Well played. :D:D

If true, it would not only be pig ignorant but also unlawful. It would also be most unlikely to be successful in that regard with severe penalties for the perjurer.


The above two sentences contradict one another. Tax evasion attracts penalties similar to perjury in marital cases.

You diminish people's right to privacy but post under a pseudonym. I at least use my name, and my aircraft and profession are well known.

Perhaps the answer for those who are complaining and expect user pays should apply to RAAus owners would be for ASA and Avdata to negotiate a fee for service with RAAus rather than expecting to access their commercial property for free as has been the case until now?

Seems fair to me.

CASA could do the same if it took our personal info off the internet.

Kaz

It does sound more fair except that GA got a fait accompli with no negotiation.

There is the other side of the coin……they could start refusing access to RAAUS registered aircraft and start a few nasty challenges for trespassing from there.

After a while the RAAus would get swamped with complaints not just from airports but from members about not being allowed access to all those aerodromes.

The aerodrome operators could then just hold them to account, either hand over the entire register, updated each month, accept all charges on behalf of the member, or be banned from landing.

Simple commercial pressure would work. Done legally this is the solution.

I get annoyed that assets that were once paid for by us, get sold or given away, then we get charged to use them, but in the end I accept that we need to fund them somehow. My home field is run by the aeroclub, and we pay for everything. The government make a buck, and we charge no landing fees. So it annoys me when I go to a regional place and get billed and yet a numbered machine pays nothing for the same service.

I think RAAus should change their ways and become responsible aero-citizens rather than smug in their ability to avoid paying like the rest of us do.

Fair enough I get the point. Many owners "were" hiding behind the firewall from the ATO.

Squarkey, the "point" is that MANY were never hiding behind the ATO or from the Family Court...that's just a slur on a whole group of people who, like most other groups of people, are mainly law-abiding citizens.

The "point" is that there are privacy laws in Australia and most of us benefit from them. There are legal obligations under those laws not to reveal personal information collected unless it is (a) by consent or (b) a necessary and related purpose to what it was collected for.

CASA is in breach of those obligations in my very humble view unless they satisfy (a) and (b) above. I don't think they do.

I'm not against a fair charge for services provided...just do it legally.

I read on another thread recently where some nutter was making threats of GBH against a commercial pilot and his charter business because his rotary wing made a bit of noise somewhere near the nutter's house. The nutter got his rego and it went from there.

Get onto your AOPA rep...you are a member, aren't you?...and agitate to have the VH register removed from the internet or made accessible to ARN holders only so that there is a semblance of compliance with the law.

Kaz

I suspect that there may be one or more age pensioner owners of RAAUS registered aircraft. And that they aren't that concerned about the ATO. But perhaps they are with Centrelink?


There's lots of self funded retiree folks out there who benefit from having a part pension. Even if that only brings in a dollar a fortnight. And that's due to the fringe benefits that come with the age pension.


But their pensions come with an assets test. The family home, no matter how valuable, is not counted. Nor are all the assets previously used to buy an annuity.


But the aeroplane and/or boat may be an inconvenient truth.

Bingo Gerry, you are absolutely spot on. I knew of several in each camp, ATO and Centrelink.

It was actually written in the monthly magazine a couple of years back that people were suspected of doing this and RA-Aus management wouldn't be hiding them from authorities.

There are some tricks around this in the GA world too but my lips are sealed.

How difficult is it for an ageing VH owner to transfer the rego of her aircraft to a family member and archieve the same result? Not even a transfer fee as I recall.

As I said to Squarky, beware lest you besmirch a whole group of fellow aviation enthusiasts without one scrap of evidence to justify it.

In my 70 plus years I have discovered that there is good and bad in every group of humans wherever they are. I have also learned the importance of our human rights and how easily they are lost or taken away from all of us because of fears just a very few may not discharge their attendant responsibilities.

I never did understand the mentality of teachers that kept a whole class back after school because one or two students in the class did the wrong thing...

Kaz

kaz3g makes some good points re: privacy and not punishing the good people with the bad, but what is the alternative and what is fair?
Currently if an aircraft lands at an airfield where charges apply, then 1 of 3 things happen;
1. It is recorded by ATC/Ground and if VH then an invoice sent to the Reg Op/Owner. If RA-Aus then (I assume) an invoice sent to RA-Aus who then pass it on.
2. AVData record the call-sign and if VH then an invoice sent to Reg Op/Owner or if RA-Aus to RA-Aus who then pass it on.
3. The Airfield owner (if the aircraft doesn't do a full stop) observes or records the call-sign and if VH then sends an invoice or if RA-Aus sends it to RA-Aus who passes it on.

If RA-Aus have decided NOT to pass the invoice on what are the options? If the airport decides not to charge RA-Aus then that is not fair for VH. If the airports only option is to refer it to the police then that is tying up tax-payer resources which is not fair on everybody.
If an airport could register with RA-Aus to receive registration data for the purpose of billing then that would solve the problem (Can councils/Car park owners etc get registration details from Motor Reg or the Police?).
Of course the simple answer is that if everybody did the right thing, checked ERSA to see if AD charges apply, call the airport for details on how to pay etc. then there would be no problem, but as usual a very small minority do end up spoiling it for the rest of us no matter how hard we try to not punish the innocent.

It's a very interesting topic and a can of worms.

Car park owners need to obtain a court order to obtain the details. It's an interesting topic (private car parks) because those fines that you are issued by Car-E-park or similar operators are left on your windscreen, but at that point they have no idea who you actually are, and are hoping that you are an honest person and will send them payment for the fine. In fact, if you pay the fine by responding and don't give your personal details, they will never know who you are / were.

If you choose not to pay, they will obtain an court order, usually hundreds at a time under the one order. Once they have it, they will hit you for the full amount. The whole operation can be a tad shonky and there are numerous websites out there that tell you your rights. They essentially have to prove that you have deprived them of income by using their facilities.

That would be logical, however it's difficult to achieve and a fair wad of paperwork.

The logical solution is to have RA-Aus strike an agreement around privacy with Avdata as to the supply of the aircraft register.

I can't see any other way that it could work effectively. Maybe RA-Aus could write to members and get their tick of approval to give their details to AvData. As for what happens when people don't give approval... who knows. Maybe an opt-out would be appropriate. RA-Aus can't be seen to denying income for airfield operators.

Your admonition is accepted, Kaz. I worded that very poorly in hindsight.


I didn't mean that just because there's an opportunity for abuse that it actually happens. What angers me is the way in which I believe the assets test for the age pension is so easily abused. And I'm talking about all of society here.


I've had many age pensioner customers over the last 27 years of running my small business. And many of them, in my view, live in poverty.

Gerry111

I'm old and in the middle of another big week so please excuse me if I seemed grumpy.

All my clients are low income and the great majority are on pensions. Low income seems to fit hand in glove with low self-esteem and high rates of mental illness. These in turn produce a demographic with high rates of substance abuse, poor general health and increased needs for legal assistance...crime, financial distress, housing, etc.

Needless to say I see more value in taking steps to help people lift themselves out of poverty than screwing them further.

Likewise I see more value in bringing RAAus owners and pilots into the general aviation community rather than maintaining some divisive them and us distinction. Their numbers alone could add significantly to the strength of a unified voice to Government given half a chance.

Kaz

I know there are good reasons for people wanting their information to be private, and that our views on these things have changed considerably since the aircraft Register was first begun, but as someone with pretensions as an aviation history buff I can only say that I would be disappointed if ownership information became inaccessible.

One of the rich seams of Australia's aviation history (and not just Australia, but the way) is the ability to trace the history of each and every VH-registered aircraft that has ever been. You have only to look at Geoff Goodall's fabulous website GEOFF GOODALL'S AVIATION HISTORY SITE or Eddie Coates' equally terrific site Ed Coates Aircraft Photographs to know what a fantastic historical resource this is over the long term.

Just my 2c worth.

Philthy