About time - Air Services

[Squawk7700]

Finally Airservices has decided to charge RA-Aus aircraft for using Class D airspace.

Next steps should be Avdata doing the same for ALL airfields.

In terms of Avdata, GA have been paying since the service was invented and RA-Aus aircraft have been largely ignored due to the RA-Aus aircraft register not being made public. As a result, Avdata have to pass on invoices to RA-Aus and then RA-Aus passing them on to the aircraft owner. This is all added cost to both organisations.

Let's take it a few steps further:

- RA-Aus should make their register public like the GA one; no excuses.
- Airservices should charge RA-Aus for the use of all Class C and D airfields.
- Avdata should charge RA-Aus aircraft operators.

Of the RA-Aus operators that I know, most believe that making the aircraft register would cause them issues because the public having access to their aircraft details is a bad thing. I don't agree, it's not an issue for GA operators.

Agree or disagree?

Airservices Reviews RA-Aus Charging Policy (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/airservices-reviews-ra-aus-charging-policy?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter+3rd+October+2014&utm_content=Newsletter+3rd+October+2014+CID_5614aceb4e75d30c c9143fbafaca7e2e&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Airservices%20Reviews%20RA-Aus%20Charging%20Policy)

[Ultralights]

where did this crap come from? , I have been paying avdata charges at airports for a few years now for my Raaus registered aircraft, and occasionally pay them for using airports 1000's of miles away on the same day, or even when my aircraft is in getting a service! and yes, that has included class D.

Raaus have forwarded my avdata fees onto owners for some time now, so the only issue is with the database being made public. but i pay membership fees to RAAus, which should cover the costs of passing on my bills.

If im the only one paying, and no other owner of RAus aircraft is, should i be chasing a refund for fees paid over the past 3 years?

what the GA industry should be pushing to level the playing field, is a reduction to GA fees! but we all know that will never happen....

Aminta Hennessy of Clamback and Hennessy at Bankstown summed up the feelings of most GA operators when she said "If we have to pay, everyone should pay."

How about, "if they dont pay, then we dont pay" ?? :P





(user pays in GA has to end. and return to "who benefits pays, that being the community.)

[Draggertail]

Lets look at it another way. Almost every organization has to have privacy policies these days. There are penalties for giving out private information. Let's get the GA register away from public access.

Millions of cars are out there and you can't get access to registered owner details, why should every one have access to aircraft records? It's just a left over practice from the past.

If the GA register had never been public there is no way anyone would want it made public today.

[Ultralights]

actually, under the current state of terrorism fear mongering, now would be a good time to put a case forward in removing the GA register from public view, who knows what religious idealogical extremists might use the register to find the location of a set of aircraft keys!

[Clare Prop]

So are you telling me they have been getting free ATC all this time??!! :bored:

[5-in-50]

Don't worry, RA-AUS will cease to exist in a couple of years. CASA has already begun preparations of their equivalent system as of September 1st.

It's called a Recreational pilot licence and mimicks the RA-AUS system like a mirror. Why would we need 2 systems that do the same thing? bye-bye RA-AUS.

Once everything's on the CASA register, they'll all get bent-over by Air$ervices equally.

By the way, Airservices has been charging for VFR airspace transits for a few months now, to the tune of $25-$40 to fly over the top of a class D aerodrome. With that kind of cost to have 3 short interactions with ATC, it'd be better value to go IFR and get charged by the nautical mile at a fraction of the cost...:ugh:

[Mail-man]

Ultralights, how many GA aircraft actually need keys? Back when i was flying bugsmashers you could start most of them with a paddlepop stick....

[Squawk7700]

Ultralights, not all bills are passed on. Some have never received a bill.

Clareprop, yes... No AirServices charge for Raaus to date.

[Draggertail]

Post #7 5-in-50
"By the way, Airservices has been charging for VFR airspace transits for a few months now, to the tune of $25-$40 to fly over the top of a class D aerodrome. With that kind of cost to have 3 short interactions with ATC, it'd be better value to go IFR and get charged by the nautical mile at a fraction of the cost..."

I have never been charged for GA VFR flights in Class C or D (except for landing fees). Has anyone else been charged for these flights?

[Squawk7700]

I was only once charged for a VFR transit over YMEL but it was in error and was removed from my bill. I have never been charged otherwise.

It is possible that they are these days and many would not notice as you don't see a breakdown for your $500 or at least I haven't had one yet.

[triadic]

what the GA industry should be pushing to level the playing field, is a reduction to GA fees! but we all know that will never happen....

(user pays in GA has to end. and return to "who benefits pays, that being the community.)

Hear hear! When this industry realises they are being discriminated against things might (?) change... When there is a fee to use the city parks and boat ramps, the playing field might be a bit closer to level. Only those fields that don't charge realise the real benefits. :ok:

[Draggertail]

Just had a look at Airservices charges:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/ASAContractForAviationFacilitiesAndServicesJul2013.pdf

Section 3 about terminal charges makes no mention of VFR overflight charges and 3.3 actually says fees at all the major airports are not imposed on gliders, balloons or ultralights.

Section 5 on enroute charges only mentions IFR.

I would be checking all charges for VFR flight if you did not land.

[5-in-50]

will call Airservices and confirm this, because overflight charges have become the norm in our area of late.

[Pinky the pilot]

And which one of you bastards used my Rego in Groote Eylandt

Funny you should say that Jack! Back in the 90's when I was working for a full time Gliding Operation in South Australia, I lost count of the number of times we received bills for one of our Pawnee Tugs which had apparently landed at various places around the country.:ooh:

And yes, mainly in the top end if I remember correctly.:rolleyes:

Some very unpleasant things would have been perpetrated by a few of us upon the physical personage of the offender concerned had we ever discovered his identity.:eek::eek::eek:

[gerry111]

Pinky wrote:

"Back in the 90's when I was working for a full time Gliding Operation in South Australia.."

Not too many of those left, sadly....


P.S. Pinky. I hear ASC's Pawnee is in for a refabric job somewhere in Victoria. $40k.....Ouch!

[Clare Prop]

I've only ever been charged when landing at Class D or doing an overshoot at Class C aerodromes. Never been charged a transit fee, HOWEVER I know that some operators were charging students and hirers a fee for this non-existant fee
:=

[Squawk7700]

Everyone knows that you simply use the rego of the current Director of CASA's personal aircraft or whatever the shiny for sale aircraft is on the front of the latest aviation trader or Aust Flying ;)

[KRviator]

Of the RA-Aus operators that I know, most believe that making the aircraft register would cause them issues because the public having access to their aircraft details is a bad thing. I don't agree, it's not an issue for GA operators.Then what is your full name, residential and mailing address, phone number and ABN? Afterall, if you reckon such data should be freely available, you won't have any issue disclosing it here on Prune, will you?

On what data do you claim it is not an issue for GA operators? Or is this just one persons opinion?

[Frank Arouet]

Most airports in Australia were built and paid for at the taxpayers expense. Therefor we own them. Now given this, the maintenance of them was paid from public revenue and then air nav charges, which morphed into a fuel tax, which morphed into a free for all, and now somehow are owned by either private enterprise or the local Rate payers after they were pinched from us. Now something that I once owned is now subject to a tax to use them so I can buy fuel that used to pay for the airport maintenance, but now makes a profit for somebody.
Not to be outdone the number of aircraft that were around in 1965 that haven't really increased today and probably flying less hours because of over prescriptive regulation, and using these airports, are blessed with a controlling requirement brought about by a redefinition of the same air I used to fly through back then and I have to pay for now. Where was I, Oh yes, It would therefor appear the problem is the bloke with the bag who collects the tax. Now if you need the control aspects, you should pay the costs. If you don't need them, then you shouldn't be made to pay.
Unless the airport was paid for by private funding it should be seen, (as The Cargo Cult in PNG), as an encouragement to land and spend money in the town via fuel, taxi, motel, food etc. Toll gates at border crossings are illegal I believe.
I would advise avoiding these places. Your money is just as good up the road. The bloke running the control tower should send his own bills out seeing as he knows who he is talking to.

[ANCPER]

Frank,

Welcome to Rentier Australia, the rent seekers paradise Rent-seeking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking) . Public assets are sold off, usually at a premium by the gov to "rent seekers" whom usually have a monopoly on the "service" they provide. They charge at a rate dependent on their investment to recoup said investment with little or no competition, this is called "tax farming".(Tax Farming definition of Tax Farming in the Free Online Encyclopedia. (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Tax+Farming)

It isn't just aviation this occurs, you see this in effect with our toll roads, gas/electric infrastructure etc (read Michael West's work on this @ the SMH online). You now pay for the infrastructure that was paid for yrs ago, and as has been shown in NSW (gas piping etc) under the regulators watchful eye they charge for replacement of said infrastructure based on today's inflated costs to replace. In addition, they "gold plate" their work as their return is based on money spent (% of), so the more they invest the greater their return.

The Liberal party loves this. Look at the East-West link in melb, the MOST expensive toll road in the WORLD at close to 1 billion $ per Km. More expensive than the most expensive road built than even the French. The risk will be on the tax payer and the profit with the tax farmers.

Btw, no business case study here that Abbott demanded for the NBN.

[Frank Arouet]

The NBN call from Abbott was for a cost benefit analysis, not a business case. However I can see the Conroy idea in a business case, that if you get higher speeds you can charge more for the data quicker.
The matter of local airport ownership was a product of ALP thinking which, I believe, Dick was forced to implement. I agree there is no case for recycling the assets no matter who is running the show. I'll study your links.
I have an idea something called "the Amsterdam or Dutch syndrome" is the end product of inflated current prices.
I like the way you think.

[Squawk7700]

Then what is your full name, residential and mailing address, phone number and ABN? Afterall, if you reckon such data should be freely available, you won't have any issue disclosing it here on Prune, will you?

On what data do you claim it is not an issue for GA operators? Or is this just one persons opinion?

Where are the threads where people are complaining about this kraviator?

In terms of "one persons opinion," mine has been in there for the last 13 years perhaps and nobody has skimmed my bank accounts and trust funds. The register is a great way to get in touch with commercial operators.

If you don't want private details made available, simply register in a company name like everyone else that has done the same. At least airport operators have somewhere to send a bill to.

I heard that the RAA register recently was made available to the ATO and you should have heard the screams as those that were trying to illegally hide assets from the ATO, Centrelink and other government departments were outed.

[KRviator]

Where are the threads where people are complaining about this kraviator?I must remember that should I ever be charged with rape. "She didn't complain Your Honour, so it must be okay"... :rolleyes: Just because there aren't any complaints doesn't make it alright and I'm sure I've read commentary before about the public availability of the register, and the resistance to opening the RAAus database to the public.

In terms of "one persons opinion," mine has been in there for the last 13 years perhaps and nobody has skimmed my bank accounts and trust funds. The register is a great way to get in touch with commercial operators.So if I register my RV and a 172 in my business name as you suggest, I can expect you - or other pilots - to contact me? := I don't think that was what was envisaged when the decision to publicise the database was made.

If you don't want private details made available, simply register in a company name like everyone else that has done the same. At least airport operators have somewhere to send a bill to.They do now - RAAus. I'd happily pay an extra $5/10 on top of my registration or membership to allow RAAus to employ an extra person to exclusively handle these queries if it means my details remain confidential. And let's face it, there aren't going to be that many bills so this person can be usefully employed in other admin roles too.

As for complaints, perhaps you would care to explain why it is NSW has legislation explicitly preventing private carparks from accessing the vehicle registration database if there is "no issue"?

[Squawk7700]

As for complaints, perhaps you would care to explain why it is NSW has legislation explicitly preventing private carparks from accessing the vehicle registration database if there is "no issue"?

It's the same in Victoria, you can't access vehicle records unless with a court order.

Aircraft are registered federally so state law is irrelevant.

How about this...... has having your aircraft details publically avaialble caused you grief or harm and in what way has this occurred?


And let's face it, there aren't going to be that many bills so this person can be usefully employed in other admin roles too.


There will be a bucket-load of them. Many Raa aircraft operate of airfields under Avdata agreements every day all over Australia. Perhaps if everyone was paying their bills, we could all pay less, or alternatively that extra money might find it's way back into improved facilities at regional airports.

[Dick Smith]

5 in 50. Can you confirm that ASA are charging VFR to overfly classD?

Does not sound correct to me!

[majorca]

ATC services for nothing in Metro Class D? Closer to the truth than you think. How much do you think it costs to provide JUST ATC services at Bankstown or Moorabbin? I would suggest in the vicinity of 3-4 $million apiece! This includes wages, rec leave, LSL, sick leave & super. Then there's costs of training, tower maintenance etc.,..... and so the costs mount up. Av charges for these places are $14.70 x deemed MTOW (or per tonne). Some companies pay an annual fixed rate but the revenue received does not cover costs. GA is heavily crossed subsidised!
And, No, transiting aircraft are not charged a fee. There is no provision on
current ATC movement strips or traffic sheets to include transiting aircraft for the purpose of Avcharges.

[Clare Prop]

5 in 50..

Could you scan and post here a bill you have received for a transit of D? Redacting of course any personal info, but proof that it is on Airservices letterhead.

[5-in-50]

I will follow up on this in the coming weeks when able.

[Squawk7700]

Oh dear, there has been a development ;)

RAA have just voted to NOT act as an agent on behalf of members presumably due to overheads, so will cease to pass on invoices. They will be encouraging members to make their details available to Avdata.

This will be an interesting ride !

[kaz3g]

Oh dear, there has been a development

RAA have just voted to NOT act as an agent on behalf of members presumably due to overheads, so will cease to pass on invoices. They will be encouraging members to make their details available to Avdata.

This will be an interesting ride !


Why should RAAus incur costs so that a commercial entity can extract money from members for its own profit? The contract is between the user of the service and the provider.

And RAAus appears far more compliant with the Privacy Act than is CASA. It's hard to see how CASA can argue that putting my personal information on a publicly available website is a purpose associated with the purpose for which the information is lawfully collected and stored.

I also venture to suggest that cries of righteous indignation about RAAus aircraft not contributing to ASA for services are a bit hollow because the general rule is that RAAus certificate holders can't enter controlled airspace (need a PPL minimum, transponder, radio, TSO altimeter, etc). Those that meet all the requirements and use CTA are few and far between. Those that have managed to avoid aerodrome charges...good luck to them.

I'm not impressed with the Avdata set up. Received an account for 3 days parking at Moorabbin but no arrival/departure. Hadn't been there for more than 5 years!

Kaz

[Squawk7700]

There are actually plenty of Raaus aircraft incurring ASA fees given the increasing number of Raaus schools running in Class D, such as Moorabbin and Bankstown.

If you are using airports and the operators are not able to invoice you for it then something has to give as you are depriving them of income whilst utilizing their product or services. It would be like going to a gym and not paying or using a swimming pool by walking in unannounced. I suspect Avdata would do what car-epark operators do in Victoria and obtain a court order to retrieve the owner's details once they are ready to do an invoicing run.

[thorn bird]

"It's hard to see how CASA can argue that putting my personal information on a publicly available website is a purpose associated with the purpose for which the information is lawfully collected and stored."


Hmm?? so that's why Clive has his aircraft on foreign registers.:p

[Dexta]

Kaz3g Those that have managed to avoid aerodrome charges...good luck to them.

So what about private airfields that receive no government or council funding? What should they do? Close because nobody wants to pay? Then everyone will complain about "all the airports closing!". Most (if no all) privately owned airfields have "PPR" (Prior Permission Required) yet very few actually obtain this permission. So now an RA-Aus aircraft can fly in (usually without permission) and do a couple of touch-and-goes then fly off and the airfield cannot charge them? Well the obvious solution is to ban all RA-Aus aircraft that are not based at the airfield and any that do come in without permission give their details to CASA and the police for landing on private property and trespassing.

[Squawk7700]

Spot on Dexta, it's a gap that needs filling.

Those that have managed to avoid aerodrome charges...good luck to them.

Surprised to hear those words from a lawyer.

I'm not impressed with the Avdata set up. Received an account for 3 days parking at Moorabbin but no arrival/departure. Hadn't been there for more than 5 years!


Quite obviously the donation box system isn't working so they have to rely on ATC and radio recordings and human error is inevitable.

There used to be a donation box at Sunbury / Penfield airfield placed by old Doc. I recall one of the instructors telling me that he had never seen anyone make a donation in many years.

[Dick Smith]

Has anyone re registered their RA Aus aircraft with CASA ?

If not - what date are CASA quoting. And what will the cost be?

[thorn bird]

ANCPER,

Thanks for your post, and spot on


Wikipedia.


"In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) (see public choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory)), rent-seeking is spending wealth on political lobbying to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth. The effects of rent-seeking are reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocation_of_resources), reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking#cite_note-1) and national decline.
Current studies of rent-seeking focus on the manipulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) of regulatory agencies to gain monopolistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly) advantages in the market while imposing disadvantages on competitors. The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of gaining a portion of production through ownership or control of land".


About sums up what is happening and has happened in Australia.

[Squawk7700]

Hi Dick, What are you asking sorry when you refer to CASA and a date? I don't quite follow.

Are you referring to re-registering an RA-Aus registered factory built aircraft with CASA?

[Clare Prop]

Why on earth GA and the taxpayer or ratepayer should be subsidising RAAus so they get free use of infrastructure that everyone else has to pay for is pretty unfair.

Saying it is about "privacy" sounds like a way of wriggling out of paying their share.

A while ago when trying to trace the owner of a RAAUs aircraft who had caused havok I was told that the database was kept secret so that ex-wives couldn't get their hands on the aircraft asset in any kind of settlement. I found that pretty sickening.

[Squawk7700]

As I said in an earlier post their privacy protocols didn't stop the ATO.

Many an owner are hiding their prized assets from the ATO by being RA-Aus registered it has been alleged.

[kaz3g]

Those that have managed to avoid aerodrome charges...good luck to them.


Surprised to hear those words from a lawyer.

I'm a defence lawyer, not corporate. And I said "avoid" not "evade".

Kaz

[Creampuff]

Well played. :D:D

[kaz3g]

A while ago when trying to trace the owner of a RAAUs aircraft who had caused havok I was told that the database was kept secret so that ex-wives couldn't get their hands on the aircraft asset in any kind of settlement. I found that pretty sickening.

If true, it would not only be pig ignorant but also unlawful. It would also be most unlikely to be successful in that regard with severe penalties for the perjurer.


As I said in an earlier post their privacy protocols didn't stop the ATO.

Many an owner are (sic) hiding their prized assets from the ATO by being RA-Aus registered it has been alleged.



The above two sentences contradict one another. Tax evasion attracts penalties similar to perjury in marital cases.

You diminish people's right to privacy but post under a pseudonym. I at least use my name, and my aircraft and profession are well known.

Perhaps the answer for those who are complaining and expect user pays should apply to RAAus owners would be for ASA and Avdata to negotiate a fee for service with RAAus rather than expecting to access their commercial property for free as has been the case until now?

Seems fair to me.

CASA could do the same if it took our personal info off the internet.

Kaz

[Clare Prop]

It does sound more fair except that GA got a fait accompli with no negotiation.

[Jabawocky]

There is the other side of the coin……they could start refusing access to RAAUS registered aircraft and start a few nasty challenges for trespassing from there.

After a while the RAAus would get swamped with complaints not just from airports but from members about not being allowed access to all those aerodromes.

The aerodrome operators could then just hold them to account, either hand over the entire register, updated each month, accept all charges on behalf of the member, or be banned from landing.

Simple commercial pressure would work. Done legally this is the solution.

I get annoyed that assets that were once paid for by us, get sold or given away, then we get charged to use them, but in the end I accept that we need to fund them somehow. My home field is run by the aeroclub, and we pay for everything. The government make a buck, and we charge no landing fees. So it annoys me when I go to a regional place and get billed and yet a numbered machine pays nothing for the same service.

I think RAAus should change their ways and become responsible aero-citizens rather than smug in their ability to avoid paying like the rest of us do.

[Squawk7700]

Quote:
As I said in an earlier post their privacy protocols didn't stop the ATO.

Many an owner are (sic) hiding their prized assets from the ATO by being RA-Aus registered it has been alleged.

"The above two sentences contradict one another. Tax evasion attracts penalties similar to perjury in marital cases."


Fair enough I get the point. Many owners "were" hiding behind the firewall from the ATO.

[kaz3g]

Squarkey, the "point" is that MANY were never hiding behind the ATO or from the Family Court...that's just a slur on a whole group of people who, like most other groups of people, are mainly law-abiding citizens.

The "point" is that there are privacy laws in Australia and most of us benefit from them. There are legal obligations under those laws not to reveal personal information collected unless it is (a) by consent or (b) a necessary and related purpose to what it was collected for.

CASA is in breach of those obligations in my very humble view unless they satisfy (a) and (b) above. I don't think they do.

I'm not against a fair charge for services provided...just do it legally.

I read on another thread recently where some nutter was making threats of GBH against a commercial pilot and his charter business because his rotary wing made a bit of noise somewhere near the nutter's house. The nutter got his rego and it went from there.

Get onto your AOPA rep...you are a member, aren't you?...and agitate to have the VH register removed from the internet or made accessible to ARN holders only so that there is a semblance of compliance with the law.

Kaz

[gerry111]

I suspect that there may be one or more age pensioner owners of RAAUS registered aircraft. And that they aren't that concerned about the ATO. But perhaps they are with Centrelink?


There's lots of self funded retiree folks out there who benefit from having a part pension. Even if that only brings in a dollar a fortnight. And that's due to the fringe benefits that come with the age pension.


But their pensions come with an assets test. The family home, no matter how valuable, is not counted. Nor are all the assets previously used to buy an annuity.


But the aeroplane and/or boat may be an inconvenient truth.

[Squawk7700]

Bingo Gerry, you are absolutely spot on. I knew of several in each camp, ATO and Centrelink.

It was actually written in the monthly magazine a couple of years back that people were suspected of doing this and RA-Aus management wouldn't be hiding them from authorities.

There are some tricks around this in the GA world too but my lips are sealed.

[kaz3g]

I suspect that there may be one or more age pensioner owners of RAAUS registered aircraft. And that they aren't that concerned about the ATO. But perhaps they are with Centrelink?

How difficult is it for an ageing VH owner to transfer the rego of her aircraft to a family member and archieve the same result? Not even a transfer fee as I recall.

As I said to Squarky, beware lest you besmirch a whole group of fellow aviation enthusiasts without one scrap of evidence to justify it.

In my 70 plus years I have discovered that there is good and bad in every group of humans wherever they are. I have also learned the importance of our human rights and how easily they are lost or taken away from all of us because of fears just a very few may not discharge their attendant responsibilities.

I never did understand the mentality of teachers that kept a whole class back after school because one or two students in the class did the wrong thing...

Kaz

[Dexta]

kaz3g makes some good points re: privacy and not punishing the good people with the bad, but what is the alternative and what is fair?
Currently if an aircraft lands at an airfield where charges apply, then 1 of 3 things happen;
1. It is recorded by ATC/Ground and if VH then an invoice sent to the Reg Op/Owner. If RA-Aus then (I assume) an invoice sent to RA-Aus who then pass it on.
2. AVData record the call-sign and if VH then an invoice sent to Reg Op/Owner or if RA-Aus to RA-Aus who then pass it on.
3. The Airfield owner (if the aircraft doesn't do a full stop) observes or records the call-sign and if VH then sends an invoice or if RA-Aus sends it to RA-Aus who passes it on.

If RA-Aus have decided NOT to pass the invoice on what are the options? If the airport decides not to charge RA-Aus then that is not fair for VH. If the airports only option is to refer it to the police then that is tying up tax-payer resources which is not fair on everybody.
If an airport could register with RA-Aus to receive registration data for the purpose of billing then that would solve the problem (Can councils/Car park owners etc get registration details from Motor Reg or the Police?).
Of course the simple answer is that if everybody did the right thing, checked ERSA to see if AD charges apply, call the airport for details on how to pay etc. then there would be no problem, but as usual a very small minority do end up spoiling it for the rest of us no matter how hard we try to not punish the innocent.

[Squawk7700]

(Can councils/Car park owners etc get registration details from Motor Reg or the Police?).


It's a very interesting topic and a can of worms.

Car park owners need to obtain a court order to obtain the details. It's an interesting topic (private car parks) because those fines that you are issued by Car-E-park or similar operators are left on your windscreen, but at that point they have no idea who you actually are, and are hoping that you are an honest person and will send them payment for the fine. In fact, if you pay the fine by responding and don't give your personal details, they will never know who you are / were.

If you choose not to pay, they will obtain an court order, usually hundreds at a time under the one order. Once they have it, they will hit you for the full amount. The whole operation can be a tad shonky and there are numerous websites out there that tell you your rights. They essentially have to prove that you have deprived them of income by using their facilities.

Of course the simple answer is that if everybody did the right thing, checked ERSA to see if AD charges apply, call the airport for details on how to pay etc. then there would be no problem, but as usual a very small minority do end up spoiling it for the rest of us no matter how hard we try to not punish the innocent.

That would be logical, however it's difficult to achieve and a fair wad of paperwork.

The logical solution is to have RA-Aus strike an agreement around privacy with Avdata as to the supply of the aircraft register.

I can't see any other way that it could work effectively. Maybe RA-Aus could write to members and get their tick of approval to give their details to AvData. As for what happens when people don't give approval... who knows. Maybe an opt-out would be appropriate. RA-Aus can't be seen to denying income for airfield operators.

[gerry111]

Your admonition is accepted, Kaz. I worded that very poorly in hindsight.


I didn't mean that just because there's an opportunity for abuse that it actually happens. What angers me is the way in which I believe the assets test for the age pension is so easily abused. And I'm talking about all of society here.


I've had many age pensioner customers over the last 27 years of running my small business. And many of them, in my view, live in poverty.

[kaz3g]

Gerry111

I've had many age pensioner customers over the last 27 years of running my small business. And many of them, in my view, live in poverty.

I'm old and in the middle of another big week so please excuse me if I seemed grumpy.

All my clients are low income and the great majority are on pensions. Low income seems to fit hand in glove with low self-esteem and high rates of mental illness. These in turn produce a demographic with high rates of substance abuse, poor general health and increased needs for legal assistance...crime, financial distress, housing, etc.

Needless to say I see more value in taking steps to help people lift themselves out of poverty than screwing them further.

Likewise I see more value in bringing RAAus owners and pilots into the general aviation community rather than maintaining some divisive them and us distinction. Their numbers alone could add significantly to the strength of a unified voice to Government given half a chance.

Kaz

[Philthy]

CASA could do the same if it took our personal info off the internet.

I know there are good reasons for people wanting their information to be private, and that our views on these things have changed considerably since the aircraft Register was first begun, but as someone with pretensions as an aviation history buff I can only say that I would be disappointed if ownership information became inaccessible.

One of the rich seams of Australia's aviation history (and not just Australia, but the way) is the ability to trace the history of each and every VH-registered aircraft that has ever been. You have only to look at Geoff Goodall's fabulous website GEOFF GOODALL'S AVIATION HISTORY SITE (http://www.goodall.com.au) or Eddie Coates' equally terrific site Ed Coates Aircraft Photographs (http://www.edcoatescollection.com) to know what a fantastic historical resource this is over the long term.

Just my 2c worth.

Philthy