CASA Medical Standards Discussion Paper
All great points of discussion here, though how much of this will translate to responses to CASA?
Following in from my comments in the PT61 thread, there were less than 100 responses to the letter the DAS put out.
Hopefully everyone on here that's complaining bothers to actually write a response to Avmed to let them know their opinion
Following in from my comments in the PT61 thread, there were less than 100 responses to the letter the DAS put out.
Hopefully everyone on here that's complaining bothers to actually write a response to Avmed to let them know their opinion
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Following in from my comments in the PT61 thread, there were less than 100 responses to the letter the DAS put out".
You mean to tell me there are still 100 pilots left in Australia!!!!!
CAsA is obviously not doing its job stamping out these criminals, everyone should write to the minister and complain.
You mean to tell me there are still 100 pilots left in Australia!!!!!
CAsA is obviously not doing its job stamping out these criminals, everyone should write to the minister and complain.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, you are being asked to make a submission to a public call for comment.
You aren't being asked to "pledge your life, fortune and sacred honour" and start shooting at Redcoats with an excellent chance of being hanged by the British should your independence movement lose or leaving your home country to fight for freedom in the North America of the late 1770s like Tad Kosciusko. Yes, that bloke, who named Australia's highest mountain. Before that, he was George Washington's Engineer for the Continental Army.
You've been vocal here about how excessive regulation screws over Australian aviators. Now you have a chance to stand up and put your point of view officially.
You aren't being asked to "pledge your life, fortune and sacred honour" and start shooting at Redcoats with an excellent chance of being hanged by the British should your independence movement lose or leaving your home country to fight for freedom in the North America of the late 1770s like Tad Kosciusko. Yes, that bloke, who named Australia's highest mountain. Before that, he was George Washington's Engineer for the Continental Army.
You've been vocal here about how excessive regulation screws over Australian aviators. Now you have a chance to stand up and put your point of view officially.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does AOPA or any other organistaion have a 'standard letter', with all the salient points about USA reforms, survey findings, and even some of the very good points discussed here, in regard to the effectiveness of Class 2 medicals on reducing actual Private flying incapacitation related deaths.
Many may not want to try and pen their own letter, but prefer a well written, factual letter showing positive arguments, and factual surveys about self assessments for PPLs.
Then everyone should print it out and send a copy to the Casa survey and the Minister of Transport (or whoever should receive it).
I'm sure they would receive more than 100 replies then. In fact every PPL and every CPL/ATPL should send a copy in, as you never know when you may be grounded for even PPL flying, should some issue arise when you get older. (and avoid a series of expensive 'Specialists' tests at every PPL renewal). I have heard of it happening.
In fact, check the 'For Sale' adverts and there are always a few aircraft for sale because of 'Loss of medical', obviously the cost of trying to prove to Casa you can fly a RV6 privately is too costly to continue on each renewal.
Id like to send one in.
I am all for a vibrant, inexpensive (as possible) Private Pilot GA Flying scene in Aus.
Many may not want to try and pen their own letter, but prefer a well written, factual letter showing positive arguments, and factual surveys about self assessments for PPLs.
Then everyone should print it out and send a copy to the Casa survey and the Minister of Transport (or whoever should receive it).
I'm sure they would receive more than 100 replies then. In fact every PPL and every CPL/ATPL should send a copy in, as you never know when you may be grounded for even PPL flying, should some issue arise when you get older. (and avoid a series of expensive 'Specialists' tests at every PPL renewal). I have heard of it happening.
In fact, check the 'For Sale' adverts and there are always a few aircraft for sale because of 'Loss of medical', obviously the cost of trying to prove to Casa you can fly a RV6 privately is too costly to continue on each renewal.
Id like to send one in.
I am all for a vibrant, inexpensive (as possible) Private Pilot GA Flying scene in Aus.
Last edited by Acrosport II; 4th Jan 2017 at 07:05.
I've just re-read the Forsyth review on this topic. Its pretty forthright & specfic.
The question that needs to be askled is why CASA have not taken this as a starting point, or at least an option. Let alone just getting on and doing what the report recommends.
The question that needs to be askled is why CASA have not taken this as a starting point, or at least an option. Let alone just getting on and doing what the report recommends.
A discussion paper is just one of the usual CASA look-busy tactics to avoid doing anything.
If CASA were genuinely interested in listening to and addressing substantive issues about medical certification, it would have listened to and addressed the substance of the submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review from the associations which represent many people across the aviation spectrum on the receiving end of AVMED's capricious bull****.
The Australian and International Pilots’ Association:
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots:
The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia:
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association:
But what would AIPA, AFAP, AAAA and AOPA members know about the interrelationship between fitness to fly and aviation safety? What would they know about the relatively recent hijacking of the medical certification process by people who evidently consider their opinions on that relationship and the attendant risks to be objective truths?
If CASA were genuinely interested in listening to and addressing substantive issues about medical certification, it would have listened to and addressed the substance of the submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review from the associations which represent many people across the aviation spectrum on the receiving end of AVMED's capricious bull****.
The Australian and International Pilots’ Association:
AIPA’s most frequent and often most frustrating interaction with CASA is through the Aviation Medicine Branch. The frustrations arise due to the inconsistent administration of medical clearances and certificates, the near impossibility of being able to talk to anyone about the administration processes and, most critically, what most members report as the CASA-unique approach of disregarding practicing medical specialists’ advice in favour of “riskbased” decisions made by non-practicing medical bureaucrats.
/
AIPA is most concerned about the immediate uncertainty caused to a member when the often expensive advice and tests are considered to be acceptable by DAMES and specialists but not by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO). Where else are they to turn? The problem is often exacerbated by the turnaround times, the best of which is 28 days, but as the applicant you will rarely be made aware that the clock has not started because some component of the required information is “missing”, at least until you can break through the communication firewall to ask as to what point your certificate has progressed in the administrative sequence.
/
AIPA is most concerned about the immediate uncertainty caused to a member when the often expensive advice and tests are considered to be acceptable by DAMES and specialists but not by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO). Where else are they to turn? The problem is often exacerbated by the turnaround times, the best of which is 28 days, but as the applicant you will rarely be made aware that the clock has not started because some component of the required information is “missing”, at least until you can break through the communication firewall to ask as to what point your certificate has progressed in the administrative sequence.
The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.
One area in particular that struggles with continuous improvement is CASA’s aviation medicine branch. Examples are plentiful of questionable rulings on pilot medicals that fly in the face of genuine expert opinion (for example in cardiology) and result in the trashing of careers for no safety purpose. The ability of the branch to hide behind the facade of medical qualifications is well known in industry and under current systems, is an almost unassailable position that has drifted far from actual safety issues, or the leading non-CASA advice on medical issues.
Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, rejection of DAMEs opinions, demands for ever more complex specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and which are then frequently ignored by Avmed itself. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience, eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor.
For what purpose? Most GA pilots intend to fly themselves and perhaps a few associates, mostly in VFR during daylight. Motor vehicle licencing is nothing like this, yet driving is only slightly less stressful.
CASA should rely on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.
For what purpose? Most GA pilots intend to fly themselves and perhaps a few associates, mostly in VFR during daylight. Motor vehicle licencing is nothing like this, yet driving is only slightly less stressful.
CASA should rely on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's argument, as put to me by the head of avmed, was that DAMEs would be exposed to much more liability and thus have to charge more to cover their insurance, if they were to issue their own medicals without the intervention of AVMED.
On the other hand, for simple medicals (ie everything passes) I think that I can tick the boxes just as well as somebody in avmed.
and on the gripping hand, I'm told that Australian DAME training (all of two weeks) is much easier to get through than DAME training in other countries (eg NZ).
On the other hand, for simple medicals (ie everything passes) I think that I can tick the boxes just as well as somebody in avmed.
and on the gripping hand, I'm told that Australian DAME training (all of two weeks) is much easier to get through than DAME training in other countries (eg NZ).
Eyrie:
Eyrie, your ingenuous suggestion - that I stand up, is at best pointless and at worst malicious.
I would recommend that no one but an association should comment and the comment itself should be a terse referral to previous submissions to the ASRR.
You see Eyrie, I hold a medical certificate. If I eventually develop a medical condition, the reissue of that certificate is at the whim of CASA AVMED. As evidenced by the ASRR, numerous appeals to the AAT, the entire colour blindness saga, CASA AVMED is quite capable of being totally capricious in its decisions and has the ability to bankrupt an aspiring pilot trying to get a clearance to fly through specialist report costs.
"Oh! But they wouldn't do that would they?" you say? They might, since CASA has proven itself to be vindictive and most importantly untrustworthy.
So my first point. I would be exposing my medical certificate to risk by making an identifiable comment and suggesting otherwise borders on malicious.
But wait, there is more....... the discussion paper is a pointless exercise. It is an attempt by CASA to frame the debate about medical certificates on ground where CASA knows it can win. By "winning", I mean maintaining CASA's iron grip on Australian aviation and maximising its institutional power.
To put that another way, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that CASA wishes to voluntarily reduce surveillance and control of medical certificates, they have too many staff whose careers depend on maintaining control and institutions NEVER voluntarily surrender power ever..
So given that CASA is untrustworthy, has invested itself in medical control of pilots which it wishes to maintain despite being advised numerous times about the deleterious effects of its medical regime, the latest being the ASRR, and is now faced by concrete evidence of change by overseas regulators, what does it do? It lets off a discussion paper! Well done Sir Humphrey!
Eyrie, CASA AVMED is run by lawyers, even AVMED's doctors say that to DAMES. The discussion paper is written by lawyers with a view to frustrating meaningful change, for example it is written using language that can be readily compared with the Aviation Act, a typical weasel trick because they already have reams of interpretations of the Act with which to frustrate change.
All you will get in the end is: " I know the FAA has agreed to XYZ, but the Aviation Act does not permit that because of ABC, risk to the public blah, blah".. The desired end result is that CASA can say they responded to change, consulted widely and came up with a revised class 3 medical certificate that looks like its overseas equivalents, but still ties us into the medical straitjacket we now have to wear. Pointless exercise until the Act is changed.
Sunfish, you are being asked to make a submission to a public call for comment.
You aren't being asked to "pledge your life, fortune and sacred honour" ...........
....................You've been vocal here about how excessive regulation screws over Australian aviators. Now you have a chance to stand up and put your point of view officially.
You aren't being asked to "pledge your life, fortune and sacred honour" ...........
....................You've been vocal here about how excessive regulation screws over Australian aviators. Now you have a chance to stand up and put your point of view officially.
I would recommend that no one but an association should comment and the comment itself should be a terse referral to previous submissions to the ASRR.
You see Eyrie, I hold a medical certificate. If I eventually develop a medical condition, the reissue of that certificate is at the whim of CASA AVMED. As evidenced by the ASRR, numerous appeals to the AAT, the entire colour blindness saga, CASA AVMED is quite capable of being totally capricious in its decisions and has the ability to bankrupt an aspiring pilot trying to get a clearance to fly through specialist report costs.
"Oh! But they wouldn't do that would they?" you say? They might, since CASA has proven itself to be vindictive and most importantly untrustworthy.
So my first point. I would be exposing my medical certificate to risk by making an identifiable comment and suggesting otherwise borders on malicious.
But wait, there is more....... the discussion paper is a pointless exercise. It is an attempt by CASA to frame the debate about medical certificates on ground where CASA knows it can win. By "winning", I mean maintaining CASA's iron grip on Australian aviation and maximising its institutional power.
To put that another way, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that CASA wishes to voluntarily reduce surveillance and control of medical certificates, they have too many staff whose careers depend on maintaining control and institutions NEVER voluntarily surrender power ever..
So given that CASA is untrustworthy, has invested itself in medical control of pilots which it wishes to maintain despite being advised numerous times about the deleterious effects of its medical regime, the latest being the ASRR, and is now faced by concrete evidence of change by overseas regulators, what does it do? It lets off a discussion paper! Well done Sir Humphrey!
Eyrie, CASA AVMED is run by lawyers, even AVMED's doctors say that to DAMES. The discussion paper is written by lawyers with a view to frustrating meaningful change, for example it is written using language that can be readily compared with the Aviation Act, a typical weasel trick because they already have reams of interpretations of the Act with which to frustrate change.
All you will get in the end is: " I know the FAA has agreed to XYZ, but the Aviation Act does not permit that because of ABC, risk to the public blah, blah".. The desired end result is that CASA can say they responded to change, consulted widely and came up with a revised class 3 medical certificate that looks like its overseas equivalents, but still ties us into the medical straitjacket we now have to wear. Pointless exercise until the Act is changed.
CASA's argument, as put to me by the head of avmed, was that DAMEs would be exposed to much more liability and thus have to charge more to cover their insurance, if they were to issue their own medicals without the intervention of AVMED.
Seriously, if he has such little understanding of PI insurance, then he demonstrates that he in unqualified for the job. Does he seriously think that private pilot medicals are the highest professional risk activity that doctors perform? I doubt it would even make a list of the top 20.
I also think you are out of date with the Australian DAME training. And lets not forget that these are pretty highly trained doctors to start with, who in their practices deal with a range of other medical certifications, from drivers licences, boat licences, SCUBA medicals, to the employment medicals for fire fighters and ambulance officers.
In heyday of GA, there was no DAME training. In the 70's & 80's the DAME list was pretty much an old boys club.
The forsyth review is here:
https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx
Old Akro,,your comment is consistent with what I have been told. CASA AVMED is ruled by lawyers not doctors. This was quoted to me by a DAME who had been talking to AVMED doctors at a conference, the AVMED doctors hated the situation but were powerless against the lawyers and their "liability" arguments. The Act needs to be changed before the lawyers can be dethroned.
P.S. I also know one opthalmologist who did the AVMED training but then declined to sign the agreement on the grounds that she was required to report any condition she found to CASA AVMED without the consent of the pilot. Her particular objection was the requirement to report the discovery of eye conditions that would take twenty + years before they became problematic for flying.
My own opinion is that AVMED may well be a danger to the health and safety of both aviators and the travelling public because their attitude to discovered medical conditions encourages pilots to avoid disclosing anything and defer seeking treatment in an effort to keep their certificate. IMHO AVMED needs to change its culture from the negative to the positive as in keeping pilots healthy and flying for as long as possible.
P.S. I also know one opthalmologist who did the AVMED training but then declined to sign the agreement on the grounds that she was required to report any condition she found to CASA AVMED without the consent of the pilot. Her particular objection was the requirement to report the discovery of eye conditions that would take twenty + years before they became problematic for flying.
My own opinion is that AVMED may well be a danger to the health and safety of both aviators and the travelling public because their attitude to discovered medical conditions encourages pilots to avoid disclosing anything and defer seeking treatment in an effort to keep their certificate. IMHO AVMED needs to change its culture from the negative to the positive as in keeping pilots healthy and flying for as long as possible.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA needs to be brought back in to the Department of Transport. A lot of the liability stuff then goes away. It was always a bad idea to make it a government owned corporation and then a Statutary Authority.
I see some think the situation is hopeless. They may be correct but if nothing is done and they don't get any comments CASA will assume everyone is happy with the status quo.
I see some think the situation is hopeless. They may be correct but if nothing is done and they don't get any comments CASA will assume everyone is happy with the status quo.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
It seems that you accept the view that we live in a totalitarian state. Whilst I understand that you are unwilling to put you livelihood at risk by making a submission - in other words participating in the democracy that we live in - you can hide behind a association if you like but in my view you forgo the right to complain. This is just like people who don't vote complaining about the government we end up with.
Politicians only react when they feel the weight of public opinion witness Turnbull's overnight response to the twittersphere about the NT detention centre and others. So at least get your association into gear to prepare a form letter at least for their members because they cannot punish several thousand individuals.
It seems that you accept the view that we live in a totalitarian state. Whilst I understand that you are unwilling to put you livelihood at risk by making a submission - in other words participating in the democracy that we live in - you can hide behind a association if you like but in my view you forgo the right to complain. This is just like people who don't vote complaining about the government we end up with.
Politicians only react when they feel the weight of public opinion witness Turnbull's overnight response to the twittersphere about the NT detention centre and others. So at least get your association into gear to prepare a form letter at least for their members because they cannot punish several thousand individuals.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
Democracy only works if you participate. You and many others have allowed CASA to run rampant over aviation by succumbing to the fear of retribution. Consequently when they seek to change rules or other hold inquiries into aviation, the meek cower in the corner out of fear desperately hoping that someone else will do the heavy lifting. Contrast that with the US where submissions to the review of 3rd class medical attracted several hundred thousand submissions. The Forsyth enquiry barely scraped over 100 submissions and NPRM's are usually in the 10's. If you and many others don't participate the aviation community gets what it deserves.
Democracy doesn't start and finish with voting - it actually requires a continuing participation. That is how we got an experimental category.
Democracy only works if you participate. You and many others have allowed CASA to run rampant over aviation by succumbing to the fear of retribution. Consequently when they seek to change rules or other hold inquiries into aviation, the meek cower in the corner out of fear desperately hoping that someone else will do the heavy lifting. Contrast that with the US where submissions to the review of 3rd class medical attracted several hundred thousand submissions. The Forsyth enquiry barely scraped over 100 submissions and NPRM's are usually in the 10's. If you and many others don't participate the aviation community gets what it deserves.
Democracy doesn't start and finish with voting - it actually requires a continuing participation. That is how we got an experimental category.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It seems that you accept the view that we live in a totalitarian state".
I think that is CAsA's view.
"You and many others have allowed CASA to run rampant over aviation by succumbing to the fear of retribution".
A very real fear that has been demonstrated time and time again to be very real. Many feel powerless because CAsA can and does operate outside the LAW, their bureaucrats have ensured they can, or have manipulated legislation to make resorting to the law a very expensive exercise, out of the reach of ordinary persons. Big corporations can fund high court actions, little people do not have that option.
I agree with sunny, any approach to CAsA must be via associations (strength in numbers)but even then fraught with risk. How easy would it be for CAsA to circularise the members of an association with a question "Do you agree with your associations stance on this issue?" and bob's your uncle the rabbit in the spotlight again.
The USA and Australia are poor comparisons, read the FAA charter and compare it with CAsA's, then the numbers, I don't believe there are enough pilots left in Australia to have any political influence.
I think that is CAsA's view.
"You and many others have allowed CASA to run rampant over aviation by succumbing to the fear of retribution".
A very real fear that has been demonstrated time and time again to be very real. Many feel powerless because CAsA can and does operate outside the LAW, their bureaucrats have ensured they can, or have manipulated legislation to make resorting to the law a very expensive exercise, out of the reach of ordinary persons. Big corporations can fund high court actions, little people do not have that option.
I agree with sunny, any approach to CAsA must be via associations (strength in numbers)but even then fraught with risk. How easy would it be for CAsA to circularise the members of an association with a question "Do you agree with your associations stance on this issue?" and bob's your uncle the rabbit in the spotlight again.
The USA and Australia are poor comparisons, read the FAA charter and compare it with CAsA's, then the numbers, I don't believe there are enough pilots left in Australia to have any political influence.
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
Australia is an intolerant Bureaucracy and one day may well become a Theocracy or even a Socialist state of a World government, but whilst the current breed of politician of any persuasion remains with chronic competence disorder we will never resemble a Democracy. People who believe otherwise watch too much public broadcasting to enable reasonable debate.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please read the discussion paper and make a submission. In my experience ( I have been able have a number of bits of legislation changed by lobbying politicians) you need to be able to show a polly that you are not a dis-affected individual but a part of a community with a common cause. Persistence is the key and remember that politicians by their nature are narcissists and like to be highly thought of so they respond to personal contact with problems that they can assist in resolving.