Jim McDowall

According to Avdata's website the charge for Chinchilla is $9.59 per tonne. They also recommend a minimum charge of one tonne and charge out at the MTOW of the aircraft which is a maximum of 600kg for RAAus aircraft. This means that the real rate at (propably most airports is 67% higher than the published tonnage rate. It would be helpful for the management to aprise Avdata of this effective tax on RAAus aircraft operators and reduce the miniumum charge to 600 kg. or tell them to FCUK off. But they already have the database....

 

 

Have a look at the classified adverts at segelflug.de . You may find a whole radio is cheaper than finding a replacement part.

 

 

10,000 members at an additional $20 = $200,000 additional premium. I wonder what the claims history is? What is the current RAAus insurance expenditure with PBS?

 

 

Why do you folks want to avoid the landing fees? GA pays them. The fees encourage owners and councils to continue running the airfields. They help people advocate for better facilities.

It is not about paying (or avoiding) the landing fees - the issue is the breach of the Privacy Act by RAAus - see post #23

 

 

I really can't see why we should be able to hide our identity and still use the facility.

Yenn, there is a vast difference between wanting to hide your identity and an organisation which is subject to the stringency of the Privacy Act disclosing your personal information without your specific consent. If every organisation you dealt with passed on your personal information on their whim (ie without your consent) you would have no privacy as the vast army of Facebookers have found out. It is a matter of the LAW not an organisation's wish to be seen as a "good corporate citizen" that needs to be the primary consideration.

 

As the AFP chief said recently in the matter of the raids on journalists (inc ABC), EVERYBODY is subject to the laws of the land.

 

 

So what parts of the Constitution need to be changed to overcome these issues? Publication of Board minutes and agendas (including associated reports etc), mandate a legal defence fund, detail the priorities of responsibilities of RAA (eg to advocate on behalf of members has precedence over desire to cosy up to CASA)? Anything else such as tell CASA that RAAus insn't interested in Part 149 which is what the GFA is considering?

 

 

 Older GA aircraft cost a motza to maintain in good order

Technically GA aircraft include RAAus type aircraft.

 

VH reg aircraft (which is what I think you really mean) include experimental aircraft which by the time you add up all the RAAus fees ( GFA are more) cost no more to operate, provided of course that you hold as a minimum a RPL, the same RAAus registered aircraft.

 

It is really illogical to compare a C182 with a Jabiru operating cost, but a certified Rotax rebuild can also be expensive.

 

 

how will the airport owner invoice the operator? 

Is it a requirement of a private body to breach the Privacy Act to deliver an invoice for a few dollars to a party who may or may not have used the facility? Privacy is a higher order issue. I agree that people using false rego's in radio call is unforgiveable but is the problem so big that our privacy can be given away without consent? Facebook has demonstrated how people lose their privacy too easily without consent.

 

 

It is a part of the 2018 Privacy Policy

It (the Privacy Policy) matters not one bit if I do not specifically agree to the release of my personal information and usually for specific purposes. That consent cannot be buried in a "agreement to obey the Rules and Policies of the Company". Indeed, the Corporations Act requires that all company members of the same class have the same rights (not obligations)  and these can only be varied by agreement via the carriage of a variation to the rules of the company at a General Meeting.

 

This illustrates the problem of private bodies undertaking public functions. CASR Part 149 is not a solution but merely a band aid "fix" until it suffers the scrutiny of the courts aided by some lawyers who understand the breadth of the law that comes into play when you mix public function with private obligation.

 

 

No matter what the problem why should the administrative solutions be reduced to a proposition that caters for the lowest common denominator.  After all, people still drive unregistered and uninsured despite the risks and unlawfulness. I object to my privacy being traded for a bureaucratic convenience. If my aircraft was VH registered I know what the deal is but RAAus is a private body and governed by a different set of rules and I expect to be protected by the laws that were enacted by Parliament to prevent unauthorized exchange of private information.

 

If airfield operators were so concerned they could cheaply install cameras to see who is using their facilities. They may miss some touch and go traffic but that loss may be cheaper than Avadata's fees.

 

 

This could be solved by making RAAus aircraft part of the VH register - no real issues as many jurisdictions do it and the GFA does it here.

 

 

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

Anyone who has experienced the traffic associated with sports fields or boat ramps when the fish are biting or indeed a school know that there are costs that cannot be expressed or controlled by regulatory charges. Community assets can sometimes be community liabilities but when the bushfires or floods come we all appreciated that they exist. Not everything in local government is a revenue centre despite the wishes of the bureaucrats.

 

 

[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]

 

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.

 

 

Apologies, having problems downloading pics

 

 

Will get pics tomorrow. As bike brakes are one sided one is operated reverse to the other.

 

 

I used mountain bike disks and cable operated pads on my Hummel UC. I found some adapters on Aliexpress that carried the discs on nylon Asuza wheels.  I will try an post some pics when I get the opportunity to get some shots. Nave a look at:. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Kerry-bike-mountain-bike-disc-tray-mount-Pitch-48MM-brake/2029515361.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.27424c4dTnUWrI

 

 

How would you fix it to avoid further examples like this then Jim?

I would not try to save stupid people from themselves- the alternative is to legislate for the lowest common denominator which in CASA terms is to ban people flying in aircraft.

 

Flying in a private aircraft has always been associated with higher risk than RPT .... and the populace at large knows this. A large placard on the side of the aircraft along the lines of " All who proceed to fly in this aircraft risk death" may stop some people but then who believes everything they read?

 

 

So what CASA is trying to do here is legislating against stupity which has never worked.

 

 

ABC was reporting this morning that Senator Rex Patrick (SA) was going to move a disallowance motion.

 

 

So did they really need to do this?

 

 

Mr Matthews said.

“All the fuel is paid for, so we’re just looking at what level of safety that is suitable for what they’re actually doing.”

So paying for fuel is now a safety issue?

 

 

So Turbs, re post#26 where did your stats come from? Or did you do the bureaucratic thing of making up stats and hoping no one would ask where they  originated. Time to come clean

 

 

what they saw was a brief period where it was more efficient to have one person

This was over a period of several hours. I too spend 15 -20 hours per week on the roads , country and city, and it never ceases to amaze me the way traffic control is abused, for example 25kph for well over a kilometre beyond the workzone on an open (ie no vision obstacles) road and those controls left in place after working hours. I work in the construction industry and the pedantry of some site safety officers is unbelievable whilst others simply fill out the forms and stay in their airconditioned hut and work gets done by people who know what they are doing and what the risks are.

 

My point about the Snowy is mirrorred by CASA's inability to complete writing proper regulations 30 years after the CAA came into force and yet (for example) immigration regulations can be drafted and implemented literally overnight. Safety is CASA's pre-occupation and only a lower order concern for immigration. Somewhere is the sensible middle.

 

 

Some them get killed, but we all gotta die somehow. Meanwhile they build a freeway in a few months that takes us five or ten years.

If today's safety standards were applied to the Snowy Mountains project it would still be being built. I watched a road repair at a minor intersection the other day - 3 people actually worked and at least 5 did traffic control and a further 2 watched.