Rottnest Island Avdata charging for missed approaches

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Anyone else getting billed for missed approaches? Wind was too strong to land that day on a VFR flight.

The Avdata person insists that it counts as "training" and is subject to charges. I understood the "training" thing meant up to an hour of touch and goes for one fee.

The landing fee is an "Island Entry Fee" but I'm not aware that the airspace above the island counts, or aware of any airspace boundaries, nothing in ERSA etc etc...just someone who from Avdata who won't provide transcripts or admit the burden of proof is with them and not us. Appropriate Rottnest Island Authority person is of course "not available".

I remember a similar thing happening at Cunderdin a while back when the shire wanted to charge people to use the NDB.

Interested in if anyone has had a similar issue with them and who "owns" the airspace, I thought it was the commonwealth??

CFI

[T28D]

Don't pay the bill, let them take you to small claims and make complete fools out of them in front of the Magistrate, it is sport.
Avdata are leeches and a blight on General Aviation.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

No intention of paying it and yes enjoying the stoush immensley! :E

They have yet to reply to the one where I've told them the PIC will willingly sign a stat dec to say they didn't land. :E

Also still waiting to find out thier definition of "training" eg does it have to be for a unit of competency in the Day VFR Syllabus etc...and the boundaries of their training area which I can't find on my VTC or NOTAMS..

Also wanted to give people a heads up to check thier Avdata bills verrry carefully!

[QFF]

Yes, I remember exchanging words with the avdata people about the very same thing (missed approach on the RNAV approach) at YRTI. IIRC, the charge was for "landing fees" and as I didn't land, no fees are due. I did eventually get a credit in lieu of the disputed fees.

Either they're just chancers out to make a quick buck or else their transcribers need more training: missed approach/going around does not = landing.

[Checkboard]

Regardless of pedantic definitions, and speaking morally, did you use their services? Would you have been there if there wasn't an airport? :confused:

It costs them money to provide that airport, if you approach it and subsequently go around, you have still "used" it, no? It's not like a "landing fee" is used only to cover wear and tear on the runway.

[aroa]

No difference. Both in for a big bite.

The precedence has already been set in a court case of some years ago...that if your bill contains errors and they surely do..you can ignore it. Avdata is obliged to send you a correct account. It is not up to you to correct them.
Pay what you reckon you are due.. but leave the rest.
Ive had in the past, bills for aircraft Ive never owned, parking where I never was, and landings at places Ive never been!
And they also had this bs bit about $50 late fee...monthly.!!... so after being away for some months, 10 buck has now become 5 x50 =10.
This is where you bring out the BIG RED texta and get stuck in ..and send a paperwork 'advisory' about what they can do with it.:ok:

[Up-into-the-air]

Don't pay the bill, let them take you to small claims and make complete fools out of them in front of the Magistrate, it is sport.
Avdata are leeches and a blight on General Aviation. Fully agree - I got a bill from them to a Company that never had an aircraft at the East Aus field. They would not back off until finally I had matter shifted in the location of the Court to where it suited me [have to make application when you place the defence], then at the end they finally backed off - Amount $300

Give them HELL!!! and just pay the owner of the field.

I certainly do not have any responsibility to an organisation that I have not agreed to do business with in the first place.

Suggest you write to AvData and tell them that you have no legal arrangement with them and that you not authorise any arrangement.

[aroa]

5 x 50 + 10 =260 Nice work if you can get it. :sad:

Watch out for Broome, too. Wasnt on the invoice.. but hidden in ERSA
DOUBLE up if yre late. I ldg became $96...!
This must be true capitalism.!! Its called milk the user.:ok:

[QFF]

Regardless of pedantic definitions, and speaking morally, did you use their services? Short answer - No. I did make use of Perth Centre's radar services and the RNAV approach, for which I would have already been billed through ASA's navigation charges.

Would you have been there if there wasn't an airport? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gifInteresting question. Should I be billed for each airport that I fly over, just because they happen to be there, as a convenient waypoint?

It costs them money to provide that airport, if you approach it and subsequently go around, you have still "used" it, no? It's not like a "landing fee" is used only to cover wear and tear on the runway. What else is a landing fee if not just that? Your argument would hold if they had called it a "user fee", and I would have no argument with that.

[Nose wheel first]

At the last company where I worked we religiously checked the AvData charges against our manifests.

I lost count of the times we were charged for landings we didn't do at places we never went to, on days that we were grounded due to weather etc. We were also charged on a number of occasions for both a take-off AND a landing. That was a favourite trick of theirs! We were also charged for landings at our local aerodrome in WA whilst simultaenously being charged for landings in VIC and TAS.... (Fastest C207 in the world!)

The best one was one of our float planes (Pure float, not amphib) landed on the lake not far from the airport. The number of times we got charged landing fees for that was laughable.

Our accountant would send a copy of the bill back, with corrections and the ammount he believed was payable. They hardly ever disputed it.

[VH-XXX]

That's why when a lot of people go away flying to remote places they use rego's like BBQ or the rego of whoever is in charge of CASA at the time. I heard that Mustang rego's also get used frequently. I remember Jeff Trappet complaining that after his aircraft appeared on the front of a flying magazine his Avdata bill sky-rocketed.

[thorn bird]

There was a rumour Avdata was the brainchild of a couple of CASA dudes to ensure they could keep their noses in the trough after retirement.
Maybe that explains their "Attitude"

[Angle of Attack]

I remember there used to be a bloke in WA that used VH-OJA (QF 747-400) as his callsign whenever he operated into these charge-able CTAF's ( he had a 182 or similar) Probably a cunning plan , I wonder if the charges got put to QF and it went through in all the rest of the costs unnoticed by a beancounter!

[Tankengine]

My glider has been charged numerous times for take-offs even [no engine] while being locked in it's trailer interstate.:rolleyes:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I remember that 'many moons' ago that the Cunderdin Shire Council (WA) tried at one time - it was brought up at a RAPAC meeting - to charge for o'head missed approaches and use of the navaid.

I do believe it was pointed out to them, that thay did not own the said navaid, and neither did they have any authority over the airspace above....

I have no idea of how many may have had these invoices paid by the 'accounts staff'...
Tell 'em.....:}:}

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

..and YCUN produced a scale of charges at that time, which included the unprecedented touch and go fee for gliders. :ugh:

It's amazing what people will dream up to get their KPIs.

The false callsign thing is annoying and yes we have some of the amazing WA based warriors that sneak off to Queensland for lunch, priceless.

[poteroo]

Ah, Yes......A User Fee

For many years now, YABA has been used for ILS training by a bunch of Perth based aircraft.

In recent times, as the Perth airspace became more congested, and the charges increased, we've seen a lot more ILS training down here.

The ILS does not belong to ASA. It belongs to the City of Albany who used a grant to purchase it, ($700k), and $300k to instal it. The cost of calibration and maintenance, (a contract with ASA), is around $180k annually.

As many see it, the owner has a right to impose 'user' charges for such an investment.

happy days,

[QFF]

A difficult one, I agree, poteroo.

In an ideal world, user pays - the big end of town who make use of the ILS for training should shoulder the brunt of the cost of maintaining it.

But how to make that work in reality? Charge everyone a landing fee so that us lighties who don't use the ILS end up subsidizing the facilities for airlines and training schools who do use the ILS without landing?

Perhaps user fees (rather than landing fees) is the way to go... or charge the training institutions a lump sum each year, then use that ILS as often as you like...

[YPJT]

I think most of us have no problem paying landing fees if we land or use the facilities provided at an airport. Same goes for use of navaids that are provided by local airport operators. THis example though is taking a fairly liberal interpretation on the term "AD Charges".

For those that think it is clever to adopt either the radio silence or borrowed callsigh approach,:= more and more airports are making use of video surveillance at the taxiway exits off runways.

[Dick Smith]

Of course if AVDATA fails we will no doubt go to the UK or European system where you can't depart an airport until you find the person to pay. This can take up to half an hour and costs far more ( up to 5 times as much) as their local labour costs have also to be covered.

I simple advise that my aircraft did not land and have always received a prompt credit.

[Jack Ranga]

Dick, I reckon your avdata bill would have been HUUGE :}

[The Green Goblin]

:):D:O:D:D

Nice one Ranga.

I believe his call sign would have been used and abused :hmm:

[Simon Lockie]

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.

[Ovation]

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 (http://www.sascan.net.au/) had this:

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.

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.

[27/09]

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.

[Simon Lockie]

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.

[LeadSled]

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!!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

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 :ooh:, 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.

[QSK?]

LeadSled:

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 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.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

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.

[Frog Storm]

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): 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.

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.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

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.

[Anthill]

Ya know, I was thinking about buying an aeroplane and getting back into some GA flying. I don't think I will now- too expensive!

[chimbu warrior]

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!

[Clare Prop]

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.

[aroa]

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 ! :ok:

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.:mad:

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.

[scrufflefish]

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. :ugh:

(I ignored it and they eventually gave up.)

[thorn bird]

Is there any truth to the story that avdata was set up by a bunch of retiring CAsA or airservices people??

[kaz3g]

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

[T28D]

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

[Desert Flower]

I suggest that whenever anyone receives an account from Avdata that is clearly wrong (i.e. for missed approaches, aircraft was nowhere near location at the time stated) that they return the bill, with corrections, & at the same time include in the envelope an account for YOUR services to correct their mistakes!

DF.

[LeadSled]

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.

Oz,
An interesting situation, indeed. The Commonwealth Constitution does not cover aviation, aviation is states rights, and there is a fascinating (if you are interested in that sort of thing) history of court cases, through to the High Court. Google Goya Henry.

The Air Navigation Act gives effect to Australia signing the "Chicago Convention", based on the Commonwealth's powers to sign treaties (S51(i) ??), but that is limited to matters covered in that treaty.

An example is often quoted: The convention makes no reference to airshows, there for the Commonwealth (CASA) has no power to regulate airshows. As far as I know, this proposition has never been tested. It has also been claimed that the Commonwealth's corporations powers can be extended to cover aviation, but I do not know if this has ever been tried.

There are significant recent sections of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 that are bluff, but who can afford to take CASA to the High Court?
CASA has no powers of commercial regulation, not withstanding CAR 206.

All the above is a bit of an over simplification, but you get the drift.
Tootle pip!!