Landing Fees

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, jackc said:

Maybe if Landing Fee information is not published in ERSA? 
Simply don’t pay? 

Reasonable access to the fees is available by email, messenger, phone and for some, letter.

 

For what it's worth Council officers get some enjoyment out of that attitude, because those people always tend to slip up. When people don't want to pay the tip fee at our council and just dump their household rubbish, the Council officers go through the pile, find the inevitable name and address and fine the evaders $6,000.00.

Edited September 26 by turboplanner

[Moneybox]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Reasonable access to the fees is available by email, messenger, phone and for some, letter.

 

For what it's worth Council officers get some enjoyment out of that attitude, because those people always tend to slip up. When people don't want to pay the tip fee at our council and just dump their household rubbish, the Council officers go through the pile, find the inevitable name and address and fine the evaders $6,000.00.

If tip fees were abolished it would go a log way towards cleaning up Australia. They already charge us for it in the rates but policing the tip is labour intensive so they charge more fees. We still have free dumping in Cue, of everything, cars, tyres, oil fridges, mattresses and anything else. Last year they fenced the dump so I expect charges to come but the fence is already inconvenient because the dump is the usual steel and parts supply for the locals. Mining companies dump a lot that is best reused.

 

I hope I didn't drift off the theme of this thread? 😉

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, Moneybox said:

If tip fees were abolished it would go a log way towards cleaning up Australia. They already charge us for it in the rates but policing the tip is labour intensive so they charge more fees. We still have free dumping in Cue, of everything, cars, tyres, oil fridges, mattresses and anything else. Last year they fenced the dump so I expect charges to come but the fence is already inconvenient because the dump is the usual steel and parts supply for the locals. Mining companies dump a lot that is best reused.

 

I hope I didn't drift off the theme of this thread? 😉

The US in some States resolved dumping by returning to free tips.

[BrendAn]

tip fees seem to be a huge issue australia wide.

our shire is $54 for a 6x4 trailer now and that is level not heaped up.

[skippydiesel]

6 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Reasonable access to the fees is available by email, messenger, phone and for some, letter.

 

 

FACT remains - the customer (pilot) should not have to search for the charge/fees. 

 

The service/good provider (airport owner) is responsible for providing the fee information "up front".

 

It is neither reasonably, nor required for the customer (pilot) to search for the fess at all (no additional steps/effort needs to be taken).

 

I hope that the airport owners will see our request to post the fees in ERSA as perfectly reasonable and act accodingly.

 

If airfield owners are not willing to aspire to best practise/profession conduct and ultimately to Consumer Law, then why should the pilot pay???

 

Direction action is a last resort and would only occur after notice to the te authorities that such action will happen if the fees are not posted in ERSA.

 

 

😈

 

 

 

Edited September 26 by skippydiesel

[skippydiesel]

13 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

tip fees seem to be a huge issue australia wide.

our shire is $54 for a 6x4 trailer now and that is level not heaped up.

Tip fees for locals/rate payers is in the same user pay context as Toll Road/Landing Fees/etc. It all part of the same sick policy.

 

Our local/Council tip has closed.

The wonderful Council, has delegated the job to a commercial entity, who naturally want to make a handsome profit.

May be my imagination - starting to see  more "fly tipping" in our area.

 

😈

 

 

[jackc]

It’s time that Councils ditched Avdata, and took responsibility for collecting their own fees?

Organisations that use third parties are lazy and should make it easy to collect their own landing fees?

If you make it hard for people to pay money, you won’t get paid. I learnt that in over 30 years of business because if you want people to pay,  make it as easy as you can for them.🤩

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, jackc said:

It’s time that Councils ditched Avdata, and took responsibility for collecting their own fees?

Organisations that use third parties are lazy and should make it easy to collect their own landing fees?

If you make it hard for people to pay money, you won’t get paid. I learnt that in over 30 years of business because if you want people to pay,  make it as easy as you can for them.🤩

That's like saying it's time the Police ditched giving speeding fines. 

There are 538 Councils around Australia, and they're used to people whining about fees.

 

[T510]

14 hours ago, jackc said:

It’s time that Councils ditched Avdata, and took responsibility for collecting their own fees?

Organisations that use third parties are lazy and should make it easy to collect their own landing fees?

If you make it hard for people to pay money, you won’t get paid. I learnt that in over 30 years of business because if you want people to pay,  make it as easy as you can for them.🤩

It must be a profitable business model as Avdata have competition now.

 

https://www.aerodromeit.com.au/simple/landingfees

 

"Aimm automatically detects the movements at an airport using ADSB for most aircraft, and Pilot Voice calls only need transcribing for the remainder.   This greatly reduces the cost of Movement Detection.  It produces a monthly invoice file for import directly into an Airport's or Council's existing billing system with no deductions or collection fees."

[facthunter]

The airport is entitled to charge for the Facility it Provides. It's not  reasonable to expect it to be free. Avdata has been an irritant for ages. You have to Prove you weren't there and also Who (as the Pilot/operator) has ever signed a document with Avdata to  give IT the the right to take a good profit from acting exclusively as the Airport's agent?.  The airport Just wants to be PAID their Money. They don't really CARE about your problems.  When I had the Citabria, I got bills for Landing at Perth International and Mt ISA.. had a Hell of a job getting out of those where It should only Be a declaration(signed) and let them accuse you of Lying.( Perjury)  How are they going to PROVE it was you if you weren't there?. It had to be somewhere else didn't it.? They wouldn't be GAME. Just another opportunistic PARASITE in the game, creating so much fuss a lot of People Just Pay anyhow. Nev

[skippydiesel]

I find the general acceptance of fees to access public assets/services and unfair /unproductive laws to be extraordinary.

 

Public Assets/Services

 

We the people own the assets /services. A simple fact that few seem to take on board.

Yes there is a cost to provide them and it is we who pay that cost, through taxation (in all its names & forms).

Charging an additional user fee, is more often than not, counterproductive and does not serve the community well.

Clearly there are circumstances where a fee serves a good purpose -eg well structured parking fees, encourage short stay/access for others, use of public transport, etc

Where fees are charged, they should just cover the cost - not be some cash cow for whatever level of Government instigates it (or delegates it to a private third party) .

There is a concept in nature that we would do well to copy - that of synergy where  two or more organisms (assets) produce a greater result (benefit) than each would achieve individually  eg A Council owned airfield has the potentially to encourage; visitation which benefits the tourism/visors; fast emergency response (for individuals/community); aviation businesses, etc etc. Charging fees for small private aircraft landings (that can not possibly deliver the same wear & tear as commercial operations) is a turn off ie reduces the willingness of private pilots to use that airfield.

 

A note on public assets/services;

There should be no public assets/services in the hands of the private sector.

Privatising is just a way for Government to avoid responsibility for the welfare of its people and the nation as a whole.

Artificially reduce government taxation (you pay for profits instead ) 

Will ultimately lead to great disadvantage , lower education & health standards and social unrest.

 

Unfair/Unproductive Laws

 

We are swamped by laws/regulation that have no productive purpose.

I am an advocate for ALL laws to be  subject to two very sample rules:

• Is it for the genuine protection of the majority from the minority?

OR

• Is it for the genuine protection of minority from the majority?

If not either of the above, that law should either not go into legislation or  if has, become redundant, be scrapped.

This simple philosophy should also be a defense in law ie if the government/prosecution can not demonstrate the law fits into above, there is no case. At no time should anyone be convicted, just because a law exists (this is totalitarianism).

(Australia's review process, for existing legislation, is way to slow, politically timid, almost a non event).

Yes this is simplistic BUT can be applied to almost all (few exceptions) existing & future legislation and we, the community, would be the better for it.

Dont start me on ASIC.

😈

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Some of that is just wishful thinking. It's just NOT FACT. Nev

[jackc]

I would allege that RAAus aircraft owner database was sold to Avdata,  by an organisation known to us? 

[BrendAn]

14 hours ago, jackc said:

I would allege that RAAus aircraft owner database was sold to Avdata,  by an organisation known to us? 

In the membership portal it's says raaus provides our details to avdata

[RossK]

Skip, as you've been writing to all these Gov departments, AOPA, RAAus, CASA, Airservices etc, it wouldn't be hard for you to put together a form letter and a petition and post them here.

We could all then send it to Minister King, local Federal and state ministers, and the above agencies etc.

 

I know this will disappoint you, but we're too busy/lazy to build the vehicle and fuel it for you, but if you provide the vehicle most will jump on board.

[Moneybox]

The way they are collecting the data is creating a dangerous situation in close proximity to airports, the most likely area that ADSB surveillance may save lives. The inaccurate landing fees being charged is likely to result in pilots turning off the ADSB when it's most needed. There was some action being taken over this in America. Anybody know what the outcome was to that?  

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, Moneybox said:

The way they are collecting the data is creating a dangerous situation in close proximity to airports, the most likely area that ADSB surveillance may save lives. The inaccurate landing fees being charged is likely to result in pilots turning off the ADSB when it's most needed. There was some action being taken over this in America. Anybody know what the outcome was to that?  

They use airport cameras and radio calls as well. 

[turboplanner]

Just now, BrendAn said:

They use airport cameras and radio calls as well. 

Is THAT why you gave them those cameras?

[BrendAn]

43 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Is THAT why you gave them those cameras?

Why would I give them cameras

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, RossK said:

Skip, as you've been writing to all these Gov departments, AOPA, RAAus, CASA, Airservices etc, it wouldn't be hard for you to put together a form letter and a petition and post them here.

We could all then send it to Minister King, local Federal and state ministers, and the above agencies etc.

 

I know this will disappoint you, but we're too busy/lazy to build the vehicle and fuel it for you, but if you provide the vehicle most will jump on board.

I will try & put something together.

 

It would be helpful if I had a small number of people to assist - as in proof read/make suggestions - any volunteers?

 

😈

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I have just Googled letters of petition to Government Ministers;

 

Seems to me we can draw up a (formal) letter of request for action, that all supports can sign OR all supporters can send in their signed copy.

• The former is likly to be less disruptive, as such may have less impact (ignored) however if there are pages of co-signatures this may be hard to do.
• The latter may annoy the hell out the Minister - receive less favorable attention.

Initial random thoughts;

 

Much will depend on the number of signatures, to get any attention at all - any idea what the response may be from this Forum alone?

 

Forum members who wish to participated, should consider presenting the letter to their local Flying Club/School ?

 

It's been suggested that a copy of whatever is sent to Minister King, be sent to each signatories Federal member - what think you ?

 

For greatest impact legitimacy; Supports may have to  Sign, Print name, give ARN /Cert Number ?

 

If going for a letter with many co-signatures - how best to achieve this (online/paper)?

 

😈

[T510]

2 hours ago, Moneybox said:

The way they are collecting the data is creating a dangerous situation in close proximity to airports, the most likely area that ADSB surveillance may save lives. The inaccurate landing fees being charged is likely to result in pilots turning off the ADSB when it's most needed. There was some action being taken over this in America. Anybody know what the outcome was to that?  

2 out of my 3 aircraft don't have ads-b, one doesn't have a battery or radio but I carry a handheld airband.

 

I always make radio calls but I hear a lot that don't identify the registration since AvData got involved in collecting fees.

 

Last I heard several US states including Florida, Montana, and others have passed or proposed legislation that prohibits airports from using ADS-B data to collect fees from general aviation aircraft.

 

On a federal level the Airports Association is pushing back against proposed legislation stopping them using ads-b for fee collection, which is hardly surprising

 

Edited September 28 by T510

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

Why would I give them cameras

They'd be handy to track aircraft close up

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

They'd be handy to track aircraft close up

what are you talking about. you don't make any sense

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, T510 said:

2 out of my 3 aircraft don't have ads-b, one doesn't have a battery or radio but I carry a handheld airband.

 

I always make radio calls but I hear a lot that don't identify the registration since AvData got involved in collecting fees.

 

Last I heard several US states including Florida, Montana, and others have passed or proposed legislation that prohibits airports from using ADS-B data to collect fees from general aviation aircraft.

 

On a federal level the Airports Association is pushing back against proposed legislation stopping them using ads-b for fee collection, which is hardly surprising

 

adsb is supposed to be a safety device i don't think parasite debt collectors should have access.