Jump to content

ASIC AGAIN!!!


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I lived for a time in N Ireland - the IRA had morters that they fired from outside the airport precinct - is this something that our valiant authorities are anticipating - if so they might need to rethink the whole ridiculous ASIC system, as it relates to most inland airports.

 

They don't care what you do to the aircraft.

They are more concerned about what you will do with the aircraft and to a lesser extent, it's passengers.

 

Yes agree, it's good to see a small amount of common sense in the Act, but the 2 hours after departure is dumb.

When you think that you can look up a schedule, plan to arrive two and a half hours after the RPT has left, and get on the ground to be pinged because the RPT was delayed 45 minutes and only left an hour and 45 minutes ago

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Just had a random thought:

 

Does not our law require that payment for a service/good can not be demanded (illegal) where no such service/good exists (eg QANTAS is facing court over selling tickets for non existent/cancelled services).

 

I would suggest that ASIC is a non service (in that it provides no demonstrable benefit to the customer - we the proletariat ) and therefore illegal under our system of law.

But the government lawyers would point out that the ASIC card has prevented 5000 serious security threats,  none of which you can know about because of national security.

  • Like 1
  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skip, you pay and receive the card, and the issuing company has supposedly done a check. So the contract would have sufficient ‘consideration’ to be valid.

 

My whinge is why it is not ‘user pays’; ie. If commercial operators of RPT want the theatre of having apparent but ineffectual security to mislead the travelling public, why don’t they ensure their aircraft are guarded whenever on the ground by their personnel?  Why pass on the cost to us?  It’s just yet another example where regulation is misused to provide an opaque subsidy to corporate interests. I suppose to be expected given the corporate voice to parliament.

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Markdun said:

Skip, you pay and receive the card, and the issuing company has supposedly done a check. So the contract would have sufficient ‘consideration’ to be valid.

 

Out of interest;

 

If the above be the case, why then is QANTAS being taken to court over phantom ticket sales?

The, want to be, traveler (applicant), has payed for & received a ticket, the company does work to this end and will honour the agreement sometime (just not for the service expected). Its possibly not the best example but in both cases the vendor (QANTAS & Federal Gov) is providing a doubtful service

 

It seems to me a "contract" can not be valid, if the applicant (pilot) is essentially coerced into instigaton, no matter the work (checks) that is then triggered in a third party. Coerced in the sense that the pilot is being pressured (fines for non compliance) to apply & pay for a service he/she does not want or believe will be delivered.

For a contract to be valid the pilot must have the expectation of receiving a material benefit (increased individual & public security). 

It would seem that there is no significant increase in individual or public security, around RPT aircraft, at most domestic airports, therefor the contract has not been discharged.

It would also seem that the Federal Gov (the contractor) has no intention of improving security (no personnel, no follow up) in this situation, again the contract has not been discharged.

 

It should not be forgotten we are talking about access to a public airport/facility. Any on going barrier to this access would need to have very strong justification. No such justification has ever been presented .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skip, I think there is a big difference.  The reqt for an ASIC card is regulatory reqt and not subject to either ‘consumer law’ but admin law. The fact that you buy it from a private firm means that is subject to the laws of contract, which does require a ‘consideration’ from both parties. However, legally the fact that a consideration is useless or isn’t value for money does not mean it is lacking. It’s been some decades since I was knowledgeable of the federal Trade Practices Act, But I would think that the usual ‘ consumer’’ protections would not apply as it is not a service or good for sale to normal householders. In any case successive LNP govts & the ACCC since Fells left, have been gradually hamstringing consumer protection.  For example, many sugary fruit drinks are labeled as having ‘no added sugar’ or as ‘nectar’, when in fact the drink has a high sugar content (from the fruit) and for the ‘nectar’ is not actually nectar (which from flowers) but from pulped fruit….. And despite this being factually wrong and leads many consumers to erroneous conclusions about the products, they get away with it.  It’s worse in relation to health claims on processed food.

As to Qantas tickets issue, it seems to me the issue is not contract law but either equity law or consumer law, in particular, the concept of deceptive and misleading conduct, unconscionable conduct or equitable estoppel.  Qantas’s written contract (terms and conditions) is probably water tight. In assessing deceptive and misleading conduct the legal precedent is pretty clear: if the conduct of the defendant would lead a consumer of average intelligence (not to dumb, not too smart) to make a false conclusion, then that the elements of the ‘offence’ are made out. It has been held that even factually correct statements can be misleading given the context etc.  Courts also give short shrift to all those small print and end of advertisement  assertions.  Equitable estoppel is when a court will put aside the terms of a contract if one party makes representations, or by their conduct, that the other party doesn’t need to comply with the contract. The most usual thing is a representation that the contract doesn’t need to be completed in the specified period. The key elements are that the offending party has to know that the other party would rely on their representation and that party did actually rely on the representation. I once (20 years ago)  ran a case against Telstra for selling unclassified porn to a minor through their 1900 premium call agents, and many of my claims were based on these sort of principles…it gets very complicated and in the end the judge found a technicality (that I had not argued) to give me a win and which let him off from making a decision that would have been a huge problem Telstra.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Thanks for taking the time Mark to demonstrate that justice is not about fair play or reasonable action - in the end about who has the power.

Digging into the origins and basics of principles is interesting but did you check the link I posted some time ago to see if you needed an ASIC card at all? It may be that a lot of recreational flyers may have been buying cards they don't need.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot argue that the ASIC card is a service that you're being forced to purchase against your will. The Govt introduced Aviation Security legislation nearly 20 years ago, and you are obliged as an Australian resident to abide by those laws under threat of penalty - no different to the road traffic laws you're obliged to obey every day.

 

The ASIC card is essentially a low-level identity card which is supposed have background security checks done on you, before it is issued. There is a similar card for Ports, the MSIC card, I cannot step into a Port restricted area without one. Australia's security laws and regulations are pretty stringent, and will remain so for a long time to come.

 

It's not just Islamic nutters intent on more 9/11's, that the security laws and regulations are attempting to stop, the laws and regulations cover a very wide range of "bad actors", which includes drug smugglers, quarantine evaders, in fact anyone intent on harming Australians in any way, and intent on disrupting our civil society.

 

The system is far from perfect, and it certainly is not going to stop the occasional person with unnoticed and unreported mental health problems from causing harm to innocent civilians, but it's far better than the "Wild West" systems of the numerous 3rd world countries.

 

There's nothing to stop you writing to the relevant Minister asking for anomalies in the ASIC card regulations and their application, to be addressed and/or updated.

 

The Act - http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/atsa2004348/

 

The Regulations - http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/atsr2005457/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Digging into the origins and basics of principles is interesting but did you check the link I posted some time ago to see if you needed an ASIC card at all? It may be that a lot of recreational flyers may have been buying cards they don't need.

Sorry Turbs - cant remember/find your posting . Please repost or give detailed instruction as to location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, onetrack said:

You cannot argue that the ASIC card is a service that you're being forced to purchase against your will. The Govt introduced Aviation Security legislation nearly 20 years ago, and you are obliged as an Australian resident to abide by those laws under threat of penalty - no different to the road traffic laws you're obliged to obey every day.

Don't start me on the road rules - another collection of evidence lacking BS.

38 minutes ago, onetrack said:

 

The ASIC card is essentially a low-level identity card which is supposed have background security checks done on you, before it is issued. There is a similar card for Ports, the MSIC card, I cannot step into a Port restricted area without one. Australia's security laws and regulations are pretty stringent, and will remain so for a long time to come.

 

Don't have a problem with ASIC or similar where they can be demonstrated to have a genuine benefit  (eg International ports of entry/departure,  a small number of busy domestic ports)

 

It's not just Islamic nutters intent on more 9/11's, that the security laws and regulations are attempting to stop, the laws and regulations cover a very wide range of "bad actors", which includes drug smugglers, quarantine evaders, in fact anyone intent on harming Australians in any way, and intent on disrupting our civil society.

This whole paragraph would seem to be about international ports of entry/exit .

"drug smugglers, quarantine evaders"  are almost exclusively in the International realm - not dometic RPT.

Your  "range of "bad actors"" need only purchase a ticket to gain entry to an RPT aircraft and will be aided to board by all the ASIC wearing staff.

 

 

38 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The system is far from perfect, and it certainly is not going to stop the occasional person with unnoticed and unreported mental health problems from causing harm to innocent civilians, but it's far better than the "Wild West" systems of the numerous 3rd world countries.

Far from perfect????? - As it relates to, almost all, domestic RPT airports, its a complete and utter failure of intent & execution.

38 minutes ago, onetrack said:

 

There's nothing to stop you writing to the relevant Minister asking for anomalies in the ASIC card regulations and their application, to be addressed and/or updated.

 

The Act - http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/atsa2004348/

 

The Regulations - http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/atsr2005457/

This has been tried by many with little or no response/action - the only remaining avenue, is to vent on Forums like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Sorry Turbs - cant remember/find your posting . Please repost or give detailed instruction as to location.

https://www.auscheck.gov.au/security-card/aviation/asic#:~:text=An ASIC is evidence that,the airport owner or operator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that one!

 

Have browsed it several times - can't see a reference to private pilots wishing to land/short or long stay at a AD Security Controlled Airport - in the main, it seems to refer to employees of one sort or another.

 

Perhaps private pilots dont need an ASIC - here's hoping.

 

I would invite Markdun to cast his legal eye over https://www.auscheck.gov.au/security-card/aviation/asic#:~:text=An ASIC is evidence that,the airport owner or operator. and give his interpruitaton/understanding (without prejudice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this scenario…

You land at a Security Controlled Airport.

You shut down and are about to head into Town, when a person strolls over and demands to see your ASIC.

You say, Sir (or Madam) I demand to see the paperwork giving you the authority to see my ASIC!

After the stunned look disappears from the apparent Officials face you say….

SIR, you are upsetting and harrassing an Aircraft Captain, and I demand to exit the Airport without further interrogation.

 

Silly scenario I know, however we shouldnt have to go through this possibility when landing at an Airport and simply wanting to go into Town and support the local economy!

 

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is a joke -  in the first instance, you can't be prevented from landing and taxiing to the tie-down area (hopefully well away from any RPT activity). Nor can you be challenged while sitting in the aircraft - its only when you sally forth, that matters  have the potential to become officiouse.

 

I think it was the last time, BC,  I went on a trip & landed on a ADSCA (to meet a friend/passenger) - taxied away from RPT area (no aircraft waiting) towards tie- down, spied an active maintenance hangar nearby - parked as close as safe/reasonable and walked over to the hanger . Had a nice chat with the LAIMS therein. RPT landed. Exited the public access to hanger, walked up to airline building, found friend. Had a drink/munch returned with friend via maintenance hangers - departed. No stress, no challenge - all good.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2023 at 11:54 AM, Roscoe said:

Consider this scenario…

You land at a Security Controlled Airport.

You shut down and are about to head into Town, when a person strolls over and demands to see your ASIC.

You say, Sir (or Madam) I demand to see the paperwork giving you the authority to see my ASIC!

After the stunned look disappears from the apparent Officials face you say….

SIR, you are upsetting and harrassing an Aircraft Captain, and I demand to exit the Airport without further interrogation.

 

Silly scenario I know, however we shouldnt have to go through this possibility when landing at an Airport and simply wanting to go into Town and support the local economy!

 

If you land and don't cross the fence, refuel, check the oil, clean the wind screen, you won't get challenged at all. If you cross the fence you won't get challenged. It's when you try to get back to the plane you might get challenged. That's how I understand it. Some folks think you cannot land without an ASIC, which is bollocks.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jabiru7252 said:

If you land and don't cross the fence, refuel, check the oil, clean the wind screen, you won't get challenged at all. If you cross the fence you won't get challenged. It's when you try to get back to the plane you might get challenged. That's how I understand it. Some folks think you cannot land without an ASIC, which is bollocks.

Well a friend of mine landed at a Security Airport a couple of years ago, and before he opened the door to get out and refuel, he was accosted for his ASIC!

He had it in his bag and was berated for not wearing it!

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that anyone airside of the security perimeter fence HAD to have an ASIC card, no exceptions.

 

You mean to say, a planeload of armed-to-the-teeth Islamic terrorists could fly in and land, and shoot up and take over an airport, without all of them being fully compliant with ASIC cards?? :classic_rolleyes:

 

Nahh, couldn't possibly happen, that's too far fetched. Like something out of that fictitious "Entebbe" film!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I was under the impression that anyone airside of the security perimeter fence HAD to have an ASIC card, no exceptions.

 

You mean to say, a planeload of armed-to-the-teeth Islamic terrorists could fly in and land, and shoot up and take over an airport, without all of them being fully compliant with ASIC cards?? :classic_rolleyes:

 

Nahh, couldn't possibly happen, that's too far fetched. Like something out of that fictitious "Entebbe" film!

Your first paragraph is correct

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

I was under the impression that anyone airside of the security perimeter fence HAD to have an ASIC card, no exceptions.

 

You mean to say, a planeload of armed-to-the-teeth Islamic terrorists could fly in and land, and shoot up and take over an airport, without all of them being fully compliant with ASIC cards?? :classic_rolleyes:

 

Nahh, couldn't possibly happen, that's too far fetched. Like something out of that fictitious "Entebbe" film!

Only pilots, not passengers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roscoe said:

Will check and advise

I assume you mean the specific airport and the year?

Yes -

The year may indicate early enthusiasm (when ASIC kicked off) which may have waned with the passage of time or on going paranoia that pilots (sans ASIC) may wish to avoid.

The airport name,  is the context for the ridiculous behaviour, which will assist in avoidance should it be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...