During CASA’s appearance in front of the Estimates hearing on 13 February 2023, Ms Spence said:
We process around 25,000 medical applications a year. We refuse a hundred.
I got an immediate giddy-spin of déjà vu. That’s because on 20 November 2020, Mr Carmody said this to the General Aviation Inquiry:
In the last 12 months we approved 25,000 aviation medicals and rejected 84.
Simply astonishing that the number is so neatly round and consistent. As a consequence of Mr Carmody’s assertion and that old saying about statistics, I made a supplementary submission to the Committee (available
here) which says, among other things:
As a preliminary point, I note that despite my deep understanding of Part 67 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, I am not sure what an “aviation medical” “approval” is. For the purpose of this submission, I assume that the CEO of CASA’s assertion was about the number of times CASA issued a medical certificate or equivalent in the specified period. However, as is often the case when raw statistics are cited without further definition (and in this case “25,000” seems a remarkably round figure) my assumption could be wrong.
I submit, based on my first-hand knowledge and discussions with medical professionals and flying colleagues, that CASA Avmed now demands tests and examinations, and imposes conditions and restrictions on medical certificates, many of which are not justified on objective evidence, risk and medical grounds. The assertion that CASA “approved 25,000 aviation medicals” provides no insight into the conditions and restrictions imposed on those certificates [nor what tests Avmed demanded before the certificate would be issued].
I respectfully urge the Committee to ask CASA these questions:
1. In respect of the “25,000 aviation medicals” to which reference was made on 20 November 2020:
(a) How many of the holders of or applicants for “aviation medicals” were required to undergo tests or examinations that could not ordinarily be done by the DAME or DAO in his or her premises?
(b) How many of those tests and examinations were considered necessary by the DAME/DAO and qualified specialists with knowledge of the holder’s/applicant’s particular circumstances?
(c) What is CASA's estimate of the dollar cost of those tests and examinations?
(d) How many conditions/restrictions, other than conditions/restrictions relating to vision correction, were imposed on the “aviation medicals”?
(e) How many of those conditions/restrictions were considered necessary by the DAME/DAO and qualified specialists with knowledge of the holder’s/applicant’s particular circumstances?
2. On how many occasions has a pilot with a ‘safety pilot’ condition/restriction on his or her medical certificate by CASA Avmed suffered an episode requiring the intervention of the ‘safety pilot’ (noting that circumstances of that kinds must be reported to the ATSB and ATSB would routinely disclose the circumstances to CASA)?
The lovely round statistics disguise the extent of the costs and damage caused by Avmed overreach in the process of applicants trying to get a certificate.
Back to the 13 February 2023 hearing. A chap by the name of Andreas Marcelja - I think I have the spelling correct, and my apologies to him if I haven’t - said this in response to the Committee’s first question:
All pilots are required to have a medical certificate.
No they’re not. Not all pilots are required to have a medical certificate. You’d think CASA would know that. That’s why there’s been an exodus of pilots to flying activities out of Avmed’s reach.
The same Mr Marcelja proceeded to express views about the aeromedical significance of a pilot’s minor kidney stones which remained after medical procedures that were already in excess of what the treating specialist considered necessary. I googled Mr Marcela’s name. I can’t find any reference to his specialist qualifications as a nephrologist or urologist, or even as a medical doctor. Nor did he express any opinion as to the probabilities of the minor kidney stones causing the terrible consequences that are always conjured up to scare people. Those probabilities are the important bit, because any risk can be conjured into a disaster.
And then CASA repeated its the denial of the existence of any perverse incentive for people to withhold information from Avmed. CASA officials might do themselves (and others) a favour by watching the proceedings of the ‘Robodebt’ Royal Commission to see the response to officials ‘in the witness box’ who steadfastly deny the existence of the bleeding obvious.