Jerry_Atrick

That is sort of true, and sort of not. The grandfathered UK PPL, of which none have been issued since the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) and later, EASA PPLs can be flown on a PMD (Pilot Medical Declaration). However, these still cannot be issued, and after Brecit, the UK has a Part FCL PPL, which will eventually replace the grandfathered UK PPLs. These do required a class 2 medical. I believe that the original UK PPL is no longer considered ICAO compliant and definitely is not ICAO compliance if being flown with a PMD, and while dlying arond the UK - especially to Scotland in the suimmer is lovely, eventually you will want to go abroad. There are effectively two types of sports licences in the UK - National PPL (NPPL), which can be flown using a PMD, or, if you want to fly into Europe, a Part-FCL LAPL (Light Aircraft Pilots Licence), which requires a LAPL medical certificate if you want to fdly in Europe. Medical requirements for private pilots - LAPL | Civil Aviation Authority WWW.CAA.CO.UK Information on medical standards, certificates and self-declaration of medical fitness I just got my CAA and CASA Class 2 medicals.. Not much seems to have changed since my very first one in the early 90s... Except the bureaucracy.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/ersa/FAC_YDLQ_30NOV2023.pdf https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/ersa/FAC_YMNY_30NOV2023.pdf

Yes.. But I think (may be wrong) you need at least an AVID?

What I would like to understand is how many pilots or would-be pilots have been grounded as the result of failed ASIC or AVID checks? I googled it, but couldn't find it; I searched the Buearu of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (what sort of department is that?) and could not find it in their statistics or general search. Not making these numbers available is denying transparency and public scrutiny of the scheme. So what we have is an unspecified secret risk, presumnably resulting from existing experience of nefarious actors that no one else can acquire, attempting, if not succeeding at a specific action/s, maybe linked to terrorism, maybe organised criminal activity, or maybe serial offenders with or without some mental health issue (or both). And the nefarious actions they have concoted are so unique and innovative that no one else will think about them and that telling us the nature (not the specifics) of what they are will endanger life (you know, like there have been x attempts to inflitratre aircraft by people who are linked to established terrorst/criminal/gangs, etc..) All from successive Lib and Lab governments that seems to prosecute genuine whistleblowers who, after whistleblowing using the correct procedure were ignored, and that, the person they whistleblew against was found by a court to a civil level of evidence to have committed war crimes - yet that person found to a civil level of evidence to have committed war crimes in a court continues free seemingly without an active investigation (throw in hushing the Brereton report); a government that seems to have fallen silent on criminal investigations into Robodebt; a NACC "along the lines of the NSW ICAC, yet silent hearings, and the list goes on. The exposure that the AFP does the governments bidding, if they are not corrupt, and the NSW fixated persons unit (yes, I know, it is not a federal department) setting upon a couple of youtubers. Couple with the fact there is, at least anecdotally, widespread non-compliance with the security procedures required at most of the airports private flyers are flying into, the fact that some have admitted to not having an ASIC (and presumably an AVID) for donkeys years, and you will have to pardom my skepticism that it is a reasonable and proportional requirement against something like, I dunno, having the appropriate security where the risk is? You know, like other countries do.. Are nefarious Australian actors that different to others? There are many good, hardworking ethical men and women in law enforecement and national security and I do not want to disparage them. It is the excrement that floats around them that seems to be the problem.

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

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. What government?

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?

That's fat-st, OT.. Shame on you! 😉 Seriously, outside the effects of that obesity, there is usually some medical or psychological condition the predicates people in that position. I weas talking to a DAME (well, over here, they are just called AMEs) about it, and he has passed class 2 obese people because there were no obvious signs of impending issues, despite the risk that they may well develop conditions very quickly in between medicals. Over here, you can still get a Class 2 if you are colour blind, have diabetes, and a few others that would previously rule out the class 2. However, there are restrictions placed on you flying. For example, colour blondness (depending on the type) will usually stop you from night VFR, but some will allow you instrument flying (day, I think). I don't knoiw all the rules, TBH; just what I read in the magaiznes and AOPA.

It's a little more complicateed than that. If you're a UK PPL and you only want to fly your aircraft in the UK and its protectorates (channel islands, Isle of Mann, etc), yes, it is fine. But trust me, you feel caged flying only in the UK with Europe a hop, skip , and jump away, and because the LAPS and PMD medicals are not ICAO standard, your not valid even glying a G reg aircraft in the territory of another country. If you're a LAA pilot, however, your LAPL medica, which is a European standard, allows you to fly your recreational aircraft throughout Europe (the LAA and the BMAA managed to get their regulations accreddited by EASA to allow them to keep flying in Europe). The PMD, which is a self-declaration, does not allow one to fly rec aircraft in Europe - a LAPL medical is required - and this is less burdensome than the class 2, but pilots still think it is too onerous. FWIW, in later November, I will be doing both the UK and Aus Class 2 late November over here at an RAF base. TYhe paperwork for the Aus class 2 is mind boggling!

I honestly don't know Scots law so would refrain from opining, but it is good to see England doesn't only have the corrupt councils 😉 Plymouth City Council is alleged to have been corrupt in its handling of issuing the 99 year lease to Sutton Harbour Holdings (SHH), with an armageddon clause that they evenutally decided to manufacture to trigger. They basically revoked permission from the airline at the time that was based there, then declared the airport was no longer viable despite others lining up to be the next airline to operate the airport. Until the housing boom, there was nothing on the rada thast would have indicated they were interested in anything other than operating as an airport. SHH had a lease as well. I guess it would be determined as to what the lease contains as to what a lessee can do with it. Note, Plymouth remains undeveloped but has been closed for 10 years by now. However, from the Mooraabin Airport Website, https://www.moorabbinairport.com.au/about-us/overview: "Moorabbin Airport is wholly owned by Goodman, a publicly listed property group with operations throughout Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Europe, the United Kingdom, and the Americas. Goodman’s global industrial property expertise, integrated own+develop+manage customer service offering and significant investment management platform, delivers essential infrastructure for the digital economy." If the airport is wholly owned by Goodman, do they lease it to MAC? Is the lease breakable, and under what conditions? Also, I guess there are covenants on the airport land as well.. but these can be removed All I am saying is that there appear to be grounds for keeping a sharp eye on things.. appreciate there may be no cause for alarm at the moment.

It may be a but Chooky Looky, but look up Sutton Harbour Holdings and Plymouth airport. All grand plans for the airport in terms of developing aviation; but when the housing boom meant that land was suddenly worth a lot more as housing than an airport, my how quickly things changed. Corporations are in it to make money. Publicly lsted corporations habe duties to their shareholders and one is to maximise earnings. No doubt, the Aussie planning laws and business landscape is different to the UK. But one this is for certain, if the airport suddenly becomes much more profitable to justify redevloping it as a used car lot, then they will attempt to do it. I am not saying they are planning it now, but eventually, they will run out of land to develop and want to increase their returns. Then what? It may not happen in our lifetime (no idea how old you are)..

I recall when taking off on the 18 runways, or landing on the 35 runways on a hot day being buuffeted by the thermals rising from the tin rooves of the factories in Braeside, that were closer to, was it Lower Dandenong Road? At low speed and relatively close to the ground, one learned to keep their wits about them. Now to pick up form where I left off.. Re the RVAC bar demise, true. But looking at their websire, it seems to be open enough for a club: https://www.rvac.com.au/flight-deck-bar---grill, which was better than when I was there. Re Gen Zs and Millenials, I would be surprised if they made up the bulk of the membershuip, and people to change over time. Also, I am quite sure they all don't sit on computer games iand interact through discord. It's about generating interest rather than wiating for it to come. I am gald to hear there is great grass roots activism in KCC and the community, because while the owners may not at this time be thinking about redevelopment of the airfield, when it becomes economic for them to do it, they will.

That is a good point, but arguably some of the fields provided a safety buffer and accommodted mixed aviation use well. Also, since 1993, which is when Iwas flying there, the movemebts have dropped off 30% despite a) a large increase in the populaton of Melbourne (3.238m --> 5.235m) and the introduction of larger commercial training (e.g. Oxford Aviation). That, of course, doesn't really say anything other than there could be a drop in interest of the community in aviation related activities, but I can't help but wonder if some of those facilities that provided parents the opportunity to take their kids to for some cheap entertainment has not planted as many seeds of interesst as there would have otherwise been. Also, I would movements alone don't make an airport great - but YMMB is still pretty great. Maybe I am oversimpliifying it, but wouldn't that same liability extend to virtualy every park in Melbourne? Of course, the company that owns YMMB would have to maintain it, and I would put it down to the cost to a private company over pure liability. Last time I visited (2018), I recall teh car park gone, but not the miuseum extended, do kudos where it is due. When I am next out, I will be sure to pay a visit. Fair enough - I was just going on this thread... Have to go to work, will pick up later, no doubt

Sadly, the amounf (rather than quality) of development they have permitted at Moorabbin over the years has already diminished it somewhat from when I flew from there. It seriosuly was one of the best GA airports (outside the USA) I have visited - well, except for the cafe facilities. I recall taking my then very young kids there for a family day - the playground, able to set up a BBQ, and even using that old car park opposite the tower to let my then 3yr old son have a steer of the car while sitting on my lap. From a flying perspective the facilities were excellent. And if one was an RVAC member, there was the members bar as well. Your flying school/club was out of aircraft? No worries - they cross-hired from others. Cross wind runways, and the like was fantastic. Sincethe good ol; days, it has been overdeveloped; the kids playground is gone, the carpark, from memory, is gone. Ugly block building adorn what was a community asset that allowed people to participate in aviation, ether it was actively or passively. I don't think DA (state of Victoria) or any government agency diectly benefits from losing Moorabbin. From here: https://www.moorabbinairport.com.au/about-us/overview, "Moorabbin Airport is wholly owned by Goodman, a publicly listed property group with operations throughout Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Europe, the United Kingdom, and the Americas." The money has already been made by the government. The UK is full of ex-airfields whose owners are property [development] companies. The do not care about flying.. If they can make more money turning it into residential, commercial, or mixed use, then they will. And 297 hectares in mioddle south-east Melbourne will return a lot more to the owners fully developed than the aviation businesses will return. Better get prepared to band together and roll your sleeves up for a fight. It is hard, but it can be worth it. Plymoth Airport has been closed for about 12 years, and our little PA28 was one of the last visiting aircraft to take off from its runway before it closed. Sutton Harbour Holdings had the lease with an armageddon clause that if it was not profitable, they coudl develop it. A long hard fight with the council and a well organised group wanting to take it over on a sustainable going concern basis has so fat thwarted the effort.. but it needed broad public support to do it. Sadly, many others have lost the battle, incluing a listed WWII airfield, Old Sarum.

Holy Poop! That was sad.

I dropped QANTAS (Queer and Nasty Travel Air Service) years ago as my go to. They aren't a national carrier - they are just another publicly listed corpration that is designed to extract as much cash from its unsuspecting customer for as little in return as possible. The fact that Queer and Nasty has been able to uphold its charade of the "national carrier" is a testament to our press.. keep giving the press freebies and it will work well. Well, I guess Kerry and/or Lauchlan/Rupert still have credits owing, because the press has turned on them big time: Mind you, the sky presenter who said, "Once you put people before profits, you have crossed the line.." or some such words shoudl reflect on his puppeteer's behaviour.

Looks like the pilot wanted to make sure.. Had to be a darned hard landing to do that!

Blimey... That insurance is expensive! Is that rate (c. 3%) the same for GA aircraft?

Plenty of people who fly them do fly them for recreation, but a fair few combine business with pleasure, and use them as their business transport. Also when flying them for recreation, that includes all weather, IFR under misual meterological conditions and some fair-dinkum touring.. Most (not all) of which is beyond what the average pilot flying for recreation does.

I'd like to thank you all for contributing to my new aeroplane.As a sign of appreciation, I am happy to etch your names on it as a recognition of your contribution/sponsorship

Prices here have skyroocketed across all class of light aircraft; they really are asking silly money and getting it; and well in excess of inflation. A few here would disagree. A mate of mine had a Pegasus Quick-R and toured Europe in it often (not sure he tried the Alps in it, though). Ge gave me a lift to France in it. Slings seem to be the choice for around the world flights, but this young fella did it in a shark. I think his sister also flew solo around the world in one: British pilot becomes youngest person to fly solo around the world in a small aircraft at just 17 | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK Mack Rutherford, a Belgian-British dual national, landed on an airstrip west of Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, to complete his mission and to claim... I read an artiicle today in Pilot magazine which asserts that the cause in the cost increase was a large number of people signing up to get their ticket (whether PPL, NPPL (sort of RAAus certificate as well as a separate class for microlioght flying). The reasons for most were that during the pandemic they wanted to learn a new skill, or after lockdowns , the airlines and major airports were in total chaos and flying became (and still) very expensive, so they wanted a better way to travel. Years ago, I flew to Italy in my Warrior; As it was my first time to the continent (well, beyond Le Touquet, which may as well be a British GA airport in France). I followed an RV9 (I think) to build confidence. I lost touch with that RV9 well before I got my confidence. VLAs, ULAs and Microlights are flown everywhere here.

I used to commit as much to memory as possible; I have dispensed with the normal ops checklists committed to memory and try to commit the likely emergency checklists and of course, the late final check list.. I had a friend make be a plate for a RAM mount (I don't use tablets when flying), and have flip top laminated checklist mounted on it.