Use of False Callsigns
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Another Desert
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of False Callsigns
Had a call the other day from the owner of an aircraft i used to fly a few months back, asking if i had been to aerodrome X on a particular date. After a quick reference to the old logbook, dicovered that not only did i not fly to aerodrome X on that day, but the aircraft was in maintenance the entire week.
Owner had recieved a bill for landing fees... (not the first time this had happened)
So there is two conclusions;
1...Someone is flying around using a false callsign
or
2...The powers at be are misreading the tapes, and billing the wrong person.
Have many others come across this situation??
cheers
giddy
Owner had recieved a bill for landing fees... (not the first time this had happened)
So there is two conclusions;
1...Someone is flying around using a false callsign
or
2...The powers at be are misreading the tapes, and billing the wrong person.
Have many others come across this situation??
cheers
giddy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: God's Country
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-Up.
Yep, happened to me a while back.
Except I was buzzing around when I actually heard a guy use the callsign of the aircraft that I was flying in at the time
I don't know if this practice still goes on at the particular airfield and by the same -chute mob?? Hope not.
Cheers
Yep, happened to me a while back.
Except I was buzzing around when I actually heard a guy use the callsign of the aircraft that I was flying in at the time
I don't know if this practice still goes on at the particular airfield and by the same -chute mob?? Hope not.
Cheers
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a new problem
We have received landing fee accounts for airfields in eastern states when the aircraft concerned hadn't even flown further than the Darling Range (the range that runs parallel to the coast just east of Perth).
Have even sprung an aircraft at Rottnest using one of our callsigns or the one that really makes me laugh - using the old "Cessna 182 downwind _ blah blah blah". I normally get hacked off with it and jump on the radio after said aircraft lands and make sure his callsign has my voice stamp on the Avdata tape.
Then there's even the case of a certain pilot who used to like sneaking into Jandakot after tower hours, under the circuit to use the non duty rwy and without any radio calls.
The things people will do to save a buck. Wonder what else those same operators try and save on - maintenance perhaps?
We have received landing fee accounts for airfields in eastern states when the aircraft concerned hadn't even flown further than the Darling Range (the range that runs parallel to the coast just east of Perth).
Have even sprung an aircraft at Rottnest using one of our callsigns or the one that really makes me laugh - using the old "Cessna 182 downwind _ blah blah blah". I normally get hacked off with it and jump on the radio after said aircraft lands and make sure his callsign has my voice stamp on the Avdata tape.
Then there's even the case of a certain pilot who used to like sneaking into Jandakot after tower hours, under the circuit to use the non duty rwy and without any radio calls.
The things people will do to save a buck. Wonder what else those same operators try and save on - maintenance perhaps?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah had that happen to us to, bills turning up for places we've never been to.
It's the one's who rock up to and land at mbz's and ctaf's without any calls at all that have been scarring me lately though.
It's the one's who rock up to and land at mbz's and ctaf's without any calls at all that have been scarring me lately though.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a fight with AVDATA as we speak, this has happened on several occasions (read, every bill they have sent me) and rarely are they happy to accept that they are wrong. have had several accounts for places I have never been to, as well as recieving bills for taxi,runway entry,departure,ciruit entry and every time you push the TX button. They have a hard time believing that I didnt do four landings in three minutes. this system really needs to be looked at.
Start billing them for your time taken to correct their errors.
Make sure you send them a notice that you'll be implementing this policy, giving them time to alter their practice of using you to solve their inaccuracies.
Wonder what would happen if you pay only what you know is correct? Would they take you to court? Slap a lien on you forcing you to take them to court? In which case I wonder if you would win costs agains them?
Make sure you send them a notice that you'll be implementing this policy, giving them time to alter their practice of using you to solve their inaccuracies.
Wonder what would happen if you pay only what you know is correct? Would they take you to court? Slap a lien on you forcing you to take them to court? In which case I wonder if you would win costs agains them?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVDATA ??
Mr Hat
AVDATA collects information, sends bills and collects money on behalf of the aerodrome operator.
The Aerodrome operators or owners are mostly nowdays councils or companies. They contract AVDATA to place a voice recording device at their airfield. AVDATA reguarly check the data and make out invoices which they send to the Cert of Registration holder. AVDATA collects the incoming dollars and send them off to the aerdrome owner, with a bill of thier own for thier services. Charges can only be made on the basis of a landing occuring, this is determined by certian radio calls ?????. Owners can only charge for the ground and not the air above the aerodrome, as the NT gov has just found out, they don't own that bit!!
The aerodrome owner/operator sets the charges. There is a good list of what different owners charge, but I am unable to find it at the moment, maybe some other member can direct you to it.
Some owners charge heaps for thier service, and (privatley)where possible I make a point of not going there. Unfortunatly there are some which I once had to go to because there was no other alternative, places like Tennant Creek which is an absolute rip off, and they know you can't go elsewhere
The AVDATA system is suseptable to errors and deception because of the method of collection. AVDATA also finds it nesseccary to use THREATS in the collection of the money owing for landings made at AVDATA sites/locations. Now it is my understanding that such threats are mischevious as they do not actually have any power to conduct these threats. The owner or operator of the aerodrome may have some power, but they have to prove the movement took place, which is near to imposible unless there are witnesses.
I once heard a story of AVDATA threatening to take legal action or liens upon a government department aircraft, which they claim made a landing in some other state, while the aircraft was in maint. AVDATA require that you pay up first, then sort out the problem and get reinbersed, after a suitable admin fee is charged for thier hard work. But this gov department had to have its chief sign a declaration for the treasury that all cahrges and payments were true and correct. Well obviously he could not, so no money was payed for the eroneous charges. AVDATA used the normal threats of legal and impounding of the gov aircraft if the bill was not payed.
Well this is of course BLACKMAIL (Making threat, where no leagal reason exists, to collect money) so the local PLOD were asked to talk to the AVDATA representitive. But guess what AVDATA all of a sudden found that it could aggree that the aircraft could not have incurred the fee and they dropped the mischevious fees.
The current system is OPEN to ABUSE and they know it, they use bluff to achive their end, of collecting money for the owners of the aerodromes. It is no wonder there are many stories of ABUSE and that there are undoubtably many pilots out there taking advantage of this.
If it is fair, I don't have problem. But if it is blatant money making I will go along way to avoid the place all together.
Some of the favourites of the fee dodgers :
Using other persons callsigns (illegal under CAR's with a fine)
Not using callsign ie blue cessna (illegal unde CAR's with a fine)
using crashed or deregisterd callsign (see 1 above)
No radio use at all (CTAF with no radio is OK, but MBZ is not. But if you have a servicable radio you must make calls in CTAF(see 2)
HAving a friend turn the recorder off, I have seen this done by using a key on the box, or simply pulling the fuse/switch at the mains.
Making radio calls which are not specific to landing. This is an intersting one as there are specified calls for MBZ and CTAF but the wording can be manipulated to make it very confusing. Bottom line, is dodging the fee worth a potential collision?
AVDATA collects information, sends bills and collects money on behalf of the aerodrome operator.
The Aerodrome operators or owners are mostly nowdays councils or companies. They contract AVDATA to place a voice recording device at their airfield. AVDATA reguarly check the data and make out invoices which they send to the Cert of Registration holder. AVDATA collects the incoming dollars and send them off to the aerdrome owner, with a bill of thier own for thier services. Charges can only be made on the basis of a landing occuring, this is determined by certian radio calls ?????. Owners can only charge for the ground and not the air above the aerodrome, as the NT gov has just found out, they don't own that bit!!
The aerodrome owner/operator sets the charges. There is a good list of what different owners charge, but I am unable to find it at the moment, maybe some other member can direct you to it.
Some owners charge heaps for thier service, and (privatley)where possible I make a point of not going there. Unfortunatly there are some which I once had to go to because there was no other alternative, places like Tennant Creek which is an absolute rip off, and they know you can't go elsewhere
The AVDATA system is suseptable to errors and deception because of the method of collection. AVDATA also finds it nesseccary to use THREATS in the collection of the money owing for landings made at AVDATA sites/locations. Now it is my understanding that such threats are mischevious as they do not actually have any power to conduct these threats. The owner or operator of the aerodrome may have some power, but they have to prove the movement took place, which is near to imposible unless there are witnesses.
I once heard a story of AVDATA threatening to take legal action or liens upon a government department aircraft, which they claim made a landing in some other state, while the aircraft was in maint. AVDATA require that you pay up first, then sort out the problem and get reinbersed, after a suitable admin fee is charged for thier hard work. But this gov department had to have its chief sign a declaration for the treasury that all cahrges and payments were true and correct. Well obviously he could not, so no money was payed for the eroneous charges. AVDATA used the normal threats of legal and impounding of the gov aircraft if the bill was not payed.
Well this is of course BLACKMAIL (Making threat, where no leagal reason exists, to collect money) so the local PLOD were asked to talk to the AVDATA representitive. But guess what AVDATA all of a sudden found that it could aggree that the aircraft could not have incurred the fee and they dropped the mischevious fees.
The current system is OPEN to ABUSE and they know it, they use bluff to achive their end, of collecting money for the owners of the aerodromes. It is no wonder there are many stories of ABUSE and that there are undoubtably many pilots out there taking advantage of this.
If it is fair, I don't have problem. But if it is blatant money making I will go along way to avoid the place all together.
Some of the favourites of the fee dodgers :
Using other persons callsigns (illegal under CAR's with a fine)
Not using callsign ie blue cessna (illegal unde CAR's with a fine)
using crashed or deregisterd callsign (see 1 above)
No radio use at all (CTAF with no radio is OK, but MBZ is not. But if you have a servicable radio you must make calls in CTAF(see 2)
HAving a friend turn the recorder off, I have seen this done by using a key on the box, or simply pulling the fuse/switch at the mains.
Making radio calls which are not specific to landing. This is an intersting one as there are specified calls for MBZ and CTAF but the wording can be manipulated to make it very confusing. Bottom line, is dodging the fee worth a potential collision?
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day AMRAAM,
We spend a few hours each month going over each Avdata account against the aircraft flight logs. Whenever we find an error, we just take it off the account with an explanation ie, "Aircraft *** was did not go to that airport on that day".
We've never had "threats" made against us for refusing to pay a disputed landing fee. In fact I'd suggest that in any legal procedings to recover monies own the burden of proof would lie with Avdata to prove that the aircraft actually landed at that airfield rather than the pilot or owner proving that they didn't. Given the countless cases of proven fraud and erroneous Avdata readings I don't think they'd stand a chance short of having a reliable eye witness on the ground at the time to back their voice tapes.
The concept of aerodrome operators collecting fees to recover some of their maintenance and upgrade costs is fair enough. Unfortunately though through the appalling lack of integrity by a good number of pilots, what should be a straight forward method to achieve this has turned into a farce for all. Short of the councils etc employing someone to sit all day and night at airfields recording aircraft regos there doesn't seem to be an easy solution.
We spend a few hours each month going over each Avdata account against the aircraft flight logs. Whenever we find an error, we just take it off the account with an explanation ie, "Aircraft *** was did not go to that airport on that day".
We've never had "threats" made against us for refusing to pay a disputed landing fee. In fact I'd suggest that in any legal procedings to recover monies own the burden of proof would lie with Avdata to prove that the aircraft actually landed at that airfield rather than the pilot or owner proving that they didn't. Given the countless cases of proven fraud and erroneous Avdata readings I don't think they'd stand a chance short of having a reliable eye witness on the ground at the time to back their voice tapes.
The concept of aerodrome operators collecting fees to recover some of their maintenance and upgrade costs is fair enough. Unfortunately though through the appalling lack of integrity by a good number of pilots, what should be a straight forward method to achieve this has turned into a farce for all. Short of the councils etc employing someone to sit all day and night at airfields recording aircraft regos there doesn't seem to be an easy solution.
It's nothing new. A pal of mine used to own the former CAA Bonanza, VH-CAE. We used to enjoy a good chuckle with him about the apparent speed of his a/c - getting from one end of NSW to the far end of Qld on the same day. All in all, though, it wasted heaps of everyone's time to sort out.
Interesting company, Avdata......
Contrary to popular missconception, Avdata is a private company, unassociated with Government or any Government agency or authority.
'Nuff said!
==============================================
Name: AVDATA PTY LTD
ACN: 008 556 723
ABN: 25 008 556 723
Type: Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date: 25/08/1980
Status: Registered
Locality of Registered Office: Canberra ACT 2600
Jurisdiction: Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Former Name(s):
K. & M. ENGINEERING PTY. LIMITED
GOLD STAR CLEANING CO (KINGSTON) PTY. LIMITED
==========================================
Looking at Avdata's former names, you think they could at least engineer a clean bill! In a past life I've spent days each month sorting out Avdata's incorrect billings!
Stallie, you may be on the right track - keep thinking laterally, you may be getting warm - even though I'm sure they would have their "bases covered".
Contrary to popular missconception, Avdata is a private company, unassociated with Government or any Government agency or authority.
'Nuff said!
==============================================
Name: AVDATA PTY LTD
ACN: 008 556 723
ABN: 25 008 556 723
Type: Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date: 25/08/1980
Status: Registered
Locality of Registered Office: Canberra ACT 2600
Jurisdiction: Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Former Name(s):
K. & M. ENGINEERING PTY. LIMITED
GOLD STAR CLEANING CO (KINGSTON) PTY. LIMITED
==========================================
Looking at Avdata's former names, you think they could at least engineer a clean bill! In a past life I've spent days each month sorting out Avdata's incorrect billings!
Stallie, you may be on the right track - keep thinking laterally, you may be getting warm - even though I'm sure they would have their "bases covered".
Last edited by Torres; 16th Feb 2003 at 23:43.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put a slightly different slant on the whole false callsign thing. A guy I used to do part-time work for was renowned for using false callsigns, but not to avoid paying the aerodrome fees etc, but to not have to write up the maintenance release hours for the aircraft, and therefore not have the aircraft go into maintenance as often. It also meant that owners who had their aircraft on line with him were unaware of how much flying they were doing and were not being paid for the correct number of hours. He subsequently got caught, and they worked out that one particular aircraft had flown at least 170 hours past its 100 hourly. Again, the callsigns he was using were of aircraft which were in maintenance themselves.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I often wondered the same thing as stallie. Is it actually leagle to tape my radio calls without my permision? I dont ever remember them asking me.......... or even informing me that they were going to do it.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVDATA is merely the collection agency for the airport operator - the real issue is the basis on which the operator is entitled to recover landing fees etc from the registered owner of the aircraft. This would depend on the circumstances that exist at the time - was the operator's consent/permission required, what notice of charges was given, etc? Whether the airport operator can succeed in litigation will depend on how well it can prove its case. If the only evidence before a court were AVDATA's recording and an aircraft owner's evidence that the aircraft was somwhere else at the time (eg another state, in maitenance) it is pretty easy to guess which way a court will lean. It is all about having a good case and a good lawyer. If AVDATA is wrong and continues to bluff, call the bluff.
On the other side of the argument, I know of one local MBZ where the place is alive at midnight but few calls are broadcast.-A similar situation occurs early in the morning at a local CTAF, the main perpetrators being bank runners. Bloody annoying (particularily given the arrogant attitude of some of the pilots) and potentially dangerous, and an unlawful use of the airport/aerodrome owner's property. Owners of airports are right to want to recover the charges they are entitled to recover, and the AVDATA system may not provide the proof that is needed.
On the other side of the argument, I know of one local MBZ where the place is alive at midnight but few calls are broadcast.-A similar situation occurs early in the morning at a local CTAF, the main perpetrators being bank runners. Bloody annoying (particularily given the arrogant attitude of some of the pilots) and potentially dangerous, and an unlawful use of the airport/aerodrome owner's property. Owners of airports are right to want to recover the charges they are entitled to recover, and the AVDATA system may not provide the proof that is needed.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avdata provides for airfield operators and owners a simple and economical means of recovering some of the costs involved with maintaining an airfield. If the system continues to be abused to the point that they are missing out on significant revenue then those same operators might have to consider other means of recording arrivals, such as someone physically taking down details of aircraft as they land. Guess who's going to pay for that?
Healy,
The Rottnest rort is a favourite of the weekend warriors. I was working over there about 18 months ago and heard a mooney overhead and landing. Didn't hear a peep out of him on the radio I had sitting on the table. When he walked through the terminal I said "Might be a problem with your radio mate, didn't hear your inbound or circuit call on the CTAF". He turned a bright pink and pi$$ed off pretty quick.
Rottnest Island Authority last year circulated a discussion paper on revenue raising for the island. One suggestion was to increase landing fees to something like $50.00. If the Avdata abuse continues we might just see something like that in the near future. Still, not as bad as Ayers Rock though ($55.00 MIN landing fee)
Healy,
The Rottnest rort is a favourite of the weekend warriors. I was working over there about 18 months ago and heard a mooney overhead and landing. Didn't hear a peep out of him on the radio I had sitting on the table. When he walked through the terminal I said "Might be a problem with your radio mate, didn't hear your inbound or circuit call on the CTAF". He turned a bright pink and pi$$ed off pretty quick.
Rottnest Island Authority last year circulated a discussion paper on revenue raising for the island. One suggestion was to increase landing fees to something like $50.00. If the Avdata abuse continues we might just see something like that in the near future. Still, not as bad as Ayers Rock though ($55.00 MIN landing fee)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IJ, agree fully. My local aero club spends a fortune improving its facilities for the benefit of its members and the bank runners contribute significantly to the wear and tear on the strip as their aircraft are generally larger and heavier that the little things the aeroclub operates.
Perhaps AVDATA may need to "move with the times" and look at other insitu methods of recording arrivals etc - I'm no Inpsector Gadget but sensors and digital cameras set up correctly might supplement the current RT recording method. It might also help catch those Mooneys pretending to be Boeings and so provide the airport operator with the option of taking up the issue with the aircraft operator.
Pilots who are aware of aircraft no making the correct RT calls might, as I have, make a radio call to the offending aircraft. It sure doesn't lead to "happy times" on the apron but it does protect the interests of the airport operator.
Perhaps AVDATA may need to "move with the times" and look at other insitu methods of recording arrivals etc - I'm no Inpsector Gadget but sensors and digital cameras set up correctly might supplement the current RT recording method. It might also help catch those Mooneys pretending to be Boeings and so provide the airport operator with the option of taking up the issue with the aircraft operator.
Pilots who are aware of aircraft no making the correct RT calls might, as I have, make a radio call to the offending aircraft. It sure doesn't lead to "happy times" on the apron but it does protect the interests of the airport operator.
