ASIC - Surely this must be the end
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roy:
In terms of petitioning anything from our bureaucracy, I have about as much faith in that as I have of me walking on Mars. Especially when I would most likely be petitioning you, who has absolutely no interest in hearing it.
Anyway, why did you choose my thread to post your only two comments in 18 years of hanging out on PPRUNE?
In terms of petitioning anything from our bureaucracy, I have about as much faith in that as I have of me walking on Mars. Especially when I would most likely be petitioning you, who has absolutely no interest in hearing it.
Anyway, why did you choose my thread to post your only two comments in 18 years of hanging out on PPRUNE?
Thread creep. Population of India 1.3 billion. Cases of virus 330, deaths 4. Now we know everything you read or get off the net is "110%" accurate however it does beg the question what are the first world countries doing wrong. Vietnam pop 96 million, over 100 cases no deaths (as yet) and appears to be business as usual (no economic close downs) but everyone wears a mask, everyone washes hands, every taxi is cleaned after use, every seat in every restaurant/café is cleaned after use etc. I don't believe these countries have a far better medical system than other parts of the world so what is the message?
Anyway, ASICs - absolute waste of time and money...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread creep. Population of India 1.3 billion. Cases of virus 330, deaths 4. Now we know everything you read or get off the net is "110%" accurate however it does beg the question what are the first world countries doing wrong. Vietnam pop 96 million, over 100 cases no deaths (as yet) and appears to be business as usual (no economic close downs) but everyone wears a mask, everyone washes hands, every taxi is cleaned after use, every seat in every restaurant/café is cleaned after use etc. I don't believe these countries have a far better medical system than other parts of the world so what is the message?
re India - numbers reported would be the results of COVID testing (both numbers of cases and deaths). You would have to know how widespread their testing is before comparing numbers between countries. Many countries have very limited testing ability at the moment so confirmed cases and deaths will be under reported.
For those who think the data out of India reflects the reality there, I have shares in a certain bridge that I’ll sell you at the equivalent of the Virgin Australia share price. I hope I’m wrong and Indians have some miraculous resistance that will be discovered shortly.
Back to the topic: I think the pilot population is such an easy - now even more weakened - and lucrative target for the ‘security’ bureaucracy that it won’t give up the ASIC system without a fight. Indeed, a ‘dedicated’ bureaucrat might suggest to his or her bosses that the ASIC system could be used to regulate the flights of private and charter pilots in the interests of the health of the community in the current emergency.
Security and health! Who’s going to argue with that?
Back to the topic: I think the pilot population is such an easy - now even more weakened - and lucrative target for the ‘security’ bureaucracy that it won’t give up the ASIC system without a fight. Indeed, a ‘dedicated’ bureaucrat might suggest to his or her bosses that the ASIC system could be used to regulate the flights of private and charter pilots in the interests of the health of the community in the current emergency.
Security and health! Who’s going to argue with that?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah yeah, the ASIC is a pain.
So is the annual medical.
And the sim checks/ APC/ BFR or whatever other checking regime you are a part of.
Come to think of it, the theory exams are just plain onerous.
Get rid of the lot. First person to the machine gets the seat. Should go well....
So is the annual medical.
And the sim checks/ APC/ BFR or whatever other checking regime you are a part of.
Come to think of it, the theory exams are just plain onerous.
Get rid of the lot. First person to the machine gets the seat. Should go well....
Last edited by currawong; 25th Mar 2020 at 06:34.
You’re suggesting that activities and processes that contribute to competence and therefore safety have an equal value as activities and processes that contribute nothing to competence or safety or security? Interesting perspective.
But you do realise it’s possible to jump into an aircraft and fly it into an airport without being the holder of an ASIC or even a pilot’s licence?
There is no bubble around security controlled aerodromes that is impenetrable to an aircraft flown by a person who has no ASIC or pilot’s licence. People like “terrorists”.
And those people are not going to land and wait for the AFP to turn up and check. They just crash the aircraft into the PM’s taxiing jet.
If you don’t mind the cost and inconvenience of the facade, good for you. Others mind.
There is no bubble around security controlled aerodromes that is impenetrable to an aircraft flown by a person who has no ASIC or pilot’s licence. People like “terrorists”.
And those people are not going to land and wait for the AFP to turn up and check. They just crash the aircraft into the PM’s taxiing jet.
If you don’t mind the cost and inconvenience of the facade, good for you. Others mind.
What you call “appl[ication] of due diligence to the part this IS under our control” others like me call “a tax on the law abiding”. We are presumed terrorists and spend our time and money to prove that we are not, and those who aren’t “under our control” couldn’t be bothered and don’t need to be if they want to achieve something bad.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested to hear what your position is on Blue Cards for persons that work with children and the vulnerable.
Or, do you background check your prospective employees?
Or run a DAMP programme?
All of those presume something too.
Or, do you background check your prospective employees?
Or run a DAMP programme?
All of those presume something too.
Again, false equivalence. Terrorists don’t need to submit themselves to these processes in order to achieve their aims. The ‘lawbreakers paradox’ doesn’t apply to people who are prepared to do anything, irrespective of the cost, monetary or personal, and irrespective of the criminal sanction.
But you need not worry: Pilots continue to be an easy and weakened target for the ‘security’ bureaucracy.
But you need not worry: Pilots continue to be an easy and weakened target for the ‘security’ bureaucracy.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got news for you Lead, you will not even get a job at a servo these days without a current police check.
Does nothing to prevent someone coming in off the street and robbing the place.
But it does alleviate some of the risk from having an enemy within.
Anyway, answer the question...
Does nothing to prevent someone coming in off the street and robbing the place.
But it does alleviate some of the risk from having an enemy within.
Anyway, answer the question...
The problem, Currawong, is that the ASIC is a legal figleaf for the Government, nothing more. As others have pointed out, it is not an obstacle to terrorist activity unless it is actively policed and that doesn’t happen outside airports that have no GA operations anyway (eg. YMML).
The assumption is that the majority of terrorists are like pedophiles. They will be repeat offenders hence a record check will stop them. The reality is terrorists are “one off” offenders and an ASIC check will not find the really dangerous ones - just the occasional idiot who mouths off in some mosque.
So we are stuck with something that isn’t policed. That isn’t going to identify dangerous terrorists. In other words can’t prevent an attack outside YMML, YSSY, etc. In other words an ineffective waste of time and a huge cost burden on law abiding people.
It is one of a range of “initiatives “ that protect the Government “brand” that have huge, expensive, unjust and counterproductive consequences right across Australian society.
Examples? The entire “domestic violence” industry for starters. Then there is the “consorting” laws that prevent me from ever talking to a black sheep nephew with a view to his rehabilitation because doing that would immediately prevent other relatives in the legal industry from ever talking to me. There are dozens of “catch 22” laws like that and the ASIC is in my opinion just another one.
The assumption is that the majority of terrorists are like pedophiles. They will be repeat offenders hence a record check will stop them. The reality is terrorists are “one off” offenders and an ASIC check will not find the really dangerous ones - just the occasional idiot who mouths off in some mosque.
So we are stuck with something that isn’t policed. That isn’t going to identify dangerous terrorists. In other words can’t prevent an attack outside YMML, YSSY, etc. In other words an ineffective waste of time and a huge cost burden on law abiding people.
It is one of a range of “initiatives “ that protect the Government “brand” that have huge, expensive, unjust and counterproductive consequences right across Australian society.
Examples? The entire “domestic violence” industry for starters. Then there is the “consorting” laws that prevent me from ever talking to a black sheep nephew with a view to his rehabilitation because doing that would immediately prevent other relatives in the legal industry from ever talking to me. There are dozens of “catch 22” laws like that and the ASIC is in my opinion just another one.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currawong is entitled to his "Opinions", good grief our whole industry is governed by opinions, our regulations are written in such a way that the opinions of the governors is paramount. Try arguing with an FOI over a safety issue some time, your opinion means nothing to them other than a nuisance they will not tolerate.
Its the way these things get inflicted upon us that rankles.
Someone within the ruling class has a brain fart and puts forward their opinion. Does anyone within the bureaucracy do risk analysis? cost analysis?examine other jurisdictions? Is the proposal fit for purpose?
An ASIC will not in any way prevent a determined terrorist from committing mayhem even with ASIC. There are far easier means at their disposal for committing mayhem than aviation, a forty ton semi into lunchtime crowd for example. Do all truck drivers require an ASIC?
I imagine a cost analysis by a bureaucrat would largely be "what's it going to cost us to implement" against "how much return can we gouge to recover that cost with a tidy profit or an income stream for someone, as they say "a nice little earner".There would be very little consideration of the impact on those they are inflicting their brain fart on.
The country with the largest aviation industry in the world has not been inflicted with an ASIC requirement, even after suffering the most grievous aviation related terrorist act.
I have heard many opinions around the industry on how an ASIC could be made more useful and thus less onerous and perhaps a better tool for those who monitor security. One I heard was to include biometric data on the card with the ability to swipe it to open access to GA ramps at airports, thus recording who and when someone accessed the ramp. The flaw of course would be a stolen ASIC could be used, that risk could be negated by a pin code assigned to each card entered for each swipe.
Then again all of that could be accommodated in a pilots licence with photo ID along with everyones licence details such as ratings etc, rather that the back to the future paper document we have to lug around now.
As far as Currawong's opinion goes I respectfully disagree, the ASIC is not fit for purpose, there are other less onerous and less expensive ways to achieve the allusion of security.
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?
Its the way these things get inflicted upon us that rankles.
Someone within the ruling class has a brain fart and puts forward their opinion. Does anyone within the bureaucracy do risk analysis? cost analysis?examine other jurisdictions? Is the proposal fit for purpose?
An ASIC will not in any way prevent a determined terrorist from committing mayhem even with ASIC. There are far easier means at their disposal for committing mayhem than aviation, a forty ton semi into lunchtime crowd for example. Do all truck drivers require an ASIC?
I imagine a cost analysis by a bureaucrat would largely be "what's it going to cost us to implement" against "how much return can we gouge to recover that cost with a tidy profit or an income stream for someone, as they say "a nice little earner".There would be very little consideration of the impact on those they are inflicting their brain fart on.
The country with the largest aviation industry in the world has not been inflicted with an ASIC requirement, even after suffering the most grievous aviation related terrorist act.
I have heard many opinions around the industry on how an ASIC could be made more useful and thus less onerous and perhaps a better tool for those who monitor security. One I heard was to include biometric data on the card with the ability to swipe it to open access to GA ramps at airports, thus recording who and when someone accessed the ramp. The flaw of course would be a stolen ASIC could be used, that risk could be negated by a pin code assigned to each card entered for each swipe.
Then again all of that could be accommodated in a pilots licence with photo ID along with everyones licence details such as ratings etc, rather that the back to the future paper document we have to lug around now.
As far as Currawong's opinion goes I respectfully disagree, the ASIC is not fit for purpose, there are other less onerous and less expensive ways to achieve the allusion of security.
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?
