ASIC or AVID

[pmccarthy]

I decided to get an AVID instead this time, now that I only fly RAAus. But when it came, it came with an instruction that I must always carry it with my original Flight Crew Licence and Current Medical Certificate. I still have the licence but it doesn't mean much, and I don’t have the medical.

 

I had started to reapply for the ASIC but the guidelines said it is for people needing frequent access to security controlled space. I don't. I would only need it once or twice a year. Hence the change.

[Thruster88]

My guess is there would be a fair percentage of pilots of both types that have neither an asic or avid.

[skippydiesel]

19 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

My guess is there would be a fair percentage of pilots of both types that have neither an asic or avid.

I back your guess - It may be that the Australian flying world could be divided;

• CPL- All active CPL holders likly to have an ASIC (tax deductible?)
• GA Student Pilots - most have ASIC
• GA - Depends on if they regularly fly from/ to a Security Controlled Airport  and if those Airports actually enforce the ridiculous ASIC regulations
• RAA - For the most part neither students or Pilots will have ASIC (similar to above)😈

[djpacro]

The system has nil provision for anyone, without an ASIC, who has a need to go to a security-controlled airport once or twice a year.

An AVID is only relevant to a Part 61 licence holder who never needs to go to a security-controlled airport due to the requirement for a licence holder to undergo a security check.

[skippydiesel]

7 minutes ago, djpacro said:

The system has nil provision for anyone, without an ASIC, who has a need to go to a security-controlled airport once or twice a year.

An AVID is only relevant to a Part 61 licence holder who never needs to go to a security-controlled airport due to the requirement for a licence holder to undergo a security check.

Not as I understand it (from Forum commentary). It would seem that a pilot, without an ASIC, accessing Security Controlled Airport,  can make arrangements to be escorted to/from his aircraft by an ASIC holder.

 

Of course this service may not be fortcomming, if available - will involve added communication, reduce flexibility (escort may only be available at set times duration) could incur a fee.

 

As I keep saying ASIC (for small regional Airports) is  a waste of money (for the pilot & airport operators), ineffective, a potential safety issue (non ASIC pilots avoiding airfield they would like to use)institutionalised Government bullying without cause and all round vessel of excrement, without a single saving grace.

[facthunter]

Of course it's a PITA but it does serve a purpose.. Would you like to be an RPT pilot, flying  without any  security checking in today's world.?  Nev

[Thruster88]

3 hours ago, djpacro said:

The system has nil provision for anyone, without an ASIC, who has a need to go to a security-controlled airport once or twice a year.

An AVID is only relevant to a Part 61 licence holder who never needs to go to a security-controlled airport due to the requirement for a licence holder to undergo a security check.

Is the security check a one off for a part 61 license holder or is there an on going requirement to hold either an asic or avid?

[pmccarthy]

I believe all GA pilots are supposed to have an ASIC or AVID to complete the AFR.

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I believe all GA pilots are supposed to have an ASIC or AVID to complete the AFR.

If this is so, it's a relativly recent (?) requirement 😈

[Area-51]

If pilots do not have an ASIC how will airfield security be able to identify the terrorists? This is a major security issue!!! 🙆‍♂️

[djpacro]

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Not as I understand it (from Forum commentary). It would seem that a pilot, without an ASIC, accessing Security Controlled Airport,  can make arrangements to be escorted to/from his aircraft by an ASIC holder.

What people do, or get away with, and the rules are two different things. Being inside an aircraft on the ground does not remove the requirement for an ASIC. 

[djpacro]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

If this is so, it's a relativly recent (?) requirement 😈

nope.

[skippydiesel]

11 minutes ago, Area-51 said:

If pilots do not have an ASIC how will airfield security be able to identify the terrorists? This is a major security issue!!! 🙆‍♂️

Maaate!

 

Number points (can expand if you wish):

• In my limited experience - pre ASIC security, was already being practised by RPT personnel at rural airports. It was good then, no better now.  
• ASIC adherence, by airport owners/managers/staff (non airline), is very poor at best .
• The few Security Controlled Airfield I have flown into, had no one, let alone a security person on duty. Most had hangers, open to public on one side, walk through to airside on other. Some had security fences that ended within sight of public access. Others have security gates, with the gate code displayed for all to see. I have seen open terminal buildings, without a sole in sight, etc etc
• A number of very busy airfield around the country, have no significant security, eg Camden, Cowra (not sure about Bankstown) whos aircraft movements per day, likly exceed most regional airfield, for the a month or more. Want to hijack a turboprop - go to a busy non security controlled airport.
• ASIC does not prevent an ill intentioned person from attacking an aircraft - technological alternatives (drones) are readily available - bad person just needs to be within range (well outside boundary).
• Despite extraordinary security (military & police) in N Ireland, the IRA was able to lob mortar shells, at one of the major airports, from outside the secure zone - an ASIC type system would have been a joke then and is now.
• Airport security is not 24/7 at most rural airports
• ASIC screening is flawed - look at the baggage handler/drug importation debacle at Sydney.
• ASIC does not prevent a pilot from landing/taking off - only from wandering around IF there happened to be a security person on duty (rare).
• Its questionable weather ASIC has any significant  beneficial security impact on passengers & baggage being loaded at a regional airport.
• It also questionable that Australian domestic airports & aircraft are of any interest to the bad people  - unlike Europe & USA, who don't have ASIC type regulations (for minor airports).
• I suggest that international (other country) terrorism could not care less about Australia, would not get out of bed for a regional airports/RPT
• Domestic terrorism is focused on & within our major population areas.
• It seems clear that a number of regional airport owners (Councils) have sort to abstain from ASIC - this has been blocked by the regional airline threatening to withhold service, if ASIC not maintained.  
• ASIC has increased the cost of operating regional airports. This cost has been passed on to commercial operators - passengers,  for no discernable gain.
• ASIC is just a CROCK of --------!

It was a reasonable knee jerk reaction, when commissioned , in response to the Twin Towers attack, but should have been ditched long ago.😈

 

 

[skippydiesel]

1 minute ago, djpacro said:

What people do, or get away with, and the rules are two different things. Being inside an aircraft on the ground does not remove the requirement for an ASIC. 

Unless the rules have changed - I do not think you are correct.

 

An aircraft , no matter how small, can land/takeoff, at a non towered (most have no tower) public airfield/port - no prior permission is required (most often no one to give/withhold it anyhow). The crew (pilot & passenger(s) do not need an ASIC until they get out of the aircraft. If one of the crew has an ASIC, they can escort the remainder to/from the aircarft. If no one has an ASIC, they can be escorted by any ASIC holder (security/other pilot/etc). In most instances they can alight, go about their business at the leisure, without challenge - as it should be.

 

As for the rules?? It's not about what a person (pilot) can get away with, its the failure of the authorities to promote/police/fund an unworkable system - Have you not noticed how many rules/regulations are not observed/prosecuted/policed in Australia - we are weighed down with obsolete regulation. Obsolete because it has little or no merit/purpose/,meaningful objective or gain. 😈

[pmccarthy]

Security requirements for pilots:

The Department of Home Affairs is Australia's security regulator for aviation. They also administer the Aviation Transport Security Regulations.

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.

To get one of these checks you will need to apply for either an:

• Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC)
• Aviation Identification (AVID).

 

this comes from https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/aviation-safety-and-security-pilots/security-requirements-pilots#ApplyingforanASIC

Edited Friday at 09:44 AM by pmccarthy

[BurnieM]

So a government department that does not own, run or fund any public or private airport has responsibility for aviation security.

Yep, that was always going to work.

 

[skippydiesel]

11 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Security requirements for pilots:

The Department of Home Affairs is Australia's security regulator for aviation. They also administer the Aviation Transport Security Regulations.

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.

To get one of these checks you will need to apply for either an:

• Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC)
• Aviation Identification (AVID).

 

this comes from https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/aviation-safety-and-security-pilots/security-requirements-pilots#ApplyingforanASIC

Ha! Ha Ha! - I do not know of anyone, in my aviation sphere, who has an ASIC  - there must be joke in this somewhere😈

[greybeard]

[deleted] not worth the argument

Edited Saturday at 05:32 AM by greybeard
couldn't be bothered

[djpacro]

22 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

The crew (pilot & passenger(s) do not need an ASIC until they get out of the aircraft. If one of the crew has an ASIC, they can escort the remainder to/from the aircarft. If no one has an ASIC, they can be escorted by any ASIC holder (security/other pilot/etc).

The regulation is very short with simple words and phrases.

"a person in the airside security zone of a security controlled airport must properly display a valid red ASIC"

It does not state that "a person in the airside security zone and not in an aircraft ..."

How do I know? Back when I had an AVID not an ASIC I regularly (but not frequently) took students into Essendon Airport - fly in, land, taxi around and takeoff again without getting out of the aeroplane. 

 

Only passengers may be escorted.

 

There is provision for special events at an airfield where less onerous processes may be implemented.

[skippydiesel]

 

Djpaco -

 

There is no law about a PIC of an aircraft, bing unable to land at a public airport. To do so would be a contravention of the authority of PIC, a very long standing convention.

 

From a security point of view, what difference is there in a pilot being escorted to/from his aircraft and his passenger(s)?

 

You are reading into ASIC regulations,  things that are not there.

 

As recreational / private pilots, we should be doing everything we can to have this ridiculous, ineffective system disbanded

 

 😈

[djpacro]

11 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

As recreational / private pilots, we should be doing everything we can to have this ridiculous, ineffective system disbanded

 

 😈

Even more ridiculous with the correct interpretation of the rules. Take a look at websites for Essendon and Moorabbin airports, for example - ring them up and ask.

[skippydiesel]

In a previous ASIC debate, there was a photo of a airport no entry warning sign , If I remember correctly, the posted fine for entry without an ASIC, was $5,000Au.

So now we have the fear factor being used to dissuade non ASIC holders from accessing a public airfield, while the authorities fail to sell their ridiculous, ineffectual, pretty much unsupervised/policed, policy to the flying fraternity. 

It's called using a sledgehammer to crack a non existent nut 😈

[facthunter]

Yeah. WE know how you think about it. Don't you and/or your family ever ride in RPT aeroplanes ? and they get baggage transferred from feeder planes. The days of having people  VISIT the cockpit  and having a relaxed attitude to security, are GONE.   Nev

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, djpacro said:

Even more ridiculous with the correct interpretation of the rules. Take a look at websites for Essendon and Moorabbin airports, for example - ring them up and ask.

Probably 50 plus years since I last flew into a major Victorian airport. 

 

I have always made the point that I support ASIC type security for major airports, both international & doemstic. My "beef" is the application (sort of) to small RPT airports (& even those who no longer have an RPT service).

 

A quick check of ERSA - Essendon does not appear to have any particular rules, other than stating its a Security Controlled Airport, ASIC required. Melbourne/Moorabbin adds words to the effect that All departing passengers will be subject to security screening.😈

[facthunter]

It's too easy to call your strip a "Security Controlled Airport".  Why you would want to do it is beyond me.   Nev