ASIC - Surely this must be the end
I respect currawong’s opinion. I just disagree with it
My perception is that currawong puts greater faith than I do in the efficacy of these bureaucratic processes to achieve the outcomes they claim. My (educated) guess is that I have a deeper insight into these processes than does currawong.
But it’s likely currawong’s opinion will continue to prevail. These processes provide busy-work and comfort for many.
Meanwhile, I’m guessing I become a criminal next week. ASIC expires. As I haven’t been asked to produce an ASIC by anyone in authority at a security controlled aerodrome for years, I’m guessing that any failure to have a current ASIC will go undetected. Which kinda makes my point.
My perception is that currawong puts greater faith than I do in the efficacy of these bureaucratic processes to achieve the outcomes they claim. My (educated) guess is that I have a deeper insight into these processes than does currawong.
But it’s likely currawong’s opinion will continue to prevail. These processes provide busy-work and comfort for many.
Meanwhile, I’m guessing I become a criminal next week. ASIC expires. As I haven’t been asked to produce an ASIC by anyone in authority at a security controlled aerodrome for years, I’m guessing that any failure to have a current ASIC will go undetected. Which kinda makes my point.
Regarding DAMP.
I have been told more than thirty million dollars was expended to implement it, just for the regulator alone. A lot of money to address a risk that may or may not have existed. Does a DAMP manual of biblical proportions prevent or deter a determined alcoholic pilot? How many alcoholic pilots are out there? In my career I have known many pilots who like a beer, I've never encountered one who flew under the influence, then again I'm probably naive.
I've never quite understood why, other than to add some income to testing facilities, a pre-employment drug and alcohol test is required. To prove what? At that time, on that day someone was sober? I know people can be stupid but it's beyond stupid to turn up for a known test under the influence.
Could just the threat of random testing achieve the same deterrent effect without the complicated extremely expensive DAMP system?
I have been told more than thirty million dollars was expended to implement it, just for the regulator alone. A lot of money to address a risk that may or may not have existed. Does a DAMP manual of biblical proportions prevent or deter a determined alcoholic pilot? How many alcoholic pilots are out there? In my career I have known many pilots who like a beer, I've never encountered one who flew under the influence, then again I'm probably naive.
I've never quite understood why, other than to add some income to testing facilities, a pre-employment drug and alcohol test is required. To prove what? At that time, on that day someone was sober? I know people can be stupid but it's beyond stupid to turn up for a known test under the influence.
Could just the threat of random testing achieve the same deterrent effect without the complicated extremely expensive DAMP system?
Then again, other companies aren't as stringent about the testing process - as evidenced by a recent ATSB investigation where a Driver failed the test after an incident, yet had not had a random test in the 14 years he was with V/Line
KRaviator:
.....And the answer to that is; “so what?”
This is not to downplay the seriousness of the offence but to ask the question whether the cost justifies the result - that’s a risk management calculation.
Considering that Mining and similar companies have the same programs, I can probably answer my own question, it is cost effective, but that doesn’t mean the calculations shouldn’t be done.
What some of the pilots here don’t understand is that “public opinion” of what is a serious risk and what is acceptable behaviour is constantly changing. Those same people get blindsided by change.
Examples:
- As a kid I rode home on the tram with a .303 SMLE on one arm and my school bag on the other.
- Ansett and TAA management ran the two airline policy each lunchtime from the bar at Mac’s.
- Dangerous driving - speeding had to be proved by police.
- Divorce and casual sex could get you fired.
- Homosexuality was a crime. Lesbians didn’t exist.
- illegal drug use was a serious crime.
- Certain books, plays and movies were officially banned. Sex, nudity and swearing were verboten.
Now look at what’s approved and what isn’t.......
Furthermore, Coronavirus is going to see all that change again! For example, we have just passed peak feminism, green BS and LBGTQwhatever. The coming recession will sweep that away, and with it probably the ASIC and much expensive government regulation.
Random testing sadly is required, because some people just don't get the message.
This is not to downplay the seriousness of the offence but to ask the question whether the cost justifies the result - that’s a risk management calculation.
Considering that Mining and similar companies have the same programs, I can probably answer my own question, it is cost effective, but that doesn’t mean the calculations shouldn’t be done.
What some of the pilots here don’t understand is that “public opinion” of what is a serious risk and what is acceptable behaviour is constantly changing. Those same people get blindsided by change.
Examples:
- As a kid I rode home on the tram with a .303 SMLE on one arm and my school bag on the other.
- Ansett and TAA management ran the two airline policy each lunchtime from the bar at Mac’s.
- Dangerous driving - speeding had to be proved by police.
- Divorce and casual sex could get you fired.
- Homosexuality was a crime. Lesbians didn’t exist.
- illegal drug use was a serious crime.
- Certain books, plays and movies were officially banned. Sex, nudity and swearing were verboten.
Now look at what’s approved and what isn’t.......
Furthermore, Coronavirus is going to see all that change again! For example, we have just passed peak feminism, green BS and LBGTQwhatever. The coming recession will sweep that away, and with it probably the ASIC and much expensive government regulation.
Jeeeez Sunny. I hope yre right.
My take would be that Bureaurats will rise from the ashes, rebuild their Empires and continue to do what they do
Over regulate, waste collossal amounts of taxpayers money on 'brain farts' and continue to enjoy the troughs.
I do hope I'm wrong.
My take would be that Bureaurats will rise from the ashes, rebuild their Empires and continue to do what they do
Over regulate, waste collossal amounts of taxpayers money on 'brain farts' and continue to enjoy the troughs.
I do hope I'm wrong.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear the same aroa, in the near future it is more likely your entire medical records will be carried on your person in the form of a "secure encrypted ID card" readable by any "official of state". It will be justified on the basis that 'post COVID-19', in order to "protect" society at large, all members of said society will need to prove that they have been vaccinated, or otherwise 'safe' from risk of infection. It will extend to your entire medical history. And if the fallout from COVID-19 extends any length of time (12+months) that will be just the beginning. ASIC will pale into insignificance and all will forget the test case that it was on how well a community can organise to protect itself from infringement of basic rights and undue burden by bureaucracy.
The simple fact this 'flippant and childish' thread has drawn so much response is proof enough for me of the poignancy of the subject.
The simple fact this 'flippant and childish' thread has drawn so much response is proof enough for me of the poignancy of the subject.
Your assumption is that the ASIC programme is directed only at terrorism.
It is not.
Check Aviation security relevant offences in your regs.
Of course it has little hope of detecting a clean skin.
But it does go some way towards detecting those that are not.
Would you be happy to see a recently returned Jihadist airside? Or someone just out of a life sentence?
It is not.
Check Aviation security relevant offences in your regs.
Of course it has little hope of detecting a clean skin.
But it does go some way towards detecting those that are not.
Would you be happy to see a recently returned Jihadist airside? Or someone just out of a life sentence?
Do you believe the ASIC system prevents “recently returned Jihadists” and “someone just out of a life sentence” from being airside?
(And by the way: Why, precisely, should “someone just out of a life sentence” be prohibited from “being airside”?)
I’m genuinely interested in your perspective, because it evidently results in you supporting the ASIC system. The onus is on us detractors to convince supporters otherwise.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if it does make them suicidal terrorists, apparently it’s ok for them to be wandering around “landside”. Does not make sense to me.
Hate to be "that guy" again, but what about this (you'll never guess where this is implemented)
Instead of requiring an ASIC for people who fly the planes, require it for the people meeting these criteria:
This way, you've solved a few problems: 1) you're targeting appropriate people, since terrorists (unless they're sleepers... And how many of those have there been in the history of aviation?) aren't really the flying job holding type; 2) the recreational and private flyers don't need to get it - since they're unpredictable transients anyways, they'd need to comply with whatever by-laws or rules their field has for them; 3) students and instructors don't get cornholed with unnecessarily wait times in the training world; and 4) instead of just designating a place "security controlled" for no good reason, councils and airport owners might have to do some sort of cost vs benefit analysis of designating themselves as such.
Something along those lines seems better than the current system, while also not as drastic or dramatic as simply throwing the whole ASIC baby out with the bath water
Instead of requiring an ASIC for people who fly the planes, require it for the people meeting these criteria:
- Has to have access to the secured side of a security controlled airport (domestic or international) as part of their job duties? You get an ASIC Level 1 - which should encompass criminal, background, and intelligence (as in, spy stuff) checks.
- Have to have access to the unsecured side of an airport as part of your job duties? ASIC Level 2 for you, with corresponding reduced requirements.
- Want to train to fly? Apply for a Level 3 card (with all the background check fun), but be provided with a Level 4 while you wait so you can actually train.
- Waiting for your Level X card? You get a temporary Level 4 card, which requires an escort from a Level 1. Crucially, that level 1 doesn't have to be a pilot!
- Include biometrics in the card
- Define the "security controlled airport" as one having 24/7, on-site security presence, biometrics checks, and proper fencing (not the 1m tall fence easily scaled by a child I've seen in some places.
- Make application charges to be cost recovery only, in legislation or regulation.
This way, you've solved a few problems: 1) you're targeting appropriate people, since terrorists (unless they're sleepers... And how many of those have there been in the history of aviation?) aren't really the flying job holding type; 2) the recreational and private flyers don't need to get it - since they're unpredictable transients anyways, they'd need to comply with whatever by-laws or rules their field has for them; 3) students and instructors don't get cornholed with unnecessarily wait times in the training world; and 4) instead of just designating a place "security controlled" for no good reason, councils and airport owners might have to do some sort of cost vs benefit analysis of designating themselves as such.
Something along those lines seems better than the current system, while also not as drastic or dramatic as simply throwing the whole ASIC baby out with the bath water
Last edited by AlphaVictorFoxtrot; 31st Mar 2020 at 12:35.
Seems to me to be some steps is the right direction.
I suppose that in a coherent process the first question would be: What is the purpose of the ASIC system? The purpose.
It’s easy for terrorists to get airside at a security controlled airport. They can just fly there from somewhere that’s not security controlled. The fact that they haven’t yet in Australia is evidently not a consequence of the ASIC system.
What is the purpose of the ASIC system?
I suppose that in a coherent process the first question would be: What is the purpose of the ASIC system? The purpose.
since terrorists (unless they're sleepers... And how many of those have there been in the history of aviation?) aren't really the flying job holding type;
What is the purpose of the ASIC system?
OK I’ll bite.
The purpose of the ASIC system was to remove anyone with a criminal background from the front end of Aviation industry. The criminal background check does that. It also conveniently dovetails with CASA regulations which criminalise breaches of regulations. It thus helps CASA control industry employment or participation. This is also what was allegedly done to Glen Buckley although not through the ASIC denial route.
In this manner “undesirables” are prevented from employment in selected industries. The practice is creeping into use more generally in my opinion and it has some rather nasty human rights implications that will surface eventually. The practice does give the general public a warm feeling.
Preventing terrorism? How? Not possible.
The purpose of the ASIC system was to remove anyone with a criminal background from the front end of Aviation industry. The criminal background check does that. It also conveniently dovetails with CASA regulations which criminalise breaches of regulations. It thus helps CASA control industry employment or participation. This is also what was allegedly done to Glen Buckley although not through the ASIC denial route.
In this manner “undesirables” are prevented from employment in selected industries. The practice is creeping into use more generally in my opinion and it has some rather nasty human rights implications that will surface eventually. The practice does give the general public a warm feeling.
Preventing terrorism? How? Not possible.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to see the risk management case that justifies this useless ASIC system. Any person who seriously wants to get into any secure airport will research the many ways it can be done undetected.
What a joke - keeps a few people employed, but that's all. Airline or Airport ID cards achieve the same result.
ASIC and airport security are unrelated.
What a joke - keeps a few people employed, but that's all. Airline or Airport ID cards achieve the same result.
ASIC and airport security are unrelated.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure I've said this before somewhere on prune. Pilots in Australia have an ASIO check as part of their licence application, is that not enough?
A photo licence (Proper one not the rubbish photocopy that CASA came up with a few years ago) should be all that's needed for access to airfields. The current 20 pages of photocopied useless information is rubbish.
Basic information could all fit on a standard size the same as a drivers licence, or CASA could be daring and have a smart card (Also with photo) that would include all information. Sums up CASA really, licence issue hasn't changed much since 1920's. The only thing to change much is the exponential increase in regulation. SNAFU should be a term incorporated in the CASA watermark.
A photo licence (Proper one not the rubbish photocopy that CASA came up with a few years ago) should be all that's needed for access to airfields. The current 20 pages of photocopied useless information is rubbish.
Basic information could all fit on a standard size the same as a drivers licence, or CASA could be daring and have a smart card (Also with photo) that would include all information. Sums up CASA really, licence issue hasn't changed much since 1920's. The only thing to change much is the exponential increase in regulation. SNAFU should be a term incorporated in the CASA watermark.
instead of just designating a place "security controlled" for no good reason, councils and airport owners might have to do some sort of cost vs benefit analysis of designating themselves as such.
Unfortunately, the worst atrocities have so far been committed by people (pilots or passengers) sitting in the front two seats. People with any sort of access (or means to enable access) to those seats will always be suspect.
More damage has been done to aircraft by unlicensed kangaroos leaping the security fence and parking themselves on unlit runways, to ambush unsuspecting medevac aircraft in the wee small hours, than by jihadis.
I wouldn’t put it past the bastards.
What will they think of next?
I would argue it should serve a few purposes.
First, it's an identity card, like many workplaces have these days. Basically, a first point of "does this person belong here", quick glance kind of thing.
Second: it should be an identity verification tool (this would be where the picture and the biometrics come in). This is that newfangled "2 factor security" thing, but in the real world.
Third, it should be a confirmation of the user having passed a background check. This basically ensures that people that attempt to perform the work functions are legally allowed to perform them.
As of right now, it only really serves #1 and #3, and it's mandated for all pilots. So, it doesn't really get verified (anyone can get a card printed and laminated from the internet), and it's applied too broadly.
That's unfortunate. That's the big thing in my proposal above, it would be pretty much left to the airport to decide whether to become security controlled (with the security standard being set by the regulator, which has to be continuously met to qualify as security controlled). Obviously, this would have to be within reason - if you're a port of entry, you would have to become security controlled - but outside of a few obvious cases like that, there's no reason for CASA to dictate those security requirements to every airport in the country. Especially when most would not warrant it even with a high bar of security.
First, it's an identity card, like many workplaces have these days. Basically, a first point of "does this person belong here", quick glance kind of thing.
Second: it should be an identity verification tool (this would be where the picture and the biometrics come in). This is that newfangled "2 factor security" thing, but in the real world.
Third, it should be a confirmation of the user having passed a background check. This basically ensures that people that attempt to perform the work functions are legally allowed to perform them.
As of right now, it only really serves #1 and #3, and it's mandated for all pilots. So, it doesn't really get verified (anyone can get a card printed and laminated from the internet), and it's applied too broadly.
That's unfortunate. That's the big thing in my proposal above, it would be pretty much left to the airport to decide whether to become security controlled (with the security standard being set by the regulator, which has to be continuously met to qualify as security controlled). Obviously, this would have to be within reason - if you're a port of entry, you would have to become security controlled - but outside of a few obvious cases like that, there's no reason for CASA to dictate those security requirements to every airport in the country. Especially when most would not warrant it even with a high bar of security.
You could argue that those are the purposes. Others could make different arguments. Nothing wrong with that.
But what are the actual purposes of the system now? If the actual purposes are not or cannot be identified, it is not possible to determine whether those purposes are being achieved. Nor is it possible to debate whether those purposes are worth what it costs to achieve them.
Hypothetically, if the purpose of the ASIC system was originally to “be seen to be doing something” about the 9/11 hijackings, is that a purpose that justifies the ongoing costs?
This argument is circular:
The ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ and what’s ‘legally allowed’ are determined by rules made by bureaucrats.
currawong appears not have had a chance to answer my question. Maybe you have a perspective: Why should a person “just out of a life sentence” be prevented from getting an ASIC? When can that person ‘pass’ the background check, or are they permanently precluded? What is it about being “just out of a life sentence” that renders a person an unacceptable risk behind the wheel of an aircraft but not a car or truck?
I’ve always been struck by the fact that many pilots are their own worst-enemy. They revel in the mystique of aviation, which merely invites more and more regulation and bureaucratic intrusion. Flying is ‘special’. We must make sure only special people - like me - can fly. People with the ‘right’ ‘background’ - like me.
But that means bureaucrats deciding what is the ‘right’ background and ferreting into everyone’s background to make that judgment.
As has been pointed out, it wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was a criminal offence. Back in the ‘good old days’ the punishment was execution but, in a very bold and generous act by governments, it was reduced to life imprisonment. No worries about poofs in the cockpit back in those days! They were executed or rotting in prison. Now homosexuals can get pilot’s licences and even ASICs! Who knew that ‘they’ could fly just as well as ‘normal’ people and were just as trustworthy and untrustworthy?
The ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ of a ‘background check’ is just a value judgment. And that which is judged a heinous crime punishable by death one day can be an accepted part of a civilised society the next. Best to hope that your values remain acceptable to the bureaucracy!
But what are the actual purposes of the system now? If the actual purposes are not or cannot be identified, it is not possible to determine whether those purposes are being achieved. Nor is it possible to debate whether those purposes are worth what it costs to achieve them.
Hypothetically, if the purpose of the ASIC system was originally to “be seen to be doing something” about the 9/11 hijackings, is that a purpose that justifies the ongoing costs?
This argument is circular:
Third, it should be a confirmation of the user having passed a background check. This basically ensures that people that attempt to perform the work functions are legally allowed to perform them.
currawong appears not have had a chance to answer my question. Maybe you have a perspective: Why should a person “just out of a life sentence” be prevented from getting an ASIC? When can that person ‘pass’ the background check, or are they permanently precluded? What is it about being “just out of a life sentence” that renders a person an unacceptable risk behind the wheel of an aircraft but not a car or truck?
I’ve always been struck by the fact that many pilots are their own worst-enemy. They revel in the mystique of aviation, which merely invites more and more regulation and bureaucratic intrusion. Flying is ‘special’. We must make sure only special people - like me - can fly. People with the ‘right’ ‘background’ - like me.
But that means bureaucrats deciding what is the ‘right’ background and ferreting into everyone’s background to make that judgment.
As has been pointed out, it wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was a criminal offence. Back in the ‘good old days’ the punishment was execution but, in a very bold and generous act by governments, it was reduced to life imprisonment. No worries about poofs in the cockpit back in those days! They were executed or rotting in prison. Now homosexuals can get pilot’s licences and even ASICs! Who knew that ‘they’ could fly just as well as ‘normal’ people and were just as trustworthy and untrustworthy?
The ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ of a ‘background check’ is just a value judgment. And that which is judged a heinous crime punishable by death one day can be an accepted part of a civilised society the next. Best to hope that your values remain acceptable to the bureaucracy!