PDA

View Full Version : Diabetic pilot - CASA at fault?


Diatryma
15th Jan 2007, 01:43
ATSB Report here: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/AAIR/aair200404085.aspx



From The Age: (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/diabetic-pilot-should-not-have-flown-solo/2007/01/12/1168105167657.html)

Diabetic pilot should not have flown solo
January 12, 2007 - 3:53PM


A diabetic pilot who died when he crashed his aircraft in south-west Queensland should not have been allowed to fly alone, a report has found.
Charles Richard Mowle, 49, of Adelaide, was found dead in the wreckage of his single engine plane after it went down in an isolated area 20km south-west of St George on October 19, 2004.
It is believed he had become ill at the controls.
Mowle, heading to Adelaide from Bundaberg, was spotted by another pilot lapsing in and out of consciousness, and flying in circles for about 90 minutes around St George.
The pilot tried to guide Mowle to a safe landing but he failed to understand instructions.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report today said that with no mechanical problem on the aircraft, a diabetes related condition could not be ruled out as the cause of the crash.
However, the report said, based on medical information provided, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) should not have lifted a condition on Mowle's aviation medical certificate allowing him to fly alone.
The ATSB said Mowle - who had been flying for about 10 years - was diagnosed with diabetes only 18 months before the crash.
It believed Mowle had not been fully educated on the complications of diabetes and how it could lead to pilot incapacitation.
Nor did it believe the CASA had received enough medical information about Mowle's condition to grant him a class two medical certificate, allowing him to fly alone.
"On the basis of the evidence that had been provided, CASA could not have established that the pilot's diabetes was under adequate long-term control," the report said.
"The apparent lack of medical follow-up and supervision for the 18 months prior to the accident reduced the likelihood that the pilot would have received potentially safety-critical information related to his condition."
The CASA had made Mowle fly with a co-pilot after his initial diabetes diagnosis in February 2003 during a routine aviation medical examination.
But the condition was lifted two months later when tests showed Mowle's blood sugar levels were within "adequate control" range as specified by a pathologist.
His new class two medical certificate was valid until February 2005.
However, the ATSB said Mowle was not formally educated about aviation-related issues regarding diabetes between April 2003 and the accident.
"The class 2 medical certificate ... was issued based on limited information," the report said.
"The duration of the certification increased the risk that acute or chronic diabetes-related conditions could have developed without being identified by medical personnel."
The report said the fact Mowle mentioned to friends the night before the fatal flight that he was very thirsty "indicate that the pilot may have been incapacitated by a condition related to diabetes" before the crash.
"It is possible that the pilot was not aware that the interaction of diabetes and dehydration could increase the risk of incapacitation," the report said.
"Thirst indicates a degree of dehydration and if not addressed would be likely to result in hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar)."
AAP




Did CASA let this man down?

Di :(

Awol57
15th Jan 2007, 03:03
Perhaps, but take aeroplane out and replace with car and then ask did anyone else let the guy down?

If this occured in a road vehicle the chances of it being investigated as such is much more unlikely and blame would perhaps be aportioned to the doctors that it would appear did not educate the gentleman about his condition.

Because it occured in an aircraft it become CASA's fault?

zedman-au
15th Jan 2007, 03:47
Another issue is in the world of Ultralights. The RAA accept that if you hold a drivers licence then you're medically sound to hold an RAA licence - to all ends the same as a GA PPL, as you can fly a single engine, even two seater, virtually anywhere (within reason).

So would the RAA be responsible, or the RTA?

At the end of the day, it's really the pilot who is responsible.

As the Sydney Basin Visual Pilot Guide says:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/357850643_d90fef5f5a.jpg