The poor PMO's not having a good run this year in the AAT...
It's interesting in para 46 of the second decision how he stresses the importance of "evidence based medicine". He's certainly not looking at any of the evidence in the CVD matter.
Ryan and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 494 (18 July 2014)
The decision under review is set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that a condition requiring the provision to the respondent of alcohol screening tests on a quarterly basis not be imposed on the applicant’s class 1 or class 2 medical certificates.
1. The applicant, Mr Peter Ryan, is a commercial pilot by occupation. He holds a commercial pilot (helicopter) licence and a private pilot (fixed wing) licence. The respondent, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, is of the view that Mr Ryan may have a problem with alcohol abuse. In February 2014, when the Authority renewed his aviation medical certificate, it imposed a condition which required him to undertake quarterly alcohol screening tests and to forward the results of those tests to the Authority.
2. Mr Ryan objects to the imposition of the condition. He says that it is unnecessary and unwarranted. He seeks a review of the Authority's decision to impose the condition.
3. For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mr Ryan is correct. The evidence does not warrant the imposition of such a condition.
22. The case for the Authority relies upon studies that show an increased risk of alcohol-related accidents or incidents in pilots who had been convicted of drink-driving. These studies led Dr Pooshan Navathe, the Authority's Principal Medical Officer and the decision maker in the present case, to conclude:
1. A history of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is a serious issue from an aviation perspective.
Whether that is so or not seems to me not to matter. The issue in the present case is whether the material establishes that Mr Ryan engaged in, or had a personal history of, the problematic use of alcohol. In my view it does not. That being so, I conclude that Mr Ryan satisfies the only criteria in issue in these proceedings and thus meets the medical standard for class 1 and class 2 medical certificates.
Hoore and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AATA 292 (13 May 2014)
The Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 31 May 2013 to cancel Mr Hoore's medical certificates.
The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration with the direction that at the time of the reviewable decision the extent to which the applicant did not meet the medical standards for a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation if the following conditions are imposed..."
35. A/Prod Navathe went on to explain in oral testimony the possible consequences of a seizure of a pilot in the cockpit. During a seizure the person can have sometimes quite violent spasms, contractures of the body and limbs and would become incapacitated. In a single pilot operation this would be obviously disastrous. In a dual control cockpit with two pilots, a fitting pilot could interfere with the controls such as the rudder or the control column. An unconscious pilot could slump forward onto the control column. In addition the second pilot could find the situation distracting, which could be dangerous if in a critical stage of flight.
36. Mr Hoore does not contest this but highlights an inconsistency in the respondent's argument, pointing out that CASA does not regulate the health of passengers who can sit in the second control seat in dual control aircraft. Such passengers could be subject to seizures with the same potential outcome.
46. The respondent points out that every decision is made case-by-case and is based on individual circumstances. No two situations are the same.
A/Prof Navathe explained in considerable detail the regulatory medical decision-making process in his written submission
[5] and in oral testimony.
He stressed the role of evidence based medicine and the collegial nature of the decision making process. He explained the medical staff of CASA are experienced in aviation medicine and many of the doctors hold pilots licences and are experienced pilots. A/Prof Navathe explained that before a decision is made to suspend a medical certificate, the case is referred to the Complex Case Management (CCM) Committee to gain a broader opinion from his colleagues in the medical branch of CASA. This process was followed for Mr Hoore and notes of the CCM of 29 May 2013 are included in evidence.
50. Mr Hoore also questioned the consistency of CASA's own regulations in relation to their risk analysis on the second pilot in his case. In his submission
[7] he referred to CASR
Part 61.405 that provides pilots with the option of having a drivers medical certificate, which he sees as being of a lesser standard but more easily achievable. This is evidenced by the restriction placed on such pilots by the regulation, that they can carry no more than one passenger. However, this restriction is lifted if there is a licenced pilot in the second control seat. This he asserts is clear evidence that CASA accepts the ameliorating effect a second pilot has on the risk to air safety.
63. We have concluded, and indeed it was never a contentious issue, that Mr Hoore does not meet the medical standard for the issue of either a Class 1 or Class 2 medical certificate. The extent to which Mr Hoore fails to meet the standard is unlikely to endanger the safety of air navigation with conditions imposed to ameliorate that situation. The respondent believes no such conditions exist. We disagree with this determination. We have accordingly imposed conditions, which require, inter alia, that the applicant fly at all times with an appropriately qualified and rated pilot.
