Aeronautical Information Charges

[Mike Cross]

Hi Guys

Does anyone have any info or comment on the pending court case between Airservices Australia and Jeppesen Sanderson Inc?

I've started a thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115913) which gives the background.

You people seem to be in the forefront of plans for worldwide price hikes.

Mike Cross
for AOPA UK

[Mike Cross]

Yes they are required under Annex 15 to provide an AIS and the suggestion is that it's paid for out of en-route charges.

Press release here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mediainfo/press/Archive/prarchive2003/PR11_03.asp)

The data has up to now been free, this is a new charge they are trying to impose.

Mike

[Pharcarnell]

It would appear that AsA has found what they think to be a new cash cow in the herd and are going to try and milk it till it screams.
Why does this sound typical of a government organisation in this "user pays" world.:mad:

[the wizard of auz]

I seem to remember a few years back, I suggested this was going to happen. It all looked a bit sus when you used to access the avfax system and it asked for your Account number.
Every time they make a change to the system, it seems to be towards a chargeing,tracking,accounting sort of thing. :mad:
wouldn't mind a user pays system if one got, a)some service. b)pay for what you use. c)the information was required, relavent and current. d)wasn't priced at some figure, pulled from the air.

[NOtimTAMs]

Wiz

Thank god for:

1. AIS MET

2. Phones that may or may not be rotary dial when calling briefing...

Cheers

NoTemptins

[wish2bflying]

I can understand licensing restrictions on changing the info, if it's true that repackaging of the info has caused problems, but I'm not sure that charging $$$'s is a good idea for the aviation community as a whole.

This probably comes down to the fact that government departments and statutory bodies like this are having to find their own revenue more and more often to be able to continue providing services and pay staff.

Last time we told them we needed 1.2m for IT expenditure just to keep things running, Treasury arbitrarily halved that and said suck it in, you're going to find a way to do it with 600k. Then they complained when things didn't get done because staff left, we didn't have budget to replace them and nothing went forward. :rolleyes:

... but I digress.

Safety = good. Balance and common sense = good also.

--
Michael.

[swh]

This ability for Airservices to charge for that data has been around for a while.

In the Air Services Act 1995 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/2/1217/0/PA000160.htm) Section 8(1) AA has the following functions:
(a)providing services and facilities:
"services" being :services includes:
(a) air traffic services;
(b) an aeronautical information service;
(c) an aeronautical radio navigation service;
(d) an aeronautical telecommunications service;
(e) rescue and fire fighting services.

And they may(4) Any service or facility that AA has power to provide may be provided by AA under a contract.

HOWEVER Section 9 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/2/1217/0/PA000170.htm)
Manner in which AA must perform its functions

(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, AA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), AA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a)the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b)the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.

(3)AA must perform its functions in a manner that is consistent with Australia's obligations under:
(a)the Chicago Convention; and
(b)any other agreement between Australia and any other country or countries relating to the safety of air navigation.

AND Section 10 (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/2/1217/0/PA000180.htm)
AA must consult and cooperate

In the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, AA must, where appropriate, consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer and other relevant bodies and organisations (including ICAO and bodies representing the aviation industry).

Placing a press release on a web site is not consultation.

Article 15 of the Chicargo convention, which is also appexdix 1 of the Air Navigation Act 1920, says...

Airport and similar charges.

Every airport in a contracting State which is open to public use by its national aircraft shall likewise, subject to the provisions of Article 68, be open under uniform conditions to the aircraft of all the other contracting States. The like uniform conditions shall apply to the use, by aircraft of every contracting State, of all air navigation facilities, including radio and meteorological services, which may be provided for public use for the safety and expedition of air navigation.
Any charges that may be imposed or permitted to be imposed by a contracting State for the use of such airports and air navigation facilities by the aircraft of any other contracting State shall not be higher,
(a) As to aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services, than those that would be paid by its national aircraft of the same class engaged in similar operations, and
(b) As to aircraft engaged in scheduled international air services, than those that would be paid by its national aircraft engaged in similar international air services.
All such charges shall be published and communicated to the International Civil Aviation Organization: provided that, upon representation by an interested contracting State, the charges imposed for the use of airports and other facilities shall be subject to review by the Council, which shall report and make recommendations thereon for the consideration of the State or States concerned. No fees, dues or other charges shall be imposed by any contracting State in respect solely of the right of transit over or entry into or exit from its territory of any aircraft of a contracting State or persons or property thereon.

Would this mean :
a) AA would have to tell ICAO how much it planned to bill people for the data ?
b) People who use AA documents pay the same amount as the people who use Jepp documents ?
c) AA would have to charge themself the same amount they would charge Jepp ?

[Mike Cross]

Also from Annex 15 of the Chicago Convention, to which Australia is a signatory:-

ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices. Aeronautical Information Services, Annex 15

3.5 Cost Recovery

Recommendation.- The overhead cost of collecting and compiling aeronautical information/data should be included in the cost basis for airport and air navigation services charges, as appropriate, in accordance with the principles contained in the Statements by the Council to Contracting States on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services (Doc 9082)



That should be where this cost is being recovered from at present.
Have Australia filed a difference on this point?

Mike

[swh]

Mike,

The ICAO convention is incorporated into the Air Navigation Act 1920 as amended (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/82/0/PA001210.htm)

"Article 38 of the Convention requires, where a State finds it impracticable to comply in all respects with a standard, or to bring its own regulations or practices into full accord with a standard, that notification be given to ICAO."

Copies of current differences notified to ICAO by Australia can be found on the DOTARS website (http://www.dotars.gov.au/avnapt/ipb/icao/annex_contents.htm). It would appear no differance has been lodged to 3.5.

As Australia already has a system in place for charging airport and air navigation services charges, one would think they could hardly use Art. 38 to get around it.

[the wizard of auz]

SWH mate, your giving them books a hiding, you bored up there or what?

[triadic]

AirServices are seeking to do something and to charge for it in a manner that no other country in the world does including the UK which is often viewed as one of the most expensive places to do business in aviation. Why should one of the smallest countries in terms of aviation activity want to charge more for if not for greed? or perhaps a corporate lack of understanding of what it is all about?

It is interesting that all of this has occurred together with other "policy" changes (that have had an adverse effect on other long term customer arrangements, including those to do with safety) at about the same time as the AirServices legal office has seen a new manager(ess) appointed? Most have known that CASA has been controlled by their legal office for some time and now it seems that ASA want to do the same. It might be ok if the legal people and the accountants that now seem to control these organisations had some idea of what it was all about. Sadly they don't.

The other interesting point is that the "data" is not really the property of AirServices, but the state. In fact CASA would have more a claim to the data than AirServices who are really only the publisher. You will find that the editorial control of the AIP for example is controlled by CASA.

It has long been the custom that the data (belonging to the State) is provided without charge, but the costs of printing and publishing is what you pay for (or should only pay for) when you purchase paper publications. Of course with electronic provision of data and a more efficient and user friendly off shore supplier, the local publications are now obviously difficult to publish at a realistic cost/charge. If my memory serves me correctly, the state is obliged to "publish" the state owned data; hence I think local publications must continue. (stand to be corrected there?)

The issue of accuracy is a furfy as although it may be true that other suppliers have errors from time to time, it is also true that AirServices also provide data with errors, so perhaps they are not as pure as made out in their own chest beating media release.

The issue of "safety" is also a furfy. AirServices are actually reducing safety by increasing charges for publications and charts. Take the recent increase in charges for charts at a time we want the VFR pilot to have those charts. What is going to be the result? Pilots flying without charts of course. I don't believe that AirServices as a "corporation" really care about that. The care more about providing the government with an outrageous dividend, which of course is dictated by the government. No guessing where the argument goes next.

No wonder so many pilots in GA are giving it away! At this rate in five years or so time there will be no customers for AirServices to issue media releases to!

[the wizard of auz]

this leads us to the discussion about the requirment to use approved information/publications, and the monopoly that AsA have in the approved information/publications dept.
Wonder what the ACCC would have to say about it all if they were interested in looking. :(

[Lodown]

Triadic, when you mention the word "publish", what does that mean? I think Airservices regard one single printout as having met the requirement to "publish".

Not defending Airservices, but the information needs to come through one point. For the time being, this is AIS. The market trend is towards providing the information to a multitude of other sources to use the information as they like. The money for a provider like Jeppesen is in the IFR market. Effectively, they are taking the lucrative side of the market and leaving Airservices trying to recoup costs through the VFR market. Jeppesen is taking data provided at no charge, turning it into information and then competing directly with the data provider without the burden of having to pay for the data collection or verification in the first place. Neither do they pay for NOTAM on that data.

Someone still has to design the approaches and fly checks. As far as I know Jeppesen don't have these expenses.

If I was in the Airservices' shoes, I'd be concentrating solely on collecting the information, designing approaches, issueing NOTAM and getting out of marketing charts to pilots completely. Maybe this is the intention in the long run. Jeppesen and others can handle IFR chart production quite nicely, but who will cover the VFR pilots? I don't think anyone could make money from the Australian VFR market.

There's a dichotomy that needs to be resolved somehow. The government wants Airservices to run as a business, returning a profit, yet they are required to maintain service to a cost expense when a real business would have backed out of the VFR market years ago. And it continues to get worse as Jeppesen's market gains ground.

Perhaps the answer is to move AIS to the CASA, or within the transport department. I wouldn't mind betting the actions taken by Airservices will result in just such a transfer.