PPRuNe Forums - AvMed - Time for some answers!

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - AvMed - Time for some answers! (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/579454-avmed-time-some-answers.html)

AvMed - Time for some answers!

Hands up, who is having trouble getting their Aviation Medical out of CASA AvMed currently? :confused:

I did my Class 1 back in 2015 and still have no Certificate.
I telephoned them, after 3 months was up & the Temporary Certificate stamp had expired. All excuses under the sun have ensued, including "just do it again"...:hmm:

The crux of the matter is and it has been admitted by one of their IT staff that, the newly instigated computer system does not bring forward and can not recognise the previous applications... :} ?

Now who decided on this new "computer system"?
Was there a "proving/change over/trial period?
Why wasn't the old paper method used as a back-up, as we still fill all those pages in?
Many more questions remain (for me) as this service and their response (lack thereof) has been and currently is unacceptable.

Three other colleagues I've talked to just this week are in the same boat, still awaiting their certificates, well past the temporary 3 month extension.

Who else is having trouble with this mob?

If this is industry wide I would recommend we request our respective unions to collate individual evidence for a collective communique with the Director.

Still waiting after doing mine in early April. Rang them and the excuse was, 'The girls are a bit snowed under'.

And we get to pay $75 for the privilege.

Quote:

11.140 Continuation of authorisation until application decided

(1) This regulation applies in relation to a time‑limited authorisation (the old authorisation) if:

(a) at least:

(i) in the case of an authorisation held by a corporation, 90 days;

(ii). in any other case, 21 days;

before the time when the old authorisation would otherwise cease, its holder applies to CASA for the issue of a new time‑limited authorisation that confers the same privileges, or authorises the holder to carry out the same functions or duties, as the old authorisation; and

(b). at the time when the old authorisation would otherwise cease, CASA has not made a decision on the application.

(2) For subregulation (1), an applicant has applied for the new authorisation only if:

(a) the applicant has given to CASA the necessary application, in the form required by these Regulations; and

(b) the application is taken to be complete, in accordance with regulation 11.030; and

(c) the applicant has given to CASA any other documents required by these Regulations to be given to CASA with the application.

Note: The applicant does not need to give to CASA information or a document that CASA already has—see regulation 11.145.

(3) In spite of any other provision of these Regulations, but subject to subregulation (4), the old authorisation continues in force until:

(a) CASA makes a decision on the application; and

(b). if the decision is to grant the new authorisation—the new authorisation comes into force.

(4) If CASA asks for further information or a document or invites the applicant to make a submission, under a provision of Subpart 11.B as applied by regulation 11.145, and the applicant does not do so within the period specified by CASA under that provision, then, despite subregulation (3), the old authorisation is taken to cease at the end of that period.

Quote:

11.015 Definitions for Part

In this Part:

authorisation means:
...
(c) a certificate capable of being granted to a person under these Regulations.

Note: For the definition of civil aviation authorisation, see section 3 of the Act.

...

time‑limited authorisation means:

(a) an authorisation that, under another provision of these Regulations, ceases after a particular period; or

(b). an authorisation granted by CASA for a specified period.

Worth reading twice.

That's not how my company sees it. I'm about to be pulled off line due to CASA imcompetence. It's either valid or not. Imagine what a foreign authority would think if you were checked whilst in an overseas port.

Yes, troo believer!
You either have it in hand or you don't. If you don't, say whatever you like but it still doesn't count.
This is the issue, especially overseas, when your company stipulates we MUST have "all visas, passports & licences current and with you" prior to sign on!

OK Guys

AIPA and AFAP need to make an election issue out of this CASA incompetence.

"CASA incompetence threatens to ground Airline pilots"

Keep ther pressure on

Keep it in the media

Don't let a single opportunity pass us by.

I have a contact at AFAP - Who do we call at AIPA?

I suppose the provision does create a paradox. It provides protection, in theory, against delays caused by bureaucratic bungling or laziness, but can only work, in practice, if the bureaucracy has the competence and capacity to explain its operation to the world and take responsibility for the consequences.

The provision is probably subject to some exception or determination or some other "yes but" that renders it meaningless for medical certificates anyway.

But just think how much safer people will be when you're dragged off the line.

Not being a legal person I'm probably talking out of my hat.
The regulator through incompetence are interfering in citizens
rights to pursue their professions and earn a living.
I ponder if that would be grounds to take a legal case to Fair Work?
They have cost me thousands of dollars in income from their
non safety regulations, any legal eagles out there with an opinion?

AIPA has already tried to get CASA on its delays in the Federal Court back in 2014 by funding an AIPA's member's case:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...4%20FCA%201016

"There is no basis pleaded on which to conclude that the time between the receipt of the 2 November 2011 letter and the case conference on 22 March 2012 constituted an unreasonable delay in the process of CASA’s fulfilment of its statutory duties."

"...there may be a common law duty of care owed by CASA in some circumstances but, in the exercise of power and judgment under the CA Act in respect of the maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, CASA acts for safety of the public generally and not for the benefit of the person affected by that exercise."

Although I agree this is a different issue to delays caused by computer failures, staff shortages etc.

Hey Thorn Bird and HL,

You two should 'get together'....you've got the makings of an interesting case, which, when 'highlighted' in the media, will (may) bring a torch to bear..??

Just an idea.....

Cheers :ok:

Quote:

AIPA has already tried to get CASA on its delays in the Federal Court

Never mind the Feral Court - there is only one court that matters between now and July2nd - the Court of public opinion.

....and I ask you all.... who of you have written to your local member?!?

YOU must WRITE.

YOU because if it's not you, who will?

If not NOW, then WHEN?

DO IT.

YOUR LIFE DOES DEPEND ON IT.

Thanks HL, yes done before I got on this and the new Minister for Infrastructure... though in caretaker mode currently.

And you must submit a formal complaint to CASA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The figleaf that Mr Skidmore puts over AVMED is that CASA has "only received 13 formal complaints about AVMED." (My recollection is that 13 was the number. My recollection may be inaccurate, but it was a very small number.)

It appears that the trenchant criticisms of AVMED in the submissions of the pilot representative bodies to the ASRR don't count in Mr Skidmore's mind. It appears that the number of AVMED decision overturned by the AAT, or overturned before an embarrassing decision by the AAT, don't count in Mr Skidmore's mind.

I think Mr Skidmore isn't allowed to do much independent thinking.

Keep your eyes peeled for an AFAP survey (members) and in the media as this is worse than first thought.

Happy Landings:ok:

Funny how my Class 1 just turned up in my email inbox...

casa's principle medical officer is well into bogus medicine. idiot.
did my medical october november last year. no problems according to the DAME.
stupid in canberra comes back with a load of irrelevant tripe.
answered some of it but have ignored the bogus medicine aspects.
am still flying.
wonder if the prinicple medical officer is from the same crowd of nutters as the previous ones?

his thing seems to be to ask for spirometry. this is so close to total quackery that he should be deregistered.
CASA - the clueless a**********s screwing aviation.

This year was a five year anniversary medical for me, with the usual extras added in. I have just had the pleasure of paying an exorbitant fee for a 10 minute stroll on a treadmill at a cardiologists rooms due to a high cholesterol result.

At the end of the consult, I asked the cardiologist if there is any thing I need to change in my lifestyle to help correct this problem. He replied, 'You DON'T have a problem. There is NOTHING wrong with your heart, there is NOTHING wrong with your cholesterol level, there is NOTHING wrong with your diet. There is however SOMETHING wrong with CASA; their prescriptive cut off levels for cholesterol readings are not realistic and bear no semblance to the reality of cardio vascular health threats'.

Of course, the exorbitant fee is not claimable on Medicare as it is work related.
NOT HAPPY JAN

5 year anniversary for me Audio/ECG/Bloods $400 later

Appt was 4 weeks ago still nothing ... Hopeless!