Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
"VH-IOS cleared for pushback!"
Old Akro:
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):
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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady the Buffs.
About the only thing with Old Akro's post a reasonable man could disagree with is the latte`.
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'.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
Text - H.R.3708 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this troughs a rocking don't come a knocking!
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.
They care not for any industry collateral damage, and will under no circumstance be swayed a mere inch. No, these guys will loyally serve their Master to the full, until such day as they are killed in the line of duty (perhaps in a smoking hole of their making), or until they reach that age where they can no longer run alongside their Presidents armour plated vehicle ( but in this case a Boeing 737, VH-TROUGH), or until they retire with a fat bank account, fully indexed pension and numerous other plump perks, all c/o the IOS tax payments of course.
TICK TOCK
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and the strength of it's office legal counsel
Ever wondered why casa can exert so much pressure both within and outside the system.
This article from The Australian deserves a read:
The law, lawyers, aviation and the ASRR
Will this work?? [Fixed link]
and the post by mightyauster about the Bill before the House in the US.
The most interesting is the shortness and clear direction made in this process.
This article from The Australian deserves a read:
The law, lawyers, aviation and the ASRR
Will this work?? [Fixed link]
and the post by mightyauster about the Bill before the House in the US.
The most interesting is the shortness and clear direction made in this process.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 12th Jan 2014 at 03:38.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mightyauster dont hide the details...
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.
(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.
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.
the ex-RAAF of course probably dont understand it at all.
upintotheair that link has died, sadly.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I smell bacon
Frankmeister
Frank, I am deeply suspicious. Have you ever seen government pigs at a trough? They DO NOT like to share, especially with those pesky IOS people. I would suggest, if I may, that PAIN monitor this process and review the details of whoever wins a seat at the temporary trough. I would also suggest the process of 'choosing the temporary trough members' be scrutinised by the IOS or somebody like Nick X, because I can smell pooh surrounding this process. Mates rates come to mind. And after all, CAsA and its loyal following of CASAsexuals never do anything for anybody out of the goodness of their own hearts
Doubleeye
Ex washed up CX pilots, test pilots, and little airfield managers wouldn't understand either.
TICK TROUGH
Perhaps the Ill's of Society can get a seat at the trough. Appears you only have to have an interest in aviation safety.
Doubleeye
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.
TICK TROUGH
Last edited by Cactusjack; 11th Jan 2014 at 23:59. Reason: VH-IOS on short finals
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
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.
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.
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).
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."...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
&
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pape smear
Dr Pape is CAsA's ultimate nightmare, and a virtual kingpin of the IOS in CAsA's eyes. He is smart, factual, experienced, well respected and credible. What he has to say shows CAsA up for being the complete asswipes we have grown to hate about them. They won't hesitate to smear him, nobble him or break him through litigation if need be. We need people like Pape as he brings sensibility, reason and wisdom to the complex medical side of aviation.
CAsA's Dr Poohshan is no match for Pape on the experienced medical front, but Poohshan has the upper hand simply because of the 'untouchables' who back him and feed him.
'Safe medicals for all'
TICK TOCK
CAsA's Dr Poohshan is no match for Pape on the experienced medical front, but Poohshan has the upper hand simply because of the 'untouchables' who back him and feed him.
'Safe medicals for all'
TICK TOCK
Vag277, have you bothered reading any of the CASA rules or the proposed rule in the US? Or do you have difficulty with comprehension?
Here are the current CASA Driver's Medical Rules:
Compared to the proposal in the US:
The US proposal would make most GA single engine aircraft eligible. It is essentially the next step from the current Driver's Medical.
Here are the current CASA Driver's Medical Rules:
Recreational pilot medical restrictions
Medical Restrictions
Getting a Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) requires that:
Operational restrictions
The conditions of the exemption also impose restrictions on the flight rules that may be used by exempted pilots, on the aircraft that may be used, on the airspace that may be used, on the carriage of passengers and on the kind of flight that may be engaged in.
Restriction on aircraft
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must only operate single engine, piston powered aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter) with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 1500kg or less.
Restriction on flight rules
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must operate only by day and under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Night VFR and IFR flight is not permitted.
Restriction on use of airspace
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft as pilot in command in any airspace above 10 000 ft AMSL (above mean sea level).
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on carriage of passengers
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft with more than 1 passenger on board, and that 1 passenger (if carried) must be a qualifying passenger. This is a defined term meaning a passenger who, before boarding an aircraft has been told by the eligible person that he or she holds a current driver licence medical certificate (aviation) that is of a lower medical standard than a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate normally required but that he or she is acting under a CASA exemption and which imposes conditions, all of which are and will be complied with for the flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on acrobatic flight
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft in acrobatic flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed and acrobatic flight-endorsed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate, and the eligible person’s licence is also endorsed for acrobatic flight.
Any person thinking of applying to operate under the recreational pilot medical should ensure they have read and understood the complete explanatory statement.
Medical Restrictions
Getting a Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) requires that:
- the individual meets the Australian Fitness to Drive unconditional private drivers requirements; and
- the individual does not have any of the disqualifying conditions.
Operational restrictions
The conditions of the exemption also impose restrictions on the flight rules that may be used by exempted pilots, on the aircraft that may be used, on the airspace that may be used, on the carriage of passengers and on the kind of flight that may be engaged in.
Restriction on aircraft
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must only operate single engine, piston powered aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter) with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 1500kg or less.
Restriction on flight rules
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must operate only by day and under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Night VFR and IFR flight is not permitted.
Restriction on use of airspace
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft as pilot in command in any airspace above 10 000 ft AMSL (above mean sea level).
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on carriage of passengers
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft with more than 1 passenger on board, and that 1 passenger (if carried) must be a qualifying passenger. This is a defined term meaning a passenger who, before boarding an aircraft has been told by the eligible person that he or she holds a current driver licence medical certificate (aviation) that is of a lower medical standard than a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate normally required but that he or she is acting under a CASA exemption and which imposes conditions, all of which are and will be complied with for the flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on acrobatic flight
An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft in acrobatic flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed and acrobatic flight-endorsed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate, and the eligible person’s licence is also endorsed for acrobatic flight.
Any person thinking of applying to operate under the recreational pilot medical should ensure they have read and understood the complete explanatory statement.
(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 (2721 kg).
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 (2721 kg).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another vagabond appears, (and from Canberra of all places). I thought it was a well researched, accurate, topical and informative "rant". For a brief moment after reading the Fag277 reply I thought I could get an endorsement on an A380 on a DL medical in the interests of aviation safety.
BTW, nobody in Australia has a license, only a "privilege" to exercise a right to operate with something called a license, that is "granted" and that, can be taken away if someone doesn't like your aftershave or you have been caught mucking around with his boyfriend.
BTW, nobody in Australia has a license, only a "privilege" to exercise a right to operate with something called a license, that is "granted" and that, can be taken away if someone doesn't like your aftershave or you have been caught mucking around with his boyfriend.
mightyauster
In Australia, who has authority to determine whether an individual has any one of the (very long list of) ‘disqualifying conditions’?
Is there an equivalent list with equivalent consequences in the USA?
In Australia, who has authority to determine whether an individual has any one of the (very long list of) ‘disqualifying conditions’?
Is there an equivalent list with equivalent consequences in the USA?
Creamie, I am presuming it is your GP who determines if "you have one of the disqualifying conditions". In practice (I haven't tried it yet), it would be interesting to see how many GPs would actually be prepared to "sign on the dotted line" if you requested a "drivers license medical certificate - aviation".
From the CASA website...
It's interesting to note the length of list of disqualifying conditions for normal class 1 to 3 medical in the USA....
From the CASA website...
Medical examination
You will need a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) confirming your fitness to fly, issued in accordance with the conditions in Instrument CASA EX 68/12. When applying for this medical, you must tell the doctor of any condition that may adversely affect your ability to fly safely. Examples include but are not limited to diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions, stroke, eye problems (such as cataracts), psychiatric disorders, blackouts or fainting.
The certificate issued by a medical practitioner uses the uniform Australian private motor vehicle unconditional driving licence medical standards contained in the Austroads Inc. publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, but modified by additional CASA-designed medical standards. This type of medical examination can be undertaken by any general practitioner and is similar in form to the Austroads Inc. driver licence medical examination.
You will need a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) confirming your fitness to fly, issued in accordance with the conditions in Instrument CASA EX 68/12. When applying for this medical, you must tell the doctor of any condition that may adversely affect your ability to fly safely. Examples include but are not limited to diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions, stroke, eye problems (such as cataracts), psychiatric disorders, blackouts or fainting.
The certificate issued by a medical practitioner uses the uniform Australian private motor vehicle unconditional driving licence medical standards contained in the Austroads Inc. publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, but modified by additional CASA-designed medical standards. This type of medical examination can be undertaken by any general practitioner and is similar in form to the Austroads Inc. driver licence medical examination.
Unless otherwise directed by the FAA, the Examiner must deny or defer if the applicant has a history of: (1) Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medication; (2) Angina pectoris; (3) Coronary heart disease that has been treated or, if untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant; (4) Myocardial infarction; (5) Cardiac valve replacement; (6) Permanent cardiac pacemaker; (7) Heart replacement; (8) Psychosis; (9) Bipolar disorder; (10) Personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts; (11) Substance dependence; (12) Substance abuse; (13) Epilepsy; (14) Disturbance of consciousness and without satisfactory explanation of cause, and (15) Transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory explanation of cause.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
isn't this so typical of casa's crap approach.
the requirement is a simple drivers licence.
casa just cant let go of the bull****.
we have to have a special driver's licence certification under instrument blah blah.
for gods sake casa give it a rest or you'll go blind.
it is all bull****. realise it and let it go. the guys are quite capable of seeing a doctor and managing their health without all your casa embuggerance.
the requirement is a simple drivers licence.
casa just cant let go of the bull****.
we have to have a special driver's licence certification under instrument blah blah.
for gods sake casa give it a rest or you'll go blind.
it is all bull****. realise it and let it go. the guys are quite capable of seeing a doctor and managing their health without all your casa embuggerance.
