Prevent Unnecessary Costs For Australian Pilots

We, the Undersigned, wish to voice our concerns at the unnecessary fees proposed for all pilots throughout Australia and the erosion of our civil liberties.

The 'Aviation Security Amendment Bill 2004' recently passed by the House of Representatives will see all commercial and private pilots in Australia undergo an ASIO Security Screening - AT THEIR OWN COST - for the privilege of exercising their right to fly.

As well as being a costly and resource intensive operation, this legislation will not identify all security threats. In the terrible events of 11th September 2001 it was not licensed pilots who carried out the terrorist acts, but students with very little training.

This section of the bill will do little to enhance the security of Australia but will place another burden on an industry that is already struggling under over-regulation and rising costs. The proposed cost of this security check is 4 times that charged for an AVIATION SECURITY IDENTIFICATION CARD (ASIC) needed to work at a major airport, and contrary to public opinion - most private pilots are not rich millionaires.

The time taken to perform this security check will also adversely affect GA and the training industry. It already takes CASA weeks or even months to issue a student pilots licence - what delays will we see when this legislation takes effect !?! This causes delays in a student's flying training as they cannot proceed until they receive their licence. In comparison, aviation training in New Zealand is booming.

Furthermore, the screening of every pilot raises the question of where does it end? Should drivers of heavy vehicles also be screening? Bus drivers? Private motorists? A van or truck loaded with explosive and detonated in the centre of a capital city would cause many times more damage than a small Cessna or Piper. Overseas experience has shown that the terrorist's "weapon of choice" is a car, truck or small van packed with explosive - yet the users of these vehicles are not being screened. In passing this bill it was stated "an aeroplane of virtually any size can be turned into an enhanced weapon.". If this is correct - why are glider pilots and ultralight pilots not being screened? Advances in ultralight design have progressed to the stage that some are as big as a Cessna 152 and being of streamlined fibreglass design can fly faster than this aircraft.

We do not like being considered a potential terrorist threat simply because of our hobby or profession. In the United States of America - the country that suffered an attack by terrorists in hijacked aircraft - they have no intention of screening every pilot - so why does Australia?

In fact, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that "the small size, lack of fuel capacity, and minimal destructive power of most general aviation aircraft make them unattractive to terrorists and, thereby, reduce the possibility of threat associated with their misuse."

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of America has stated, "It (the GAO report) proves that our approach - a cooperative effort that draws on the government's security expertise and the GA industry's aviation expertise - is the best approach for making sure terrorists won't be able to use our world-class general aviation system against us."

We call on the government to reconsider this section of the bill to prevent the unnecessary burden it would place on the general aviation sector. Whilst we do not fear the results of any security check, we feel pilots are being unfairly discriminated as a 'soft target'. Placing this burden on pilots is a knee-jerk reaction against a small group leaving more obvious risk groups without ANY checks at all.