Who Would You Rather Fly With?
I would be happy to be a passenger in an aircraft with Pilot 1 or Pilot 2 as PIC. In the case of the first, if they had time and were happy to talk about it, I’d be interested to find out whether AVMED had required tests/treatment/reports or anything else that qualified specialists considered unnecessary. In the case of the second, if they had time and were happy to talk about it, I’d discuss whether s/he was interested in exploring options to help deal with the circumstances in which s/he found him/herself.
The scenarios point up one of the bases of my opinion that AVMED is now a force inimical to aviation safety. Many pilots now refrain from seeking help for potentially safety-related conditions, for fear of discovery and overreaction by AVMED. Then there are all the pilots who ‘declare’ conditions which qualified specialists say have been treated or are being treated appropriately, only to have AVMED ‘come over the top’ to impose its non-specialist opinions on the hapless pilot.
Were it that AVMED had superior specialist qualifications and expertise, rather than delusions of grandeur as a consequence of being in a position of power over (often practically-powerless) individuals, more people might respect their views. Were it that the medical certification process was (as it used to be) about ascertaining objective compliance with the medical standard, rather than a vehicle for AVMED to entrap people and impose its own non-specialist opinions about what is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standard, more people might trust the process.
For those who did not read my thread about AAT proceedings I commenced against AVMED a little while ago, which proceedings were resolved in my favour, I note what Australia’s foremost expert in the relevant field said about AVMED’s decision:
I should not have had to go to the AAT in the first place.
And that’s why Pilot 1 has a lot to worry about. AVMED’s ongoing decisions and requirements may be based upon “pseudoscience”, “speculative risks”, “arbitrary rules” and “poor quality data”. In the worst case, AVMED’s requirements may result in a person having no practical choice but to undergo tests/treatment that can be deleterious to the person and not recommended by qualified specialists. In the best case, it’s ‘just’ wasted time and money and stress.
Effectively, non-specialists who have no responsibility for the consequences can impose requirements on an individual that specialists consider entail risks that are not justified. (I recall a submission by a doctor to one of the reviews - either the ASRR or med certification - to the effect that the behaviour is unethical. My opinion is that it is unethical.) They will drive you into the ground - all in the name of ‘safety’ of course. (In my separate thread, an apologist for AVMED’s decision observed that arguing with AVMED was “bad for your health”. What a ghastly irony.)
Mental health is probably the area in which there is the least certainty about what’s ‘normal’ and what’s ‘abnormal’ and what, if anything, can effectively be done and should be done about the ‘abnormal’. The ‘medicalisation of normal’ has been a tidy little earner for many over the years. It’s low hanging fruit for a medical bureaucrat looking to save the world.
Sadly, as a consequence of cognitive bias, the stigma attached to any suggestion of mental illness is particularly damaging for pilots. The mere mention of GermanWings will invoke calls for ever-more-stringent ‘screening’ of pilots and ever-more-intrusive restriction and ‘management’ of any pilot who shows any hint of a mental health ‘issue’. I’ve come to realise that so far as many medical bureaucrats are concerned, people are merely a collection of ‘conditions’ that must be discovered and ‘managed’ in accordance with the bureaucrat’s opinion.
For those supermen (and it’s usually men) who think they’ll never be in the situation of Pilot 1 or Pilot 2, I wish you luck. Because that’s all it boils down to.
The scenarios point up one of the bases of my opinion that AVMED is now a force inimical to aviation safety. Many pilots now refrain from seeking help for potentially safety-related conditions, for fear of discovery and overreaction by AVMED. Then there are all the pilots who ‘declare’ conditions which qualified specialists say have been treated or are being treated appropriately, only to have AVMED ‘come over the top’ to impose its non-specialist opinions on the hapless pilot.
Were it that AVMED had superior specialist qualifications and expertise, rather than delusions of grandeur as a consequence of being in a position of power over (often practically-powerless) individuals, more people might respect their views. Were it that the medical certification process was (as it used to be) about ascertaining objective compliance with the medical standard, rather than a vehicle for AVMED to entrap people and impose its own non-specialist opinions about what is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standard, more people might trust the process.
For those who did not read my thread about AAT proceedings I commenced against AVMED a little while ago, which proceedings were resolved in my favour, I note what Australia’s foremost expert in the relevant field said about AVMED’s decision:
To impose arbitrary, essentially non-scientific qualifications on fitness to fly, appears contradictory to CASA’s commitment to impose rigorous scientific techniques to its assessment of pilots.
Arbitrary rules, based on pseudoscience from small case series.
Speculative risks based on poor quality data taken from small number surveys that have no relevance when applied to a single case.
And that’s why Pilot 1 has a lot to worry about. AVMED’s ongoing decisions and requirements may be based upon “pseudoscience”, “speculative risks”, “arbitrary rules” and “poor quality data”. In the worst case, AVMED’s requirements may result in a person having no practical choice but to undergo tests/treatment that can be deleterious to the person and not recommended by qualified specialists. In the best case, it’s ‘just’ wasted time and money and stress.
Effectively, non-specialists who have no responsibility for the consequences can impose requirements on an individual that specialists consider entail risks that are not justified. (I recall a submission by a doctor to one of the reviews - either the ASRR or med certification - to the effect that the behaviour is unethical. My opinion is that it is unethical.) They will drive you into the ground - all in the name of ‘safety’ of course. (In my separate thread, an apologist for AVMED’s decision observed that arguing with AVMED was “bad for your health”. What a ghastly irony.)
Mental health is probably the area in which there is the least certainty about what’s ‘normal’ and what’s ‘abnormal’ and what, if anything, can effectively be done and should be done about the ‘abnormal’. The ‘medicalisation of normal’ has been a tidy little earner for many over the years. It’s low hanging fruit for a medical bureaucrat looking to save the world.
Sadly, as a consequence of cognitive bias, the stigma attached to any suggestion of mental illness is particularly damaging for pilots. The mere mention of GermanWings will invoke calls for ever-more-stringent ‘screening’ of pilots and ever-more-intrusive restriction and ‘management’ of any pilot who shows any hint of a mental health ‘issue’. I’ve come to realise that so far as many medical bureaucrats are concerned, people are merely a collection of ‘conditions’ that must be discovered and ‘managed’ in accordance with the bureaucrat’s opinion.
For those supermen (and it’s usually men) who think they’ll never be in the situation of Pilot 1 or Pilot 2, I wish you luck. Because that’s all it boils down to.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've met a few chaps over the years (Pilot 1) who've had the courage to out themselves and seek treatment. These are fellas that have regained their Class 1 or 3 and are back working. I don't have a problem flying with them. These are amongst the safest pilots, self aware. And to a man, they look out for others, quietly encouraging others to seek help.
Clinton, your post makes for sad reading if that's where we are now at. My experience was that the Avmed boss personally went into bat and pressed the relevant medical professional, who was reluctant to give a report, to do so. Can only say that Avmed in my day gave fair decisions, a number were on medication for PTSD, one such has just given up single pilot commercial flying, by choice, at the age of 75 to become a grey nomad.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NSW
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be happy to be a passenger in an aircraft with Pilot 1 or Pilot 2 as PIC. In the case of the first, if they had time and were happy to talk about it, I’d be interested to find out whether AVMED had required tests/treatment/reports or anything else that qualified specialists considered unnecessary. In the case of the second, if they had time and were happy to talk about it, I’d discuss whether s/he was interested in exploring options to help deal with the circumstances in which s/he found him/herself.
No one should ever have to go to the AAT in order to get a medical certificate. I think making someone go to the AAT is actually really ironic because the person who makes the final decision at the AAT isn't even a doctor themselves with the appropriate qualifications! So in the end for matters that end up going to the AAT, the final medical decision comes down to someone who isn't even a doctor in the first place!
I think the real question is, why are these specialists not allowed to attend the complex case management meeting and have a seat at the table in working out what happens. Surely one solution is having a "complex case management meeting" where all of the relevant professionals are invited to attend (not just aviation doctors) and they can all work it out between themselves in a collegial and constructive way. This way all of their qualifications combined are being used in order to come to a safe and effective solution for everybody without the need to rely on the written reports.
No one should ever have to go to the AAT in order to get a medical certificate. I think making someone go to the AAT is actually really ironic because the person who makes the final decision at the AAT isn't even a doctor themselves with the appropriate qualifications! So in the end for matters that end up going to the AAT, the final medical decision comes down to someone who isn't even a doctor in the first place!
Judges and Tribunal members are assisted by qualified, independent experts.
The latter point seems to be one that CASA Avmed either doesn’t understand or ignores. AAT Deputy President Hack SC said in Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013):
Despite the fact that the statement [of erstwhile CASA PMO Dr Navathe] does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines [for Persons Giving Expert and Opinion Evidence] 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.
These examples are just the tip of an iceberg of pilots subjected to this behaviour. (BTW, both Mr Bolton and I were successful, thanks to the AAT.)
It seems to me that Deputy President Hack SC’s trust was misplaced.
Which leads to your ‘real’ question:
I think the real question is, why are these specialists not allowed to attend the complex case management meeting and have a seat at the table in working out what happens. Surely one solution is having a "complex case management meeting" where all of the relevant professionals are invited to attend (not just aviation doctors) and they can all work it out between themselves in a collegial and constructive way. This way all of their qualifications combined are being used in order to come to a safe and effective solution for everybody without the need to rely on the written reports.
You might find this thread interesting: CASA Avmed – In my opinion, a biased, intellectually dishonest regulator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NSW
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a rumour that Pilot 1 was issued with a Class 1 and a Class 2 medical certificate and without excessive or onerous restrictions and without having to go to the AAT! It sure is nice to know that Pilot 2 no longer has to worry any more about how aviation medicine in Canberra may "react" to potential mental health issues.
That’s good news.
And do you know:
1. How long it took Pilot 1 to achieve this outcome - i.e. the period between application for and grant of the certificates?
2. How many reports and other tests were required by Avmed, which reports and other tests were, in the opinion of qualified specialists, unnecessary?
3. Whether any restrictions at all were placed on Pilot 1’s medical certificates?
4. If restrictions were placed on those certificates, whether Pilot 1’s specialists are of the opinion that those restrictions are not “excessive” or “onerous”?
5. Whether Pilot 1 told Avmed that Pilot 1 would apply to the AAT for review of a refusal to grant the certificates, or to grant them but with “excessive” or “onerous” restrictions?
And do you know:
1. How long it took Pilot 1 to achieve this outcome - i.e. the period between application for and grant of the certificates?
2. How many reports and other tests were required by Avmed, which reports and other tests were, in the opinion of qualified specialists, unnecessary?
3. Whether any restrictions at all were placed on Pilot 1’s medical certificates?
4. If restrictions were placed on those certificates, whether Pilot 1’s specialists are of the opinion that those restrictions are not “excessive” or “onerous”?
5. Whether Pilot 1 told Avmed that Pilot 1 would apply to the AAT for review of a refusal to grant the certificates, or to grant them but with “excessive” or “onerous” restrictions?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NSW
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good news! I will never say no to expanding on "hypothetical" rumour based scenarios.
1.
12 to 13 months from the date of first contact with a DAME. However, from what I have heard pilot 1 probably did have to put in a reconsideration application after about 5 months which then took another 8 months to finalise. Pilot 1 is thinking that if he hadn't slipped up in September the next 8 months after November may possibly not have been necessary. However, from what pilot 1 had read on these forums at the time he thinks that the next 8 months would unfortunately had to have occurred regardless of what the original qualified specialist report had said.
It should have only taken about 5 months had everything went very smoothly from start to finish.
2.
Hard to say from what I have heard as pilot 1 has never been explicitly told retrospectively which reports were and were not absolutely necessary. On a side note, the process all up apparently took 30 separate medical actions (not all relating to mental health of course) that cost pilot 1 roughly $4000 which is a bit excessive and unnecessary!
3.
The only real restrictions that were placed on the certificate in regards to mental health at least were related to ongoing reporting/surveillance requirements. Pilot 1 feels that those restrictions are definitely not too "excessive" or "onerous". Pilot 1 is speculating (truly speculating) that possibly Av Med is now working closely and proactively with the relevant specialists which quite frankly makes everyone's lives significantly easier and less stressful (Av Med included!).
4.
Pilot 1 would definitely be interested in knowing which reports/medical actions were and were not absolutely necessary throughout this entire process.
5.
Pilot 1 was going to go to the AAT and/or the Federal Circuit Court and at one point did tell them as much on the phone. However, strongly felt that he really should not have to do that!
So he did the only sensible thing at the time when the medicals were initially refused. He wrote an e-mail to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development while at the same time putting in a reconsideration application. Things became an awful lot easier for pilot 1 after that point which got pilot 1 thinking at the time that maybe (just maybe) his e-mail to the minister made a difference (that's democracy!). Pilot 1 strongly believes this was a crucial factor and therefore does have a great deal of respect for the current minister.
Pilot 1 still thinks that pilot 2 does not have to worry anymore at all and quite frankly since pilot 2 is more than likely currently grounded right now anyways maybe now is the best time to seek that help knowing that he won't lose his medical certificates forever. Who knows he may even be allowed to keep flying on his Class 2 while he is receiving treatment.
Maybe the hard and confronting lessons in relation to the Germanwings 9525 flight has finally been acted upon by the Australian and international aviation community rather then just pretending ignorance is bliss.
1.
12 to 13 months from the date of first contact with a DAME. However, from what I have heard pilot 1 probably did have to put in a reconsideration application after about 5 months which then took another 8 months to finalise. Pilot 1 is thinking that if he hadn't slipped up in September the next 8 months after November may possibly not have been necessary. However, from what pilot 1 had read on these forums at the time he thinks that the next 8 months would unfortunately had to have occurred regardless of what the original qualified specialist report had said.
It should have only taken about 5 months had everything went very smoothly from start to finish.
2.
Hard to say from what I have heard as pilot 1 has never been explicitly told retrospectively which reports were and were not absolutely necessary. On a side note, the process all up apparently took 30 separate medical actions (not all relating to mental health of course) that cost pilot 1 roughly $4000 which is a bit excessive and unnecessary!
3.
The only real restrictions that were placed on the certificate in regards to mental health at least were related to ongoing reporting/surveillance requirements. Pilot 1 feels that those restrictions are definitely not too "excessive" or "onerous". Pilot 1 is speculating (truly speculating) that possibly Av Med is now working closely and proactively with the relevant specialists which quite frankly makes everyone's lives significantly easier and less stressful (Av Med included!).
4.
Pilot 1 would definitely be interested in knowing which reports/medical actions were and were not absolutely necessary throughout this entire process.
5.
Pilot 1 was going to go to the AAT and/or the Federal Circuit Court and at one point did tell them as much on the phone. However, strongly felt that he really should not have to do that!
So he did the only sensible thing at the time when the medicals were initially refused. He wrote an e-mail to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development while at the same time putting in a reconsideration application. Things became an awful lot easier for pilot 1 after that point which got pilot 1 thinking at the time that maybe (just maybe) his e-mail to the minister made a difference (that's democracy!). Pilot 1 strongly believes this was a crucial factor and therefore does have a great deal of respect for the current minister.
Pilot 1 still thinks that pilot 2 does not have to worry anymore at all and quite frankly since pilot 2 is more than likely currently grounded right now anyways maybe now is the best time to seek that help knowing that he won't lose his medical certificates forever. Who knows he may even be allowed to keep flying on his Class 2 while he is receiving treatment.
Maybe the hard and confronting lessons in relation to the Germanwings 9525 flight has finally been acted upon by the Australian and international aviation community rather then just pretending ignorance is bliss.
Last edited by mindsneak; 30th Jul 2020 at 23:23. Reason: Clarity / Flow etc
In that case, mindsneak, it seems to me that Avmed’s intervention caused delay, expense and stress for Pilot 1, none of which changed Pilot 1’s compliance with the medical standard (except, perhaps negatively) and the main things that precipitated action was the threat of external scrutiny and political pressure. Sounds about par for the recent Avmed course.
If you think Pilot 2 would find any comfort in Pilot 1’s experience so far, I would respectfully disagree.
And Pilot 1 is now caught in the Avmed trap. Avmed will decide what Pilot 1 has to do, irrespective of what qualified specialists may think to the contrary (unless Pilot 1 is practically able, again, to expose Avmed to potentially embarrassing scrutiny).
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).
“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. Dr Liddell is, in my view, the last DAM/PMO to have a grasp on the practical role of medical certification in the system of aviation safety.
And those of us who continue to fly while so many are ‘grounded’ face the ghastly prospect of being in a reducing population of certificate holders available for Avmed to justify its existence through overreaching interventions and other busy-work.
If you think Pilot 2 would find any comfort in Pilot 1’s experience so far, I would respectfully disagree.
And Pilot 1 is now caught in the Avmed trap. Avmed will decide what Pilot 1 has to do, irrespective of what qualified specialists may think to the contrary (unless Pilot 1 is practically able, again, to expose Avmed to potentially embarrassing scrutiny).
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 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. Dr Liddell is, in my view, the last DAM/PMO to have a grasp on the practical role of medical certification in the system of aviation safety.
And those of us who continue to fly while so many are ‘grounded’ face the ghastly prospect of being in a reducing population of certificate holders available for Avmed to justify its existence through overreaching interventions and other busy-work.
Let’s not forget Covid - 19 either. That is worth a few attendances at international aeromedical conferences followed by a new question in the paperwork and whole pile of new tests for anyone who admits to having had it.
Ah yes. C19 will be another rich vein from which various leaches will suck more life out of certificate applicants and gather data for research (to which, of course, applicants have ‘consented’ because they have no choice).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NSW
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the intervention caused unnecessary delay, stress and expense for Pilot 1 which of course as you mentioned did not change Pilot 1's ultimate compliance with the medical standard. I think it is worth noting though that the relevant medical standard for mental health issues is ambiguous and can be broadly interpreted which therefore gives Av Med a great deal of ability to apply the standard on a case by case basis. Not necessarily a bad thing for an area of medicine that is very subjective. It is also worth noting that the standard for Class 1 and Class 2 has the exact same wording. Av Med did seem to listen to the opinion of Pilot 1's specialists opinion on both occasions. In fact, in hindsight the process seemed easier for the mental heath issues as only two reports were ultimately required in relation to this aspect.
I also agree that it seems at least to me that the situation for Pilot 1 was only resolved due to the threat of external scrutiny and/or political pressure as well. Pilot 1 cannot be certain about how much of an impact it had on the final decision as this has never been fully explained to him. In all honesty it probably never will be and Pilot 1 is comfortable with that. The situation for Pilot 1 is also complicated from the perspective that it is quite possible that media coverage he had received at one point in his life would have potentially resulted in embarrassing media coverage/scrutiny for Av Med should the matter had ever made its way to the Federal Circuit Court. He is really glad that it didn’t get to that point.
This media coverage meant that Pilot 1 was always going to be "caught in the Avmed trap" should he want a long career out of aviation. He says this because Pilot 1 has two young kids and was afraid that should he ever lose his licence his insurance would not pay out as he had not been honest in relation to his medical history to begin with. The only solution to this problem was to tell Av Med about the history. On the other hand not telling them is just as dangerous from an aviation safety perspective because then Pilot 1 gets his licences and then has to keep a secret for the rest of his career knowing all to well that if it is ever exposed his loss of licence insurance won't pay out. If that doesn't cause stress and anxiety then I don't know what will.
If there was indeed extensive political pressure placed on Av Med in order to achieve this outcome then maybe Michael McCormack is not as useless as everyone on these forums try to claim. I understand a lot of people are skeptical due to past experiences with Av Med and CASA but just remember Pilot 1 never had to go to the AAT or the Federal Circuit Court in the end. Maybe this "iron ring of middle management" isn't as impenetrable and impossible to overcome as everyone claims it to be.
I do not believe that Av Med is trying to purposely deny medical certificates and be difficult, but I do believe they need the right support from middle management and the ministers office in order to work out the issues that have clearly been issues for a while now.
Pilot 2 should take comfort from the experience of Pilot 1 as a precedent has now been set.
I also agree that it seems at least to me that the situation for Pilot 1 was only resolved due to the threat of external scrutiny and/or political pressure as well. Pilot 1 cannot be certain about how much of an impact it had on the final decision as this has never been fully explained to him. In all honesty it probably never will be and Pilot 1 is comfortable with that. The situation for Pilot 1 is also complicated from the perspective that it is quite possible that media coverage he had received at one point in his life would have potentially resulted in embarrassing media coverage/scrutiny for Av Med should the matter had ever made its way to the Federal Circuit Court. He is really glad that it didn’t get to that point.
This media coverage meant that Pilot 1 was always going to be "caught in the Avmed trap" should he want a long career out of aviation. He says this because Pilot 1 has two young kids and was afraid that should he ever lose his licence his insurance would not pay out as he had not been honest in relation to his medical history to begin with. The only solution to this problem was to tell Av Med about the history. On the other hand not telling them is just as dangerous from an aviation safety perspective because then Pilot 1 gets his licences and then has to keep a secret for the rest of his career knowing all to well that if it is ever exposed his loss of licence insurance won't pay out. If that doesn't cause stress and anxiety then I don't know what will.
If there was indeed extensive political pressure placed on Av Med in order to achieve this outcome then maybe Michael McCormack is not as useless as everyone on these forums try to claim. I understand a lot of people are skeptical due to past experiences with Av Med and CASA but just remember Pilot 1 never had to go to the AAT or the Federal Circuit Court in the end. Maybe this "iron ring of middle management" isn't as impenetrable and impossible to overcome as everyone claims it to be.
I do not believe that Av Med is trying to purposely deny medical certificates and be difficult, but I do believe they need the right support from middle management and the ministers office in order to work out the issues that have clearly been issues for a while now.
Pilot 2 should take comfort from the experience of Pilot 1 as a precedent has now been set.
Last edited by mindsneak; 8th Aug 2020 at 03:55. Reason: Added a sentence for clarity/formatting reasons
I think it is worth noting though that the relevant medical standard for mental health issues is ambiguous and can be broadly interpreted which therefore gives Av Med a great deal of ability to apply the standard on a case by case basis. Not necessarily a bad thing for an area of medicine that is very subjective.
On the basis that past behaviour is the most accurate predictor of future behaviour, the last thing a pilot with mental health issues needs inflicted on him or her is the opinions of a group on non-experts in CASA Avmed.
To paraphrase someone famous who battled with mental health problems: Pilot 1’s problems with Avmed “have only just begun”.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: NSW
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also respectfully disagree that "past behaviour is the most accurate predictor of future behaviour". That is what people say when either they themselves don't truly want to change or they want to believe that other people can't change. Although that quote can be applied in some cases, applying it in all cases is very problematic.
Pilot 1 will do everything in his power to fight anyone who gets in his way because that is what he has had to do for much longer than anyone realises. Even if he does ultimately lose at some point in the long run, he has still won and at the end of the day it doesn't matter because "que sera sera".
Last edited by mindsneak; 8th Aug 2020 at 10:28. Reason: Clarity / Flow / Spell Check - etc
