Read it and weep folks!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Maximus B; 11th Dec 2004 at 22:04.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what if it is ILLEGAL for CASA to require me to get a new license?
Creampuff said...
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ITCZ; 12th Dec 2004 at 06:23.
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/...1850&TABLE=EMS
- 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/...1850&TABLE=EMS
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
(or something to that affect)
Anyone got a good line for a petition? I want to kick it off tonight.
"What Act? Oh.. just a minute, where was that Liquid Paper? Ah.. fixed now"
(or something to that affect)
Anyone got a good line for a petition? I want to kick it off tonight.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
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…..
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…..
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney & Asia
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adverse Security Status
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
It wasn't my idea, and I didn't say it was rational.
From the second reading speeches reported in Hansard:
Perhaps we should revisit this issue in about 3.5 years…
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.
…
…
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.
…
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Now, if I really was a security threat....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Very few government imposts get reduced or removed after introduction, so lets try to nip this one 'in the bud'.
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…..
Perhaps we should revisit this in about 3.5 years…..
Last edited by Biggles_in_Oz; 13th Dec 2004 at 10:48.
It’s all publicly available information, at least for those who can read. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum (link posted above) says:
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Godzone
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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