RAAUS shares aircraft owner details with airport operators
I do not mind paying my fair share of landing fees - but when you look at the local airport charging $275.00 for an hour of circuits (No, I didn't misplace the decimal point) for my <600Kg RAAus-registered RV, then I'm going to have an issue with RAAus passing on my details. I note the entry for Warnervale Airport on AvData's page does not align to what Council says they will charge, either...AvData says $7.50 exc-GST (per landing, so still $82.50/hour), but Council says $27.50 and the local aero club (who operate the field for Council) say it is $15.50 per landing...
The Central Coast Aero Club does not operate/manage the Central Coast Airport. Per ERSA, the AD OPR is Central Coast Council.
The Central Coast Aero Club continues to strongly oppose the current landing fee structure imposed by Central Coast Council and has done so ever since it was introduced.
The landing fees charged by Central Coast Council for local non-Aero Club aircraft is charged per 20 minute block, and per landing for itinerant aircraft.
It wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment any further but I don't think it is fair to suggest that the Central Coast Aero Club has done anything other than try to promote aviation through safe flight training and community events, unfortunately our hands are tied when it comes to certain Council matters...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Regional councils will love this idea, some recently increased runway lengths for one RPT carrier, gave land to build a community funded emergency helo base, this justified raising land rents at airport by 100% and they can do this rise annually if they like
They DO charge per circuit landing too.
"please treat RAA fairly" is the best they ask for when sharing data!!!!!!
Surely administering these charges at sub 100x movement/day airports would out weight much of the benefit.
They DO charge per circuit landing too.
"please treat RAA fairly" is the best they ask for when sharing data!!!!!!
Surely administering these charges at sub 100x movement/day airports would out weight much of the benefit.
Thats easy... just change it!
They have already been giving it to the ATO in accordance with their policy supposedly. Stuffs up those pensioners that own an aircraft and wanted to keep it private. A friend once proudly said to me, the form from Centrelink said, do you own other assets like a boat or caravan, so he ticked NO. It didnt ask if he owned an aircraft !
They have already been giving it to the ATO in accordance with their policy supposedly. Stuffs up those pensioners that own an aircraft and wanted to keep it private. A friend once proudly said to me, the form from Centrelink said, do you own other assets like a boat or caravan, so he ticked NO. It didnt ask if he owned an aircraft !
Ain't it strange....
When you email the CEO asking under what authority they are disclosing our information, they say "Oh, we updated the Privacy Policy in August. You must be looking at an old one!". UUhhhh, Nope. Nice try, though.
Now, I linked the most current version at 0730 yesterday morning, that was "Version 2.1" that was approved for use from May 2017. The new version is "Version 2.0" approved for use from 1st August 2018 that includes the following:
Of course, this begs the question, for those members (Every existing member prior to 01 August 2018), so far as I can tell, they have not been notified about the change to the privacy policy, have no alternative to opt-out, and are presumably operating under the belief that they have provided information to RAAus that will be kept confidential, IAW the "V2.1" policy. So what happens when you give information to acompany in good faith, and in accordance with their extant privacy policy, but said company then says "We changed our policy, we're now going to sell your data!"?
When you email the CEO asking under what authority they are disclosing our information, they say "Oh, we updated the Privacy Policy in August. You must be looking at an old one!". UUhhhh, Nope. Nice try, though.
Now, I linked the most current version at 0730 yesterday morning, that was "Version 2.1" that was approved for use from May 2017. The new version is "Version 2.0" approved for use from 1st August 2018 that includes the following:
Originally Posted by The RAAus Privacy Policy
5.3. Use and disclosure of personal information
RAAus will only use and/or disclose personal information for the purposes for which it was collected (the primary purpose), unless an individual has consented to another use [APP 6]. There are certain limited circumstances in which RAAus may use or disclose information for a different purpose (a secondary purpose) without consent, such as where the secondary purpose is:
directly related to the primary purpose for which the information was collected
required or authorised under an Australian law or has been ordered by a court or tribunal
necessary to lessen or prevent an immediate and serious threat to the life, safety of air navigation, health or safety of any individual, or public health or safety
to facilitate the investigation of an occurrence involving an RAAus registered aircraft and the death or serious injury of one or more persons
a permitted general situation or health situation, as defined by the Privacy Act
an enforcement related activity and the use or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary or
for the purposes of collecting fees associated with airport use and access.
If RAAus uses or discloses personal information for a purpose other than what it was originally collected for, RAAus will keep a written notice of that use or disclosure as required by the APPs.
RAAus will only use and/or disclose personal information for the purposes for which it was collected (the primary purpose), unless an individual has consented to another use [APP 6]. There are certain limited circumstances in which RAAus may use or disclose information for a different purpose (a secondary purpose) without consent, such as where the secondary purpose is:
directly related to the primary purpose for which the information was collected
required or authorised under an Australian law or has been ordered by a court or tribunal
necessary to lessen or prevent an immediate and serious threat to the life, safety of air navigation, health or safety of any individual, or public health or safety
to facilitate the investigation of an occurrence involving an RAAus registered aircraft and the death or serious injury of one or more persons
a permitted general situation or health situation, as defined by the Privacy Act
an enforcement related activity and the use or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary or
for the purposes of collecting fees associated with airport use and access.
If RAAus uses or discloses personal information for a purpose other than what it was originally collected for, RAAus will keep a written notice of that use or disclosure as required by the APPs.
Thread Starter
Apple et al, update their T&C's on a very regular basis. It is what it is. If you don't like it, you unsubscribe, or in this case, register your aircraft under a company name or some other form of covert arrangement like, um, perhaps a PO Box!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never did hear an apology from them or an explanation.
It is the other issuing bodies they really should be apologising to. Thanks to their ineptness cyber security compliance bills of between $20K and $30K are common. Guess who will be paying for that. Say goodbye to your $220 - $240 ASICs folks.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue under discussion doesn't really concern me, but to your point Squawk, at least when Apple update their T&C's you are required to acknowledge that it has occurred every single time it happens. I certainly do not agree with an organisation amending their T&C's on a whim and providing NO notification of such - very unprofessional and unethical.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't stress, it's the airport operators that will be given the data, not 'commercial' entities (AVDATA). So unless the airport bills directly, there would be no way that AVDATA can have your information under the agreement.
<Deafening silence>
No more unfair than the Central Coast Council not charging boaties to use any of the 50-something boat ramps across the LGA, for example. Imagine the outcry if they said "Wanna launch your 4m tinny? No worries, that'll be $25, thank you". 
Maybe I should run for Mayor....
Maybe I should run for Mayor....
The ramp at Port Albert, 20km further east, is free, as are all ramps on the Gippsland Lakes.
I would think the misuse of personal details (privacy) ought to have killed this deal stone dead.
Because I was bored, I decided to look at the constitution of the the company that controls RAAUS.
Its a limited liability company limited by $1 per member.
There is nothing I could find in the constitution about advancing the benefits to members.
However, the Charter of membership states that one of its purposes and aims is " To defend vigorously, and lobby for the best interests of the membership."
One of the interesting articles is this one about the register of members, and what info on each member must be kept
Note that it says ANY aircraft or license. So they could demand that GA pilots, ATPL pilots, helo pilots , even military pilots provide them information of they also are a member of RAAUS.
Mick
Its a limited liability company limited by $1 per member.
There is nothing I could find in the constitution about advancing the benefits to members.
However, the Charter of membership states that one of its purposes and aims is " To defend vigorously, and lobby for the best interests of the membership."
One of the interesting articles is this one about the register of members, and what info on each member must be kept
v. Such information as the Directors shall require of each Member concerning his or her interest in any aircraft, any licence, certificate or entitlement of whatsoever description and kind to do with any matter regarding aviation, whether the same is or may be required by any Australian aviation authority with power to require such information or otherwise as the Directors shall decide.
Mick
Evading landing fees via a contrivance in an organisations' internal rules just doesn't pass the 'pub' test on fairness. If RAAus aircraft owners don't want to pay their way - the solution is simple: just don't land anywhere that charges landing fees. Many airports have an 'annual' fee which covers unlimited operations, eg, in our case it is around $190 pa, or, you cough up $11/day. My RAAus flying school aircraft attracts an annual fee of about $700, which hurts a bit, but in the scheme of things, seems fair. As an organisation, RAAus will enter the grown-up ranks with this decision: arguing about constitutions and rules is mere semantics. And if you think the deal with AAA is all 'one-way' then standby. happy days,
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Malua Bay
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. RAAus pilots will never be taken seriously whilever we skulk around the place not paying our way and appearing to bludge on GA . Running an airport is a very expensive business and the good old days of DCA picking up the tab are gone forever. And before you ask I did start flying in 1969 and remember DCA fondly.
For sure. If RAAus aircraft operators don't want to pay landing fees,- make the aerodrome VH rego aircraft only.
Let the RAAus people go and pick a suitable paddock to land, and hope the owner doesn't pepper their buzzbox with a 12 gauge.
Let the RAAus people go and pick a suitable paddock to land, and hope the owner doesn't pepper their buzzbox with a 12 gauge.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Malua Bay
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAaus really started this problem about three years ago when they decided to stop providing owner details to Avdata etc. This was justified as a cost saving measure at the time. Since then there have been regular platitudes and admonishments in Sport Pilot advising owners to provide their details to Avdata voluntarily. But seriously???
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They. never provided details to avdata, Avdat were sending invoices to them which they were printing amd mailing to members. Costing money, iAvdata got paid and made profit.
if landing fees were being collected for services related to small aircrafts interests would be less of an issue than extending runways, security and carparks. RAA members maybe less resistant
casa sharing details is also a breach or privacy.
if landing fees were being collected for services related to small aircrafts interests would be less of an issue than extending runways, security and carparks. RAA members maybe less resistant
casa sharing details is also a breach or privacy.
