What’s CASA doing with our sensitive medical information?

[Clinton McKenzie]

Among the most sensitive – if not the most sensitive – information about us is our medical information. Each time we make an application to CASA Avmed for a medical certificate, we provide them yet more sensitive information.

Because of my concern for aviation safety in the real world, where Avmed’s increasingly overreaching behaviour is resulting in pilots being increasingly unwilling to disclose information to Avmed and – worse still – to seek medical advice on potential issues for fear that it will get back to Avmed – an outcome inimical to aviation safety - I entered into some correspondence with CASA’s privacy folk recently. My correspondence was precipitated by my recollection that, years ago, there was a ‘tick box’, on the medical certificate application form, which you could tick to consent to the information in the form being used in medical studies. That tick box has gone. These days we’re apparently simply “acknowledging” that our information – “deidentified” – can be used in “research” (and “internal audit”).

(This is one of the many reasons for my description of us medical certificate applicants as “guinea pigs”. Each time we’re sent off to some expensive and sometimes risky tests which qualified specialists say are not justified, it appears we’re providing more data to Avmed for “research”. My educated guess is that the results of the “research” are used to justify Avmed’s own existence and the ‘need’ to intrude into the ‘management’ of the ever-increasing number of ‘aero-medically relevant’ conditions they keep discovering. I anticipate the results are also the subject of Avmed conference echo chambers.)

For my part, I disclose my information for the purpose of, and only for the purpose of, being assessed against the statutory criteria for the issue of a medical certificate. I either meet those criteria or I don’t, and whether my information – deidentified or otherwise – is used in research is irrelevant to that question.

In essence, I asked how CASA got the job of using or disclosing our deidentified sensitive medical information for “research” purposes. I noted that the word “research” appears nowhere in CASA’s functions in the Civil Aviation Act. (CASA does have the function of, for example, cooperating with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in relation to investigations under the TSI Act that relate to aircraft, and the ATSB can compel CASA to provide medical information about us in the course an investigation. There’s no deidentification required in that case, for obvious reasons.) CASA doesn’t have the corporate competence to do the jobs that are actually stated in the Civil Aviation Act – among the elephants in that room is “developing … concise aviation safety standards” – so better to focus on those than chasing medical research butterflies.

In essence, the CASA person’s response is that CASA has the function of using and disclosing our deidentified sensitive medical information for research purposes, and CASA can do that whether we consent to it or not.

I have raised this issue, among related issues, with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).

Assuming CASA does have the function of using and disclosing our deidentified sensitive medical information for research purposes, and CASA can do that whether we consent to it or not, it raises the question as to effectiveness of the procedures used in fact by CASA to achieve deidentification. (The OAIC has much to say on deidentification (https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/handling-personal-information/de-identification-and-the-privacy-act).) Given my first-hand experience in AAT matters against CASA and the content of CASA documents, disclosed under FOI, about how Avmed conducts itself, I have little faith in the effectiveness of whatever little governance arrangements are placed around Avmed’s activities.

I have submitted FOI requests to CASA in the following terms on Friday (18 Aug 2023):All documents containing current CASA policy on and procedures for deidentification of originally sensitive medical information supplied by applicants for medical certificates, prior to disclosure or use by CASA for the purposes of research.

All documents containing information about the assessment of the effectiveness of CASA’s deidentification procedures, including the application of the ‘motivated intruder’ test, to mitigate the risks of reidentification of the individuals to whom the originally sensitive medical information relates.

All documents containing information about results of audits, conducted by auditors internal or external to CASA, of CASA’s compliance with CASA policy on and procedures for deidentification of originally sensitive medical information.

All documents containing information about the disclosure or use by CASA of deidentified originally sensitive medical information supplied by applicants for medical certificates, if the information in the documents includes any one or more or all of the following: The purpose of the disclosure or use of the deidentified information; the identity of the persons – natural or otherwise – to whom the deidentified information was disclosed; any description of the disclosed deidentified information; the results of the use to which the disclosed deidentified information was put.
I will keep everyone informed of the OAIC’s response and the outcomes of my FOI requests.

[Sandy Reith]

Many thanks Clinton McKenzie for raising and acting upon an important issue. I completely agree with the points made, myself having had to repeatedly undertake medical tests by AVMED against specialist advice and which tests my DAME believes are unnecessary. The latter gentleman having been in practice for at least some 40 years, and pilot to boot.

But time money and real life outcomes mean absolutely nothing to AVMED, as instanced by CASA’s answer to the highly successful BasicMed reform in the USA.

Our version, the Basic Class 2 (BC2), is a perversion.

It could have been very useful had CASA followed the USA model. But of course no, our model is ‘better’ because it’s far more stringent and doesn’t allow IFR. Well naturally you wouldn’t want to encourage people to fly around when they can’t see out the windows would you? Surely that’s not safe.

But wait, there’s more, and wait, and wait, presently CASA is looking again at a new self declared type medical certification. Interminable discussions are proceeding at a sluggish snails pace to further this possible reform when with stroke of pen the current BC2 could have the car driver standard instead of ‘unconditional commercial heavy vehicle’ and even allowed IFR. ‘Conditional’ fuel tanker drivers are on our roads everywhere but flying your Cessna around at that standard is way to risky for CASA. Meanwhile there are droves of pilots giving up on AVMED and either leaving the field entirely or taking up flying with RAAUS. Several thousand of that cohort not doing aviation medicals at all, no problem the last 40 years.

Truth is CASA has no incentives to simplify or create clear and concise rules or practices because that would result in less ‘work.’ It’s disgraceful that we’ve not had a Board or CEO with the fortitude of character to correct the numerous failings of CASA or recognise that aviation has taken a battering for no good reason.

In the absence of political leadership, in particular stuck as we are with a wrong model of governance, should be a Department with responsible Minister (it’s called Westminster democracy), we must hold to account CASA itself to see the huge opportunities for services and job creation if only rational policies are enacted.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Unfortunately, there is insufficient governance around Avmed, Sandy.

There is an interesting, relatively-recent decision of the AAT which highlights, again, all which is wrong in Avmed and why it has become a force inimical to aviation safety. Fortunately the Deputy President in the matter saw through Avmed’s usual smoke and mirrors created by the shibboleth of the safety of air navigation.

As background to the insufficient governance point, I note an AAT matter challenging a decision of erstwhile PMO (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2013/941.html), Pooshan Navathe, from 2013 in which the Tribunal said:Despite the fact that [Navathe’s] statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines [for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence] it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.The Tribunal’s trust was misplaced.

One recent example of CASA once again trying to trot out the Avmed decision-maker to give evidence as to why their decision was the correct and preferable one is Bush and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2022/2821.html?context=1;query=navathe;mask_path=au/cases/cth/AATA) [2022] AATA 2821 (26 August 2022), in which the Tribunal said: Dr Beresford, then, went [on in her statement] to deal with whether the Applicant met the Class 2 Medical Standard. This part of her statement is not helpful, as Dr Beresford, again, explains why she reached her conclusion in the reviewable decision. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal does not place any weight on this part of the statement.Sounds very familiar, doesn’t it. And CASA has tried the same trick in other matters post-Bolton, despite what it was told in Bolton.

Having been sent an unequivocal message from the Tribunal in Bolton – which message the Tribunal should not have had to send in the first place - that the Avmed decision-maker is not truly independent and, therefore, is not qualified to give expert opinion on the substance of the decision in question, CASA ignored the Tribunal. CASA continued, and continues, to trot out Avmed people to advocate for their own decisions because – well – they know best.

Of course the decision-maker’s decision is the correct and preferable one. Just ask them. Everything CASA does is reasonable and appropriate. Just ask them.

Avmed’s modus operandi is to do whatever it likes, comfortable in the belief that few victims can handle the cost and stress of taking them to external review and, in the few cases in which they are taken on, Avmed will scaremonger its way into eventually convincing the Tribunal to accept some plausible approach or opinion put to it, which CASA then seizes on as a precedent for future Tribunal matters. (I use the word “plausible” in its correct sense: “superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious”.) If the Tribunal accepts some approach or opinion put to it by Avmed, that’s treated as precedent by Avmed. If the Tribunal tells Avmed something it doesn’t want to hear – like they’re not qualified to give expert opinion evidence about the substance of their own decisions - that’s an inconvenience to be ignored. Avmed just tries it again, at the next opportunity.

If there were any proper governance around them, Navathe wouldn’t have been allowed by CASA to advocate for his own decision in Bolton in the first place. Nor would Navathe have been allowed to do the other appalling thing which was identified by the Tribunal in that matter:Finally, CASA relied upon evidence (including a report of 4 November 2013) of Dr Ernest Somerville, a consultant neurologist. I have already made mention of the reference in Dr Somerville's report to a document from the Proserpine Hospital which is not in evidence in the proceedings. The failure to comply with the Guidelines is exemplified by this passage from Dr Somerville's report:

The following opinion is provided in response to your letter of 30 October 2013 and telephone conversation with Dr Pooshan Navathe on 1 November 2013. Information about Mr Walker's [sic] medical condition is limited to the documents provided with your letter of 30 October 2013.

It is not known what documentary material was provided to Dr Somerville nor is it known what was conveyed to him by Dr Navathe in the conversation on 1 November 2013. Moreover, it is highly irregular that one expert witness, who is as well the primary decision-maker, was apparently briefing another expert witness in terms not disclosed. The danger of such a practice ought to have been evident. The vice is merely compounded by the failure to make clear what information was conveyed. Nor would Dr Beresford have been allowed to put in a statement to the Tribunal in the Bush matter, to the extent the statement contained her opinions about the substance of her decision under review.

These are public officials being allowed to do things which they and CASA have been told, time-and time-again, not to do. And they’re doing it with the assistance of CASA lawyers who then try to defend it in the Tribunal. This is a manifestation of an organisation with insufficient corporate competence and insufficient corporate integrity. Plain and simple.

I’m not suggesting the people involved are dishonest. This isn’t a matter of people lying. This is a matter of people either not understanding their duties as public officials or understanding them but choosing to ignore them.

As to other plausible approaches and opinions tried on by Avmed, it was relieving to see that the Tribunal in the Bush matter saw through the mystique of aviation that has been used to bamboozle so often in the past: The Tribunal was presented with some evidence about the annualised risk of incapacitation. In particular, reference was made to the 1% and 2% rule. It needs to be emphasised, at the outset, that neither the Act nor the Regulations prescribe such a rule. As was emphasised in Mulholland, and which is accepted by the Tribunal, the task of the decision-maker is to determine what is likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.

Having noted this important starting point, the Tribunal also accepts, as noted in Collins and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2017] AATA 2564 (Collins), that “the internationally accepted guideline can play a useful, if not critical, exercise in assessing risk and in ensuring consistency in decision making concerning air navigation safety” – at [76].

The 1% rule is set out and explained in the International Civil Aviation Organisation Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine. This Organisation is a United Nations agency established in 1944 which governs the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention), of which, Australia is a Member State.

Further, pursuant to s 11 of the Act, CASA must perform its functions in a manner consistent with the obligations of the Commonwealth under the Chicago Convention.

As noted in Collins (at [74]), CASA allows for a 2% annualised risk of incapacitation for Class 2 medical certificates because of the different profile of flying, namely, private and non-commercial.

In short, neither the 1% nor 2% rule have their foundations in a specific provision in either the Act or Regulations. However, pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention which requires Member States to collaborate in securing the highest degree of uniformity in regulations, standards and procedures, the 1% rule should be regarded as a sound starting point or guide when measuring risk.

However, as will be discussed below, the measurement of risk is not, of itself, a purely arithmetic and clinically objective task. It may be that, with common ailments that afflict many members of the community, learned research has been undertaken that would allow the calculation of potential risk with a high degree of precision. In comparison, there are other ailments that are rare, and the condition afflicting persons varies, and is sometimes, idiosyncratic. In such cases, the development of an annualised risk assessment of incapacitation, becomes more problematic and less precise.That last paragraph is a merciful voice of reason.

But bear in mind who writes the ICAO “Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine”. What would be the purposes of the “research” for which CASA uses or discloses our medical information? Would its results ever likely be construed as suggesting that Avmed’s behaviours are a harmful overreaction to the objective risks? Methinks not. Methinks the results go into an echo chamber of Avmed people justifying their existence.

These already-available research results, conducted by people without a conflict of interest, suggest Avmed’s doing some harm to aviation safety:Results: A total of 3765 pilots were included in the analysis. There were 56.1% of pilots (n = 2111) who reported a history of healthcare avoidance behavior due fear for losing their aeromedical certificate. There were 45.7% who sought informal medical care (n = 1721) and 26.8% who misrepresented/withheld information on a written healthcare questionnaire for fear of aeromedical certificate loss (n = 994).

Conclusions: Aircraft pilots may participate in healthcare avoidance behavior related to fear of losing their aeromedical certificate. Further work is necessary to address pilot healthcare avoidance.Medical bureaucrats are the last people who should have any involvement in that work.

(The good news is that in Bush - as with many challenges to CASA Avmed decisions in the last 15 or so years – Avmed’s decision was set aside and Bush was issued with a Class 2 medical certificate. There were some conditions imposed to deal with the awful risks to the safety of air navigation pressed by CASA. Presumably the information provided by Bush in compliance with those conditions will be used or disclosed by CASA for the purposes of “research”.)

[Sandy Reith]

Hats off to Clinton and Pilot Bush for choosing to take on CASA’s aviation branch.

Without root and branch reform, nothing will change the course of AVMED’s relentless attacks on individuals. AVMED will completely ignore appeals to reason such as the absence of a risk profile that might give credence to its otherwise destructive path.

The whole sorry saga also causes questions around the AAT system which in the first place was instigated to provide an informal low cost alternative to the regular courts. It was a huge mistake, you won’t find justice by throwing out the numerous hard learned lessons and principles that make up our British legal system. Governments should make our traditional courts far more accessible and provide assistance to those who need recourse against bureaucratic shenanigans.

[bugged on the right]

Makes you wonder if the information gathered will contribute to a study, the basis of which is the one pilot cockpit.

[Clinton McKenzie]

We'll have to agree to disagree on your argument that the AAT was a "mistake", Sandy. Many pilots' careers and life's passion have been saved by the AAT. "Traditional courts" don't do merits review.

The AAT isn't perfect - far from it. Under-resourcing doesn't help. Stacking it with political mates doesn't help. But the underlying concept is sound and has proven itself as such, more often than not.

In the mid-2000s the coalition government said it was going to abolish the AAT. Didn't happen. The current government said it was going to abolish the AAT. Won't happen (though maybe a name change will). The "traditional courts" would be completely overwhelmed if they were given jurisdiction for the matters currently considered by the AAT.

[andrewr]

reference was made to the 1% and 2% rule

The 1% and 2% rules are curious. In referencing them, you would think that Avmed have defined a standard against which they should be measured. What is the actual rate of incapacitation? If it is e.g. 0.1%, then you could argue that the standards they are setting are much too high. If they don't actually know the actual number (which seems likely) it would be reasonable to ask how they determine that their standards are appropriate.

Also, 1% and 2% of what? 1% seems way too high to be a figure for in flight incapacitation. I assume it must be incapacitation at any time during the year. In which case the standard for private pilots seems unreasonably high in relative terms.

A commercial pilot probably flies 10x the hours of the average private pilot, flies under commercial pressures, and many fly multiple passenger commercial operations single pilot. So the relative risk to the public from an incapacitated commercial pilot is much higher than the 1% vs 2% numbers allow for. If the standards are objectively based on risk, the commercial pilot standards should be many times higher than the private pilot, not just 50% reduction in risk.

[Clinton McKenzie]

That's how Avmed 'justifies' its approach. "Curious" is one word for it. Track down someone with actuarial qualifications and run the statistical logic past them.

And some private pilots fly many more hours a year, with many more passengers, than some holders of a commercial licence.

The only pilots I know who've died while at the controls, suddenly, of undiagnosed conditions were the holders of ... Class 1 medical certificates.

[andrewr]

That's how Avmed 'justifies' its approach.

What do you mean justifies it's approach? It means they can't justify anything unless they can produce actual, achieved numbers. In particular, it means that for private pilots they need to show that the number is between 1% and 2%, or the standards they are applying are inappropriate.

And some private pilots fly many more hours a year, with many more passengers, than some holders of a commercial licence.

Some private pilots... some commercial pilots... meaningless for risk assessment. If you are assessing risk you need to pick a meaningful benchmark - probably average passenger hours, but maybe you want e.g. 95th percentile of worst case. Worst case risk for commercial pilots is pretty bad - e.g, pilots doing hundreds of hours carrying paying passengers in whatever the largest aircraft is that can be flown single pilot.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Don’t shoot me as the messenger. Ask Avmed. But don’t expect to be convinced by the substance of the response.

[MalcolmReynolds]

I am so glad that I don't need an Australian Medical anymore, because I fly foreign registered aircraft! F CASA AVMED!

[Clinton McKenzie]

As you will see from my original post, I submitted FOI requests to CASA in the following terms on 18 August 2023:All documents containing current CASA policy on and procedures for deidentification of originally sensitive medical information supplied by applicants for medical certificates, prior to disclosure or use by CASA for the purposes of research.

All documents containing information about the assessment of the effectiveness of CASA’s deidentification procedures, including the application of the ‘motivated intruder’ test, to mitigate the risks of reidentification of the individuals to whom the originally sensitive medical information relates.

All documents containing information about results of audits, conducted by auditors internal or external to CASA, of CASA’s compliance with CASA policy on and procedures for deidentification of originally sensitive medical information.

All documents containing information about the disclosure or use by CASA of deidentified originally sensitive medical information supplied by applicants for medical certificates, if the information in the documents includes any one or more or all of the following: The purpose of the disclosure or use of the deidentified information; the identity of the persons – natural or otherwise – to whom the deidentified information was disclosed; any description of the disclosed deidentified information; the results of the use to which the disclosed deidentified information was put.The responses:I have conducted a thorough search of CASAs registry files and liaised with several CASA
business units in conducting this search, I was unable to locate any documents relevant to
the scope of your request[s].So there you have it.

Another manifestation of governance failures in CASA and the carefree contempt of Avmed for us guinea pigs.

I'll inform the OAIC accordingly.

[Sandy Reith]

Table 1.1: CASA resource statement — Budget estimates for 2023-24 as at Budget May 2023



2022-23 Estimated actual
$'000

2023-24 Estimate

$'000

Opening balance/cash reserves at 1 July

82,473

79,698

Funds from Government





Annual appropriations - ordinary annual services(a)(b)





Outcome 1

91,155

107,602

Total annual appropriations

91,155

107,602

Special appropriations





Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988

113,247

88,844

RPAS under s46A(4) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988

1,832

1,000

Total special appropriations

115,079

89,844

Total funds from Government

206,234

197,446

Funds from industry sources





Regulatory service fees

8,239

12,500

Total funds from industry sources

8,239

12,500

Funds from other sources





Interest

1,476

2,416

Other

318

886

Total funds from other sources

1,794

3,302

Total net resourcing for CASA

298,740

292,946
———————/—-/—————————-
Above copied from ‘infrastructure.gov.au’
Add the three zeros to that last figure and
this is the bottom line, the annual budget for CASA is $292,946,000

What do we get for $300 million?

The money is truly staggering, last time I looked it was $200 million.

[septuganarian]

Among the most sensitive – if not the most sensitive – information about us is our medical information. Each time we make an application to CASA Avmed for a medical certificate, we provide them yet more sensitive information.

Because of my concern for aviation safety in the real world, where Avmed’s increasingly overreaching behaviour is resulting in pilots being increasingly unwilling to disclose information to Avmed and – worse still – to seek medical advice on potential issues for fear that it will get back to Avmed – an outcome inimical to aviation safety - I entered into some correspondence with CASA’s privacy folk recently. My correspondence was precipitated by my recollection that, years ago, there was a ‘tick box’, on the medical certificate application form, which you could tick to consent to the information in the form being used in medical studies. That tick box has gone. These days we’re apparently simply “acknowledging” that our information – “deidentified” – can be used in “research” (and “internal audit”).

(This is one of the many reasons for my description of us medical certificate applicants as “guinea pigs”. Each time we’re sent off to some expensive and sometimes risky tests which qualified specialists say are not justified, it appears we’re providing more data to Avmed for “research”. My educated guess is that the results of the “research” are used to justify Avmed’s own existence and the ‘need’ to intrude into the ‘management’ of the ever-increasing number of ‘aero-medically relevant’ conditions they keep discovering. I anticipate the results are also the subject of Avmed conference echo chambers.)

For my part, I disclose my information for the purpose of, and only for the purpose of, being assessed against the statutory criteria for the issue of a medical certificate. I either meet those criteria or I don’t, and whether my information – deidentified or otherwise – is used in research is irrelevant to that question.

In essence, I asked how CASA got the job of using or disclosing our deidentified sensitive medical information for “research” purposes. I noted that the word “research” appears nowhere in CASA’s functions in the Civil Aviation Act. (CASA does have the function of, for example, cooperating with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in relation to investigations under the TSI Act that relate to aircraft, and the ATSB can compel CASA to provide medical information about us in the course an investigation. There’s no deidentification required in that case, for obvious reasons.) CASA doesn’t have the corporate competence to do the jobs that are actually stated in the Civil Aviation Act – among the elephants in that room is “developing … concise aviation safety standards” – so better to focus on those than chasing medical research butterflies.

In essence, the CASA person’s response is that CASA has the function of using and disclosing our deidentified sensitive medical information for research purposes, and CASA can do that whether we consent to it or not.

I have raised this issue, among related issues, with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).

Assuming CASA does have the function of using and disclosing our deidentified sensitive medical information for research purposes, and CASA can do that whether we consent to it or not, it raises the question as to effectiveness of the procedures used in fact by CASA to achieve deidentification. (The OAIC has much to say on deidentification (https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/handling-personal-information/de-identification-and-the-privacy-act).) Given my first-hand experience in AAT matters against CASA and the content of CASA documents, disclosed under FOI, about how Avmed conducts itself, I have little faith in the effectiveness of whatever little governance arrangements are placed around Avmed’s activities.

I have submitted FOI requests to CASA in the following terms on Friday (18 Aug 2023):
I will keep everyone informed of the OAIC’s response and the outcomes of my FOI requests.
What other organization(or anyone for that matter) has a COMPLETE medical history of a tranche of the population as large as the aviation sector , for the entirety of their working life ,updated every one or two years with whatever tests that organisation deems necessary(For safety reasons of course)to be carried out at the applicants cost?That information is a financial goldmine even if totally unidentifiable as to any individual as CASA tells us is the truth of the matter. I understand that some years ago AVMED admitted that they supply this "anonimised"information to an European medical research team that they were associated with as part of their research data.

[Ladloy]

Imagine how incorrect the data would be. As simple as the alcohol questions or mental health. They would be using it to make future decisions based that dataset.
It's about time we didn't have to fear for our jobs by them telling the truth. It's a joke of a system.

[Sandy Reith]

Imagine how incorrect the data would be. As simple as the alcohol questions or mental health. They would be using it to make future decisions based that dataset.
It's about time we didn't have to fear for our jobs by them telling the truth. It's a joke of a system.

An extremely expensive joke.

Imagine the $millions wasted, and time wasted, with optometrist reports and various medical specialists.

Not to mention the great danger to the public by having all these health questionable pilots out there on our crowded roads to and fro numbers of medical examination appointments. Must be risky because CASA would have an evidential risk assessment of incapacitation events. I must look that up in CASA’s website.

[Clinton McKenzie]

An expensive joke that’s not funny. Ladloy highlights the facade. Avmed doesn’t have a “complete history” of many pilots, septugenarian, because many pilots withhold information, or don’t seek medical advice when in doubt, for (legitimate and reasonable) fear of Avmed’s damaging overreactions. And they’re using the data gathered for research.

Setting aside trivial issues like the lawfulness and ethics of what Avmed’s doing, it’s having perverse consequences.

[Sandy Reith]

Whatever research AVMED may be carrying out it cannot be anything relevant to the safety of flight. The low weight RAAus and Gliding Federation successful self declared system across 40 and some 70 years respectively are testament to AVMED’s complete lack of reality.
For meaningful statistics we now have some from the USA.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/091ec836_66ef_4a23_8d43_dd1aaefb9020_c9de518ebe13feeb9d8d691 8d539a539a4074839.png

[compressor stall]

Every pilot I know has their normal doc and their DAME and they don’t know about the other.

dunno what sort of dataset that will give you. But any research paper should acknowledge that limitation

Perversely, a “Class 1 pilots are really healthy compared to the general population “ conclusion (as so much is hidden from AVMED) might be self validating AVMED’s approach.

[Clinton McKenzie]

It might be, but only if one subscribes to causation for Martians.

[Fark'n'ell]

Curious to know what CASA's view on stents in the heart is.Have a mate who had a heart problem a few months ago,ATPL with a command.Had a stent inserted,
6 months off work Medical ok. Back to work.No restrications.

[Sandy Reith]

For Class 1 medical I was required to do a stress test ECG at age 55, all ok, then again at age 60 which revealed a coronary artery that needed a stent. Never had a symptom of any heart problem. Stent surgeon reckoned it too difficult due position therefore recommended open heart surgery, accomplished 100% successful.

Twenty years later, Class 2, still doing annual stress test ECGs for no valid reason according to cardiologist’s written advice.

$300 million pa CASA is a make work salary factory that’s beggaring General Aviation.

Pity help us if push comes to shove and Australia needs GA and it’s pilots, GA maintainers and all the aircraft and infrastructure we have lost.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1413x983/36e9fb34_f42d_4cc1_ba2c_c53677c02b6a_1e2439c75b82aa2372cc9a4 80681964cd02747cd.jpeg
Here’s a laugh.

[thunderbird five]

...to see what activities can be eliminated...

Aviation in Australia?

[Aussie Fo]

Clinton McKenzie

I’m wondering what your thoughts are on CASAs approach to mental health issues.
Primarily PTSD induced depression and anxiety?
Mental health being a very subjective field or the size and effect that these things have, can be a spectrum.


Regards

[Clinton McKenzie]

Its approach is the same as to all 'issues': Interpret it to be 'aero-medically significant', exaggerate the risks to a potential aviation disaster, google up whatever is the 'Rolls Royce' method of dealing with the worst-possible case, inflict that on the guinea pig, no matter the costs and risks to the guinea pig and - most appallingly - despite the opinions of medical professionals with actual expertise in the area and knowledge of the particular person. Then spend months gathering information for input to the solemn deliberations of a 'complex case management meeting' - which is actually an echo chamber of people who've mistaken their positions of power for superior medical expertise - all the while being insouciantly indifferent to the impact on the guinea pig - that is, after all, what guinea pigs are for.

In short: They approach it in the same way as any idiot with access to the internet and a messianic belief that they're the last bastion between aviation safety and carnage would approach it.

[Sandy Reith]

From when I commenced teaching in the 70s, as CFI of my own flying school, it’s always been apparent that the DCA/CAA/DOT/CASA concept of headmaster with big stick was wrong. I’ve seen examples of fear overload leading to avoidable accidents. Like most things in life all things in moderation including fear.
CASA’s excessive, prescriptive and complex rules, that have been inappropriately migrated into the criminal code, contribute to an unhealthy mental state through the fear of becoming a criminal.
Quite apart from formal criminal proceedings, anyone in the GA community can be targeted by CASA, a body with extreme power, ask Glen Buckley and many others.
Mental health, a difficult area to define but we are saddled with a system that’s negative to all who are involved with flying ops.