Ulm,
Re medicals and ultralights. There is a case currently going through the WA courts where an ultalight pilot had a heart attack shortly after takeoff and died. The resulting crash has left his passenger a virtual cripple. It has subsequently been revealed that the deceased pilot was told by a doctor that due to his ill health he should not even be driving a car. So to say medicals and ultralights are not an issue is an abhorrent disregard of any sense of responsibility. Especially where carting around a passenger, fare paying or not.
If the pilot in the Victorian case was flying an ultralight under AUF regs then fair enough. But the fact of the matter is that he wasn't. He was flying an an aircraft of approx 1179kg MTOW with a substantially poorer engine out glide capability that your Gemini Thruster or the like.
Now to play Geoffery Robinson and a quick game of Hypothetical here:
What would be the opinion of those currently opposed to CASA's stance had they (CASA) known of the medical deficiencies and failed to act and whilst allowing that pilot to continue to fly, he perhaps has a medical seizure in flight and crashes into a crowded school yard?
I'd suggest those same protagonists would be screaming for the blood of the regulator.
And as for AOPA being the regulator of GA. Well if the info posted on other threads is anything to go on, they seem to be having a nightmare of trying to regulate themselves. The analogy of
"letting the fox lose in the hen house" comes to mind