Read it and weep folks!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got a reply from Senator Nettle (Greens)
ps - thanks to those who signed the petition, but we need more. Spread message 
Icarus
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.
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
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
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!
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.
Last edited by Obiwan; 23rd Dec 2004 at 11:16.
Obiwan
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?
The $200 will probably been 1.5hrs less flying I do this year.
Where can you get 1.5 hours flying for $40?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the $200 (if that is what it ends up costing) is for a background check that is valid for five years
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
