Avalon charging pilots for GPS approaches.

[Hudson]

Currently Avalon owners are charging light aircraft for the privilege of doing a GPS Arrival and /or GPS NPA. Three NPA's will cost you around $33 if your voice is recorded on the MBZ tape. No wonder some pilots resort to non-tranmission of MBZ radio procedures.

Sorting out the Avalon owners who are ripping off GA pilots in this regard should be a good test case for the new managing team of AOPA. GA Pilots calling AOPA? Are you out there somewhere?

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

Well the costs associated over years and years of research, development and investment in infrastructure to set up the GPS network need to be recouped.

Linfox can quite rightly charge to use their system.

It is theirs, isn't it? :*

[Bevan666]

I think you may need to check on who paid for the publication of the GPS approach. If Linfox paid for the approach to be published and tested I believe they have the right to charge for it. The costs to get an instrument approach published and tested is in the order of $20k or so. Not cheap.

If that is not the case then they should not charge for it.

Bevan..

[Planned Root]

They should be taken to task over this otherwise it may set a precedent for other airport owners.

Surely AOPA must be able to obtain expert legal advice and in turn advise their members the result.

Gaunty?

[Menen]

It is my understanding that when the current owner of Avalon took over, that Air Services who had previously designed the GPS NPA, and who had paid all the associated costs, gave the charts and amendments to the owners free of charge. It would seem therefore that Avalon is charging for services they themselves got for free. I believe AOPA wrote letters on the subject to Avalon owners several months back but had no reply. Due to lack of interest from GA operators who use Avalon in jacking up over the charges (they just add it on to the cost of the flight), AOPA did not pursue the issue - understandably.

[Dehavillanddriver]

hold file.

While Linfox can probably claim to be a big company, they are not the US department of defence, who are the owners of the GPS network.

Charging for GPS approaches where the aircraft doesn't actually touch the runway is typical of big business thinking, but I would have thought that the charges are not actually legal and binding because I would have thought that the airspace above the airfield is NOT the property of the airport owner, merely the runway and tarmac.

The precedent that it would set if unsucessfully challenged would be enormous - I could charge $50 for each departure ex Brissie that flies over my house - they are flying a published SID (no different than a published GPS approach I would have thought) - I can see the registrations and can log them.

Now there is an idea!!

Anyone have AVcharges phone number?????

[pullock]

I used to be all for privitisation of government departments. I believed that the government should not control or compete in an arena where the private sector could operate, because it limited the rights and freedom of individuals through excessive governmental control, and government beaurocratic inefficiencies that ultimately cost the consumer far more than what private industry would ecause of competitive efficiency.

I now know otherwise. I have seen the privitisation of many industries, the first of which was third party insurance in New South Wales. It was intended to bring advantage to everyone through cheaper car insurance costs. Now there is no more expensive state in which to register ones car. This is but one example of privitisation failure. The airports are another.

I have learned that big business is no friend of anyone. As much as government operations are all about control through rule, big business is about control via economic necessity, and there is just no available objection to this type of control.

Can someone please challenge me by showing me a positive to privitisation??

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

Dehavillanddriver-

No Sh!t.

[tobzalp]

Don't like it? Don't do it.

[snarek]

Hudson and Planned Root

Last year, on behalf of a member, I obtained legal advice and wrote to Avalon management.

Essentially that advice was.

1. Avalon don't own airspace, so charging for an approach without a landing is moot.

2. Avalon don't own the GPS. It is owned by the US DoD and licenced to operate in Australia by Aust DoD.

3. AOPA felt that pilots purchased the right to use the approach by purchasing the DAPS. The right to publish that DAP is an issue between Avalon and AsA.

So, if you feel you are being unfairly charged, challenge it!!!

In reality, they can't turn off the GPS, so they can only refuse you the right to use the facilities they own if they feel they are right.

What more will AOPA do. Well, we have ONE paying member so far identified as having an issue. Feel free to post on the AOPA forum and we will see how many members are interested. We don't have the resources to follow up issues for non-members. Sorry.

Regards

Andrew Kerans

[High Altitude]

Does not sound very fair at all...

But there is always a way around it... Just don't do it...

I'm sure there are other GPS approaches around that you can use.

Now what about if you land? Are you charged for the approach and landing or just the landing?

Or set a precedent and refuse to pay the bill sure you may end up in court but??? Get a group together and see what happens.

Reminds me of the NT Gov trying to make the Katherine Gorge a restricted area that you had to pay to use???

[404 Titan]

And the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park trying to charge for flying over the reef. Refused to pay it and there was nothing they could do about it. They didn't own the air space.:p

[I Fly]

Canberra Airport Limited tried to charge me a landing fee for an ILS without touching down. I asked them to provide me with documented evidence as to what height they bought the air as well when they bought the airport. I told them “I will stay above the air you own”. They dropped the charges. Does that set a precedent?

[Planned Root]

Snarek,

Thank you for the reply. I am a member and do not recall seeing anything about the matter published in the magazine, if it was at all.

If not then it should have been conveyed to all somehow as that is what members and potential members like to see and read. That sort of thing gets people signed up.

Good on you for pursuing the matter - its appreciated.

Hi Altitude,

I do not agree with your view of just going elsewhere.

This is a cop out and serves only as a precedent for other airport owners to pull the same stunt. They need to be taken to task over these issues and shown that we as an industry will not tolerate the ever increasing amount of hands that are put out for unfair and unjustified charges.

Good question though in regards to whether one would be charged for the approach then a separate landing fee.

[Menen]

Snarek. So basically, Avalon owners have told AOPA to belt up?

Obviously you have done your best under the circumstances but if the GA operators are too apathetic to take it up any further then that's the end of the story. Thanks for trying.

[Planned Root]

Menen,

Unless I have missed something or misunderstood Snarek's reply, Avalon owners have not told AOPA anything in response.

[triadic]

This was raised at some of the RAPACs some years back and the result was that the owner of an airport had NO rights to charge for use of uncontrolled airspace in the vicinity of an airport.

Provide a tower and other ATS services and it is a different matter.

As per the previous post, show us where the airport owner "owns" the airspace and under what authority or act?

Don't pay.

[Menen]

Planned Root. Exactly. By ignoring the AOPA letter, the implication is that AOPA are not worth a reply.

[paddopat]

Gee menen

Give the guys a break. They try, you say good things then you have a go. At lease AOPA tried.

I think the Katherine Gorge and GBRMPA debacles give you the clue. Don't pay. Also, ask AOPA for a copy of the letter, remind Avalon of it when they come after you.

They don't own the sky and cant charge you for using it!!!

Pat

[snarek]

OK

I now have two members confirmed as affected, one identified, one not (PR???).

While I couldn't possibly tell you to 'not pay', I can note that not paying definitely worked for Katherine Gorge!

I don't know about GBRMPA, this is the first I have heard of a 'charge', was it a reef tax????

If we have enough members we could form an 'interest group' and discuss tactics.

E-mail me,

[email protected]

AK

[Planned Root]

snarek,

No, I'm not directly affected. It just ph_cks me off to see it happen because of the precedent it sets if nothing is done about it.

Thanks again for doing something about it.

[Islander Jock]

Is there a Ministry of Fair Trading or equivalent in Victoria?

Perhaps a phone call to that office might give some insight into the legality of charging for something you do not own.

C'mon Creampuff how about a legal opinion on this.

I'm with Triadic - refuse to pay the b@stards. Other airfields have tried this in the past and whilst they may have stung a few, ended up with egg on their faces in the end.

[Menen]

Paddopat. You misunderstand me. I have the greatest regard for our AOPA - certainly was not knocking their efforts to fix up Avalon on behalf of GA operators in the Melbourne area. But AOPA cannot do this without indications from the affected operators that they want it fixed. And if Avalon don't reply to correspondence from AOPA then that's the end of the story.

It is easier for operators to tack on the extra Avalon bucks at the end of the students account rather than engage in legal proceedings which will only fill the pockets of the lawyers.

[snarek]

Menen

Are you agreeing with me just to make me like you :)

Here's a proposal. An AOPA airports support 'team'. That doesn't mean me doing all the work either guys!!! :D

We get together interested AOPA members from each and hopefully every airport in the country, we put a bit of dough in (locally to the local group) and organise via AOPA.

When something like the Avalon rort comes up, we all write nasty letters, pay out on governments and if necessary, with AOPA assistance, we take em to court!!!

Who is game??

AK

[Disco Stu]

Nothing wrong with snarek's suggestion.

In the case of YMAV and a charge for a GPS APCH, I think this demonstrates the low level of understanding of matters aviation of the originator of the charge. Quite simply if they actually knew what they were doing then they wouldn't have made such a charge.

The demonstrated lack of aviation understanding is in reality more of a worry than the actual charge itself. And to think the owner/s of YMAV thought they could run an airline.:yuk:

Good try though, trying to charge for something they don't own:confused:

Disco Stu:ok:

[snarek]

Stu

Over a year ago I phoned them, twice, and wrote them a nasty letter (reminds me of a Kevin Bl@@dy Wilson song).

They know what they are doing allright. They knew before we (AOPA) told them it wasn't on!!

In my view they are being just like the rortsters from Ghana, try it on and make a few bucks from suckers.

Sick em Rex. :E

AK

[compressor stall]

Not familiar with the airspace around avalon, but what's wrong (in VMC) with saying that you are joining a 20odd mile final at the MSA and descending according to a 3 degree glideslope from about 6 miles?

Do you still get charged?:8

[snarek]

First.

Thanks for bringing this to out attention.

Second, we (AOPA via Marjorie Pagani) are trying to stop this. BUT we can't do it alone.

Write letters, get up your local member. Tell everyone you know. Send emergency e-mails etc.

If you don't fight it now you can either end up paying for all practise approaches or end up in the courts!!!

Read the gem of section (e) and imagine what they could charge you for!!!

(1) An aerodrome operator may fix a fee in relation to
that aerodrome for any or all of the following—

(d) a training flight approach;

(e) the carrying out of an activity, or the
provision of a service, directly related to the
arrival, departure, parking or training flight
approach of an aircraft;

PS, a few more members would help, try joining AOPA and helping us fight this sort of bull.

AK