|
DO or DI?
While we are discussing CAO 48, disallowable instruments, motions and the like, I wonder if the WLR panel will have the nouse to look at other Disallowable Instruments (DI) which are or, have been 'rubber stamped' and passed through the system, unscathed.
There are 120 DI on the list at the moment; ranging from 'means of providing surface wind' to the 'number of cabin attendants', all manner of issues presented to the rubber stamp factory. Couple of troubling things; That there is a need for so many exemptions must be one of the clearest signposts to a regulatory suite which has not kept pace with, or is incapable of supporting 'modern' operations. Prescriptive, complex and ruthlessly micro managed rule sets create the need for operational 'exemption'. Heaven only knows what the 'real' cost of this system is. A company wishing to stay 'legally safe' but operationally efficient needs to draft a proposal, this in all probability will involve operational and legal advice, time and money. Then the 'thing' has to go to the administrator and be processed through reception, recording, evaluation, drafting, legal and a final approval system, all fully documented. Then the 'thing' is off to parliament, through yet another expensive process, before the rubber stamp is used and the operator eventually receives a piece of very expensive paper granting an exemption against the 'rules', as writ. No doubt the system is above board and the exemptions 'made' legal; but I wonder, when was the last external, independent audit of not only the system but some of the decisions. Some of the 'justification' for approval is mind bending, convoluted and abstruse, to say the least. I've no objection to 'operations' having exemptions, or instruments, but would question the need for so many. Perhaps a WLR panel member could question why there is a need for so many and the real costs. When you start to add up the costs involved to produce a request for 'instrument', the cost of submission, the cost of process to get the 'thing' to parliament, the cost of parliamentary rubber stamping, all paid for by the travelling public (one way the other); you end up with some very scary numbers. Add this annual cost to the cost of regulatory reform, whichever way you look at it; the numbers are truly concerning especially when weighed against the progress made thus far. Perhaps the WLR panel cost added to the cost of all previous parliamentary costs for inquiry should be tacked on at the end of a long column of figures which could then be used to define the absolute and abject failure of the great Australian regulatory reform program. FAR or NZ CAR; pick one and lets be done with it. We could save a packet and send the visiting firemen home; for a rest, after their strenuous labour down-under, in the land of the long week end. Selah -and/or Tick tock |
WLR: Disallowable instruments...audit please??
In case you were wondering what in the world Kharon is talking about..:confused:..here is a link for the lists of disallowable instruments currently before the 44th Parliament: Disallowable List - Parliament
And if I extract just one sitting day that instruments, related to the CAA 1988, have been introduced..here is what it looks like {Note: Have linked some of them to the COMLAW site, the one in red I find somewhat amusing..:E} Presented to the Senate on 12 November 2013 5 sitting days remaining for notice to disallow Civil Aviation Act 1988— Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 117) Regulation 2013—Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 222 [F2013L01539]. Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Subpart 21.J) Regulation 2013—Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 188 [F2013L01444]. Civil Aviation Order 82.6 (Night vision goggles – helicopters) 2007—Exemption — initial NVG pilot flight training prerequisites—CASA EX87/13 [F2013L01488]. Civil Aviation Regulations 1988— Approval and directions — operations without an approved digital flight data recorder system—CASA 190/13 [F2013L01763]. Civil Aviation Order 40.3.0 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 2) [F2013L01712]. Civil Aviation Order 100.28 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01711]. Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01330]. Civil Aviation Order 100.5 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 2) [F2013L01486]. Civil Aviation Order 104.0 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01746]. Civil Aviation Order 108.56 Repeal Instrument 2013 [F2013L01331]. Direction — number of cabin attendants for Airbus A320 and Fokker F100 aircraft (Virgin Australia Regional Airlines)—CASA 132/13 [F2013L01278]. Direction — number of cabin attendants for Fokker F70 and Fokker F100 aircraft—CASA 164/13 [F2013L01489]. Direction — number of cabin attendants in Boeing 737-800 series aircraft, Qantas Airways Limited—CASA 158/13 [F2013L01491]. Direction — number of cabin attendants (National Jet Systems)—CASA 170/13 [F2013L01501]. Direction — number of cabin attendants (Sunstate Airlines)—CASA 133/13 [F2013L01280]. Direction — number of cabin attendants (Tiger Airways)—CASA 121/13 [F2013L01274]. Direction — number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia Airlines)—CASA 87/13 [F2013L01215]. Direction — number of cabin attendants (Virgin Australia International Airlines)—CASA 88/13 [F2013L01213]. Direction — parallel runway operations at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport—CASA 192/13 [F2013L01671]. Directions under subregulation 235(2) relating to landing weight and landing distance required— CASA 116/13 [F2013L01276]. CASA 181/13 [F2013L01629]. CASA 205/13 [F2013L01757]. CASA 213/13 [F2013L01762]. Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (A330 and B737NG aircraft)—CASA 186/13 [F2013L01627]. Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (B737NG and B777-300ER aircraft)—CASA 187/13 [F2013L01626]. Instructions — GNSS primary means navigation (B787-8 aircraft)—CASA 220/13 [F2013L01797]. Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—Exemption, permission and direction — helicopter search and rescue operations and training for such operations—CASA EX66/13 [F2013L01724]. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998— Airworthiness Limitations—AD/B767/145 Amdt 2 [F2013L01698]. Amendment of instrument CASA 125/09 — Drug and alcohol testing by CASA under Subpart 99.C of CASR 1998—CASA 165/13 [F2013L01616]. Approval – means of compliance with Airworthiness Directive for Grob G 109 and G 109 B aircraft—A&ESB 12/3050 [F2013L01704]. Auto-Speedbrake Control System—AD/B767/178 Amdt 1 [F2013L01313]. Automatic Flight Control System—AD/A320/3 Amdt 1 [F2013L01691]. Cabin Altitude Warning Takeoff Briefing—AD/B737/346 Amdt 1 [F2013L01751]. Darwin Inspection and Testing Service Ultrasonic Inspection—AD/GENERAL/86 [F2013L01490]. Elevator Flutter Damper Shear Pins—AD/CL-600/36 Amdt 1 [F2013L01332]. Escape Slide Release Cable—AD/B737/42 Amdt 1 [F2013L01750]. Exemption – carriage of flight data recorder – Pel-Air Aviation—CASA EX80/13 [F2013L01393]. Exemption — CASR Part 99 DAMP requirements for CAR 30 or Part 145 organisations overseas—CASA EX95/13 [F2013L01675]. Exemption — certificate of release to service – foreign approved maintenance organisations—CASA EX74/13 [F2013L01378]. Exemption — from having training and checking organisation—CASA EX81/13 [F2013L01493]. Exemption — from holding an air traffic control licence—CASA EX108/13 [F2013L01754]. Exemption – from standard landing minima – Boeing 737 fail-passive aircraft – Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd— CASA EX73/13 [F2013L01400]. CASA EX86/13 [F2013L01496]. CASA EX114/13 [F2013L01882]. Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd—CASA EX103/13 [F2013L01771]. Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd—CASA EX115/13 [F2013L01883]. Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Vietnam Airlines—CASA EX99/13 [F2013L01688]. Exemption — instrument rating flight tests in a synthetic flight training device—CASA EX116/13 [F2013L01869]. Exemption of DAMP organisations for collection and screening of specimens—CASA EX112/13 [F2013L01806]. Exemption — recency requirements for night flying (Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd)—CASA EX90/13 [F2013L01628]. Exemption – recency requirements for night flying – Virgin Australia International Airlines Pty Ltd— CASA EX118/13 [F2013L01871]. Exemption — requirement to wear seat belt and safety harness—CASA EX 106/13 [F2013L01805]. Exemption — Sydney Jabiru Flying School solo flight training at Bankstown aerodrome—CASA EX111/13 [F2013L01877]. Exemption — take-off with residual traces of frost and ice—CASA EX70/13 [F2013L01203]. Exemption — temporary relief from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined exempted airspace—CASA EX113/13 [F2013L01837]. Exemption — use of ADS-B in Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft LV-CSF—CASA EX96/13 [F2013L01662]. Exemption — Virgin Australia International Airlines from subregulation 217(2) of CAR 1988 and paragraph 3.3 of CAO 82.5 (cabin crew training)—CASA EX69/13 [F2013L01202]. Exemption — Virgin Australia International Airlines from subregulation 217(2) of CAR 1988 and paragraph 3.3 of CAO 82.5 (flight crew training)—CASA EX68/13 [F2013L01200]. Exhaust System Inspection – Heat Exchanger—AD/X-TS/1 Amdt 1 [F2013L01664]. Fatigue Critical Components – Retirement Lives—AD/TSA-600/38 Amdt 2 [F2013L01597]. Flightcrew Oxygen Masks—AD/B737/294 Amdt 2 [F2013L01697]. Fuel Injection Servo Plugs—AD/FSM/31 Amdt 3 [F2013L01792]. Fuel Probes—AD/A320/9 Amdt 1 [F2013L01690]. Fuel System Ventilation and Drainage Modification—AD/GA8/7 [F2013L01663]. Main Cabin Upper Door—AD/TSA-600/39 Amdt 3 [F2013L01791]. Main Rotor Mast and Trunnion – Retirement Index Number (RIN) Recount/Inspection— AD/BELL 204/6 Amdt 13 [F2013L01470]. AD/BELL 205/1 Amdt 33 [F2013L01472]. Maintenance on warbird and historic and replica aircraft (WHR) — directions and licence condition—CASA 197/13 [F2013L01747]. Manual of Standards Part 139 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01756]. Nose Wheel Steering Control— AD/A320/27 Amdt 1 [F2013L01692]. AD/A320/27 Amdt 2 [F2013L01835]. Oxygen System—AD/HS 125/161 Amdt 1 [F2013L01679]. Part 66 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01399]. Part 147 Manual of Standards Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) [F2013L01397]. Pitot Probe Hoses—AD/A320/24 Amdt 1 [F2013L01693]. Revocation of exemption — CASR Part 99 DAMP requirements for CAR 30 organisations overseas—CASA EX97/13 [F2013L01676]. Revocations of Airworthiness Directives— CASA ADCX 012/13 [F2013L01333]. CASA ADCX 013/13 [F2013L01411]. CASA ADCX 014/13 [F2013L01494]. CASA ADCX 015/13 [F2013L01566]. CASA ADCX 016/13 [F2013L01596]. CASA ADCX 017/13 [F2013L01637]. CASA ADCX 018/13 [F2013L01700]. CASA ADCX 019/13 [F2013L01752]. CASA ADCX 020/13 [F2013L01828]. CASA ADCX 021/13 [F2013L01823]. CASA ADCX 022/13 [F2013L01902]. Take-Off Warning—AD/B737/18 Amdt 2 [F2013L01703]. I know different political systems and all that..:rolleyes: but interestingly enough in the US recently the House Transportation Committee instigated an audit of the FAA: Inspector General To Audit FAA Organizational Structure House Transportation Committee Requested The Probe The DOT Inspector General plans to begin an audit of the FAA's organization structure this month at the request of the chairs of the House Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee. In a document posted on the Federal Register, over the past two decades, FAA has undergone several reorganizations and structural changes in an effort to improve its operation of the National Airspace System, such as the establishment of the Air Traffic Organization in 2000. The IG says the audit objectives are to:
The ANAO/OBPR in turn could enlist the expertise of the WLB, along with maybe some guidance from the PMC endorsed Best Bractice Regulation Handbook, pool their resources and before you knew it you'd be well on the way to a fully independent, transparent process of auditing the DI list...hmm food for thought perhaps??:ok: ps All in the interest of the Governments Red Tape Reduction policy of course...:E |
Now, what was I talking about?
Oh yes.
116/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required. Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance. 118/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required. Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance. 205/13 These directions apply to Boeing aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required. Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance. 213/13 These directions apply to Boeing 787-8 aircraft operated by Jetstar Airways Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required. Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance. I'd risk a choccy frog and bet that the cast and crew at all the above air operators knew that changes were imminent and were all prepared, well in advance. Training, scheduling, TEM and etc. i.e. all facets analysed well in advance of change over day. I'd even hazard a further choccy frog that the CASA FOI were equally ahead of the game, being informed of and probably involved in the step by step process. Change was coming and everyone was prepared – except the regulator's rules. The primary effect of this instrument is to allow use of a new method of determining that distance based on criteria provided by the aircraft manufacturer. Perhaps the WLR panel, if they could manage it, over tea and cream buns, spare a second or two just to consider exactly how deep mud actually is. Yes minister, we may need a bit more than a teaspoon to dig our way out of the legislative mire. |
CAsA as an entity should be repealed!
Kharon,
The primary effect of this instrument is to allow use of a new method of determining that distance based on criteria provided by the aircraft manufacturer. So this has been written, accepted and published by not a technical person, but by a senior bureaucratic legal hoodoo wordsmith with no technical firsthand understanding or idea, and of course this is after being advised by a junior bureaucrat with a similar 'no idea background' in all things aviation. No Kharon, we need our hands held, bottys wiped and to be breastfed from the CAsA teat because we are a silly industry. WTF would Boeing, Airbus, our major Australian carriers, FOI's (the smart ones, not those indoctrinated in the laws of Wodger), Pilots, flight ops departments, and old mother Hubbard know!! Thank god we have the CAsA, praise the Lord of troughs, amen! |
One thousand seven hundred reasons for adopting NZ regs!
Kharon:
Perhaps the WLR panel, if they could manage it, over tea and cream buns, spare a second or two just to consider exactly how deep mud actually is. Yes minister, we may need a bit more than a teaspoon to dig our way out of the legislative mire. He even gives the figure for exemption instruments as 1700, sheesh..:ugh:.. no wonder it is SOPs for the pollies to just rubber stamp these instruments straight through both chambers without a secondary glance..:=:= See here from about 45 seconds...:rolleyes:: [YOUTUBE] |
Well what he says makes sense to me
|
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry and so is mccormick
Well there must be a review on:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/461...ml#post8252641 A new review of NVFR!!! |
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. |
"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. |
Kharon, at least the Screamer has a fan in 'No Hoper', everybody else just seems to be a real Meaney! No Hoper tells me that the Skull really likes to get down amongst the weeds, to get black hands, as he tries to guide Australia's aviation oversight forward. Is this not a good thing?
I gotta get the FONC out of here, plane to catch :ok: |
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. |
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. 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??:confused:} 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 {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? 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 {Comment: You will also see that CVD guru Dr Arthur Pape:D 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...:ugh::ok: |
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry
The following was posted, which brings up to date the 2013 data with that of 1997.
Here is the data direct: 2013 data compared to 1997 of the Aviation Industry Makes an interesting comparison. Is the ASRR Review Air Turbulence ? on the way or did it exist before ?? http://www.pprune.org/data:image/png...AASUVORK5CYII= |
.{Comment: FFS who'd be a DAME??} "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. |
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. |
Thorny, anything that CAsA touches turns into dysfunctional unworkable bureaucratic ****e, the aviation medical field is no different. It is of no surprise that some pilots are treated like criminals and forced to spend thousands defending and clearing themselves. Gee, where have I heard that sort of system before? Oh yeah, CAsA :ugh:
It's a shame that the same level of scrutiny and over the top personal health inquisitions aren't applied to the neurological and mental health functions of most CAsA staff, as then there would be no CAsA staff!! UITA, good post mate, but oh so tautological don't you think? Same style of CAsA observations, same issues, same findings, over and over and over decade after decade after decade. One day someone will finally stomp on the CAsA windpipe and snuff this diabolical clump of bureaucratic pony pooh out of existence. TICK TOCK |
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." |
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. |
"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. |
Tsk tsk, so there you have it, all Australian doctors have been officially inducted into the IOS :D:D
Well done Fort Fumble. We, as a nation of around 22 million people only have approximately 700 aviation experts, and all work for CAsA supposedly! Better call Guinness Book Of Records as this is a huge record to beat - 22 million IOS! |
"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. 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...:ugh: 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...:D 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.:ok: 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 :ok:. Sure beats this secret squirrel cr#p with the WLR fix...:yuk::yuk: 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 |
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. 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. |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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. |
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. the ex-RAAF of course probably dont understand it at all. upintotheair that link has died, sadly. |
The USA has caught up with Australia. Introduced here 2 years ago!
|
bull**** vag277. the australian stuff is only for RAA exemptions. what about us with ICAO licences?
|
I smell bacon
Frankmeister
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 |
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 |
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."... 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). |
The Puppetmaster and the Pinocchio syndrome??
:D
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. 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....:E 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. 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...:ugh: 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:cool::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. 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 :confused:; his nose has grown just a little too long, the paint is fading & chipped, the strings are loose and those bloody ears...:rolleyes: Probably already considered..:confused:..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??:ok: |
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 |
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, 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: 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. (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). |
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. |
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? |
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... 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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.