CASA Avmed – In my opinion, a biased, intellectually dishonest regulator

[Sunfish]

Stick:

CASA is not adopting a ‘risk-based’ approach (particularly with regard to reducing regulatory burden), and assumed I was guilty without adequate information.

CASA is adopting a risk based approach - minimising the risk to their careers, not the general public. I don’t blame them for this.

Under current law and regulation, there is no upside for them in allowing you to fly. Period.

On the other hand, if you crash an aircraft and injure a passenger or bystander, and it can be alleged by the newspapers that alcohol abuse played ANY role in the accident, then the CASA staff who let you fly have lost their jobs if it can be shown that they should have detected your drinking history.

You have to be fair to CASA AVMED, they are only trying to keep their jobs. They have no choice. When you tell them something, they HAVE to act or they risk losing their jobs!

[Pinky the pilot]

You have to be fair to CASA AVMED, they are only trying to keep their jobs. They have no choice. When you tell them something, they HAVE to act or they risk losing their jobs!

So, Sunfish; Are you therefore saying/implying /inferring that we should 'tell 'em nothing!'

Think that someone has already suggested similar.

[Sunfish]

No Pinky, I am saying that the regulations are such that CASA is forced into overkill by the existence of new tests for all sorts of conditions.

Sleep apnea is a good example.The regulations need to be changed. What happens if next year a test is divised that predicts propensity for strokes ten years out? Is CASA then going to deny medical certificates on the grounds that you have a long term risk?

Another example. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-accuracy.html

I have given up alcohol and can report that the freedom from worrying about Police, DUI and CASA is quite liberating. I might now be boring, but am in demand as the designated driver

[thunderbird five]

Readers, take a look at the Class 2 medical regulations CASR Part 67) as an example. (and probably all the Part 67 medical regulations)
CASR 67.155 Who meets medical standard 2.
There is no mention of sleep apnoea. It's 100% pure fresh steaming BS. Yes, it appears in their DAME guidelines - which are not regulations that you must abide by. It's BS. And people fall for it. Just say no to BS.
Also search the Part 67 regulations for these words: Height. Weight. BMI. all of which are lead to the sleep apnoea conclusions.
Height, or weight, are not declarable items within a Class 2 medical standard. They are using information gained improperly from you, against you. Yet, we cannot pass GO without declaring those things. It's not right.
(Clint - your thoughts on that?)

[lucille]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

I have given up alcohol

Phoooahh, that’s a bit extreme isn’t it?

[Sunfish]

Lost 6kg. too.....:

[Pinky the pilot]

I am saying that the regulations are such that CASA is forced into overkill by the existence of new tests for all sorts of conditions.

Which only creates the scenario of a CASA bureaucrat saying in effect;
'Your career or mine goes down the tube. Better it's yours!'

[Clinton McKenzie]

Originally Posted by thunderbird five

Readers, take a look at the Class 2 medical regulations CASR Part 67) as an example. (and probably all the Part 67 medical regulations)
CASR 67.155 Who meets medical standard 2.
There is no mention of sleep apnoea. It's 100% pure fresh steaming BS. Yes, it appears in their DAME guidelines - which are not regulations that you must abide by. It's BS. And people fall for it. Just say no to BS.
Also search the Part 67 regulations for these words: Height. Weight. BMI. all of which are lead to the sleep apnoea conclusions.
Height, or weight, are not declarable items within a Class 2 medical standard. They are using information gained improperly from you, against you. Yet, we cannot pass GO without declaring those things. It's not right.
(Clint - your thoughts on that?)

Hi T5

My view is that it's just one of the many manifestations of CASA Avmed overreach and exaggeration of risk. They've arrogated themselves to a position in which they presume to override the clinical opinions of the people with the expertise and liability for the health and treatment of their patients who happen to be pilots. My opinion is that CASA Avmed's behavior is, apart from the other comments I've made, simply unethical.

CASA Avmed is effectively dictating procedures that treating experts do not consider are, in all the circumstances, necessary, and CASA bears no responsibility!

Meanwhile, on my reading of the 'fine print' on an application for a medical certificate from CASA Avmed, you are purporting to 'consent' to them using information about you in their 'research' by submitting the application. Again, on my reading, there was no box to tick refusing consent. If my reading is correct, that's not "consent". That in my opinion is called "duress".

CASA Avmed seems to me to be on a mission to try to prove to the world that they know better than people with real expertise, but the main outcomes being achieved are the alienation of those people and their pilot patients.

I note a couple of key passages from Dr Rob Liddell's submission (here: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...4_redacted.pdf ) to the aviation safety regulatory review. Dr Liddell was the Director of Aviation Medicine (which position subsequently became the Principal Medical Officer).

I suspect that due to my previous role in CASA, I seem to attract many pilots who are totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine. This involves conditions such as head injury, hearing, cardio vascular disease and prostate cancer, where the opinions of the pilots own specialist doctors are ignored and stringent and expensive repetitive imaging and blood testing is required if the individual wishes to retain their medical certificate. On a weekly basis I receive requests for assistance by pilots with conditions ranging from renal stones to early type 2 diabetes where the pilots own specialist’s advice is ignored by CASA and further expensive or repetitive testing in required to obtain a medical certificate.

The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator.

"The dangerous result of CASA's draconian regulatory measures...". Those words would not have been used lightly by a professional like Dr Liddell. And he knows what he's talking about.

In his submission to the CASA medical certification standards discussion (available here: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...scussion-paper) Dr Liddell said, among other things:

My reason for [making a submission] is that as a DAME performing in excess of 400 medical exams on pilots a year, I have been on the front line of seeing the wastage of pilots that fly privately (class 2 medical) from the industry due to the cost and effort required to maintain certification. We are now watching the decimation of the private pilot sector of general aviation with activity numbers down by nearly 50% from historical norms.
...
In my opinion the most urgent requirement is to rescue the private and recreational sector of the industry by altering the management of the class 2 medical certification system. The certification of private pilots in Australia is well out of step with what I have experienced in other major aviation countries such as the USA and the UK.

As I said in my submission to the medical certification standards discussion, CASA Avmed has not provided any evidence to show that its relatively-recent change in behavior was a causally positive response to a substantial increase in medical-related accidents and incidents. That's because there was no such increase and, in any event, as Dr Liddell and others have pointed out in other terms, CASA's Avmed's "draconian regulatory measures" have had a "dangerous result".

Great to see a ray of hope across the ditch: The head of the NZ CAA has seen through the CVD bull**** propagated by various Avmed zealots.

[Captain Spock]

Dealing with CASA

Wow Clinton what a saga. I’m currently involved in a medical tussle with CASA. I won’t go into details now as I’m contemplating legal action. Are you able to contact me on 04xxxxxxxxxx for a chat. Understand if you can’t/ don’t want to . Cheers Captain Spock

[Clinton McKenzie]

Will call some time over the weekend.

[Captain Spock]

Thanks for the chat and the advice Clinton. I must say I feel a lot better and more confident after speaking with you. I’ll keep you posted on my progress. regards Spock