CASA Medical Standards Discussion Paper
GGC, I am assuming you are trying to be helpful and have our best interests at heart. However you need to do a bit of homework; start by reading the executive summary of the ASRR report.
CASA is utterly resistant to change.
CASA is totally untrustworthy.
CASA is capricious, unjust, inequitable and vindictive.
CASA is quite capable of destroying anyones career or business if it decides to. It manufactures the causes and then acts.
This is a matter or record - read the ASRR, read the case of Stan Van der Weill and Schutts aviation, Polar aviation, John Quadrio and Dominic James for starters.
It is a very brave, or stupid, or both person to engage with CASA on anything.
In my opinion, CASA exists because Politicians wish to be insulated from the risks to their careers caused by the inevitable witch hunt following a major aviation accident. CASA provides this flameproofing function - for a price. That pricee is the freedom to do what it likes to most of the industry, excluding Qantas, Virgin and the like. Aviation reform is about as popular as prison reform - there are no votes in it.
Google vocasupport.com
CASA is utterly resistant to change.
CASA is totally untrustworthy.
CASA is capricious, unjust, inequitable and vindictive.
CASA is quite capable of destroying anyones career or business if it decides to. It manufactures the causes and then acts.
This is a matter or record - read the ASRR, read the case of Stan Van der Weill and Schutts aviation, Polar aviation, John Quadrio and Dominic James for starters.
It is a very brave, or stupid, or both person to engage with CASA on anything.
In my opinion, CASA exists because Politicians wish to be insulated from the risks to their careers caused by the inevitable witch hunt following a major aviation accident. CASA provides this flameproofing function - for a price. That pricee is the freedom to do what it likes to most of the industry, excluding Qantas, Virgin and the like. Aviation reform is about as popular as prison reform - there are no votes in it.
Google vocasupport.com
Last edited by Sunfish; 8th Jan 2017 at 01:59.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, it is not possible to move forward in a relationship whilst one or both of the parties are looking backwards. I have read the ASSR - I just read the ES again - are we reading the same document? I also took the time to read the Governments response. I note that it says (page 1):
"Australia’s aviation safety regulatory approach should continue to reflect the level of risk attached to the different types of aviation operations and the likelihood and consequences of aviation safety accidents and incidents." and (page 2)
"These recommendations recognise that industry plays a vital role in helping to develop and maintain a modern, safe and appropriate aviation system in Australia." and
"The Government therefore strongly encourages our aviation agencies and industry to work closer together to identify aviation safety risks and ensure that the best methods, practices and technologies are adopted to address these risks" and
"Industry is urged to take up and constructively contribute to these processes, acknowledging that for both CASA and industry, regulatory development requires the commitment of ongoing resources.
Consistent with the Government’s deregulation agenda, completion of the regulatory reform program will also carefully consider how regulatory burdens on industry can be reduced without impacting on safety."
Democracy works when you hold a Government to account for its statements.
The foregoing statements supports the approach to medicals for private pilots that has been adopted in the UK and US.
CASA will remain the beast that you describe unless the voices at its walls reach a crescendo that brings down those walls.
"Australia’s aviation safety regulatory approach should continue to reflect the level of risk attached to the different types of aviation operations and the likelihood and consequences of aviation safety accidents and incidents." and (page 2)
"These recommendations recognise that industry plays a vital role in helping to develop and maintain a modern, safe and appropriate aviation system in Australia." and
"The Government therefore strongly encourages our aviation agencies and industry to work closer together to identify aviation safety risks and ensure that the best methods, practices and technologies are adopted to address these risks" and
"Industry is urged to take up and constructively contribute to these processes, acknowledging that for both CASA and industry, regulatory development requires the commitment of ongoing resources.
Consistent with the Government’s deregulation agenda, completion of the regulatory reform program will also carefully consider how regulatory burdens on industry can be reduced without impacting on safety."
Democracy works when you hold a Government to account for its statements.
The foregoing statements supports the approach to medicals for private pilots that has been adopted in the UK and US.
CASA will remain the beast that you describe unless the voices at its walls reach a crescendo that brings down those walls.
GGC, with respect, you don't understand the problem.
Simply stated, the Act, and its preamble, only refer to "safety" which is a nominative word - it means anything you like it to mean. Everything has to be consistent with "safety".
There is no mention of a requirement for Australia to have a vibrant aviation industry, there is no mention of "safety consistent with...." which is Dick Smiths affordable safety.
In fact GGC, CASA can legally comply with the Act by prohibiting all flying! That gives us a perfect safety record!
The first step in regulatory reform is to rewrite the Act to acknowledge the right of an aviation sector to exist and to grow, until that is done there can be no progress except what crumbs CASA decides to offer to see the plebs quiet.
Rewriting the Act requires the aviation community to make politicians more frightened of NOT rewriting the Act than maintaining the status quo. In my opinion, this requires targetted negative political campaigning in marginal seats of the sort that the Christian Right ( and perhaps the hunting and fishing party) conducts.
We have been here before. Engaging with CASA is pointless when it is done on their terms. My guess is that they already have a non negotiable position on what a class 3 medical would look like and we won't like it. The discussion aper is window dressing.
How do I know? I've written two discussion papers for a State Government ( both with a benign/beneficial purpose) and I see the same sort of debate framing in the CASA paper as I would have used myself.
.....In my case I declared an entire industry to be "at risk", a meaningless nominative like "safety" and that had the desired galvanising effect I was looking for.
Simply stated, the Act, and its preamble, only refer to "safety" which is a nominative word - it means anything you like it to mean. Everything has to be consistent with "safety".
There is no mention of a requirement for Australia to have a vibrant aviation industry, there is no mention of "safety consistent with...." which is Dick Smiths affordable safety.
In fact GGC, CASA can legally comply with the Act by prohibiting all flying! That gives us a perfect safety record!
The first step in regulatory reform is to rewrite the Act to acknowledge the right of an aviation sector to exist and to grow, until that is done there can be no progress except what crumbs CASA decides to offer to see the plebs quiet.
Rewriting the Act requires the aviation community to make politicians more frightened of NOT rewriting the Act than maintaining the status quo. In my opinion, this requires targetted negative political campaigning in marginal seats of the sort that the Christian Right ( and perhaps the hunting and fishing party) conducts.
We have been here before. Engaging with CASA is pointless when it is done on their terms. My guess is that they already have a non negotiable position on what a class 3 medical would look like and we won't like it. The discussion aper is window dressing.
How do I know? I've written two discussion papers for a State Government ( both with a benign/beneficial purpose) and I see the same sort of debate framing in the CASA paper as I would have used myself.
.....In my case I declared an entire industry to be "at risk", a meaningless nominative like "safety" and that had the desired galvanising effect I was looking for.
GGC
You're either very new to all this or deeply entrenched in the government spin machine.
Let's analyse just one sentence from the government's response to the ASRR report (with my bolding):
That statement implicitly asserts as true that which is demonstrably untrue.
If Australia's aviation safety regulatory approach was in fact based on an objective assessment of absolute and comparative risk, there would be far more regulations about and focus on the service of ham sandwiches and orange juice to the flight crews of RPT aircraft, and no regulations about or focus upon colour vision deficiency of the flight crews of RPT aircraft. Yet - surprise, surprise - it's the other way around. Why? Because the empty rhetoric is just that.
CASA and contemporary governments aren't interested in objective facts and risks. They are interested in the public's perception of safety.
You're either very new to all this or deeply entrenched in the government spin machine.
Let's analyse just one sentence from the government's response to the ASRR report (with my bolding):
Australia's aviation safety regulatory approach should continue to reflect the level of risk attached to the different types of aviation operations and the likelihood and consequences of aviation safety accidents and incidents.
If Australia's aviation safety regulatory approach was in fact based on an objective assessment of absolute and comparative risk, there would be far more regulations about and focus on the service of ham sandwiches and orange juice to the flight crews of RPT aircraft, and no regulations about or focus upon colour vision deficiency of the flight crews of RPT aircraft. Yet - surprise, surprise - it's the other way around. Why? Because the empty rhetoric is just that.
CASA and contemporary governments aren't interested in objective facts and risks. They are interested in the public's perception of safety.
Final rules out from the FAA for the new certification. Read it and weep. We will never see anything like this in Australia until hell freezes over.
From the EAA FAQ:
"The legislation requires a board-certified physician (edit,, not even a DAME!) to sign the following statement for the pilot every four years: ‘‘I certify that I discussed all items on [the examination checklist detailed in the bill] with the individual during my examination […] I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.” ..
.. six seats, five passengers, 6000 lb., day and night VFR and IFR.
...Heart, neurological and mental health conditions will require formal assessment.
Aeromedical Reform FAQs | EAA
Already the American light sport kit plane people are looking at heavier designs.
From the EAA FAQ:
"The legislation requires a board-certified physician (edit,, not even a DAME!) to sign the following statement for the pilot every four years: ‘‘I certify that I discussed all items on [the examination checklist detailed in the bill] with the individual during my examination […] I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.” ..
.. six seats, five passengers, 6000 lb., day and night VFR and IFR.
...Heart, neurological and mental health conditions will require formal assessment.
Aeromedical Reform FAQs | EAA
Already the American light sport kit plane people are looking at heavier designs.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think you all got problems...wait til you hit 60 yrs of age and hold a class 1. They hit the reset button and start you all over again with a barrage of tests.....of course all at your own expense. So you can be fine one day, the next day you hit 60, you are not. I keep telling them I dont want to fly into outer space nor be an astronaut.
Its so nonsensical.....the word on the street is that they (casa) don't want anybody over 60 flying (don't know how the Class 2 ppl fair in all this).
Its so nonsensical.....the word on the street is that they (casa) don't want anybody over 60 flying (don't know how the Class 2 ppl fair in all this).
