https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...rity45/c05.pdf

There is nothing like a bit of mission creep. A bit better security required and we are now heading down the 'Minority Report' road. Originally created under Department of Transport and Regional Services, the ASIC was then handled by:

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government which existed between December 2007 and September 2010,
The Department of Infrastructure and Transport formed in September 2010,
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development that existed between September 2013 and December 2017, and
The Department of Home Affairs which was officially established on 20 December 2017, bringing policy responsibilities and agencies from the Attorney-General's Department, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

In the mean time, Joe, our average pilot, has lived in just two places and worked at the same airline for 20 years doing the same thing, getting his ASIC renewed every two years. Now tell me again why it takes 10 weeks and $250?

Because the AI reading your faded and coffee-stained Birth Certificate (you did include a copy, didn't you?!?) couldn't quite match up your middle initial with the typo on your application form and bounced it back to an underpaid, overworked "Administrative Assistant" in the bowels of a Canberra building somewhere... and you were unlucky enough that at the precise moment your application landed on their desk they got up for a toilet break and never came back. FWIW, I got mine in 3 weeks. :p

The question I'd be asking when you do finally receive it is what the expiry date is, 'cause I'll bet it ain't 24 months from your application date!

Briefly to answer some of the points raised in the last few posts:

If there is a difference in the names on the documents and the application it won't get as far as the Auscheck system. That's one of the things checked for at the interview. Any discrepancies in name require a formal change of name certificate, yes even for one letter.
.
The expiry is the end of the month two years after you get the clearance from Auscheck. eg if the clearance comes through on 5 Jan 2024, it will be valid until 31.1.26 and will say JAN 26

ASICS are needed at Security Controlled airports at the times they state in their Transport Security Program and an aerodrome employee can ask to see it.

ASICS are required by pilots to exercise the privileges of their licence under this regulation AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY REGULATIONS 2005 - REG 6.55 Exercise of privileges of flight crew licences etc (austlii.edu.au)

ATSR 6.55 is nothing to do with CASA and a CASA officer doesn't have the authority to ask to see your ASIC. The only time they want to see it is at licence application.

The reason having third parties in the process can make it take longer is if for example the issuing body requires that you go to Australia Post to have the documents checked, or another third party to do the printing.

Alleging that the issuing bodies are entering fraudulent information into Auscheck is a serious one and something that would get picked up striaght away anyway.

If you are unhappy about having an ASIC then rather than abusing the issuing bodies and their agents go and see your Federal MP. Being belligerent at the ID check raises a lot of red flags so things like swearing and being aggressive or accusing the agent of fraudulent activity without any evidence are not going to help your application.

Other countries often have a separate card for each aerodrome which is a lot more onerous.

There are lots of people who have ASICs that know nothing about aeroplanes, people who do runway works, mow the grass etc

Thanks, CP - I did not know that. It would seem that the random Auscheck processing time is why my ASIC seems to expire a month early every year.

Very true.. but you can be sure they are not acting alone and will have had at least some training on where not to go and what not to do as part of the job induction processes by their hiring company. It's part of the ASIC Sponsor's responsibility under the Act.

Many of the larger airports (I won't say all, because I am only familiar with procedures at MEL, SYD, BNE and PER) have site-specific inductions workers doing runway works, mowing the grass etc have to sit through as part of getting an ASIC through them as the Issuer - not that anyone checks that afterwards, but they might... you just never know.

As a valid ASIC & current holder - I am aware of airports that require them ( did say when asked it was at a port 1 was not required!!!!!!!!)
Security at airports before ASIC (9/11) worked fine - feel free to link the human FOD you refer to in your reply.
I have worked at a place even the janitor needed an ASIC - they did not provide him of ANY aircraft precautions during his application or approval - again please provide why an ASIC = safety or aircraft/airport knowledge.

If you get asked near daily for your ASIC, you must have that face - THE VAST most of us do not ever get asked to produce it.

Many places use just a airport access card to get airside, costs minimal requires the company to be responsible and issued immediate for a temp or about a week - even the Airforce 1 use these airports & not an ASIC in site.

Yeah, that's probably the biggest part of the joke. On a visit RAAF Williamtown a few years back, I discovered their security folks did not recognise an ASIC as valid ID: "Can I see your driver's license sir??" It's the Newcastle tarmac, FFS!

Hey, after I've gone to all this trouble begging and pleading to get one, I'd like to think that if Airport Security found some pleb wandering around airside without a valid ASIC, they'd have some explaining to do (and maybe that fine they speak of on the airside fence). Bah humbug!

Yes you NAILED IT the ASIC is a JOKE.

An expensive bureaucratic one, that I expect has NEVER found an "offender" & just wastes time and effort.

Time it became like the CASA DAMP guys an quietly vanished - and no safety was lost!

Just another failed experiment (sadly a gold mine for some kick back persons in government)

Your ASIC is getting earlier each time because you are putting in the application more than a month before it expires.
I'm not familiar with the word "sponsor" being in the act so a link would be helpful.

Also even freight forwarders who are ever alone in the workplace have to have a white ASIC. They don't have to be anywhere near the airport or have some kind of induction to airside.

yes and you have to do that if you want any guarantee of it turning up on time.

Rort.

Shoukd be a renew 2 months before and no change to expiry date like your medical, IPC etc.

Like I said, if you don't like it tell your local Federal MP, no point in shooting the messenger or posting here, I'm just trying to explain and put straight some of the misconceptions.

From the link you posted -
So your aviation security status is valid for 5 years, but we are subjected to background checks every two years and it appears to be at the same level as an initial issue of an ASIC. I'm not concerned with fraud, I'm concerned with red tape and the length of the process. Digging out a citizenship or birth certificate every two years to have it witnessed is red tape at its finest. This has become so onerous that AusCheck can't keep up and we see blow outs in processing time and the expiry date of ASICs marching backwards by a month every two years.

Don't get me wrong, an initial issue of an ASIC has to be thorough but why reinvent the wheel for renewals? How hard is it to figure out if you've had any criminal offences in the last two years? (which, by the way, the law states you must declare)

Absolutely agree with this!
I just think it's hilarious that the very, very important ASIC, which requires you to jump through all these hoops to get (including showing a Birth Certificate) is then not accepted as the form of identification for a renewal. For a known candidate! :ugh:​​​​​​​

But the alleged 'known candidate' could be some kind of 'face off' terrorist who's 'stolen' the face of an ASIC holder. It's happened in the movies, so it's possible.

When it comes to aviation security, one cannot be too careful.

Actually an ASIC is a Category C ID document.. Still need your Cat A and B as well though. Not any more value than a medicare card for the purpose of the ID check.

No one would argue with that.
As Clare said earlier, make the most of it whilst the commercial issuing bodies are processing the applications. Believe it or not, they share a lot of the concerns raised here and strive hard to get the cards out as quickly as possible. I doubt that the Department will have the same level of customer service focus.

Well that's awesome.

Apologies, CP - that was just me trying to find the appropriate word for it without spending hours looking it up.

Since the powers that be aren't just going to take someone's word for it that they need an ASIC, someone (an Australia-registered company) somewhere has to support your application. The requirements are even greater if (eg. as a Pilot) you need an AUS (Australia-wide) ASIC. That's who I was referring to. If you look on the back of your ASIC, you'll see who your "sponsor company" is. You don't get an ASIC without their backing and they are held directly responsible under the Act if you don't use it properly and/or return it when asked to.

But wait, it get's worse: If you look at the list of commercial issuing bodies posted up-thread, you'll see the vast majority are Airport Security at a local airport. These exist to, among other things, issue baggage handlers, ground staff, etc. with a local (non-AUS) ASIC or VIC. If not directly employed on-airport (eg. outside contractors), these folks need not only an Approval from their boss via the ASIC Online system, but supporting approval from the on-airport company they contract to. To get an AUS ASIC they also need a supporting letter from another airport or on airport operator in another state - that's up to three different Approvals just to get airside!!! Bureaucracy to the max...:(

As pilots we don't need to jump through that many hoops - yet. But we will - just wait.

On the back of your ASIC is the Issuing Body and the address to return the card to on expiry. Not a "sponsor" which is a completely different thing and not applicable to ASICs at all. I think you are confusing this with working visas, where a sponsor takes responsibility if the visa holder breaches their visa conditions or commits a crime. I know this as I have been a sponsor for 420 visas. There is no regulatory requirement for anything to be printed on the back of the card.

Ground staff only get an ASIC for the airport they are working at, they don't need an AUS one. It is possible to have more than one ASIC if they do work at more than one airport. (The same background check applies)

All a pilot needs for their "operational need" for an AUS ASIC is to show their pilot licence. A student pilot needs a letter from their school to say they are currently undergoing training, these do get checked.

Be careful what you wish for, in some countries the pilots DO need to have a security card for each airport they go into. So having one for the whole country is better than that.

CP, perhaps there's no regulatory requirement for it, but the words "Original Sponsor", followed by the name of the company we work for, certainly appear on the back of all of ours underneath the name and address of the Issuing Body. I believe the on-airport Approvers are also referred to as "sponsors". I believe the same would be true of ASICs issued to pilots by eg. Qantas, since they're not an Issuing Body. YMMV.

The company name used to appear on the front of the ASIC, but apparently that confused too many poor, overworked, security people so they're all plain-jane now.

None of that is true. Many ground staff work at multiple airports Australia-wide and all (that I know of, including myself) can and are issued with AUS ASICs. As far as I am aware, it is no longer possible to obtain multiple local ones - if for no other reason that the cost and paperwork would be seriously prohibitive!

As for the rest, we do agree. :)