Avdata Scam
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I think you are missing the point of the rate payer perception of the benefits they gain.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dexta
With 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.
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.
A lot of other regional airports have fairly modest landing fees.
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.
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.
