CASA and CASR Part 61
Thread Starter
Part 61 and DLMA holders
After slowly wading through this document I note, that not unexpectedly, CASA has been very slippery with the change from the old Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) to the new RAMPC which will probably disqualify 95% of the current DLMA holders.
It is my understanding that the DLMA was introduced so that many holders of Class 2 medicals who had difficulty with the Class 2 requirements could continue to fly under certain conditions, Day VFR, one passenger, aircraft under 1500 kg etc.
The new CASR Part 61 states
Are there any differences between the Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) and the new RAMPC?
The RAMPC replaced the Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) (DLMA) on 1 September 2014. The DLMA was based on an exemption granted by the Director of Aviation Safety on 29 June 2012. It allowed holders of a CASA-issued student pilot licence, PPL, CPL or ATPL to fly without a medical certificate when the pilot was conducting private operations, complied with certain limitations and had undergone a modified driver licence medical examination.
The requirements of the new RAMPC are essentially the same; however there is no need for an exemption under the new Part 61 rules.
That all sounds pretty good until you look at the new application form where one very tricky little paragraph has been slipped in which removes a large proportion of the old DLMA medical holders from the sky forever.
CASA Medical Audit conditions
Where an applicant is currently subject to a CASA medical audit they will be unable to hold a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate.
Under a Class 2 Medical Certificate which is
endorsed with ‘CASA audit required’ applicants have the ability to hold a certificate which can then be
revalidated by a DAME but CASA will audit the certificate before it is issued. The nature of a
Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate
does not allow an applicant who is subject to
CASA medical audit conditions to hold a
Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate
due to the requirement the certificate be unconditional.
I would hazard a guess that about 90% or more of DLMA holders have "CASA Audit Required" on their old class 2 and can no longer be bothered jumping through the hoops required by AvMed. The simple Clause 12 above removes any chance of older pilots flying under a reduced medical standard and makes the new RAMPC effectively the same as a Class 2 but without the privileges.
At the end of the day it will be another few hundred pilots not flying and the legal people or AvMed completely neutralising the effects of the earlier exemption.
What a shame!!
It is my understanding that the DLMA was introduced so that many holders of Class 2 medicals who had difficulty with the Class 2 requirements could continue to fly under certain conditions, Day VFR, one passenger, aircraft under 1500 kg etc.
The new CASR Part 61 states
Are there any differences between the Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) and the new RAMPC?
The RAMPC replaced the Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) (DLMA) on 1 September 2014. The DLMA was based on an exemption granted by the Director of Aviation Safety on 29 June 2012. It allowed holders of a CASA-issued student pilot licence, PPL, CPL or ATPL to fly without a medical certificate when the pilot was conducting private operations, complied with certain limitations and had undergone a modified driver licence medical examination.
The requirements of the new RAMPC are essentially the same; however there is no need for an exemption under the new Part 61 rules.
That all sounds pretty good until you look at the new application form where one very tricky little paragraph has been slipped in which removes a large proportion of the old DLMA medical holders from the sky forever.
CASA Medical Audit conditions
Where an applicant is currently subject to a CASA medical audit they will be unable to hold a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate.
Under a Class 2 Medical Certificate which is
endorsed with ‘CASA audit required’ applicants have the ability to hold a certificate which can then be
revalidated by a DAME but CASA will audit the certificate before it is issued. The nature of a
Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate
does not allow an applicant who is subject to
CASA medical audit conditions to hold a
Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate
due to the requirement the certificate be unconditional.
I would hazard a guess that about 90% or more of DLMA holders have "CASA Audit Required" on their old class 2 and can no longer be bothered jumping through the hoops required by AvMed. The simple Clause 12 above removes any chance of older pilots flying under a reduced medical standard and makes the new RAMPC effectively the same as a Class 2 but without the privileges.
At the end of the day it will be another few hundred pilots not flying and the legal people or AvMed completely neutralising the effects of the earlier exemption.
What a shame!!
Last edited by flywatcher; 15th Dec 2014 at 10:34. Reason: Rename
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the point of making a RAMPC available then? They are precluding exactly the type of person who would need one in the first place. My understanding is that the lower requirements of the DLMA were risk mitigated by the limitations stated in the previous post (<1500kg, 2POB, Day VFR)
The only useful application I can now see is to allow new students to conduct their first solo sooner, without having to wait an obscene amount of time for a class 2 to arrive in the mail.
The only useful application I can now see is to allow new students to conduct their first solo sooner, without having to wait an obscene amount of time for a class 2 to arrive in the mail.
5-in-50,
In reality, there was no risk to mitigate.
In reality, as opposed to the history of aviation medical so called "standards", there has been little understanding of real, as opposed to imagined risks.
Don't forget that these so called medical standards arose from air force aircrew medical standards, which were imposed to exclude most candidates, not include.
As with colour perception standards, Australia pioneered the use of "drivers License" medical standards via the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia, with something north of 10,000 pilots and absolutely no evidence, over 25 plus years, of medically related increased risk, either to pilots themselves, their passengers, or those on the ground.
After all, 100% of pilots medically self certify before flying, except for one day a year, the day of the medical.
Having pioneered the driver's license medical, it's introduction more widely via a CASA "standard" was always going to be a stuff up, it never was a driver's license medical at all, and the medical and operational restrictions have no basis in reality, they are no more than what could be achieved by the proponents within CASA against concerted opposition.
Australia having pioneered the driver license medical standard, it is very sad to see Australia dropping behind our aviation peers, as genuine driver's license medical standards, following Australia's original example, are introduced elsewhere.
Instead, what do we have here -- a completely unjustified "tightening up" across the board, in the name of what?? There is no evidence that medical standards pre. Dr. Navathe were an aviation risk (or "unsafe", if you prefer the "safe" word), and justified what has happened.
Rule by law!!
Tootle pip!!
PS: A mate of mine has just told me that the biggest reason for loss of license right now is diabetes, not because of an epidemic of the disease amongst airline pilots, but because CASA has changed the definition of diabetes.
In reality, there was no risk to mitigate.
In reality, as opposed to the history of aviation medical so called "standards", there has been little understanding of real, as opposed to imagined risks.
Don't forget that these so called medical standards arose from air force aircrew medical standards, which were imposed to exclude most candidates, not include.
As with colour perception standards, Australia pioneered the use of "drivers License" medical standards via the AUF, now Recreational Aviation Australia, with something north of 10,000 pilots and absolutely no evidence, over 25 plus years, of medically related increased risk, either to pilots themselves, their passengers, or those on the ground.
After all, 100% of pilots medically self certify before flying, except for one day a year, the day of the medical.
Having pioneered the driver's license medical, it's introduction more widely via a CASA "standard" was always going to be a stuff up, it never was a driver's license medical at all, and the medical and operational restrictions have no basis in reality, they are no more than what could be achieved by the proponents within CASA against concerted opposition.
Australia having pioneered the driver license medical standard, it is very sad to see Australia dropping behind our aviation peers, as genuine driver's license medical standards, following Australia's original example, are introduced elsewhere.
Instead, what do we have here -- a completely unjustified "tightening up" across the board, in the name of what?? There is no evidence that medical standards pre. Dr. Navathe were an aviation risk (or "unsafe", if you prefer the "safe" word), and justified what has happened.
Rule by law!!
Tootle pip!!
PS: A mate of mine has just told me that the biggest reason for loss of license right now is diabetes, not because of an epidemic of the disease amongst airline pilots, but because CASA has changed the definition of diabetes.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even stranger, in the CASA RAMPC FAQs, they state:
So if you don't meet the class 2 standards, you can get a RAMPC, but if you do conditionally meet the class 2 standards, you can't get a RAMPC. That makes no sense.
- S
Q. I failed my Class 2 medical. Can I still apply for a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate ?
Yes, you are still eligible to fly under a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate as long as you meet that medical standard and you follow the instructions on the CASA website.
Yes, you are still eligible to fly under a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate as long as you meet that medical standard and you follow the instructions on the CASA website.
- S
