ASIC AGAIN!!!

[Ironpot]

17 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

So I fly in to Coffs without an ASIC, taxi to the Aero Club, go inside for a cuppa. Ask someone for the gate code, fly home. No problem with ATC or anyone else there but due to an ill conceived and enacted system that does not enhance safety in any way this is Illegal?

Expensive cup of coffee!
 

But, in the real world, and say you were flying a real flight - if you had left the airport,  just how would you have flown away, had you, let’s say, left the confines of the airport?

[skippydiesel]

24 minutes ago, Ironpot said:

Which airport is that?

Moree

[facthunter]

There's a long history to this and plenty of confusion. At the beginning, some (junior)? CASA notable announced that NO plane could get in the air without the Pilot having an ASIC displayed. This brought a flurry of phone calls and then some logic prevailed. Aerodromes that are designated "SECURITY" Had to submit THEIR particular plan. I remember Penfield north of Sunbury was one such place although it was grass  surface all over and would NEVER see an RPT. Just a case of Empire building in my opinion. but they chose to saddle it with the complexity by choice.  Nev

[Area-51]

This topic is filled with suspense much influence and education.

 

Firstly I cannot make the connection between how having or not having an ASIC affects a command pilot's ability or responsibility to self crew and passengers in doing a pre flight walkaround if and as required. If an instructor that i do not know ever suggested i not do a walkaround on an unfamiliar aircraft then i would question their ability toward the rest of operational standards practiced. If they got tardy with me for ignoring them then the training session would be terminated there and then by me.

 

Climbing gear as hand luggage is fine with me; will work better than a box cutter being wielded around by a terrorist to subdue them there and then on the spot. Guess this is why perhaps old school flying was a more enjoyable happy affair. Passengers had ways and means to incentivise no gooders. But i understand times are different now as the narcotics have deteriorated profusely over the decades. Airport security have a tough job as well. My belt was confiscated once because it was made of reefing line; unlike any other belt it "could be used as a restraint"; all other waist belts are not able to be used as restraints.

 

I really couldn't care less about the ASIC. It is an "operational" requirement for anyone wanting to access a certain jurisdiction. So i just have to have it. And it provides 10% discount at kiosks within major international/domestic terminals. If you jump through all the hoops you can have the banana. If i had no need to access these environments then i would not need an ASIC; i would just use different airfields and my life would be no different and the aircraft i am flying at the time would perform no differently what so ever, because i would be performing no differently.

 

but this is still a fun forum full of shock awe and much intrigue.

[Blueadventures]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Just one of several examples: I fly into a  north western NSW country ADSCA/ASIC airport, tie my aircraft down in the designated visitor area and then spend 45 minutes failing to find anyone at all, let alone a security person. Exit via unsecured "security" gate - hungry & tired, I get a taxi into town spend the night, taxi back to airport - still not a sole in sight - preflight/depart. Good experience despite the lack of a chat with fellow aviator/security guard/maintenance person/etc.

Maybe in Croc mode; they can see you but you can't see them🙃

[facthunter]

A sole is a fish (flounder) or a part of a shoe or a single of something.  Souls I know less about.  Nev

[coljones]

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

So I fly in to Coffs without an ASIC, taxi to the Aero Club, go inside for a cuppa. Ask someone for the gate code, fly home. No problem with ATC or anyone else there but due to an ill conceived and enacted system that does not enhance safety in any way this is Illegal?

At least you don't need a BP Carnet (scum!)

[Jabiru7252]

if you claim to be a 'sovereign citizen' can you ignore the ASIC? 😝

[kgwilson]

Sovereign Citizens not only ignore all and any rules, they make up their own to suit themselves. It is a perfect system for them.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Area-51 said:

................................................

 

I really couldn't care less about the ASIC. It is an "operational" requirement for anyone wanting to access a certain jurisdiction. So i just have to have it. And it provides 10% discount at kiosks within major international/domestic terminals. If you jump through all the hoops you can have the banana. If i had no need to access these environments then i would not need an ASIC; i would just use different airfields and my life would be no different and the aircraft i am flying at the time would perform no differently what so ever, because i would be performing no differently.

 

but this is still a fun forum full of shock awe and much intrigue.

Leaving aside the conversational first two paragraphs.

 

Why you should be concerned about ASIC? - as it pertains to minor domestic airports:

• Try making a safe  cross country flight plan, of a good distance (say  Sydney Basin to Perth area)  which includes fuel stops (I use ULP), the need to sleep (motel or similar) without the need to land at a ADSCA/ASIC airport. It may be just doable, but risks might you have to take (low fuel/pilot exhaustion)?
• You land at your ADSCA/ASIC airport, only to find there is no one there/intersted in your presence, security is non exist ant. You just might wonder why you went to all that trouble to fill out an intrusive form and pay some dosh for what you don't apparently need.
• Before ASIC, we had about the same level of security around RPT aircraft, when I took a few business flights, as we do now (Note: around the RPT aircraft not the whole airfield). Why reinvent the wheel?
• I presume you are a citizen/resident of Australia - why would you not be concerned about a requirement (of any sort) that has been placed on you, that appears to be positively Orwellian?
• ASIC  was "hatched" at a time of hysterical  security concerns, in the West, due to the Twin Towers incident (strange that we did not have a similar response to the earlier bombings in Africa, Middle East, etc). I have sympathy for the sentiment of the time and still support the need for good security at International ports and the busier Dometic ports. That the Gov has not pulled back from their initial comprehensive ASIC role out, beggars belief. That we (private pilots) are subject to an unreasonable curtailment of our liberty (access to public airports) is unconscionable.

Possessing an ASIC has no aircraft operational function ie it does not have any effect on your conduct of a safe flight to/from a given destination (other than my first point). It will not make you or I a better pilot or the public safe from a bad pilot. It is just about as useful as having  an attainment note from your holy person. At best its a flyboy/girl accessory, akin to bling.

 

I have long since had my fill of international flight but for those who still aspir, the banana might just be an attractive but expensive perk.

[Markdun]

A flying trip up to Longreach a few years ago had a few doozies. I then had an ASIC and an anti-terrorist Aircraft lock comprising of a soft thin walled aluminium tube with a ‘crusader’ brand padlock purchased fromClints for $1.49. This went over the throttle and met the standard.
I think it was Bourke where the sign on the code locked gate stated ‘Lift flap for code’. I felt like adding the Arabic translation as it gave unfair advantage to English speaking terrorists. At another ‘security controlled aerodrome after refueling I telephoned the fuel agent/aerodrome operator to find out  how to exit.  I was told the locked powered gate had the chain removed from the sprocket and so one just had to give it a hard push and it would slide open.  I asked whether the security fence was effective in keeping malfeasants out and was told, ‘Nah, but it’s bloody great as we no longer have to do a run down the runway in the ute to get the kangaroos and emus a few minutes before any RPT lands, and the guys from town had a few great nights shooting the roos and emus inside the fence when it was just built’.

 

I don’t think many people actually believe the ASIC or airport security in general is effective in reducing the risk or incidence of security related incidents. The whole lot is just theatre, providing a facade or fig leaf …. Not to hide the falsity that flying in RPTs is dangerous,,, because the facts show the opposite, but to convince the public to return to buying tickets because of the perception that there was a high risk following 9/11, that is to maintain the revenue for commercial airlines (& perhaps the psychic benefit of the travelling public feeling safer), and give the appearance that our governments/politicians are doing ‘something’.  My whinge is that the ASIC is totally disproportionate to its costs, particularly the burden imposed on us. I also maintain that the ASIC reduces ppl’s vigilance on security….. the guys in the hanger don’t need to worry about security because ASIC and the security guys handle that.

 

Nev, the crime of ‘incite’ like I said is difficult to prove, and secondly has to be more than just some guys yacking. There has to be some actual physical steps taken to encourage the other person to commit the crime; signing an agreement to pay them, giving them the tools to do the deed etc. If that wasn’t the case I reckon nearly 100% of boys aged 14-20 (and ‘boys’ older than 65) would be guilty.

[spacesailor]

Not everyone will buckle down to a law , they don't like.

I refused to wear a motorcycle helmet. 

SO, I had to give away my sport. Fifty years later I squashed my head I to a helmet, 

And had an enjoyable day on the dirt & across the river .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Mark I've read what the LAW has to say about it. Why even take the risk? Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

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.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

I believe you can land without an ASIC. To go back out to your plane you can ask for an escort from someone with an ASIC. So legally you don’t need one. But you need one to do your flight review (GA).

[Jerry_Atrick]

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

[skippydiesel]

27 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

But you need one to do your flight review (GA).

Since when?

[pmccarthy]

Jerry is right, the instructor needs to see an ASIC or an AVID.

[kgwilson]

It is not compulsory to have an ASIC and if flying at an aerodrome that is not security controlled, whatever that means, what regulation requires an instructor to see this useless piece of plastic?

[skippydiesel]

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Jerry is right, the instructor needs to see an ASIC or an AVID.

Unless this rule has come in the last 18 months (since I did my last  GA BFR) my instructor did not, at any time, make any reference to ASIC.

It may be an individual  flight school requirement but its not law.

[turboplanner]

35 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Unless this rule has come in the last 18 months (since I did my last  GA BFR) my instructor did not, at any time, make any reference to ASIC.

It may be an individual  flight school requirement but its not law.

Before you start telling us what's law and what's not, I'd suggest you actually read ALL the ASIC details slowly.

[spacesailor]

Can't do that , as I will NOT , ever apply for one .

spacesailor

Edited November 23, 2023 by spacesailor

[skippydiesel]

Be a pal, help us out Turbs - what does it say about "needing one to do your flight review (GA)."?

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Be a pal, help us out Turbs - what does it say about "needing one to do your flight review (GA)."?

If people can't read the documents for themselves, its an indication that they aren't ready for cross country flying. 

[skippydiesel]

Turbs; Your generosity knows no bounds🙃

 

Okay quick browse of the regs:

 

Starts by making the statement ;

 

"Under these regulations, all current pilots must have an aviation security status check. You will also need an aviation security status check if you're applying for a flight crew licence."

 

Followed by;

 

"You need an ASIC if you're flight crew flying at a security controlled airport, or a pilot under the age of 18." 

 

After the first catch all statement, goes on to qualify that, by limiting the need for an ASIC to "flight crew flying at a security controlled airport, or a pilot under the age of 18" - seems that if not at a ADSCA or under 18, you don't have to have an ASIC to train for or hold a pilots' license.

 

After the above - no further mention of pilots needing an ASIC, for training or continued holding of a pilot's license. All further references seem to relate only to accessing restricted/security areas of designated airfields. 

 

One again mixed messages - I would be truly amazed that an ASIC is required for training or continued use of a pilots' license. As I said my fairly recent GA BFR at a busy non security metropolitan airfield - no mention of ASIC.