AVDATA landing fees - automatic from CTAF calls?

[Shagpile]

So, I made a CTAF call transiting overhead Bacchus Marsh on the way somewhere.

AVDATA keep sending bills, not replying to emails.

I'm just wondering if this is common, and whether anybody knows the algorithm they use to determine a landing aircraft vs transiting? Or does it just pick up three letters on the radio and send a bill ?

Yes I've considered & disregarded:
- Using ABC callsign
- Not talking (sometimes unsafe, other times safer!)

I would love to think that mumbling a callsign to defeat voice recognition could help, but again, bad airmanship. Clarity is good.

Anybody else have the same problem & potential solutions that are both safe & professional? Or is this a problem we just need to deal with ... ?

[Ixixly]

https://www.ourcommunity.com.au/directories/listing?id=17484

Have you tried contacting anyone on the link above?

[YPJT]

Normally they should listen for "landed and vacated" call or other call in the circuit indicating an intention to land.
Not much use calling the aerodrome operator, they usually just refer you back to Avdata.
A lot of airports are now installing hi definition cameras that capture an image of the aircraft exiting the runway.

[Lead Balloon]

I've discovered that there are lots of places out there that will bill you for merely submitting a NIS plan to go there. There must be some software that polls Flightaware or something. I just tell AVDATA I'm not paying (and then never plan or go to those places again...).

[Dexta]

AVDATA is a privately owned business that appears to have little scruples in regards to making money. Their methodology is to bill first and hope no one complains. We had an AVDATA data recorder at the airfield about 13 years ago, despite telling them not to bill certain aircraft they did anyway, we then discontinued the service but they still sent bills out! (money was sent to someone else, not us, and took a bit of digging to unravel the situation). Took legal action before we finally got rid of them.
It was very disheartening to hear that RA-Aus would no longer pass on accounts for landing fees but recommended registering with AVDATA! Running a private airfield is VERY expensive, council owned ones should be a bit cheaper (no rates etc, more equipment etc) so I do not begrudge landing fees at all, but if I can I prefer to deal directly with the airfield rather than through AVDATA.

[YPJT]

Doing what Avdata do, for small airports, is quite easy and inexpensive.

[Tankengine]

Have received bills for landings from 2000+ miles away for a glider locked in it's trailer!
After half a dozen or so nastygrams despite my emails the letters only stopped when I advised that I copied bills to a member of Airservices board and threatened legal action for harrassment. ;)

[Clare Prop]

I have had similar with Avdata at Rottnest. I land there several times a month and pay my dues however one time they charged a fee (in this case it is an Island Entry Fee) for a missed approach. After much to-ing and fro-ing and the Rottnest Island Authority insisting that a missed approach counted as "using the island facilities" (where we got into an interesting discussion about who owns the air) I just told Avdata I would sign a stat dec to say I didn't land there that day, that shut them up.

They have to prove you did land there, you don't have to prove you didn't.

There are people out there who think it is clever to use other people's callsigns on the radio. :ugh: It's just dishonest.


On the subject of landing fees, Airservices often charge twice for a TNC. if you land outside of half an hour of when the computer estimates you should from your flight plan, you get charged twice. So always check the bills carefully, they try to cheat me out of a few hundred bucks every year.

[Ixixly]

Surely with this many cases their should be something done about Avdata and their unscrupulous ways?! Contacting the ACCC or Airservices or someone?!

[aroa]

The precedent has been set many moons ago.
Avdata took a non payer to court...his bills, like those of other users contained all sorts of errors..ie the total amount was incorrect.

The judgement was ..that Avdata must make sure that the Invoice you get is TRUE and CORRECT in all respects.

If they cant do that you dont have to pay, until it is.
And it is not up to you to continually point out their errors..that is their problem to address. And ifthey cant be bothered to do that...then...?

I tried to find out from the local council...always crying poor...how much take Avdata got from the ldg fee, and how much the council got for the airport benefit.
"commercial in confidence" says they.

[YPJT]

aroa, I believe it is about 15% including downloading all the sound files and doing the invoicing.

[holdingagain]

My Avdata experience with incorrect billings have been excellent
Corrections made promptly and politely.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

The precedent has been set many moons ago.
Avdata took a non payer to court...his bills, like those of other users contained all sorts of errors..ie the total amount was incorrect.

I think Avdata have changed their business model and pushed non-payment issues onto the airports. I had a late payment reminder which simply stated that failure to pay will result in the relevant airport being notified. I suggest they only pay airports when they've been paid (potentially not legal but thats by the by) and if you don't pay, they simply tell the airport that you haven't and let the airport try and cost recover.

[Jabawocky]

Sahgs, call them. A phone call usually gets a result straight away.

[YPJT]

I suggest they only pay airports when they've been paid
Their selling point to put their little black money making machines on site was probably promising the airport they would assume all debt recovery.

[Shagpile]

Cheers thanks guys.

I'll do as suggested and throw these in the bin until I hear otherwise. Thanks :ok:

[KRviator]

Sahgs, call them. A phone call usually gets a result straight away.While I agree it would, why should I be put out, small as it may be, to help this mob out? They have a monopoly on this kind of thing and you would expect them to be able to get it right. IT isn't for the end user to end up correcting their mistakes time and again.:mad:

[Aussie Bob]

All I have ever done here is write in bold over the invoice, "Not Me or my aircraft" and returned it to sender. This has worked every time and is stress free.

[Jenna Talia]

Shagpile,

Just ring them and tell them it wasn't your aircraft plus the fact you have sent them emails stating this with no response. I know you shouldn't have to and it is your time, but if you just bin the bills, sooner or later you will need to communicate with them to sort this out. Just ring them and get it over and done with in less than a minute.

[haydnc]

My experience is that a phone call usually fixes the problem. What I also can say - nearly every bill from them since owning an aircraft has had to be queried due to errors.

[Possum1]

Back in July 2016, I received an invoice from them saying that I had landed in June at Hamilton Island(which I had not). I simply emailed them saying that on that date the aircraft was parked at Archerfield.

Avdata then sent me back a replacement invoice advising of their error for an amount of $0.00.

My advice, the same as previous posts, is to advise Avdata of their error and they will deal with it.

[Icarus2001]

They have to prove you did land there, you don't have to prove you didn't.

This is the bottom line from my legal advisor.

My advice, the same as previous posts, is to advise Avdata of their error and they will deal with it.
Very sensible.

Make sure your objections are in writing, either email or post, email is better as it can be time verified the only issue is if they read it.

Add a line at the bottom..."if I do not hear from you within seven days I will consider this matter finalised"

[Clare Prop]

The Avdata system isn't perfect. Technology that photographs the aircraft will be more accurate than the voice recorders which allow for people to be dishonest by using false callsigns or not saying anything at all.

The elephant in the room is the RA-Aus registered aircraft whose owner details are not made available so they can't be invoiced, unless this has changed recently. So they are being subsidised by everyone else who owns or uses the facilities. If you want to make a fuss then make it about that. Avdata on the whole do an OK job.

[thunderbird five]

Two quick stories:
A mate got an Avdata bill for a YPMQ (I think) landing one time, and I just happened to have read in an NZ magazine of the ZK-same rego transitting thru YPMQ that time. Cancelled by Avdata right away. Tick!

I got a bill for someplace for my aircraft, in bits in the workshop. Sent them an email and a photo of my cat assisting (lounging) on the bare fuselage, bill cancelled by Avdata at once, and they told me I probably needed a new assistant too!

So, just send them a polite email, and they'll fix it without fuss I've found. I don't get worked up over it.

[Capn Bloggs]

So, just send them a polite email, and they'll fix it without fuss I've found
Surely that's not the point? Why can't they get it right in the first place?

The errors are not usually theirs.
I don't agree. They are simply using a cheap-charlie system that can't produce accurate info for them to then bill people. They know that if they are nice about their "errors" then people will accept that.

[Tinstaafl]

Why are any of you using your callsign? I've flown in various parts of the world, and the more useful information (to other traffic) is aircraft type eg Navajo, 20 miles west, 3000, inbound...

If Navdata is such a screw up, and rely on broadcast registration then....don't use registration!

[Capn Bloggs]

"Navajo One, request your position and altitude!". :ok:

[gerry111]

"..a cheap-charlie system.."

I reckon that you've spent time at Butterworth, Capn Bloggs... ;)

[Capn Bloggs]

Only at the Golf Hotel, Gerry. No Avdata watching there! :E

[The name is Porter]

If Navdata is such a screw up, and rely on broadcast registration then....don't use registration!

There are surveillance cameras at some of these places.

[mostlytossas]

That's interesting. What airports would they be?

[Lead Balloon]

Sometimes it doesn't matter whether or not you use a call sign or even avoid an aerodrome altogether.

Just for ****s and giggles, try this experiment: Put a plan in NIS that includes a landing at (and I'll pluck just a few destinations) YTWB, YORG or YGLB. Then sit at home and twiddle your thumbs, or fly somewhere else.

[mullokintyre]

YSHT has , as of Jan 1st, started charging landing fees which are managed by AVDATA. Of course there is noting in ERSA about these fees, because its out of cycle. Will I presume, appear in next edition. If you go onto the AVDATA website and look at Borooloola for instance, it says that landing charges are 20/tonne, with a minimum fee of $68.18. However, ERSA mentions no landing charges. How would they be able to charge landing fees when no mention is made in the Pilots bible, ERSA??
Mick

[kaz3g]

Their selling point to put their little black money making machines on site was probably promising the airport they would assume all debt recovery.

That's interesting...how is the debt owed to them? They aren't providing the facility that has been charged for.

The problem with these things is that you can be placed on a bad credit list which can follow your for life.

It's hard to follow the logic of a council that doesn't charge a fee for visitors using ratepayer funded roads, but leaps in and charges fees for those using a ratepayer funded airfield.

Renmark has the right idea because visitors just need to phone the ARO with details of this flight and no charge occurs.

Kaz

[Sunfish]

good reason for not fitting a radio or making no calls at all.

[StickWithTheTruth]

good reason for not fitting a radio or making no calls at all.

Probably not the best idea in a CTAF(R).

[Lead Balloon]

What’s a “CTAF(R)”?

And what are the mandatory calls at the aerodromes that are what you think are “CTAF(R)s”?

[kaz3g]

What’s a “CTAF(R)”?

And what are the mandatory calls at the aerodromes that are what you think are “CTAF(R)s”?

As best as I can see one if there is no danger of a collision.


CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 166C

Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio
(1) If:

(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and

(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and

(c) the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;

the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).

(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:

(a) the name of the aerodrome;

(b) the aircraft's type and call sign;

(c) the position of the aircraft and the pilot's intentions.

Note 1: See the AIP for the recommended format for broadcasting the information mentioned in this regulation.

Note 2: For the requirement to maintain a listening watch, see regulation 243.

[kaz3g]

CAR 166E dea.s with registered, military, certified , etc and makes carriage of radio mandatory.

Kaz

[Capn Bloggs]

What’s a “CTAF(R)”?

And what are the mandatory calls at the aerodromes that are what you think are “CTAF(R)s”?
LB, could you please read this post (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/587271-pilot-shortage-30.html#post10024123).

Do you reckon that you could try, just once, being semi-respectful to one of your fellow pilots?

Your constant nitpicking and bickering over irrelevant detail is really becoming tiresome.

It is a pity you don't expend your energy on the issue Sunfish has raised, being far more important than your nonsense about a misused R.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s not “irrelevant detail” to point out that there are no mandatory radio calls at non-controlled aerodromes (except maybe at Port Bloggsland during AFIS hours?).

And when Kaz has had a chance to read all of CAR 166E, I’m confident she’ll qualify her earlier posts somewhat. An aircraft without serviceable VHF can operate at a “CTAF(R)”. That’s one of the many reasons it’s important to keep a good lookout.

It will continue to be important, even if the radius of CTAF procedures is expanded to 20nms.

[StickWithTheTruth]

Did I miss something in the last round of changes?

A CTAF (R) is an aerodrome which use of radio and CTAF procedures is mandatory. (Cannot operate in the vicinity of these aerodromes without radio)

Bloggsy, your link didn't work above.

[kaz3g]

Bloggsy, your link didn't work above.


Possibly for good reason.

Now this is my 10 minute assessment and is definitely not to be relied on. Do your own research and decide how you will respond.

As I read CAR 166E, it only mandates carriage of a serviceable radio in ordinary circumstances (the unserviceable stuff is irrelevant for this discussions).

And it only requires use of that radio where there is risk of collision

CAAP 166-01 at 6.1.1 is in agreement with this interpretation...but it does get a little confused by the end.

The CASA team will be up here for a seminar shortly and I will ask them for their view.

I can't help thinking the risk of collision will go down now that fees are in place!

If anyone can find other references I'd very much appreciate seeing them.

Thanks

Kaz

[Capn Bloggs]

My link again, directed at Lead Balloon:

https://www.pprune.org/10024123-post593.html

[StickWithTheTruth]

Still not working Bloggsy sorry.

[Capn Bloggs]

Something cock-eyed somewhere, SWTT. Anway, here is the post:

A320A321

I spent about 45 minutes trolling bunches of websites looking for the information. I appreciate your apology, but there was no need to fire off like a an old grouch at all. For someone who knows, just putting the figure here would have taken less time than what you wrote. So you wasted your own time.

Everyone seems to forget that PPRuNe is like a chat in a pub between mates, nothing more. Such as after an aircraft accident - if 5 pilots were in a pub discussing it and speculating, none of them would do the old "let's wait for the report fellas before speculating." We'd chat about it. Likewise, if 5 of us were in a pub and I said how much does an F/O at Alliance earn, would you turn to me and say look it up on FWA, stop wasting our time? I doubt it. PPRuNe is a pub chat. Lefties not needed here.

And the reason I spent so long on line looking for the answer was because I just knew that if I asked here some twisted and bitter zipperhead would reply just as you did.

[Lead Balloon]

Well done, Bloggsie! Your select-copy-paste skills are coming along nicely.

Readers would probably be assisted by an explanation of the current in-vicinity rules.

BTW: Have you ever received and had to pay an Avdata bill?

[Capn Bloggs]

As I said... :rolleyes:

[Lead Balloon]

Have you ever received and had to pay an Avdata bill?

[Capn Bloggs]

As I said...

[Lead Balloon]

It’s a simple question, the answer to which is either “yes” or “no”. Have you ever received and had to pay an Avdata bill, Cap’n ?

There’s no shame in saying ‘no’. You’ve gone from one cosseted flying regime to another. Nothing wrong with that. Many pilots are rightfully envious of a career that commences in a taxpayer paid career in the ADF and progresses to a Qantas (regional) job.

But the rest of us (taxpayers) don’t have the same privileges.

[Capn Bloggs]

As I said...

[thorn bird]

A question Guys, does anyone know who actually owns Avdata?

The company appears to have access to government agencies
data. Do they pay these agencies a fee for this access?

[kaz3g]

A question Guys, does anyone know who actually owns Avdata?

The company appears to have access to government agencies
data. Do they pay these agencies a fee for this access?

The problem is that CASA publishes our personal,details to the world. I think this is a massive breach of the Privacy Act and have complained to them about it.

In a world where home invasions and identity theft are common topics in the media, it is alarmed Ng to me that anyone can find out my address and aircraft ownership.

Avdata use that information to put together account details and store the information without my consent which is also a breach of my privacy. Now I wonder if the Council airport owner also provides personal information to Avdata. What an incestuous little relationship it could be!

Kaz

[Sunfish]

I know CASA, SAAA or the ASIC people have been breached because I get spam with my full name and ARN on it as part of the name.

[StickWithTheTruth]

The problem is that CASA publishes our personal,details to the world. I think this is a massive breach of the Privacy Act and have complained to them about it.

You like to complain to government departments do you Kaz ? What success do you get when you do this?

[CaptainMidnight]

The problem is that CASA publishes our personal,details to the world. I think this is a massive breach of the Privacy Act and have complained to them about it.If you have time on your hands, wade through CASA's legislation. You will probably find something in there that requires them to make public the information.

Ditto the ACMA, who publish the details of radiocommunications licence holders.

How this relates to the Privacy Act, I don't know.

[kaz3g]

You like to complain to government departments do you Kaz ? What success do you get when you do this?

Only if there is a valid reason for complaining SWTT and mostly they are on behalf of clients, rather than myself.

Mixed success. I took a human rights issue to the Full Court of the Federal Court years ago. Lost 2:1 even though I had the Chief Justice. The other two decided to resolve the question without following another Full Court precedent which was a bummer. Ironically, the underlying cause was subsequently dealt with by legislation. Thems the breaks.

On the other hand, I've had some success, for example against Corrections in Victoria who are militaristic and have a very punitive approach to their customers...a bit like CASA, perhaps? 😉

Kaz

[Sunfish]

Kaz: On the other hand, I've had some success, for example against Corrections in Victoria who are militaristic and have a very punitive approach to their customers...a bit like CASA, perhaps? ��

Depends on who you define as "customers". My relatives in the justice profession have very mixed views and are frustrated by the system. One applies to the court to get someone locked up and finds him back on the street selling drugs Two days later.



...And don't start me on the Sudanese....

[Dick Smith]

I reckon the avdata way is a lot better than the European system where a pilot has to seek out a person to pay at each airport before departing

And the landing costs are at least double to help pay for the local collector !

[kaz3g]

Kaz:

Depends on who you define as "customers". My relatives in the justice profession have very mixed views and are frustrated by the system. One applies to the court to get someone locked up and finds him back on the street selling drugs Two days later.



...And don't start me on the Sudanese....

Fortunately, our democratic system of Government is one Based on the separation of powers doctrine and our police don't get to set punishments.

It's the role of enforcement authorities to charge and prosecute offences; the role of the judiciary to sentence the offenders to punishment according to law; and the role of the administrative n to carry the punishment out.

It's the parliament that makes the laws and, again, our democracy was built on fundamental tights established in the Magna Carta which include a presumption of innocence.

Sometimes, some of the players and the Murdock press forget this.

Kaz

[CaptainMidnight]

Dick Smith said:I reckon the avdata way is a lot better than the European system where a pilot has to seek out a person to pay at each airport before departing Mein Gott :eek:

There is something we do better here in aviation ...

[LeadSled]

Midnight,
Not much but the weather!!.
Sad, really, and not new.
I started flying in UK about 55+ years ago, while I was working there, didn't find out how complicated flying was until I got home, and Oh!! Boy!!, hasn't it gone downhill since then.
Tootle pip!!

[Tankengine]

Have you ever received and had to pay an Avdata bill?

I thought this a pertinant question.
Interestingly I have received numerous Avdata bills but have never had to pay any. ;)
They do no comparison between aircraft types and registrations.

[thunderbird five]

Kaz might be able to tackle this one:

I buy a product or service from KazCo.
But KazCo engages some other entity to bill me for it later, under their name, not KazCo.
What it my obligation to pay this other entity for the thing I bought from KazCo?
Does it depend on whether KazCo tells me that at sale that I'll be billed by this other entity for "item bought from KazCo."?
And what if I prefer to pay direct to KazCo?

Thanks in advance Kaz.

[kaz3g]

Kaz might be able to tackle this one:

I buy a product or service from KazCo.
But KazCo engages some other entity to bill me for it later, under their name, not KazCo.
What it my obligation to pay this other entity for the thing I bought from KazCo?
Does it depend on whether KazCo tells me that at sale that I'll be billed by this other entity for "item bought from KazCo."?
And what if I prefer to pay direct to KazCo?

Thanks in advance Kaz.

https://tradefinanceanalytics.com/what-is-factoring

My insurance doesn't cover me to give you the advice you are seeking so you need to draw your own conclusions. I recommend you seek advice from a lawyer in the finance area especially if you are considering non-payment against demands.

Kaz

Kaz

[Ovation]

I thought the Australian Communications and Media Authority regulations did not permit the unauthorised interception of radio calls, but I've not been able to find it in any legislation. If it were so, AVDATA's data harvesting could be stopped dead.

The matter of expecting the aviation community to bear the onus of sorting out incorrect charges would be eliminated if users notified AVDATA that a minimum $50 back-charge would be levied for administrative time, and would be deducted from any current or future charges.

Airports are an asset to the community they serve providing access for business and tourism, medical evacuation, urgent freight etc. Imagine if the local council photographed number plates and sent a bill every time a car or truck rolled through town for "so called access".

[aroa]

Back charge of $50...great idea. Would counteract the over due charge.

Do Avdata still do this.?, With an overdue bill for $23.50...the invoice having turned up while away for months...the overdue fee of $50 was addded every time, so on return bill now owed 223.50 !! Nice work if you can get it .
A BIG RED TEXTA comment put paid to that.

I honestly dont think I ever had an Avdata bill that wasnt riddled with errors...$s for places never lobbed in to, or parked up where I wasnt.

So check yr docket ! Carefully.

[CaptainMidnight]

I thought the Australian Communications and Media Authority regulations did not permit the unauthorised interception of radio calls, but I've not been able to find it in any legislation. If it were so, AVDATA's data harvesting could be stopped dead. Nice thought, but no cigar.

Very few radio communications have restrictions imposed on being monitored. One is telephone calls and associated communications, covered by a telecommunications act or acts I believe.

Radio communications can be legally listened to, including police, fire, ambos, military etc. etc. Some such services are encrypted these days anyway. Then of course there are ADS-B receivers -

There are thousands of radio scanners out there - many sold by DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS :) - plus online streaming.

[kaz3g]

Back charge of $50...great idea. Would counteract the over due charge.

Do Avdata still do this.?, With an overdue bill for $23.50...the invoice having turned up while away for months...the overdue fee of $50 was addded every time, so on return bill now owed 223.50 !! Nice work if you can get it .
A BIG RED TEXTA comment put paid to that.

I honestly dont think I ever had an Avdata bill that wasnt riddled with errors...$s for places never lobbed in to, or parked up where I wasnt.

So check yr docket ! Carefully.

You can make a complaint under the Australian Consumer Law that the amount of the fee is a penalty, not a reasonable recovery of costs, and then trust your luck to the Courts.

Just make sure you Ma,e the required payments on your credit card.

https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2016/july/late-payment-fees-for-credit-cards-not-penalties-says-high-court

Kaz

[Lead Balloon]

Avdata sucks data from submitted flight plans as well. If you submit a plan that includes a place that charges, you’ll get a charge even if you end up not going anywhere near the place.

However, Avdata has always reversed these charges, on request, if I explain that things did not go in accordance with the plan.

Avdata has also always reversed the errors. Avdata understands I can’t be at place X on the East coast one day and place Y on the West coast in a bugsmasher.

[KRviator]

Avdata sucks data from submitted flight plans as well. If you submit a plan that includes a place that charges, you’ll get a charge even if you end up not going anywhere near the place.

However, Avdata has always reversed these charges, on request, if I explain that things did not go in accordance with the plan.

Avdata has also always reversed the errors. Avdata understands I can’t be at place X on the East coast one day and place Y on the West coast in a bugsmasher.I am glad that AvData is so understanding of others covering their mistakes.

But by the tone of your post, it sounds like you have spent considerable time advising AvData of their mistakes. So who reimburses LB for his time spent advising AvData of their screwups?

By the time you've driven to the hangar to check the logbook (have to make sure it wasn't one of your mates who flew to BumPhuck, WA), driven home, composed a letter, driven to the post office, purchased a stamp and dropped off the letter in a postbox, that's an awful lot of our time that AvData would have to reimburse, surely? :}

If AvData is required to provide an error-free invoice, then until they provide one, irrespective of how long that takes, I won't be doing sweet FA to help them out.

[Lead Balloon]

That’s a very good and valid point, KRviator.

I’d be happy to pay twice the amount I’m charged each year (legitimately or otherwise) so as to avoid the AvData correspondence bureaucratic distraction, entirely.

The good news is that, like the regulatory reform program that’s going to make things simple and cheap, the GST is going to replace all the ad hoc and inefficient charges. In other words, GA in Australia is completely f*cked.

[Jason_M]

To add fuel to the fire.... Have emailed Dept Infrastructure this:

Hello Leonie,

Could you please pass this onto the relevant person/team – I could not work out from the Department’s web site who to ask.

I am an IFR pilot (I live in Canberra and have an aircraft hangered here), as such for currency and competency reasons, on a weekly basis undertake “practice” IFR flights which include “practice approaches” to aerodromes – the nature of the ratings and endorsements on my licence require I conduct 2D and 3D approaches.

Recently I conducted such a flight and conducted an RNAV (a GPS guided approach) approach to a local aerodrome (in class G airspace, with no tower) and at the appropriate point (682 feet above ground) executed a missed approach procedure (which is normal in a practice scenario where you do not wish to land). I did not land, I stated on the local CTAF frequency I did not land. I then returned to Canberra and executed an ILS approach and landed.

A period after, as part of an AVDATA bill (Avdata being a company that collects landing fees on behalf of the aerodrome operator) I was charged for landing at the aerodrome at which I conducted the missed approach. I queried this and was told:

“Thank you for your email. I have listened to the recordings and can confirm that one of the charges is definitely a Practice Approach. However, Cooma Airport does charge for Practice Approaches (it is the same as a landing charge).

Therefore, unfortunately the charges still remain.”

There is no mention of charging for practice approaches at Cooma in the AirServices ERSA and I, and the pilot community is not aware of anywhere else where the operator charges for a practice approach where the wheels do not touch the ground – ATC charges are of course wrapped into AirServices Australia charges.

Before I make a major issue of it, I have scanned the legislation and material on the Internet, but I am by no means an expert of finding such information! I am trying to determine if the aerodrome operator is entitled in law to charge for effectively “over flying” the aerodrome! If they are, I and the pilot community would like to understand the parameters around such charges – is it height based, or distance based?

I would like some clarification from the Department on this matter.

Thank you

Jason Moore

[Lead Balloon]

Ha! Try a “practice approach” into e.g. Goulburn or Orange.

Save your energy: This has nothing to do with the Dept of Infrastructure.

It’s an argument between you and the operators of the aerodrome/s. They say, in effect, that your practice approach is a use of their aerodrome, because your practice approach results in a benefit to you and also affects other users who may have to adjust their approach or departure to fit around you.

[On eyre]

I look forward to hearing the reply JM.
I would basically tell Avdata to get knicked and casually mention you are engaging a QC to act on your behalf.
Maybe something AOPA could look at.

[kaz3g]

AVDATA is a privately owned business that appears to have little scruples in regards to making money. Their methodology is to bill first and hope no one complains. We had an AVDATA data recorder at the airfield about 13 years ago, despite telling them not to bill certain aircraft they did anyway, we then discontinued the service but they still sent bills out! (money was sent to someone else, not us, and took a bit of digging to unravel the situation). Took legal action before we finally got rid of them.
It was very disheartening to hear that RA-Aus would no longer pass on accounts for landing fees but recommended registering with AVDATA! Running a private airfield is VERY expensive, council owned ones should be a bit cheaper (no rates etc, more equipment etc) so I do not begrudge landing fees at all, but if I can I prefer to deal directly with the airfield rather than through AVDATA.

Shepparton Council just introduced landing fees with no consultation at all. Our Aeroclub pays more than $12k per annum in rates and site rental (we own the buildings).

Any body sick of being gouged by Councils might be interested in joining the Regional Airports Users Action Group on Facebook.

Kaz

[kaz3g]

To add fuel to the fire.... Have emailed Dept Infrastructure this:

Hello Leonie,

Could you please pass this onto the relevant person/team – I could not work out from the Department’s web site who to ask.

I am an IFR pilot (I live in Canberra and have an aircraft hangered here), as such for currency and competency reasons, on a weekly basis undertake “practice” IFR flights which include “practice approaches” to aerodromes – the nature of the ratings and endorsements on my licence require I conduct 2D and 3D approaches.

Recently I conducted such a flight and conducted an RNAV (a GPS guided approach) approach to a local aerodrome (in class G airspace, with no tower) and at the appropriate point (682 feet above ground) executed a missed approach procedure (which is normal in a practice scenario where you do not wish to land). I did not land, I stated on the local CTAF frequency I did not land. I then returned to Canberra and executed an ILS approach and landed.

A period after, as part of an AVDATA bill (Avdata being a company that collects landing fees on behalf of the aerodrome operator) I was charged for landing at the aerodrome at which I conducted the missed approach. I queried this and was told:

“Thank you for your email. I have listened to the recordings and can confirm that one of the charges is definitely a Practice Approach. However, Cooma Airport does charge for Practice Approaches (it is the same as a landing charge).

Therefore, unfortunately the charges still remain.”

If they own the NDB and if you used it they might have grounds to charge you. An RNAV no way in my view. Seems like an attempted fraud to me or at least misleading and deceptive conduct. Can't see a contract in it, either. They might post it on a sign on the airport but you won't see it if you don't land.

It's a dispute about goods and services so you can take it to the NSW tribunal under Fair Trading/Consumer Law. Small fee and you can self represent. I'd love to hear the result if you do this.

Kaz

[Lead Balloon]

Isn’t this a dispute about access to property, Kaz?

Who owns the airspace above a piece of land?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thread from 2002 (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/68986-getting-ripped-off-when-flying-avalon-airspace-2.html?highlight=avalon+charging+missed+approaches)

This is what happened in 2003 (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/100886-vic-govt-legislates-landing-fees.html)

The Act (http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/B4EE8B7483477DB1CA256E5B002140EF/$FILE/03-079a.pdf)


....even wrote a nice letter for what little good it did.

[KRviator]

But Cooma is in NSW....:}

[kaz3g]

Thread from 2002 (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/68986-getting-ripped-off-when-flying-avalon-airspace-2.html?highlight=avalon+charging+missed+approaches)

This is what happened in 2003 (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/100886-vic-govt-legislates-landing-fees.html)

The Act (http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/B4EE8B7483477DB1CA256E5B002140EF/$FILE/03-079a.pdf)


....even wrote a nice letter for what little good it did.

Thank you for adding to my store of knowledge and embarrassment. Im guessing this bastard piece of legislation was enacted as an adjunct to the transfer of airports from the Commonwealth to Councils?

I searched Austlii and it seems there is mirror legislation in each of the States.

How they justify charging for a flight that doesn't land and doesn't use their facilities or services, I'm damned if I know.

I think I'll stick to the criminal law...at least they're honest crooks!

Kaz

[kaz3g]

Isn’t this a dispute about access to property, Kaz?

Who owns the airspace above a piece of land?

The RNAV I presume is a service. A landing is about access to property.

Way back in the recesses of my memory there was a case where a landowner tried unsuccessfully to claim ownership of the airspace above his property but the black letter overrides this as far as aerodromes are concerned.

Join the airport users action group and add more weight to their representations.

Kaz

[Clare Prop]

I had something similar with Rottnest Island charging me for a missed approach via AVDATA. They had no right to charge me for the airspace above Rottnest. It took a lot of to and fro and was quite fun watching so many people passing the buck around, but they shut up when I told them that the so-called "Rottnest" chargeable airspace was not depicted on aeronautical charts and even if it had been they couldn't prove my distance from the island when I commenced the missed approach etc etc etc...I wasn't going to give in and eventually they issued me with a credit, quite sure I used up a lot more than $50 of their time arguing about it.

To be fair that is the only time that they argued about it, normally a credit is issued in the event of a dispute as they have to prove you DID land there, you don't have to prove that you DIDN'T.

[Lead Balloon]

The RNAV I presume is a service. A landing is about access to property.

Way back in the recesses of my memory there was a case where a landowner tried unsuccessfully to claim ownership of the airspace above his property but the black letter overrides this as far as aerodromes are concerned.

Join the airport users action group and add more weight to their representations.

KazThe landowner was Lord Bernstein, who claimed - unsuccessfully - that a pilot doing aerial photography over his land was trespassing. Various laws have been passed in Australia to make clear that an aircraft overhead property in the ordinary course of navigation is not trespassing on that property. Not quite the same a prohibiting charges for being overhead...

I make it a habit to avoid, to the extent practicable, anywhere that charges.

The selling off of Commonwealth aerodromes is one of the more aggregious crimes against the taxpayer and aviation.

[Checklist Charlie]

The selling off of Commonwealth aerodromes is one of the more aggregious crimes against the taxpayer and aviation.

I wonder where he is these days, you know, the fellow with the same name as a famous London Palace.

CC

[Dexta]

Perhaps someone can tell me what the current charge is for adding and maintaining an RNAV approach to an airfield? I have been told anywhere from $20,000 to $80,000 to establish and I suspect the same again every few years to have the approaches re-surveyed. Also, to have an RNAV approach the airfield must be either registered or certified, both of which attract a cost. I personally think Councils should cover those costs as a benefit to rate payers and attracting business and tourism to their area. However, a privately owned airfield is a different story because they have to cover their costs or there will be no airfield. Please remember not every airfield is owned by a Council or the Government.

[thunderbird five]

From the Aerodrome Landing Fees Act 2003 (Victoria)
Aircraft means an aircraft registered under Part 3 of the Civil Aviation Regulations.

Thank goodness mine aren't. Nor are any!

[no_one]

I dont know what the NSW rules say but the Victorian ones have a few interesting things.

"training flight approach", in relation to an aerodrome, means a planned descent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, a runway at the aerodrome, whether or not the aircraft touches the runway, during a flight undertaken for the training or testing of a person as a pilot or member of a flight crew.

Does this mean that an approach for maintaining proficiency once trained does not attract a fee?

(2) If an aerodrome operator fixes a fee under this section, a notice setting out the fee must be published in the Government Gazette and in—
(a) a daily newspaper circulating generally in the State; or
(b) a periodical publication prescribed by the regulations.

How many aerodromes have advertised their fees in a daily newspaper and the Government Gazette?

[kaz3g]

From the Aerodrome Landing Fees Act 2003 (Victoria)
Aircraft means an aircraft registered under Part 3 of the Civil Aviation Regulations.

Thank goodness mine aren't. Nor are any!

Exactly.

Kaz

[StickWithTheTruth]

How many aerodromes have advertised their fees in a daily newspaper and the Government Gazette?

Maybe this is why they print the prices on the Avdata invoices.

[kaz3g]

How many aerodromes have advertised their fees in a daily newspaper and the Government Gazette?

Very few, I suspect if my Council is any indication. a strong argument for administrative estoppel

Kaz

[Squawk7700]

Thread dredge.

I received a landing fee for an airport that I did not land at.

What I did do, was file a flight plan to that airport, but landed elsewhere. I didn't go within 20 miles of said airport.

This leads me to realise that AirServices are providing AvData with flight plan information, or they are somehow scraping it from Flight Radar 24.

I thought that Avdata had to collect their information from other sources, such as radio calls, ARO, ADSB or cameras.

Does anyone know if there's an agreement between ASA and AVData for this?

[Lead Balloon]

I don't know the authoritative answer to your question (though I'd back 'scraping' if I had to bet folding money). But on the numerous occasions on which I've had the same experience as you've described, I've merely written to AvData and explained the 'delta' between the plan and the actual, and that I will therefore not be paying the charge. No further corro.

[KRviator]

Thread dredge.

I received a landing fee for an airport that I did not land at.

What I did do, was file a flight plan to that airport, but landed elsewhere. I didn't go within 20 miles of said airport.

This leads me to realise that AirServices are providing AvData with flight plan information, or they are somehow scraping it from Flight Radar 24.

I thought that Avdata had to collect their information from other sources, such as radio calls, ARO, ADSB or cameras.

Does anyone know if there's an agreement between ASA and AVData for this?They certainly do collect data from ASA (no idea how that's legal, but IANAL) - they've confirmed that in writing to me recently when I challenged them on fraudulent landing fees - which they have refused to remove from my latest invoice, BTW...

Interesting that they readily admit they cannot confirm the charges, yet invoice you for them anyway - and then expect us to tell them that they've got it wrong. So even if you put a plan in for tomorrow to YXYZ but the weather's iffy and you leave the plane in the hangar, AvData's still going to invoice you for that landing at YXYX (and any AD's you had on your plan as waypoints and overflew, too)

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1852x555/screenshot_2024_05_05_121717_3df0853326857291641ce0d62c9949e 327514772.png

[Lead Balloon]

Yep. It’s just a ‘invoice and hope’ system.

AvData has no standing to pursue alleged charges. The aerodrome owner does.

If an aerodrome owner wants to commence debt recovery action against me for $7.50, on the basis of a flight plan I submitted to Airservices but I never flew in fact, let them have at it. So far, none of them has been that stupid.

[Clare Prop]

The onus is on them (the aerodrome/ Airservices) to prove that you did land there, not on us to prove that we didn't.

I regularly get landing fees for places where it would be impossible for my little aeroplanes to go (such as a quick hop from Perth to Queensland and back in time for lunch) often it is people using false callsigns to dodge paying landing fees. If they have humans transcribing the callsigns there can be misheard or mistyped callsigns as well.

Beware also because if you file a flight plan and you run more than 30 minutes late AsA will charge you tower fees twice, once from the flight plan and once from the flight strip. I also get Airservices charges for towers I have never been to. Sometimes I get charged the landing fee for a touch and go. Every month I give them a list of lines that they need to credit me back for, and they always do.

Check every line of every invoice!

[BronteExperimental]

Thread dredge.

I received a landing fee for an airport that I did not land at.

What I did do, was file a flight plan to that airport, but landed elsewhere. I didn't go within 20 miles of said airport.

This leads me to realise that AirServices are providing AvData with flight plan information, or they are somehow scraping it from Flight Radar 24.

I thought that Avdata had to collect their information from other sources, such as radio calls, ARO, ADSB or cameras.

Does anyone know if there's an agreement between ASA and AVData for this?

From what I can deduce ASA provides many 3rd parties flight plan data in near real time.
Next time you file a plan, go check FR24, FlightAware etc. they’ll have the exact plan waypoint to waypoint.

[thunderbird five]

Someone I know got sick of false AVDATA charges and sent them fair notice that if he ever gets any more, he will be invoicing THEM at his professional consulting rate of $175/hr or whatever, minimum three hours, for his time to correct their errors. He has not mentioned any since, maybe he just ignores them now.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Every month I give them a list of lines that they need to credit me back for, and they always do. Check every line of every invoice!

Surely, (Clare ;-)) that isn't legal. I'd be making a call to Consumer Affairs.

This is what happens when you charge for ghost services.

https://www.watoday.com.au/business/companies/qantas-and-accc-agree-to-120-million-settlement-after-airline-misled-customers-20240506-p5fp4b.html

[Squawk7700]

Interesting update

I just rang AvData.

They told me that they bill on behalf of the airport owners. I then asked if the operators of Bendigo airport had observed my aircraft there via any method such as cameras, radio calls, ADSB or ARO and the response was no. They then advised that the billing was a "mistake" and that it was derived in error by using ASA flight plan information.

For the record I DID have a flight plan in the system to land at Bendigo, but ended up landing at Eppalock. I would not call the billing a "mistake," as the system worked fully as intended.

I said that I wanted it noted in their system that I am not to be billed for landings based on Air Services information. I wanted a note to be added to my account. I questioned if this was even legal.

First she said that this was not possible, then she said that I would have to speak with her manager and to standby.

After a few minutes, she came back and advised that my invoices will be manually checked before sending out to have ASA derived charges removed and that would be for 3 months.

I said that will need to be a permanent solution and she said "I will see what I can do."

Fingers crossed.

[KRviator]

I simply replied to the above email saying "When you work out which charges are legitimate, and issue a true and correct invoice, it will be paid.": Till then, I ignore them and just chuck 'em in a folder in the filing cabinet.

[Lead Balloon]

I don’t think AvData is going to permanently change their little version of ‘RoboDebt’ any time soon. The computer seems to be programmed to generate invoices that are sometimes based on ‘best guess’ translations (e.g. mumbled and misconstrued callsigns), extrapolating from incomplete information (e.g. drawing conclusions from a mere flight plan) or false information (e.g. people deliberately using the wrong call sign), then leaving it to the recipients of the bills to sort out if they have the time and inclination. If ‘lots’ of people pay without closely checking or challenging the charges, happy days for AvData and their customers. Squeaky wheels like Squawk (Clare, KR and me) are dealt with on an ‘exceptions’ basis.

The ‘trump card’ we have is as Clare recently noted and KR and others have ‘played’: The onus is on the aerodrome operator to prove the debt if the bill isn’t paid. It’s an expensive hiding to nowhere for the aerodrome operator if it has no first-hand evidence of an aircraft being at the aerodrome at a particular time, especially in the face of the laws of physics – it’s not physically possible for an aircraft to have been at two different, vastly separated, locations on the same or closely adjacent days – or an owner saying that their first-hand knowledge is that the aircraft did not in fact fly to Y on day Q, despite what a ‘filed’ flight plan said. (My guess is that even lots of legitimate charges are not pursued, simply because there’s no cost-benefit in pursuing them without reliable evidence to show aircraft X was at aerodrome Y on day Q, such as through an ARO’s first-hand observation or a demonstrably reliably date-stamped and functioning surveillance camera photograph.)

[hazza4257]

How does AvData even access Airservices flight plan records? I'm under the impression flight plans are technically public but can't see any way to access the database of active plans at any given moment. If I could it would make plane spotting more interesting, that's for sure.

[Lead Balloon]

They don’t need ‘real time’ access to ‘active’ flight plans. They just use filed flight plans and bill on the basis of an assumption that the plans were flown as filed. That’s one of the flaws in their system.

[ramble on]

How can one find out which airfields charge and which do not, and what the scale of landing fees are if this information is not published in the ERSA?

[Squawk7700]

How can one find out which airfields charge and which do not, and what the scale of landing fees are if this information is not published in the ERSA?

Avdata publish this and it’s also on the invoice when you get it so you know about all airports for next time.

[Lead Balloon]

Many ERSA entries about charges simply refer to the council’s/operator’s website.

The smart councils - like Cowra’s - have this entry:

AD Charges: Nil.

[On eyre]

Avdata publish this and it’s also on the invoice when you get it so you know about all airports for next time.

No longer complete list on the invoice now. Have to look it up on Avdata website.

[Lead Balloon]

I see that the charge for training circuits at YSWH is “$14.9091 per circuit”. Brilliant.

[PiperCameron]

I see that the charge for training circuits at YSWH is “$14.9091 per circuit”. Brilliant.

Is that inclusive or exclusive of GST?? :hmm:

[Clare Prop]

How can one find out which airfields charge and which do not, and what the scale of landing fees are if this information is not published in the ERSA?
If they are not on Avdata's list then go to the website of the shire.

[MalcolmReynolds]

Avdata = nil Fark em! End of story!

[Jenna Talia]

I see YMAY has changed their charging regime from per tonne to 'or part thereof'. So, if your aircraft is just over 1 tonne, the charge is based on 2 tonnes. This has resulted in a ~60% increase in the landing fee. Their parking fee used to be per day, now it is 'or part day.'

I wonder how long until other airports start to follow suit?

Grubs!

[PiperCameron]

I see YMAY has changed their charging regime from per tonne to 'or part thereof'. So, if your aircraft is just over 1 tonne, the charge is based on 2 tonnes. This has resulted in a ~60% increase in the landing fee. Their parking fee used to be per day, now it is 'or part day.'

I wonder how long until other airports start to follow suit?

Grubs!

And exactly how are they going to know how much your aircraft weighs? Put a set of scales in at the holding points?!? Quick! Rip out that flash-but-heavy avionics upgrade you just did - you're a few kilos over!! ..and whilst you're at it, min fuel only please. :ugh:

Crooks.

[Jenna Talia]

And exactly how are they going to know how much your aircraft weighs? Put a set of scales in at the holding points?!? Quick! Rip out that flash-but-heavy avionics upgrade you just did - you're a few kilos over!! ..and whilst you're at it, min fuel only please. :ugh:

Crooks.

They use the max takeoff weight, which can be found by a simple Google search.

[Lead Balloon]

All of the weight-based charges I've seen - including for YMAY - are calculated by reference to MTOW.