AVDATA landing fees - automatic from CTAF calls?
Interesting update
I just rang AvData.
They told me that they bill on behalf of the airport owners. I then asked if the operators of Bendigo airport had observed my aircraft there via any method such as cameras, radio calls, ADSB or ARO and the response was no. They then advised that the billing was a "mistake" and that it was derived in error by using ASA flight plan information.
For the record I DID have a flight plan in the system to land at Bendigo, but ended up landing at Eppalock. I would not call the billing a "mistake," as the system worked fully as intended.
I said that I wanted it noted in their system that I am not to be billed for landings based on Air Services information. I wanted a note to be added to my account. I questioned if this was even legal.
First she said that this was not possible, then she said that I would have to speak with her manager and to standby.
After a few minutes, she came back and advised that my invoices will be manually checked before sending out to have ASA derived charges removed and that would be for 3 months.
I said that will need to be a permanent solution and she said "I will see what I can do."
Fingers crossed.
I just rang AvData.
They told me that they bill on behalf of the airport owners. I then asked if the operators of Bendigo airport had observed my aircraft there via any method such as cameras, radio calls, ADSB or ARO and the response was no. They then advised that the billing was a "mistake" and that it was derived in error by using ASA flight plan information.
For the record I DID have a flight plan in the system to land at Bendigo, but ended up landing at Eppalock. I would not call the billing a "mistake," as the system worked fully as intended.
I said that I wanted it noted in their system that I am not to be billed for landings based on Air Services information. I wanted a note to be added to my account. I questioned if this was even legal.
First she said that this was not possible, then she said that I would have to speak with her manager and to standby.
After a few minutes, she came back and advised that my invoices will be manually checked before sending out to have ASA derived charges removed and that would be for 3 months.
I said that will need to be a permanent solution and she said "I will see what I can do."
Fingers crossed.
The following users liked this post:
I simply replied to the above email saying "When you work out which charges are legitimate, and issue a true and correct invoice, it will be paid.": Till then, I ignore them and just chuck 'em in a folder in the filing cabinet.
I don’t think AvData is going to permanently change their little version of ‘RoboDebt’ any time soon. The computer seems to be programmed to generate invoices that are sometimes based on ‘best guess’ translations (e.g. mumbled and misconstrued callsigns), extrapolating from incomplete information (e.g. drawing conclusions from a mere flight plan) or false information (e.g. people deliberately using the wrong call sign), then leaving it to the recipients of the bills to sort out if they have the time and inclination. If ‘lots’ of people pay without closely checking or challenging the charges, happy days for AvData and their customers. Squeaky wheels like Squawk (Clare, KR and me) are dealt with on an ‘exceptions’ basis.
The ‘trump card’ we have is as Clare recently noted and KR and others have ‘played’: The onus is on the aerodrome operator to prove the debt if the bill isn’t paid. It’s an expensive hiding to nowhere for the aerodrome operator if it has no first-hand evidence of an aircraft being at the aerodrome at a particular time, especially in the face of the laws of physics – it’s not physically possible for an aircraft to have been at two different, vastly separated, locations on the same or closely adjacent days – or an owner saying that their first-hand knowledge is that the aircraft did not in fact fly to Y on day Q, despite what a ‘filed’ flight plan said. (My guess is that even lots of legitimate charges are not pursued, simply because there’s no cost-benefit in pursuing them without reliable evidence to show aircraft X was at aerodrome Y on day Q, such as through an ARO’s first-hand observation or a demonstrably reliably date-stamped and functioning surveillance camera photograph.)
The ‘trump card’ we have is as Clare recently noted and KR and others have ‘played’: The onus is on the aerodrome operator to prove the debt if the bill isn’t paid. It’s an expensive hiding to nowhere for the aerodrome operator if it has no first-hand evidence of an aircraft being at the aerodrome at a particular time, especially in the face of the laws of physics – it’s not physically possible for an aircraft to have been at two different, vastly separated, locations on the same or closely adjacent days – or an owner saying that their first-hand knowledge is that the aircraft did not in fact fly to Y on day Q, despite what a ‘filed’ flight plan said. (My guess is that even lots of legitimate charges are not pursued, simply because there’s no cost-benefit in pursuing them without reliable evidence to show aircraft X was at aerodrome Y on day Q, such as through an ARO’s first-hand observation or a demonstrably reliably date-stamped and functioning surveillance camera photograph.)
How does AvData even access Airservices flight plan records? I'm under the impression flight plans are technically public but can't see any way to access the database of active plans at any given moment. If I could it would make plane spotting more interesting, that's for sure.
They don’t need ‘real time’ access to ‘active’ flight plans. They just use filed flight plans and bill on the basis of an assumption that the plans were flown as filed. That’s one of the flaws in their system.
Many ERSA entries about charges simply refer to the council’s/operator’s website.
The smart councils - like Cowra’s - have this entry:
AD Charges: Nil.
The smart councils - like Cowra’s - have this entry:
AD Charges: Nil.
I see that the charge for training circuits at YSWH is “$14.9091 per circuit”. Brilliant.
Avdata = nil Fark em! End of story!
I see YMAY has changed their charging regime from per tonne to 'or part thereof'. So, if your aircraft is just over 1 tonne, the charge is based on 2 tonnes. This has resulted in a ~60% increase in the landing fee. Their parking fee used to be per day, now it is 'or part day.'
I wonder how long until other airports start to follow suit?
Grubs!
I wonder how long until other airports start to follow suit?
Grubs!
I see YMAY has changed their charging regime from per tonne to 'or part thereof'. So, if your aircraft is just over 1 tonne, the charge is based on 2 tonnes. This has resulted in a ~60% increase in the landing fee. Their parking fee used to be per day, now it is 'or part day.'
I wonder how long until other airports start to follow suit?
Grubs!
I wonder how long until other airports start to follow suit?
Grubs!
Crooks.
And exactly how are they going to know how much your aircraft weighs? Put a set of scales in at the holding points?!? Quick! Rip out that flash-but-heavy avionics upgrade you just did - you're a few kilos over!! ..and whilst you're at it, min fuel only please.
Crooks.
Crooks.
All of the weight-based charges I've seen - including for YMAY - are calculated by reference to MTOW.
