CASA Avmed – In my opinion, a biased, intellectually dishonest regulator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sleep study fr medical
Anyone been made to do a sleep study😳? I hear it’s a long dragged out process and $$$$, to come to the conclusion that you like millions of other people snore.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Age: 17
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a chap whom was made do a sleep test as he showed a hint of sleep apnoea. After he passed that test he was made do a wakefulness test, among some other tests. His experienced featured in an edition of AOPA last year. His all up costs were in the early thousands not including lost income and lost about 3 months of his 12 month validity. He passed his medical.
Thread Starter
It’s called ‘the medicalisation of normal’.
Very lucrative for the medical industry.
Very fertile ground for Avmed.
Very lucrative for the medical industry.
Very fertile ground for Avmed.
Thread Starter
LESSONS LEARNT
I’ll try to distil what I consider to be key lessons that may be of assistance to others.
As background I note that I have had more interactions with the medical system in just the last 18 months than in the entirety of the previous 56 years. In the previous 56 years my one or two yearly visits to a DAME were about it so far as interacting with doctors was concerned, aside from tonsils out at the age of 4, some guinea pig testing in the RAAF and some hearing issues as a consequence of noise exposure. Accordingly, it may be that all of the below is ‘durr-obvious’ and I’ve just been living in a different world than many others.
For example, when asked who “my GP” was, I’d say I didn’t have one - because I didn’t. But apparently everyone’s supposed to have their own GP. When I went to the specialist I was asked for my referral and I said “what’s that?” One of the more bizarre interactions I had was with a receptionist, to whom I finally said: “I wish to buy the expertise of the specialist you work for, in return for the payment of money. Is that possible?” The receptionist looked at me as if I were from another planet.
The other eye-opener has been the discovery of the extent to which pilot medical issues are now managed without Avmed’s knowledge. A related issue - probably causally connected with the first - is the extent of the open contempt that treating specialists and other experts have for Avmed.
Beware the “diagnosis”
This is the process through which a mere opinion magically transforms into an objective truth. Once diagnosed, you have a “condition” that has to be “managed”.
Despite the fact that the history of medical science and medical judgment is littered with research conclusions and diagnoses that turned out to be wrong, the current generation of medicos usually consider themselves to be the apotheosis of medical wisdom. And the medical ‘industry’ has a financial incentive to medicalise normal.
So be very careful about putting yourself in a situation in which you can be diagnosed with a “condition” which will provide Avmed with an excuse to intervene, intrude and destroy on the basis of its inexpert opinion. As joseph w said earlier: "MRIs/CAT scans/Angiograms/whatever will show up all sorts of wonderous things that we more than likely would have been blissfully unaware of until we dropped dead at age 98 - from something completely unrelated..."
A colleague was diagnosed with a condition about 6 years ago and Avmed intervened to destroy. The subsequent 6 years have demonstrated that the original diagnosis was wrong. But that is of no concern to Avmed.
As it turns out, I accepted the opinion of the specialist as to the existence of my DAVF. However, I have doubts about the correctness of the specialist’s opinion as to the classification of the severity of the DAVF. We’ll never know about the latter, because the former has been dealt with.
What we do know is that Avmed considered the specialist’s opinions on both those issues to be objective truths, but then ignored opinions expressed about the success of procedure to deal with the DAVF. Avmed preferred, instead, to intervene on the basis of “speculative risks based on poor quality data taken from small number surveys that have no relevance when applied to a single case” and apply “arbitrary rules, based on pseudoscience from small case series”. Not my words, but those of someone with more medical expertise in his big toe than a bunch of glorified GPs in Avmed.
Avmed is now, in my view, a force inimical to aviation safety
I’ve explained why, throughout this thread. As I said earlier, Avmed seems to me to believe that it’s OK to spin the facts in whichever way puts a pilot in the worst light, that it’s OK to spin whatever data they can find to portray risks to be as high as they could possibly be portrayed when it’s convenient, that it’s OK to spoon feed a supposedly independent expert some selected studies and selectively emphasised passages from studies, and that the law is for others and not them. It’s OK in their minds because it’s done for the noble cause of the safety of air navigation. It’s OK in their minds because it’s a “conservative approach” and “what the public would expect”.
There is no special expertise required to do that. It’s easy.
What seems to have happened is that Avmed has arrogated itself to a position of quasi-specialisation, simply because it has the power to issue and not issue medical certificates. Avmed seems to be suffering the delusion that having the power to certify somehow confers on Avmed some expertise it doesn’t have.
An analogous situation is the practical dictation by CASA of the content of an AOC holder’s Operations Manual on the one hand and the denial of liability for the consequences of compliance with that Manual on the other. Some folklore-propagating FOI says you’re not going to get your AOC unless your Operations Manual contains X but, by the way, you the AOC holder are entirely liable for the consequences of compliance with X.
Avmed practically dictates the “management” of a pilot’s “conditions” because the pilot isn’t going to get his or her certificate unless Avmed gets its way (or you have the time and money to take them on in the AAT). But this is often in the face of the opinion of the treating doctors and specialists who bear liability for their patient’s health and treatment. This is one of the reasons for Avmed being held in contempt.
It’s got to the point where some pilots are simply too scared to seek medical assistance ‘when in doubt’, or to disclose potentially safety-relevant medical issues to Avmed, for fear of consequential overreaction by Avmed.
Avmed’s response is ever-increasing procedural requirements during periodic DAME examinations that manifest a complete lack of trust of pilots, which results in a reciprocal lack of trust in Avmed. You don’t trust me any more? OK then, I don’t trust you any more.
Subject to the next lesson learnt, you should take Avmed on, every time
Every interaction I have had with Avmed since 2015 has involved unlawful behaviour on Avmed’s behalf. Every interaction. This is not my opinion: it has been conceded by CASA.
It started with the printing of “for CASA audit” as a purported “restriction” on my medical certificate. I had to pull them up twice - once in 2015 and then in 2017 when Avmed issued my medical certificate with that bull**** printed on it - to have it removed. As I said in my submission to the review of medical certification, medical certificates are not a blank canvass for use by Avmed to express its creative theories about how to save the world.
And as it turned out, this assertion by Avmed in its most recent decision was wrong not only as a matter of the laws of physics but also as a matter of man-made law: “Please be advised, CASA is unable to make a risk assessment for your fitness to return to flying until 12 months has elapsed following your embolisation procedure.”
It appears to me that CASA does not have the corporate integrity to ensure that Avmed understands that even Avmed is obliged to comply with the law, and ensure that Avmed understands that the medical certification system is defined and constrained by the law, not Avmed’s bright ideas. It therefore seems to me that it is left to us to make Avmed comply with the law. If not us, who?
Avmed doesn’t care if its intervention kills you
Taking Avmed on is costly and stressful. And Avmed doesn’t care if taking them on kills you financially, mentally or, ultimately, physically. (I am here reminded of Mr Carter’s Orwellian assertion, during the stay hearing, that: “CASA has a duty to protect Mr McKenzie’s safety, too”. That duty apparently extends to the dictation of scans that involve a risk of death. As I observed earlier, Avmed will destroy the village to save the village.)
This is a manifestation of the ‘Bull**** Asymmetry’: The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
It’s easy for Avmed to intervene on the basis of “speculative risks based on poor quality data taken from small number surveys that have no relevance when applied to a single case” and apply “arbitrary rules, based on pseudoscience from small case series”. The cost and stress of refuting that bull**** is orders of magnitude higher than the energy it took Avmed to produce it.
I feel the least healthy I have in my life, primarily as a consequence of the stress of dealing with Avmed’s bull****. And I haven’t much change left out of $10,000 spent on specialist reports and legal fees, even though we didn’t get to a substantive hearing in the AAT.
There’s an irony here: My ‘day job’ is administrative law and, accordingly, AAT and other other administrative law proceedings are mundane for me. I also have some insight into the detail of the aviation law. But it is because of my expertise and experience that I find dealing with Avmed’s bull**** so stressful. It’s like entering a parallel universe in which objective evidence, objective risk, disinterested decision-making and legal principle go out the window, simply through invocation of “the safety of air navigation”.
However, I don’t see what other choice we have, other than to fight them.
A special mention: Mr Anthony Carter
I’ve thought long and hard about how best to express my views about Mr Carter’s behaviour during this matter. Given that I understand he is a lawyer, I decided that the best way to express my views was through a hypothetical situation in which Mr Carter was working in my legal team and I was giving him some professional guidance. Here’s what I’d say, in those hypothetical circumstances:
AAT proceedings are inquisitorial, not adversarial. It’s not commercial litigation in which you are trying to use leverage and technicalities to ‘win’. AAT proceedings are not about ‘winning’ and ‘losing’.
You have a duty to protect the AAT from opinions based on “speculative risks based on poor quality data taken from small number surveys that have no relevance when applied to a single case”, not ‘defend’ those opinions.
You have a duty to protect the AAT from opinions based on “arbitrary rules, based on pseudoscience from small case series”, not ‘defend’ those opinions.
If you do not know why Deputy President Hack SC said this in the Bolton matter (Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013)), we’ll need to arrange for you to do some remedial professional development:
It might be worth you refreshing yourself on the reasons of the AAT and Federal Court in Re Medtest and Minister for Health and Ageing [2002] AATA 566; (2002) 70 ALD 580, Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Hotop [2005] FCA 1023; (2005) 145 FCR 232; 87 ALD 551, Re Tompkins and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2006] AATA 591; (2006) 91 ALD 492, Re Transglobal Airways Corporation and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 68; (2010) 113 ALD 218.
Although the above cases are about stay decisions, the overarching reasons are about ensuring the AAT’s ultimate order in a matter is effective. If the AAT has power to grant stays that have the positive effect of keeping an air operator’s certificate in force after it expired - as happened in a couple of the matters I’ve cited above - the AAT has power to grant stays that have the positive effect of keeping a medical certificate in force after it expired.
The effect of the position pressed by you in Mr McKenzie’s matter is that the holder of a suspended medical certificate is apparently deprived entirely of the right to any beneficial order from the AAT, simply because the procedure giving rise to the suspension decision randomly happened 5 months before the expiry date of the certificate, leaving insufficient time for the AAT to review the decision. It is in my view an absurdity and a perversion of the underlying policy of the AAT’s existence to conclude that an Applicant’s substantive rights and the AAT’s powers in aviation medical certification matters depend on the random coincidence that a reviewable decision happens to be made sufficiently in advance of a certificate’s expiry. There is no causal connection between the occurrence of potentially medically significant events and the date of expiry of a certificate.
I’d like you to consider the underlying reasons for the decisions in the AAT and Federal Court matters I’ve cited, extrapolate those reasons to medical certification matters, in the light of the underlying policy of the AAT’s existence, then come and discuss your views on the issue with me.
Finally, I understand from Mr McKenzie’s lawyer that he perceived that you and Dr Sharma “gloated”, during the conference, about Mr McKenzie’s concession that he undergo an annual scan of a kind that (you assume) is intrusive. If Mr McKenzie’s lawyer’s perception of your behaviour is accurate, I note that you (and Dr Sharma) are supposed to be disinterested and objective. “Gloating” about something disadvantageous to a certificate holder strikes me as manifesting an emotional and therefore inappropriate engagement with the substance of the matter. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a supposedly disinterested legal advisor and a supposedly disinterested administrative decision-maker to gloat about someone having to undergo a scan that entails a risk of death. The necessity and timing of scans should be decided on the basis of the opinion of independent, disinterested experts, taking into account the potential risks and benefits of those scans, not on the basis of the opinion of non-experts with an emotional engagement in the matter. However, I stress that Mr McKenzie’s lawyer may have misperceived your and Dr Sharma’s actions in the circumstances. Finally, and though not a legal matter, it might be worth you and Dr Sharma doing some googling about the scan in question. You might find that your assumption about the nature of the scan in question is inaccurate - hardly surprising, given that neither of you is an expert.
Epilogue
I note this from another thread on PPRuNe:
I also note that a friend recently reported to me that an FOI who ‘sat in’ on an IFR rating renewal chipped the pilot for not setting 25/25 for climb after take off in the piston twin he was flying.
It is bad enough that millions continue to be wasted on the never-ending aviation regulatory ‘reform’ dog’s breakfast that produces ever more complexity with little-to-no positively causal improvement in aviation safety in return for the cost. But millions are also now wasted on the peddling of dangerous operational folklore as well as what I consider to be the safety-inimical activities of Avmed.
It’s broken. I hope against hope that it won’t take a disaster for it to be fixed.
As background I note that I have had more interactions with the medical system in just the last 18 months than in the entirety of the previous 56 years. In the previous 56 years my one or two yearly visits to a DAME were about it so far as interacting with doctors was concerned, aside from tonsils out at the age of 4, some guinea pig testing in the RAAF and some hearing issues as a consequence of noise exposure. Accordingly, it may be that all of the below is ‘durr-obvious’ and I’ve just been living in a different world than many others.
For example, when asked who “my GP” was, I’d say I didn’t have one - because I didn’t. But apparently everyone’s supposed to have their own GP. When I went to the specialist I was asked for my referral and I said “what’s that?” One of the more bizarre interactions I had was with a receptionist, to whom I finally said: “I wish to buy the expertise of the specialist you work for, in return for the payment of money. Is that possible?” The receptionist looked at me as if I were from another planet.
The other eye-opener has been the discovery of the extent to which pilot medical issues are now managed without Avmed’s knowledge. A related issue - probably causally connected with the first - is the extent of the open contempt that treating specialists and other experts have for Avmed.
Beware the “diagnosis”
This is the process through which a mere opinion magically transforms into an objective truth. Once diagnosed, you have a “condition” that has to be “managed”.
Despite the fact that the history of medical science and medical judgment is littered with research conclusions and diagnoses that turned out to be wrong, the current generation of medicos usually consider themselves to be the apotheosis of medical wisdom. And the medical ‘industry’ has a financial incentive to medicalise normal.
So be very careful about putting yourself in a situation in which you can be diagnosed with a “condition” which will provide Avmed with an excuse to intervene, intrude and destroy on the basis of its inexpert opinion. As joseph w said earlier: "MRIs/CAT scans/Angiograms/whatever will show up all sorts of wonderous things that we more than likely would have been blissfully unaware of until we dropped dead at age 98 - from something completely unrelated..."
A colleague was diagnosed with a condition about 6 years ago and Avmed intervened to destroy. The subsequent 6 years have demonstrated that the original diagnosis was wrong. But that is of no concern to Avmed.
As it turns out, I accepted the opinion of the specialist as to the existence of my DAVF. However, I have doubts about the correctness of the specialist’s opinion as to the classification of the severity of the DAVF. We’ll never know about the latter, because the former has been dealt with.
What we do know is that Avmed considered the specialist’s opinions on both those issues to be objective truths, but then ignored opinions expressed about the success of procedure to deal with the DAVF. Avmed preferred, instead, to intervene on the basis of “speculative risks based on poor quality data taken from small number surveys that have no relevance when applied to a single case” and apply “arbitrary rules, based on pseudoscience from small case series”. Not my words, but those of someone with more medical expertise in his big toe than a bunch of glorified GPs in Avmed.
Avmed is now, in my view, a force inimical to aviation safety
I’ve explained why, throughout this thread. As I said earlier, Avmed seems to me to believe that it’s OK to spin the facts in whichever way puts a pilot in the worst light, that it’s OK to spin whatever data they can find to portray risks to be as high as they could possibly be portrayed when it’s convenient, that it’s OK to spoon feed a supposedly independent expert some selected studies and selectively emphasised passages from studies, and that the law is for others and not them. It’s OK in their minds because it’s done for the noble cause of the safety of air navigation. It’s OK in their minds because it’s a “conservative approach” and “what the public would expect”.
There is no special expertise required to do that. It’s easy.
What seems to have happened is that Avmed has arrogated itself to a position of quasi-specialisation, simply because it has the power to issue and not issue medical certificates. Avmed seems to be suffering the delusion that having the power to certify somehow confers on Avmed some expertise it doesn’t have.
An analogous situation is the practical dictation by CASA of the content of an AOC holder’s Operations Manual on the one hand and the denial of liability for the consequences of compliance with that Manual on the other. Some folklore-propagating FOI says you’re not going to get your AOC unless your Operations Manual contains X but, by the way, you the AOC holder are entirely liable for the consequences of compliance with X.
Avmed practically dictates the “management” of a pilot’s “conditions” because the pilot isn’t going to get his or her certificate unless Avmed gets its way (or you have the time and money to take them on in the AAT). But this is often in the face of the opinion of the treating doctors and specialists who bear liability for their patient’s health and treatment. This is one of the reasons for Avmed being held in contempt.
It’s got to the point where some pilots are simply too scared to seek medical assistance ‘when in doubt’, or to disclose potentially safety-relevant medical issues to Avmed, for fear of consequential overreaction by Avmed.
Avmed’s response is ever-increasing procedural requirements during periodic DAME examinations that manifest a complete lack of trust of pilots, which results in a reciprocal lack of trust in Avmed. You don’t trust me any more? OK then, I don’t trust you any more.
Subject to the next lesson learnt, you should take Avmed on, every time
Every interaction I have had with Avmed since 2015 has involved unlawful behaviour on Avmed’s behalf. Every interaction. This is not my opinion: it has been conceded by CASA.
It started with the printing of “for CASA audit” as a purported “restriction” on my medical certificate. I had to pull them up twice - once in 2015 and then in 2017 when Avmed issued my medical certificate with that bull**** printed on it - to have it removed. As I said in my submission to the review of medical certification, medical certificates are not a blank canvass for use by Avmed to express its creative theories about how to save the world.
And as it turned out, this assertion by Avmed in its most recent decision was wrong not only as a matter of the laws of physics but also as a matter of man-made law: “Please be advised, CASA is unable to make a risk assessment for your fitness to return to flying until 12 months has elapsed following your embolisation procedure.”
It appears to me that CASA does not have the corporate integrity to ensure that Avmed understands that even Avmed is obliged to comply with the law, and ensure that Avmed understands that the medical certification system is defined and constrained by the law, not Avmed’s bright ideas. It therefore seems to me that it is left to us to make Avmed comply with the law. If not us, who?
Avmed doesn’t care if its intervention kills you
Taking Avmed on is costly and stressful. And Avmed doesn’t care if taking them on kills you financially, mentally or, ultimately, physically. (I am here reminded of Mr Carter’s Orwellian assertion, during the stay hearing, that: “CASA has a duty to protect Mr McKenzie’s safety, too”. That duty apparently extends to the dictation of scans that involve a risk of death. As I observed earlier, Avmed will destroy the village to save the village.)
This is a manifestation of the ‘Bull**** Asymmetry’: The amount of energy needed to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
It’s easy for Avmed to intervene on the basis of “speculative risks based on poor quality data taken from small number surveys that have no relevance when applied to a single case” and apply “arbitrary rules, based on pseudoscience from small case series”. The cost and stress of refuting that bull**** is orders of magnitude higher than the energy it took Avmed to produce it.
I feel the least healthy I have in my life, primarily as a consequence of the stress of dealing with Avmed’s bull****. And I haven’t much change left out of $10,000 spent on specialist reports and legal fees, even though we didn’t get to a substantive hearing in the AAT.
There’s an irony here: My ‘day job’ is administrative law and, accordingly, AAT and other other administrative law proceedings are mundane for me. I also have some insight into the detail of the aviation law. But it is because of my expertise and experience that I find dealing with Avmed’s bull**** so stressful. It’s like entering a parallel universe in which objective evidence, objective risk, disinterested decision-making and legal principle go out the window, simply through invocation of “the safety of air navigation”.
However, I don’t see what other choice we have, other than to fight them.
A special mention: Mr Anthony Carter
I’ve thought long and hard about how best to express my views about Mr Carter’s behaviour during this matter. Given that I understand he is a lawyer, I decided that the best way to express my views was through a hypothetical situation in which Mr Carter was working in my legal team and I was giving him some professional guidance. Here’s what I’d say, in those hypothetical circumstances:
AAT proceedings are inquisitorial, not adversarial. It’s not commercial litigation in which you are trying to use leverage and technicalities to ‘win’. AAT proceedings are not about ‘winning’ and ‘losing’.
You have a duty to protect the AAT from opinions based on “speculative risks based on poor quality data taken from small number surveys that have no relevance when applied to a single case”, not ‘defend’ those opinions.
You have a duty to protect the AAT from opinions based on “arbitrary rules, based on pseudoscience from small case series”, not ‘defend’ those opinions.
If you do not know why Deputy President Hack SC said this in the Bolton matter (Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013)), we’ll need to arrange for you to do some remedial professional development:
Dr Navathe’s witness statement concluded [in terms quoted by the AAT]. Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.
Although the above cases are about stay decisions, the overarching reasons are about ensuring the AAT’s ultimate order in a matter is effective. If the AAT has power to grant stays that have the positive effect of keeping an air operator’s certificate in force after it expired - as happened in a couple of the matters I’ve cited above - the AAT has power to grant stays that have the positive effect of keeping a medical certificate in force after it expired.
The effect of the position pressed by you in Mr McKenzie’s matter is that the holder of a suspended medical certificate is apparently deprived entirely of the right to any beneficial order from the AAT, simply because the procedure giving rise to the suspension decision randomly happened 5 months before the expiry date of the certificate, leaving insufficient time for the AAT to review the decision. It is in my view an absurdity and a perversion of the underlying policy of the AAT’s existence to conclude that an Applicant’s substantive rights and the AAT’s powers in aviation medical certification matters depend on the random coincidence that a reviewable decision happens to be made sufficiently in advance of a certificate’s expiry. There is no causal connection between the occurrence of potentially medically significant events and the date of expiry of a certificate.
I’d like you to consider the underlying reasons for the decisions in the AAT and Federal Court matters I’ve cited, extrapolate those reasons to medical certification matters, in the light of the underlying policy of the AAT’s existence, then come and discuss your views on the issue with me.
Finally, I understand from Mr McKenzie’s lawyer that he perceived that you and Dr Sharma “gloated”, during the conference, about Mr McKenzie’s concession that he undergo an annual scan of a kind that (you assume) is intrusive. If Mr McKenzie’s lawyer’s perception of your behaviour is accurate, I note that you (and Dr Sharma) are supposed to be disinterested and objective. “Gloating” about something disadvantageous to a certificate holder strikes me as manifesting an emotional and therefore inappropriate engagement with the substance of the matter. I don’t think it’s appropriate for a supposedly disinterested legal advisor and a supposedly disinterested administrative decision-maker to gloat about someone having to undergo a scan that entails a risk of death. The necessity and timing of scans should be decided on the basis of the opinion of independent, disinterested experts, taking into account the potential risks and benefits of those scans, not on the basis of the opinion of non-experts with an emotional engagement in the matter. However, I stress that Mr McKenzie’s lawyer may have misperceived your and Dr Sharma’s actions in the circumstances. Finally, and though not a legal matter, it might be worth you and Dr Sharma doing some googling about the scan in question. You might find that your assumption about the nature of the scan in question is inaccurate - hardly surprising, given that neither of you is an expert.
Epilogue
I note this from another thread on PPRuNe:
Meanwhile CASA's CAAP 155-1, Aerobatics, still has a dangerously incorrect and unhelpful description of Va and furthermore is generally irrelevant after Part 61.
It is bad enough that millions continue to be wasted on the never-ending aviation regulatory ‘reform’ dog’s breakfast that produces ever more complexity with little-to-no positively causal improvement in aviation safety in return for the cost. But millions are also now wasted on the peddling of dangerous operational folklore as well as what I consider to be the safety-inimical activities of Avmed.
It’s broken. I hope against hope that it won’t take a disaster for it to be fixed.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd describe CASA AVMED as a "Bull**** Factory".
I'd like to warn any older pilot about their current practice of looking for anything to add extra expense
to the cost of medicals. It would be interesting to know just how many plus 60 or plus 65 age pilots escape
a medical without any additional requirements.
Example, every one over say 65 has some hearing loss, its only a matter of time before a hearing aid is needed
or very expensive in flight testing.
Then there is eyesight, dam near every Australian has cataracts starting and CASA then require eye specialist reports at every medical
even when your eye sight passes the vision tests etc. What's the point? Either you pass or you don't.
There is no collaboration, they don't give a dam about your real health issues. You could have high blood pressure, high cholesterol and or a high PSA or other blood results come back that really do send warning bells but, CASA do not act on these very serious issues but
focus on finding "something" and seem to grasp at straws.
CASA has a reputation of piling bull**** on bull**** and it makes you wonder where they are going next.
An MRI on every renewal? Additional hearing tests every six months in case the hearing suddenly crosses a line?
They could call for a video recording for a tour of your rectum, bladder, stomach or anything else,
it could end up being as bizarre as asking for semen sample and a DNA test hunting for yet to be discovered
that lack the relevance applied in other ICAO countries.
That's where I think CASA let Australia down, they see themselves as being obliged to have more restrictions and demands than
any other jurisdiction.
Then of course there is the reality that a CASA medical can take all of 60 or 120 seconds with the actual CASA doctor.
I've seen some fast FAA medicals in my time but I've never seen anything faster than a CASA DAME. At that rate, they could
make $100,000 a week.
I'd like to warn any older pilot about their current practice of looking for anything to add extra expense
to the cost of medicals. It would be interesting to know just how many plus 60 or plus 65 age pilots escape
a medical without any additional requirements.
Example, every one over say 65 has some hearing loss, its only a matter of time before a hearing aid is needed
or very expensive in flight testing.
Then there is eyesight, dam near every Australian has cataracts starting and CASA then require eye specialist reports at every medical
even when your eye sight passes the vision tests etc. What's the point? Either you pass or you don't.
There is no collaboration, they don't give a dam about your real health issues. You could have high blood pressure, high cholesterol and or a high PSA or other blood results come back that really do send warning bells but, CASA do not act on these very serious issues but
focus on finding "something" and seem to grasp at straws.
CASA has a reputation of piling bull**** on bull**** and it makes you wonder where they are going next.
An MRI on every renewal? Additional hearing tests every six months in case the hearing suddenly crosses a line?
They could call for a video recording for a tour of your rectum, bladder, stomach or anything else,
it could end up being as bizarre as asking for semen sample and a DNA test hunting for yet to be discovered
that lack the relevance applied in other ICAO countries.
That's where I think CASA let Australia down, they see themselves as being obliged to have more restrictions and demands than
any other jurisdiction.
Then of course there is the reality that a CASA medical can take all of 60 or 120 seconds with the actual CASA doctor.
I've seen some fast FAA medicals in my time but I've never seen anything faster than a CASA DAME. At that rate, they could
make $100,000 a week.
LIKE pressed again.
With ref to Clintons post #147 and comments therein...
1 . SPIN and BS. Those in CAsA eg P Gobsome , and many others that I am aware of, will say and do anything to make their " case". Lies BS whatever it takes.
Sure makes the CAsA Code of Conduct stating Honesty, Integrity, Truth and Fair dealing a motherhood crock of very smelly POO. NOBODY in CAsA tales the slightest bit of notice of it.
2. CORPORATE INTEGRITY. Sorry to say THERE IS NONE.! When the current ceo is happy to join in to pervert the course of justice, when the Head of Legal is upfront in the action, as well as others...and altho trained in the law, lectured in the law, Dr Discrepancy aka Smart Aleck does obviously NOT believe in the Rule of Law...and is quite happy to see criminals let off the hook..as per another ceo's requirement.
NOT poor wording in the FALSE SWORN statements, as claimed by , Aleck, but outrageous and BLATANT LIES- about something that NEVER occurred
The "agency" that is CAsA is beyond rotten to the core, its a stinking cess pit that is costing this nation mega millions and destroying an industry in the process.
3. AVMED. Is but one of the corrupted principalities that make up the failed State of CAsA.
FOIs with their own opinions and sometimes unlawful at that, AWIs that just love nitpicking and laying down their 'law'. And the 3 AWIs that I was involved with, Larard, RETSKI and Clark..you wouldnt want them inspecting yr grandkids' Tonka toys !
4. BUREAUCRATS V CITIZENS. The Bs have the time, the money and a major CYA systems behind them. Any costs involved, the victim just has to suck it up.
If they feel stressed...need a little holiday aka " stress leave" at the taxpayers expense.
No such thing available to the victims/citizens
5. THE ERECTION ELECTION. MIght be for some, the 'winners' , but dont think too many in the Aviation Industry will be getting excited about any radical, much needed reforms and changes the put GA back an a vibrant growing track. So much for 'democracy' and our individual freedoms.
CAsA is a free range 'agency' with NO oversight and has become a Law unto Itself.
So sit back and enjoy the 'same old same old'
With ref to Clintons post #147 and comments therein...
1 . SPIN and BS. Those in CAsA eg P Gobsome , and many others that I am aware of, will say and do anything to make their " case". Lies BS whatever it takes.
Sure makes the CAsA Code of Conduct stating Honesty, Integrity, Truth and Fair dealing a motherhood crock of very smelly POO. NOBODY in CAsA tales the slightest bit of notice of it.
2. CORPORATE INTEGRITY. Sorry to say THERE IS NONE.! When the current ceo is happy to join in to pervert the course of justice, when the Head of Legal is upfront in the action, as well as others...and altho trained in the law, lectured in the law, Dr Discrepancy aka Smart Aleck does obviously NOT believe in the Rule of Law...and is quite happy to see criminals let off the hook..as per another ceo's requirement.
NOT poor wording in the FALSE SWORN statements, as claimed by , Aleck, but outrageous and BLATANT LIES- about something that NEVER occurred
The "agency" that is CAsA is beyond rotten to the core, its a stinking cess pit that is costing this nation mega millions and destroying an industry in the process.
3. AVMED. Is but one of the corrupted principalities that make up the failed State of CAsA.
FOIs with their own opinions and sometimes unlawful at that, AWIs that just love nitpicking and laying down their 'law'. And the 3 AWIs that I was involved with, Larard, RETSKI and Clark..you wouldnt want them inspecting yr grandkids' Tonka toys !
4. BUREAUCRATS V CITIZENS. The Bs have the time, the money and a major CYA systems behind them. Any costs involved, the victim just has to suck it up.
If they feel stressed...need a little holiday aka " stress leave" at the taxpayers expense.
No such thing available to the victims/citizens
5. THE ERECTION ELECTION. MIght be for some, the 'winners' , but dont think too many in the Aviation Industry will be getting excited about any radical, much needed reforms and changes the put GA back an a vibrant growing track. So much for 'democracy' and our individual freedoms.
CAsA is a free range 'agency' with NO oversight and has become a Law unto Itself.
So sit back and enjoy the 'same old same old'
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aroa, I understand what you are trying to articulate, however we stand the risk of just being
seen to "vent" and tire biting with out accurately stating the issue and avoiding "steam".
Your entire last post could be summarized with just part of your last post.
"CAsA (has) NO oversight and has become a Law unto Itself."
My limited understanding is that the legislation of CASA is decided by Parliament and it will take
a majority of politicians to support the disbanding of CASA and making the changes to bring into
comparison with the efficiency and simplicity of the FAA.
The first thing that has got to go is that word "Safety", its a subterfuge for an unlimited expense account
billed to the pockets of everyone in Aviation with destructive financial consequences to the Australia economy.
Its a psychological and economical cancer or millstone that destroys the aviation industry and the damage done is
often permanent.
Take the slow but sure destruction of rural airports and the habit of changing "landing fees".
If the politicians had to pay a fixed charge of paying $25 for stopping at their local gas station
then they might just get the message.
Its the old story, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and its that total lack of accountability
that further encourages endless escalation of their abuse of power.
I hear AOPA is now working on bringing change to CASA.
Would anyone like to pick up this ball?
seen to "vent" and tire biting with out accurately stating the issue and avoiding "steam".
Your entire last post could be summarized with just part of your last post.
"CAsA (has) NO oversight and has become a Law unto Itself."
My limited understanding is that the legislation of CASA is decided by Parliament and it will take
a majority of politicians to support the disbanding of CASA and making the changes to bring into
comparison with the efficiency and simplicity of the FAA.
The first thing that has got to go is that word "Safety", its a subterfuge for an unlimited expense account
billed to the pockets of everyone in Aviation with destructive financial consequences to the Australia economy.
Its a psychological and economical cancer or millstone that destroys the aviation industry and the damage done is
often permanent.
Take the slow but sure destruction of rural airports and the habit of changing "landing fees".
If the politicians had to pay a fixed charge of paying $25 for stopping at their local gas station
then they might just get the message.
Its the old story, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and its that total lack of accountability
that further encourages endless escalation of their abuse of power.
I hear AOPA is now working on bringing change to CASA.
Would anyone like to pick up this ball?
Not much point in just 'venting' if you cant give examples. And I'll keep letting off steam until justice is served.
CAsA hates criticism and having the truth put out there. All the more reason to keep up the publicity.
While AOPA is 'working to change CAsA Very commendable. Such endeavor has been going on for how long ??
BUT only UNTIL enough Politicians, with sincere interest and fortitude finally get the message and 'will pick up the ball', ..GA is stuffed.
CAsA hates criticism and having the truth put out there. All the more reason to keep up the publicity.
While AOPA is 'working to change CAsA Very commendable. Such endeavor has been going on for how long ??
BUT only UNTIL enough Politicians, with sincere interest and fortitude finally get the message and 'will pick up the ball', ..GA is stuffed.
Given what has been revealed about water shenanigans in the Murray Darling basin, visas for mates and a whole lot of other scams by politicians, public servants at both state and Federal levels, on all sides of politics, why should anyone be surprised at the antics of CASA?
The sad sad part is that the industry is going to inevitably respond in kind. Probably starting with flight training establishments for foreign students if the Four Corners report tonight into university shenanigans involving overseas students is any guide.
On the Avmed front, anecdotes suggest that its systems are already broken to the point where lying (or being economical with the truth) by doctors and pilots is the only viable option because the system otherwise produces unjust and counterproductive outcomes.
Government, like the proverbial fish, is rotting from the head. I’ve heard labor and liberals lambast Clive Palmer recently; are they any better themselves?
The sad sad part is that the industry is going to inevitably respond in kind. Probably starting with flight training establishments for foreign students if the Four Corners report tonight into university shenanigans involving overseas students is any guide.
On the Avmed front, anecdotes suggest that its systems are already broken to the point where lying (or being economical with the truth) by doctors and pilots is the only viable option because the system otherwise produces unjust and counterproductive outcomes.
Government, like the proverbial fish, is rotting from the head. I’ve heard labor and liberals lambast Clive Palmer recently; are they any better themselves?
Last edited by Sunfish; 6th May 2019 at 11:14.
I normally have to do a sleep study every renewal as although I show NO signs of Sleep Apnea my BMI is 31 (limit 30 when over 40 years old) , neck circumference is 43cm (limit 42 when over 42 years old) and I am over 40 years old. For 3 years in a row now the sleep studies have all shown that I don't snore, and do not have sleep apnea. Yet every year I know its coming, I have to admit I have never found CASA to be too bad with the processing times etc, I can normally get the study done within the two month medical extension resulting in no down time. I did peak at a BMI of 35 which through a lot of lifestyle change is slowly coming down, I am realistic in that I know that as long as I am above the acceptable limits this is just what has to be done. The studies that I have done are just at home, self administered and you then send the machine back to the clinic who processes it and sends all of the results through to the DAME, it takes around a week.
Thread Starter
Hi Ollie
Has any specialist advised you that the ongoing annual sleep studies are clinically necessary?
You are of course free to choose to comply, without protest, with whatever recurrent testing Avmed chooses to impose on you, based on Avmed’s inexpert opinions. I’d merely note that Avmed bears no liability for the risks or costs or medical efficacy of the recurrent testing it dictates.
And you can always get your BMI under control without government supervision, if you want to.
Has any specialist advised you that the ongoing annual sleep studies are clinically necessary?
You are of course free to choose to comply, without protest, with whatever recurrent testing Avmed chooses to impose on you, based on Avmed’s inexpert opinions. I’d merely note that Avmed bears no liability for the risks or costs or medical efficacy of the recurrent testing it dictates.
And you can always get your BMI under control without government supervision, if you want to.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Deepest darkest Africa
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far Canal, if you can possibly avoid it, DO NOT DO A SLEEP STUDY! invariably the clinic that does the study WILL find a reason to sell you an extremely expensive piece of equipment which you will not be able to tolerate and make your night's sleep even worse. In addition if you were referred for the sleep study by your DAME they are obliged to report the results to CASA AVMED and you will be in their clutches for LIFE!
If you are concerned about your sleep then by all means have the sleep study but have it referred by a non DAME, ideally a doctor that doesn't know you're involved in aviation.
As mentioned elsewhere in these pages 'sleep apnea' is the new medical cash cow and these clinics and the wider sleep industry are making a motza. Worse still CASA AVMED aids and abets them by treating 'sleep apnea' as a life threatening medical condition. The weird dichotomy is that CASA does not require every pilot/ATC/engineer/flight attendant to compulsorily take a sleep test to discover their apnea status. You only fall into their clutches if you stupidly (like me) tell your DAME that you wish you could get a better night's sleep and then go for the sleep test.
So the important lesson here - if your DAME asks 'how are you sleeping?' or 'do you ever have day time sleepiness?'. The correct answers in order are 'I sleep like the dead' and 'I am alert and full of energy all day long, thanks for asking!'
If you are concerned about your sleep then by all means have the sleep study but have it referred by a non DAME, ideally a doctor that doesn't know you're involved in aviation.
As mentioned elsewhere in these pages 'sleep apnea' is the new medical cash cow and these clinics and the wider sleep industry are making a motza. Worse still CASA AVMED aids and abets them by treating 'sleep apnea' as a life threatening medical condition. The weird dichotomy is that CASA does not require every pilot/ATC/engineer/flight attendant to compulsorily take a sleep test to discover their apnea status. You only fall into their clutches if you stupidly (like me) tell your DAME that you wish you could get a better night's sleep and then go for the sleep test.
So the important lesson here - if your DAME asks 'how are you sleeping?' or 'do you ever have day time sleepiness?'. The correct answers in order are 'I sleep like the dead' and 'I am alert and full of energy all day long, thanks for asking!'
A fella I worked with some years ago truthfully told his DAME that he had a glass of wine each night with his dinner. This somehow flagged him as a possible alcoholic and he had to jump through all sorts of expensive hoops to clear his name. Absolute true story, not "I heard about some guy...."
Glass? Glass of wine?? If you open a bottle, you've gotta polish it off, surely?
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fella I worked with some years ago truthfully told his DAME that he had a glass of wine each night with his dinner. This somehow flagged him as a possible alcoholic and he had to jump through all sorts of expensive hoops to clear his name. Absolute true story, not "I heard about some guy...."
Upon starting ab initio flying training, I applied for a Class 2 medical. The DAME asked whether I’d ever operated machinery under the influence of alcohol; I advised the DAME of a drink driving offence a decade earlier, I also voluntarily completed an alcohol intake questionnaire (at the suggestion of the DAME). I was at the time usually sharing a bottle of wine on the weekend with my partner, and having <5 stubbies of beer a week. CASA subsequently advised that I had “admitted” to consuming alcohol and was required to undergo blood testing for a biomarker of alcohol abuse (carbohydrate-deficient transferrin [CDT]). Not many labs conduct this analysis (due to low demand), and by the time I could get a doctor appointment and referral, it took a number of weeks to get results as the analysis is also not conducted often. Results of the test were fine (I had no reason to doubt this).
Due to advising of my drink driving offence I was also requested to provide a police check so CASA could determine that I was a fit and proper person. Funnily enough, this is not a valid reason for VicPol to issue a police check, so I had to lie and state that it was for an aviation ‘job’, by then I was getting sick of the appointments (time off work) and paperwork I had needed to gather and provide...
It took greater than 4 months to receive my medical (with included conditions and reduced medical period). In that time my flying training was severely restricted as I wasn’t allowed to solo. To say my skills and safety in the air deteriorated is not an overstatement, I basically had to start all over again.
This was my first interaction with our aviation regulator and I was appalled at their approach. I myself have a decade of regulatory experience: CASA is not adopting a ‘risk-based’ approach (particularly with regard to reducing regulatory burden), and assumed I was guilty without adequate information. I offered all the truth to my DAME, and felt that I was penalised by CASA for doing so; this is a very poor regulatory model as there is no incentive for regulated entities - you and I - to comply.
Many pilots I now know advise students to “tell them nothing”, I hear it all the time and I now understand why! After this dealing with CASA, I promptly opted out of ‘My Health Record’; I can only imagine one day in the future that CASA will overreach, abuse their powers and submit a request to court for the release of a pilot’s private information during the course of an investigation.
p.s. I am a fit young person with (fortunately) very few health issues in my life, I genuinely feel for those at the other end of the spectrum and their dealings with CASA.