[I]t seems almost like someone in CASA thinks the only way to keep pilots and the public safe is to keep them on the ground.... for any spurious reason they can think of!
It's a bit more complex than that.
When you read all the material about "evidence-based risk management" of aviation medical issues, one of the purported benefits is that people who might otherwise not have met the 'standard' for medical certification may still be able to fly.
Great idea!
In principle.
After all, we can see all the people who would, in the past, have not achieved the standard but are now allowed to fly, subject to limitations.
The reason it's not such a good idea in practice is that it is a
perfect platform for a bureacrat on a crusade to demand to know
everything about
every aspect of a person's life that
could impact on his or her 'safety' in the air, so that the bureacrat can condescend to kindly grant (at a fee and after a delay) a conditional permission for the person to be present in the sky (hopefully accompanied by grovelling thanks for the privilege).
How else would the bureacrat be able to understand the risk, so as to manage and protect the public by preventing the 30,000' death plunge? The bureacrat
must know
everything about an individual in order to make a proper assessment about how to protect the public against the individual's 'conditions'. The bureacrat must have powers to demand information relevant to the assessment of the risk and must have power to place limitations to deal with the assessed risk.
Who else will protect the public from these risks?
Although it pains me to say it, the number of respondents to the Petition confirms for me a concern that I've had for a long time: Most participants in aviation in Australia are apathetic or cowards. That's why they continue to be treated like livestock.