Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 8th Jan 2014, 02:05
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I would have thought that part of the definition already included as a prerequisite to VFR flight at night to have a discernible external visual horizon. (No more than 4/8ths of cloud and VFR conditions).


How much will this little junket cost. A one line addition to definitions perhaps but, irrespective of how many hours of instrument time is required by the NVFR pilot, the aircraft must be instrument equipped, the pilot must be similarly equipped, and rated on the instruments he/she wants to use if you want to fly in non-VFR conditions. Night VFR is not non-visual flight.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 03:31
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
"All the proof of a pudding is in the eating."

Yes Sarcs, I noticed that: synchronisation lasted about 20 seconds; then I reached for the bucket. I keep wondering if our unfortunate man has a blind clue what the mice do – when the cat's away. Hell, he may even mean well – I mean it's possible –ain't it????. But the 'video' is a classic of spin delivery, start with an undeniable truth, embrace it, acknowledge it, show the pathway; then, having roped in the mugs, look all truthful and concerned and sneak in the 'whammy' - 'Industry may not cope with sudden change' (look concerned here). etc. etc.

Not able to cope? Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. Bring in the NZ rules, give industry six months to adjust the manuals another six months for the FOI to read them; then lead or follow, but do not, ever again get under the industry's feet.

Nearly everyone remotely famous has made a 'quote' relating to failure of delivery, failure of leadership, some have even made quotes about both.

"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else". - John Burroughs.
And, ass one good video deserves another - just for a laugh –
.

Last edited by Kharon; 8th Jan 2014 at 03:48. Reason: Minor, irritaing editorial amendments, you know.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 20:10
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
WLR alternative topics.

Did you ever go to the theatre to see a pantomime and notice how the spotlight kept your attention focussed on the characters?, away from what was occurring in the dark areas out of the light. The stars in the spotlight of the WLR are the 'regulations' as they affect operational and engineering perspectives, rightly so. But hiding away in the dark corners there are other characters, equally important just not as obvious. I wonder if anyone is going to make a submission on these topics?

The Act; a couple of the wiser owls of my acquaintance reckon that many of today's problems are created by the Act. Seems as though the Act gives the authority almost a 007 license. I expect that most folk have brushed over the Act, seeking out the parts which affect what we do, but have neither the expertise or interest in dissecting the thing. But my owls say it's a must do item. Suggestions ?– anyone?

Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous. The new blood sugar rules have specialist doctors rolling about the floor laughing, there's tales that cardiologists tell at dinner parties about gross ignorance. The Hempel imbroglio remains an embarrassing classic there's even rumoured to be a list of young fellahin who owned up to having more beers a week than Avmed reckon is salutary and are making regular visits to the pathologist. It's a strange little empire this one, mostly left undisturbed to blunder along without check or external audit. I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making? That submission would probably be flicked by the Murky Machiavellian censor, long before it got to the old Kenwood fridge, posing as a security vault.

I'd risk a choccy frog and say no one has thought to shine a light into some of the darker corners. They probably could, but doubt the game is worth the candle. Time will tell.
Kharon is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 23:21
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Thumbs down Is Avmed the ultimate 3rd world bureaucratic onion??

Kharon:
Avmed; as this mostly affects individual pilots, the practices and rules rarely get much of a mention. It is even unclear to me who runs the show, where their rules draw power from or even how the rules are made and by whom. But, there is a long list now of people who have been affected, the Colour Vision bun fight is finally drawing some attention from the right people (Hallelujah), but some of the other rulings are equally outrageous.
Ah yes the Avmed imbroglio....and the 3rd world bureaucratic approach of the subcontinent PMO, who is seemingly taking back the advancements of modern medicine to at least the 19th century.

For the WLB to get a feel for this bizarre monstrosity of bureaucratic obfuscation and embuggerance, one only need visit the FF AAT records in recent years: CAsA AAT decisions

If they're game the WLB should also take a sampling of the more than 2000 page DAME Handbook ....{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??}

And while stepping through the Avmed minefield the WLB should enquire about this little outstanding project on Part 67:
Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical -
Consultation history
Title Details Date Consultation updates in 2011 Project FS 11/39 - Post Implementation Review (PIR) of CASR Part 67 - Medical Project approved. 22 Sep 2011
While on the subject of FF stalled projects the WLB need to take a serious look at this list... Active projects
{Comment: It would appear that one of the main reasons for a lot of the stalled projects is because they are awaiting for a new reg to be written, approved or enacted} Either way you cut it the WLB have definitely got a serious bureaucratic onion to peel back..

Hmm...given the size of the onion (and the time constraints) perhaps the WLB should seriously consider taking up the generous offer of assistance from the Chair of the Senate RRAT committee...

Addendum to Kharon's post :
I forget his name now, but didn't one of the top medico's resign in high dudgeon, citing serious flaws and reckless rule making?
It is kind of ancient history now and filed well back in the Shelfware Chronicles but is this what you were referring to "K"
From the ATsB Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011:

19 November 1996
Concerns expressed in the letter of resignation of the CASA Director of Aviation Medicine Dr Robert Liddell, caused the Minister to ask the Board to reconsider safety.

Minister for Transport, Media Statement TR152/96; Age, 27 November 1996
You are right though it did cause a massive stink at the time, perhaps best summarised in the following article: Air Turbulence - The Dogfight Over Safety In Australia
{Comment: You will also see that CVD guru Dr Arthur Pape features heavily in that article}

......"It was a well-orchestrated public resignation, with Dick Smith faxing the media a copy of Dr Liddell's letter to the director of air safety, Mr Leroy Keith. Dr Liddell's claims of low morale, the disempowerment of line management, the undermining of air safety surveillance and cuts in the budget to fund unbudgeted office refurbishments, are sufficient to make it a front-page story...."

It might be ancient history now but it certainly highlights that not much has changed in Sleepy Hollow...
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 04:19
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
.{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??}
my doctor is a pretty sharp cookie so I asked him about it one visit.

"yeah I looked into it because you're not the only pilot I see, but I'm a real doctor, I'm not going to waste my time with all that crap"

a thumbs down from my doctor.

when you look back through history, post WW2 it was realised that the civilian pilots formed the ready reserve for the Air Force.
the decision was to have pilots pass the military medical so that they could be absorbed without further screening.
medicals never were about fitness for civilian flying.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 09:41
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Funny aint it..outsourcing!! everyones at it from the Govmint down. We've outsourced so much we might as well outsource the lot before we become slaves in our own country. I'm sure the Chinese would consider a few million a head for each of us and we all bugger off and leave them with it!!
CAsA is no different regarding outsourcing
Think about it, there is anyone who is part of CAsA, the rest are criminals they havnt caught yet.
This of course includes Australian doctors, who must be corrupt and incompetent in CAsA's eyes, because CAsA accepts nothing they say, which is why so many of them are declining to get involved in Aviation medicine, or are leaving it, largely because it just aint worth the B..ll..sh..t and as the active pilot population steadily decreases, because more and more pilots just give up and go do something where they can earn a living, move to an offshore licence, or decide its just too expensive to keep an Australian medical, there is just no return in it for a doctor, other than a whole lot of grief and liability.
CAsA have outsourced their medical department to the Kentucky Fried Chicken medical school offshore, because they cannot attract Australian doctors who are actually smart enough to recognise Bul.sh..t when they see it and avoid aviation like the plague.
About ten years ago I received a CAsA letter saying my medical was not going to be processed due to a heart problem, I was offshore at the time and had renewed my FAA medical at the same time. Around ten grands worth of tests later my specialist in frustration wrote to CAsA and suggested whoever thought I had a heart problem should go back to medical school.
How many guys in the last year were informed by CAsA they had diabetes?
Love to know how many, cost me around a grand to prove I wasnt.
I've heard of a few guys who have spent a fortune proving they were'nt alcoholics as well because they were honest in the questionaire.
Meantime I renew the FAA medical year in year out, no hassles, no cost other than the doctor, and surprise, surprise the FAA respects their doctors competentcy, because he issues the medical and thats it.

Last edited by thorn bird; 9th Jan 2014 at 20:43.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 20:11
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
From a simple Ale –a headache.

Managed to have a quiet ale (or was it two) with P7. a.k.a. T.O.M. last evening; and, as you'd expect, the conversation turned to the Wet Lettuce Review. I mentioned 'medical matters', just in passing, mind you and there was a long sigh, a roll of the eyes then he says "skip it for tonight kid, there is not enough ale in the barrel to see us through that discussion". Despite my willingness to test theory, he declined further comment. But it did lead into a discussion of just how much ground the review must cover, if it's to do the job properly, rather than just look good.

Walking home I got to thinking about it all and there is a hellish tangle. TOM reckons most of the fix would come from a revised Act rather than the regulations, which makes some sense. And remembering Creampuffs words I finished up concerned that without involving the RAT Senate committee and their support crew, this already weak WLR is going to end up behind the proverbial 8 ball. I expect there are some reasons for shutting out the highly effective, bi-partisan RAT committee, not using their experience, horsepower, administrative and security know how; but be buggered if I can see it.

The words 'fatally flawed' seem to be being used rather a lot lately; Shirley it would ease the legal burden, expedite the process and provide a much better result if the Senate crew became involved, that would, at the very least provide the security and protection most serious submissions will require. I know TOM is concerned, "Arr well, you pays your money and takes your chances" quips he, in a truly dreadful attempt at a pirate's voice.

And so it was that a quiet ale developed into a thinking headache.

Creampuff -"Politics has almost nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. It’s almost entirely about what’s expedient. Come the day that the government desperately wants something passed through the Senate, and all the non-major party aligned Senators say: “Not until substantive actions have been finalised to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry in Aviation Accident Investigation”, that’s when something substantive will happen. Until that day, forget the government. If the government cared about the recommendations, it would already have done something substantive about them."
Damn straight.

Last edited by Kharon; 9th Jan 2014 at 20:17. Reason: Oh, it was there, I was here and things just needed fixing.
Kharon is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2014, 20:55
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,652
Kharon

Funny thing is that over a quiet Latte yesterday morning we were discussing the same things.

I got my new medical 2 days ago. It was submitted on Dec 10. There were no problems, there has been no explanation about why it has taken so long. But it took me numerous phonecalls and emails to get it. Each time I spoke with pleasant people who apologised and made a new promise to mail it. Each time the promise was broken. The next phonecall would be pleasant to a nice person who had not the faintest scrap of concern that a colleague had not honoured an undertaking. Nor was there the slightest hint of concern that not having a class 1 medical might be an inconvenience to a CPL.

I don't think legislation has much to do with people honouring commitments. The trouble is that there is a culture in CASA that pilots just don't matter.

It didn't used to be like this. I think its 99% about the people & culture and people & culture problems are 99% about the guys at the top.

One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.

Some years ago I had the misfortune to be the first Australian pilot put on a particular drug. In the US this drug is listed in the FAA handbook as safe with no known side effects and not requiring FAA notification. In Australia this wasn't good enough for CASA. Nor was the opinion of my specialist (a world leader who regularly presents at overseas conferences). It wasn't until my specialist called in a favour from a colleague at the Mayo clinic that CASA became satisfied.

These problems don't require legislation to fix them. It just requires people with integrity and backbone in the upper levels of CASA.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 03:36
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
"It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists."

Of course they dont Akro, didnt you know that being experts in all things aviation they are also experts in all things medical, and Australian doctors are all incompetent miscreants, only graduates from the Kentucky Fried Chicken medical school opinions will be accepted.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 06:29
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil "VH-IOS cleared for pushback!"

Old Akro:
I don't think legislation has much to do with people honouring commitments. The trouble is that there is a culture in CASA that pilots just don't matter.

It didn't used to be like this. I think its 99% about the people & culture and people & culture problems are 99% about the guys at the top.
&..
These problems don't require legislation to fix them. It just requires people with integrity and backbone in the upper levels of CASA.
Nail on head Akro ...it is all about the culture, slay the head first, tackle the culture, several subcultures and then your halfway to fixing the problem...

Supposedly the bureaucrats are meant to be servants of the people, only ever acting in the national & public interest . These interests are meant to be conveyed and overseen by our elected representatives in parliament through government policy and then subsequently through legislation.

Fort Fumble's remit of in the public interest also includes public safety (i.e. aviation safety)and that iswhere the difference between theory & reality manifests itself and the lines become blurred...

The US bureaucrats are still beholden to the public interest but under the US constitution the public interest is clearly defined and made sacrosanct by their Bill of Rights, theUS crats are in no doubt that they are indeed servants of the people...

Ok back to the topics at hand, namely Avmed and to a certain degree the FRMS (CAO 48.1) debate....

The US at the moment also have FRMS & Avmed issues that are currently being debated across the political, public and industry spectrum. Recently Avweb, a US based aviation website which has a readership of close to half a million per month, put out the following article Aviation Gets a Congressional Star Turn (my bold):
If you were paying attention to the news last week, you may have noticed that the otherwise chronically broken Congress actually proposed a bi-partisan budget package. Now let’s not delude ourselves into thinking strains of Kumbaya will soon be pealing from the Capitol and the members will be caroling on Pennsylvania Avenue, but this little outbreak of cooperation may have positive consequences for aviation. {boy that sounds familiar but alas we are only talking one house not two}

Specifically and without undue prodding, Congress got busy pushing back on two critical issues, the FAA’s plan to require sleep apnea diagnosis for medical certification and the very idea that the Third Class medical requirement is still viable. It’s not unusual for Congress to dip deeply into the affairs of government agencies; that’s what they do, after all. But I can’t recall a confluence of Congressional involvement in two important aviation issues occurring so quickly. {unlike the snail's pace of RRP}

First, the proposed sleep apnea diagnosis. I’m surprised that FAA air surgeon Fred Tilton stumbled into this mess. Mid-level agency executives are usually a lot smarter about what’s going to stir up the masses enough to invoke the wrath of Congress {here the midlevel crats thumb their nose at the pollies} . They like to avoid that sort of thing. Yet, by administrative fiat, Tilton decreed in early November that all pilots over a body mass index of 40 would have to be tested for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and that eventually, the agency wants to extend that to lower BMIs. Here’s Tilton’s announcement. (PDF) It’s breathtaking in its potential scope, cost to airmen and utter lack of supporting data demonstrating how aviation safety will be improved or even anything showing that OSA is a threat to aviation safety. Earlier this month, the House introduced a bill to require the FAA to follow standard rulemaking procedures for this proposed new requirement.

What stuns me is that Tilton didn’t have his ducks in a row on this, attaching links to convincingly show how OSA is causal in aviation accidents to the extent that it’s worth the enormous expense he is proposing to address this issue. Could it be there are no ducks to line up? My guess is the convincing data doesn’t exist. Yes, the NTSB has opined (PDF) on this subject, but largely in the context of fatigue in general, with apnea as but one factor. In other words, Tilton may be proposing an expensive fishing trip, to be paid by pilots seeking medicals.

If you break through the crust of all the coverage on sleep apnea, you soon see that it has become the condition du jour, the suddenly discovered silent killer of the masses. How could civilization have endured so long with the scourge of sleep apnea? {love it!} An entire industry to treat it has emerged and doctors are being shown how they can make lots of money in the burgeoning field of “sleep medicine.” In this story, NPR reported that Medicare payments for sleep testing increased nearly four fold between 2001 and 2009, from $62 million to $235 million.

According to the report, a company called Aviisha specializes in sleep testing and lures physicians with a picture of a doctor with a stack of cash in his lab coat pocket. Not to say the sleep medicine business is entirely a racket, but you can see the potential for abuse. I suspect Tilton’s proposal will be seen as playing into this. If Congress forces rulemaking, perhaps we’ll get a look at what data is supposed to support how OSA treatment will materially improve aviation safety.

Of course, if there weren’t a requirement for medicals, expensive OSA treatments wouldn’t be a requirement, either. And that’s the idea behind a bill introduced last week by Rep. Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican who’s also a pilot. The bill would expand the use of the driver’s license medical certification to allow pilots to fly aircraft up to 6000 pounds, VFR in non-commercial operations. It doesn’t eliminate the Third Class, but rather reduces the scope of operations where it's required. If passed, it’s a huge step forward, but there’s one thing about it I don’t like: it doesn’t allow IFR operations. This makes no sense to me, for instrument skills and operations have always been seen as a means of improving safety. It’s counter-logical to say that it’s medically stressful or that it should require a higher degree of medical screening. My guess is it’s thrown into the bill as a bone and I’m not really complaining. We have to start somewhere on eliminating the Third Class and this is a positive development.

But it’s not without negatives. While I don’t think the elimination or curtailment of the Third Class will kill the light sport industry, it will put a dent in it, especially for some manufacturers. Many LSA buyers are older pilots who have the wherewithal to pay cash for $130,000 airplanes. Some are doing that because they’re selling their Bonanzas or Skyhawks out of medical-loss fear. They see LSAs as lifeboats to extend their flying career. If fear of medical loss no longer propels them, light sport will lose some sales. So be it. It’s unreasonable to expect light sport to sustain on the back of a medical requirement that has long since outlived its usefulness, if it was ever useful. {love it!}

How these two issues play out will be interesting to watch and will likely be another case study in how bureaucracies protect their castles (troughs!} by maneuvering around Congress. It’s always amusing—or maybe infuriating—to attend public meetings where FAA mid-level or even administrator-level executives talk the talk about supporting GA and removing regulatory barriers. Yet here are two examples where they are doing just the opposite. Elimination of the Third Class medical won’t instantly stimulate GA growth, but it will surely reduce the erosion of the pilot population, which is the next best thing. Tilton’s sleep apnea proposal is just bizarre.I have little doubt that many pilots on the verge of bailing from GA will be encouraged to do just that when confronted with a requirement for $3000 worth of OSA testing and then living with a CPAP machine. Personally, I’d rather take up crack smoking than look and sound like Darth Vader when getting ready for bed. But that’s just me. Either way, it ought to be my choice, not the FAA’s.
Hopefully for us here in Oz the yanks do get these matters sorted (before they lob as issues here), otherwise the basket case that is our aviation safety administrators will have us all smoking crack before long...

If you want to see the effect of Paul Bertorelli's article on the US IOS membership, you only need refer to some of the many excellent comments that followed...gotta love the yank culture of Loud & Boisterous, not afraid to speak up . Sure beats this secret squirrel cr#p with the WLR fix...

Addendum:

On our Avmed hot topic of controversy i.e. Dr Pape & CVD, the late Laurence Guzman QC letter of interest: More ancient history...#65

Last edited by Sarcs; 10th Jan 2014 at 07:20.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2014, 19:52
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Steady the Buffs.

About the only thing with Old Akro's post a reasonable man could disagree with is the latte`.

OA# 220 - One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.
If you have been following the -'Empire Strikes Back' thread-, you can see that while the focus is on one main issue, there are other splinters on the dunny seat, to catch the unwary. I hope someone is contemplating a submission to the WLR on matters medical. Whilst 'a-beer-ing' with TOM, I did manage to pry out some information; seems there is a substantial pile of data, but all very confidential and private. I wondered if the 'power point' mentioned above could be a starting point for proceedings; alas, No is the definitive answer. The WLR 'fatal flaw' raises it's ugly head – again – without parliamentary privilege and the facility to provide 'in-camera' testimony, it will be nigh well impossible to provide any form of evidence which relates to 'Doctor-Patient' confidentiality. It's said that the DAME all know there are huge problems, all hate and denigrate the system but; why rock the boat?, to achieve 'sod all'.

OA# 220 -These problems don't require legislation to fix them. It just requires people with integrity and backbone in the upper levels of CASA.
The attitude and the responsibility for that attitude stems from the top; it's not only me who's surprised that experienced, intelligent, skilled, 'professional', bureaucrats like Mrdak and Hawke allow the situation to continue. They must know that there are other competent 'reform' oriented, acceptable folk out there. To persist with the current 'top layer' (and it's catamites) is fraught with peril, unless of course they require a donkey on which to pin a tail. Someone has to carry the can for the existing mess. Pel Air alone should have forced men of good conscience to act for the common good etc. Servants of the people and all that.

The evidence from the Pel Air affair inquiry is a very public insight into a small part of what ails this industry, who is responsible and why. Another inquiry into an event like Canely Vale will produce an international and domestic disgrace, that not even Gibson could spin his way out of.

Why can't get any form of miniscule response to Pel Air ?– they know the problem, they have a solution, they have the tools, they have the spare parts: so why no action? Even if it's cynical, the simple protection of their own rice bowls. Before it's too late.

Let us go in together,
And still your fingers on your lips, I pray.
The time is out of joint. O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!
Nay, come, let’s go together. (Hamlet 1:5).

Tick tock, the corporate clock.

Last edited by Kharon; 10th Jan 2014 at 19:59. Reason: Pondering how to 'blow the gaff', continues. IOS for ever.
Kharon is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 15:09
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Well, compared with all the medical BS we are inflicted with in this country, this is where the US is headed...
Text - H.R.3708 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
mightyauster is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 22:10
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
CASA cash Grant for IOS.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Apply now for CASA sponsorship


Perhaps the Ill's of Society can get a seat at the trough. Appears you only have to have an interest in aviation safety.


The problem is, that organization's accepting cash or in-kind benefits become "compliant" and subservient to Rule "catch 22" "He who pays the piper calls the tune".


I'm in! I wonder if they'll fund a few thousand IOS Tee shirts?

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 11th Jan 2014 at 22:12. Reason: Still can't believe my eyes.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 23:30
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
mightyauster dont hide the details...

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise medical certification regulations
to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a
covered aircraft without regard to any medical certification or proof
of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if--
(1) the individual possesses a valid State driver's license
and complies with any medical requirement associated with that
license;
(2) the individual is transporting not more than 5
passengers;
(3) the individual is operating under visual flight rules;
and
(4) the relevant flight, including each portion thereof, is
not carried out--
(A) for compensation, including that no passenger
or property on the flight is being carried for
compensation;
(B) at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet
above mean sea level;
(C) outside the United States, unless authorized by
the country in which the flight is conducted; or
(D) at a speed exceeding 250 knots.
(b) Covered Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered
aircraft'' means an aircraft that--
(1) is not authorized under Federal law to carry more than
6 occupants; and
(2) has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more
than 6000 pounds.
that is about as clear a direction as you could wish for. now lets see them weasel out of it.
the ex-RAAF of course probably dont understand it at all.

upintotheair that link has died, sadly.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 23:41
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 181
The USA has caught up with Australia. Introduced here 2 years ago!
Vag277 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2014, 23:49
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
bullshit vag277. the australian stuff is only for RAA exemptions. what about us with ICAO licences?
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 01:07
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Cacktus.
PAIN comes also to mind and I concur with your thoughts. It makes one wonder about the validity of some of the "expert's" sitting on the sidelines of Minister Truss' review. Isn't one from AOPAA? The same organization that gave us strict liability and the ASIC and became promoters of CASA Roadshows. I like the cop out weasel words like.. "strong focus on "POSITIVE" promotion and "reciprocal benefits to CASA".


COPIED BELOW IS THE TEXT;


"Aviation organisations promoting safety are being called on to apply for sponsorship from CASA.

Applications under the current round of sponsorship, which can be financial or in-kind, can be made from 13 January 2014 until 14 February 2014.

CASA offers sponsorship for activities such as conferences, workshops, seminars, educational programs and publications that promote Australia’s civil aviation safety capabilities, skills and services.

CASA looks to align sponsorship with current safety promotion activities and priorities. These include ageing aircraft safety, sports and recreational safety, promoting new safety rules and helicopter operations in remote and regional areas.

Applications for sponsorship of activities outside of these priorities will be considered if there is a strong safety focus, known risk factors are addressed and the activities lead to improved aviation safety.

CASA is unlikely to sponsor an activity if there is not a strong focus on positively promoting safety in Australia’s aviation community.

Organisations wishing to apply for sponsorship need to fill in a form which is available on CASA’s web site.

This form asks for a description of the event or activity, the safety messages to be conveyed, the expected number of participants or people impacted, the amount of money or in-kind contribution sought and the reciprocal benefits to CASA."

Find out more and apply for sponsorship.


Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected]
Ref: MR0114

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 12th Jan 2014 at 01:11. Reason: Compacted format/ copy came out triple spaced.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 02:24
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
WLR and Medical matters.

I will, in due course get this research organised for the "Empire Strikes Back" thread; but seeing as medical issues are attracting some belated attention; and, are pertinent to any form 'regulatory' look see; and, affect almost everyone – thought I'd post it here, as a lead to some of the more contentious issues surrounding Avmed v Aircrew. Mind you, the WLR is too small a blade to carve up this turkey – please, let's bring in the Senate crew, open the whole mess up and once and for all time, clear out this unholy mess long hidden away from public view.

Been looking back at some of the AAT medical cases, there is a very definite pattern which emerges from some of the highly 'combative', medically contentious cases. The most curious part of the pattern is the extraordinary lengths to which the Avmed puppets will go to in support of seemingly preordained, micro management edicts, from 'above'.

"I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved."...
The juxtaposition and the high risk element for Avmed is seen in the CASA submission on Hempel; where some interesting legal tap dancing isolates the 'management' from Avmed thrill seekers.

Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.
This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.
There are some interesting by plays and side bars, notably where Avmed is confronted by real 'expert' testimony. the response is a long winded 'statistical' argument, which proves little; leaving the empirical expert testimony remaining – untouched and undisturbed.

OA# 220 - One of my Latte companions yesterday says he possesses a power-point presentation from a recent DAME conference. It was delivered by someone in CASA and the subject material was why CASA doesn't accept the opinions of medical specialists. Doesn't that capture the issue right there? Non medical personnel or (at best) non practising medically trained personnel get to exercise discretion over highly trained specialist practitioners.
Another point of interest are the 'play the man' tactics used, and it's easy pickings. Any pilot medical condition is easily isolated as 'individual', and may, with some impunity be viewed on a 'case by case' basis. Each CVR pilot for example must negotiate terms and by default becomes the target; can we not have a clearly defined 'blanket' rule to cover them all in one fell swoop. As any medical condition does not in any legal sense affect the operator, this further isolates the individual (putting company and union assistance to one side). This takes almost every medical argument to a 'one-on-one' bun-fight, where a preordained, subjective outcome may be argued by the experts from both teams. Bloggs is on his (and or her) own, left to face down 'the authority' without comparable resources. The pilot left to slug it out in the AAT (bad move) or court. Both expensive options, with no guarantee of outcome unless Avmed can be trapped, in clear breach or in another monumental, statistical bluff. No Joyce, the rose coloured glasses will not assist; not this time.

Rummaging about in three past and one pending case (put you to sleep stuff; but the devil does reside in the details) where clear, expert evidence as demanded by Avmed has been waived away, subjectively dismissed and/or ignored as pleases, despite outraged howls of protest. It's passing strange that 'expert medical' testimony is heard by 'legal experts', who can only, with the best will in the world, rule on the law and perhaps, on how the 'evidence' was obtained, how it was translated, by whom and to what ultimate purpose. All the fun of the legal fair – right there.

So, what then can our CVD colleagues expect in light of history, not much is the short answer. The 'official' position is to try and knock out opposing expert testimony. I still can't believe that Dr. Arthur Pape has been given so much grief, allegedly over one, important post here on PPRuNe. Blow me down what's next ?, threaten the applicant; or, find a comma or better yet a big juicy full stop out of place somewhere, somehow. Whoever predetermines what's going to happen and to whom, should be tarred, feathered and run out of Dodge on a rail.

Perhaps the WLR crew can sort it all out, save a world's worth of trouble and money. Just tell Avmed to down size, get real, get out of court, develop or copy some reasonable rules, administer those rules in a timely manner, stop buggering everybody about and let the DAME do their job and issue the certificates. Where is the problem ?- We know children, don't we?

Not done with subject research yet, perhaps CASA will sponsor the research. Sane medical rules for all (and keep fit classes and yoga and herbal tea) Too many details and head scratchin' for a sleepy Sunday arvo; time for tea and perhaps a cheese scone, if my luck holds.

CJ – The river is slow, but the houseboat is patient. Toot toot. (Big smile icon).

Last edited by Kharon; 12th Jan 2014 at 02:33. Reason: Bolding - all my own work.
Kharon is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 03:09
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil The Puppetmaster and the Pinocchio syndrome??



Kharon:
Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.

This preface and the following Introduction, explains the way in which the policy and processes set out in this manual are to be used by all CASA’s personnel when making decisions in the performance of their functions, the exercise of their powers and the discharge of their duties. It also explains the processes to be followed if it appears that a departure from policy is necessary or appropriate.
Ah yes the the not entirely legally sanctioned black ops loophole that can be found in the Foreword of the more important FF COMs/SOPs.

Yes indeed Kharon there are some interesting Punch and Judy side shows in the Avmed world that are definitely worth expending some grey matter energy on, the conundrum will leave many scratching their wooden heads, their expandable noses and of course their donkey ears....
Another point of interest are the 'play the man' tactics used, and it's easy pickings. Any pilot medical condition is easily isolated as 'individual', and may, with some impunity be viewed on a 'case by case' basis.
&

This takes almost every medical argument to a 'one-on-one' bun-fight, where a preordained, subjective outcome may be argued. Bloggs is on his (and or her) own, left to face down 'the authority' without comparable resources.
Or in other words as a wise old Coroner once said ..."ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached.."

The one truly notable exception to this FF Avmed modus operandi is of course the Hempel case, which left most of us scratching our wooden heads at about post #673 of the Barry Hempel Inquest thread...

As chance would have it there was a parallel but diametrically opposing similar case that involved most of the same players involved in the Hempel Inquest:Hazelton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 693 (10 September 2010)

From paragraph 75 through to paragraph 133 we get the FF PMO..."very long winded 'statistical' argument, which proves little"...however IMO the following quote is significant in the context of the Dr B H McPherson (Deputy President) final decision:
130. He was asked by the Deputy President about his use of the term "likelihood". He affirmed that he distinguished between a possibility and a likelihood. He explained that what he meant by "likely" is not necessarily what he meant by "likelihood"; he would choose "likely" for "a real, substantial risk", but he would not necessarily be meaning "likelihood". By likelihood, he was referring to the concept of the possibility, or chance, that an event will occur. He did not consider the extent of the brain damage or injury, in working out whether something was likely or not.

131. Mr Harvey also asked him about the "1% Rule", and if the International Civil Aviation Organisation supports the application of this in aeromedical decision making. He answered that the Organisation, which represents 189 nations, has avoided doing this, although some jurisdictions, such as Europe and Canada, are making attempts to quantify risk numbers.

132. When cross-examined, he said that, for a commercial pilot seeking certification, he would be "looking at" an acceptable absolute risk in the range of 2‑2.5%. However, he had not yet discussed in his evidence how he had made the decision about Mr Hazelton's absolute risk of epilepsy.

133. Although Dr Drane told us that Dr Navāthé had been directly involved in making the decision about Mr Hazelton, we heard no evidence from him concerning his assessment of Mr Hazelton's case.
Now the 1% rule is perhaps best described in paragraphs 359-367 in statements made by another common player in these Avmed shennanigans Dr Rob Liddell:
Dr Robert William Liddell, Medical Practitioner

359. Dr Liddell has practised medicine for nearly 40 years, is an airline pilot, and a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner. His aviation career began with the Western Australian section of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, of which he became Medical Director, and later President; and he currently is a Board member. After six years as company Doctor to the British airline Dan Air, during which he flew as a pilot more than 2400 hours on Boeing 727 aircraft, he returned in 1988 to Australia to be CASA Director of Aviation Medicine for the next eight years. He is an Academician of the International Academy of Aerospace Medicine, and was a former President of the Aviation Medicine Society. He has prepared two statements.
360. In his first statement he has briefly reviewed some of his initiatives in aviation medicine.
361. His second statement has addressed that of Mr Macmillan, and he has taken Mr Macmillan's three main points.
362. First, Dr Liddell stated that, because modern aircraft are highly automated, although they are designed to be operated by two pilots, it has been demonstrated many times that one pilot can safely operate the aircraft if the other is incapacitated.
363. Second, with regard to pilot incapacity degrading safety, Dr Liddell provided information about the research conducted in 1984 by Dr Chapman of British Caledonian Airways. With the company's airline pilots in the company's jet aircraft simulator, he conducted 1300 exercises using two sudden incapacitation protocols, obvious, and subtle, of the handling pilot at a critical stage of flight. He had shown that the risk of losing the aircraft in these circumstances was 0.2%.
364. Subsequently the International Civil Aviation Authority accepted the concept of a medical certification restricted to the pilot operating "as or with co-pilot". Taking the level of the statistical risk target for safety as an observed airline accident rate at 1 per one million flight hours, the level of risk incapacitation for a pilot in a two crew aircraft has been accepted at 1 per cent per year or less. Dr Liddell stated:
This has been rigorously tested since that time and worldwide licensing authorities have not found reason to change this risk level.... There have been no accidents as a result of incapacitation of a person having this restriction since its inception 25 years ago.
365. Mr Macmillan's third man point referred to a pilot's in-flight incapacitation from an epileptic seizure. Dr Liddell stated that the greater concern has been with subtle incapacitation, such as a stroke, or partial seizure, but these are readily dealt with on the flight deck when recognised by the other pilot. As for the more severe grand mal epileptic fit, although physically intimidating, he remarked:
The shaking is usually of low amplitude almost like a tremor... [unlikely] to either disconnect the auto pilot or result in interference with the controls".
366. Dr Liddell observed that Mr Macmillan would not have been "privy" to the "enormous amount of research and statistical work that went into the International Civil Aviation Authority supporting a restricted medical certificate in the 1980s".
367. Dr Liddell was not called to give evidence at the hearing.
"Unfortunately, like all old toys, once a puppet passes its use by date inevitably it is not very long before the strings are cut and the discarded toy is sacrificed on the 'bonfire of the vanities'! "

Maybe Dr Pinnochio has passed his use by date ; his nose has grown just a little too long, the paint is fading & chipped, the strings are loose and those bloody ears...

Probably already considered....but seriously (for a Sundy without any cricket..) maybe the CVD boys'n'gals should seriously consider enlisting the help of some of the Hazo experts and refer to the 1% rule??

Last edited by Sarcs; 12th Jan 2014 at 03:19.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 05:30
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 181
Oh dear! Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Search the CASA website for Drivers Licence Medical. No one has an ICAO licence. they do not issue licences.
Vag277 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.