Ra Aus Not Goming To A Cta Near You
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's not thick, but he is persisting in making mischief, and the aim seems to be to do as much damage to Recreational Aviation as he can.
In recent times this has backfired with a PPL, easily identified, accused of breaking the law, and causing revelations to come to the surface about non VMC operations of an easily identified Gyro.
Apart from anything else this muddies the water at a time when the two groups of aviators need to be banding together to scrutinise ominous developments which affect us all.
In recent times this has backfired with a PPL, easily identified, accused of breaking the law, and causing revelations to come to the surface about non VMC operations of an easily identified Gyro.
Apart from anything else this muddies the water at a time when the two groups of aviators need to be banding together to scrutinise ominous developments which affect us all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It would seem a lot here are against uncertified aircraft flying in controlled airspace, yet the same bleating souls are those keen on getting non certified ADSB mandated for use by the great unwashed in any airspace in any aircraft.
Ohh and some of us can read back past one post too!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not even sure if I am even the one being referred to. People need to learn to read. No ppl has allegedly broken the law or been accused of and I have not made accusations against gyro pilots. There is a big difference between breaking the law and bad airmanship and judgement. Perhaps given recent events some raa pilots should be looking to their peers to address this and improve their airmanship and image in aviation as the perception of others is most important given the small size of the industry.
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
maverick22;
Have you ever noticed that every safety issue is always addressed with a fee of some sort. Identity cards for example (I don't know for sure but would bet on it being so), were free in Hitler's conquered nations, as were those of Stalinist Russia, Mao's China and so forth. The US doesn't have an ASIC that I know of and trusts their citizens. Only Australia has fee based remedy's for every safety consideration. This country doesn't believe it's citizens can make a rational decision nor be trusted enough to do things within the bounds of common sense and within legal limits.
A DAME signed and isued medical should be sufficient for what is proof of your ability to fly and the best person to judge your health between the validity period is yourself. CASA need not be involved unless persueing that burden of proof as required in legal matters.
Things are happening in Australia today that are moving the goal posts to all of us being GUILTY unless "WE" can prove otherwise.
I personally believe everyone should have a VOLUNTARY medical check every one or two years and concur
Jabawocky;
I was not having a shot at you. It was directed to someone who has been gentleman enough to accept and say nothing in response that may lead to inevitable thread drift.
Yes it is out of context, but the truth is, I was highlighting some double standards being exhibited here.
Have you ever noticed that every safety issue is always addressed with a fee of some sort. Identity cards for example (I don't know for sure but would bet on it being so), were free in Hitler's conquered nations, as were those of Stalinist Russia, Mao's China and so forth. The US doesn't have an ASIC that I know of and trusts their citizens. Only Australia has fee based remedy's for every safety consideration. This country doesn't believe it's citizens can make a rational decision nor be trusted enough to do things within the bounds of common sense and within legal limits.
A DAME signed and isued medical should be sufficient for what is proof of your ability to fly and the best person to judge your health between the validity period is yourself. CASA need not be involved unless persueing that burden of proof as required in legal matters.
Things are happening in Australia today that are moving the goal posts to all of us being GUILTY unless "WE" can prove otherwise.
I personally believe everyone should have a VOLUNTARY medical check every one or two years and concur
not only to satisfy big brother but yourself
I was not having a shot at you. It was directed to someone who has been gentleman enough to accept and say nothing in response that may lead to inevitable thread drift.
Frank, you are stretching the truth out of context here
Francis, I knew someone once that had a real bad run in with the CASA chief medical officer, he managed to eventually get his licence back but the CASA had the last laugh on him by stamping his licence At CASA discretion or words to that effect...I reckon he had a real reason to hate the system.
For the rest of us, a class2 is no more than a standard check-up with a questionaire. RAA have to pay an annual membership fee to keep their quals alive and fill in a questionare, same diff but no medical....honesty. I race bikes I do a class2, I drive a coach load of people I do a class2, I drive LPG around I do a class2....what is it that gives people the willies about a basic medical?
What really gripes me is the individual cost of doing a heap of medicals every two years... I tee'ed up my DAME one year to cover my class2 and my ANDRA medical he said fine but still charged me for two medicals...that's the gripe. I still have to do two medicals class2 and now for my DG bulk haulage licence...so I am still stuck.
Rules is rules...
For the rest of us, a class2 is no more than a standard check-up with a questionaire. RAA have to pay an annual membership fee to keep their quals alive and fill in a questionare, same diff but no medical....honesty. I race bikes I do a class2, I drive a coach load of people I do a class2, I drive LPG around I do a class2....what is it that gives people the willies about a basic medical?
What really gripes me is the individual cost of doing a heap of medicals every two years... I tee'ed up my DAME one year to cover my class2 and my ANDRA medical he said fine but still charged me for two medicals...that's the gripe. I still have to do two medicals class2 and now for my DG bulk haulage licence...so I am still stuck.
Rules is rules...
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
OZBUSDRIVER;
To be fair to CASA, the "renew by CASA only" stamp is so the medico's can assess specialists reports. Specialist reports are normal practice with some medical conditions. They are not a punishment. One would hope this branch of our regulator is as you would expect of the medical profession.
It may be of interest to you also that a rumour of new Director of Aviation Medicine has taken over the chair and word is that he is in favour of more stringent medical's. I believe he is Ex NZ CAA and ex military.
As the ASIC could have been handled with additional checks on your Passport application or renewal for it to substitute and have multiple use for one cost, a universal medical check for aged drivers, truckies, dangerous goods, pilot's- boat licence, insurance, etc could similarly be achieved in this day and age.
But then again there is no money to be made for the "empire builders" is there?
EDIT to add: Just because it is a rule it doesn't mean it is a good rule. Bad rules and laws need to be constantly challenged. I am reminded of the saying, evil prevails when good men do nothing.
This forum is a good place to start a campaign of opposition to those rules that are corrupted by government or bureaucratic greed or incompetence. I know it is followed closely in Canberra.
To be fair to CASA, the "renew by CASA only" stamp is so the medico's can assess specialists reports. Specialist reports are normal practice with some medical conditions. They are not a punishment. One would hope this branch of our regulator is as you would expect of the medical profession.
It may be of interest to you also that a rumour of new Director of Aviation Medicine has taken over the chair and word is that he is in favour of more stringent medical's. I believe he is Ex NZ CAA and ex military.
As the ASIC could have been handled with additional checks on your Passport application or renewal for it to substitute and have multiple use for one cost, a universal medical check for aged drivers, truckies, dangerous goods, pilot's- boat licence, insurance, etc could similarly be achieved in this day and age.
But then again there is no money to be made for the "empire builders" is there?
EDIT to add: Just because it is a rule it doesn't mean it is a good rule. Bad rules and laws need to be constantly challenged. I am reminded of the saying, evil prevails when good men do nothing.
This forum is a good place to start a campaign of opposition to those rules that are corrupted by government or bureaucratic greed or incompetence. I know it is followed closely in Canberra.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The job of all good bureacrats is to perpetuate the bureacracy, whether it be a Medical , Security, License,Taxation or any other vexatious regulatory requirement.
Australia has one of the most sophisticated bureacracies in the world, ergo they then create the most specialised and bloody minded regulatory framework so they can ensure their Job security and make the system inviolate.
And if a Federal Bureacrat steps out of line you can bet S 70 of the Federal Crimes Act comes down with full force and effect to bash him/her back into line.
So can we expect any change for the better, simplified regulation and sensible risk based application of regulation, I think not.
Australia has one of the most sophisticated bureacracies in the world, ergo they then create the most specialised and bloody minded regulatory framework so they can ensure their Job security and make the system inviolate.
And if a Federal Bureacrat steps out of line you can bet S 70 of the Federal Crimes Act comes down with full force and effect to bash him/her back into line.
So can we expect any change for the better, simplified regulation and sensible risk based application of regulation, I think not.
Folks,
Re. Joker 10's reference to the bureaucracy as "sophisticated", ain't that the truth, as per a major meaning of "sophisticated" from the times of ancient Athens.
Thus, a sophist:"Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone."
In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.
"A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual".
Thanks to Wikipedia for the quotes, near enough to the Oxford definition for this purpose.
Applying these definitions, all the "arguments" to justify the ASIC, and many other recent bureaucratic imposts can be more easily "explained".
Tootle pip!!!
Re. Joker 10's reference to the bureaucracy as "sophisticated", ain't that the truth, as per a major meaning of "sophisticated" from the times of ancient Athens.
Thus, a sophist:"Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone."
In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.
"A sophist is a user of sophisms, i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual".
Thanks to Wikipedia for the quotes, near enough to the Oxford definition for this purpose.
Applying these definitions, all the "arguments" to justify the ASIC, and many other recent bureaucratic imposts can be more easily "explained".
Tootle pip!!!
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
Well, I don't understand why somebody would propose an accepted overseas model of a RPL, with no medical but demand RA-Aus have one to fly in the same airspace. Does this not get back to a syllabus to "teach" someone how to fly in or transit CTR like you do with a post GFPT PPL.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The medical for CTA under RAA was a good idea, but the standard of the medical proposed was not realistically necessary.
As an example, if you're sight was failing and you continue to drive a car and you manage to do so quite safely because you only drive at 60 and you usually only drive to the shops then in theory that is fine. The same driver may fly an RAA aircraft and struggle to safely see to be able to aviate and navigate, but still keeps flying (trust me, I've known of people that have done this), however had this pilot had even the most basic of medicals, his condition would be picked up at this point and appropriate action would be taken (sorry no flying for you, or corrective lenses etc). We all know that ECG's and the full cario workups can be a shocking waste of time given that even a healthy looking 40 year old could die of a heart failure, so a basic medical would suffice.
In summary, for RAA or an RPL there needs to be some basic form of medical screening to ensure the obvious things get picked up.
As an example, if you're sight was failing and you continue to drive a car and you manage to do so quite safely because you only drive at 60 and you usually only drive to the shops then in theory that is fine. The same driver may fly an RAA aircraft and struggle to safely see to be able to aviate and navigate, but still keeps flying (trust me, I've known of people that have done this), however had this pilot had even the most basic of medicals, his condition would be picked up at this point and appropriate action would be taken (sorry no flying for you, or corrective lenses etc). We all know that ECG's and the full cario workups can be a shocking waste of time given that even a healthy looking 40 year old could die of a heart failure, so a basic medical would suffice.
In summary, for RAA or an RPL there needs to be some basic form of medical screening to ensure the obvious things get picked up.
So.....in effect, Francis, joker and Leadie, your all of the opinion that the RAA has got the medical issue spot on?
No, I think CASA has it right, applying the National Drivers License medical standard to the RA Oz Pilot Certificate, and the proposed CASA RPL.
That's why applying a different (higher) medical standard to RAA Pilot Certificates for flight in CTA, compared to an RPL in CTA, makes no logical sense.
There is certainly no medical/operational evidence to justify such an action, re. RAA, it is is no more than an artificial obstacle to flight in CTA.
RAA does not "make rules", it administers a set of functions, as delegated by CASA, as do the GFA, HGFA and a few others.
None of this is new, for the GFA, since just after WW 11, about 60 years, for RA Oz, some twenty years ----- all a long enough history for any real ( as opposed to imagined) problems to be evident.
Tootle pip!!!!
Cute, Leadie....lets rephrase, shall we?
Given the equivalent standards of training between PPL and RAA to fly OCTA/CTAF do you consider the RAA pilot is well covered for fitness to fly medicaly, equivalent to holding a car driver's licence?
Given the equivalent standards of training between PPL and RAA to fly OCTA/CTAF do you consider the RAA pilot is well covered for fitness to fly medicaly, equivalent to holding a car driver's licence?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The medical does not provide fitness to fly, that assessment is with the pilot alone on the day the flight is planned, the category of medical certificate that the examined and measured parameters are acceptable for the life of the certificate and are based on objective scientifically valid limits as witnessed by a qualified observer, DAME. Which is why any General Practicioner cannot do the medical TEST, the DAME is trained to know the limits set out in the CASA handbook which are expressed numerically in the main with tight tolerances.
The PIC is responsible for his/her ongoing fitness and must evaluate that prior to each flight, the consumption of medicine, an abnormal pain, bad teeth,cosumption of alcohol or prohibited substances all remove fitness to fly even though a medical certificate is still valid and inplace.
The time honoured resistence of ICAO licenced pilots to allow any form of "lesser" pilot with only recreational license into their play ground has always invoked the mantra "They are not fit to fly, only fit to drive".
So in an historic sense Douglas Bader was not acceptable to have a medical certificate, but he was fit to fly.
I well remember the really good work done by Dr Artur Pape on colour blindness where colour blind folk simply got knocked out by the test, no ifs no buts, Arthur proved these folk were fit to fly, their sight was good if not as colourful as the general population, but the medical category knocked them out.
After a lot of work Arthur proved that the colour blind folk were indeed fit to fly and new testing was devised for them so they could be objectively tested and given a medical certificate, but the fitness to fly still rests with the pilot, not with the DAME.
The PIC is responsible for his/her ongoing fitness and must evaluate that prior to each flight, the consumption of medicine, an abnormal pain, bad teeth,cosumption of alcohol or prohibited substances all remove fitness to fly even though a medical certificate is still valid and inplace.
The time honoured resistence of ICAO licenced pilots to allow any form of "lesser" pilot with only recreational license into their play ground has always invoked the mantra "They are not fit to fly, only fit to drive".
So in an historic sense Douglas Bader was not acceptable to have a medical certificate, but he was fit to fly.
I well remember the really good work done by Dr Artur Pape on colour blindness where colour blind folk simply got knocked out by the test, no ifs no buts, Arthur proved these folk were fit to fly, their sight was good if not as colourful as the general population, but the medical category knocked them out.
After a lot of work Arthur proved that the colour blind folk were indeed fit to fly and new testing was devised for them so they could be objectively tested and given a medical certificate, but the fitness to fly still rests with the pilot, not with the DAME.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a lot of sense Joker 10.
What irritates me is finding the DAME is on the other side of town, and the cost.
As someone previously mentioned, the standards seem to be based on a miltary and possibly not very scientific basis, and for PPL and Recreational licences some reform would seem to be a good idea, and it may be possible to set a common standard for both which would allow a local GP to carry out the medical.
I'm not trying to minimise the testing here, just take away one of the hurdles which causes PPL to give up, the other being the cost of the BFR for an occasional pilot.
What irritates me is finding the DAME is on the other side of town, and the cost.
As someone previously mentioned, the standards seem to be based on a miltary and possibly not very scientific basis, and for PPL and Recreational licences some reform would seem to be a good idea, and it may be possible to set a common standard for both which would allow a local GP to carry out the medical.
I'm not trying to minimise the testing here, just take away one of the hurdles which causes PPL to give up, the other being the cost of the BFR for an occasional pilot.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both raa and ga have a bfr, so I don't understand why this is a financial burden. The bfr/afr is an integral part of maintaining currency and should not be seen as an annoying thing that you have to do every two years. I always look forward to doing mine.
Valid points there Joker, just read DB's book the other day actually. Excellent read
Wallsofchina, the medical does seem to be rediculously overpriced, but it does remain effective for 4 years. RAA annual membership is $160 odd dollars per annum so over 4 years that outweighs the cost of the medical.
With regard to a BFR (AFR nowadays), I not wuite sure what you are getting at. Whether you fly 50 hours per year or 500 hours per year, an AFR has to be done regardless. Aircraft hire costs are fixed and so is instructor hire, it's just the less you fly over a two year period, the more you will probably need to cover in the AFR. Please also remember that there is a certain amount of theoretical knowledge which needs to be discussed on the ground as part of the flight review, and ground time needs to be paid for too
. A flying school is a business and needs to cover costs! It's just something that you need to cop on the chin as a pilot. What you really need to do is find an instructor that you trust and who knows how you fly, so you know what to expect when it comes time for the AFR. Flight reviews shouldn't be frowned upon, they are an opportunity to brush up on your skills and practise things that you would otherwise not get a chance to do in your day to day flying. Hell, you might even learn something
Wallsofchina, the medical does seem to be rediculously overpriced, but it does remain effective for 4 years. RAA annual membership is $160 odd dollars per annum so over 4 years that outweighs the cost of the medical.
With regard to a BFR (AFR nowadays), I not wuite sure what you are getting at. Whether you fly 50 hours per year or 500 hours per year, an AFR has to be done regardless. Aircraft hire costs are fixed and so is instructor hire, it's just the less you fly over a two year period, the more you will probably need to cover in the AFR. Please also remember that there is a certain amount of theoretical knowledge which needs to be discussed on the ground as part of the flight review, and ground time needs to be paid for too
. A flying school is a business and needs to cover costs! It's just something that you need to cop on the chin as a pilot. What you really need to do is find an instructor that you trust and who knows how you fly, so you know what to expect when it comes time for the AFR. Flight reviews shouldn't be frowned upon, they are an opportunity to brush up on your skills and practise things that you would otherwise not get a chance to do in your day to day flying. Hell, you might even learn something
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
but it does remain effective for 4 years
A lot of flying clubs and particularly flying schools maintain currency checks. Used to be 90 days if you hadn't flown in the interim. Night VFR similar if you want to carry passengers.
but it does remain effective for 4 years
??? It used to be two.
??? It used to be two.
The school I used to work for had compulsory 90 day currency checks, which I believe allowed them to reduce their insurance premiums. Damn good idea regardless I reckon