I have no insight into what’s really going on, but I wouldn’t be surprised if CASA is hoping to use the AAT as a shield against those ‘foreign Avmed departments’.
“We tried to stop this ‘dangerous’ situation, but alas the AAT overrode us.”
I’ve been thinking about the ‘overriding’ principle of ‘safety’ when it comes to “any sort of impairment on the pilot”. I’d be interested in knowing if anyone else has made the same observation as me about a common impairment of pilots involved in accidents or incidents: The majority of pilots I know who’ve been involved in accidents or incidents are suffering androgenetic alopecia.
If that’s the general experience, surely the precautionary principle would be to ‘ground’ or restrict all pilots suffering androgenetic alopecia until a study has confirmed whether there is a causal link between that condition and safety. Unlike CVD, there’s positive evidence of a correlation between pilots with androgenetic alopecia and accidents and incidents. The ‘safety’ justification for ‘grounding’ or limiting these pilots until a causal link is disproved is therefore ‘stronger’ than for CVD. Surely it would be ‘dangerous’ not to do so?