I will, in due course get this research organised for the "Empire Strikes Back" thread; but seeing as medical issues are attracting some belated attention; and, are pertinent to any form 'regulatory' look see; and, affect almost everyone – thought I'd post it here, as a lead to some of the more contentious issues surrounding Avmed v Aircrew. Mind you, the WLR is too small a blade to carve up this turkey – please, let's bring in the Senate crew, open the whole mess up and once and for all time, clear out this unholy mess long hidden away from public view.
Been looking back at some of the AAT medical cases, there is a very definite pattern which emerges from some of the highly 'combative', medically contentious cases. The most curious part of the pattern is the extraordinary lengths to which the Avmed puppets will go to in support of seemingly preordained, micro management edicts, from 'above'.
"I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved."...
The juxtaposition and the high risk element for Avmed is seen in the CASA submission on Hempel; where some interesting legal tap dancing isolates the 'management' from Avmed thrill seekers.
Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.
This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.
There are some interesting by plays and side bars, notably where Avmed is confronted by real 'expert' testimony. the response is a long winded 'statistical' argument, which proves little; leaving the empirical expert testimony remaining – untouched and undisturbed.
OA# 220 - One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.
Another point of interest are the 'play the man' tactics used, and it's easy pickings. Any pilot medical condition is easily isolated as 'individual', and may, with some impunity be viewed on a 'case by case' basis. Each CVR pilot for example must negotiate terms and by default becomes the target; can we not have a clearly defined 'blanket' rule to cover them all in one fell swoop. As any medical condition does not in any legal sense affect the operator, this further isolates the individual (putting company and union assistance to one side). This takes almost every medical argument to a 'one-on-one' bun-fight, where a preordained, subjective outcome may be argued by the experts from both teams. Bloggs is on his (and or her) own, left to face down 'the authority' without comparable resources. The pilot left to slug it out in the AAT (bad move) or court. Both expensive options, with no guarantee of outcome unless Avmed can be trapped, in clear breach or in another monumental, statistical bluff. No Joyce, the rose coloured glasses will not assist; not this time.
Rummaging about in three past and one pending case (put you to sleep stuff; but the devil does reside in the details) where clear, expert evidence as demanded by Avmed has been waived away, subjectively dismissed and/or ignored as pleases, despite outraged howls of protest. It's passing strange that 'expert medical' testimony is heard by 'legal experts', who can only, with the best will in the world, rule on the law and perhaps, on how the 'evidence' was obtained, how it was translated, by whom and to what ultimate purpose. All the fun of the legal fair – right there.
So, what then can our CVD colleagues expect in light of history, not much is the short answer. The 'official' position is to try and knock out opposing expert testimony. I still can't believe that Dr. Arthur Pape has been given so much grief, allegedly over one, important post here on
Pprune. Blow me down what's next ?, threaten the applicant; or, find a comma or better yet a big juicy full stop out of place somewhere, somehow. Whoever predetermines what's going to happen and to whom, should be tarred, feathered and run out of Dodge on a rail.
Perhaps the WLR crew can sort it all out, save a world's worth of trouble and money. Just tell Avmed to down size, get real, get out of court, develop or copy some reasonable rules, administer those rules in a timely manner, stop buggering everybody about and let the DAME do their job and issue the certificates. Where is the problem ?- We know children, don't we?
Not done with subject research yet, perhaps CASA will sponsor the research. Sane medical rules for all (and keep fit classes and yoga and herbal tea) Too many details and head scratchin' for a sleepy Sunday arvo; time for tea and perhaps a cheese scone, if my luck holds.
CJ – The river is slow, but the houseboat is patient. Toot toot. (Big smile icon).