RAA privacy breach

[circuitsun]

So...thought I'd get bold & start a new thread, to keep this separated from landing fee issue.

 

I have sent my complaint to RAA, [see attached] & received a call from the CEO, very polite, but just a soothing exercise. Very emphatic that RAA has not done anything untoward, & it is all legit, & the vast majority of members are all behind them. etc etc

 

I accept I am in a VERY small minority. In today s world, privacy is given very little regard. In RAA it will be those affected " in the pocket" - a small percentage of aircraft owners, who are a small percentage of members. So Michael is probably right, only a very small minority will complain, - just a bit of noise to ignore. I still intend lodging a complaint with the commissioner [in 30 days time]. Beyond that, I see very few options but to "eat it". Depressingly, we have no power of control over the direction & actions of the board, and thus RAA. We are now the minions of a mini casa. Ironically, escape from the stifling domination of CASA/DCA. was one of the basic motivations in the formation of AUF , and a motivation for many of the private pilots migrating to RAA. I have put my complaint letter into the L t E in Sport Pilot, with my name at the bottom. I am sure it will generate some flak, I am just curious to see how little attention it will get. mmm perhaps a little masoc..... of me. Cheers everyone.

 

A formal complaint to RAA.docx

 

A formal complaint to RAA.docx

[turboplanner]

Either what they have done complies with the Privacy Act or it doesn't.

 

A person of reasonable intelligence should be able to download the ACT and see for themselves.

 

If what they've done does not comply, the Privacy Act is one of the strongest I've seen and there should be no problem in stopping RAA in its tracks.

 

That will not be resolved by having a talkfest or popularity vote.

 

From the hundreds of emotional comments on this subject, I'm not so sure.

 

The current situation is that RAA registered aircraft are avoiding legitimate charges for the use of airfields in what appears to be substantial numbers.

 

So just bear in mind that how self righteous you may feel about one moral principle, the other moral principle will come out of the woodwork and bite you on the bum.

 

 

[circuitsun]

mmmm I suspect you are quite right.

 

The issue of landing rights has been around for a long time, too long, RAA could have & should have started a serious dialogue with the members years ago. I am quite sure [ maybe optimistic ] the majority would have responded with a co-operative approach, maybe not immediately but over time the situation would have improved, as it became accepted. This should not have become the problem it has. Michael told me that 5 -6 years ago, the pilot register was open to the public, & it was removed some time before the change in structure, I would really like to hear that confirmed. If true, It does paint a different picture. Michael also said, RAA , at a meeting with AAA offered a substantial amount of money to AAA so offset some of the Fees not collected, to try and reduce the animosity. First I've heard of any of this. There are many ways this problem could have been solved. But playing loose with members right to privacy, is NOT the way to go, ever. Poor judgement by people that should have had more ethical backbone, than to even consider it.

 

 

[frank marriott]

A couple of points

 

a) I do not think you are in such a “small” group, many not publicly commenting - certainly amongst many I speak to. If only the silent MAJORITY could be convinced to vote the true popularity of the current administration would become apparent. They are counting on this not happening.

 

b) The board selection process is designed to discourage nominations by anyone who does not want to be part of a back-slapping exercise knowing they would be a voice in the wilderness but still be responsible, as a board member, for any undesirable outcomes. The organisation is effectively run by 4 board votes with a limited exposure to the real world of aviation.

 

c) As with politics, total control vested in too small a number of like minded people gives rise to outcomes that are not necessarily in the best interest of the organisation. A prime example is the releasing of members private particulars without CONSENT or even discussion with members.

 

d) The only way control can be re-established is another take over as done when this controlling group gained control. At this stage I cannot see enough members being prepared to spend the time and effort to make this happen (remembering the instigators and overt supporters are still out there clapping hands).

 

e) Although certain people at HQ will tell you that they don’t read this site, it is untrue - even to the extent of being able to refer to individual posts.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm sure they do and I recall a most irresponsible and unpleasant blast on here against Rod Birrell that I have a great difficulty with ethically. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

But playing loose with members right to privacy, is NOT the way to go, ever. Poor judgement by people that should have had more ethical backbone, than to even consider it.

Yet in GA the register is public, so there's also a potential discrimination factor to be taken into account.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Turbs mentions hundreds of emotional comments on this subject. But I think there are only a dozen or so people who have complained here. I suspect the other several thousand members do not feel strongly about it.

 

 

[circuitsun]

Thank you Frank I wish I could put it as clearly & accurately as you just have.

 

Yes F.H. I am expecting negative flak here & in sport pilot magazine, but at the moment I don't give a shit.

 

Turbo, the major difference, as I see it is, the GA register has always been that way, I don't think that it's right, but pilots knew that, before they went onto it.

 

discrimination .... mmmmm maybe casa can be taken to task on that ? DHYB !

 

 

[KRviator]

So...thought I'd get bold & start a new thread, to keep this separated from landing fee issue.I have sent my complaint to RAA, [see attached] & received a call from the CEO, very polite, but just a soothing exercise. Very emphatic that RAA has not done anything untoward, & it is all legit, & the vast majority of members are all behind them. etc etc

(language) they're behind him. I've expressed my outrage to him in December last year.

 

I accept I am in a VERY small minority. In today s world, privacy is given very little regard. In RAA it will be those affected " in the pocket" - a small percentage of aircraft owners, who are a small percentage of members. So Michael is probably right, only a very small minority will complain, - just a bit of noise to ignore. I still intend lodging a complaint with the commissioner [in 30 days time].

Because I complained to RAAus in December, I already have gone to the OAIC. And because I have the date & time-stamped PPrune posts, with the privacy policy URL's, it'll be hard for RAAus to argue that *I* am the one who screwed up reading their 'new in August' policy... Particularly when their ISP logs show who accessed what files and when...

 

Beyond that, I see very few options but to "eat it". Depressingly, we have no power of control over the direction & actions of the board, and thus RAA. We are now the minions of a mini casa. Ironically, escape from the stifling domination of CASA/DCA. was one of the basic motivations in the formation of AUF , and a motivation for many of the private pilots migrating to RAA.

Soon as I can, I'll be swapping the RV to VH and RAAus can go take a long walk off a short pier. This is not the organisation I started out with, and given the Board's apparent willingness to trample the wishes of the membership and ignore their own policies just to feather their own nests, it's not an organisation I want to be a part of going forward.

 

I have put my complaint letter into the L t E in Sport Pilot, with my name at the bottom. I am sure it will generate some flak, I am just curious to see how little attention it will get. mmm perhaps a little masoc..... of me. Cheers everyone.

Good on you for having the balls to actually do something, rather than just vent on here.

 

Either what they have done complies with the Privacy Act or it doesn't.A person of reasonable intelligence should be able to download the ACT and see for themselves.

Best I can tell, it doesn't, as no one agreed for such a change to the Privacy Policy. At least when Apple, et al do it, you have to acknowledge 'reading and agreeing' to their changes - even if you just skim down and click the blue button.

 

If what they've done does not comply, the Privacy Act is one of the strongest I've seen and there should be no problem in stopping RAA in its tracks.That will not be resolved by having a talkfest or popularity vote.

True -which is why many of us have written to RAAus and some have, or are, going to the OAIC.

 

The current situation is that RAA registered aircraft are avoiding legitimate charges for the use of airfields in what appears to be substantial numbers.

So are GA aircraft, with false callsigns, or simply going NORDO - and let's face it, with a parasite like AvData out there, why wouldn't you. When they bill you for overflying, or conducting an instrument approach, or a missed approach, why would you?

If you feel so strongly about it turbo, what's your car rego so I can look up where you live? Oh...Wait...

 

 

[circuitsun]

I'm curious, can they invoice you if there is no a/c contact with the ground ? they do not have control of the airspace,....do they?

 

and if not, how do they work out that you have actually touched down ?

 

 

[KRviator]

I'm curious, can they invoice you if there is no a/c contact with the ground ? they do not have control of the airspace,....do they?

 

and if not, how do they work out that you have actually touched down ?

I'm actually thinking about trying this on at Warnervale shortly. I can get in a circuit every 3 mins 20 seconds, and Warnervale want to charge $8.25 per landing, so if I do 18 missed approaches an hour, I want to see if AvData will hit me up with a $150 bill. And if I don't touch down, then the PPR restriction at Warnervale doesn't apply either, so Council can get stuffed.

 

[facthunter]

People are billed for making approaches but some of those may be ATC related costs , but others are not. They go by Radio calls, hence the totally abhorrent using of other aircraft's callsign which should be stomped on or nearly as bad not making radio calls. Normally you only use a debt collector where an invoice or other approach has failed to get results and in using that "facility" the person who is owed the money gets only part of it. With My Citabria I received Bills for Perth International and Mt ISA and I'm Melbourne centred./ based. It wasn't just a matter of informing AVDATA either. Quite a bit of to and fro was needed so I have no love for this system or giving info to them by RAAus especially without permission. The public nature of the GA sector is a concern but it's been that way for yonks. Contrast that all with the situation with vehicle regos ' where it's easier to find out what Christ has for Breakfast than get any info of someone who may have damaged your vehicle from a numberplate photo. Nev

 

 

[circuitsun]

Pls keep us posted on that one ! I'm sure many would like to know the outcome.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have never been charged by Avdata for overflying. They did once try to charge me, but I pointed out I was overflying and they agreed no charge.

 

Multiple go arounds at an airport may put you into conflict with CASA. I am not sure what they could alledge, but if someone else was affected detrimentally I am sure CASA could think up something to fool with you.

 

 

[circuitsun]

sorry, the above post was for KR,

 

But to FH, Surely it is not up to you to go to the trouble t oclarify a incorrect invoice, do them the courtesy perhaps, of letting them know, but no more is require, .. . is it?

 

 

[frank marriott]

The public nature of the GA sector is a concern but it's been that way for yonks.

The big difference the way I see it is GA is not involved with a private company releasing personal details without consent - I cannot see how it is legal, but I assume legal advice would have been sort beforehand, even if was only Spencer’s opinion.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Either what they have done complies with the Privacy Act or it doesn't.

 

A person of reasonable intelligence should be able to download the ACT and see for themselves.

 

If what they've done does not comply, the Privacy Act is one of the strongest I've seen and there should be no problem in stopping RAA in its tracks.

 

That will not be resolved by having a talkfest or popularity vote.

 

From the hundreds of emotional comments on this subject, I'm not so sure.

 

The current situation is that RAA registered aircraft are avoiding legitimate charges for the use of airfields in what appears to be substantial numbers.

 

So just bear in mind that how self righteous you may feel about one moral principle, the other moral principle will come out of the woodwork and bite you on the bum.

Oi! Turbo are you a member of RAAus yet?

 

If not I think there should be minimum of comment regarding RAAus members.

 

KP

 

 

[facthunter]

Curcuitsun, they just keep upping the amount (debt) owed if you don't cough up quickly. Having the third party involvement without prior agreement doesn't seem ethical to me.

 

Frank, I know Spencer helped the RAAus now and again , and that in itself is no concern unless a conflict of interest exists. He's well qualified at Law as far as I know but works for AOPA as you no doubt know. I don't know if we are really entitled to read much into that. Sharing "assets" amongst" like" organisations is OK in principle. Not many legal types specialise in aviation matters. Nev

 

 

[circuitsun]

when I started adding an account charge onto my invoices for late payment, I was advised I cannot add a charge to an invoice, I was recommended to include it in the original invoice, then discount it, if paid on time. am I maybe a couple of decades out of date ? is does that still hold ? need an expert here !

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs mentions hundreds of emotional comments on this subject. But I think there are only a dozen or so people who have complained here. I suspect the other several thousand members do not feel strongly about it.

Not in this thread, but when you take into account the several other threads which have been going for months, I think hundreds is reasonable.

 

As someone has just pointed out 3550 aircraft are involved, and a lot of those will be parked in sheds, part built, rebuilding etc, and a lot of RA aircraft fly around a home base, so are not likely to fall foul of this, so the actual number of aircraft could also be in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

 

One of the points for RA aircraft in the middle of this is the need for a one time visitor fee. So if it is $9:90 when you arrive, and you want to practice a few touch and goes, say at a higher altitude airfield, you should only be charged the once, not once a circuit. You can see from some of the figures presented over the months that what is intended to be a nominal charge for reasonably low cost maintenance can multiply to the point where it pushed the hourly rate for the aircraft beyond an affordable limit, and the whole system comes crashing down.

 

Another point about privacy I can't recall seeing is that your name and address are not published, just advised to the people who do the invoicing, pretty much as it is in the medical profession.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oi! Turbo are you a member of RAAus yet?

 

If not I think there should be minimum of comment regarding RAAus members.

 

KP

Well you're not writing in the RAA members forum, for a start (that's if there is one), and I'm still waiting for a comparison with the Royal EAAA Air Force which seems to be having trouble getting off the ground; so hard to make a choice.

 

 

[jackc]

Sure looks like a bonus if you have your own firebreak to take off from, and land on :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The private car parks in the city have access to vehicle registration details and they send you “ fines” for not paying. Seems similar as far as privacy goes. I guess I don’t see the problem because I fly GA and RA and don’t see why they should be different.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The private car parks in the city have access to vehicle registration details and they send you “ fines” for not paying. Seems similar as far as privacy goes. I guess I don’t see the problem because I fly GA and RA and don’t see why they should be different.

This is a little bit about RAA people buying the plastic fantastics, and leaving the home base, exploring cross country flying and encountering a world they may not be familiar with.

 

It fits in with fuel exhaustions, weather incidents etc.

 

 

[circuitsun]

The private car parks in the city have access to vehicle registration details and they send you “ fines” for not paying. Seems similar as far as privacy goes. I guess I don’t see the problem because I fly GA and RA and don’t see why they should be different.

The examples are all irrelevant PM. I'm know lots of organizations have parts of our personal data, Hell. I do live in today's world.

 

But when I joined RAA they had a sound [i thought] privacy policy with which I felt comfortable, management continually mouthed support for our privacy. But for RAA to then do a 180 turn-around, & on a whim, add a line to the privacy policy to annul it, then give out our personal details to a 3rd party. without any consultation or even notification, to its own members That is the issue for me.

 

This is a little bit about RAA people buying the plastic fantastics, and leaving the home base, exploring cross country flying and encountering a world they may not be familiar with.

 

It fits in with fuel exhaustions, weather incidents etc.

I was going to reply,...but no won't waste my time.