Abolish ASIC

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

I don't mind getting an ASIC but why charge $300 for it and why can't they accept other is that we may already have. For instance my cat h handgun licence took months of applications and security checks ,

Finger prints etc.  surely something like that would suffice for airside entrance. Like everything else now ASIC is supplied by third party providers and they all have their hand out for your cash.

By the time you go through the hoops to update your firearms licence I'd say the cost was well above $300.00.

You still need a fishing licence and if you want to keep birds, another licence and if you want to keep sheep or cattle another licence, and there's a difference between State jurisdictions and Federal jurisdictions, and I'm not sure whether you can carry firearms interstate without some form of licence acceptable to that state any more, and that's before you decide to get some gelignite to take out a few stumps.

[onetrack]

It's been a long time since gelignite was manufactured, Turbo! You obviously haven't blown out stumps for at least 40 years! Nowadays, using explosives for stump removal is not exactly an "approved purpose", there's any amount of earthmoving equipment will do the same thing, without breaking all the windows in neighbouring houses!

[turboplanner]

47 minutes ago, facthunter said:

AOPA is a different  functioning thing entirely to the other two. It can freely  advocate for Pilots and Aircraft owners.. That's it purpose. Nev

Check  its   status     

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, onetrack said:

It's been a long time since gelignite was manufactured, Turbo! You obviously haven't blown out stumps for at least 40 years! Nowadays, using explosives for stump removal is not exactly an "approved purpose", there's any amount of earthmoving equipment will do the same thing, without breaking all the windows in neighbouring houses!

Well I wasn't going to say what we used, was I.

[skippydiesel]

I find it interesting that Turbs, the supporter of all things security, lists the following license, as somehow comparable to ASIC, as applied to private pilots:

• Firearms - This is a way of controlling the number of legal firearms in the community. To the beast of my knowledge all functional firearms, are all capable of killing/injuring humans, by deliberate or accidental act. For the most part an applicant must show acceptable cause, to own a gun and training standard met, to be issued with a license. This may  prevent the Martin Bryant type personalities from arming themselves and performing a terrorist act. Most rational people see this as a reasonable precaution to minimise the incidents of spontaniouse/accidental use against a person. It has little, if any effect on criminals, who have other ways of acquiring firearms but may make theft as a source less available.. 
• Fishing - Helps to monitor/control the exploitation of our fish populations - some of the revenue may go to research - most anglers & fishers support licensing as a method of enusring the continence of their recreation/livelihood.
• Birds - The keeping of any non native animal is a potential threat to the Australian ecosystem, thus should be tightly controlled. The keeping of native animals is also strictly controlled, to minimise the impact of the wildlife trade on our ecosystem & to ensure those few holders are keeping the animals in a human environment. Worthy reasons both.
• Sheep & cattle  -Unmitigated BS

In every case (other than the livestock BS) the licensing serves a worthwhile goal that is appreciated/supported by most.

ASIC on the other hand, as it applies to private pilots accessing small rural airports, serve no disenable purpose. It is but an unfortunate byproduct of a ill thought out  policy, that should have been modified/rescinded years ago.😈

[facthunter]

The THING is that it is very unlikely to get changed, so why go on and on about it?   It's very unlikely to be ABOLISHED, A review of it's application would be justified. Nev

[440032]

Just heard from a fella who has a friend from USA coming out to do some flying around in OZ. Has to get a FAA to CASA licence conversion and they won't issue that until he has an ASIC. ASIC place won't issue an ASIC until he has the CASA licence.

WHAT the absolute.........

Clearly his first mistake was to even bother with either of them.

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

By the time you go through the hoops to update your firearms licence I'd say the cost was well above $300.00.

You still need a fishing licence and if you want to keep birds, another licence and if you want to keep sheep or cattle another licence, and there's a difference between State jurisdictions and Federal jurisdictions, and I'm not sure whether you can carry firearms interstate without some form of licence acceptable to that state any more, and that's before you decide to get some gelignite to take out a few stumps.

ok. the gun license is subject to a lot more security scrutiny than an asic . an asic is only a security clearance too.

a fishing license is charged to cover the cost of restocking and fisheries management.

i am sure the other licenses you mentioned are for similar reasons.

you are listing a heap of stuff that has nothing to do with the subject.

[skippydiesel]

"...........you want to keep sheep or cattle another licence"

 I am unaware of needing a license to conduct livestock husbandry (sheep & cattle). This little fabrication, gives an insight into Turbo's pro ASIC argument -  mostly thought bubble  !😈

[BurnieM]

5 hours ago, 440032 said:

Just heard from a fella who has a friend from USA coming out to do some flying around in OZ. Has to get a FAA to CASA licence conversion and they won't issue that until he has an ASIC. ASIC place won't issue an ASIC until he has the CASA licence.

WHAT the absolute.........

Clearly his first mistake was to even bother with either of them.

Not correct.

I have an ASIC and I do not have a CASA license.

 

However, I believe all the ASIC issuing companies want you to verify your identity at sub-agents (PO etc) that only exist in Australia.

So arrive here, apply for ASIC, 6 weeks later (as at Nov 24) receive ASIC, apply for CASA license, wait ? weeks, then fly.

 

 

[BrendAn]

When you go for your rpl you have to get ASIC before you are allowed to solo.. I don't think he has to have a casa license. He needs a casa number. Which is done online.

[BurnieM]

Nope you do not need an ARN either.

Ask me how I know 🙂

 

[Underwood]

23 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

When you go for your rpl you have to get ASIC before you are allowed to solo.. I don't think he has to have a casa license. He needs a casa number. Which is done online.

Presumably only if it's a XC flight and not just circuits at the airfield you have been training at that didnt previously require one up to that point?

[BrendAn]

13 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Nope you do not need an ARN either.

Ask me how I know 🙂

 

it may be a requirement for the peninsula aero club who our club trains under. 

i just assumed it would be the same everywhere but maybe not.

[Underwood]

12 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

They do apparently get vetted and are supposed to be some form of security clearance and illegal alien thingy check.

 

The UK arguably has a much higher risk of terrorism.  And the risk of other nasties is probably the same, yet we don't have one the is ubiquitous across all CAT (RPT) airports. It is up to the airport to assess its security requirements and determine the implementation. I have flown in Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter (more times than I care to admit), East Midlands (landing fees - ouch!), and Norwich Tumbleweed International on nought more than an phone call and I think East Midlands required a flight plan to be lodged - it was a long time ago.

 

My previous home airfield, Blackbushe, required us to have an identification card.. to allow us to put the fuel on account and pay monthly. and to validate to security out of hours departures and landings. Blackbushe doesn't have RPT, though.. but it has bizjets (famously, Osama Bin Laden's sister, I think, died in a crash there prob 10 years ago).

 

In a country that has far more terrorist attacks than Aus, far more regular RPT (as opposed to Bordsville type RPT) airports than Aus, it is exemplary of the waste of time the ASIC is, in its application across the board. I  guess UK intelligence orgsanisations have more experience than Aussie ones at this sort of stuff and are mature enough not to require this sort of draconioan application.. Or, as was drummed into us from early days in Aus, "it only takes one person to ruin it for the rest of us".. instead of "We'll stop that one person from ruining it for the rest of us".

 

Yes, I have flown into Cardiff a couple of times and though they do now require a flight plan there are no other requirements I can remember.

 

[BrendAn]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

"...........you want to keep sheep or cattle another licence"

 I am unaware of needing a license to conduct livestock husbandry (sheep & cattle). This little fabrication, gives an insight into Turbo's pro ASIC argument -  mostly thought bubble  !😈

i think he is getting confused with new zealand. over there you need a marriage certificate for livestock husbandry.😁

[Jerry_Atrick]

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

ASIC may have spread to our RPT airports but it was not based on the scenarios you paint or the fantasies of some posters who have no idea what it is all about. I don't have a problem with ASIC and a recent poster pointed out the obvious; that the cost was reasonable and it took up a minimum of time to process. That should be the end of it. My information came directly from a State Minister for Police who told me how many people had been caught, sent to trial, convicted and were safely in a secure prison and had led to protective operations and measures his government was taking. They later shut down an ISIS training centre in the last suburb you would expect to find ISIS influence. With respect to RPT aircraft; the aircraft in question were private (GA in Australia) aircraft; the type you might have found at Berwick airfield, able to be started and flown away by anyone. It should be obvious that governments can't provide specific details day by day of their reasons, the evidence they have collected or their strategies. It should be obvious, but here we are.

 

 

Let's unpack this a bit.. Everyone on this forum against ASIC, as far as I am aware, has maintained that ASIC (and presumably its lesser sibling, AVID) is for security checks to prevent terrorism. I did not, and I don't think anyonw has portrayed it based solely on some Die Hard type scenario. But, if I, as a pilot, am expected to pay for a security check for my flying activities, it is not fanciful to expect the risk to originate from my flying activities. Were the people and the ISIS cell you were talking about deteected as a result of ASIC/AVID? Were the terrorist activities they were planning or training for involve the use of private aviation? Or was it pure chance that someone decided they wanted to fly and apply for an ASIC? My point is, if the security checks are not related to a risk borne from aviation, why do pilots have to pay for the security check and renew every two (or 5 for the AVID, if it still exists)? And how would that be anything other than a tax dressed up as a security regime to fund more general surveillance activities? If it is based on a perceived threat from light sports and general aviation in the private sense (i.e. non commercial), then how is it fanciful to think that light aircraft would be involved in the scenarios that the ASIC is designed to detect and prevent? And why would it be invalid to question whether the cost is proprotionate to  risk, regardless of how convenient it is? And if I can get it immediately over the counter, how is that a proper security check before allowing someone to go on their way and commit a terrorist act before the secutiy check is carried out and they are stopped? And why, at the time of applying for my license (which is a cost) and paying the $90 to the government for my medical (of which all the work of entering the data is done by the DAME), can they just not run a security check anyway and not bother me? In fact, if I was a terrorist, applying for a ASIC (which has security in the name) would sort of deter me (although I admit, they are not all the smartest on earth)? 

 

It just doesn't add up as reasonable and to be quite frank, your assertion that ASIC does the job is invalid, because they can run these checks without it.. So I reiterate, it is either a dressed up tax or ASIO & Co are still lagging other coutnries like the UK who have a far higher terror threat for far longer and don't need this crap. And, both ASIO and MI5, and other countries' intelligence services are foiling terror plots daily without the use of ASIC or anything like it.

 

Yeah, it may only be $x00, and a bit of inconvenience, but I am with @skippydiesel on this - its just one of a continuing erosiion of rights and increase of costs with little actual beneift and should be resisted.. Otherwise we may end up with anti terrorist laws that lock up whistleblowers who, after all efforts to rectify the issue through their organisations decide to blow the whistle, while allowing those who are alleged to have committed crimes or at least misconduct to go free without investigation or trial. But, like countries such as even the USA, who promote whistleblowing and even reward it, Australia would not want that to happen, would it?

 

 

9 hours ago, turboplanner said:

By the time you go through the hoops to update your firearms licence I'd say the cost was well above $300.00.

You still need a fishing licence and if you want to keep birds, another licence and if you want to keep sheep or cattle another licence, and there's a difference between State jurisdictions and Federal jurisdictions, and I'm not sure whether you can carry firearms interstate without some form of licence acceptable to that state any more, and that's before you decide to get some gelignite to take out a few stumps.

@skippydiesel put the response very well. And all the items you list are where the risk is directly from the user, and the risk has a relatively high probability of occuring. And, we already need to have a licence (or certificate) for various flying activities, so the argument that others need a licence is sort of moot. And the cost and effort you need to go through to obtain a licence is usually proprotionate to the risks and probability of those risks materialising your activity bears. I have no idea a firearm costs, but a PPL is,what, around $20K on average and on average takes how long? I am not sure how much an RPL or RAAus licence/certificate takes, but I would wager it is more than getting a gun licence, and for the average person, a lot longer, too.  Also, the sheep/cattle licence, if it is a thing rather than regs on registering your livestock and tracking its movements, is about traceability of livestock in the food chain - quite a big and real risk to manage. I am still not sure that the real risk of terrorism from private aviation is commensurate with that.

 

And, the most common vehicle for terrorism - cars/vans - do we do security checks on every driver and should we not introduce a DSIC? I mean, that would be popular at election time, right?

Edited yesterday at 08:00 AM by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

A ' sheep or goat ' , pet does need some type of ( license ) .

The " pet pig " fiasco " on TV. I don't know how it ended .

But in NZ the government had to make a law ,

pets cannot be eaten .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

One needed to register your dog in Victoria - not sure about the other states. Not sure its called a dog licence, though. Although I am not sure how this has changed since the introdution of microchipping.

 

But sheep, goats (better meat than lamb IMHO) can enter the food chain... (well, any animal can, I suspect). So there is a real or perceived risk of untraceable meat ending up on your kitchen table.

 

That NZ law did make me laugh, and apologies in advance to NZ friends, but it immediately got me wondering why they didn't introduce a law banning pet sheep sh... er.. I will leave it there.

[turboplanner]

57 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Let's unpack this a bit.. Everyone on this forum against ASIC, as far as I am aware, has maintained that ASIC (and presumably its lesser sibling, AVID) is for security checks to prevent terrorism. I did not, and I don't think anyonw has portrayed it based solely on some Die Hard type scenario. But, if I, as a pilot, am expected to pay for a security check for my flying activities, it is not fanciful to expect the risk to originate from my flying activities. Were the people and the ISIS cell you were talking about deteected as a result of ASIC/AVID? Were the terrorist activities they were planning or training for involve the use of private aviation? Or was it pure chance that someone decided they wanted to fly and apply for an ASIC? My point is, if the security checks are not related to a risk borne from aviation, why do pilots have to pay for the security check and renew every two (or 5 for the AVID, if it still exists)? And how would that be anything other than a tax dressed up as a security regime to fund more general surveillance activities? If it is based on a perceived threat from light sports and general aviation in the private sense (i.e. non commercial), then how is it fanciful to think that light aircraft would be involved in the scenarios that the ASIC is designed to detect and prevent? And why would it be invalid to question whether the cost is proprotionate to  risk, regardless of how convenient it is? And if I can get it immediately over the counter, how is that a proper security check before allowing someone to go on their way and commit a terrorist act before the secutiy check is carried out and they are stopped? And why, at the time of applying for my license (which is a cost) and paying the $90 to the government for my medical (of which all the work of entering the data is done by the DAME), can they just not run a security check anyway and not bother me? In fact, if I was a terrorist, applying for a ASIC (which has security in the name) would sort of deter me (although I admit, they are not all the smartest on earth)? 

 

It just doesn't add up as reasonable and to be quite frank, your assertion that ASIC does the job is invalid, because they can run these checks without it.. So I reiterate, it is either a dressed up tax or ASIO & Co are still lagging other coutnries like the UK who have a far higher terror threat for far longer and don't need this crap. And, both ASIO and MI5, and other countries' intelligence services are foiling terror plots daily without the use of ASIC or anything like it.

 

Yeah, it may only be $x00, and a bit of inconvenience, but I am with @skippydiesel on this - its just one of a continuing erosiion of rights and increase of costs with little actual beneift and should be resisted.. Otherwise we may end up with anti terrorist laws that lock up whistleblowers who, after all efforts to rectify the issue through their organisations decide to blow the whistle, while allowing those who are alleged to have committed crimes or at least misconduct to go free without investigation or trial. But, like countries such as even the USA, who promote whistleblowing and even reward it, Australia would not want that to happen, would it?

 

 

@skippydiesel put the response very well. And all the items you list are where the risk is directly from the user, and the risk has a relatively high probability of occuring. And, we already need to have a licence (or certificate) for various flying activities, so the argument that others need a licence is sort of moot. And the cost and effort you need to go through to obtain a licence is usually proprotionate to the risks and probability of those risks materialising your activity bears. I have no idea a firearm costs, but a PPL is,what, around $20K on average and on average takes how long? I am not sure how much an RPL or RAAus licence/certificate takes, but I would wager it is more than getting a gun licence, and for the average person, a lot longer, too.  Also, the sheep/cattle licence, if it is a thing rather than regs on registering your livestock and tracking its movements, is about traceability of livestock in the food chain - quite a big and real risk to manage. I am still not sure that the real risk of terrorism from private aviation is commensurate with that.

 

And, the most common vehicle for terrorism - cars/vans - do we do security checks on every driver and should we not introduce a DSIC? I mean, that would be popular at election time, right?

I'm tied up working on something else at the moment, but best  not to look for reasons an policies from any of us, but from the original sources. You realise they are not going to waste too much time on social media opinions.

[spacesailor]

J T

The NZ law change,  came about by , ( I was living two houses away ) .

A Vietnamese refugee family moved to Wellinton suburbs.  

And ( as per ' their traditions ) Killed & ate , two prize winning pedigree

" GERMAN-SHEPHERD " CANINES , but left their pelts ' hung-over the owners fence ' , proving " no theft " .

" I understood that " common law works in Australia .

if someone is starving.  They can eat a farmer's sheep , as long as the fleece is returned to the farmer . " hung over the fence " .

spacesailor

 

Edited yesterday at 09:00 AM by spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

From the publicly available information from authorative sources I could find, there was nothing terribly convincing. But if you could address why virtually every European country and the USA, all of which have greater terrorism threats don't need or implement them, or why we don't have a drivers securty into card for those that use the most favoured vehicle for committing terrorist acts, but Australia does, and it can't just quietly perform security checks against pilots, then I am all ears (or eyes, in this case).

 

edit: In response to @turboplanner, above

 

Edited yesterday at 09:00 AM by Jerry_Atrick

[BrendAn]

10 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

From the publicly available information from authorative sources I could find, there was nothing terribly convincing. But if you could address why virtually every European country and the USA, all of which have greater terrorism threats don't need or implement them, or why we don't have a drivers securty into card for those that use the most favoured vehicle for committing terrorist acts, but Australia does, and it can't just quietly perform security checks against pilots, then I am all ears (or eyes, in this case).

 

edit: In response to @turboplanner, above

 

because australia is a nanny state. we have more laws than china.

[Thruster88]

11 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

RAAus now RAWas

?

[skippydiesel]

44 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

From the publicly available information from authorative sources I could find, there was nothing terribly convincing. But if you could address why virtually every European country and the USA, all of which have greater terrorism threats don't need or implement them, or why we don't have a drivers securty into card for those that use the most favoured vehicle for committing terrorist acts, but Australia does, and it can't just quietly perform security checks against pilots, then I am all ears (or eyes, in this case).

 

edit: In response to @turboplanner, above

 

Hi Jerry,

 

I can only speculate/ramble on;

 

ASIC was the Australian Governments "over the top" panic response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist acts, in the USA, where trainee commercial pilots, used airliners, loaded with civilian passengers, against several target, the most famous being The Twin Towers of The World Trade Centre.

 

The West is collectively held responsible, by various terrorist organisation/countries (predominantly Arab Islamic fundamentalists eg al Qaeda/ Osama bin Laden) for hundreds of years of Colonial misrule/oppression, that continues to this day. The fundamentalists seek revenge on the oppressors, the piligers of their wealth (minerals), the undermining of their religious law & traditions . 

 

The large & concentrated (mega cities) populations of the USA and Europe are the natural targets for this revenge. It's all about cost & effect - relativly small cost, a few $$ and young men willing to sacrifice themselves, will have a massive destabilising effect, even if they don't  succeed 100%.

 

The  USA/Europe, have much experince in being subject to terrorist attack and obviously trying to thwart the same. They also recognise (unlike Australia) that the terrorist are unlikly to follow the same "game plan" the next time around. They have moved with the times - much fewer dollars, may be not even the need to sacrifice young men, they can easily attack all sorts of targets (not just airports/aeroplanes) using cars, trucks, the internet, kitchen knives & drones.

 

"Lone Wolf" attacks would seem to be the order of the day. Just drive a truck/car into a crowd or slit the throat of a Christian (fundamentalist) cleric and scream "Allahu Akbar" and the World sits up & takes notice.

 

The smart countries are not wasting their effort on ineffectual "window dressing" like ASIC, which when applied to small rural airfields, is just an ineffectual & for me annoying joke.

 

The terrorists want to make big statements, that will rock the Western World  - killing a few hundred, in Australia, is not a cost effective exercise for them - would be a footnote in one days World news.

 

Contrary to popular opinion, terrorist are not stupid, they seek the most profitable (dramatic/damaging) results from the cash/resources they invest in their war on the West.

 

ASIC has a "snowflake's chance in hell" of having any deterrent effect, especially as the next attack(s) are most likly going to be "Lone Wolf" & in our cities, where ASIC has not even been heard of.😈