a power of inspection of the Company's records at the registered address and at a reasonable time.(Cl.52.3). The inspection must be for a “proper purpose”, that is, must be for a purpose connected with the proper exercise of shareholder rights and exercised by a person in their capacity as shareholder. 
Further, Cl 53.4 provides that “[i]The Directors must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Company's records are kept safe.[/i]” By providing information to Avdata, RAAus has no control of the future use of that information either by Avdata or its clients. Obviously, the records would not be “[i]kept safe[/i]” in these circumstances.

Clearly, no power exists for the advancement of the interests of a private body (Avdata).

[font=Arial]As a corollary, this highlights an aspect of the inherent difficulties of the Part 149 method of devolving the administration of recreational aviation to private bodies such as RAAus.[/font]

 

[jetjr]

Only ones defending this are RAA and that's what they believe, I think it stinks

 

I was told when renewals done we confirm details and sign the new privacy clause on it, most wouldn't know it was there or changed

 

Its been discussed here previously.

 

 

[mnewbery]

No return on local parks and sportfields, whats the difference.

Nobody is flying over the neighbours heads to get to the sports fields so having it next door is quite ok?