Originally Posted by
Nowluke
vis Jim, it all appears pretty reasonable, he probably would have met the threshold in some guidelines for some more invasive cardiac screening (CCT/Angio) years before his stroke if you take him as a Class 1 who does single pilot air show work and some instructing. Retrospectively his condition may have been present for a number of years prior and wasn't/couldn't be detected. If all of the required/indicated investigations were negative and then guidelines stratified him into lower risk cohorts of diabetic, hypertensive elderly men he may not be (in the narrative he obviously isn't') above the level where his Class 1 is revoked. What's the exact issue? There is a conflict though at around that age, where as it was raised, it doesn't really matter how many negative tests you have, it's getting close to closing time percentage wise- this conflict I understand is based on age discrimination issues, you can't blanketly revoke licences on that basis and there aren't sensitive enough tests to demonstrate prospectively what pathology Jim has.
And yet, despite all that extensive, invasive screening, investigations, long history and stratification into lower risk cohorts (presumably by individual experts) among the large statistical population of Type 2 diabetics, Jim then went on to have a "surprise" stroke before the year was out. Perhaps if CASA had used this case study to then document and publish some revised, substantially more cautious approach to dealing with the patently obvious high risk Jim posed, then that might justify CASA's inconsistent statistical approach in these two cases. That's the exact issue. You, and CASA, have used the fewer (but still sufficient for statistical analysis) data points associated with "nominally cured" DAVFs as a blanket excuse to bend the incapacitation risk to a level the data/maths does not support.