Sarcs # 1887 "However after reading some of the QONs perhaps there is a reason for the, usually efficient, committee Secretariat delaying the index".
The late release of the QON index, for several reasons makes it a remarkably interesting document when H18 is considered. Now I know you'll all moan and groan as each one is a bloody tedious read, but I have (yawn) ploughed my way through the pertinent sections (yawn) and saved you the reading of it (yawn) some of the potted highlights as follows:-
As H18/14 (ICAO differences) has only just been very quietly (stealthily even) released before the delayed Index; and, as Sarcs mentions the medical differences section combined with searching QON (Fawcett) particularly as related to CVD is of interest. Anyway you care to read it, the 'personality' of the driving, urgent need for ICAO compliance in this one small area; irrespective of science or safety outcomes has had a big say in the drafting of the ICAO difference. Perhaps Voodoo is de rigueur these days. The answers to the Fawcett QON will be 'interesting'.
The whole feel of the 'medical' issues is that of Rafferty's rules, of signed confessions and one mans word against that of 'expert' opinion. Lets hope the opportunity to delve deeply into exactly WTF is Avmed playing at eventuates, before confession of an afternoon nap or a pricking in your thumbs becomes lay evidence to ground a fleet.
Fawcett could do worse than have a look at the treatment AMSA received and do the same to CASA. Having a passing interest in matters nautical; I had a quick squiz at the QON to AMSA. Oh dear; someone has been monkeying with their 'Orders' and the troops are definitely not happy. Didn't count them, but looked like about 60 seriously well researched questions, asked by a very well briefed Senator, who didn't seem to think much of the changes. All the questions are written and I would hate to be the one burning the midnight oil trying to unravel the mess. Perhaps we could do the same thing with the CASA 'new' regulations; force then to justify the things, challenge every sentence and make 'em fix 'em up. Poor old AMSA legal eh?.
Sarcs –" PS. There is a DJ link in all this too (i.e. Wodger's wodgering)...MTF".
You're getting too good at this, had me going for a while, more bloody reading. Good catch though; if DJ chooses to use it; also explains the indecent haste to get that Part 61 crock up and running.
To explain; DJ (Pel Air swimming team fame) has now twice passed all the ATPL subjects and meets the qualifiers to hold and exercise a command >5700 Kgs. Loosely described, CASA are insisting on a flight test, with their special 'examiners' and offer no guidance as to where the pass/fail benchmark is. DJ has quite naturally declined the kind offer, sighting the expense of hiring an undefined but 'suitable' aircraft, covering the expenses and generally paying for a 'chop' as opposed to an un-required (by law) 'check' flight. This administrative embuggerance (cheers Sunny) is perpetrated despite the latest ICAO difference stating categorically that an ATPL flight test is not required; thus making the DJ flight test a 'unique' Australian safety milestone. Bloody amazing.
ICAO Annex 1- 2.6.1.3 Skill. Notified difference....
Para 2.6.1.3.1 There is no requirement that applicants for an ATPL(A) demonstrate their ability to perform as pilot-in-command of a multi-engine aeroplane required to be operated with a co-pilot.
Para 2.6.1.3.1.2 Australian legislation does not specify demonstrated ability
Toot toot.