Jerry_Atrick

I understand the AVID is required to fly anywhere in Aus, where as the ASIC is required to be able for security controlled airports (unless you can arrange someone with an ASIC to escort you in the secured parts of the airport at all times). From memory, ASIC lasts two years and AVID lasts 5 Haven't read this and often I have found CASA general info web pages out of date: Security requirements for pilots WWW.CASA.GOV.AU Learn about the aviation security requirements for pilots and how to apply for your preferred option.

From the publicly available information from authorative sources I could find, there was nothing terribly convincing. But if you could address why virtually every European country and the USA, all of which have greater terrorism threats don't need or implement them, or why we don't have a drivers securty into card for those that use the most favoured vehicle for committing terrorist acts, but Australia does, and it can't just quietly perform security checks against pilots, then I am all ears (or eyes, in this case). edit: In response to @turboplanner, above

One needed to register your dog in Victoria - not sure about the other states. Not sure its called a dog licence, though. Although I am not sure how this has changed since the introdution of microchipping. But sheep, goats (better meat than lamb IMHO) can enter the food chain... (well, any animal can, I suspect). So there is a real or perceived risk of untraceable meat ending up on your kitchen table. That NZ law did make me laugh, and apologies in advance to NZ friends, but it immediately got me wondering why they didn't introduce a law banning pet sheep sh... er.. I will leave it there.

Let's unpack this a bit.. Everyone on this forum against ASIC, as far as I am aware, has maintained that ASIC (and presumably its lesser sibling, AVID) is for security checks to prevent terrorism. I did not, and I don't think anyonw has portrayed it based solely on some Die Hard type scenario. But, if I, as a pilot, am expected to pay for a security check for my flying activities, it is not fanciful to expect the risk to originate from my flying activities. Were the people and the ISIS cell you were talking about deteected as a result of ASIC/AVID? Were the terrorist activities they were planning or training for involve the use of private aviation? Or was it pure chance that someone decided they wanted to fly and apply for an ASIC? My point is, if the security checks are not related to a risk borne from aviation, why do pilots have to pay for the security check and renew every two (or 5 for the AVID, if it still exists)? And how would that be anything other than a tax dressed up as a security regime to fund more general surveillance activities? If it is based on a perceived threat from light sports and general aviation in the private sense (i.e. non commercial), then how is it fanciful to think that light aircraft would be involved in the scenarios that the ASIC is designed to detect and prevent? And why would it be invalid to question whether the cost is proprotionate to risk, regardless of how convenient it is? And if I can get it immediately over the counter, how is that a proper security check before allowing someone to go on their way and commit a terrorist act before the secutiy check is carried out and they are stopped? And why, at the time of applying for my license (which is a cost) and paying the $90 to the government for my medical (of which all the work of entering the data is done by the DAME), can they just not run a security check anyway and not bother me? In fact, if I was a terrorist, applying for a ASIC (which has security in the name) would sort of deter me (although I admit, they are not all the smartest on earth)? It just doesn't add up as reasonable and to be quite frank, your assertion that ASIC does the job is invalid, because they can run these checks without it.. So I reiterate, it is either a dressed up tax or ASIO & Co are still lagging other coutnries like the UK who have a far higher terror threat for far longer and don't need this crap. And, both ASIO and MI5, and other countries' intelligence services are foiling terror plots daily without the use of ASIC or anything like it. Yeah, it may only be $x00, and a bit of inconvenience, but I am with @skippydiesel on this - its just one of a continuing erosiion of rights and increase of costs with little actual beneift and should be resisted.. Otherwise we may end up with anti terrorist laws that lock up whistleblowers who, after all efforts to rectify the issue through their organisations decide to blow the whistle, while allowing those who are alleged to have committed crimes or at least misconduct to go free without investigation or trial. But, like countries such as even the USA, who promote whistleblowing and even reward it, Australia would not want that to happen, would it? @skippydiesel put the response very well. And all the items you list are where the risk is directly from the user, and the risk has a relatively high probability of occuring. And, we already need to have a licence (or certificate) for various flying activities, so the argument that others need a licence is sort of moot. And the cost and effort you need to go through to obtain a licence is usually proprotionate to the risks and probability of those risks materialising your activity bears. I have no idea a firearm costs, but a PPL is,what, around $20K on average and on average takes how long? I am not sure how much an RPL or RAAus licence/certificate takes, but I would wager it is more than getting a gun licence, and for the average person, a lot longer, too. Also, the sheep/cattle licence, if it is a thing rather than regs on registering your livestock and tracking its movements, is about traceability of livestock in the food chain - quite a big and real risk to manage. I am still not sure that the real risk of terrorism from private aviation is commensurate with that. And, the most common vehicle for terrorism - cars/vans - do we do security checks on every driver and should we not introduce a DSIC? I mean, that would be popular at election time, right?

They do apparently get vetted and are supposed to be some form of security clearance and illegal alien thingy check. The UK arguably has a much higher risk of terrorism. And the risk of other nasties is probably the same, yet we don't have one the is ubiquitous across all CAT (RPT) airports. It is up to the airport to assess its security requirements and determine the implementation. I have flown in Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter (more times than I care to admit), East Midlands (landing fees - ouch!), and Norwich Tumbleweed International on nought more than an phone call and I think East Midlands required a flight plan to be lodged - it was a long time ago. My previous home airfield, Blackbushe, required us to have an identification card.. to allow us to put the fuel on account and pay monthly. and to validate to security out of hours departures and landings. Blackbushe doesn't have RPT, though.. but it has bizjets (famously, Osama Bin Laden's sister, I think, died in a crash there prob 10 years ago). In a country that has far more terrorist attacks than Aus, far more regular RPT (as opposed to Bordsville type RPT) airports than Aus, it is exemplary of the waste of time the ASIC is, in its application across the board. I guess UK intelligence orgsanisations have more experience than Aussie ones at this sort of stuff and are mature enough not to require this sort of draconioan application.. Or, as was drummed into us from early days in Aus, "it only takes one person to ruin it for the rest of us".. instead of "We'll stop that one person from ruining it for the rest of us".

Thanks, @skippydiesel - I know others are bored by it, but it is a fundamental right to express discourse at government policy, and continue to do so if you feel wronged. Of course, this is a private forum and those entrusted with moderation can close it down, but I knew what this was before I clicked into the thread, and if I was that affronted by it, I simply wouldn't have clicked. But, I agree with Nev.. so far, you have pursued both organisational and direct representation. For some reason, the organisations have decided not to pursue - maybe they have been told it is flogging a dead horse by the relevant department (it's not CASA, but some other department that is responsible). But that doesn't mean you (or anyone else who feels passionately wronged) should give up. What are your options? Here's a couple that may or may not be pragmatic: Go to the press. This is unlikely to be a vote winner of any consequence, so the bigger outlets are unlikely to take it on, esp during a federal election, but try some nice journals that are complimentary to aviation such as the yachties ones, gun runners, and the like.. Cross pollination can help.. Also, look for a situation that has occurred where the ASIC resulted in some hardship, especially disproportionate to the risk it is supposedly mitigating.. did someone crash and die in deteriorating weather by possibly making a decision to divert to a non-ASIC required aerodrome when an ASIC one would have been better (look up Strasser scheme in the UK, where Strasser managed to convince regional RPT airports in the UK to waive extortionate fees in the case of real emergencies as pilots were crashing and dying as a result of diverting to less suitable airfields). Go on Social media - YT, Tick Tock and the like and do the press thing yourself. You would be surprised at how much of a following you can get if it resonates. And with a following, you become the representative. Find a pollie that is in some way affected by it and lobby that politician. GA were complaining here for years at the erosion of their plight to all sorts of pollies until someone realised the one they should be complaining to is the one that has a PPL (Grant Schapps).. Next thing, he is a senior minister with a portfolio over the CAA and things did improve slightly. Yes, Dick Smith tried it at the helm, but he wasn't an elected pollie. Maybe join one of the major political parties (the one more likely than not to be in government - regardless of your affiliations) and try and engineer change from within. Again, this is not a vote winner, so this will probably not yield great results for the effort. Go streaking across your nearest international airport with a banner saying stop asic at regional airports. You can be guaranteed some publicity (and a few nights in jail - so maybe take this one in the way it is intended - not an incitement). But, you can organise protests... Seriously, you are fighting a big machine that saw points in implementing it and very few points in removing it. There are many on here (myself included) that support your position. But even collectively, that is not a large number and we are already converted.. Need to preach to the unconverted with as many converted visible as possible. It will be a long process.

Per km traveled wouldn't be a good comparison as fixed wing has to go forward for lift to be generate; helicopters in normal ops will hover, reverse, etc. Straight number of accidents per year is also not a good measure as it doesn't take into account the rate of change of a) number of air-frames added/removed from the population, nor rate of change of hours flown. If the fleet is flying more hours, it is likely to have more accidents. Here is an interesting vid; I had no idea about mast bumping...

Always prefer false alarms to the real thing

Isn't it a shame they have to disclaim the article, though

Yes.. best wishes for a speedy and full recovery (pls, no pun intended)..

Well, yeah...we are still interested. Not quite the response I was expecting, but it taught me I need to learn to read people - I wold not cottoned onto them having ADHD, ADD, autism, or the like. I thought it was a cool video of making one heck of a plane.

er.. maybe I will wait till it matures

I had never heard of TDS until now... When I saw what the acronym stood for, my immediate reaction was it meant those who are blindly supporting him no matter what he does. Of course, not. It is yet another pejorative term nutcases come up with when they can't rationally defend their positions, and is usually a reflection of themselves rather than the people the try to denigrate. Here is something interesting: Trump derangement syndrome - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG And, yes, Wikipedia isn't always accurate, but I thought this was an interesting quote: "Despite the usage of the term syndrome suggesting a medical condition, TDS is not an official medical diagnosis.[7] A 2021 research study found no evidence to support the existence of TDS among Trump detractors on the left, but instead found bias among his supporters.[8] A bill seeking to classify TDS as a mental illness was introduced in the Minnesota Senate by Republicans in March 2025. However, it is currently not recognized as a mental illness in any U.S. state. " (my bold). I guess the next allegation was the research was conducted by myopic left loonies, as if the MAGA maniacs are all critical thinking logical and objective. For the record, I don't in principle disagree with many of his policies; it is the execution of them and the ulterior motives or "unintended" consequences I have a problem with.

This thread is already 63 pages in on SocialAustralia: What has Trump done now? - Page 63 - Politics - Social Australia WWW.SOCIALAUSTRALIA.COM.AU And another for the more fundamental consequences: Chump's Consequences - Page 2 - Politics - Social Australia WWW.SOCIALAUSTRALIA.COM.AU