View Full Version : Read it and weep folks!
Capt Claret
2nd Dec 2004, 23:52
From The Australian (WA edition) Fri Dec 3, 2004
Bucks stop at ASIO
PILOTS are facing a new charge of $200 every two years to undergo ASIO security checks after the Aviation Transport Security (Amendment) Bill 2004 passed through federal parliament this week. The Government dismissed concerns raised by Democrats leader Lyn Allison about the cost burden, particularly on general aviation pilots, and what she said was the erosion of civil liberties. Ms Allison argued the fees shopuld be paid by the Government, not pilots.
Credit to Ms Allison for a sound response. I wonder if she stood alone??
Duff Man
2nd Dec 2004, 23:56
And the Minister replied: ASIO will be providing tax invoices.
Long live the Coalition! Long live the GST!
Time Bomb Ted
3rd Dec 2004, 00:18
Forget about the money for a minute. If I'm not mistaken, you arrive at the door of a flying school with your pocket full of money, start taking lessons, but will have to wait up to 3 months to get your student pilot licence. You could be ready for solo in 3 days but you then have to wait forever to go solo.
How can that ever work for the industry. I suppose less people will want to get into the industry so there will be more jobs eventually, but still, IT STINKS!
Capt Claret
3rd Dec 2004, 00:29
TBT
Not quite three months wait but still long enough to interfere with training. My No1 son and heir applied for his SPL about two weeks before commencing flight training and had to wait a week or so to go solo because in part he didn't have the licence when ready, and then the Melb wx conspired against him.
Horatio Leafblower
3rd Dec 2004, 00:34
One of my students just waited 3 months for a SPL - CASA TW kept sending back the paperwork, asking for something else... and something else... and something else.
I suppose they'll get their act together later...
In the meantime could the one person who voted for the coalition please own up?:rolleyes:
Uncommon Sense
3rd Dec 2004, 00:42
What if you all just ignored it?
Who is checking anyway?
It is another typical piece of the control-syndrome that this federal government just adore. In reality if everyone just didn't fill in the form, ignored it, they wouldn't know what to do because they don't have the resources to police it.
Any government that thinks airplanes are the biggest threat are living the George Bush lie.
Rule by fear! It worked for a certain Austrian..... for a while.
Hey, 45% of you fell for it in October - not that the alternative looked much better at the time.
Capt Fathom
3rd Dec 2004, 01:38
Why only check pilots? Why not check everyone when they turn 18. This government has lost the aviation plot! :mad:
3downandlocked
3rd Dec 2004, 01:48
why are Pilots being singled out with this??? why isn't anyone with a "Heavy Vehicle" Licence being checked as well?? why isn't anyone with a boat licence being checked??
Why because what good is complaining, No security check no work. that's why.
Bet the Yanks would not put up with this Bull!!!!!!!!!!
Cornholeeo
3rd Dec 2004, 02:06
The yanks ARE putting up with this bull and worse. Smart chip passports that can be read surrepticiously from afar, for example.
Maybe boat drivers ARE subject to similar checks. You don't know. But meanwhile we are losing the war and action needs to be taken to reverse this. I think this ASIO check is not the direction, myself. They are penalising the ones they are supposed to be protecting.
Some hard decisions need to be taken and acted upon or we are going to continue to LOSE. No western (democratic) gov't has the political will-power to do it though and so 'they' will eventually win. I give it 100 years, plus or minus a few.
3downandlocked
3rd Dec 2004, 02:26
Cornholeeo, yes agree with the passport chip. but PPL's???? lets hear from the US of A on that ....
the Hard Descisions?? that's been tried since time began.
dodgybrothers
3rd Dec 2004, 03:34
As far As I am aware it is not required in the US or at least when I was licensed 12 months ago it was not. Besides, the lobby groups over there are so strong that this sort of thing would not even get passed around a brew room before one of these groups hit it out of the ball park.
Imagine the train drivers union allowing this to go on? Not likely.
Icarus2001
3rd Dec 2004, 03:50
In addition to the security check, as noted above, Student Licence applications now have a SIX PAGE application form. CFIs used to be able to issue them on the spot! They also require addresses that you have lived at for the last ten years. Pretty funny with sixteen year old students.
Remember the Silk Air Captain who decided to put himself his passengers and a company 737 in the river at Palembang? I bet he had a security pass!
We are from the government we are here to help.
Does everyone feel safer now?
Mr.Buzzy
3rd Dec 2004, 03:54
We're from the Government!
We're not happy 'til you're not happy!
bbzbzbzbzbbzzbzbzbzzzzzzzz
locusthunter
3rd Dec 2004, 03:56
A complete erosion of civil liberties ... are there really people who believe that 'we' will all be so much safer with these checks?
It's a joke. But no-one's laughing.
give us a break...
One way or the other, people ... we've gotta take a stand against this one.... or we all lose...
What a waste of everyone's time, money and resources...ridiculous ...
:yuk:
Cornholeeo
3rd Dec 2004, 04:05
Better to take a stand against "them"....... they're winning the war despite the way it looks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ok maybe not Iraq, but at least it looks that way numbers-wise. But overall, we are losng, thus these pathetic shows of action, ie ASIO checks, in the name of "doing something".
They do this for several reasons:
Control over the people.
Being seen to be doing something
Some slight effect on the actual problem (terror).
The real solutions would evoke a world-wide outcry and even the local tree-hugging do-gooders wouldn't be able to see past their own feel-good needs to understand what will happen to us in the next few decades, otherwise. They prefer to head blissfully toward defeat and submission.
Oh well, we'll be old by then.
FiveTanks?
3rd Dec 2004, 04:49
Speaking to an aquaintance recently who happens to be close to the action, regrettably a lot of pilots could be in for a lot of grief. Investigations and Medical have been putting the processes in place for an expected large number of procecutions for 'False Statements' on the medical disclosure that will surface with the security checks. Drink Drives, breaches of liquor licensing laws, possession of dope in teen days etc.
In the current climate prison sentences are a definate possibility and the I's have been dotted and T,s crossed to build solid no excuses accepted cases.
Australia! Hasn't changed in 200 years.
compressor stall
3rd Dec 2004, 04:51
I think it came in in the US but they have this lobby group that represents all (not just private) pilots and the gov't will now foot the bill.
Kanga767
3rd Dec 2004, 05:34
Don't we already have an ASIO check with the newest round of ASIC ID cards??
K
Why are we ppruners surprised and indignant?
This was discussed on this thread I started almost a year ago! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=118273&perpage=15&highlight=security%20new%20pilot%20licence&pagenumber=2)
The proposal was publicised in Australian Aviation, in the friday Australian aviation section, and on the DOTARS website way back in January.
I contacted DOTARS, I wrote a letter to John Anderson protesting the imposition of another licence fee, I raised it with the AFAP who have a stated position on the issue, and I tried to get a few 'professional pilots' interested in the issue via the well-read thread I started and discussions with colleagues.
Those others reading this thread, pissed off with having to pay $200 ---- how many letters did you write, how many phonecalls did you make?
Contrast this situation with the political pressure for change forced by industry groups not happy with Dick Smith's airspace, and the present rollback.
The half a dozen letters sent to the Minister for Transport and the Shadow Minister and local members, is nothing. Like swatting flies. If a few more of the several thousand PPL's CPL's and ATPL's had made a bit more of a fuss, and written some letters, then maybe we wouldn't have a new LAW that slugs us $200.
Cop it sweet.
Cornholeeo
3rd Dec 2004, 05:53
..on this thread I started almost ..... It's all about you, isn't it, Mr. Inter Tropical Convergence Zone.
Did you do anything of any substance about it back then?
Why are we now being hosed over http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/monkeypee.gif with this now??? It's a bit late to look smug now. How about some constructive suggestions instead???
No, mate, its all about that other australian 'national sport' whinging.
I read the paper, I thought, hey wonder if everyone else has noticed this.
I got off my arse. You didn't.
Did I do something of substance? did you read the other two thirds of my post? You want maybe PDF copies of the letters i sent and the replies I got.
Show me yours!
I can be happy that I followed it through. Before it was law.
But smug; no. Pissed off that the pilot community didn't get the picture, yes. Shaking my head when I read all the indignant comments.
You were either blissfully unaware, or stone cold lazy.
Pay your $200, and dont whinge.
And maybe reread my post -- your reading comprehension skills could do with a little work.
Cornholeeo
3rd Dec 2004, 06:10
Since we're all still coughing up $200 it sounds like you did Sweet Flight Attendant except warm up your gloat-gland and wait for your moment of triumph.
Lucky I have the ca$h to pay but why don't you spare a thought for the poor hungry bloody GA drivers who have to sell themselves down at The Wall just to pay this added embuggerance you could have helped stop?
That's you on the left:
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/buttkick.gif
Thank you for your insightful comments.
You admit you did fark all, and you sling mud at me.
Make sure you have that Kleenex standing by for when you finish your wank.
Cheers.
Fishing the one glister of gold from the dross that issued from Cornholes dribble.. what can we do now?
Write a letter to:
- Hon John Anderson, Minister for Transport.
- Hon Martin Ferguson, Shadow Minister for Transport.
- Your local Federal MP.
- The AFAP
They won\'t know unless you tell them you think its a bad idea.
Cost of three stamps, much < $200.
Would have been a lot more effective in February, shutting the gate before the horse bolts.
Cornholeeo
3rd Dec 2004, 06:33
Well you had the chance and you threw it away. I guess some people would rather gloat and say I-told-you-so than actually do anything. Something about part of the problem vs the solution.
I would hasten to suggest you all take up ITCZ's (very belated) notion of writing to Our Beloved Leader and his arse-kissing friends and registering your disgust.
Either that or warm up your gums and grab your spot at The Wall.
Would've been nice to have had a proper warning about this before it happened but there you go....
I don't know that I will be able to convince Cornhole about this but... maybe some other readers might pick up on what needs to be done...
Would've been nice to have had a proper warning about this before it happened but there you go....
These government proposals don't just pop up.
This particular shafting has been in the pipeline for over a year, and has been in the public domain for over a year.
The Jan/Feb edition of Australian Aviation ran it.
The friday aviation supplement (the one with all the job ads) of The Australian ran the story.
The DOTARS website had full details on the proposal from January.
The AFAP were aware of it and had a formal position on the proposal, as least as far back as February this year.
How much publicity did you exactly need?
The lesson here is if we want to wear the label 'professional,' we have to take a look at what that means in other professions.
Simply turning up to work and taking the money doesn't qualify.
Among other things, it means reading industry news and journals.
If we don't do that, then we really have no excuse for being hit by these proposals.
Pilots in general like their jobs because the results of there work are immediately rewarding. Pilots also tend to rely heavily on information gained through visual inputs, followed by auditory inputs. Written communication comes a very unwelcome last. Nothing puts a pilot to sleep faster than a study session with a company operations manual or technical manual....bor-ing.
But the people that make the rules that we have to work under, come from a different world. If it is not written, it never happened. Memos, guidelines, policy and procedure manuals, white papers, discussion papers, surveys, ballots.
Only a fool would think these days that their little world will not be affected by change. Only a fool would thing that all of the changes that might be proposed would be ones that he or she welcomes.
The rule makers must follow policy and procedure. They will give advance notice of rule changes.
Industry journals and forums will pickup these proposals and pass them on to us.
If we 'professionals' do no more than sign off at the end of the day and head for the bar, never paying attention to the news items in industry columns and journals, then we miss the first chance to stomp on the bright idea of some Canberra bureaucrat before it gets legs.
Once it gets to be voted on in parliament, the little bright idea that could be squashed like a mossie, is now a big cast iron proposal that has already been lobbied and considered, and we, rather than it, are the ones that get squashed.
Don't have a go at me for trying to keep myself informed, trying to let a few other colleagues know (via a post that had over 3,000 views), and getting off my butt and hassling the pollies.
If it had SFA effect, then it wasn't due to any lack of effort on my behalf; where were your letters? If I show you up for being a mug, instead of painting me as a smug b@astard, maybe you should stop and think... you have been a mug.
The lesson to be learned here is... if we are all happy to call ourselves professionals, then we have to not only know our day to day jobs as they are, b ut, like a doctor or accountant, actively keep ourselves informed of new developments. Then, if we don't like them, or have significant objections as to how they should be implemented, we then do as the Institute of Professional Engineers, the Australian Medical Associate, or the Institute of Charterd Accountants would do... bring effective political lobbying pressure to bear, to ensure that their professional member's position is heard.
Unfortunately all that seems to happen in the world of 'professional' pilots, as seen on this forum, is tidbits of discussion about how to get a better job, which other mug has just done a wheels up, how much better pilots at airline x are compared to my company.... etc.
Keeping abreast of developments in one's industry is a must do item for other professions, as is presenting the views of the profession coherently and concisely to the government and the public.
Thats what we don't do, and the fault is ours.
If you haven't scanned AA and the Aussie for news items, if you haven't raised your concerns with the appropriate agency about their plans before they turn them into law or policy, if you don't engage in basic politics, such as writing or meeting your local MP, or raising your concerns within your professional organisation..... well then you just have to cop it sweet.
The frustrating thing is that none of these things are difficult to do, and you don't put your job or your liberty at risk when you do them. If you don't get off your arse and do them, then what is all the fuss about wanting to live in a democracy about?
RENURPP
3rd Dec 2004, 07:15
Sorry I don't really understand where you are coming from.
We did know about this a considerable time ago and as ITCZ says we all should have done something back then, it MAY have made a difference.
As for writing letters now to our beloved MP's that is the only option available to us isn't it??
ITCZ does make a good point. Lots of people get on here and whinge and moan about all and sundry, how many of them, us, actually do anything?
I will put my hand up and say I didn't so its a bit late for me to sit back and start whinging about it now. I can how ever take his advice and write a letter today, which I think I might do.
Having me checked out by ASIO is supposed to make every one else in Aus safer not just the travelling public so how about every body else in Aus coughs up for a part payment?
Ultralights
3rd Dec 2004, 07:19
yet another smack in the face for aviation!
lets see, i fly a warrior into a high rise building! i might be lucky to actually get the engine past the first line of office cubicles, and the wings might make it throught the windows on 1 level, i might kill say, 2, maybee 3 people and myself,
or take my 2.5 tonne capacity van, pack it with you know what, and park it in the loading docks of a high rise building!
gee, good to see my $200 will go to making a real effort in preventing terrorism!
just another aviation tax. to the tune of $200.
Ultralight said:
yet another smack in the face for aviation!
And I agree with you!
But what is your next step? Have a beer, or write a letter?
Having the beer will calm you down, but writing the letter may actually change something.
But what to write?
You are not going to convince the Minister that the checks are unnecessary... he has had too many people tell him that they are necessary. They will have arrived with a whole raft of security initiatives and agreements that Australia would have difficulty arguing itself out of, if it wanted to.
My two beefs with the legislation are
(1) the security checking has already been done on me, and will continue to be done on me via my ASIC, so why repeat the exercise? and
(2) if it is in the national interest that i be checked, and the whole of the nation benefits from the increased security, then why should I be the one that pays for the security that everyone will enjoy?
So there is a perfectly legitimate question to ask in a letter to the Minister of Transport and all the other pollies involved.
I won't win an argument on whether or not pilots should be security checked. Too many other parties want to see it. But I do have a point if I complain about a piece of legislation that duplicates the procedure already in place for ASIC.
And the basis for 'cost recovery' via the individual pilot is worth arguing as well.
The 'user pays' philosophy that was the darling of the economic rationalists of the 1980's and 1990's has had such a hold that it has become an article of faith for many bureaucrats, and enables a lot of government inefficiencies to be hidden in fees for 'services.'
However, a new philosophy, probably equally shallow, is on the rise in administrative circles and it is known as 'shared inconvenience.'
This is at work in AirServices right now. If you wanted to have some airspace reclassified, maybe to extend some C or D airspace into class E to protect an ILS approach for the Singapore Flying College, f'rinstance, then the user pays principle is not applied.... the new concept of 'shared inconvenience' has the ascendancy, so that the loss of some class E around that aerodrome to the sport and recreational aviation people, is seen as a shared inconvenience for the increased safety of a Lear doing his/her ILS in Class C.
If the Minister and DOTARS could be persuaded to see that this is not a situation that fits a user pays model, but is more appropriately a situation where the new 'shared inconvenience' principle applies, well, could save me $200.
And that's what I will be putting forward in my next letter.
Icarus2001
3rd Dec 2004, 08:14
Professional pilots will pay the $200 and claim the tax deduction. No problem.
Bigger companies will pay for the check for their employees. No problem.
Private pilots will once again take the pineapple and be pushed inexorably towards the waiting arms of the RAA. No medical required every few years. No GA engineer charges. CASA leaves them alone mostly. So the pool of amateur or recreational pilots will shrink which means there will be fewer businesses catering to their needs. The industry will lose critical mass and be split in to RAA pilots and those training for Air transport jobs. And AOPA will be...still fighting each other and shadow boxing DOTARS/CASA/AsA!
FiveTanks?
3rd Dec 2004, 08:19
ITCZ
The latest Air Safety Digest does say (P 58) that ATPL holders with an ASIC can apply for the photo licence by sending two photo's, a copy of the ASIC and a new form which can be downloaded from the CASA website.
dodgybrothers
3rd Dec 2004, 08:29
lets just get every member of the travelling public a security clearance at cost to them of $200 each, I'm sure they won't mind as it is in the interests of their own safety. See how that flies when the MP hoist it up the flag pole.
Ultralights
3rd Dec 2004, 08:49
i just hope there is an exemption for ASIC holders! not likely.
I thought the Ansett levy was now being used for paying security? the $200 is Unjustifiable!
writing a letter will do no good, how about showing a unified front and refuse to pay! worked for city fail (rail) commuters here in syd!
Dont worry CASA are already having swipes at restricting the RAA, but if the RAA continues growing at its curent rate, CASA will become obsolete, and only the Airline ops devision of CASA will be able to justify its existance!
Creampuff
3rd Dec 2004, 09:18
Without wishing to divert you all from the amusing spectacle you’re creating, I note that this is not law yet.
I repeat: this is not law yet.
The bill passed the Senate, which happens to be the chamber in which it was introduced. The bill hasn’t passed the House of Representatives yet. It’s been referred to the Main Committee.
You still have a chance to do what ICTZ has been urging you to do for a long time.
However, this government went to the election with this legislation on the table, and a majority of you voted for it, so I suppose it’s what you want. Please continue …
Ultralights
3rd Dec 2004, 10:21
im pretty certain most people make their election decisions based on more then one item on the agenda, even if they do not agree with all the items.
kookabat
3rd Dec 2004, 11:33
im pretty certain most people make their election decisions based on more then one item on the agenda
Yep... the other one, for me, was higher education... HECS and all that.
So... what if we all just flatly REFUSE to pay? In the meantime... make a noise, write letters, whatever. But (for once) we need something resembling a united front on this...
Adam
Jet_A_Knight
3rd Dec 2004, 15:51
Whilst the pilots are under scrutiny, anyone can go to just about any regional airport and board a regional airliner 'armed to the teeth' , without so much as a sideways glance.
Go figure.
Ultralights
3rd Dec 2004, 22:30
So... what if we all just flatly REFUSE to pay? In the meantime... make a noise, write letters, whatever. But (for once) we need something resembling a united front on this...
what are you suggesting? is everyone willing to fight this and hopefully prevent it becoming law? we need everyone support, from bugsmashers to jet jocks!
even if the indusrty can show it can form a united front, that alone will be a big step forward!
OZBUSDRIVER
4th Dec 2004, 02:58
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds011204.pdf Go to page 19.
Three members spoke and thats all she wrote. It is worth noting that both the coalition AND the ALP suport the bill. All on the advice of the public service:(
Creampuff, I am unfamiliar with the goings of a bill proposed in the Senate. With ref to a bill passing the house it goes to the senate and if then passed there it passes back to the house to be refered to the the GG for royal accent then sent back to the house to be read into law. For a bill that is presented in the senate if passed does it then go back to the house and get passed on the numbers and sent off to the GG? If so then this little number is as good as read into law ( or whatever it is in legalise:) )
Regards
Mark
Manwell
4th Dec 2004, 04:56
Well, guys, what are we going to do about this?
We can read it and weep, or we can get off our self-interested arses and actually refuse to accept this bullsh1t!
No-one can logically explain how this little erosion of our liberties is going to have any impact on real terrorists, and we can simply rant and rave as long as we like on prune, but we'll still get screwed in the long run.
The 150th anniversary of the Eureka uprising occurred this week, have we lost the spirit that made this country great, or have we still got the guts to make a point in everyone's best interests?
Make no mistake, no-one benefits from us allowing this sort of utter stupidity to exist, not us, not the rest of our countrymen, nor, ultimately, the deluded politicians who let it go.
The question is, "What should we do?" Personally, I think that the best idea is to burn our licences, as the Eureka miners burnt theirs, and refuse to pay for this utterly offensive attack on our integrity.
If anyone's got a better idea, let's hear it, but we'd better make it soon and spread the word as soon as possible if we're to have any chance of getting all pilots on side before we lose the opportunity to do something that we've been desperately needing to do for quite some time, unite.
Yes, that means no more back stabbing, whinging, and slurring all other airmen who aren't up to your standard. Isn't it better to consider any airman up to our standard?
There's plenty of empty airspace out there, and some would say in there too, but I don't want to spoil the message.
We need all airmen to unite, the airlines, GA, and the military would be great to have along as well.
Here's our opportunity to do more than save ourselves a couple of hundred bucks every 2 years, this is an opportunity to save our society from spiraling into insanity.
Waddya reckon blokes, are we willing to make the sacrifice?
And remember, Life's a bitch, then you fly! Not life's a bitch.
Nowadays, it's getting hard to enjoy flying, but we can change all that.
Icarus2001
4th Dec 2004, 05:15
Who exactly are you going to unite?
I SAY AGAIN... Professional pilots will have the check paid for by their company. It will just mean yet another form to sign. Some commercial pilots will have to pay for it themselves, then they will claim a tax deduction, just like their medical, charts, documents, sunglasses etc. PRIVATE PILOTS are the ones who have a problem here, so what is AOPA doing to help?
:sad:
PS. Of course it will not make flying safer!
V1OOPS
4th Dec 2004, 05:42
Ultralightsi just hope there is an exemption for ASIC holders! not likelyI think ASIC's a waste of time and money too ... despite full uniform and accompanied by other crew all with ASICs flapping, security checkers insist on checking inside navbags and inside each Jepp folder. Even had to remove my belt before stepping though a second time - while clutching trou in front of pax.
Sorry , what's an ASIC for again?
Obiwan
4th Dec 2004, 08:16
Icarus
This issue was brought up on the AOPA forum in March this year. I wrote to my local MP and the Liberal candidate - who sent back form responses. I also wrote to most of the papers but didn't get published at the time. I've also written to them again now that the matter is before the Senate.
One way to paint this is as the thin edge of the wedge - strike fear and uncertainty into Joe Public by hinting that it could next be heavy truck drivers and bus drivers, then finally private motorists who need security checks. We'll all have de-facto 'Australia Cards'
Nearly 2 decades ago Peter Garrett campaigned passionately against the introduction of the 'Australia Card'. Write to him and ask him if he still believes it to be an invasion of our civil liberties or has he sold out his principles to join the ALP
Write to Senator Allison and Campbell who spoke on this matter. Senator Campbell says that an aircraft 'of any size' can be an enhanced weapon. Ask him whether a stolen petrol tanker wired with explosive and detonated on George St Sydney would cause more or less damage than a Piper Warrior? Ask him how then he can label as 'ludicrous' the security checking of heavy vehicle drivers?
Ultralights
4th Dec 2004, 20:18
I SAY AGAIN... Professional pilots will have the check paid for by their company. It will just mean yet another form to sign. Some commercial pilots will have to pay for it themselves, then they will claim a tax deduction, just like their medical, charts, documents, sunglasses etc. PRIVATE PILOTS are the ones who have a problem here, so what is AOPA doing to help?
Im sure a good percentage of professional pilots willnot have to pay but then thei bosses will have to pay.
if all airmen fail to unite on something as serious as this, then it will only get worse! sure, some will be protected from it all by their employer, but for how long!, your employer might not continue to wear extra costs to help you keep your licence!
once again, the pilots cop all the flack and cost by a government that want to appear to be doing something without upsetting joe public.
can anyone post a copy of a form letter that othes can sign and post to all and sundry?
VH-Cheer Up
4th Dec 2004, 23:07
ICTZ has a point and at least he’s tried to do something about it.
Here’s the problem as I see it as a series of points
Pilots are seen as a soft target by government generally. (Remember the almost complete lack of public support in 1989, learn the lesson).
Aviation is a soft media target. Look how any flying event gets far more media attention than an earth-bound one.
For example, look what happens when a 737 gets a flat tyre. Compare with a semi shedding a tyre on the freeway. Only one story makes the 6PM news and the front page, and it’s not the semi.
Professional pilots can claim the $200 security impost as a tax deduction, that’s if their airline doesn’t cough up for them.
PPLs can’t claim the charge as any kind of a deduction because they’re not generating an income from flying.
Government won’t care because someone who pays and flies for private reasons is obviously rich enough to pay the security impost. They’re not battling like a truck driver, and everyone drives a car so they must be safe, right?
However, Governments do eventually bend under weight of opinion. So the next thing I will write is a letter to Anderson to suggest the Ansett-cum-Security levy should be used to pay for my and oher PPL’s security clearances.
And perhaps if a few hundred of us write, they will start to get the message.
We can only try. I’d rather do something, and fail, than sit around like some of the other do-nothing posters here and whinge about what ICTZ has or has not achieved. Get off your collective bums, people and pen a letter to the pollies like ICTZ suggested!
If you keep doing what you’ve always done you’re going to get what you’ve always got.
i.e. Shafted.
So log off, and get writing. Now. Just do it.
VHCU
Manwell
5th Dec 2004, 23:16
Of course you're right VH, and I think that we should write to our elected representatives as well, but why stop there?
We could do as you say and we might even get the pollies to change their minds, but we would have missed a great opportunity to display our willingness to sacrifice our petty differences for the general good. Make no mistake, if we don't make a stand now, then who will, and when?
Now, just how should we respond to this threat to our civil liberties, and to the sanity of our society? The ideal situation would be for the majority of pilots to come out publicly against this, and other utterly insane security measures. If we could get other aviation participants to join in too, so much the better. Engineers, ATC, Operators, (even CASA!), the more the merrier.
The public see us as a very conservative group who act only when our interests are at stake. If we took a stand on this, they will realise that pilots, whom they generally trust, have acted uncharacteristically because they do not subscribe to the current madness. This would convince many people that the direction we are taking is leading to a degradation of our "civilisation". There are already a large number of civilised people who understand this, so we won't be alone, and we would be in very good company. Nearly all the world's best thinkers are aware of the irrational actions of our leaders in this crisis.
But we have to set aside our differences first. In a way, this is a great thing to happen, if it acts as the catalyst for public unity and against public apathy. We could emerge from this united and strong, or divided and weak. In fact, it may just be in the terrorists best interests too if we, the general public, were strengthened. Our weakness has got us where we are now.
Have you guys seen the reaction of the thousands of Ukranians who have stood outside in the snow for days protesting against the recent election when their High Court ruled the election invalid? The weather isn't nearly so bad outside in Oz.
If only we could come together like that we would succeed. The question is how bad does it have to get before we are prepared to act?
Also, the reason why the general public don't give a damn about the well-being of pilots is because we generally don't give a damn about theirs.
How many individual pilots, pilot's unions, associations, or aviation industry groups took it upon themselves to comment on the stupidity of pax having their nail clippers confiscated, or reinforcing cockpit doors? The inference is that we mistrust our pax, the people we rely on for our livelihood, or at the very least, hold them in contempt because of the misdeeds of an infinitely small group who have a need to make a political point.
We need to act less out of self-interest and more out of general interest if we really want others to support us when we need it.
It's the old story, united we stand, divided we fall, and at the moment we're all falling, not just pilots. To take it one step further, how many citizens recognized the dangerous precedent of allowing our govt to turn their backs on our fellow citizens accused of terrorist activities in Iraq? "Innocent until proven guilty" is there for a bloody good reason, so mass hysteria doesn't result in a Star Chamber mentality. It is there not just to protect good people like you and I, but people we think are bad too. This is because we could be wrong, and history has shown that we often are when we let emotion rule our thinking. In fact, the meaning behind civilisation implies that we apply science, our higher instincts, and reason to the conduct and organisation of our society, instead of reverting to fear, violence, and other basic instincts.
Didn't we all take up flying because we recognised it as a higher form of self-expression, a greater opportunity to be great?
Here's our opportunity.
Life's a bitch, then you fly!
On eyre
5th Dec 2004, 23:41
Yep - Creampuff is right. This was listed for House of Reps last Thursday but ran out of time so likely to be today or later this week.
Everybody give your Federal Member a ring right now - I did.
Very interested in the analogy of the delivery truck packed full of boom boom stuff. Suggested if they insist on this crap that as the measure is there to "protect" the whole community, even if misguided, then whole community pays!
Professional pilots will have the check paid for by their company.
Bulldust. That is plain wrong - who told you that?
The company I work for has said that as this is a reissue of a Licence that I hold, it is not in the same category as an ASIC, which I hand back to the company if I leave, or an instrument renewal, which is a proficiency check required by my employment, and written in to the award.
It will not be covered by my company. I and my 200+ colleagues at my particular company will be paying. Similar situation at most major employers at Darwin.
You may be surprised to know that we lucky professionals have to pay for lots of things off our own bats.... documents, charts, medicals, licences....
Tax deductible maybe, but even for a top income earner an expense of $200 is a real cost of >$100.
Chimbu chuckles
6th Dec 2004, 01:57
Wow Manwell...impressed with your last post...but for those of us based overseas can someone post the email addresses of suitable people to write too...I think Ferguson's was a few pages back but who else?
EDIT: I got Fergusons email off the other related thread and it was wrong...still have a copy of the ring stinger email if anyone has a correct email addy.
DeltaSix
6th Dec 2004, 06:46
Exactly, why not check everyone then.... even the garbage collector. He might plant a bomb in parliament house or at the airport.
Let me guess, they are thinking one of us is gonna crash a B747 into Canberra.
Even, if they check them I dont think there is anyway one could be turned back if he is a suicidal maniac.
They've gone paranoid. But this is what I really think behind this.
Profits, profits, profits.............. at our expense
Who voted for the coalition again ?
DeltaSix
Biggles_in_Oz
6th Dec 2004, 10:05
from http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/ja/contact.htm
John Anderson MP
Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
[email protected]
Electoral Office
PO Box 725
Gunnedah NSW 2380
hadagutful
6th Dec 2004, 12:01
This bloody government nonesense has to stop.
I only read about it in The Australian on Friday, the $200 security check is to become law.
If it wasn't the coalition it would be labour or someone else.
I don't care if they want to check me out, I'm ex-RAAF (cleared to secret), ex-Dept of Aviation, got a blue card, surf lifesaver, family man etc. etc. blah blah..... but for F....k's sake WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT !!!!!!!!!!!! And every 2 years. Bureacracy gone mad.
I'm not really a terrorist but I might start terrorising some of the politicians and bureaucrats in Canberra.
Aviation is becoming a cash cow and it has to stop.
OK, I'm going to get on the phone to my local member, Anderson's office in Canberra and electorate, DOTARS the man is Andrew Tongue First Asst Secretary, and Andy Turner, Office of Transport Security.
I URGE YOU ALL WITH AN INTEREST TO GET GOING AND OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST TERMS DIRECTLY TO THESE PEOPLE.
WITHOUT ACTION ON OUR PART THEY WILL KEEP SCREWING US.
I certinaly agree that we must all make a call or send an email. I have done mine,
WHAT ABOUT YOU, if not then get right to it.
It can't hurt but it may help.
One of my concerns, is what will become of some poor sod who fails the check, or is held up while extra checks are made.
It does happen, not to me but I have seen a person held from reciving a security clearance for over five months. he got it in the end, so what was the hold up. This was with the DoD so he just pulled a few guard duties while waiting, but thats not an option in the aviation sector.
Who is going to pay the wages of the poor sod while he can't fly, and what if its a negative, because you have some left wing looney in the family, on the wifes side of course. What happens to you career, what happens to your life.
I hope the dolts in DOTARS have considered this, but I wont hold my breath.
As yet my company has not advised us if they will be paying the $200, I personal doubt thay would. As yet I have not heard of one comany that is going to pay for its staff.
Send a FAX/EMAIL/or PHONE NOW!!!!!!
Charlie Foxtrot India
6th Dec 2004, 14:07
First it was their insistance (with no procedures in place) that overseas licence holders had to have verification with licence issuer, which killed the oversas flying tourist market.
That seems to be gettiing sorted now - funny thing is, these overseas certificate of validation holders are NOT subject to any security checks other than licence, logbook, medical and overseas verification. Off they can go in the Warrior to cause as much terror as they like.
Now they have killed off the overseas PPL market, we used to be able to do them in 4-5 weeks. Now it takes two months to get a student pilot licence, and about three weeks to get a medical certificate after the medical. So unless these people have at least three months to spare, millions of export dollars are gone.
Meanwhile as a CFI people are wandering in and expecting me to give up half an hour of my time to sign all the forms, check the documents etc. I don't mind for our own students but the govt seems to expect us CFIs to do this for all and sundry in our own time for free. Perhaps some of the fee could come back to those of us who can't earn dollars flying because we are too busy doing their work for them.
And presumably once the student has done all these checks and got their student licence for free, they then have to pay for it all to be done again? Doesn't make sense to me.
Last time I saw Peter Garrett I was in the mosh pit, wonder if he remembers me? Reckon he's a sell out now anyway, sang songs like "US forces" in the good old days, now is just another pollie toeing the party line.
Uncommon Sense
6th Dec 2004, 15:07
Obiwan
6th Dec 2004, 18:41
Don't forget your state Senators too - they're the ones who agreed to this stinking pile of cr@p
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/si-state.htm
Nice sample lettre on AGACF too..
This is my letter to Senator Campbell - feel free to steal part or all of it
Dear Senator Campbell,
I am writing to you regarding the 'Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004' that was recently read in the Senate. As a private pilot I wish to complain about the unnecessary fees proposed for all pilots throughout Australia and the erosion of our civil liberties.As well as being a costly and resource intensive operation, this legislation will not identify all security threats. In the terrible events of 11th September 2001 it was not a licensed pilot who carried out the terrorist acts, but a student with very little training. In fact, at the time the media made much of the fact that a complete novice could learn to crash a plane using Microsoft Flight Simulator (will purchasers of this software also be screened?) .
This section of the bill will do little to enhance the security of Australia but will place another burden on an industry that is already struggling under over-regulation and rising costs. As a private pilot I can not claim the cost of this security check (which I am told is $150 more than an ASIC) as an expense, and contrary to public opinion - most private pilots are not rich millionaires like the Dick Smiths and Sir Richard Bransons of the world. Many small operators have already informed their pilots that they will not meet the cost - the pilots will have to pay it themselves. You say that you have spent a lot of time in the general aviation sector, so you would be aware that GA pilots are poorly paid in comparison to their airline counterparts, in fact some earn less than the people who refuel their aircraft. About the only people who won't be adversely affect are the airline pilots of QANTAS, Virgin Blue etc.
The time taken to perform this security check will also adversely affect GA and the training industry. I have spoken to an instructor who had a student wait 3 months for their licence from CASA. What delays will we see when this legislation takes effect !?! This causes delays in their flying training as they cannot proceed until they receive their licence. In comparison, aviation training in New Zealand is booming.
Furthermore, the screening of every pilot raises the question of where does it end? Should drivers of heavy vehicles also be screening? Bus drivers? Private motorsists On reading Hansards I see this was labelled as "ludicrous", however I ask you - what would be the most dangerous? The small Cessna 152s and 172s that I fly or a stolen petrol tanker wired with explosive and driven into the centre of Sydney? Overseas experience has shown that the terrorists 'weapon of choice' is a car, truck or small van packed with explosive - yet the users of these vehicles are not being screened. In Senate you stated that "an aeroplane of virtually any size can be turned into an enhanced weapon.". If this is correct - why are glider pilots and ultralight pilots not being screened? Advances in ultralight design have progressed to the stage that some are as big as a Cessna 152 and being of streamlined fibreglass design can fly faster than this aircraft.
I ask that the government reconsider this section of the bill to prevent the unneccesary burden it would place on the general aviation sector. Whilst I have nothing to fear from a security check (having infact already undergone one when applying for a position with defence forces), pilots are being unfairly targetted - I do not like being considered a potential terrorist simply because of my hobby. In the United States of America - the country that suffered an attack by terrorists in hijacked aircraft - they have no intention of screening every pilot - so why does Australia?
DeltaSix
6th Dec 2004, 19:54
Thanks Biggles, I'll write a PROTEST letter to this guy and give him a piece of my mind.
Also, the email addresses are also good Uncommon Sense.
The "What If " is what gets me. It is a real possibility.
C'mon guys, they can break us and screw us one by one but if we bond together it will be harder for them and hopefully get the message accross to these pollies.
We have to protect our industry from being screwed by them.
Aviation is already one of the toughest industry to be in without these people putting extra burden on us. As CFI has said, they have already killed a large part of the overseas PPL market and therefore the local schools are suffering for it. Let's not let them get through and kill us as well.
Obiwan, that's a good letter..... I might use some of it
DeltaSix :mad:
Knockout
6th Dec 2004, 22:12
And what happens to the poor GA pilot who can not afford this on his/her wage that only pays for $10 of petrol a week, rent and food that dosn't last a week?
VH-Cheer Up
6th Dec 2004, 22:36
Exactly
Get writing
I just unleashed a torrent of e-mails on Parliament House!
Horatio Leafblower
7th Dec 2004, 01:09
We have organised every Aero Club in and around John Anderson's electorate (Gwydir) to send Emails from every member; that's Scone, Mudgee, Gunnedah, Narrabri, Moree, Wee Waa and Walget.
Am organising a petition to be signed by every pilot in Gwydir and presented to Anderson and Marn Fergsn, first name on the petition: Col Pay.
Have contacts in Tamworth getting involved.
Give it our best shot :rolleyes:
kookabat
7th Dec 2004, 01:32
*WOOOOOSH!!!!*
That was the sound of a couple of hundred emails winging their way from my inbox to Parliament House...
Obiwan
7th Dec 2004, 01:37
We have organised every Aero Club in and around John Anderson's electorate (Gwydir) to send Emails from every member; that's Scone, Mudgee, Gunnedah, Narrabri, Moree, Wee Waa and Walget. Don't forget to get the ultralight pilots on board too. There's strength in numbers - and once the pollies realise the ultralights are now similar in size to smaller GA aircraft they will be targetted too
Chimbu chuckles
7th Dec 2004, 05:12
This sent to the MP mailing list.
To whom it may concern,
I would wish to convey to you all my complete dismay at this latest piece of security overkill stupidity.
To suggest this will have any measurable effect in Australia's defense against terrorism is laughable. All it does is unfairly attack a sector of the community that is, by the very nature of their chosen profession or hobby, among the most Law abiding and conservative in Australia.
Pilots, such as myself, who fly airline aircraft are already faced with a list of measures on top of security checks, that would be comedic if not for the stupidity.
Measures like taking people's nail clippers off them. Like virtually strip searching pilots who are reporting for duty...do they seriously think I'm going to hijack myself...or that I need to carry something on board with me to achieve that?
And now we are going to have every pilot security checked bi-annually....in the case of all professional pilots....TWICE!!
Professional pilots already have an extensive back ground check done by the Federal Police before the issue of their ASIC cards, which only apply to the current employer, change jobs and the check is done again and a new card issued...what else do they need checked...does Mr. Anderson think that airlines don't do their own background checks as well?
This will be the 4th type of pilot's license I have been required to carry....Please ask the relevant authority how they intend to put all the ICAO required information that is currently on the 8.5 A6 pages in my current license book on a photo ID?
Please explain why I, as a born and bred Australian citizen with no criminal record and a 25 yr history as a pilot, am now considered such a threat to the public of Australia?
In parts of the world where terrorist attacks are common the choice of vehicle is usually a car, 4wd, or truck. Never has there been a case of a terrorist choosing a light aircraft. The only recent case of a light aircraft crashing deliberately into a building was that of a mentally disturbed individual in Florida. No-one else was injured and all he managed to do was break the windows at the point of impact and leave the aircraft sticking out of the side of the building. I note that even in the US, where it could be argued that security paranoia is running unchecked, they are not game to even suggest such a draconian measure, let alone table it in the Senate.
Are we to expect, therefore, that all people with a drivers licence will be required to pay for a security check every 2 years to ensure they are safe to operate such, potentially dangerous, vehicles on our roads?
In every case I am aware of, and we study this stuff, aircraft have been hijacked by passengers....that being the case will we be requiring every member of the public who intends traveling by airline (or Bus etc) to undergo, at their own expense, a security check such as the one being foisted on pilots?
Does it make more sense to security check the backgrounds of the demographic responsible for all hijackings to date rather than the victims of every hijacking to date?
If this feeble attempt at political PR is actually deemed necessary after suitable debate and REAL industry consultation, which in 25 yrs in aviation I have never seen or heard of actually happening, is it fair that the small number of individuals (pilots) carry the cost burden of protecting all Australians?
Have any of you actually read the Constitution...particularly the parts covering the Govts responsibilities to it citizens?
I would like simple answers. I do not want a page of political waffle suggesting that this lunacy is supported by recent threat assessments and industry consultation...it is not and that is a lie.
And while you are considering this draconian waste of time and money please explain why Garuda Airlines is allowed to fly into major Australian cities. The last three acts of terrorism against Australians/Australia occurred in Indonesia. The population is the largest Muslim one in the world. A huge % of that population have anti US/Aust feeling due to our current foreign policy actions worldwide. Current moderate Islamic thinking in Indonesia is that the % of the population who would actively support terrorism, while small, is growing. Even a single digit % of the population of Indonesia is millions of individuals. Is it feasible therefore that it might be possible to get two Garuda pilots who would be prepared to crash a 747 into the center of the Sydney CBD...or Parliament House?
Ludicrous I hear you say? Not nearly as ludicrous as the security measures being considered against law abiding Australian citizens.
Yours Sincerely
Chimbu chuckles (real name used). Air Transport Pilot Licence, Boeing 767 pilot and private aircraft owner.
Ultralights
7th Dec 2004, 06:12
Lots of emails sent, and copies of the letters post above printed out and Personally delivered to the office of the federal Minister Bruce Baird.
I have also sent a latter to the RAA suggesting we do something to help.
On a side note, while we seam to be building momentum witha united front, how about we also suggest ways to revive the ailing GA Industry.
In one of my emails-letters, i have pointed out that the GA Indusrty is 1 heartbeat away from death, and helping encourage investment in the GA indusrty by taking a leaf out of NZ's and the US GA Books, we will kill 2 birds with one stone (i know, bad pun) that providing a climate in which the GA Industry can grow and thrive (as it is in the US and NZ) you will also have training of New engineers and other aircraft related trades, helping to reduce the inevitable skilled trades shortage.
so next how about following up all those letters with letters of suggestions!
Capt Claret
7th Dec 2004, 06:27
Email sent. Outlook had hernia and advised too many recipients! Thanks Uncommon Sense for the list, I couldn't get Outlook to open the link. :ok:
one reply already! "out of office msg" from Mr Katter.
Obiwan
7th Dec 2004, 10:21
Looks like Senator Allison was quick off the mark
Thanks for that advice. We will follow this up in Senate Estimates next February. Please keep us informed from your end.
Yours sincerely
Lyn Allison
Ultralights
Advocacy of aviation and GA is a good start.
We need a program like http://www.beapilot.com in Australia. Sounds great. I would like to participate in kicking one off.
VH-Cheer Up
7th Dec 2004, 10:27
Chimbu
Brilliant letter, well done.
VHCU
Islander Jock
7th Dec 2004, 10:46
Chimbu,
You are a legend. Well done!!!
Time to spam a pollie or two.:E
Uncommon Sense
7th Dec 2004, 11:15
I had the same problem with too many recipients using one of my email accounts on outlook but another was fine - so I think it is mail server dependant? But I could be wrong - sigh - again.
You can always cut and paste the alternative list in three or four 'bites'.
hadagutful
7th Dec 2004, 11:19
GOOD TO SEE MANY GETTING FIRED UP OVER THIS GOVERNMENT LUNACY !!
Got onto a Mr. Andy Turner today who heads up the Office of Transport Security, DOTARS. He is quite unapologetic about the need for this legislation, aircraft in the wrong hands are a security risk. Oh really !!!
Asked what about trucks, boats, even cars etc., reply was that government would eventually even be looking at ALL modes of transport for security risks.
Where will this end.?
I questioned the need for 2 yearly checks and he advised it might be 5 years, not every 2 years. Also as to why we should bear the cost ourselves @ $200 and to this he suggested that is only a figure being used.
But he is only the pub servant, we need to get to t he politicians.
More phone calls and emails tomorrow.
Obiwan
7th Dec 2004, 11:58
Asked what about trucks, boats, even cars etc., reply was that government would eventually even be looking at ALL modes of transport for security risks.
This piece is priceless. This is what will start a panic amongst the general public. Imagine mum having an ASIO security screening to drop the kids at school.
Send a nice letter to the editor of ALL papers alerting them to this.
Anyone got any contacts in the media who might run with this?
I had the same problem with too many recipients using one of my email accounts on outlook but another was fine - so I think it is mail server dependant? But I could be wrong - sigh - again.
Its usually mail server specific to prevent spamming etc.
Creampuff
7th Dec 2004, 18:44
But you folks voted for this government, and handed it the Senate, while this legislation was on the table.
You gave it a mandate to pass this legislation.
Lead Balloon
7th Dec 2004, 20:54
Your patent (l)iberal Bias is showing up here Creampuff. Don't you know that people vote for enlightened self interest.
Obviously fears of Mortgage payments and mythical terror outweighed truthfulness and fair government this time around.
And when things go to hell and people need social security payments they'll vote for the other side.
But I do agree with you. Australians deserve what they have gotten with their politics. Especially giving a bunch of liars the keys to the senate, is tantamount to stupidity - to complain about decisions made with an election mandate is almost pointless.
kookabat
7th Dec 2004, 20:57
Creampuff - Oh no I didn't... :*
Pharcarnell
7th Dec 2004, 22:10
Creamy.
Not Bl**dy Likely! In fact, my preferrence would be a last option on the voting form for "None of the Above" and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one that used it.
Pharc
Capt Claret
7th Dec 2004, 22:16
Creamie I'd like to be excluded from your sweeping generalisation! ;)
scramjet77
7th Dec 2004, 22:26
I couldn't bring myself to vote for either of them. What a choice, Liars or Idiots, hmmmmm, I thought I would abstain and await the arrival of the voting police.
Chimbu chuckles
8th Dec 2004, 03:14
I didn't vote for the morons either....voting them in does NOT give them a mandate for stupidity...would you argument be the same Creamie if they decided to use their 'mandate' to introduce a 30% pay increase for themselves...again!
Ultralights
8th Dec 2004, 06:11
Arguing over who voted for who is IRRELEVENT! what is relevent is the security issue!
Asked what about trucks, boats, even cars etc., reply was that government would eventually even be looking at ALL modes of transport for security risks.
the TWU would like a copy of this! :} now just imagine what we might achieve with members of all forms of transport involved!!! i know for a fact my 1500 Kg capacity van packed with bad stuff, will do immensly more damage than even a 50 seat commuter aircraft!! and the great irony is, i have NO security check when delivering Music products to clients Inside Both Sydney terminals! (the loading docks are UNDER the terminal buildings)
its good to see we might actually be making progress on this Issue! lets just hope we can actually turn the tide in our favour and that of the indusrty in general!
Obiwan
8th Dec 2004, 10:31
the TWU would like a copy of this!
Just Do It {tm}
Seriously - got any contacts in the TWU? Anyone else?
Working in IT, I have NFI about this.
wishtobflying
8th Dec 2004, 21:13
Here's an interesting thing - I have "request a read receipt" switched on for internal mail, I usually switch it off for external mail but forgot to when I emailed all the pollies in the previous post.
I've got quite a few positive "read" receipts, but here's the interesting thing - what about the ones that come back "your message to .... was deleted without being read"?
Isn't there some sort of requirement for them to process all mail they receive, electronic or not?
It brings up another interesting point though - email is very very easy to use, but it's also very very easy to ignore. Paper is much harder to ignore. Paper letters get registered on document tracking systems, flagged for followup and are generally taken much more notice of.
If you've got the resources, a mail merge followed by a half hour or so of envelope stuffing would be a Really Good Idea.
Cheers,
wishtobflying
Brisbane
--
You cannot achieve what you have not first imagined ...
--
Obiwan
9th Dec 2004, 01:14
wish2b - How many delete notices did you get from the pollies?
I have only 2 replies to date - Senator Allison and Senator Macdonald's secretary.
When I have more time (ie this weekend) I will follow up with snail mail
Further to your point ultralights, anyone can hire a 3000kg capacity van and drive it without a heavy vehicle license. How much more damage could a van this size do than most light aircraft....think oklahoma.
World has gone mad
Icarus2001
9th Dec 2004, 01:51
A note about read receipts. I set my email app. to view with a preview pane. If I read an email in the preview pane then delete it, an "unread" message is sent to the originator of the email, even though I have read it.
What concerns me is that it was read then deleted. One would have thought it would be sent to a folder for minority groups who can safely be ignored even during elections, or something similar.
wishtobflying
9th Dec 2004, 02:25
I've had three "not read" messages, but the followup to this is that I replied to them and said:Is there not some requirement for your office to register all received mail, whether it be electronic or paper? Receiving the following message does not engender confidence in this process.
I got a reply from Mrs Markus' office:Thank you for your message.
Our computer is set up to be able to view emails without actually opening them so whilst it appears it was deleted without being read that was not the case.
We have received numerous emails on this issue including from a number of locals in our area in Sydney involved with the Air League. Mrs Markus is a great supproter of the League and gave a speech to that effect last night in the Chamber.
Please be assured that your concerns have been heard by Mrs Markus.
Yours sincerely,
So my initial concern may be inaccurate, and it appears that some of our activities are being taken notice of. Paper is still better.
Anyone got an excel file with all the names and addresses of the politicians in a format that could be used for a mail merge?
wishtobflying.
Chimbu chuckles
9th Dec 2004, 03:17
All I have had so far is two out of office auto replies...don't know whether that's a good thing or not.
Maximus B
9th Dec 2004, 03:36
Guys
Just keep firing.
Paper is best, e-mail Ok for those with less time.
Letters to editors works best, make it emotive (jobs etc) especially in regional areas.
This is great, apart from a few on either side, the first time AOPA, PPRuNe and AGAF have worked effectively together!!!
Oh, and markus' speech was crap, all pro-Air League, nothing about fees. Typical double speak. Unhelpful ... Read Hansard.
:)
Obiwan
9th Dec 2004, 09:07
Maximus
At the risk of 'outing' myself (like I care...) I was one of those involved in the Air League in the area who contacted Mrs Markus - in a capacity as a concerned PPL not on behalf of the AAL.
I wasn't aware Mrs Markus spoke about us in Parliament - pretty good effort!
As she mentioned in her speech, there are quite a few young pilots under 20 in the Blacktown AAL (6 PPLs and students) plus a couple of us older volunteers, and Mrs Markus has accepted an offered to come flying with some of the cadets over Xmas. This will be an ideal opportunity to promote the benefits of aviation to her and the challenges that it faces. Considering she has been in office for a month and there isn't an airport in her electorate I think we're doing our little bit to promote aviation. What are you doing ;)
Oh yeah - and if you search through Hansards for \'aviation\' there are some classics like this from Mr Ripoll (Oxley)
While this bill deals specifically with the aviation industry I think there is scope and room for the government
to examine other transport industries that may be of concern. There is no doubt in my mind that the trucking industry and other transport industries, such as road and rail, also need to be looked at. If we look around the world
in terms of security breaches, we see that rail is right up there being targeted by terrorists. If we are serious about
aviation and passenger and transport security we should also be serious about transport in other areas, including rail and road. I do commend this bill to the House and Labor’s support of it but believe it does need to go further and to look at other measures.
and this from Baird (Cook)
We can also think about what would have been the situation if appropriate checks had been carried out of those who were undertaking flying training in the United States prior to September 11. It was part of ASIO’s
review and highlighted the incredible tragedy of not taking that basic step.
There\'s a few more people who need to be educated... :rolleyes:
although Hatton (blaxland) seems to understand
You as a Member must remember this issue has incensed outrage and is seen as a knee-jerk reaction targeting a small group,
leaving more obvious risk groups e.g. trucks/vans/stationwagons/runabouts etc. without any checks at all.
On this issue don’t think for one minute that the Australian public will only have a 2 year memory with elections at 3 years, the outrage will remain to the next election.
That is indicative of the fact that there is a great deal of sensitivity on the part of people in the general aviation industry because there have been a large number of imposts placed on them. It also indicates our problem in dealing with security issues. They are broader than aviation and they raise a series of difficulties because we do not
really know where the next attack will be coming from. It could be from someone with a petrol tanker; it could be, as the member for Brand argued recently in the House, that the key attack could come from a ship registered overseas using Australian ports, loaded with ammonium nitrate and fuel, and that large bomb could do enormous damage to people in Sydney, Newcastle or Port Kembla. We have to change our whole approach to dealing with these matters.
Manwell
9th Dec 2004, 09:50
Well, I'll be schickered!
Hatton is my local MP- for the next couple of weeks anyway until I move to BN - and I would never have thought he would speak on our behalf. Most of the time I've seen him at local meetings organised to fight the expansion of BK airport.
Sent a letter to him just the other day on these bloody silly checks and the new maintenance NPRM. Maybe he does listen after all!
Goes to show that we can't presume that anyone will or will not be sympathetic to our plight. After all, it very well could be them next. And by the way, that's the way we should present it in letters to the editor as well, rather than bleating about loss of jobs or other irrational arguments. The last thing we need is to give the opposition ammo to fire back at us.
Keep a cool head, and stick to the truth guys, it always works in the long run.
BTW, thanks for the compliment Chimbu Chuckles, you're not doing too bad yourself judging by the recent letter you posted.
You know, this security farce might just end up being the best thing to ever happen to Aviation in this country. If it succeeds in inspiring us all to give up our petty holier-than-thou attitudes, (me too), and working together for once, - well, the sky's the limit.
Ultralights
9th Dec 2004, 09:57
Fortunatly the office of Mr B Baird is just up the road, time to re-write my letter, withthe added paragraph by Hatton. he seams to be the only one to understand our point of view, not to mention sending a copy of the quote from Baird and Ripoll to the TWU! im sure they will just love this! i can see it now! Australia grinding to a hault in just 1 day with all the transport industyr having a meeting! as the dangerous good signs say "without trucks! Australia stops!" simple.
Manwell
9th Dec 2004, 10:34
Yes Ultralights,
and imagine what would happen if all Oz pilots pulled out for a day too in the name of professional solidarity.
There is no real House of Reps opposition at the moment, and in July next year there will be no opposition in the Senate either.
This will be just the thing we need to get all australians involved in our democracy instead of whingeing on the sidelines and expecting the opposition to keep the bastards honest.
We live in very interesting times.....
Creampuff
10th Dec 2004, 05:17
See House proof Hansard for 8 December 04: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr081204.pdf at page 71.
For all intents and purposes, it's now unstoppable. In theory, the Senate and even the Governor General could still change or stop the Bill in the course of the remaining formalities, but the number of times that's happened can be counted on the digits of one limb.
Better get used to it. After all, you voted for them (alright – I'm sorry – I meant a majority of you voted for them) while this legislation was on the table.
Obiwan
10th Dec 2004, 06:49
Better get used to it. After all, you voted for them (alright – I'm sorry – I meant a majority of you voted for them) while this legislation was on the table. Given the ALPs support for it - it was a fait accompli
kookabat
10th Dec 2004, 08:45
So what would happen if we ALL flatly refused to pay? Am I right in thinking it's our only option from here?
Creampuff
10th Dec 2004, 09:48
It depends upon whom you mean by “we”, kookabat.
The consequence of a person not paying the fee is presumably that CASA can and will refuse to issue or reissue a flight crew licence to the person when they would otherwise be entitled to have the licence. The person would therefore be unable lawfully to do what the licence would have authorised them to do.
If all pilots to whom the obligation will apply refused to pay the fee, then presumably they would eventually cease to hold a licence and, if they didn’t want to break the law, would at that point cease to do what the licence would have authorised them to do. At least one of the consequences would be that RPT would grind to a halt.
But then we would be back to 1989, and we would be reminded again that the pilot population, like the general population, has a preponderance of Hobbesian, dog-eat-dog, devil-take-the-hindmost individuals, who are prepared to devour the united-we-stand, divided-we’re-irrationally-taxed demographic, in the lick of a negatively-geared lip.
Thus we (that’s you and me) have the choice of paying the fee, or never flying again.
Utradar
10th Dec 2004, 11:07
Excuse me if I'm being ignorant here, but does anyone think a petition will contribute to the changing this law?
Just wondering as there were a lot of signatures on the changing of the New Airspace about a year ago. Did this contribute to the change? Any idea is worth considering!
Biggles_in_Oz
10th Dec 2004, 20:00
Do polititians and their staff pay for their security checks ? (uhhmm, they are checked....., aren't they ?)
Do people in the police-forces, rent-a-guard agencies, defence-forces, pay for their background checks ?
Maximus B
10th Dec 2004, 20:43
Yes they are checked and no they don't pay.
my Defence security clearance costs in excess of $200K to get and $10K per annum to retain.
If I had to pay I'd tell them to f-off.
But then, by profession I am not a pilot, they can't replace me :)
Max
Ultralights
10th Dec 2004, 22:13
hmmmm seeing as my medical is about due, wonder how long before CASA "approves" it after seeing the doc. some have told me they have waited in excess of 90 days! and have hence, no longer been current when their medical does come through. i just hope this is a rumor.
even so, $100 a year tax on my PPl yeah, that will help the GA indusrty resurect itself.
Goodbye GA, and VH rego aircraft it has been a privelige Flying with you. and sadly a privelige fewer people will ever experience.
Maximus B
10th Dec 2004, 22:18
Why all the negative vibes Ultralights, we haven't lost yet!!!
Besides, don't write of GA without looking at AUF. I ask, what is the difference in 'terrorist potential' between a C150 and a Tecnam???
Let them beat GA and you are next, that is certain.
Keep fighting!!!
Max
Ultralights
11th Dec 2004, 05:00
i havnt given up totally yet, its just i hope i dont have to wait until my currency expires waiting for a Medical!
on the other side, i own my own aircraft and have been flying under the RAA (AUF) banner for quite some years now! but its only through my GA licencing that i am able to enjoy all our airspace has to offer in a RAA registered aircraft. its very disheartening to hear that the $200 levy (tax) is preety much a reality, and that fellow aviators have had their wings clipped by waiting more than 90days for their medical renewal
Maximus B
11th Dec 2004, 05:56
Ultralights
Don't let Creampuffs technically correct yet reality flawed legal arguments put you off.
1. The checks are LAW. (And I NEVER voted for them, EVER)
But:
2. The fees are set by the agencies, in this case CASA and/or ASIO. The Minister can direct either to do it for free.
He will only do this if we apply pressure, lots of it.
So keep up the barrage!!!
Edited to remove the effects of red wine.
Obiwan
11th Dec 2004, 07:24
Petitions can be hosted for free online.
Help me correctly word a petition, I'll put it on the web and they we just need to get a million signatures.
Biggles_in_Oz
11th Dec 2004, 19:28
It really does seem that pilots are one of a small group (of 1 ?) who are being discriminated against and asked to pay for their security checks.
A surface trawl though some employer websites such as the AFP, state Police, child-carers, shows that whilst background checks are required there is no mention that the employee is required to pay for such checks.
A petition is an excellent idea, and a barrage of mail to the pollies and media is also required to get above their 'ignore if less than 'x' complaints per week' threshold.
We also have to tread a delicate line in this campaign.
a lot of the general public still have a perception that all pilots get paid huge amounts of money for very little work.
They don't know about the reality that most pilots work on a casual basis and that many have second jobs.
Creampuff said...
The consequence of a person not paying the fee is presumably that CASA can and will refuse to issue or reissue a flight crew licence to the person when they would otherwise be entitled to have the licence. The person would therefore be unable lawfully to do what the licence would have authorised them to do.
But here's an interesting thing...
All we Australian pilots possess a license or licenses issued IN PERPETUITY...
It is our Class 1 or Class 2 medical that makes the exercise of the privileges of the license limited to one or two years.
How could CASA actually require me to get a new ATPL etc. I have one that is valid till the day I die?
I have the required aeronautical experience and knowledge I have passed the examinations, I have passed the flight tests. The Director of Aviation Medicine has looked at my DAME's report and says I am medically fit. I have a new ASIC card that says I am a fit and proper person to be 'airside' in a security restricted area!
A quick look at the 1988 Act (sections 9 and 18) and the CAR's tell me two things....
CASA can only suspend, vary or cancel my licenses for SAFETY reasons, and
.... Section 9 of the Act specifically excludes CASA from taking action that is a SECURITY measure.
So, any aviation legal eagles out there, am I on to something here..... why should I pay for a new ATPL when I already got one....?
CASA can only vary, suspend or cancel my ATPL, CPL and PPL for only those situations set out in the
Act and Regs.
Am I correct in thinking that CASA will be acting without a "head of power" if it cancels my current licenses?
Here are the bits of legislation that leads me to think this way....
First, Civil Aviation Act 1988, Part 2, Section 9.
9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the
following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
by means that include the following:
(c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation
safety standards;
(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance
with aviation safety standards;
(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;
(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including
assessment of safety-related decisions taken by industry management
at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;
(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in
order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to
identify safety — related trends and risk factors and to promote the
development and improvement of the system;
(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety
developments.
(2) CASA also has the following safety-related functions:
(a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its
obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety, through:
(i) comprehensive safety education and training programs; and
(ii) accurate and timely aviation safety advice; and
(iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the
community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and
compliance with relevant legislation;
(b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with
all interested parties on aviation safety issues.
(3) CASA also has the following safety-related functions:
(a) co-operating with the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation in relation
to the investigation of aircraft accidents and incidents;
(b) any functions conferred on CASA under the Civil Aviation
(Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, or under a corresponding law of a
State or Territory;
(c) any functions conferred on CASA under the Air Navigation Act
1920;
(ca) entering into 83 bis agreements on behalf of Australia;
(d) any other functions prescribed by the regulations, being functions
relating to any matters referred to in this section;
(e) promoting the development of Australia’s civil aviation safety
capabilities, skills and services, for the benefit of the Australian
community and for export;
(f) providing consultancy and management services relating to any of
the matters referred to in this section, both within and outside
Australian territory;
(g) any functions incidental to any of the functions specified in this
section.
(4) In performing the function under paragraph (3) (f), CASA may, under a
contract with a foreign country or with an agency of a foreign country,
provide services for that country or agency in relation to the regulation of
the safety of air navigation or any other matter in which CASA has
expertise. Those services may include conducting safety regulation in
relation to foreign aircraft under the law of a foreign country.
(5) CASA’s functions do not include responsibility for aviation security.
Civil Aviation Act, Part 2, Section 18:
18 Permissions must be based on safety matters
(1) If a person applies to CASA for a permission, CASA must give the
permission if CASA is satisfied that the person has complied with, or is
capable of complying with, the safety rules (including rules about the
competence of persons to do anything that would be covered by the
permission).
(2) CASA must not do any of the following, except to ensure compliance
with the safety rules:
(a) impose a condition on a permission;
(b) vary a condition of a permission;
(c) suspend or cancel a permission.
(3) In this section:
permission means a permission under this Part, (other than paragraph
19(2)(c) or section 27A) but does not include an AOC.
safety rules means the provisions of this Act, and of the regulations, that
relate to safety.
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 Section 16, Regulation 269
269 Variation, suspension or cancellation of licence, certificate or
authority
(1) Subject to this regulation, CASA may, by notice in writing served on
the holder of a licence or certificate or an authority, vary, suspend or
cancel the licence, certificate or authority where CASA is satisfied that
one or more of the following grounds exists, namely:
(a) that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has
contravened, a provision of the Act or these Regulations,
including these Regulations as in force by virtue of a law of a
State;
(b) that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority fails to
satisfy, or to continue to satisfy, any requirement prescribed by,
or specified under(maybe they have a foothold here - ITCZ), these Regulations in relation to the obtaining
or holding of such a licence or certificate or an authority;
(c) that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has failed in
his or her duty with respect to any matter affecting the safe
navigation or operation of an aircraft;
(d) that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority is not a fit
and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and
perform the functions and duties of a holder of such a licence or
certificate or an authority; or
(e) that the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has
contravened, a direction or instruction with respect to a matter
affecting the safe navigation and operation of an aircraft, being a
direction or instruction that is contained in Civil Aviation Orders.
(1A) CASA must not cancel a licence, certificate or authority under
subregulation (1) because of a contravention mentioned in
paragraph (1)(a) unless:
(a) the holder of the licence, certificate or authority has been
convicted by a court of an offence against a provision of the Act
or these Regulations (including these Regulations as in force by
virtue of a law of a State) in respect of the contravention; or
(b) the person was charged before a court with an offence against a
provision of the Act or these Regulations (including these
Regulations as in force by virtue of a law of a State) in respect of
the contravention and was found by the court to have committed
the offence, but the court did not proceed to convict the person of
the offence.
(2) A notice under subregulation (1) shall set out the grounds for the
decision.
(3) Before taking action under this regulation to vary, suspend or cancel a
licence or certificate or an authority, CASA shall:
(a) give notice, in writing, to the holder of the licence, certificate or
authority of the facts and circumstances that, in the opinion of
CASA, warrant consideration being given to the variation,
suspension or cancellation of the licence, certificate or authority
under this regulation; and
(b) allow the holder of the licence, certificate or authority to show
cause, within such time as CASA specifies in that notice, why the
licence, certificate or authority should not be varied, suspended or
cancelled under this regulation.
(4) The time specified by CASA in the notice under subregulation (3) as
the time within which the holder of the licence, certificate or authority
may show cause why the licence, certificate or authority should not be
varied, suspended or cancelled under this regulation shall be a time
that is reasonable in all of the circumstances of the particular case.
Ultralights
12th Dec 2004, 07:00
now THAT is intersting. time for a little more study me thinks! good work ITCZ
Creampuff
12th Dec 2004, 08:17
The ‘legal eagles’ have considered all that. That’s why the Bill (soon to be an Act) has the effects, among other effects, of:
- Repealing section 9(5) of the Civil Aviation Act;
- Permitting CASA to make, and to take in to consideration, decisions as to whether someone has “an adverse security status”;
- Deeming someone to have “an adverse security status” if their status cannot be ascertained (because, for example, the person refuses to provide information);
- Making clear that CASA is able to prescribe fees which CASA can collect in relation to services, applications or requests, or the doing of anything, by CASA under the Aviation Transport Security Act.
The Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill is here: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=1850&TABLE=EMS
Bugger -- flash in the pan!
Obiwan
12th Dec 2004, 18:42
ITCZ Good work, but I fear the govt response will be
"What Act? Oh.. just a minute, where was that Liquid Paper? Ah.. fixed now":ok:
(or something to that affect)
Anyone got a good line for a petition? I want to kick it off tonight.
Maximus B
12th Dec 2004, 18:59
OK Creampuff
BUT, nowhere in there does the explanatory memorandum give CASA extra powers to suspend or cancel your licence, unless you have 'a security problem'.
Now, if you refuse to pay for your check, does that automatically mean you are a risk??? Take a pretty big change to mean that!!!
But that aside, I still think we can win the fee argument by fighting. I personally don't care about the checks, because of my job they look up my bottom on a regular basis!!
Creampuff
12th Dec 2004, 21:54
The grounds for CASA to refuse to issue a licence, or to suspend or cancel a licence, will include that the applicant or holder has an adverse security status.
If you refuse to pay the fee to have the check, you will be deemed to have an adverse security status.
Checkmate.
You are correct in stating that you can still fight the level of the fee – it's not set in concrete as yet. However, as with the legislation itself, there is no electoral or other political risk to the government in imposing the fee.
Perhaps we should revisit this in about 3.5 years…..
DeltaSix
12th Dec 2004, 23:57
Adverse Security Status if you dont pay the $200
What a load of bull#@$*.........
If I was a threat do you think I would not hijack an aircraft now and crash it in the middle of a capital city before I even pay it ?
I just can see it now, a terrorist would pay $200 so he can be stopped..........
Do they really think if the terrorist on 9/11 had this levy imposed on them, they would be deterred to hijack an aircraft ?
These people need to look at the threat in a realistic way.
This my friends is a Revenue Raising Exercise......... they think you have all the money in the world.
Checks should be done for FREE..... ( hear that Mr Anderson ? )
Or take it out of the defense and security budget.
DeltaSix
Creampuff
13th Dec 2004, 00:44
It wasn't my idea, and I didn't say it was rational.
From the second reading speeches reported in Hansard:Mr JOHN COBB (Parkes—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) (1.05 p.m.)
…
In summing up, I would like to make mention of the fact that the Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to allow the secretary to declare a person as having adverse security status, with the result that that person's flight crew licence must be cancelled or that, in the case of a new application, their licence would be refused.
…
The government considers that it is not unreasonable for pilots to be asked to pay for background checking simply as part of a licensing process. Other aviation industry participants have already paid for background checking.
…
Perhaps we should revisit this issue in about 3.5 years…
OZBUSDRIVER
13th Dec 2004, 08:27
It will be pretty damn hard to argue the case when Joe Public believes that ALL pilots earn a squillion and if you do not fly for a living then you must still be loaded. Using the thin edge of the wedge argument...Pilots this time, who is next? could get a result.
I could use a photo of my truck and dog beside a Cessna. Payload of 29 tonne versus some 700kg to try and show how ludicrous the argument is. Or three tonne enclosed van using the formulae mentioned in parliament to predict possible casualty yield. Paranoid vote chasing politicians will fall for the trap of restricting hard fought freedoms in the interest of public good.
Uncle Usama has used those exact same freedoms against us with devastating clarity. It is worth noting that that pr##k down in Tassie was disarmed every time he touched the system, only to re-arm from the back yarders with some pretty exotic equipment. Aviation is already way regulated now, indeed the yank system was ringing warning bells long before 11/9 but the FBI wasn't interested in listening.
It is pretty disgusting that I will have to pay to make the bureaucrats look good. Yeeessss Minister indeed:rolleyes:
Philthy
13th Dec 2004, 09:32
Its interesting, isn't it, that I need a $200 security clearance to fly my ancient bugsmasher around, but I don't need one to vector a skyful of jumbos about?
Now, if I really was a security threat....
Biggles_in_Oz
13th Dec 2004, 10:38
Creampuff
You are correct in stating that you can still fight the level of the fee – it's not set in concrete as yet. However, as with the legislation itself, there is no electoral or other political risk to the government in imposing the fee.
Perhaps we should revisit this in about 3.5 years…..
Very few government imposts get reduced or removed after introduction, so lets try to nip this one 'in the bud'.
Creampuff
13th Dec 2004, 18:22
It’s all publicly available information, at least for those who can read. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum (link posted above) says: Paragraph (1)(g) provides that regulations may be made specifying procedures and other matters relating to the issue, suspension or cancellation by CASA of security designated authorisations or the refusal by CASA to issue security designated authorisation. For example, this would enable regulations to be made which prevented CASA from issuing a security designated authorisation to a person unless the applicant has been subject to checks by ASIO, DIMIA and the AFP. It would also allow regulations which provided that CASA must cancel a security designated authorisation where it isn’t possible to subject the holder to background checking.As of July this year, there will be nothing to stop these regulations being made and surviving parliamentary scrutiny. Same with the regulations imposing the fees, I'm afraid Biggles_In_Oz.
Ultralights
14th Dec 2004, 08:08
where does QF. DJ and Jet* stand on this issue? will they wear the cost for their flight crew? willt he aircrew have to be subjected to this tax if they already hold an ASIC?
Balding Eagle
15th Dec 2004, 08:34
The sad fact of the matter is that this legislation will not stop terrorism nor those inclined to take part in such acts. It will not protect the citizens who fly in our aircraft any more than they are protected now. It is a typical knee jerk reaction to a problem and shuts the barn door after the horse has bolted. Everything that they are putting in place assumes that the same "modus operandi" will be used. No one appears to be trying to think ahead of any terrorist. Everything is a reaction. Useless tactic.
The Americans have the same attitude. Try to do a type rating in the US of A as an "alien".
It is a load of Bull**** to appease the populations of both countries but will not achieve a thing.
Obiwan
15th Dec 2004, 09:28
Anyone got a good line for a petition? I want to kick it off tonight.
Anyone help? Anyone at all?
Hellooo? Is this thing on? [tap] [tap]
VH-Cheer Up
21st Dec 2004, 01:12
I sent a blanket e-mail to all the Reps on the Hill. Got back a zillion receipts, about half "Not Read". What are we paying these guys?
HOWEVER... Today got a snail mail letter from Tony Windsor the INDEPENDENT member for New England, thanking me for my e-mail and saying he has written to the Deputy PM and Mininister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon John Anderson, asking for consideration to be given to the concerns and views expressed by me and others on the Bill and asking for his comments.
He undertakes to get back to me when he hears from the Minister. Sounds like a good bloke, just quietly.
We all have to write, call and lobby. Tell'em we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any longer!
C'mon, aviators and aviatrices. Pick up your pens. Now. Do it.
Cheers.
VHCU
kookabat
21st Dec 2004, 05:48
Yep - I got snail mail from Tony Windsor as well... At least he's aware of the issue now.
On another matter, my sister had some good advice for sending 'lobbying' letters (having worked for World Vision in the past) - told me that a HAND-written letter often has more effect than the blanket email or even word-processed snail mail - perhaps she has a point: if someone has gone to the trouble of hand-writing their concerns, maybe they REALLY care about it... this, then, is my next job...:cool:
Obiwan
21st Dec 2004, 08:20
No-one offered to help - so this is what I intend for a petition
To the Australian Federal Government and Opposition,
We, the Undersigned, wish to voice our concerns at the unnecessary fees proposed for all pilots throughout Australia and the erosion of our civil liberties.
The 'Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004' recently passed by the House of Representatives will see all commercial and private pilots in Australia undergo an ASIO Security Screening - AT THEIR OWN COST - for the priviledge of exercising their right to fly.
As well as being a costly and resource intensive operation, this legislation will not identify all security threats. In the terrible events of 11th September 2001 it was not a licensed pilot who carried out the terrorist acts, but a student with very little training.
This section of the bill will do little to enhance the security of Australia but will place another burden on an industry that is already struggling under over-regulation and rising costs. The proposed cost of this security check is 4 times that charged for an AVIATION SECURITY IDENTIFICATION CARD (ASIC) needed to work at a major airport , and contrary to public opinion - most private pilots are not rich millionaires.
The time taken to perform this security check will also adversely affect GA and the training industry. It already takes CASA weeks or even months to issue a student pilots licence - what delays will we see when this legislation takes effect !?! This causes delays in a students flying training as they cannot proceed until they receive their licence. In comparison, aviation training in New Zealand is booming.
Furthermore, the screening of every pilot raises the question of where does it end? Should drivers of heavy vehicles also be screening? Bus drivers? Private motorsists? A van or truck loaded with explosive and detonated in the centre of a capital city would cause many times more damage than a small Cessna or Piper. Overseas experience has shown that the terrorist's "weapon of choice" is a car, truck or small van packed with explosive - yet the users of these vehicles are not being screened. In passing this bill it was stated "an aeroplane of virtually any size can be turned into an enhanced weapon.". If this is correct - why are glider pilots and ultralight pilots not being screened? Advances in ultralight design have progressed to the stage that some are as big as a Cessna 152 and being of streamlined fibreglass design can fly faster than this aircraft.
We call on the the government to reconsider this section of the bill to prevent the unneccesary burden it would place on the general aviation sector. Whilst we do not fear the results of any security check, we feel pilots are being unfairly discriminated as a 'soft target'. Placing this burden on pilots is a knee-jerk reaction against a small group leaving more obvious risk groups without ANY checks at all.
We do not like being considered a potential terrorist threat simply because of my hobby. In the United States of America - the country that suffered an attack by terrorists in hijacked aircraft - they have no intention of screening every pilot - so why does Australia?
please offer comments and I will set up the petition.
Furthermore - we will need some info on the signers
Name
Email Address
Licence Level
Comments
Don't worry - the email address won't be visible
kookabat
21st Dec 2004, 08:43
Obiwan: I'd sign that...
<pedantic>
We do not like being considered a potential terrorist threat simply because of my hobby
"our" hobby, perhaps?? </pedantic>
Otherwise, yep, great...
Adam
Ultralights
21st Dec 2004, 08:58
good work Obiwan , it would be nice to take the best bits from the report out of the US and highlight what they are doing over there, as posted here
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111051&perpage=15&pagenumber=3
kookabat
21st Dec 2004, 09:46
Just so you know... this is the letter that I will put in the post tomorrow - HANDWRITTEN, it's been a long time since I've had to write this much in one hit, my hand hurts!! - to John Anderson. As usual, feel free to pick bits out and use 'em yourself...
----------------
Dear Mr Anderson,
I am writing with some concerns regarding the Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004 which was recently read in Senate. I note that this is not the first time that I have written to you about this issue – in early 2004 via Alby Schultz (I was unimpressed by your reply to him – ref. MPS #########), and recently via Tony Windsor. I have also emailed your office but, having received no reply, thought that a ‘traditional’ letter might be in order.
The key issue that I am concerned with – even disregarding the fact that I do not personally see the need for ALL pilots (including ‘weekend warriors’ such as myself who fly light aircraft purely for enjoyment) to undergo such checks, and I’ll come to that in a moment - is the notion that pilots are to bear the cost of the proposed security checks (some $200 every two years) themselves. For employed pilots, there is always the option – though unlikely given the current state of the industry – that their companies will pay for their checks, and also the possibility of claiming at least part of the cost as a tax deduction. In my case, however, and in the cases of thousands of pilots like me, this is not an option – being a private pilot with no intention of turning commercial. A new tax disguised as a ‘matter of national security’ is the last thing that the General Aviation industry needs. It is already expensive enough to learn to fly as it is, and I for one would far prefer spending $200 on an hour in the air than on a little piece of paper stating that, in the opinion of ASIO, I am unlikely to attempt a hijacking of my own aircraft!
Now to the reasoning behind background checks. Simply, I cannot see what this rather expensive little exercise will really achieve. Any pilot already has the necessary skills to carry out a September 11-style terrorist attack, and no amount of background checking will change that. I can understand that pilots operating into ‘high-security’ airports such as Sydney might require a security card – and they already have one, called an ASIC or Aviation Security Identification Card (which, I am told, costs some $150 less than the proposed new charges). What issuing an ASIC-style card to Farmer Bloggs, who flies his little Cessna out of a tiny dirt strip out the back of nowhere, will achieve is beyond me.
Pilots flying aircraft registered by Recreational Aviation Australia, the body formerly known as the Australian Ultralight Federation or AUF, are exempt from these checks. Yet some of these aircraft are of far higher performance than some General Aviation aircraft. The AUF licence provides precisely the same skills as the CASA equivalent. My point is, if ‘sport’ pilots are exempt from checks, just what will checking CASA-licenced pilots achieve?
My other concern is possibly far further-reaching. Once these new checks are in place, where does it stop? Since September 11, 2001, the terrorist weapon of choice has been a truck or car bomb (think Bali for example). So, using the same logic suggesting that pilots need background checking, drivers of road vehicles – trucks and cars - should also need checking. I’d like to see the voter backlash from THAT little idea! I note that in Hansard on 1 December 2004, the idea of checking motorists was labeled ‘ludicrous’. So why check private pilots? By singling just one relative minority group out for such checking, the Government seems to me at least to be trying to be seen by the electorate as ‘doing something’ rather than acting with Australia’s real interests at heart.
I will finish by stating again my strong opposition to the proposed background checks for pilots, and especially to the notion that individual pilots be forced to pay for their own security checks. If the Government sees these checks as being necessary, then the Government can pay for them. I have nothing to fear from any background checks. Feel free to sift through my dirty laundry if you really feel the need – I for one will NOT be paying you for the privilege.
Yours faithfully,
Etc etc etc.
-------------------------
Whaddaya think?
Obiwan
21st Dec 2004, 23:26
Kookabats nice letter. The bit in the petition about 'my' was left in from my previous letters to Senators etc. I missed that:(
Ultralights I'll check the other post, add the good bits the petition and make it active.
Then we just need 30,000 signatures.
Seriously, we need as many pilots as possible to sign it. With 250 pilots bothering to sign we'd look like d!ckheads. And no Donald Duck/Mickey Mouse/Osama bin Laden sigs either...
Uncommon Sense
22nd Dec 2004, 01:44
Do as much as you can now - and especially before 1st July next year.
Thanks to all the re-electLib/Nat supporters (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142845&highlight=election) remember that from Jul 1 next year the following will not happen:
1. Senate Estimates - only Ministers will be called
2. Senate Inquiries in to controversial policies or allegations of corruption - out they go!
3. Senate committees for public hearings of proposed legislation such as this one - finished!
4. Senate scutiny of bills rushed through the house of reps (the guillotine) - gone!
In fact, if the senate ever made a case for it's existence (overall) it was the last 15 years. If it ever makes a case for it's extinction - it will be the next 3 or probably 6 years. But that is a whole new policy you haven't been told about - we await the referendum!
http://****sutonka.port5.com/watchtn.jpg4tw (http://fourthtermwatch.********.com)
VH-Cheer Up
22nd Dec 2004, 02:59
Kookabats
Nice letter.
Only point I would alter is I think the correct form of address is "Dear Deputy Prime Minister", not Dear Mr Anderson, although I can't imagine anyone being too stuffy about such a slip. Not like we're all Poms, is it?
Cheers, down and locked.
VHCU
Obiwan
22nd Dec 2004, 07:49
Got another reply, from Senator Payne
Has not addressed of my concerns...
Thank you for your recent email regarding the issue of background checks
for pilots.
The Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004 has now passed both Houses of
Parliament and received Royal Assent on 14 December 2004. The purpose
of this Act is to enable background checking to be conducted on pilots
and other flight crew, with the results to be used to determine whether
a person should be allowed to hold or continue to hold a flight crew
license.
The legislation allows the Secretary of the Department of Transport and
Regional Services to determine the security status of a person holding a
flight crew licence or applying for a flight crew licence, based on the
outcome of background checking by the Australian Federal Police,
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Department
of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.
An assessment of the threat to Australian civil aviation by relevant
intelligence agencies identified a definite threat from illegal use of
aircraft. Following advice that the background checking of pilots would
help mitigate this risk, the Australian Government made a decision that
all pilots would be subjected to background checks with costs to be
recovered through licence fees. Some background checking for trainee
pilots has been underway since July 2004 under the limited provisions of
the Air Navigation Act 1920.
In addition to the Government's decision to background check pilots, all
persons accessing a secure area of a security controlled airport will
need to display an Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC). An
ASIC is a security identification card that is used to verify that a
person has met all the threshold background checks required for entry to
a security controlled airport, subject also to having a legitimate
reason for such entry. An ASIC is valid for two years and each time an
ASIC is reissued new background checks must be undertaken. From 10
March 2005, all airports that service passengers will become security
controlled airports. Therefore, pilots requiring access to such airports
will require an ASIC and they should apply for one as soon as possible.
The Government has decided that, where a pilot applies for both an ASIC
and a pilot's licence, only one set of background checks is required.
For ASIC purposes the background checks will be valid for two years
(this is already an established industry-wide standard) and for the
pilot's licence the background check is valid for 5 years. As such a
pilot who needs an ASIC will be background checked every two years and a
pilot who does not need an ASIC will be background checked every five
years. Pilots will be able to apply for an ASIC from 10 March 2005 at
any security controlled airport, with all pilots required to display an
ASIC at a security controlled airport.
You should be aware that that the new legislation itself poses no cost
burden on pilots. It simply paves the way the future cost recovery
arrangements to be conducted in a streamlined manner. Streamlining
administrative arrangements will assist in keeping costs down. This
measure will ensure that there is a standard practice across the
industry for the re-checking of the background of those issued with an
ASIC.
The Government considers it reasonable for pilots to be asked to pay for
background checking as part of the licensing processes as other aviation
industry participants have paid for background checking through the
Aviation Security Identification Card scheme. It is an unavoidable
reality that national security remains a very high priority for this
Government. It is also a reflection on the current time that it is
essential for the Government to protect transport systems and its
passengers against very real targets.
Thank you once again for bringing your concerns to my attention.
Marise Payne
Senator for New South Wales
Ultralights
22nd Dec 2004, 08:22
It is an unavoidable
reality that national security remains a very high priority for this
Government. It is also a reflection on the current time that it is
essential for the Government to protect transport systems and its
passengers against very real targets.
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahah sorry, what a load of BS!!!
since when has pilot hijacked or blown up his own aircraft, especially since its a very real target!
and not to mention bob carr has pretty much destroyed sydneys rail network!! and not a terrorist in sight!
and lastly, now GA is a transport system??? i thought it was just a hobby sport for all us really stinking rich people!
Non Normal
22nd Dec 2004, 09:59
I honestly cannot see how this new "requirement" is supposed to enhance national (or aviation) security.
Are they going to impose the same security checks on overseas license holders who seek Certificate of Validation or Special License? They should, since they could be MORE of a security risk, if anything, than Australian license holders.
Are they going to ban pilots without our new fancy security check (i.e. overseas pilots) from entering our airspace? I think not.
How about ultralights? How can they be lesser of a security risk than a 152, say?
How about heavy vehicles that are capable of carry much more than a light aircraft could? Shouldn't the drivers be security checked?
I am not even sure what the government bods are trying to achieve by doing this.
Being seen to be doing the 'right thing', in a similar vain to confiscating tweezers from you at the airport security screening points? Trying to kill off GA so that they can sell off the airport land? It just does not make sense.
Maybe it's just the so-called "security experts" running amock. :(
hadagutful
22nd Dec 2004, 10:31
Folks,
get angry about this security bull**** like me and as soon as the new year hits, get stuck into your local members, phone Anderson's office in Canberra and electorate, contact DOTARS Office of Transport Security and whoever else is in the firing line.
It IS absolute crap and as I have said earlier, this is a community problem and the general taxpayer must pay for it, NOT we "terrorist" pilots. And why aren't they doing background checks on everyone else, why just us because we fly ????
This is an important principle and we have to let them know.
kookabat
22nd Dec 2004, 11:07
Only point I would alter is I think the correct form of address is "Dear Deputy Prime Minister", not Dear Mr Anderson,
I thoiught about that, but given that his initial reply to me (the one via Alby Schultz) was signed "John Anderson", so I thought Mr Anderson was appropriate. Minor point though really...
Letter went in the mail this morning! Now to Mr Latham (Mr Opposition Leader?? :p )...
Non Normal
22nd Dec 2004, 11:31
Maybe we should call aviating a "religion" and cry "discrimination on the basis of one's religious beliefs". :uhoh:
I still cannot believe it costs $200 (is that fee still on the card, by the way, or have they reduced it?).
Matt-YSBK
22nd Dec 2004, 13:30
I am as concerned about the cost although I agree that is an issue I am more concerned about our liberty. Our Pollys keep on about how we are fighting terrorism to protect our freedom and way of life. But having us undergo 1940’s Germany style background checks congers up images of men from the former soviet union’s KGB stopping me at MY (that I own) plane and asking for my papers. The terrorists are winning no question every time my freedoms are limited we become more like the state the extremists are wanting.
What will happen if you are refused your license based on a “RISK” can you appeal what are the reasons you can be refused. I hope nobody has visited Pakistan in the last few years. It may mean the end of your hobby or carrier. The casa form that asks information about your licensee goes further it asks about criminal history. Remember folks a criminal record means drink driving I have never been in a position to be done DUI but I know pilots that lost there car license a few years back It mentions ANY license on that form not just aircrew you can get a criminal record for dong speeding in a misspent youth.
And if you live in Victoria or soon to be NSW you can also be road side drug tested and as we see on the news tonight that is not accurate.
So if 8 years ago say 5 years before you had a pilot’s license you were done for DUI at .03 in a random road side test when you were on your Provisional license you will end up with a criminal record could you be refused a renewal of your license? Can you appeal is it bad luck what of all the money you have spent in training or perhaps buying an aircraft.
Im lucky a few of the stupid things I did In my youth did not leave me with any sort of record but I am sure that not everyone on pprune can say the same not every pilot that’s for sure.
Charlie Foxtrot India
22nd Dec 2004, 14:24
Another angle on this is from a CFI point of view.
I may have mentioned this before - but am getting lots of "walk ins" wanting me to do all thier ID checks "before we have to pay for it" Usually they are rude enough to try and drag me out of a booked lesson to do this. I don't have time for this cr@p.
To go through all the paperwork takes around 30-40 non revenue minutes. So I am sending those who are not our own customers to CASA, or they can make an appointment and pay me for my time.
BUT the funny thing is that I have not (that I am aware of) had any security checks done on me since I got Australian residency 12 years ago. Yet they are trusting me to do all this stuff. How secure is that?
Will we need ASIC cards at GAAPS, where we have massive three foot high fences? They can't even keep the kangaroos or the two stroke bike fiends out of here!
rescue 1
22nd Dec 2004, 20:49
It is important to remember that people who had no security checks undertaken on them conducted the September 11 attacks, and I assume that this is where the Government is trying to fill the crack. Surely this is not unreasonable in an attempt to protect the country?
$200 however, in what is already an expensive hobby, does seem extreme. I recall reading that the Government was putting the funds from the Ansett Levy into (rather than the rightful recipients) amongst other things, security arrangements - why can't some of these funds be transferred to this project, and offset the cost?
Perhaps that’s the question that should be posed to the political leaders?
Maximus B
22nd Dec 2004, 20:54
The whole concept of only CASA officers verifying copies is ludicrous. Who do the pompous w@nkers think they are.
I can get a passport with a JPs signiature, then use that to get the CASA photo licence.
Seems to me some CASA officers are way too full of thier own importance!!!!
Max
Icarus2001
23rd Dec 2004, 00:18
First of all I agree this will not add any sort of new level of security.
I have just re-read Obiwan's post which included a letter from senator Payne.
In summary I noted the following:
Current ASIC card holders will continue on with their two year renewal cycle.
Other pilots will have a five year renewal cycle. So if the cost is $200 for the background check then we are talking about $40 per annum. This does not seem a large amount of money especially if you can afford to rent or own an aircraft and fly then you should be able to afford 0.77 cents per week.
For professional pilots I still believe most larger companies will pay and if not it becomes a tax deduction for the employee.
Yes, I still disagree with the premise on which it is based but is not exactly the end of the world. Unless you are in the terry towelling hat brigade and still have a 2001 ERSA and VTC in the back of your aircraft and a copy of an orange VFG at home!
CFI
From 10 March 2005, all airports that service passengers will become security controlled airports. Therefore, pilots requiring access to such airports will require an ASIC and they should apply for one as soon as possible.
It is unclear when they say "service passengers" if they mean charter flights in and out of GAAP aerodromes. If that is the intention then the high security three feet high fence at JT will soon become a much more secure fence and airside entry will become controlled by locked door access through airside accessible buildings. eg doors that open on to the apron will require something like a combination lock. This will be very interesting to watch and will cause no end of strife for new students who have yet to be issued a SPL but need airside access; escorted only perhaps just like passengers?
kookabat
23rd Dec 2004, 00:40
From Obiwan's reply from Senator Payne: You should be aware that that the new legislation itself poses no cost burden on pilots
HUH??? $200 not a cost?:confused:
Yes, Icarus, I saw that as well, but it's now the principle of the whole thing that's got us uptight.
Then:
"other aviation industry participants have paid for background checking through the ASIC scheme
Hmmm... doesn't an ASIC cost something like $50? Where did the $200 come from anyway???:confused:
Meanwhile... off to the postbox, have another handwritten letter, this time for Latham...
Impatient to add my name to the petition. I'll be able to bring with me many members of the FTSA.
Seems odd to me that few have appreciated the source of the stupidity. The whole proposition must have been pushed upwards by a stupid public servant doodling in between ruminations on how he is to increase his pension. The danger is that he is likely to keep on doing stupid things like this. He is damaging an industry he should be supporting. How do we get rid of the impediment before he comes up with the pronouncement that wings on aircraft are dangerous when taxying so all wings will in future be forbidden.
How come Dick Smith has not come out in support from wherever he is hiding OR we would just love to tear to bits his propositions in support of the legislation.
Where are you on this Dick?
What are you Brits and NZers doing to forestall such measures or are your pollies more intelligent.
OOps - there goes my security clearance.
Roll on petition and all other measures.
Obiwan
23rd Dec 2004, 04:13
Alright, off you go
http://www.petitiononline.com/ozavbill/petition.html
Oz Ocker
23rd Dec 2004, 06:56
A van or truck loaded with explosive and detonated in the centre of a capital city would cause many times more damage than a small Cessna or Piper. or parked in a carpark underneath oner them big Westfield shoppin' centres.
I thought they'd determined the main threat from lighties, was the possibility of usin' cropdusters ta spray biogenic sorta sh!t.
Ya only need a strip a grass ter take off one a them things on.
This is another case of a govament doin somethin high profile to make it SEEM like they're doin somethin (an gettin a bitta stoush in return), without seekin industry advice from the people directly involved.
Be seein' youse round.
Obiwan
23rd Dec 2004, 09:38
email from AOPA
Pilot background checks
The issue of $200 background checks has risen again at a time when the US has formally acknowledged that GA planes do not pose a risk to the public.
AOPA has sent up an online email system where you can send an email directly to John Anderson and your local member on this very issue.
To use this system go to: http://www.aopa.com.au/securityfeesubmission.cfm
Thank you again for your support this year and AOPA looks forward to a brighter 2005.
Ultralights
23rd Dec 2004, 10:07
i have just finished hand writing this, a combination of a few letters from here and other sources, feel free to copy and send away...............................
To the Australian Federal Government and Opposition,
I wish to voice my concerns at the unnecessary fees proposed for all pilots throughout Australia and the erosion of our civil liberties.
The 'Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004' recently passed by the House of Representatives will see all commercial and private pilots in Australia undergo an ASIO Security Screening - AT THEIR OWN COST - for the priviledge of exercising their right to fly.
As well as being a costly and resource intensive operation, this legislation will not identify all security threats. In the terrible events of 11th September 2001 it was not a licensed pilot who carried out the terrorist acts, but a student with very little training.
This section of the bill will do little to enhance the security of Australia but will place another burden on an industry that is already struggling under over-regulation and rising costs. The proposed cost of this security check is 4 times that charged for an AVIATION SECURITY IDENTIFICATION CARD (ASIC) needed to work at a major airport , and contrary to public opinion - most private pilots are not rich millionaires.
The time taken to perform this security check will also adversely affect GA and the training industry. It already takes CASA weeks or even months to issue a student pilots licence - what delays will we see when this legislation takes effect !?! This causes delays in a students flying training as they cannot proceed until they receive their licence. In comparison, aviation training in New Zealand is booming.
Furthermore, the screening of every pilot raises the question of where does it end? Should drivers of heavy vehicles also be screening? Bus drivers? Private motorsists? A van or truck loaded with explosive and detonated in the centre of a capital city would cause many times more damage than a small Cessna or Piper. Overseas experience has shown that the terrorist's "weapon of choice" is a car, truck or small van packed with explosive - yet the users of these vehicles are not being screened.
In passing this bill it was stated "an aeroplane of virtually any size can be turned into an enhanced weapon.".
Yet in the US, a report from the FAA......
US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that "the small size, lack of fuel capacity, and minimal destructive power of most general aviation aircraft make them unattractive to terrorists and, thereby, reduce the possibility of threat associated with their misuse." The report concludes that continued partnerships between the GA industry and the government - such as AOPA's Airport Watch program - were vital to the long term success of efforts to enhance security at nearly 19,000 GA landing facilities......
My other concern is possibly far further-reaching. Once these new checks are in place, where does it stop? Since September 11, 2001, the terrorist weapon of choice has been a truck or car bomb (think Bali for example). So, using the same logic suggesting that pilots need background checking, drivers of road vehicles – trucks and cars - should also need checking. I’d like to see the voter backlash from THAT little idea! I note that in Hansard on 1 December 2004, the idea of checking motorists was labeled ‘ludicrous’. So why check private pilots? By singling just one relative minority group out for such checking, the Government seems to me at least to be trying to be seen by the electorate as ‘doing something’ rather than acting with Australia’s real interests at heart.
Sadly the general aviation industry in Australia is only a heartbeat away from extinction, and i fear that forcing such costs apon australian pilots will only help bring the death of the industry closer and do nothing to help improve security.
Your sincerly
.....................
I have also sent a copy to the RAA and SAAA to help gain their support in this fight.
Obiwan
23rd Dec 2004, 10:57
Got a reply from Senator Nettle (Greens)
I am replying on behalf of Senator Nettle to your email of 9 December about the Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004.
Thank you for raising these concerns. We agree that individual pilots should not have to bear the cost of security checks that will be mandatory for licensed pilots. As the bill has passed all stages it is not possible for parliament to review the matter before it becomes law. However, Senator Nettle will write to the Minister for Transport drawing his attention to the hardship which pilots will face if they are required to bear the cost of the mandatory security check and seeking information about cost arrangements. We will advise you of the minister's response when we receive it.
Thank you again for contacting us about this matter.
Yours sincerely
Katrina Willis
Adviser
ps - thanks to those who signed the petition, but we need more. Spread message :ok:
Icarus
Yes, I still disagree with the premise on which it is based but is not exactly the end of the world. Unless you are in the terry towelling hat brigade and still have a 2001 ERSA and VTC in the back of your aircraft and a copy of an orange VFG at home!
The $200 will probably been 1.5hrs less flying I do this year.
More important than that is the principle
1. Our govt views us as potential terrorists simply because of our completely legal occupation or hobby
2. We are being forced to pay for something unneeded and unjustified. Therfore - there\'s no cost to the govt and no chance it will ever be repealled - even if there is never a \'potential\' incident averted.
3. Its the thin edge of the wedge. What else will they then start charging us for?
4. Why aren\'t the real risk groups being screened.
Icarus2001
24th Dec 2004, 00:04
Obiwan
The $200 will probably been 1.5hrs less flying I do this year.As the $200 (if that is what it ends up costing) is for a background check that is valid for five years, that means it is costing you $40 per annum.
Where can you get 1.5 hours flying for $40?
Obiwan
24th Dec 2004, 00:12
As the $200 (if that is what it ends up costing) is for a background check that is valid for five years I've heard conflicting stuff about it being 2 years or 5. Still, it has to be paid this (next?) year - hence my reference to 1.5hrs flying.
Obiwan
24th Dec 2004, 08:23
Got a reply from Senator Ian Campbell. I won't bother posting because its word for word exactly the same as Senator Payne's. :rolleyes:
Chris Higgins
25th Dec 2004, 02:58
Icarus 2001.
You're missing the point: why should anyone be burdened with anymore government taxes. It doesn't stop at $200...that's where it starts.
Remember, a stroke of a politicians pen in Canberra and it could be $2000 before you know where you are!
By the way. I'm off to St Lucia on a US ATP that still looks like it was printed on the side of a shoe box with no photo. So I guess the Yanks are on board with this? Not!