Legal challenges to Avmed are likely to be counterproductive, because it locks them into a position and forces them to put together a case to show why they should NOT grant a medical. It means any additional information needs to be much stronger before they will change their position.
And that’s another fundamental flaw in the system.
If CASA were, in fact, an objective evidence-based and objective risk-based regulator, it would inexorably follow that a challenge in the AAT to a decision to suspend a person’s medical certificate should make
zero difference to CASA’s subsequent assessment of the person. That’s because, as a matter of objective fact, there is
no causal connection between a person’s compliance or otherwise with a medical standard and the existence or otherwise of an AAT challenge to Avmed’s decision that the person does not comply with the standard.
“It means any additional information needs to be much stronger before they will change their position.” That’s not being objective.
Avmed is emotionally engaged in the ‘defence’ of these decisions. That’s why they emphasise some things and downplay others, and selectively quote and interpret, in their statements and requests for “independent” opinions. That’s why the AAT in the Bolton matter disregarded the opinion of Avmed’s Principal Medical Officer.
My view is CASA should not be the contradictor - the other ‘side’ - in these AAT matters in the first place.