Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Vic Govt legislates on landing fees

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Vic Govt legislates on landing fees

Old 31st Aug 2003, 11:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 101
Vic Govt legislates on landing fees

The Bracks government in Victoria has just introduced legislation to make Certificate of Registration holders liable for landing fees for actual landings and practise approaches in the vacinity of an aerodrome runway, irrespective of whether the CoR holder was operating the aircraft or not.

Is this a good idea???
CitationJet is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2003, 16:27
  #2 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
G'day Citation,

Nothing new here. Whether it is Airservices, Avdata or other reporting agency that records the landing data, the invoice is usually forwarded to the C of R holder unless a third party has signed an agreement with that agency to be responsible for the landing fees. I know we have done this with ASA but not sure if Avdata have a similar provision.

We operate a number of aircraft on behalf of other people and because we collect all the landing fees it is easier for the invoices to be processed by us rather than back through the various owners.

Pilots using false or no callsigns over the radio to avoid landing fees is another problem. From what I can see thus far, the Vic govts legislation is not going to change anything here. We often receive invoices for landing fees at airfields on the other side of the country for our little bugshmashers that rarely venture more than an hour or two east of Perth. A note sent back with the invoice stating that at the time the aircraft was not in the state usually puts the matter to rest. One possible scenario where this could get tricky would be if in fact one of our planes was over east on extended hire and just happened to have it's callsign fraudulently used by another.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2003, 16:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 964
Have you got any links to this pls??

What time line??

This trend to charge for use of airspace at non tower aerodromes is a bit of a worry. I don't belive the owners have that right at this point in time. Unless you actually put your tyres on the runway they dont really have a case.

In any case the issue of landing charges at location/s where there is not similar charges for road users that drive into town is clearly discrimination against the aviator.
triadic is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2003, 16:56
  #4 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
G'day Triadic,

I don't see how anyone can claim discrimination for being charged a landing fee simply because they do not pay a road toll to drive to the same town. They (drivers) do however pay exhorbitant annual motor vehicle registration fees. As C of R holders do not pay an annual registration or license fee it cannot be argued that revenue for the provision and maintenance of airfields is already funded. Someone has to pay the engineers, plant operators and other staff required to maintain the airfields to a minimum acceptable standard.

As for the councils and airfield owners charging for practice approaches, well that is a blatant ripoff and they are either being poorly advised or trying to build test cases. I see on another thread Avalon are trying it on even for a GPS app / arrival. A country shire over here tried it on a couple of years back with their NDB until it was pointed out to them that they neither owned the airspace or the navaid.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2003, 18:53
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 101
This is new Islander, at least for Victoria. Despite the practise of AVDATA in sending accounts to CofR holders, unless the CofR holder was responsible for the landing, the airport has no legal claim against them when it comes to landing fees. This legislation changes that and the CofR holder will be legally responsible if the aerodrome operator wants to take action.
CitationJet is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2003, 19:13
  #6 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
Just means C of R holders will need to be a bit more discerning (in Victoria anyway) wrt who they hire, loan, lease their aircraft to.

Scenario is no different to the old Multanova or red light camera. Infringement notice gets sent to the registered vehicle owner. Either pay up or provide details of who was driving at the time. I would hope the introduced legislation provides similar provisions. C of R holders can probably protect themselves by having the pilot sign a simple document acknowledging their obligation for landing fees incurred during the time of their hire.

I really think a mountain is being made of a molehill here.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2003, 16:54
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183
NO TOUCHIE GROUND, NO LEGAL GROUNDS

Guys

I remain unconvinced that any legal grounds exist for charging for a practice or missed approach where the wheels do not touch the ground.

No one owns the air or the airspace above an airport - there may be rules about flying in it if it is Class C or D but to the best of my knowledge there is NO legal means of charging for transiting a CTAF, MBZ, etc apart from any Commonwealth imposed AirServices fees for the route/category.

I would value an opinion from CASA on this matter or from Creamie should be be browsing.

I would be interested to see any formal doco on this - it should certainly be referred to AOPA if it exists. Bracks popularity polled today at a new low, no surprise.
Cheers
Brian H
brianh is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 13:59
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 138
Angel

Islander Jock, Ladies and Gentlemen,

do you mean to say that because we're getting ripped off by governments when we pay our rego, road fines etc. then aircraft owners should also get ripped off for use of an airfield?

Islander, I hope you don't mind me calling me by your first name, two wrongs do not make a right, at least, not in the real world.

Seeking to bring others down to a common level as a means of achieving social justice is an invalid concept. I'm sure you would know that. Perhaps you've just forgotten.

By seeking to restrict others enjoyment of wealth, you will be actually ensuring that their wealth is less likely to be shared around.

I'm not really talking to you individually Islander. This is a plea to all who think that by ensuring we all get screwed equally we will achieve some sense of justice. We will only get justice when no-one get's screwed, neither the highest nor the lowest member of our society.

You may now genuflect, and go forth and multiply.

Go on, flock off.

Life's a bitch, then you fly.
Manwell is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 14:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
It gets worse

Manwell.

Even better, charging for using a GPS while overflying a strip is like Gundagai Council charging you for driving past (not through) their town.

Stuff em all!!!

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 18:27
  #10 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
G'day Manwell,

I dislike landing fees, rego fees, fines etc as much as the next person. Some are simply indefensible (see the Avalon GPS approach thread), others are simply a matter of paying for a service or facility.

Your analogy of "restricting other's enjoyment of wealth" escapes me totally. but:
I'm not really talking to you individually Islander. This is a plea to all who think that by ensuring we all get screwed equally we will achieve some sense of justice. We will only get justice when no-one get's screwed, neither the highest nor the lowest member of our society.
Now that really has me intrigued. How can anyone logically suggest that because a group and I might add the only group, to be using a facility is being screwed by contributing to it's maintenance and upkeep.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 19:08
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
I'm scratching my head on this one, perhaps somebody can answer a couple of questions for me.

1: What's it got to do with the Victorian STATE government anyway.

&

2: If these 'charges' relate to their own or managed properties then OK, but the last time I looked closely the Victorian STATE government didn't own or manage any aviation facility.

Just had another thought, could they be doing this for some of their 'mates' benefit?

DISCLAIMER: When I say aviation facility I am not refering to the hot air that exudes from Spring St.

Disco Stu
who happily moved north to the sunshine

Last edited by Disco Stu; 2nd Sep 2003 at 19:32.
Disco Stu is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 21:03
  #12 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
Disco Stu,

Given the demise of FAC and subsequent privatisation of airfields accross the country my guess would be that Commonweatlth legislation notwithstanding, the state is within it's rights to introduce legislation that does not conflict. [does that make sense?]

Whilst the Victorian govt perhaps does not manage airports as such. The states seem to have a fair bit of influence in aviation matters at at state govt level. In WA that portfolio belongs to the dept of Planning and Infrastructure. Probably same horse different colour in Victoria.

I have looked through CARs and cannot find anything in relation to aircraft owners responsibility with regard to landing fees. It is perhaps for this reason that the states are taking their own initiative to rectify this anomoly.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 08:17
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 964
I understand that the proposed legislation is still only in draft form and is unlikely to be up until late this year at the earliest.

More details when I find them.

I suspect it is the provision of a backstop to give aerodrome owners some authority to collect charges. ?
triadic is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 08:29
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
If it is draft form and you have an interest start stirring the pot.

Write letters to local members.

Write letters to newspapers.

Ring members.

But be fair, airports need to make money somehow, but charging for the air above them is just not on!!!

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 09:10
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 101
The legislation is NOT in draft form, it is in final form and was introduced to Parliament by the Minister for State and Regional Development on 28 August.

It will probably go through Parliament by mid-September and will establish the right for aerodrome operators to charge CofR holders for practise approaches, ala Avalon GPS, as well as landings.

The bill is at

http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/pdocs/...696/index.html


Does AOPA have a view on this?
CitationJet is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 18:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
I just read the so called legislation on the above link

What a load of BOVINE MANURE

I really shakes my head in disbelief that this sort of rubbish can come from supposed intelligent and educated people. Obviously out of touch with reality though.

ding
dingo084 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 19:19
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,496
Sent this a few moments ago. I hope it helps :-)


The Hon. Steve Bracks
Premier of Victoria.

Dear Sir,
I am writing to you this day to indicate my concern over your government's intention of legislating to allow some airport owners to charge for what amounts to the air above their properties. I feel that as a practicing private pilot I am being discriminated against. I feel that if this was to be made law it would vastly increase the costs of training and compliance of my keeping an active licence and of further upgrading that licence in the years to come.

I would understand the reasons for this legislation if indeed monies were actually being spent on maintaining these navigation facilities by the aforementioned airfield owners. To put it simply. How can one charge for the use of a satellite based navigation system when one has absolutely no control what so ever in its maintenance and availability nor accuracy of the said system? In fact were it possible for said owner to be able to "flick a switch!" and deny access to this system then I would be more respectful of your legislation.

I feel that no consultation has been entered with any of the other stakeholders, therefore making this legislation biased in favour of the aerodrome owners. This is very unfair.

If your government was intending to assume responsibility for the maintenance and commission of the airways navigation system from The Commonwealth and was then entering into an agreement with the affected aerodrome owners then I would also understand your position. Simply put the aerodrome owners do not "own" the air navigation system. In the not too distant future when technology is available to augment the accuracy of the GPS (Wide Area Augmentation System) there will be no need for ground based navigation facilities. When that day passes a navigation/landing/approach charge will really be "Charging for the smell of my good broth"

Yours Faithfully

Mr Mark Jones
5 Retreat CCt
Beaconsfield Victoria
[email protected]

Occupation- Tip truck Driver ( In case you think I am some silvertail with more money than sense ;-) )
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 20:07
  #18 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
Thumbs up

OZBUSDRIVER,

Good letter but would a better affect be achieved by sending same to the state oposition spokesman (spokesperson if the portfolio is a female) for State and Regional Development.

ducks for cover
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2003, 17:14
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,496
Islander Jock will do this tonite. Who knows the Libs might actualy come in to bat with this. Lordy knows they need all the help they can get. Definitely in search of a policy platform
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2003, 03:20
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 373
I have often wondered where the money comes from to run airfields in Oz,you dont think someone has been talking to the poms do you,after all they know how to rip you off.Eg. landing a cherokee in bournemouth which isnt exactly a hive of activity will set you back over 100 pounds!
So Australia has an enormous way to go to catch us up!
frangatang is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.