Rottnest Island Avdata charging for missed approaches
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm... As an Airport Manager myself, over the ditch, I wonder how some of you expect that we should get paid for providing a nice runway for you?
I can't comment on CASA regs, but here in NZ you are not allowed to fly below 500feet AGL unless for the purpose of a training flight within a designated low flying area, OR for the purpose of Take Off or Landing or practising the same.
Therefore if you are flying below 500feet AGL over our runway, you are most certainly using the facility as it was what makes your flight path legal.
Now we could argue the finer points of that one, but here is another way to view it: When you are on late final for the purpose of a missed approach, is it OK if another aircraft lines up and takes off under you? No, it is not. For that period of time you have exclusive use of that runway facility whether YOU choose to land, touch and go, or go around, it was your runway to use and no one elses.
I can't comment on CASA regs, but here in NZ you are not allowed to fly below 500feet AGL unless for the purpose of a training flight within a designated low flying area, OR for the purpose of Take Off or Landing or practising the same.
Therefore if you are flying below 500feet AGL over our runway, you are most certainly using the facility as it was what makes your flight path legal.
Now we could argue the finer points of that one, but here is another way to view it: When you are on late final for the purpose of a missed approach, is it OK if another aircraft lines up and takes off under you? No, it is not. For that period of time you have exclusive use of that runway facility whether YOU choose to land, touch and go, or go around, it was your runway to use and no one elses.
Last edited by Simon Lockie; 6th Jun 2012 at 01:52.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought many moons ago someone mentioned on Pprune that AvData were acting illegally by intercepting the radio calls that enable them to charge. I haven't been able to find anything in the legislation but this dedicated site SA Scan had this:
It's a bit like Optus picking up an AFL match and rebroadcasting to Smartphones, which is a case they recently lost in the High Court. It would be a valid argument that to intercept ANY data and rebroadcast it in any form (i.e. render and account to the the aircraft owner) would be the same as what Optus lost out on.
I wonder what would happen if you wrote to AVDATA and:
(1) claimed copyright to your radio transmissions from your aircraft and refused them permission to listen/record or re-transmit in any form,
(2) advise there would be a charge levied should they ignore your instructions.
(3) the levy for unauthorized use would be equal to the highest access charge on the AVDATA schedule.
Contrary to widespread belief, scanning is perfectly legal. However, you should not use information obtained from listening for commercial gain or criminal activity. Monitoring phone conversations on your scanner is also forbidden. Apart from that, you can pretty well scan as you please, though discretion is advised when using scanners in public. For instance, being an 'ambulance chaser' and turning up at accident scenes, hindering emergency services is an extremely foolish and inappropriate thing to do. Genuine scanner enthusiasts don't want to give politicians an excuse to ban or restrict the hobby, as has occurred in other countries.
I wonder what would happen if you wrote to AVDATA and:
(1) claimed copyright to your radio transmissions from your aircraft and refused them permission to listen/record or re-transmit in any form,
(2) advise there would be a charge levied should they ignore your instructions.
(3) the levy for unauthorized use would be equal to the highest access charge on the AVDATA schedule.
A few years ago a local airport tried the same trick over here. I won't mention the airport but they were the only ones at that time I was aware of carrying out this daylight robbery, greedy buggers. I basically told them to get lost.
Most airport companies over here have sprung up from local council beginnings and have been corporatised into a money making venture instead of just being a community facility. There seems to be a never ending contest to have the longest runway, fanciest terminal, or international status even though passenger numbers don't provide for such extravagances. They try to support their illusions of granduer, with excessive fees and other cunning money grabbing ideas.
They have a monopoly and take full advantage of that fact.
P.S. Simon there's no need to have to go below 500 ft AGL to complete a training exercise for an instrument approach so I presume you wouldn't bother sending an account in this situation.
Most airport companies over here have sprung up from local council beginnings and have been corporatised into a money making venture instead of just being a community facility. There seems to be a never ending contest to have the longest runway, fanciest terminal, or international status even though passenger numbers don't provide for such extravagances. They try to support their illusions of granduer, with excessive fees and other cunning money grabbing ideas.
They have a monopoly and take full advantage of that fact.
P.S. Simon there's no need to have to go below 500 ft AGL to complete a training exercise for an instrument approach so I presume you wouldn't bother sending an account in this situation.
Last edited by 27/09; 6th Jun 2012 at 08:54.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few overlapping issues here:
1) I fully understand that no one wants to pay for services they didn't use and it can be tedious to follow up on these things to have them cancelled. I always give people the benefit of the doubt when they say they didn't land here.
2) I'm sure we all want fees (if any) to be as low as possible. It follows then that the most efficient way to charge fees and collect them makes the most sense for everyone. As someone else has mentioned if a method other than radio transmissions needs to be found, it will likely cost more to administer and therefore fees will increase.
3) 1 & 2 notwithstanding, If you agree that you should pay the aerodrome a fee for the use of their facility - Then the aerodrome making use of the radio transmissions to simplify the collection of that fee is mutually beneficial. In which case it is not for commercial gain at all, it is an aid to help simplify an accepted transaction between two parties.
If you don't think you should pay an aerodrome to use their facility, you are quite welcome to avoid paying them by simply not going there.
I can't really speak to the issue of the "Corporatised Money Making Venture" type aerodromes as I have no experience in that. Our aerodrome has always been privately owned and we are kept honest by the very simple fact that if we charge too much we won't have any customers.
Additionally, we don't have an instrument approach so I can't comment on that either.
I hope somewhere in the middle ground pilots who accept the need to pay usage based fees towards the upkeep of an aerodrome should have an expectation that the fees will be fairly and accurately calculated. Both parties should help to make this transaction as fast and painless as possible.
1) I fully understand that no one wants to pay for services they didn't use and it can be tedious to follow up on these things to have them cancelled. I always give people the benefit of the doubt when they say they didn't land here.
2) I'm sure we all want fees (if any) to be as low as possible. It follows then that the most efficient way to charge fees and collect them makes the most sense for everyone. As someone else has mentioned if a method other than radio transmissions needs to be found, it will likely cost more to administer and therefore fees will increase.
3) 1 & 2 notwithstanding, If you agree that you should pay the aerodrome a fee for the use of their facility - Then the aerodrome making use of the radio transmissions to simplify the collection of that fee is mutually beneficial. In which case it is not for commercial gain at all, it is an aid to help simplify an accepted transaction between two parties.
If you don't think you should pay an aerodrome to use their facility, you are quite welcome to avoid paying them by simply not going there.
I can't really speak to the issue of the "Corporatised Money Making Venture" type aerodromes as I have no experience in that. Our aerodrome has always been privately owned and we are kept honest by the very simple fact that if we charge too much we won't have any customers.
Additionally, we don't have an instrument approach so I can't comment on that either.
I hope somewhere in the middle ground pilots who accept the need to pay usage based fees towards the upkeep of an aerodrome should have an expectation that the fees will be fairly and accurately calculated. Both parties should help to make this transaction as fast and painless as possible.
Folks,
Be careful in Victoria, there is some state legislation that enables charging for local council owned facilities, such as an NDB, when used for practice, even if you never land. The fees are enforceable.
The one that get me is one council that tries to charge for practice GNSS approaches (without landings or coming anywhere near the airfield.) ---- maybe they think they bought the GPS signals from the US DoD.
Before you ask, the council did not pay for the establishment of the GNSS procedure.
Tootle pip!!
Be careful in Victoria, there is some state legislation that enables charging for local council owned facilities, such as an NDB, when used for practice, even if you never land. The fees are enforceable.
The one that get me is one council that tries to charge for practice GNSS approaches (without landings or coming anywhere near the airfield.) ---- maybe they think they bought the GPS signals from the US DoD.
Before you ask, the council did not pay for the establishment of the GNSS procedure.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 7th Jun 2012 at 11:37.
Moderator
Thread Starter
There's an ILS in Albany that is council owned and people need to pay for the use of. Poteroo told me how much the thing had cost to install and maintain 
, yet still some people think the ratepayers should pay for it.
Rottnest Island however is a different story. If you haven't landed there you haven't used the facilities, such as they are, as it is an island entry fee. And at $44.00 you want to get your money's worth for a locked terminal and the windsock stuck at right angles to the runway.
, yet still some people think the ratepayers should pay for it.Rottnest Island however is a different story. If you haven't landed there you haven't used the facilities, such as they are, as it is an island entry fee. And at $44.00 you want to get your money's worth for a locked terminal and the windsock stuck at right angles to the runway.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled:
The relevant Victorian State legislation is the Aerodrome Landing Fees Act 2003. Under this legislation, one can be charged for simply making a training visual approach to a runway; doesn't necessarily have to be associated with the use of aerodrome based navaid facilities.
Airport operators can exercise discretion as to whether they wish to participate in and/or enforce the provisions of this Act.
Be careful in Victoria, there is some state legislation that enables charging for local council owned facilities, such as an NDB, when used for practice, even if you never land. The fees are enforceable.
Airport operators can exercise discretion as to whether they wish to participate in and/or enforce the provisions of this Act.
Leadsled, this is a piece of legislation that should be repealed or tested in the High Court. This enabled Linfox to charge for approach practice at AV. Have always thought it contravened the Navigation Act. Least I think it was that act that allowed the Feds the sole right to legislate wrt aviation.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't mean to dig up an old thread... but this one encouraged me to rejoin PPrune after 10 years.
Like many others, I too was charged $47 for a "landing" at YRTI without a wheel getting anywhere close to touching the ground. When I queried Avdata via email, they replied that it was "because the pilot called that he had entered the circuit and conducted a missed approach".
Despite the fact that even this claim is false (we were taking photos of an aircraft conducting a missed approach!) I started digging around to find what legislation gave the Rottnest Island Authority the power to charge people for airport (and airspace) use.
The legislation pertaining to landing fees at YRTI is the Rottnest Island Regulations 1988. The relevant excerpt is below (highlighting mine):
Subregulation (1) clearly states that an aircraft has to land at the island *and* persons have to be carried to the island. It's a little unclear whether these "persons" must alight at the island, but subregulation (2) implies that a "person carried to the island" would ordinarily be subject to an island admission fee. It would be hard to argue that the admission fee is payable for someone who never exits the aircraft and enters the island.
After explaining this to Avdata (and receiving no reply) I magically had a reversal on my account.
I also mentioned that I could not find any documentation or reference by the RIA that Avdata was acting on their behalf to collect landing fees. Presumably they aren't a random scammer BUT HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW?
It seems pretty clear to me that:
- If your wheels do not touch the ground at YRTI, there is no fee payable.
- Even if you land at YRTI and nobody gets off the aircraft, you still probably do not have to pay.
I think there are many people who are paying for navaid training and/or missed approaches (and perhaps even circuit training) at YRTI that probably shouldn't be.
On a side note - Avdata's hit rate for false positives with my aircraft is now over 50%. They consume quite a lot of my time with requests for reversals. It's annoying, to say the least.
Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice! I'm just sharing my experience.
Like many others, I too was charged $47 for a "landing" at YRTI without a wheel getting anywhere close to touching the ground. When I queried Avdata via email, they replied that it was "because the pilot called that he had entered the circuit and conducted a missed approach".
Despite the fact that even this claim is false (we were taking photos of an aircraft conducting a missed approach!) I started digging around to find what legislation gave the Rottnest Island Authority the power to charge people for airport (and airspace) use.
The legislation pertaining to landing fees at YRTI is the Rottnest Island Regulations 1988. The relevant excerpt is below (highlighting mine):
7B. Aerodrome usage fees
(1) Subject to regulations 7C and 7D, the owner of an aircraft in
which persons are carried to the Island shall pay to the
Authority, for each occasion when the aircraft lands at the
Island, the aerodrome usage fee set out in Schedule 6 item 1.
(2) If the owner of an aircraft pays the applicable aerodrome usage
fee under subregulation (1) or annual payment under
regulation 7C, a person who is carried to the Island in the
aircraft shall be deemed to have paid the admission fee
prescribed by regulation 5.
[Regulation 7B inserted in Gazette 30 Dec 1994 p. 7348;amended in Gazette 29 Jul 2011 p. 3144.]
Sections 7C and 7D refer to annual payments in lieu, and exceptions. These are not relevant for an ad-hoc user.(1) Subject to regulations 7C and 7D, the owner of an aircraft in
which persons are carried to the Island shall pay to the
Authority, for each occasion when the aircraft lands at the
Island, the aerodrome usage fee set out in Schedule 6 item 1.
(2) If the owner of an aircraft pays the applicable aerodrome usage
fee under subregulation (1) or annual payment under
regulation 7C, a person who is carried to the Island in the
aircraft shall be deemed to have paid the admission fee
prescribed by regulation 5.
[Regulation 7B inserted in Gazette 30 Dec 1994 p. 7348;amended in Gazette 29 Jul 2011 p. 3144.]
Subregulation (1) clearly states that an aircraft has to land at the island *and* persons have to be carried to the island. It's a little unclear whether these "persons" must alight at the island, but subregulation (2) implies that a "person carried to the island" would ordinarily be subject to an island admission fee. It would be hard to argue that the admission fee is payable for someone who never exits the aircraft and enters the island.
After explaining this to Avdata (and receiving no reply) I magically had a reversal on my account.
I also mentioned that I could not find any documentation or reference by the RIA that Avdata was acting on their behalf to collect landing fees. Presumably they aren't a random scammer BUT HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW?
It seems pretty clear to me that:
- If your wheels do not touch the ground at YRTI, there is no fee payable.
- Even if you land at YRTI and nobody gets off the aircraft, you still probably do not have to pay.
I think there are many people who are paying for navaid training and/or missed approaches (and perhaps even circuit training) at YRTI that probably shouldn't be.
On a side note - Avdata's hit rate for false positives with my aircraft is now over 50%. They consume quite a lot of my time with requests for reversals. It's annoying, to say the least.
Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice! I'm just sharing my experience.
Moderator
Thread Starter
It would be interesting to persue whether the fee is payable if the passengers don't get out at Rottnest.
I did get a win with Avdata and they don't try to mess with me now.
It's Airservices who are currently causing a lot of wasted time chasing credits for double charging for landings and charging for days the aircraft never flew.
Last Airservices bill approx. 10% of the charges were false.
I did get a win with Avdata and they don't try to mess with me now.
It's Airservices who are currently causing a lot of wasted time chasing credits for double charging for landings and charging for days the aircraft never flew.
Last Airservices bill approx. 10% of the charges were false.
I got slugged for a landing fee at Ballina after an NDB and missed approach. It was not the airport or Avdata, but by the flying school I hired an aircraft from (a major player on the Gold Coast). No amount of protesting from me would see them review this, as they insist that Ballina charges for missed approaches.
Needless to say, I will not hire from them again!
Needless to say, I will not hire from them again!
There was a school around these parts that used to slug people $21 for contacting Perth Approach. The fee is to make a missed approach and only payable if you have contacted Perth Tower! I don't know if they are still doing that.
Av..erroneous..data
Frog Storm.... Might need some hunting up but Avdata have already had a loss in court, many years ago They took a non payer to court and the individual won.
The outcome was... By law Avdata ( or anyone else for that matter)..has to supply you with a TRUE and ACCURATE account. If it contains errors, that is THEIR problem. You MAY advise them of those errors but it is not your responsibility. That you receive a TRUE and PROPER account IS theirs.
In the past accounts have shown landings to and parking at places Ive never been..running into 100s of dollars in some cases.
So..carefully check those invoices !
When absent and the account unpaid, month by month they added
$50 p/m...so I get back to base and the 23 $ bill is now $223.!!
With a big red marker pen, a few terse words put a stop to that sh*t.
Anthill...dont let the horror stories put you off aviating. There are more councils that have seen the light these days, and smallies are free. Any landing charges levied were mostly lost to Avdata, with little benefit to the council anyway.
The outcome was... By law Avdata ( or anyone else for that matter)..has to supply you with a TRUE and ACCURATE account. If it contains errors, that is THEIR problem. You MAY advise them of those errors but it is not your responsibility. That you receive a TRUE and PROPER account IS theirs.
In the past accounts have shown landings to and parking at places Ive never been..running into 100s of dollars in some cases.
So..carefully check those invoices !
When absent and the account unpaid, month by month they added
$50 p/m...so I get back to base and the 23 $ bill is now $223.!!
With a big red marker pen, a few terse words put a stop to that sh*t.
Anthill...dont let the horror stories put you off aviating. There are more councils that have seen the light these days, and smallies are free. Any landing charges levied were mostly lost to Avdata, with little benefit to the council anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: australia
Age: 66
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once received an invoice from AVDATA for a landing at Bankstown by my Tiger Moth, which at the time was in a hangar at Murwillumbah with its wings off, undergoing maintenance.
I wrote back explaining the facts and pointing out that the only way the charge could have been incurred was if someone had snuck into the hangar during our lunch break, refitted the wings and flown to YSBK and back in an hour.
They wrote back demanding payment.
(I ignored it and they eventually gave up.)
I wrote back explaining the facts and pointing out that the only way the charge could have been incurred was if someone had snuck into the hangar during our lunch break, refitted the wings and flown to YSBK and back in an hour.
They wrote back demanding payment.
(I ignored it and they eventually gave up.)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RI regs 5(5)...
"An admission fee is not payable in respect of a person —
(f) while he is on a vessel or aircraft that enters within the limits of the Island and leaves without being anchored or moored, or in the case of an aircraft without landing."
Although the Regulations appear to cover just about anything other than when you empty your bowels, I can't see anything that remotely allows them to charge for the use of navaids on a missed approach or for a landing that is not a landing in fact.
Kaz
"An admission fee is not payable in respect of a person —
(f) while he is on a vessel or aircraft that enters within the limits of the Island and leaves without being anchored or moored, or in the case of an aircraft without landing."
Although the Regulations appear to cover just about anything other than when you empty your bowels, I can't see anything that remotely allows them to charge for the use of navaids on a missed approach or for a landing that is not a landing in fact.
Kaz
Last edited by kaz3g; 18th Apr 2014 at 03:06. Reason: Lazy
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anthill Buy a boat, much more satisfying and you legally can fix it yourself and no oversight from eager agencies wanting to prosecute you all in all much more satisfying leisure pursuit