RAA privacy breach

[KRviator]

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.

You're right, it is just like that. Just like you pass those signs at the entrance saying "First 3 hours FREE!", but then you come out after 2 hours and they won't raise the boomgate unless you pay $40 because they've changed the sign while you were in the shops. I'd forgotten just how much like those private carparks it was...

On a serious note, it shouldn't be different between RAAus and GA - neither should have the private details of members, aircraft owners or operators published...For RAAus to do it "just because" GA does - as alluded to by the CEO - is nothing but a cop-out, and a disingenuous one at that...

 

 

[M61A1]

because I fly GA and RA and don’t see why they should be different.

I don't see why they should be different either. I my opinion any private flying is recreational flying, make them equal and remove fees for both. Leave the fees for those with the AOC.

 

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've not been to a fly in yet where there are more than a couple of young rec pilots, most (over 95%) are ex-GA old farts. Fuel exhaustion and weather incidents have been occurring since the dawn of aviation. So I'm not sure what your point is besides vindictive sniping, ie: trolling.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've not been to a fly in yet where there are more than a couple of young rec pilots, most (over 95%) are ex-GA old farts. Fuel exhaustion and weather incidents have been occurring since the dawn of aviation. So I'm not sure what your point is besides vindictive sniping, ie: trolling.

I wasn't trolling, I was talking to PMCC who doesn't see a problem, and nor do I, and was discussing a pattern with cross country flying; nothing to do with your fly ins and ex GA old farts, unless you are travelling through three States. (If you're not travelling that sort of cross country distance, don't worry).

 

 

[Keith Page]

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

I think Spencer is not involved with AOPA any more.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

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.

You are saying a lot about RAAus aircraft and what they should be doing or should not be doing.

 

Wondering what your interest in RAAus management would be?

 

KP

 

 

[BRL]

I don't believe the landing fees are the issue the issue is who are RA representing ? their members or the aerodromes and avdata?

 

Ive asked that question of the CEO and have no reply.

 

 

[poteroo]

Common sense should eventually prevail on this landing charge matter:

 

1. If you knowingly land at a location which has a published charge - shut up and pay up! You 'ate-the-steak'

 

2. If AVDATA are the billing entity - more fool the airport owner, because it will be costing them at least 40% - but you still owe for the service, however little wear & tear you claim your Bugsmasher Mk 2 is causing.

 

3. If you didn't touchdown, ie, 'land', then you don't owe anyone for a landing charge. That you flew 10 circuits with go-rounds isn't the issue for the airport owner because they do not control the airspace. (they more often than not, think

 

they do). If the airport is private - then you risk being accused of noise or similar matters, but not on a public one if you fly within the rules as stated in ERSA.

 

4. RAAus are very likely 'horsetrading' over airport charges in order to gain other non-related permissions from the regulator - IMHO. The arguments over privacy seem pedantic and bloody minded. We voted the Board in - all 700/9800 of us! If you choose not to vote, (even not to join RAAus), then you've lost the high moral ground on this subject.

 

happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

You are saying a lot about RAAus aircraft and what they should be doing or should not be doing.

 

Wondering what your interest in RAAus management would be?

 

KP

Well you'll just have to keep wondering Keith. I think I've said about the same about your people and theirs.

 

Both organisations are companies, offering a service for a fee.

 

It's a bit like asking me what I think about the people who run Toyota, you don't get inside a Company like you do with an Association.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have just taken the trouble to look for the privacy policy of RAAus on their web site. Guess what, they don't appear to have one. or at least I cannot find it. That may be due to their site not being complete and up to date.

 

I notice that their site states that since 1/1/19 the members have recorded 255559.6 hours flying. There are3340 aircraft and 12635 members.

 

That means the average hours per aircraft since Jan 1 is 76.5. Also the average hours for each member in the same time is 20.2 hours.

 

I don't know about you but I have not seen anything like that activity. It does paint a rosy picture of how well RAAus is doing. I wonder if their wording is ambiguous., maybe the hours were recorded in that time period, but not necessarily flown in that time. Whatever I find it difficult to believe what they say, especially as they say pilots average yearly hours is 21.4

 

 

[octave]

I have just taken the trouble to look for the privacy policy of RAAus on their web site. Guess what, they don't appear to have one. or at least I cannot find it. That may be due to their site not being complete and up to date.

 

I notice that their site states that since 1/1/19 the members have recorded 255559.6 hours flying. There are3340 aircraft and 12635 members.

 

That means the average hours per aircraft since Jan 1 is 76.5. Also the average hours for each member in the same time is 20.2 hours.

 

I don't know about you but I have not seen anything like that activity. It does paint a rosy picture of how well RAAus is doing. I wonder if their wording is ambiguous., maybe the hours were recorded in that time period, but not necessarily flown in that time. Whatever I find it difficult to believe what they say, especially as they say pilots average yearly hours is 21.4

 

I am just wondering if the way stats are collected means the figures may seem unusual. When I report my hours I will include my last flight which was a BFR, my instructor no doubt reports his hour he spent with me. In other words are student and instructor hours recorded twice. By the way, it is only mildly interesting to me, I am not one of the perpetually enraged.

 

My average hours over the last 5 years is 23.2 so pretty much on the average. The flying school I hire from seems pretty busy with 3 aircraft and 3 to 4 instructors

 

 

[kasper]

I have just taken the trouble to look for the privacy policy of RAAus on their web site. Guess what, they don't appear to have one. or at least I cannot find it. That may be due to their site not being complete and up to date.

 

I notice that their site states that since 1/1/19 the members have recorded 255559.6 hours flying. There are3340 aircraft and 12635 members.

 

That means the average hours per aircraft since Jan 1 is 76.5. Also the average hours for each member in the same time is 20.2 hours.

 

I don't know about you but I have not seen anything like that activity. It does paint a rosy picture of how well RAAus is doing. I wonder if their wording is ambiguous., maybe the hours were recorded in that time period, but not necessarily flown in that time. Whatever I find it difficult to believe what they say, especially as they say pilots average yearly hours is 21.4

Yen,

 

You have to be a member to see the policy.

 

Log into the member portal

 

Tab = Governance - Corporate Documents - Policy

 

select Privacy Policy

 

The version up on web today is dated 1 Aug 2018 and has:

 

"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

 

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

 

• for the purposes of collecting fees associated with airport use and access.

 

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. "

 

The last dot point about landing fees was added to 'allow' disclosure without consent because they bloody well know that its not a primary purpose ... whether its effective as a seondary is very much an issue ... all other secondary ones are around life and limb and legal requirements.

 

And search my previous posts on the privacy issue around the very sketchy and inconsistent way they 'get permission' through a non-selective note in the renewal online form that is buried under the payment details.

 

 

[facthunter]

It would be a poor system if that doubling of hours was happening. Since you can't get hours without being in an aeroplane, total aircraft hours would be OK if it's accurate and it should be available. Its compulsory to inform CASA of your aircraft hours on a regular basis. Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

I am just wondering if the way stats are collected means the figures may seem unusual. When I report my hours I will include my last flight which was a BFR, my instructor no doubt reports his hour he spent with me. In other words are student and instructor hours recorded twice.

Only one can be PIC so only 1 hour can be recorded.

 

 

[octave]

Only one can be PIC so only 1 hour can be recorded.

My last flight was 1.1 hours and was a BFR the CFI was the PIC, does this mean this 1.1 hour does not add to my total hours? If that is the case I have been misreporting my hours.

 

 

[facthunter]

No in they case you both log it. Just show Dual or PIC.( in command.) for the full time engine on till engine off. Some training is ICUS. (In command under supervision). For total aeronautical experience you halve the time you are copilot on a plane that requires two pilots but you still show full time in the appropriate columns.. You can't just fly with somebody and log it. (unless you are instructing. and you are in that case not just going for the ride). Nev

 

 

[circuitsun]

4. RAAus are very likely 'horsetrading' over airport charges in order to gain other non-related permissions from the regulator - IMHO. The arguments over privacy seem pedantic and bloody minded. We voted the Board in - all 700/9800 of us! If you choose not to vote, (even not to join RAAus), then you've lost the high moral ground on this subject.

Poteroo, you are likely correct, re the horsetrading. But in my view, you are wrong about the argument over the privacy policy fiasco. The members [some] voted the directors in, on the presumption they would would protect & work in, the members interests. Fair assumption. For the board to, trade off members privacy, without the members even being aware, shows they knew it was wrong, but went ahead anyway because it suited their plans. Such a cavalier attitude to the members interests, glaringly indicates we are very low, on their priorities. Probably be on the bottom except for the money we contribute.

 

Pedantic & bloody minded ? perhaps, You obviously consider your privacy of less value, that's your privilege, enjoy facebook; titter; siri; etc etc etc, but please don't shoot me down because I hold to different values. Whether I personally voted or not is totally irrelevant. I REPEAT The members [some] voted the directors in, on the presumption they would would protect & work in, the members interests. Fair assumption.

 

enjoy,

 

 

[coljones]

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.

Has YOUR privacy been breached and in what manner. I can't see it in your letter.

 

 

[circuitsun]

Has YOUR privacy been breached and in what manner. I can't see it in your letter.

Your question surprises me Coljones, I thought it is very clear in my letter [attached in first post ] & the following conversations.

 

I am presuming you are not a RAA member, so would suggest you have a re-read of the thread, & get back to me if that does not answer your query.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Markdun]

Your question surprises me Coljones, I thought it is very clear in my letter [attached in first post ] & the following conversations.

 

I am presuming you are not a RAA member, so would suggest you have a re-read of the thread, & get back to me if that does not answer your query.

 

Regards,

Of-course as soon as any organisation says 'we take privacy very seriously', it means they actually don't. But in my view privacy is overblown much of the time, and things like the electoral roll, vehicle registration, & even tax paid & declared income should be publicly available on line.

 

The Privacy Act only applies to certain, large and medium sized businesses and organisations. It doesn't apply to small businesses or individuals.

 

It seems to me that the issue is the liability for aerodrome charges. And the answer to that question is what is the legal contract? In most cases the contract between you and aerodrome operator will be that set out in some public document, such as ERSA. By landing, you have partly performed one part of the contract and a court will decide from this that you have agreed to the published contract. There have been cases litigated for pay carparks where the terms and conditions of the contract are on the other side of the boom gate...the courts sided with the car driver that as they couldn't know the terms & conditions before entering, the act of entering did not constitute part performance, so no contract and no liability. However, ERSA does indicate whether charges apply, so I think it could be argued, that as long as the details are discoverable, then you are contractually obligated to pay, whether or not RAA-AUS passes on contract details or not. I have one proviso: I would expect that the contract and liability attaches to the pilot who chooses to land there, NOT the registered operator of the aeroplane. I don't think the pilot has the power to enter contacts for the aircraft owner.

 

AVDATA. I'm not sure whether the demand payment on behalf of the aerodrome operator, in which case they are agents. If this is the case each payment and the contract remains between you and aerodrome operator, in law anyway. They may also be assigned the contract if the terms of the original contract has a term that provides for this. Lots of companies put this provision in their contracts so they can sell bad debts to dubious debt collectors. But, my point on this is that I think most people have an obligation to pay the aerodrome operator, not necessarily AVDATA. The fact it sends invoices is besides the point. Invoices are not necessarily obligations to pay or a debt. I know of some people who pay aerodrome operators directly and still get demands from AVDATA, with whom they have no contract, so they just ignore them.

 

So called penalties for late payment. Only courts can impose a penalty. Even traffic offence fines do not have to be paid until a court orders it. Generally you voluntarily pay an 'infringement notice' to avoid the court ordered penalty. So, any term in a contract that has a fine or penalty will be struck out by a court as invalid (void actually). If you fail to pay on time, a court will order you pay the outstanding money plus interest, plus the the other party's costs for beach of contact. But parties to a contract can make reasonable estimates of cost for foreseeable events like late payment. ..And most people are aware that the banks recently lost a big group action on late payment charges for credit cards because the stipulated amount bore no relationship to their actual costs.

 

Just sayin.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It is in the members interest that aerodrome operators can recover landing fees. Otherwise there will be a blanket ban on RAA aircraft landing at a growing number of fields. As an RAA pilot I am satisfied that RAA has acted in my interest. I want to be able to land GA or RA aircraft where I choose, and I can choose based on the fees that apply.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I thought when we signed a document, that is what we are agreeing to abide by. (not Johnny come lately amendments)

 

.....BUT...... We do not agree to added clauses at a later date, (where is that?) so what is the use of a legally biding document which adds clauses after the agreement date.

 

To achieve an agreement all must go back and start again with a new document.

 

KP