ASIC AGAIN!!!

[skippydiesel]

ALL legislation, no matter its intent, must be fully reviewed on a regular basis. Knee jerk legislation in response to some perceived or engineered (political) danger or need, societal customs & expectations change, as does technology - even the best legislation becomes redundant & add to that theircerators us/ fallible humans .  Nothing should be cast in stone or rubber stamped.

[Markdun]

I do not believe there is any recognised convention about the Opposition; it’s certainly not in the Cth Constitution, but then neither does it mention the PM or Cabinet. And as far as I can tell it is not mentioned by Quick & Garren in their book about the Cth Constitution either (they attended the conventions and drafted many of the provisions in the Constitution leading up to the establishment of the federation.  In fact a lot of the founding rules of our democracy are not in the Constitution, for example Cabinet and Responsible Govt (other than a provision that prohibits a Minister being sworn in by the GG while not being a member of parliament for a period longer than 3 months).  And that’s why Morrison and Hurley should be prosecuted and gaoled for their crime of misconduct in public office for the secret ministries scandal. While it might be true they didn’t breach any of the black letter law of the Constitution, the Constitution is founded on the basis that the executive govt must have the confidence of the HoR.  And how the fuck could Hurley assess that if the HoR didn’t know who he was appointing as Ministers?  It really was our equivalent of an attempted coup…luckily unsuccessful. 
 

Democracy can be, or is often, a really shit form of government  The ASIC bullshit is but one minor part. But it is the least worse.  I wonder whether Skip has rung up his local federal member and whinged at him/her?

[facthunter]

Don't blame DEMOCRACY when it's CORRUPTED. Anything left out of sight will get corrupted. We need more whistle-blower protection to start with. Not gaol them.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

I can't say I agree with a sunset clause on all legislation, especially in teh current political environment, and that is one really for "Off Topic". Also, there is at least one convention applicable to the opposition - that they will not block supply in the upper chamber - which was famously discarded in 1975-ish. Again, for "Off Topic", but suffice to say, conventions are by definition, unwritten and develop and change over time. Who knows in the current political climate what conventions are thought to apply?

 

I agree all  leegislation should be periodically indepently reviewed by subject matter experts in that field. The problem is, as pointed out, a lot of administration of laws or functions of government has been handed over to private enterprise and unravelling that is a nightmare. And also, political donations or nepotistic jobs for the boys (or girls, or whatever gender these days to be PC) may stop flowing. And we cannot have that.. no.

 

Back to the ASIC. It is arguable that the UK has a much higher threat of terrorist attack than Australia. Yet it is entirely up to the airfield to determine its security requirements (except for large CAT/RPT such as Heathrow, Luton, East Midlands, where there are security clearance requirements for airside in the CAT/RPT section of the airport). Examples are Exeter and Bristol Airports; where there are GA sections (tiny at Bristol).. Can come and go airside at the GA side virtually as we please but the CAT section is strictly off limits. Last time I flew from Exeter, there were not other identification requirements than the PPL I had. 

 

I guess the government here expect the special branch and anti-terrorist squads to do their job properly (and they largely do). But also, the threat of a terrorist strike using a Cessna 150 at Merimbula during one of the 5 departures/arrivals per day is probably in the infinitesimal category; Much easier to do it in a van than a plane and less dangerous (well in terms of not making it to the target).  These are probably some of the reasons a security clearance of any sort is not required in the UK, or any other European country, nor the US, where 9/11 actually happened. In the US case, they decided foreign citizens wishing to train for licences in the US have to get a specific visa, which I imagine includes a security check. Seems a much more practical approach.

 

Apart from the fact smashing a C150 into the Rialto Towers isn't quite going to have the same terrorist impact as comandeering a 7x7 or A3xx and doing it, in theory, they can have the lower AVID and take off from a non-securioty controlled airport anyway.  And if they have got their flight training from overseas, and about to kill themselves, they are likely to nic an aircraft for the purpose.

 

Which begs the question; I am on a British PPL (sadly didn't transfer to EASA in time). If I flew my G reg aircraft toi Australia, do I have to get an ASIC beforehand? I will surely have to fly into a customs airport, and I guess most of those will have some form a RPT.  Do I have to get an ASIC or AVID to joy fly my G registered plane in Australia? 
 

[kgwilson]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

Which begs the question; I am on a British PPL (sadly didn't transfer to EASA in time). If I flew my G reg aircraft toi Australia, do I have to get an ASIC beforehand? I will surely have to fly into a customs airport, and I guess most of those will have some form a RPT.  Do I have to get an ASIC or AVID to joy fly my G registered plane in Australia? 
 

I bet they never even thought of or considered that possibility. They were too busy creating a hare brained scheme to rip pilots off and create a new industry with no precedent anywhere else on earth.

[turboplanner]

11 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I can't say I agree with a sunset clause on all legislation, especially in teh current political environment, and that is one really for "Off Topic". Also, there is at least one convention applicable to the opposition - that they will not block supply in the upper chamber - which was famously discarded in 1975-ish. Again, for "Off Topic", but suffice to say, conventions are by definition, unwritten and develop and change over time. Who knows in the current political climate what conventions are thought to apply?

 

I agree all  leegislation should be periodically indepently reviewed by subject matter experts in that field. The problem is, as pointed out, a lot of administration of laws or functions of government has been handed over to private enterprise and unravelling that is a nightmare. And also, political donations or nepotistic jobs for the boys (or girls, or whatever gender these days to be PC) may stop flowing. And we cannot have that.. no.

 

Back to the ASIC. It is arguable that the UK has a much higher threat of terrorist attack than Australia. Yet it is entirely up to the airfield to determine its security requirements (except for large CAT/RPT such as Heathrow, Luton, East Midlands, where there are security clearance requirements for airside in the CAT/RPT section of the airport). Examples are Exeter and Bristol Airports; where there are GA sections (tiny at Bristol).. Can come and go airside at the GA side virtually as we please but the CAT section is strictly off limits. Last time I flew from Exeter, there were not other identification requirements than the PPL I had. 

 

I guess the government here expect the special branch and anti-terrorist squads to do their job properly (and they largely do). But also, the threat of a terrorist strike using a Cessna 150 at Merimbula during one of the 5 departures/arrivals per day is probably in the infinitesimal category; Much easier to do it in a van than a plane and less dangerous (well in terms of not making it to the target).  These are probably some of the reasons a security clearance of any sort is not required in the UK, or any other European country, nor the US, where 9/11 actually happened. In the US case, they decided foreign citizens wishing to train for licences in the US have to get a specific visa, which I imagine includes a security check. Seems a much more practical approach.

 

Apart from the fact smashing a C150 into the Rialto Towers isn't quite going to have the same terrorist impact as comandeering a 7x7 or A3xx and doing it, in theory, they can have the lower AVID and take off from a non-securioty controlled airport anyway.  And if they have got their flight training from overseas, and about to kill themselves, they are likely to nic an aircraft for the purpose.

 

Which begs the question; I am on a British PPL (sadly didn't transfer to EASA in time). If I flew my G reg aircraft toi Australia, do I have to get an ASIC beforehand? I will surely have to fly into a customs airport, and I guess most of those will have some form a RPT.  Do I have to get an ASIC or AVID to joy fly my G registered plane in Australia? 
 

(a) The non-sunset clause I like most is the Magna Carta's "A condemned man is entitled to be told the nature of his crime."  So the poltical afficionados who've been spruiking sunset clauses on everything would have to start about here, so physically no Parliament would have members who stayed or lived long enough to finish it even if they abandoned governing the country and just worked on adding sunset clauses, let alone why you would want to sunset clauses like that one.

 

(b) Supply is indeed a legitimate fuse for deadlocks or out of control situations as is the Monarch stepping forward; a big advanrage over the US system which can see the political system come to a stop. Blocking supply has occurred regularly where governments lost the numbers but tried to continue government; it usually forces an immediate election, and the Australian government system then continues on.

 

(c) You're right about the handing over of a lot of operations to QANGOS. This is usually done because the government of the day has let costs blow out way above private industry, but when the work is outsourced, greedy executives usually screw it up and the costs become even higher.

 

(d) You also make a good point about the big difference between a moral decision and a political decision. Yes, the political decision by definition always has to take account of the likely backlash of the electorate. So brave/moral/impact decisions are usually never made in "safe" electorates, but are ruthless in strong opposition electorates. Paradoxically when on the rare occasions that Political leaders do make those tough decisions, they are often accepted by the electorate.

 

(e) Re the UK: "Yet it is entirely up to the airfield to determine its security requirements"

      Without printing any details, but getting my information one on one from a Minister of Police,                  Australia had specific incidents which led to multiple people being convicted with long sentences,

      so had a good reason to do something about it. The security standard of the local airfields at that          time played a major part. In Australia we have always had an element that couldn't help themselves        and looked for a way to beat the authorities. 

      I posted an extract which indicated a similar split up of areas where an ASIC card was required, and where they weren't and lesser identification was acceptable, but it sank like a stone. It seems either no one operates from the easy airports, or there is a difficulty reading regulations.

 

(f) Where you gave specific examples of what people could do with a C150, the general public does that all the time; a suburban council in Melbourne is reducing speed limits in all the streets they control because they believe its the fast drivers that are killing their people. A newspaper gave the example of a mother setting out on her daily walk with a baby in a pram on one hand and the pet dog on a leash on the other. The photo shows the first obstacle, a street which has been changed from two lanes to four as a major traffic route. The solution is a little more complex than that. The people I mentioned earlier, again without giving details were trained, unwittingly by gullible Australian instructors, to do something which could take out a suburb. Yet we still see forum discussions with fine details on what people might do.

 

(g) Re your last para, my assumption is that when the tongue came out of the check and you asked the real decision makers, you'd probably find, if you were fit and free of diseases, that you'd be enjoying your flying in Australia perhaps even under the alternatives to an ASIC card which are available.

You couldn't fly out of Berwick though because the academics bought it,  filled half of it with a Campus then realised there was more money to be made in Malaysia etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

They used to say "the Sun never sets on the British Empire".  Just look at their Gov't NOW. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

(a) The non-sunset clause I like most is the Magna Carta's "A condemned man is entitled to be told the nature of his crime."  So the poltical afficionados who've been spruiking sunset clauses on everything would have to start about here, so physically no Parliament would have members who stayed or lived long enough to finish it even if they abandoned governing the country and just worked on adding sunset clauses, let alone why you would want to sunset clauses like that one.

Possibly, but there are other legal constructs. For example, just start the ball rolling with the next peice of legisation, and every time a new or amendment to and act comes in force, they add a sunset clause. Or easier still, pass a Automatic Application of Sunset Clauses Act (as opposed to Santa Clauses Act), that retrospectively adds a sunset clause to existing acts by a standard amount of time (can stagger depending on how long it has been since existing acts were enacted or last amended); and where future Acts or amendments don't explicity add a sunset clause, an implied clause at the expiration fo a default period of time could apply.. Or something like that. Regardless, I am still against them in a general sense, unless there was an explicit reqauirement for it - e.g. to cover some temporary event or something.

 

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

e) Re the UK: "Yet it is entirely up to the airfield to determine its security requirements"    Without printing any details, but getting my information one on one from a Minister of Police, Australia had specific incidents which led to multiple people being convicted with long sentences,  so had a good reason to do something about it. The security standard of the local airfields at that time played a major part. In Australia we have always had an element that couldn't help themselves   and looked for a way to beat the authorities. 

I don't want to get into a pee-ing match of which jurisdiction has the bigger and better thugs, but, at the end of the day, the UK was the birthplace of the convicts that were sent to Aus - so probably retained a decent amount for themselves 😉. But, we have had our fair share of nefarious actors using airfields for their purposes and ending up spending a long time in gaol, too.

 

There are ways to ensure security. I can only speculate, but my guess is that a) the authorities have risk assessed and determined GA aiirfields and those with lighter amounts of CAT/RPT to be low risk and such, security clearances aren't required; or b), and probably more likely, when you submit your paperwork for your license, one of the reasons it takes 8 weeks to get it, and does cost a relative shed load of money for what they claim to do, is that you are submitted for a security check of some sort. That, to me would make more sense. And they can renew their checks on whatever frequency they want to, which would also make more sense.

 

I used to be security cleared here when I was working on defence and nuclear projects. I had a SC clearance, which is the lowest clearance. The next is SC+ (introduced after my work in the area finished and therefore, my clearance lapsed).  My clearance allowed me access to facilities, but not to secret and certainly not top secret information. A friend of mine has one (or had one) as he worked for the National Crime Agency, which targets organised crime, dark web,  etc. I think that allowed access to secret infdormation. Then there is a DV clearance, which is effectively the one required for top secret and anti-terrorism activities. I don't know Australia's clearance levels, but I imagine they are faily similar. These are to ensure that you don't engage in activities that are likely to compromise your judgement when handing sensitive information. For example, if they figure your a gambler, or involved in petty crime, excessive drug taker, or even using sex services too much, you may be knocked back (as one person I knew was and had to leave a project). The difference between the levels of clearance is how much digging they do to your background (and the higher ones used to involve home visits and some tough interrogation of your deep, dark past). The anti-terrorist one, which is one of the highest (there is one higher), would involve a lot of digging around.

 

So, if ASIC and AVID are to prevent terrorisnm, why are they lower than say an anti-terrorist clearnce level of digging into your past; and then why to they only have a 2 or 5 year renewal period, as well? In other words, apart from the fact that the department has your details and can (and should) conduct whatever level of investigation of your character as they deem commensurate with the risk, why would they, in trying to prevent terrorism, not subject you to the level of background checks that other security clearances for anti-terrorism type clearances require? To me, it is either a farce to appease the popultion, or they are genuinely that incompetent. Of course, if the AVID does meet the requirements of equivalent security checks, then I will gladly rebuke myself.

 

A back-of-a-beer-coaster risk assessment.  Say we assumed the median GA aircraft that would be used to commit a terrorst attack using GA is a Beech Bonanza, because you want a decent payload. A Beech Bonanza A36 has a useful load of about 550KG. Take away the pilot/s, the fuel and the like, and say empty the non-flying  seats, etc.. you may be lucky to get more than 150KG of explosives and shrapnelly stuff in the plane, given weight and balance requirements of a plane and the potential for it to go horribly wrong if you stuff them up. . You could drive a Ford Transit to where you want to blow up is pursuit of whatever your cause is and pack in between 895kg and 936kg of your favoured bombs and shrapnelly stuff without worrying too much about balance. And you're less likely to have a bingle getting there, and less likely to miss your target (or less liikely to glance it because of say windshear, gusts, or just flying is harder than driving). I doubt you would take out a whole suburb, unless you were cropdusting chemical/biological nasties. And as mucked in the head terrorists are, they often aren't stupid.

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

a suburban council in Melbourne is reducing speed limits in all the streets they control because they believe its the fast drivers that are killing their people.

Yeah... And the Victorian police commissioner's response: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ridiculous-police-chief-dismisses-30km-h-trial-as-an-answer-to-soaring-road-toll-20231116-p5ekd4.html, which I thought was very uinusual for the Police Commissioner to be not supporting it. We have them in London and villages where I live, and they have not reduced the accident, injury, nor death rates. And when traffic jams up, people tend to drive to the conditions - except those nutters who will ignore the limtis anyway. Wales have just introduced a blanket 20mph (30kph) speed limit on non-trunk roads, so it will be interesting to see the figures in a year or two time. The usual subuirban rooad speed limit here is 30mph (50kph)., but our roads are a lot narrower, and with somee exceptions, busier than most in Aus.

 

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

be enjoying your flying in Australia perhaps even under the alternatives to an ASIC card which are available.

Apart from the Avid, what is the alternatives? And if they are not onerous, why are they not available to local pilots? Maybe I will import a G Reg aircraft 😉

 

 

BTW, I agree there has to be a balance struck between ensuring community safety and individual (or a collective segment of society's) freedom; and I am not meaning to be belligerent. I just see more flaws in ASIC to meet its objective than other more pragmatic ways.

 

19 minutes ago, facthunter said:

They used to say "the Sun never sets on the British Empire".  Just look at their Gov't NOW. Nev

What government?

Edited November 17, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

17 hours ago, facthunter said:

The Parliament in Australia INCLUDES the Honourable members in His Majesties LOYAL opposition. Nev

I think you meant "Horrible"

[facthunter]

I'm just quoting what they should BE from the book. They actually try to  sabotage everything the elected party try to do. (as they are instructed to do my Merdey)   Nev

[turboplanner]

9 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'm just quoting what they should BE from the book. They actually try to  sabotage everything the elected party try to do. (as they are instructed to do my Merdey)   Nev

“my Merdey?”

[facthunter]

By Merdey. Nev

[turboplanner]

“Merdey”?

[skippydiesel]

There are those who assume the designation ADSCA/ASIC required airport is somehow related to aircraft numbers and or size, using the facility (risk assessed ?) :

• Bankstown & Camden NSW, both within the Sydney Basin, are by Australian standards very busy and have multi seat jet & turboprop aircraft, in addition to the usual gaggle of training small private aircraft - neither are Security Controlled/ No ASIC required.
• Not only do they have many more movements per day than the majority of domestic airports, they are completely open to the public and within sight of Sydney & Parramatta CBD. 

I am sure you could work through ERSA and find many more examples, that completely disprove the idea that some wonderful higher authority is working to a (logical?) security master plan for the Nation.

[turboplanner]

33 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

There are those who assume the designation ADSCA/ASIC required airport is somehow related to aircraft numbers and or size, using the facility (risk assessed ?) :

• Bankstown & Camden NSW, both within the Sydney Basin, are by Australian standards very busy and have multi seat jet & turboprop aircraft, in addition to the usual gaggle of training small private aircraft - neither are Security Controlled/ No ASIC required.
• Not only do they have many more movements per day than the majority of domestic airports, they are completely open to the public and within sight of Sydney & Parramatta CBD. 

I am sure you could work through ERSA and find many more examples, that completely disprove the idea that some wonderful higher authority is working to a (logical?) security master plan for the Nation.

That’s the problem here; people are thinking of THEIR idea of a target without knowing the actual task which is sure not going to be advertised by the people tasked to protect us.

 

[skippydiesel]

6 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That’s the problem here; people are thinking of THEIR idea of a target without knowing the actual task which is sure not going to be advertised by the people tasked to protect us.

 

Not at all - People here see the stupidity in the system that is so ill conceived & badly executed.

 

If a bad person(s) wanted to hijack an RPT type aircraft they could;

• Purchase a ticket & board, with the assistance of  the, ASIC holding, airline staff (assuming they bother to get one).
• Gain access to the airfield and board by force - bit silly would attract some attention.
• Go to a Bankstown (or similar) airport, steal or hire a similar aircraft & then do whatever dastardly deed they have in mind.

 

The reality is there are bad people in every society. The realisation of this has the paranoide confined to their  homes. The sane understand the chances are very slim that they would be involved in a terrorist act, accept the risk & get on with all the other dangers of living a life. ASIC is at best, the well meaning attempt of a paranoid drunken polly/bureaucrat or two, hatching a knee jerk reaction, to a terrorist act on the other side of the World - it should never have got up in the first instance , that it did puts our leaders in a very poor light and even worse, that it continues without any justification.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Without printing any details, but getting my information one on one from a Minister of Police,                  Australia had specific incidents which led to multiple people being convicted with long sentences,

Unless there is some national/security reasons to withold  publishing, surely these are in the publoc domain at least through court reports? And if it relates to terrorism via aircraft, isn't in the public interest to publish these so the public can becoime vigilant, but redact any specifically sensistive information that would identify law enforcement, etc?

7 hours ago, turboplanner said:

“Merdey”?

Think French and it means something that sounds like shippy..

 

7 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That’s the problem here; people are thinking of THEIR idea of a target without knowing the actual task which is sure not going to be advertised by the people tasked to protect us.

Firstly, I am no expert on terror and major, violent crime threats; and I completely respect the hard working and honest people who work to protect us from these threats and risks materialising. AApart from ramming something with a C150 packed full of explosives, there is a myriad of ways of committing terrorism and mass murder with an aircraft (thinking airliners). Hijack is one, martyrs blwing themselves up mid flight is another, or, as with a case going through the courts now, unlawful interference with an aircraft. In this case, it wa rigging cabling or something that resulted in a crash on take-off killing the pilot. But for terrorist effect, and taking out a suburb two, I guess planting a small explosive designed to bring down a plane at the most inopportune moment would do it.

 

But these are all combatted through security both airside and out. Heathrow blanketly doesn't allow private GA in (unless the odd business jet is considered private flying). Luton allows us in, but it is a minimum (or was) £1,500 landing fee.. then add handling, parking, etc.. you may as well take a private jet there. I am not sure about Stansted, to be honest. Gatwick I don't think allow private flying aircraft at all. And I have no idea what London City allow, but I have never heard of a private flying aircraft land there.

 

I live between Exeter and Bristol airports and I have flown from both (although only once from Bristol). Neither require special security clearances (they do require ID tags for home-based pilots). Both fly the bigger jets (e.g. I have taken a Dreamliner from Exeter). Both (and all like it) have the security operations in place to deal with the threats. If I tried to taxi a Robin (
http://www.robin-flying-group.org/Robin_Flying_Group/Base.html) anywhere near the CAT aprons, I would be met very quickly by a team whom would take great pleasure in administering a proctological examination. Yeah, I couild ram some expensive hardware, but it is unlikely to take out a suburb. Similarly, if I walked across to the aprons, I would meet a similar fate.

 

We don't really have CAT/RPT airports that do one scheduled flight a week, but surely, the answer is stand up the security for a period before they arrive and after they leave. Let's face it, any security clearance is at best, a guess of how integral a person's character is, and only at the time they are assessed (without consistent post-assessment monitoring). Anything could happen post assessment that tips the holder over the edge - so security is still needed! ASIC/AVID should not lull people into a false sense of security. So, if you still need the security because a) anyone could tip, or b) you can never guarantee the person flying in has remained compliant with the law and have a current ASIC; or even a licence for that matter... So since the security is still required, what is the point of making me go through the security clearances, when I am (or should be) subject to security that assumes I have not got the clearance?

 

I would rather Homeland Security, or whoever the department that came up with this scheme say, "Hey, all you private aviators; sorry to tell you, but with the deteriorating global and domestic society, aircraft are meing weaponised in all sorts of ways to wreak havoc on soeciety. As such, we have to ensure CAT/RPT security in airfields/ports that allow private flying have adequate security measures in place to prevent such risks from materialising. As a user (or possible user) of these facilities, we're going to have to slug you the equivalent cost of a one hour rental of a PA28 Warrior every two years." And of course, the money is used to pay for it.

 

At least it would be directed to the resources needed to implement the security, which has to be done anyway, and noit unnecessarily line pockets of corporations. And it may even reduce things like landing fees, or costs of camping at Birdsville Races, etc, as the security is still mandated to be implemented at the airport anyway.

[turboplanner]

10 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

Think French and it means something that sounds like shippy..

 

Ah yes, the Leftist chant; not worth continuing the discussion.

[Jerry_Atrick]

The rightist deflection - don't address the points; dismiss it as a lefty thing

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The rightist deflection - don't address the points; dismiss it as a lefty thing

 

ASIC is for community safety, not political platforms.

[Jerry_Atrick]

It may be designed for it.; but does it achieve it? And is there a better way?

Edited November 18, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[skippydiesel]

9 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

ASIC is for community safety, not political platforms.

No offence Turbs - this comments flies in the face of all the evidence, of users (us private pilots). You may as well declare the World flat.

[skippydiesel]

9 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

....................And is there a better way?

Yes! - ditch ASIC for private pilots flying into most doemstic airports.

[facthunter]

Yeah Turbs, keep putting people like me in your imagined/contrived boxes so you don't Have to answer anything. You don't have to be "unusual" to think Murdoch tells whoppers to advance his cause. 

[turboplanner]

It would have been a better discussion if it had stuck to facts.