Re: ENHANCED AVIATION SECURITY PACKAGE ANNOUNCED (All "General Aviation Pilots" to Pay $200.00 every two years!)

[www.agacf.org]

You would think they are trying to kill General Aviation and Private pilots.


"Harold" <harold [at] clotmail.com> wrote in message
u...
> "Bernie Samms" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I hope this will extend to truck drivers who may drive their bomb laden
> > vehicles into buildings and blow them up that way. This has just got to
be
> a
> > joke. How the hell can they think that light aircraft are any more
likely
> to
> > have terrorists flying them than land transport or even water borne
> > transport as we saw happen to the US destroyer a few years back when
> suicide
> > bombers used small boats. Are our boating licences to go through a
similar
> > process?
> >
> > Bloody ridiculous and I might say just another expense for already over
> > expensive light aviation. No wonder people are moving to ultralights!
>
> It's really a clever ploy to keep private pilots out of the skies - thus
> ensuring that NAS will work as designed!
>
>

[Phil]

Sounds to me like an attempt by CASA to purge the system of inactive pilots
who are presently hanging on to their licences in the hope that one day they
will be able to afford to get back into it. If CASA achieves that goal they
will save quite a lot on printing and postage.

But I wonder how this new background information is to be used. I haven't
seen any mention of acceptance criteria or rejection criteria. Will pilots
who don't come up to some unpublished standard be barred from holding a
pilot licence? If not, then what is the information to be used for? And why
should we pay for it? And as somebody else suggested, why shouldn't the same
rules apply to truck drivers and car drivers. And what about all those
pedestrians, who have been a major source of terror attacks in Israel.

The whole exercise might be nothing more than a political stunt to win more
votes from an ignorant public.

Phil Maley

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Phil" <philatwotechdotcomdotau> wrote in message
...
> Sounds to me like an attempt by CASA to purge the system of inactive
pilots
> who are presently hanging on to their licences in the hope that one day
they
> will be able to afford to get back into it. If CASA achieves that goal
they
> will save quite a lot on printing and postage.
>
[snip]
>
> The whole exercise might be nothing more than a political stunt to win
more
> votes from an ignorant public.

You don't say!!

[BTIZ]

hopefully we can contain this virus in AU and it will not spread to the US

BT

"www.agacf.org" > wrote in message
...
> You would think they are trying to kill General Aviation and Private
pilots.
>
>
> "Harold" <harold [at] clotmail.com> wrote in message
> u...
> > "Bernie Samms" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I hope this will extend to truck drivers who may drive their bomb
laden
> > > vehicles into buildings and blow them up that way. This has just got
to
> be
> > a
> > > joke. How the hell can they think that light aircraft are any more
> likely
> > to
> > > have terrorists flying them than land transport or even water borne
> > > transport as we saw happen to the US destroyer a few years back when
> > suicide
> > > bombers used small boats. Are our boating licences to go through a
> similar
> > > process?
> > >
> > > Bloody ridiculous and I might say just another expense for already
over
> > > expensive light aviation. No wonder people are moving to ultralights!
> >
> > It's really a clever ploy to keep private pilots out of the skies - thus
> > ensuring that NAS will work as designed!
> >
> >
>
>

[www.agacf.org]

AOPA Press Release

Light planes a security benefit, not a risk.

Aircraft Owners and pilots Association (AOPA) President, Ron Lawford, today
called for an end to the security 'scam' and unecessary costs to the
community.

"The Department of transport has initiated some expensive measures in the
name of security, expensive bi-annual police checks for all pilots, but
openly admits there is no actual danger and that this is purely to counter a
public perception" said Mr lawford.

"A lack of Government direction and haphazard regulation has hurt General
Aviation over the last Decade, the last thing we need now is expensive
perception management"

Mr Lawford said AOPA had written to the Minister offering to organise
an 'Airport Watch' whereby aircraft owners and pilots all over Australia
took on a voluntary security role.

"Imagine the benefit to Australia if all General Aviation pilots were on the
lookout for questionable activity, in the air or on the ground, sort of a
free
air patrol with 6000 aircraft and 30,000 officers!

"We will oppose this unnecessary impost for no real value while offering the
Government a real and viable alternative with definite benefits" Mr Lawford
said.


"Phil" <philatwotechdotcomdotau> wrote in message
...
> Sounds to me like an attempt by CASA to purge the system of inactive
pilots
> who are presently hanging on to their licences in the hope that one day
they
> will be able to afford to get back into it. If CASA achieves that goal
they
> will save quite a lot on printing and postage.
>
> But I wonder how this new background information is to be used. I haven't
> seen any mention of acceptance criteria or rejection criteria. Will pilots
> who don't come up to some unpublished standard be barred from holding a
> pilot licence? If not, then what is the information to be used for? And
why
> should we pay for it? And as somebody else suggested, why shouldn't the
same
> rules apply to truck drivers and car drivers. And what about all those
> pedestrians, who have been a major source of terror attacks in Israel.
>
> The whole exercise might be nothing more than a political stunt to win
more
> votes from an ignorant public.
>
> Phil Maley
>
>