Rottnest Island Avdata charging for missed approaches
 

Anyone else getting billed for missed approaches? Wind was too strong to land that day on a VFR flight.

The Avdata person insists that it counts as "training" and is subject to charges. I understood the "training" thing meant up to an hour of touch and goes for one fee.

The landing fee is an "Island Entry Fee" but I'm not aware that the airspace above the island counts, or aware of any airspace boundaries, nothing in ERSA etc etc...just someone who from Avdata who won't provide transcripts or admit the burden of proof is with them and not us. Appropriate Rottnest Island Authority person is of course "not available".

I remember a similar thing happening at Cunderdin a while back when the shire wanted to charge people to use the NDB.

Interested in if anyone has had a similar issue with them and who "owns" the airspace, I thought it was the commonwealth??

CFI

Don't pay the bill, let them take you to small claims and make complete fools out of them in front of the Magistrate, it is sport.
Avdata are leeches and a blight on General Aviation.

No intention of paying it and yes enjoying the stoush immensley! :E

They have yet to reply to the one where I've told them the PIC will willingly sign a stat dec to say they didn't land. :E

Also still waiting to find out thier definition of "training" eg does it have to be for a unit of competency in the Day VFR Syllabus etc...and the boundaries of their training area which I can't find on my VTC or NOTAMS..

Also wanted to give people a heads up to check thier Avdata bills verrry carefully!

Yes, I remember exchanging words with the avdata people about the very same thing (missed approach on the RNAV approach) at YRTI. IIRC, the charge was for "landing fees" and as I didn't land, no fees are due. I did eventually get a credit in lieu of the disputed fees.

Either they're just chancers out to make a quick buck or else their transcribers need more training: missed approach/going around does not = landing.

Regardless of pedantic definitions, and speaking morally, did you use their services? Would you have been there if there wasn't an airport? :confused:

It costs them money to provide that airport, if you approach it and subsequently go around, you have still "used" it, no? It's not like a "landing fee" is used only to cover wear and tear on the runway.

Avdata and sharks...
 

No difference. Both in for a big bite.

The precedence has already been set in a court case of some years ago...that if your bill contains errors and they surely do..you can ignore it. Avdata is obliged to send you a correct account. It is not up to you to correct them.
Pay what you reckon you are due.. but leave the rest.
Ive had in the past, bills for aircraft Ive never owned, parking where I never was, and landings at places Ive never been!
And they also had this bs bit about $50 late fee...monthly.!!... so after being away for some months, 10 buck has now become 5 x50 =10.
This is where you bring out the BIG RED texta and get stuck in ..and send a paperwork 'advisory' about what they can do with it.:ok:

AvData - Leeches on GA
 

Fully agree - I got a bill from them to a Company that never had an aircraft at the East Aus field. They would not back off until finally I had matter shifted in the location of the Court to where it suited me [have to make application when you place the defence], then at the end they finally backed off - Amount $300

Give them HELL!!! and just pay the owner of the field.

I certainly do not have any responsibility to an organisation that I have not agreed to do business with in the first place.

Suggest you write to AvData and tell them that you have no legal arrangement with them and that you not authorise any arrangement.

maths error
 

5 x 50 + 10 =260 Nice work if you can get it. :sad:

Watch out for Broome, too. Wasnt on the invoice.. but hidden in ERSA
DOUBLE up if yre late. I ldg became $96...!
This must be true capitalism.!! Its called milk the user.:ok:

Short answer - No. I did make use of Perth Centre's radar services and the RNAV approach, for which I would have already been billed through ASA's navigation charges.

Interesting question. Should I be billed for each airport that I fly over, just because they happen to be there, as a convenient waypoint?

What else is a landing fee if not just that? Your argument would hold if they had called it a "user fee", and I would have no argument with that.

At the last company where I worked we religiously checked the AvData charges against our manifests.

I lost count of the times we were charged for landings we didn't do at places we never went to, on days that we were grounded due to weather etc. We were also charged on a number of occasions for both a take-off AND a landing. That was a favourite trick of theirs! We were also charged for landings at our local aerodrome in WA whilst simultaenously being charged for landings in VIC and TAS.... (Fastest C207 in the world!)

The best one was one of our float planes (Pure float, not amphib) landed on the lake not far from the airport. The number of times we got charged landing fees for that was laughable.

Our accountant would send a copy of the bill back, with corrections and the ammount he believed was payable. They hardly ever disputed it.

That's why when a lot of people go away flying to remote places they use rego's like BBQ or the rego of whoever is in charge of CASA at the time. I heard that Mustang rego's also get used frequently. I remember Jeff Trappet complaining that after his aircraft appeared on the front of a flying magazine his Avdata bill sky-rocketed.

There was a rumour Avdata was the brainchild of a couple of CASA dudes to ensure they could keep their noses in the trough after retirement.
Maybe that explains their "Attitude"

I remember there used to be a bloke in WA that used VH-OJA (QF 747-400) as his callsign whenever he operated into these charge-able CTAF's ( he had a 182 or similar) Probably a cunning plan , I wonder if the charges got put to QF and it went through in all the rest of the costs unnoticed by a beancounter!

My glider has been charged numerous times for take-offs even [no engine] while being locked in it's trailer interstate.:rolleyes:

I remember that 'many moons' ago that the Cunderdin Shire Council (WA) tried at one time - it was brought up at a RAPAC meeting - to charge for o'head missed approaches and use of the navaid.

I do believe it was pointed out to them, that thay did not own the said navaid, and neither did they have any authority over the airspace above....

I have no idea of how many may have had these invoices paid by the 'accounts staff'...
Tell 'em.....:}:}

..and YCUN produced a scale of charges at that time, which included the unprecedented touch and go fee for gliders. :ugh:

It's amazing what people will dream up to get their KPIs.

The false callsign thing is annoying and yes we have some of the amazing WA based warriors that sneak off to Queensland for lunch, priceless.

Ah, Yes......A User Fee

For many years now, YABA has been used for ILS training by a bunch of Perth based aircraft.

In recent times, as the Perth airspace became more congested, and the charges increased, we've seen a lot more ILS training down here.

The ILS does not belong to ASA. It belongs to the City of Albany who used a grant to purchase it, ($700k), and $300k to instal it. The cost of calibration and maintenance, (a contract with ASA), is around $180k annually.

As many see it, the owner has a right to impose 'user' charges for such an investment.

happy days,

A difficult one, I agree, poteroo.

In an ideal world, user pays - the big end of town who make use of the ILS for training should shoulder the brunt of the cost of maintaining it.

But how to make that work in reality? Charge everyone a landing fee so that us lighties who don't use the ILS end up subsidizing the facilities for airlines and training schools who do use the ILS without landing?

Perhaps user fees (rather than landing fees) is the way to go... or charge the training institutions a lump sum each year, then use that ILS as often as you like...

I think most of us have no problem paying landing fees if we land or use the facilities provided at an airport. Same goes for use of navaids that are provided by local airport operators. THis example though is taking a fairly liberal interpretation on the term "AD Charges".

For those that think it is clever to adopt either the radio silence or borrowed callsigh approach,:= more and more airports are making use of video surveillance at the taxiway exits off runways.

Of course if AVDATA fails we will no doubt go to the UK or European system where you can't depart an airport until you find the person to pay. This can take up to half an hour and costs far more ( up to 5 times as much) as their local labour costs have also to be covered.

I simple advise that my aircraft did not land and have always received a prompt credit.