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
Frank, I'd rather have currency checks at shorter intervals, but my main point was about the medicals - the system could be improved without any loss of safety.
This is rediculous. Joker, Francis and Leadie....you can quote chapter and verse...I have already got my AIP/CAO/CAR I do not need you guys to regurgitate. What do YOU think is the best for GA/RAA types to fly around in the GAFA?
DAME medical...or...honesty?
DAME medical...or...honesty?
OZBUSDRIVER,
Nothing cute about it, just a statement of fact, indeed, to be a little more precise, Parliament is the rule maker, and even CASA is an administrator of the rules.
Let us not forget that "regulations" and "orders" are both "dis-allowable documents" in the process of creating secondary legislation by executive government -- Parliament is the final arbiter, as it should be.
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 is perfectly clear about CASA's legislated authority to delegate functions, which it does. This is common across all Commonwealth legislation, nothing unique about the CAA Act 1988. Differentiate carefully between "functions" and "powers", they are not the same.
Do I believe that the National Driver's License Standard (which is not necessarily without a medical examination) is adequate for an RA Oz pilot certificate and CASA proposed RPL --- Unquestionably YES.
In fact, adequate for a PPL, but there is an "ICAO" constraint here.
The statistics (despite their absolute dismissal as an assessment tool by our mate Owen Stanley) are in support of this conclusion.
The biggest study on this subject, of which I am aware, was by FAA, in the development of the original FAA RPL. FAA was well aware of the AUF experience in Australia --- that no air safety threat (let alone measurable threat) could be ascribed to the less restrictive medical standard.
A major conclusion of this FAA study was that any medical certificate/ standard was a very poor predictor of any in-flight medical event/incapacitation/air safety threat. This was across the board, not just 2nd/3rd class medical standards. Thus FAA proposed the (US) national drivers license medical standard as the requirement for the original RPL.
In a similar fashion, but later, the then FAA prohibition on insulin dependent diabetics being air traffic controllers could be shown to have no air safety validity, with the consequent changes to medical standards for ATC folks --- but not before a big stoush with those types who automatically oppose change --- unless it is for more restriction ---- we are rather too good at that in Australia.
After a very vigorous lobby campaign of Dept. of Transport, by the association covering aero-medical doctors/FAA DAMEs (nothing to do with cash flow, of course --- such professional wouldn't let a conflict of interest -- the prospect of losing up to 50% of income ---cloud their judgement, would they) the DoT over-ruled FAA, and into the rules went a more restrictive medical standard ---- same as the PPL.
This was a major factor in "thinking up" the FAA Sports Pilot License (along with suitable aircraft design/certification standards, the Light Sports Aircraft---- somewhat less than FAR 23), so that, in this area US finally caught up with Australia, and to a lesser degree, Canada, UK and several western European countries.
All the above is fact, not opinion, all the documents are publicly available. The amount of medical information alone, on the FAA/DoT web sites, is bordering on the mind-boggling. The shear size of the samples guarantee that the conclusions are valid.
The probability of the class of medical certificate being a predictor of incapacitation in flight is: Vanishingly small.
The only way this would change would be to greatly increase the invasive tests, such as an angiogram, CAT scans, nuclear stress ECG, EEG, echocardiogram etc.---- Does anybody want to pay for that, to "solve" a problem that is already "vanishingly small".
Any takers for an annual $5-10,000 medical --- don't forget medical funds do not pay for "medical certification".
Save us from the likes of the UK CAA --- who are rapidly moving in that direction, including annual colour vision test that would (by their estimates) knock out about 5% of existing UK professional pilots.
Tootle pip!!!
Nothing cute about it, just a statement of fact, indeed, to be a little more precise, Parliament is the rule maker, and even CASA is an administrator of the rules.
Let us not forget that "regulations" and "orders" are both "dis-allowable documents" in the process of creating secondary legislation by executive government -- Parliament is the final arbiter, as it should be.
The Civil Aviation Act 1988 is perfectly clear about CASA's legislated authority to delegate functions, which it does. This is common across all Commonwealth legislation, nothing unique about the CAA Act 1988. Differentiate carefully between "functions" and "powers", they are not the same.
Do I believe that the National Driver's License Standard (which is not necessarily without a medical examination) is adequate for an RA Oz pilot certificate and CASA proposed RPL --- Unquestionably YES.
In fact, adequate for a PPL, but there is an "ICAO" constraint here.
The statistics (despite their absolute dismissal as an assessment tool by our mate Owen Stanley) are in support of this conclusion.
The biggest study on this subject, of which I am aware, was by FAA, in the development of the original FAA RPL. FAA was well aware of the AUF experience in Australia --- that no air safety threat (let alone measurable threat) could be ascribed to the less restrictive medical standard.
A major conclusion of this FAA study was that any medical certificate/ standard was a very poor predictor of any in-flight medical event/incapacitation/air safety threat. This was across the board, not just 2nd/3rd class medical standards. Thus FAA proposed the (US) national drivers license medical standard as the requirement for the original RPL.
In a similar fashion, but later, the then FAA prohibition on insulin dependent diabetics being air traffic controllers could be shown to have no air safety validity, with the consequent changes to medical standards for ATC folks --- but not before a big stoush with those types who automatically oppose change --- unless it is for more restriction ---- we are rather too good at that in Australia.
After a very vigorous lobby campaign of Dept. of Transport, by the association covering aero-medical doctors/FAA DAMEs (nothing to do with cash flow, of course --- such professional wouldn't let a conflict of interest -- the prospect of losing up to 50% of income ---cloud their judgement, would they) the DoT over-ruled FAA, and into the rules went a more restrictive medical standard ---- same as the PPL.
This was a major factor in "thinking up" the FAA Sports Pilot License (along with suitable aircraft design/certification standards, the Light Sports Aircraft---- somewhat less than FAR 23), so that, in this area US finally caught up with Australia, and to a lesser degree, Canada, UK and several western European countries.
All the above is fact, not opinion, all the documents are publicly available. The amount of medical information alone, on the FAA/DoT web sites, is bordering on the mind-boggling. The shear size of the samples guarantee that the conclusions are valid.
The probability of the class of medical certificate being a predictor of incapacitation in flight is: Vanishingly small.
The only way this would change would be to greatly increase the invasive tests, such as an angiogram, CAT scans, nuclear stress ECG, EEG, echocardiogram etc.---- Does anybody want to pay for that, to "solve" a problem that is already "vanishingly small".
Any takers for an annual $5-10,000 medical --- don't forget medical funds do not pay for "medical certification".
Save us from the likes of the UK CAA --- who are rapidly moving in that direction, including annual colour vision test that would (by their estimates) knock out about 5% of existing UK professional pilots.
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
OZBUSDRIVER;
I thought this was about RA-Aus in CTA, but as for the GAFA, the status quo with RA-Aus is fine by me.
If a RPL was introduced, (probably would be administered by RA-Aus anyway), whatever that requirement be. As for the rest of private GA if they stayed in the CASA system I would imagine the CASA requirements would be the point of reference.
maverick22;
This is age discrimination?
Wallsofchina;
If you were an owner /pilot and flew every day for 90 days, why would you need a currency check every 90 days?
As for medicals, and I have said before, if CASA (delegate), designate a medical examiner (DAME), why can't he sign the pilot off without CASA being involved with a money grabbing tax to process something they need only persue when the burden of proof is needed in a legal matter. If CASA don't trust the DAME, why make him a delegate?
I thought this was about RA-Aus in CTA, but as for the GAFA, the status quo with RA-Aus is fine by me.
If a RPL was introduced, (probably would be administered by RA-Aus anyway), whatever that requirement be. As for the rest of private GA if they stayed in the CASA system I would imagine the CASA requirements would be the point of reference.
maverick22;
This is age discrimination?
Wallsofchina;
If you were an owner /pilot and flew every day for 90 days, why would you need a currency check every 90 days?
As for medicals, and I have said before, if CASA (delegate), designate a medical examiner (DAME), why can't he sign the pilot off without CASA being involved with a money grabbing tax to process something they need only persue when the burden of proof is needed in a legal matter. If CASA don't trust the DAME, why make him a delegate?
OK, I think we are getting somewhere. Now, WHO does the DAME medical protect? The pilot? the CASA?...or the pilot's passengers?
This is the reason RAA has no formal medical requirments. INFORMED RISK!
All things being equal...pound for pound, there should be NO DIFFERENCE between skill levels between RAA and GA PPL. It is a SKILL LEVEL that limits RAA entry into CTA,( and a visible lack of airmanship for a highly visible small minority) not a medical requirment.
This is the reason RAA has no formal medical requirments. INFORMED RISK!
All things being equal...pound for pound, there should be NO DIFFERENCE between skill levels between RAA and GA PPL. It is a SKILL LEVEL that limits RAA entry into CTA,( and a visible lack of airmanship for a highly visible small minority) not a medical requirment.
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
Leadie
My thoughts on medicals are this, speaking about Class 2 V the RAA medically fit declaration.
1. A 4/2 year medical does at least give some indication of the state of ones health, possible problems such as diabetes.
2. It does kind of prevent, or mostly prevent someone having a rather optomistic opinion of their own health, and just signing away the form.
So for the PPL end of the food chain in CTA, I do think the current level of "supervission is appropriate.
For the RAA level of class G, it is appropriate also, but it does expose a slightly higher level of risk to those who may be a bit one eyed (no pun intended) about their medical abilities to fly.
J
My thoughts on medicals are this, speaking about Class 2 V the RAA medically fit declaration.
1. A 4/2 year medical does at least give some indication of the state of ones health, possible problems such as diabetes.
2. It does kind of prevent, or mostly prevent someone having a rather optomistic opinion of their own health, and just signing away the form.
So for the PPL end of the food chain in CTA, I do think the current level of "supervission is appropriate.
For the RAA level of class G, it is appropriate also, but it does expose a slightly higher level of risk to those who may be a bit one eyed (no pun intended) about their medical abilities to fly.
J
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;
I'll leaveLeadSled to answer your medico-legal question, I have my thoughts but I am not qualified to give an answer. However I don't think the CASA DAME medical inspection is a warranty that the pilot will remain fit for the next 2 years. There have been many instances of pilot incapacitation when the pilot has a valid medical certificate. One not so long ago where a wife had to sit by and wait for the crash when hubby dropped dead at the controls.
I have been through this validity tenure thing with the maintenance release.
Jabawocky;
What do you know of this 4 year medical. Have you a reference for it's legitimacy? First I've heard of it, but then again I am over 40.
I'll leaveLeadSled to answer your medico-legal question, I have my thoughts but I am not qualified to give an answer. However I don't think the CASA DAME medical inspection is a warranty that the pilot will remain fit for the next 2 years. There have been many instances of pilot incapacitation when the pilot has a valid medical certificate. One not so long ago where a wife had to sit by and wait for the crash when hubby dropped dead at the controls.
I have been through this validity tenure thing with the maintenance release.
Jabawocky;
What do you know of this 4 year medical. Have you a reference for it's legitimacy? First I've heard of it, but then again I am over 40.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If you were an owner /pilot and flew every day for 90 days, why would you need a currency check every 90 days?"
If I was spending the money to fly every day, I wouldn't need it. If I flew once or twice a month I'd be very rusty.
Some good points being made here.
If I was spending the money to fly every day, I wouldn't need it. If I flew once or twice a month I'd be very rusty.
Some good points being made here.
No discrimination Frank, just the rules. And understandably so too.
From the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998:
Part 67.205
(3) Subject to subregulation (6) and regulations 67.215 and 67.220, a
medical certificate issued by CASA to a person who has undergone
any relevant examinations required for the purpose of the issue of the
certificate remains in force for the period set out in the certificate,
being a period of not more than:
(a) in the case of a class 1 medical certificate — 1 year after the day
when the certificate comes into force; and
(b) in the case of a class 2 medical certificate:
(i) if the person is less than 40 years old when the certificate
is issued to him or her — 4 years after the day when the
certificate comes into force; or
(ii) if the person is 40 years old or older when the certificate is
issued to him or her — 2 years after the day when the
certificate comes into force; and
(c) in the case of a class 3 medical certificate — 2 years after the day
when the certificate comes into force.
From the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998:
Part 67.205
(3) Subject to subregulation (6) and regulations 67.215 and 67.220, a
medical certificate issued by CASA to a person who has undergone
any relevant examinations required for the purpose of the issue of the
certificate remains in force for the period set out in the certificate,
being a period of not more than:
(a) in the case of a class 1 medical certificate — 1 year after the day
when the certificate comes into force; and
(b) in the case of a class 2 medical certificate:
(i) if the person is less than 40 years old when the certificate
is issued to him or her — 4 years after the day when the
certificate comes into force; or
(ii) if the person is 40 years old or older when the certificate is
issued to him or her — 2 years after the day when the
certificate comes into force; and
(c) in the case of a class 3 medical certificate — 2 years after the day
when the certificate comes into force.
maverick22
Francis...forget to regurgitate that bit of the regs?
Also seem to remember something about the regs being quaranteened from the discrimination act a few years ago...something about refering to overweight people and emergency exit seats. I would say that exemption would also cover discrimination on age in this regard
Francis...forget to regurgitate that bit of the regs?
Also seem to remember something about the regs being quaranteened from the discrimination act a few years ago...something about refering to overweight people and emergency exit seats. I would say that exemption would also cover discrimination on age in this regard
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
Thanks maverick22. My first medical was in 1965 and have been 2 yearly ever since. Age overlaps the implementation.
Wallsofchina;
You obviously need to buy an aeroplane and spend your money on something you own instead of giving it to someone else. Remember however, that if you want to make a small fortune out of owning an aeroplane start off with a big fortune.
Wallsofchina;
You obviously need to buy an aeroplane and spend your money on something you own instead of giving it to someone else. Remember however, that if you want to make a small fortune out of owning an aeroplane start off with a big fortune.
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
This may sound simplistic, but one hour of solo flying in a Jabiru is the same as one hour of solo flying in a Bonanza. An hour is an hour is an hour and it depends on your needs of course, but if you can't afford the Bonanza the answer is obvious whether you own or hire.
Assuming of course you don't need to fly a RA-Aus registered Jabiru into or transit a CTR for a while. It's the same aeroplane as the VH registered equivalent, but lets not go there.
Assuming of course you don't need to fly a RA-Aus registered Jabiru into or transit a CTR for a while. It's the same aeroplane as the VH registered equivalent, but lets not go there.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age has a natural cause legally, ergo there is no discrimination possible if the distinction requiring extra vigilance on medical outcomes is merely age.
MARK my words age will get all of you !!
I would say that exemption would also cover discrimination on age in this regard
MARK my words age will get all of you !!
I would say that exemption would also cover discrimination on age in this regard
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think 1 hr in a jab would be more difficult than a bonanza. no gps, no another gps, no yet another gps, no laptop, no autopilot....
sorry, couldnt help myself...
sorry, couldnt help myself...
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
Ultralights.... I think you are qualified to comment on this too............and I agree!
I must say there is a different slant to the story though under different conditions.
Of course I can now lay claim to an even lazier form of transport than the Bonanza....
yes Multi GPS tablet....Autopilot WITH GPSS......and no gear to worry about....and as I have found of late, a fraction quicker and much better MPG 
.
Sorry ... Back to normal viewing!
Ultralights you bring the worst out in me!
PS: Frank...... 4 years it is, I have been on them, up until this November
when at 41 I will be joining all you Old Farts on the 2 years system. And bugger it CAMS do not recognise the CASA medical any more like they used to 
....... see moronic rules is not just aviation, its motor racing as well! 
I must say there is a different slant to the story though under different conditions.
Of course I can now lay claim to an even lazier form of transport than the Bonanza....
yes Multi GPS tablet....Autopilot WITH GPSS......and no gear to worry about
....and as I have found of late, a fraction quicker and much better MPG .Sorry ... Back to normal viewing!
Ultralights
you bring the worst out in me! PS: Frank...... 4 years it is, I have been on them, up until this November
when at 41 I will be joining all you Old Farts on the 2 years system. And bugger it CAMS do not recognise the CASA medical any more like they used to ....... see moronic rules is not just aviation, its motor racing as well!
Last edited by Jabawocky; 12th Aug 2009 at 11:43.
yes Multi GPS tablet....Autopilot WITH GPSS......and no gear to worry about....and as I have found of late, a fraction quicker and much better MPG 
....and as I have found of late, a fraction quicker and much better MPG
Which one arrived at Maleny VOR 13 nm ahead of the other one?
Dr
