Avdata Scam

[rutan around]

Can any Pruner with legal knowledge advise me as to whether or not I have to respond to an invoice sent to me by Avdata for use of an airfield my aircraft has never been closer to than 400 NM. I think that the current Avdata system is designed as a giant scam for them. All they have to do is send out hundreds of fake invoices and then sit back and wait to be paid. If someone squeals just apologise and have another go sometime later meanwhile counting the$$$$ from all the ones that didn't notice the ring in airport. This seems to be happening to me more frequently lately. If my company sent out fake or padded accounts we'd either be sacked or sued by our customers. As I can't sack Avdata can I sue them or can a class action be mounted against them? Currently there appears to be little to deter them from scamming. Perhaps if they had to not only reverse the fake invoice but also pay the victim the invoice amount it might make them a bit more careful. I understand everyone can make a mistake (even our company) but the number made by Avdata is ridiculous and I have better things to do than rectifying their mistakes deliberate or otherwise.

[BlockNotAvailable]

Could be fraud from other pilots using your rego on the CTAF there?

[KRviator]

Can any Pruner with legal knowledge advise me as to whether or not I have to respond to an invoice sent to me by Avdata for use of an airfield my aircraft has never been closer to than 400 NM. I think that the current Avdata system is designed as a giant scam for them. All they have to do is send out hundreds of fake invoices and then sit back and wait to be paid. If someone squeals just apologise and have another go sometime later meanwhile counting the$$$$ from all the ones that didn't notice the ring in airport. This seems to be happening to me more frequently lately. If my company sent out fake or padded accounts we'd either be sacked or sued by our customers. As I can't sack Avdata can I sue them or can a class action be mounted against them? Currently there appears to be little to deter them from scamming. Perhaps if they had to not only reverse the fake invoice but also pay the victim the invoice amount it might make them a bit more careful. I understand everyone can make a mistake (even our company) but the number made by Avdata is ridiculous and I have better things to do than rectifying their mistakes deliberate or otherwise.IIRC, a PPRuner actually asked a lawyer about it a while ago. The response was along the lines of "It's up to them to send you a true and correct invoice, till they do, you can ignore it".

It isn't up to you to correct a private companies screwups. I dunno about suing them, but you could probably lodge a claim in your local fair trading department, seeing I believe the term is, "consequential loss", ie the time/cost you spent notifying them of their screwup. If nothing else, they would have to defend the claim -or be found in your favour by default...

[thunderbird five]

Send Avdata an estimate (at say $130/hr) for you to examine your records to see if your aircraft did actually go to that place. Don't examine your records until they send you the $.

[Squawk7700]

Their method of using voice recordings as evidence of a landing is fundamentally flawed for many reasons.

For parking, regos are recorded by hand by the ARO or similar and passed on.

I have found that if I query an invoice for landing fees collected by radio, they almost immediately remove it.

If I query a charge for parking, they refer back to the ARO / reporter of the info.

If I were you and you firmly believe that someone is using your rego, Avdata should be able to retrieve the recordings which may help you/them identify the perpetrator and subsequently end up as a Police charge of OPBD or similar.

[Clinton McKenzie]

On every occasion on which I’ve asked AVDATA to reverse charges that have been invoiced to my aircraft for flights to places to which I haven’t been as stated in the invoice, the charges have been reversed. Although I could have just not paid and instead sat back to wait for the debt to be proved - when it couldn’t be - AVDATA has always accepted my requests.

One problem with the ‘sit back and don’t pay’ approach arises if you get an invoice with charges for e.g. 6 aerodromes and you weren’t ever at e.g. 2 out of the 6. If you pay part of the invoice - because the charges are legitimately owed for 4 out of the 6 - but don’t say anything about why you’ve only payed $X(invoiced) - $(for the 2 aerodromes you’ve never been), AVDATA won’t necessarily know which charges you’re disputing. Again, although that’s theoretically not your problem, it’s easily resolved by a short email.

One interesting thing to watch out for: If you submit a flight plan to NIS for a flight that goes to a place that has a charge, you may still receive an invoice with a charge for that place even if you do not end up going there in fact. This seems to be programmed into NIS or a system that monitors NIS/Flightaware etc. Again, I just request a reversal of the charges in these cases, and the charges have always been reversed.

But on the day I request a reversal and it’s refused, my response will be: Go your hardest and prove the debt. I’m always looking for entertainment.

[rutan around]

If I were you and you firmly believe that someone is using your rego, Avdata should be able to retrieve the recordings which may help you/them identify the perpetrator and subsequently end up as a Police charge of OPBD or similar

I don't believe in my case that someone is using my rego because when I phone Avdata they have me standby while they have a listen to the recording. Every time it turns out that the call sign has been misheard. What I'm bitching about is that with a little bit of care they could get it right the first time. Why should they be allowed to send out who knows how many wrong invoices just so they can process the calls twice as fast. I'm over chasing them to correct their stuff ups so I will take the advice passed on by KRviator and ignore the bill.They can send outstanding invoices till they're blue in the face. I hope they don't print on both sides because I like to print weather etc on the blank side.

[aroa]

KR Aviator...the legal comment is correct ...and has been tested in court in the past.
For Avdata to accurately bill you....THEY should have a fool-proof and correct system in the first place.

[Squawk7700]

I heard a call last weekend which led me to believe that the pilot was well versed with avoiding landing fees:

"VH-XXX is going around runway 24 and did not land."

[gerry111]

You have to feel for the wretched scanner holding, anorak wearing contractor who has to transcribe our call signs.. ;)
I'll bet it's poorly paid too.

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

I’m wondering if foreign registered aircraft (legitimately) abbreviating their callsign has ever led to a local aircraft being billed erroneously. The convention is that (after initial contact on a new frequency) the aircraft may use the first and last two letters of their registration, for instance ZK-OPY can use “Zulu Papa Yankee”

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I regularly (every 3-4 months) get invoiced by Avdata for airports not used. Like Clinton, a 2 minute email reply gets an immediate response and the charge removed.

[thunderbird five]

I’m wondering if foreign registered aircraft (legitimately) abbreviating their callsign has ever led to a local aircraft being billed erroneously. The convention is that (after initial contact on a new frequency) the aircraft may use the first and last two letters of their registration, for instance ZK-OPY can use “Zulu Papa Yankee”

100% Yes. Mate of mine got an avdata bill for Port MacQuarie I think it was. I just happened to have read in an NZ magazine the day before he told me, that ZK-same rego had passed through PMQ.
Easily sorted, but yet again, another innocent party had to make the effort to correct the matter.

What other business, of any sort, randomly sends out accounts to people hoping that they'll just pay it? And what other business of any sort randomly sends out accounts for another business? None I know of.
Friend of mine has a business - what would happen if he asked me to bill his customers, and tell them to pay me, not him? They'd say rearrange these words: stuffed, get.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Many moons ago at 'Kunners' not too long after the FS unit had closed, the radio call was heard to be that 'FKC' was cira, landed etc.

Then, up popped the REAL VH-FKC (Fk.28 at the time...) with a few 'words of wisdom' for the 'alleged perp'......who was never heard of again...…

Well Done Skipper....

Cheers

(Tks Dick...…)

,

[Vag277]

So, how else could it be done?

[kaz3g]

I think the way of tackling this is for as many people as can be mustered to write individually to the Australian Information Commissioner complaining that CASA is breaching their privacy by publishing their personal information to the world.

CASA argues it is required to do this by a Regulation it wrote to make life easy for itself. The Act requires it to keep a Register but it is only the Regulation that “requires” it to be published on the internet.

In my view, the Regulation is over-ridden by the Privacy Act and, in any case, is probably beyond power because the only head is that of “safety”.

Hard to make a safety case when none of our motor vehicle registrations is publicly available and those responsible for aviation safety could have access similar to police with vehicle regos. Even harder when RA aircraft fly around without the owner being publicly identified.

kaz

[Vag277]

If that data becomes corrected, how do the small aerodrome operators recover their costs?

[Tankengine]

First response polite email,
second response, firmer, slightly less polite email.

When that didn’t stop the bills coming, third response :
”stop sending these fff...ng wrong bills or I will prosecute for harassment - CCd to an airservices board member”
They stopped some years ago! ;)

[KRviator]

If that data becomes corrected, how do the small aerodrome operators recover their costs?Hopefully much the same way that Central Coast Council covers the cost of the 28 boat ramps across the region for which weekend warriors do not pay-to-use....recognize an aerodrome is a public facility, much like the road into town and incorporate it into the rates funding scheme.

Because it's a bit rich to nearly $300 for an hour of circuits for a 600Kg RAAus machine....

[CaptainMidnight]

I think the way of tackling this is for as many people as can be mustered to write individually to the Australian Information Commissioner complaining that CASA is breaching their privacy by publishing their personal information to the world.

It won't happen.

CASA isn't the only organisation obligated by legislation to publish client information publically.

[Vag277]

KRaviator, I think you are missing the point of the rate payer perception of the benefits they gain. Anyone can use a boat ramp. If an aerodrome has no RPT and no emergency service base with limited fixed wing use by RFDS then they are not interested in paying for the facility which they cannot use without significant investment in a pilot qualification

[YPJT]

So, how else could it be done?
A lot of airports are now installing movement triggered cameras strategically located at runway exits to get a snap of the aircraft.

[rutan around]

KRaviator, I think you are missing the point of the rate payer perception of the benefits they gain. Anyone can use a boat ramp. If an aerodrome has no RPT and no emergency service base with limited fixed wing use by RFDS then they are not interested in paying for the facility which they cannot use without significant investment in a pilot qualification

Vag277 I think you may be right that the ratepayers (or more accurately the otherwise unemployable lowlife councilors that local councils seem to attract) do seem to ignore the benefits an airport brings and see it only as a milking cow.

Our city has many assets that are free for the public to use and I think they are a good thing. We have boat ramps, parks,botanical gardens, children's play areas, football fields and pond picnic areas to mention a few. Now I personally have little or no use for any of them these days but my rates still go towards their purchase and up keep. The one thing I do use is 500 - 600 metres of bitumen at the airport owned by the Council. Considering the airport has to be there for mail,emergency services and medical evacuations that everyone wants the City to have, then the cost burden should be carried by all ratepayers and be free to use the same as other ratepayer funded assets.

The council does not individually charge the ratepayers or visitors for the roads they drive on. The roads, like the airport benefit everyone whether they own a car or a plane and are paid for by general rates. Why then is the airport treated differently from the roads? Stop the airport charges for all council owned airports and all the problems with Avdata disappear.
I'd like to see how Councils would go if they closed down a towns airport and someone died because they couldn't be medevaced out.

[KRviator]

KRaviator, I think you are missing the point of the rate payer perception of the benefits they gain. Anyone can use a boat ramp. If an aerodrome has no RPT and no emergency service base with limited fixed wing use by RFDS then they are not interested in paying for the facility which they cannot use without significant investment in a pilot qualificationSure they can - but they need to buy a boat first... And I got the figure wrong: It was 28 ramps in Wyong Council LGA, with another 18 in the Gosford LGA. So 46 actual boat ramps at who-knows-what-cost to maintain annually, plus dozens of public wharves they maintain for the exclusive use of those who own a boat, but are incorporated into the council rates scheme - you don't pay a cent to launch or recover your boat, no matter the size. Yet, I am expected to pay nearly $300/hr in landing fees at Warnervale for a 600Kg RAAus bird? It's no wonder people try to rort the system.

That being said, it is up to AvData, or the ARO, to issue a true and correct invoice to the user. Relying on nothing more than a VOX-based radio recorder is pi$$ weak, and I fail to see why anyone should spend their time and efforts correcting AvData's mistake. Sure they do fix it when told, but how often has that statement been made in this thread alone? "I just emailed them and they fixed it right up"...5 times already - suggesting it is neither an isolated occurrence nor something they have actively tried to guard against or eliminate to date.

[Clare Prop]

In my experience Avdata have always reversed disputed charges.

A worse scam is Airservices charging twice for landings. Check those Airservices invoices carefully. If you have filed a flight plan and you get delayed you will be charged twice for the TNC.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I think you are missing the point of the rate payer perception of the benefits they gain. “Perception” is, in my opinion, a dumb way to run any system. The aviation system does seem to have more than its fair share of dumb.

One of the reasons I’ve purchased land with a hangar in which to store my aircraft at Cootamundra is the ‘aviation friendly’ local council. (One of the other reasons is that there was no longer any GA maintenance organisation on the only aerodrome in the capital city of what laughably claims to be a first world aviation nation).

The Cootamundra/Gundagai Council has no way of knowing how many people fly in to Cootamundra then walk into town for a meal or to stay overnight. My first-hand observation is that lots of people are doing this. All of those people are contributing to the local economy. I’ve also spent lots of money on local trades people - electrician, builder, earthmover, plumber, LAME... And I pay rates.

The Council is smart enough to rent the strip out for use by car clubs for time trials.

Fire-fighting base. Ag operator to service the surrounding farms...

If the Council decides it’s a good idea to start charging me aerodrome usage fees, I will move somewhere else. I already actively avoid places that charge landing fees (or have Air BP as the only fuel supplier), if it’s practicable. I suspect that the transient traffic would by-pass the place, too. It would be no different to charging a toll to drive down Main Street - tourists would just go somewhere else.

Direct cost recovery comes at a substantial indirect opportunity cost. Smart systems take the latter into consideration before deciding to impose the former.
CASA isn't the only organisation obligated by legislation to publish client information publically.And who decides on the policy of the regulations that oblige CASA to publish?

That would be: CASA.

CASA having to do it, because CASA decided CASA has to do it, does not strike me as a very compelling argument for it.

[Dexta]

With regards to charging, saying that charging landing fees is like charging cars to use the main road is not correct, it's more like charging cars to enter a parking lot. I would say very few cars enter a parking lot then exit again just to practice, maybe some driving schools do this :-) but cars often do enter car parks and are charged for the convenience and safety of such a facility. Aircraft can land anywhere they like (with permission) but it is much safer and far more convenient to use an airport. The problem occurs because it is very difficult to put up a barrier to the runway and get the pilot to take a ticket before landing. If they stop and park then the process of charging is simple. It is the people who decide to use someones facility and leave without paying or leaving some form of identification for later reimbursement that is the problem. Kind of like entering a carpark, driving around then leaving without paying, an act that most normal people would see as not right (pointless maybe but still not right).

[kaz3g]

If the Council decides it’s a good idea to start charging me aerodrome usage fees, I will move somewhere else. I already actively avoid places that charge landing fees (or have Air BP as the only fuel supplier), if it’s practicable. I suspect that the transient traffic would by-pass the place, too. It would be no different to charging a toll to drive down Main Street - tourists would just go somewhere else.

Direct cost recovery comes at a substantial indirect opportunity cost. Smart systems take the latter into consideration before deciding to impose the former.
And who decides on the policy of the regulations that oblige CASA to publish?

That would be: CASA.

CASA having to do it, because CASA decided CASA has to do it, does not strike me as a very compelling argument for it.

At a meeting with Shepparton Council staff this morning. Their commendation to Council:

Landing fees here to stay
No exemptions including Aeroclub, hangar owners and tenants
Aim is to cover all costs of operation from GA activity
Rates paid by hangar owners go to general revenue, not airport income
Hamgar leases expire in 2 years and any new lease will have caveat lease cancelled if airport moves (current proposal)

Mass exodus has begun. Expect to see men with paper bags wandering around promoting subdivision.

kaz

[rutan around]

DextaWith regards to charging, saying that charging landing fees is like charging cars to use the main road is not correct,

I don't see where anyone mentioned Main Roads and I don't regard an isolated strip of bitumen less than 1 km long as a main road. Main roads are state and federally funded.
Local and minor roads are generally funded by the third tier of government, local councils.

Local councils provide maintenance through rates for many things most of which I don't use. What pisses me off is the only thing I do want to use they charge me. To be consistent they should have Avdata put a camera and recorder beside the kiddies swing and charge them per oscillation. Now that is a truly dumb idea so don't mention it to any councilor. A better way to be consistent is to include the airport in it's list of free amenities as after all the airport benefits all citizens whether they fly or not.

[YPJT]

Pleasantly surprised recently to learn that Kalgoorlie doesn't charge for SE <5700kg (might be piston only). Bunbury similarly don't charge for light GA.
A lot of other regional airports have fairly modest landing fees.

[Obidiah]

Rutan Around,

Almost unquestionably the Avdata process does not engage in trying to scam folks for false landing fees, perhaps an occasional poor interpretation as to whom should incur the invoice, but that would be the extent of it. You run the risk of being labeled a paranoid nutter to seriously suggest they are corruptly trying to scam us.

I too get the odd false invoice and I don't mind at all, a 30 second call and issue resolved, or I could just ignore it after all the onus is on them but this just creates extra work for them and seems unfair in so far as 30 seconds of our time and its sorted.

The reason I don't mind getting the odd false invoice, in fact I wish I got more, is that I sincerely hope some aviator somewhere has chosen to you my registration to avoid a landing charge (although it isn't quite that simple) and thus stick it up the system that thought it would dumb the world by throttling aviation.