14 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.
35 The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination.
Once the new bored settles in and the Part 61 etc dust settles, one of the high priority items must be the taming of the Avmed department. You could reasonably expect that between the WLR recommendations 14 and 35 the department would become essentially 'administrative'; reducing cost to government, red tape and solving one of industries major headaches. But the litigious, interfering, penchant for subjective judgements and AAT grand standing habit has become deeply engrained to the point of addiction. The case being discussed on the Tiger thread is an indication of the 'norm' as are the CVD issues and the many other matters medical confronting industry. It's time to put a stop to it. Caution minuscule – incoming ordanance.
The –
Ryan - finding is a most satisfactory ruling – but will it stop Avmed from colluding with every rag bag complaint which hits their email? Apparently not. Must we all now accept that the era of psychic testing, by ESP has arrived?. I'm certain there is much 'research' to support the construct..
The Ryan case set me to thinking about how Avmed (CASA) could deal with the 'false' or lay accusation of substance abuse; clearly some form of response is required. So, digging down a little further I wondered how Avmed is or could be alerted to a potential problem, and what is the 'best' option (solution) – for everyone. There are countless scenarios but, just for this exercise:
The easy one. Caught on the job; a staff member turns up, someone thinks it's time for a DAMP test; positive=clear path; negative=same-same. Proof positive on the spot, not of history – but of the instance. This seems to be a relatively straight forward process; positive? medical 'suspended'; do the tests and there is a clear trail from start to finish of a 'fair and reasonable' process. The random 'on the job' filter and the 'Booze bus' are reasonable deterrents to 'honest folk'.
The tricky one. Take the Ryan example, were there 'reasonable' grounds for suspending? Given the history offered, it may, conceivably be reasonable to ask for an independent, external 'expert' evaluation. Ryan made a signed confession of DUI etc, but as subsequent testing identified 'no chronic or future' problems, that should have been an end of it; even a 'blood test' specified at the next routine medical would have been acceptable (to be sure, to be sure). Ryan honestly admitted the incident, Avmed acted reasonably in the first instance. The twisted logic which got him to the AAT is where the system fails; additional unwarranted testing not only decries the 'expert' opinion, it presumes that Avmed knows better. If indeed Avmed do know better, why then the farce of demanding 'external' opinion from experts. Same thing with 'sugar' and 'cardiac' issues – where expert, self funded opinion is simply brushed aside – does Mummy always know best?
The evil one. There is a fellah at –
Tiger – (Sorry some posts have been removed which makes the thread a little disjointed) who has allegedly been 'accused' of narcotics abuse (Cocaine is the rumour). As presented, there is no, non whatsoever substantive proof or empirical evidence (that we know of), just a vague reference to - '
someone' - informing the ATSB, the CASA and the parent company that the Captain Guy (for ease) was 'using'. Say you were at company 'management' level, supervising Guy and the accusation (not allegation) was anonymously slipped under your door, or whispered in a corridor, how would you treat it?. If the 'accusation' was sent through company channels, how would you deal with it?: if CASA out of the blue suspended Guy's medical on a 'tip off', what then? Where to start?
Well a browse through the return statistics from DAMP and a couple of other 'authoritative' studies indicate that mathematically at least, the chances of having a dipsomaniac or drug fiend on the books are pretty remote. Government have spent a small fortune to establish this as 'fact'. A look back through Guy's track record and circumstances would give a clearer indication of 'character', a chat with his colleagues would lead to further detail being revealed. In short; before the company suspended Guy and made it 'official', a whole world of 'investigation' and protocol would be gone through.
IF there was an identified problem, company DAMP policy would swing in and the road to rehabilitation taken. If there was no problem identified, then the exonerated Guy should be returned to duty. A professional pilot would (should) understand the reasons for company 'caution' and whereas feathers may be ruffled; no serious lasting harm has been done, his mates will always support; his enemies will always slip one in; the neutrals will just get on with life.
But it's a bit rum, when an anonymous complaint has been vindictively made and CASA weigh in without a skerrick of 'proof' to aid and abet what is essentially an unfounded rumour, made by a layman. Then, having been proven wrong, take steps to protect the accuser from righteous indignation and civil action. You can't even accuse a kid of lifting a bag of lolly's without 'proof', beyond reasonable doubt, let alone a senior Captain of being a drug fiend..It is, without test results difficult to prove.
The question is of course, why did the 'complainant' not demand a DAMP test AT THE TIME? – why the delay?– why was the company system not alerted before Avmed got involved? Two options, either the company system is so flawed that only direct contact with 'authorities' could guarantee that action would be taken, which implies 'everyone' knew but did nothing. Alternatively, this was a cowardly, vicious personal attack executed as an underhand act with much malice and aforethought.
It is easy for the layman to become an instant 'expert' on –
DRUGS – and –
BOOZE – easy to arrive at a wrong conclusion and easier again to make an accusation without foundation. I can see why, with a failed DAMP, the company would suspend; I could even understand why the company would suspend against a genuine 'suspicion', properly lodged and supported. What beats me (without all the data) is why? an unsubstantiated 'accusation', without clear proof, is so completely supported and protected by the regulator.
Just imagine the "the risks to aviation safety caused by the unnecessary stress imposed on pilots by zealots on an unjustified medical crusade". CP.
How about the case where the 'regulator' failed to demand a DAMP test against a 'suspicion' when all facilities and witnesses were freely and readily available; then waited for six months to lodge a 'complaint' in a very disingenuous fashion asking for and receiving the maximum punitive action that could be taken at a critical time. No failed test evidence was provided, lies were told (and discovered) and Avmed were encouraged to and happily obliged in enforcing a further 24 months of quarterly testing; despite clear, qualified, expert evidence there was not, never had been or was there likely to be, a problem. No matter, the Chinese whisper is much more effective than evidence anyway.
Crumbs; it's gone pandemic – of what it is I'm unsure. –
HERE.
Selah.