Work starts on new self-declared medical - The CASA Briefing

[Possum1]

"Once the technical working group has completed its review CASA will put out a detailed proposal for broad consultation. This is likely to occur in the first part of 2022."

Should we be hopeful, excited even?

The CASA Briefing (https://updates.communication.casa.gov.au/pub/pubType/EO/pubID/zzzz619b25cccef9b493/?aid=a7f993dd6ed7a8e7&&utm_source=Swift%20Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=CASABriefing%20newsletter&#a7f993dd6ed7a8e7)

[Pinky the pilot]

In my best Elliot Goblet voice:

"I'm so excited, I'm beside myself with joy!":rolleyes:

[triadic]

Old news - see other post re class 5 medical. Not holding my breath either!

[Possum1]

Old news - see other post re class 5 medical. Not holding my breath either!

Yes - I missed that thread. At least the editor of the CASA Briefing thought it was important enough to lead with that story.

You quoted UK and US self-certification in the other thread. CASA could save on all the consultation as this matter has already been discussed ad nauseum in these countries and just publish a proposal tomorrow. Wouldn't that be nice?

None of us are getting any younger out here.

[aroa]

Just publish a proposal! Good grief..!, What do you think is going to occupy a horde of paper shufflers for a year or more if they can’t write an encyclopaedia of obtuse ideas on how we might be consulted and a time frame for a final edict in 20??.
us oldies will probably all have passed on by then.
Doing just what is logical, practical and works in other countries is anathema for CAsA.
I t is necessary to have a uniquely australianised document only suitable for Australian citizens because the air down under is so different.
And Aviation is so dangerous only we can keep you safe.!

[Lead Balloon]

The process itself is a manifestation of CASA’s congenital inability to make decisions on the basis of objective data. The experiment has been run and the results are in.

We should not underestimate the scaremongering skills of AvMed and other interest groups who leverage off the human mind’s natural tendency to overestimate the probabilities of events with awful consequences. That’s why, in the 21st century, it’s ‘acceptable’ for me to drive a car with 5 POB towing a caravan with an all-up weight of 4,500kg, night and day in all kinds of weather, sharing the roads with bus loads of school children, without having a medical certificate from ‘RoadMed’, but if I jump into an aircraft less than quarter the weight of my ute and caravan, with one passenger, and go flying: Oh the humanity! The potential death plunge and mid-air collision caused by sudden incapacitation requires medical scrutiny and medical certification, no matter what the objective probabilities of either of those outcomes happens to be. (Unless the aircraft I jump into is a GFA glider or RAAus registered – go figure.)

[43Inches]

You quoted UK and US self-certification in the other thread. CASA could save on all the consultation as this matter has already been discussed ad nauseum in these countries and just publish a proposal tomorrow. Wouldn't that be nice?

None of us are getting any younger out here.

Unfortunately the UK and US rules are different, if there was concensus it would be easier, but as usual the UK is more restrictive than the US.

Things they need to avoid is the 'seat' limit ideal, a max take off weight is all that is needed. Make it a simple 3 tons to allow most six seater varieties (I would prefer same as road vehicles for consistency of 4.5 tons as i don't see any extra complication of flying a Navajo or Chieftain VFR any more dangerous than a Jabiru). My reasoning is any seat limit puts pressure on the pilot to squeeze him and his family into something unsuited for the job. It's not like tomorrow there will be a splurge of PPLs with no medical buying million dollar plus twins anyway, so the financial aspect controls it.

Limits of 'not over populated ares' is just stupid as a pilot could become incapacitated anywhere and the aircraft fly itself into a populated area, or out of it for that matter. We all know incapacitation does not mean fall out of the sky there and then, as with many depressurised events the aircraft kept flying for miles.

Not in CTA is just stupid, again, just could become incapacitated next to CTA and fly into it, what's the difference. And limiting where a pilot can fly just makes the operation more dangerous.

Simple rules like cant fly IFR, night, Aerobatics, etc as these place additional stress on the body and a full medical is required then, as its outside the realms of what a normal driver would experience. It would be probably even acceptable to place additional rules on weather conditions as to ensure VMC opperation.

[Lead Balloon]

Limits of 'not over populated ares' is just stupid as a pilot could become incapacitated anywhere and the aircraft fly itself into a populated area, or out of it for that matter. We all know incapacitation does not mean fall out of the sky there and then, as with many depressurised events the aircraft kept flying for miles.It’s stupid also because self-certified pilots have been flying over built up areas in Australia for decades.

Not in CTA is just stupid, again, just could become incapacitated next to CTA and fly into it, what's the difference. And limiting where a pilot can fly just makes the operation more dangerous.It’s stupid also because self-certified pilots have been flying in controlled airspace in Australia for decades.

[cessnapete]

Unfortunately the UK and US rules are different, if there was concensus it would be easier, but as usual the UK is more restrictive than the US.

Things they need to avoid is the 'seat' limit ideal, a max take off weight is all that is needed. Make it a simple 3 tons to allow most six seater varieties (I would prefer same as road vehicles for consistency of 4.5 tons as i don't see any extra complication of flying a Navajo or Chieftain VFR any more dangerous than a Jabiru). My reasoning is any seat limit puts pressure on the pilot to squeeze him and his family into something unsuited for the job. It's not like tomorrow there will be a splurge of PPLs with no medical buying million dollar plus twins anyway, so the financial aspect controls it.

Limits of 'not over populated ares' is just stupid as a pilot could become incapacitated anywhere and the aircraft fly itself into a populated area, or out of it for that matter. We all know incapacitation does not mean fall out of the sky there and then, as with many depressurised events the aircraft kept flying for miles.
If you are fit enough to hold a driving licence
Not in CTA is just stupid, again, just could become incapacitated next to CTA and fly into it, what's the difference. And limiting where a pilot can fly just makes the operation more dangerous.

Simple rules like cant fly IFR, night, Aerobatics, etc as these place additional stress on the body and a full medical is required then, as its outside the realms of what a normal driver would experience. It would be probably even acceptable to place additional rules on weather conditions as to ensure VMC opperation.


Actually the UK PMD is quite simple.
If you are currently fit to hold a driving licence you are good to go.
PPL privileges only. UK airspace, VFR Day only. Max 4 seats. 2000kgs. max weight.

Has got many pilots airborne again here.

[Dave Gittins]

Not to mention saving over a grand a year that I can spend on flying.

Just a shame its non ICAO requiring my flights in the USA to be P u/t.

[43Inches]

PPL privileges only. UK airspace, VFR Day only. Max 4 seats. 2000kgs. max weight.

I agree with it's simple, but I don't like the 'seat' limits. Make it a passenger limit fine, but you would be safer flying a 6 seater with 4 on board than a 4 seater maxed out with pax and bags. What does it matter if its a 6 seater with 4 on board under 2 ton, just means you can fly a lance, or saratoga or bonanza. The US rules are better as it does allow more six seat twins with the higher MTOW and up to 5 passengers for similar requirements. We have to remember there are a few heavy foru seaters out there with significant performance with Cirrus types, so what is the real difference between flying an SR-22 and a PA-32. SR-22 and PA-32R have the same MTOW. The SR-22 is much faster, has a higher stall speed (approach speed) and higher basic weight, why would I be limited to an SR-22 just because of seats there is no valid safety reason here....

[Lead Balloon]

CASA saying it's "in the interests of the safety of air navigation" makes it a valid reason, no matter how ridiculous.

[cessnapete]

I agree with it's simple, but I don't like the 'seat' limits. Make it a passenger limit fine, but you would be safer flying a 6 seater with 4 on board than a 4 seater maxed out with pax and bags. What does it matter if its a 6 seater with 4 on board under 2 ton, just means you can fly a lance, or saratoga or bonanza. The US rules are better as it does allow more six seat twins with the higher MTOW and up to 5 passengers for similar requirements. We have to remember there are a few heavy foru seaters out there with significant performance with Cirrus types, so what is the real difference between flying an SR-22 and a PA-32. SR-22 and PA-32R have the same MTOW. The SR-22 is much faster, has a higher stall speed (approach speed) and higher basic weight, why would I be limited to an SR-22 just because of seats there is no valid safety reason here....


I think that the initial CAA alleviation from a medical by an AME was aimed at recreational pilots.The 4 seat rule is just an arbitrary limit by a clueless Neddy in the UK CAA. They probably don't realise that some private pilots fly six seaters. Although the 2000kgs limit is also a factor.

[Dave Gittins]

The UK Secretary of State for Transport could have told him !

[Possum1]

The Category 5 self declared medical might still be alive and kicking although CASA is taking its own sweet time over it - see the August CASA Briefing (https://updates.communication.casa.gov.au/pub/pubType/EO/pubID/zzzz62e226afda31d851/?aid=450796887f6d058c&utm_source=Swift%20Digital&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=CASABriefing%20newsletter�f6d058c).

[tossbag]

Australians are notorious for being slackarses when it comes to doing something rather than just whinging. But 600 submissions...........that's a lot.

[First_Principal]

I think that the initial CAA alleviation from a medical by an AME was aimed at recreational pilots.The 4 seat rule is just an arbitrary limit by a clueless Neddy in the UK CAA. They probably don't realise that some private pilots fly six seaters. Although the 2000kgs limit is also a factor.

I was rated and occasionally flew a 31-seat a/c (sometimes with 4 passengers or less) originally on a PPL. Admittedly it was > 2000kg, but it would be useful to know the reasoning behind these arbitrary limits?

To be clear; I don't necessarily criticize them, it's just that if you are going to present a rational argument why something should be changed (for example from 4 seats to 4 POB) then it helps to understand how/why that something came about. It may even be that such a change actually fits within the reasoning used, which should assist a submission to change.

So far I've not seen anyone really discuss this aspect, nor does a cursory search reveal anything from CASA (not saying the detail isn't there somewhere, but the time involved in attempting to find it exceeded my limit), and while I could hazard a guess that's all it would be - and of very little use in reaching a mutually acceptable outcome.

So, for those that this matters to, how about you may an enquiry of CASA for the discussion notes and supporting detail on this?

[Possum1]

Rang AvMed today. The lady at the other end had never heard of the proposed Class 4 or Class 5 medicals, self-declared medical certificates and had never heard of the Technical Working Group or Part 67. She also had never heard of the doctors and others in the group and had never heard of the possibility of CASA adopting the new NZ CAA PPL standard which started in April 2021.

She also could not put me in touch with anybody with any connection to the TWG to explain what stage they were at and when some recommendations and implementation would be forthcoming.

Was this ignorance real or feigned? Perhaps some pilots out there who would like to continue flying their GA planes would like to make some similar enquiries. The number is 131757.

[Vag277]

See CASA website Part 67 Technical Working Group

[Possum1]

See CASA website Part 67 Technical Working Group
Sure, but there are no contact details.

You would think that 10 months after CASA's announcement that there would be at least a draft of the new medical standards published. Instead, nothing since the minutes of their March meeting and the June survey already mentioned above.

[Possum1]

Two of the doctors on the Part 67 Technical Working Group (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-work/aviation-safety-advisory-panel/technical-working-groups/part-67-technical-working-group-medical) appear to also be speakers at the upcoming ASAM Conference (https://event.icebergevents.com.au/asam2022/speakers) starting this Thursday at the Crowne Plaza in the Hunter Valley. Other members of the TWG will also most probably be attending. There will be many DAMEs from all over the country attending including the one I go to. Hopefully the matter of self-declared pilot certification will come up, especially in the session with CASA on Sunday morning.

There is also a session on Saturday where a "Dr Cronin will compare and contrast the United States' Aviation Medical Examination (FAA) system against the Australian Aviation Medical Examination (CASA) system, and provide comment on the differences, as well as any areas that each system can improve off each other." It might be nice for some recommendations from the American medical standards for PPL medical certification to be adopted here in Australia.

[Sunfish]

Sad and cynical I know, but...........

My automatic assumption is that CASA is taking an inordinate amount of time and working in secret to create a "Claytons*" self certification system that perverts and sabotages the intent of self certification as implemented in the rest of the world. It takes time to create something that looks good but isn't.


They did this with the basic class 2 medical by requiring an "unconditional" certification from the examining GP - an impossible standard because virtually everyone has had a medical event since childhood and that medical event is a condition even if its fully resolved.

This is about power and control and the idea that CASA will give up any of that is laughable.

** "Claytons" - slang for something that is counterfeit,

[Possum1]

True Sunfish. The word unconditional did sabotage the original intent of the basic medical certificate.

Also both the Class 2 and the Basic Class 2 were 'sledgehammers to crack a walnut" in that both allowed you to fly an aircraft weighing 8,618 kg! I wonder which typical GA aircraft flown by most PPLs weighs that much. Did they think that most of us are swanning around in Super King Airs or Beech 1900s