Originally Posted by
lucille
A holder of a bare (say) CPL who hasn’t been near an aircraft in 20 years is most definitely not a pilot. Likewise, the holder of an MBBS who has spent 20 years polishing seats in a bureaucracy is most definitely not a doctor.
My understanding is that many past and present CASA Avmed staff are very experienced medical practitioners. However, my observation and experience over the last dozen or so years is that the staff have a misconception about the practical importance of regulatory medical certification in aviation safety. It’s really not that important in the ‘big scheme of things’ in the 21st century, especially in a country like Australia, given the medical professionals and facilities we have. (Fighter pilots, astronauts and aerobatic pilots probably need a bit more specialised attention, but for the rest of us…)
My favourite erstwhile PMO is Dr Navathe, as he provided regular insights into the mindset that has been driving the CASA Avmed function for quite some time. In one AAT matter he made the observation that a pilot licence ‘goes on forever’ and it’s actually the medical certificate that determines whether a pilot can or cannot fly. (It’s a nonsensical concept, simply on the basis of the laws of physics. What he meant was ‘lawfully’ be the PIC of an aircraft. Even then, all day, every day, thousands of pilots fly safely as PIC without a piece of squashed tree issued by CASA Avmed. But that’s not the substantial issue.)
The substantial issue is the messianic view that Avmed is the last bastion between the public and potential carnage caused by unfit pilots. Accordingly - so their logic goes - Avmed ‘must’:
- know ‘everything’ that could possibly be indicative of any and all of the large number of “potential aero-medically significant conditions” that, in Avmed’s opinion, exist out there
- require whatever is the ‘gold standard’ test to find out whether a pilot does or does not have any of those conditions, no matter how costly, intrusive or dangerous the test may be for the pilot, and
- in the case of a detected ‘condition’ – impose the most stringent requirements to ‘manage’ and monitor the condition, assuming the pilot is not ‘grounded’.
I’ve said it publicly before: Any idiot with access to the internet can do that. I always hasten to add that Avmed staff are not idiots. Far from it. But the fact is anyone with a low average IQ or better and access to the internet can do the things I’ve listed above.
A few medicals ago I said to the DAME, as we tried to make sense of the questions in CASA Avmed’s MRS: “This is just a system of entrapment.” He said: “Yep”. (That was in between the DAME’s frustrated observations that: “These questions are stupid.”)
People are more and more averse to answering Avmed questions in a way that will ‘trigger’ the ‘trap’ and Avmed, knowing that is happening, spends its days trying to come up with ever-more creative ways to set the ‘trap’.
As I say, the ‘yawning trust gap’ is a result.
Members of the public will intuitively believe that the Avmed approach I’ve set out above is keeping the skies ‘safe’. If only they knew the approach is actually driving problems ‘underground’. And imagine how the public would react if they understood that all day, every day, Boeing 737 sized aircraft full of passengers are sharing the skies and coming into proximity with aircraft that are:
- piloted by people who are not licensed by CASA and not certified medically fit by CASA
- not certified airworthy by CASA, and
- not under air traffic control.
That’s not to suggest those activities should stop. Rather, it is to suggest that if those activities are considered by CASA to be “acceptably safe” and “appropriate”, anything giving rise to lower risks must “safer” and “more appropriate”.