ADHD/ASD and CASA medicals
Jeez Clare,
I've just read that link in #3, and, I've just gotta say...I think I qualify.......
Unless its 'Oletimers' catchin' up.....
The CASA medical 'empire' has outgrown its REAL function - 'Is This Person Safe To Fly'.
The 'power' has gone to its head - IMHO.
I've just read that link in #3, and, I've just gotta say...I think I qualify.......
Unless its 'Oletimers' catchin' up.....
The CASA medical 'empire' has outgrown its REAL function - 'Is This Person Safe To Fly'.
The 'power' has gone to its head - IMHO.
(f) often talks excessively - May be excessively verbose or may make excessive and unnecessary radio calls = pilots.
Hard to believe this is a bona fide CASA form.
Hard to believe this is a bona fide CASA form.
May be excessively verbose
Well that covers a few of the posters here!
Well that covers a few of the posters here!
I have a crew member I fly with who you could describe as “excessively verbose”. My ears almost bleed after three sectors. 🤣
The most recent submission to the Senate Committee inquiry into GA highlights more appalling, but sadly typical, behaviour on the part of CASA Avmed.
Dear Senator McDonald
Re: Senate inquiry into General Aviation
I write as a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner (DAME) for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (Cth) (CASR) 67.045. I have worked in this capacity since 2014 and am on record as being one of the busiest DAMEs in the country, currently seeing between 300 and 400 applicants annually. I am also a private (non-commercial) pilot and an aeroplane owner.
In my role, I primarily see pilots (30% non-commercial, 70% commercial), but have occasionally seen cabin crew, aviation fire-fighters, parachute instructors and air traffic controllers. Once I have seen an applicant and submitted my findings, CASA will review the application and make a determination on whether the applicant is fit to hold a medical clearance.
As a comparison, when a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) (a “motor mechanic” for aeroplanes), completes work on an aeroplane, they sign the relevant paperwork and the aircraft is available to fly. When I, as a DAME complete the relevant paperwork on a pilot, CASA then reviews my paperwork and, never having met the pilot, may overturn my recommendation, request the applicant provide more information or issue a medical clearance.
For clarity, my role has been extended by Instrument Number CASA 26/18, dated 3 April 2018 (The Instrument), whereby I have been delegated CASA’s powers and functions for Class 2 (non-commercial) medical applications under CASR 67.165, 67.175, 67.180 and 67.195. This allows me to make all the relevant decisions, independent of CASA, with the exception that I cannot deny a medical clearance and if I believe that a pilot is unfit, I need to forward the application to CASA.
CASA does not trust DAME’s with this decision making process, as all certificates issued under The Instrument are reviewed. I have instances of my decisions being altered without my consent, for which I do not believe there is legislation providing CASA the ability to alter the decisions.
As a medical professional, it is the only area of medicine, that I am aware of, that a government regulator will review and over rule the decision of a clinician working alongside the applicant.
It is worth noting that most medical officers within CASA are not pilots and have little practical experience in aviation.
My issues with the Aviation Medicine section of CASA (AvMed) is the bureaucratic over-reach, with no consideration to cost, health risk and time of the applicant, for very little gain to the safety of air-navigation. Specialist opinion is disregarded by AvMed doctors underqualified in the relevant specialty, but “experts” in armchair bureaucracy.
I provide two examples:
Ms X
Ms X at the time (2019), was a 50yo fit and healthy female, who had held a Class 2 medical for a number of years. She is an accomplished helicopter and aeroplane pilot and had made the decision to obtain a Class 1 medical so that she could instruct. As a routine part of this examination, she was required to undertake an ECG. This was sent to an eminent aviation cardiologist who reviewed an anomaly and requested a clinical review with the patient. Following some in depth investigations and review, the cardiologist provided the opinion:
“This is an unusual finding…. but there is no evidence at this stage of any significant underlying cardiac disease. I do not believe that further investigation is indicated, and in my opinion, Miss X is fit for all activities, including flying”.
The cardiologist made the recommendation for annual testing and cardiologist review. CASA restricted both her Class 1 and 2 medical certificates, forbidding her to fly without a qualified pilot in the aircraft and shortened her medical certificates from two to one year. In the letter advising of this, CASA stated:
“Assessment of your application and specialist reports indicates that you presently fail to meet the relevant medical standard and I am satisfied that this may pose a risk to the safety of air navigation due to the risk of subtle and overt incapacitation... Your finding of rate-related left bundle branch block carries adverse prognostic significance including elevated risk of cardiac events and death”.
This decision appears to be based on one medical paper, which compares Ms X, a fit and healthy young female to a 58yo female and an 80yo male, both with significant heart disease.
CASA advised the removal of these restrictions would require angiography and electrophysiological studies. It is important to note that the AvMed doctor making this decision is not a cardiologist.
The risks from these investigations came with an approximate 1:10,000 risk of death and a 1:2,000 risk of stroke. The case was reviewed by a cardiologist who specialises in electrophysiology, who expressed that the extra testing was not warranted and the risks far outweighed any potential benefits. It was only after very significant public pressure was applied by the original cardiologist, myself and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA), that CASA relented, accepted a CT Scan and provided Ms X with an unrestricted, full length (two years) medical certificate. She is now too frightened to reapply for her Class 1 medical certificate and has given up on the prospect of instructing.
Mr Y
Mr Y was a 37yo make when he first approached me for assistance. I was not his first DAME and his first application had been refused. Following a short course of ZybanTM (bupropion) to assist with smoking cessation, Mr Y experienced an episode of psychosis. Not being involved at the time, I can’t be sure of the exact details, but this disclosure and a history of drug experimentation 15-20 years earlier, appears to have triggered a cascade of events, eventually resulting in a hair drug test.
The hair drug test demonstrated the presence of methylamphetamine at 50pg/mg of hair. The report noted that the Level of Detection (LOD) was 50pg/mg of hair.
Interpretation of drug testing results are complicated and require a specialist training package from, and membership with, the Australasian Medical Review Officers Association (AMROA). There is no Australian or international standard for hair testing results, however the Society of Hair Testing (SoHT) (an international organisation) describes that LOD is the sensitivity of the relevant laboratory to consistently test a specified amount of substance. In this case, the laboratory is able to consistently detect 50pg/mg of hair, ie for every mg of hair analysed, the laboratory can detect 0.00000005mg of methylamphetamine.
However, the SoHT reports cutoffs for single use of methylamphetamine is 02.ng/mg of hair (or 200pg/mg of hair).
Mr Y’s hair test result demonstrated 50pg/mg of hair, at the lowermost level for laboratory detection, but four-fold lower than is internationally accepted as evidence of an single event of drug use. In addition, no metabolites were present. In his defence, Mr Y reports he is employed as a luxury yacht chef, that he is constantly exposed to amphetamines and other drugs in the course of his employment, but does not use any illicit substance.
The hair test for Mr Y should be reported by an AMROA member as a negative result, and CASA should have acted accordingly on that report.
Mr Y saw a psychiatrist who, recognising the result as negative, made no comment on the drug test at the time of writing a report to CASA.
CASA reviewed the drug test and the psychiatrist report and wrote to Mr Y refusing him a medical clearance.
In the letter, CASA wrote:
• “A hair test for drugs performed on 22 Aug 2018 showed a positive result for methamphetamine”
• “(Your psychiatrist) did not seem to be aware that you had a hair test that was positive to methamphetamine in the report dated 22/8/2019”
• “I have formed the view that you suffer from a problematic use of substances and have a significant psychiatric history, and that you therefore fail to meet the applicable Medical Standard. You are also an unreliable historian, having failed to disclose your medical history to CASA as well as your history of a positive hair drug test for methamphetamine to your psychiatrist”
As can be seen above, none of these assertions are correct. Based on these conclusions, Mr Y was declined a medical certificate and barred from reapplying for 12 months.
As discussed above, this all occurred prior to my involvement. He eventually approached me for assistance with a new application. At this time, I explained to CASA, in writing, my concerns with their decision and the rationale. I requested to be involved in any patient discussions held by AvMed medical staff and was declined.
Mr Y has spent the best part of $20,000 trying to obtain and maintain a medical clearance, based on a CASA opinion that is inherently incorrect.
I could provide many more examples!
As a medical practitioner, I can accept that people make mistakes, but these cases are not mistakes, these are instances where AvMed doctors have brutalised individuals, for no particular gain, except the theoretical “safety of air navigation”, which on review, was never compromised.
As much as I, and many others, enjoy acting as a pilot, we are under no illusions of the potential of a catastrophic outcome. Aviation is an inherently risky pursuit, whether in a professional or hobby capacity, but CASA needs to accept that risk should be considered against the financial and emotional burden of the decisions that have been made. There also needs to be a willingness by CASA to accept their mistakes, and to make amends to the individuals wronged.
I would be happy to present to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee into General Aviation, if you so required.
Re: Senate inquiry into General Aviation
I write as a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner (DAME) for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (Cth) (CASR) 67.045. I have worked in this capacity since 2014 and am on record as being one of the busiest DAMEs in the country, currently seeing between 300 and 400 applicants annually. I am also a private (non-commercial) pilot and an aeroplane owner.
In my role, I primarily see pilots (30% non-commercial, 70% commercial), but have occasionally seen cabin crew, aviation fire-fighters, parachute instructors and air traffic controllers. Once I have seen an applicant and submitted my findings, CASA will review the application and make a determination on whether the applicant is fit to hold a medical clearance.
As a comparison, when a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) (a “motor mechanic” for aeroplanes), completes work on an aeroplane, they sign the relevant paperwork and the aircraft is available to fly. When I, as a DAME complete the relevant paperwork on a pilot, CASA then reviews my paperwork and, never having met the pilot, may overturn my recommendation, request the applicant provide more information or issue a medical clearance.
For clarity, my role has been extended by Instrument Number CASA 26/18, dated 3 April 2018 (The Instrument), whereby I have been delegated CASA’s powers and functions for Class 2 (non-commercial) medical applications under CASR 67.165, 67.175, 67.180 and 67.195. This allows me to make all the relevant decisions, independent of CASA, with the exception that I cannot deny a medical clearance and if I believe that a pilot is unfit, I need to forward the application to CASA.
CASA does not trust DAME’s with this decision making process, as all certificates issued under The Instrument are reviewed. I have instances of my decisions being altered without my consent, for which I do not believe there is legislation providing CASA the ability to alter the decisions.
As a medical professional, it is the only area of medicine, that I am aware of, that a government regulator will review and over rule the decision of a clinician working alongside the applicant.
It is worth noting that most medical officers within CASA are not pilots and have little practical experience in aviation.
My issues with the Aviation Medicine section of CASA (AvMed) is the bureaucratic over-reach, with no consideration to cost, health risk and time of the applicant, for very little gain to the safety of air-navigation. Specialist opinion is disregarded by AvMed doctors underqualified in the relevant specialty, but “experts” in armchair bureaucracy.
I provide two examples:
Ms X
Ms X at the time (2019), was a 50yo fit and healthy female, who had held a Class 2 medical for a number of years. She is an accomplished helicopter and aeroplane pilot and had made the decision to obtain a Class 1 medical so that she could instruct. As a routine part of this examination, she was required to undertake an ECG. This was sent to an eminent aviation cardiologist who reviewed an anomaly and requested a clinical review with the patient. Following some in depth investigations and review, the cardiologist provided the opinion:
“This is an unusual finding…. but there is no evidence at this stage of any significant underlying cardiac disease. I do not believe that further investigation is indicated, and in my opinion, Miss X is fit for all activities, including flying”.
The cardiologist made the recommendation for annual testing and cardiologist review. CASA restricted both her Class 1 and 2 medical certificates, forbidding her to fly without a qualified pilot in the aircraft and shortened her medical certificates from two to one year. In the letter advising of this, CASA stated:
“Assessment of your application and specialist reports indicates that you presently fail to meet the relevant medical standard and I am satisfied that this may pose a risk to the safety of air navigation due to the risk of subtle and overt incapacitation... Your finding of rate-related left bundle branch block carries adverse prognostic significance including elevated risk of cardiac events and death”.
This decision appears to be based on one medical paper, which compares Ms X, a fit and healthy young female to a 58yo female and an 80yo male, both with significant heart disease.
CASA advised the removal of these restrictions would require angiography and electrophysiological studies. It is important to note that the AvMed doctor making this decision is not a cardiologist.
The risks from these investigations came with an approximate 1:10,000 risk of death and a 1:2,000 risk of stroke. The case was reviewed by a cardiologist who specialises in electrophysiology, who expressed that the extra testing was not warranted and the risks far outweighed any potential benefits. It was only after very significant public pressure was applied by the original cardiologist, myself and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA), that CASA relented, accepted a CT Scan and provided Ms X with an unrestricted, full length (two years) medical certificate. She is now too frightened to reapply for her Class 1 medical certificate and has given up on the prospect of instructing.
Mr Y
Mr Y was a 37yo make when he first approached me for assistance. I was not his first DAME and his first application had been refused. Following a short course of ZybanTM (bupropion) to assist with smoking cessation, Mr Y experienced an episode of psychosis. Not being involved at the time, I can’t be sure of the exact details, but this disclosure and a history of drug experimentation 15-20 years earlier, appears to have triggered a cascade of events, eventually resulting in a hair drug test.
The hair drug test demonstrated the presence of methylamphetamine at 50pg/mg of hair. The report noted that the Level of Detection (LOD) was 50pg/mg of hair.
Interpretation of drug testing results are complicated and require a specialist training package from, and membership with, the Australasian Medical Review Officers Association (AMROA). There is no Australian or international standard for hair testing results, however the Society of Hair Testing (SoHT) (an international organisation) describes that LOD is the sensitivity of the relevant laboratory to consistently test a specified amount of substance. In this case, the laboratory is able to consistently detect 50pg/mg of hair, ie for every mg of hair analysed, the laboratory can detect 0.00000005mg of methylamphetamine.
However, the SoHT reports cutoffs for single use of methylamphetamine is 02.ng/mg of hair (or 200pg/mg of hair).
Mr Y’s hair test result demonstrated 50pg/mg of hair, at the lowermost level for laboratory detection, but four-fold lower than is internationally accepted as evidence of an single event of drug use. In addition, no metabolites were present. In his defence, Mr Y reports he is employed as a luxury yacht chef, that he is constantly exposed to amphetamines and other drugs in the course of his employment, but does not use any illicit substance.
The hair test for Mr Y should be reported by an AMROA member as a negative result, and CASA should have acted accordingly on that report.
Mr Y saw a psychiatrist who, recognising the result as negative, made no comment on the drug test at the time of writing a report to CASA.
CASA reviewed the drug test and the psychiatrist report and wrote to Mr Y refusing him a medical clearance.
In the letter, CASA wrote:
• “A hair test for drugs performed on 22 Aug 2018 showed a positive result for methamphetamine”
• “(Your psychiatrist) did not seem to be aware that you had a hair test that was positive to methamphetamine in the report dated 22/8/2019”
• “I have formed the view that you suffer from a problematic use of substances and have a significant psychiatric history, and that you therefore fail to meet the applicable Medical Standard. You are also an unreliable historian, having failed to disclose your medical history to CASA as well as your history of a positive hair drug test for methamphetamine to your psychiatrist”
As can be seen above, none of these assertions are correct. Based on these conclusions, Mr Y was declined a medical certificate and barred from reapplying for 12 months.
As discussed above, this all occurred prior to my involvement. He eventually approached me for assistance with a new application. At this time, I explained to CASA, in writing, my concerns with their decision and the rationale. I requested to be involved in any patient discussions held by AvMed medical staff and was declined.
Mr Y has spent the best part of $20,000 trying to obtain and maintain a medical clearance, based on a CASA opinion that is inherently incorrect.
I could provide many more examples!
As a medical practitioner, I can accept that people make mistakes, but these cases are not mistakes, these are instances where AvMed doctors have brutalised individuals, for no particular gain, except the theoretical “safety of air navigation”, which on review, was never compromised.
As much as I, and many others, enjoy acting as a pilot, we are under no illusions of the potential of a catastrophic outcome. Aviation is an inherently risky pursuit, whether in a professional or hobby capacity, but CASA needs to accept that risk should be considered against the financial and emotional burden of the decisions that have been made. There also needs to be a willingness by CASA to accept their mistakes, and to make amends to the individuals wronged.
I would be happy to present to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee into General Aviation, if you so required.
That is simply dumbfounding - thanks for posting this, Clinton.
No need to thank me. Thank the DAME for having the courage to call out CASA Avmed’s behaviour for what it is.
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just put my RPL on hold after 8h training
Question for the Pprune brains trust. A friend of mine has been diagnosed with ASD/ADHD. Has anyone dealt with CASA regarding their medical? Just interested to hear if there are any issues as far as CASA are concerned? Will it effect gaining or maintaining a Class 1 medical?
This is because I don't want to risk getting my Class 2 refused, which would leave a big stain in my flying history, but also prevent me from ever going for sport licence, which don't require medicals, but cannot be granted if you've ever been denied one.
So my advice is not to got for your RPL or PPL if there's a risk you wont pass your medicals as it could prevent you from flying anything ever again.
Clinton
I have quite good knowledge of the business of general practice. There has been a chronic shortage of general practitioners for some years that, post-covid has become critical. Many General Proctices (like restaurants and other businesses) are now reducing opening hours because of a lack of staff. Ours has. Young doctors not prepared to do the hours of past generation, retiring doctors, declining income compared with specialists and reduced overseas trained doctors are all taking effect. In this environment, where any competent GP can get as much work as they want, for fees much higher than CASA pays for AVMED reviews, what does it say about the calbre of the (predominanltly) GP's that CASA gets to review pilot medicals after the DAME issues them?
Separeately, This week I was aghast to recieve a letter from AVMED ordering me to get another round of tests and discussing quite intimate details about my health records signed by someone titled "Medical Assessor". I put the persons name into Google which led me to a Linkedin profile recoding that this "Medical Assseeors" last job was as an accounts payable clerk and is studying a business degree part time. I'm still struggling to understand how cutting cheques qualifies one as a medical assesor.
So, following on from the author of the letter to Sen McDonald, why do we have (in my case) a suburban GP in a remote city and an ex accounts payable clerk overriding my DAME who is a senior medical specialist and held in high regard by the medical community who has passed the CASA 3 month course to become a DAME ?
On paper at least the new principle medical officer - Dr Kate Manderson - looks like the most practical PMO we have had in years and certainly a change from the years when CASA apponted academics to the role. I'm hoping desperately that she makes a change.
I have quite good knowledge of the business of general practice. There has been a chronic shortage of general practitioners for some years that, post-covid has become critical. Many General Proctices (like restaurants and other businesses) are now reducing opening hours because of a lack of staff. Ours has. Young doctors not prepared to do the hours of past generation, retiring doctors, declining income compared with specialists and reduced overseas trained doctors are all taking effect. In this environment, where any competent GP can get as much work as they want, for fees much higher than CASA pays for AVMED reviews, what does it say about the calbre of the (predominanltly) GP's that CASA gets to review pilot medicals after the DAME issues them?
Separeately, This week I was aghast to recieve a letter from AVMED ordering me to get another round of tests and discussing quite intimate details about my health records signed by someone titled "Medical Assessor". I put the persons name into Google which led me to a Linkedin profile recoding that this "Medical Assseeors" last job was as an accounts payable clerk and is studying a business degree part time. I'm still struggling to understand how cutting cheques qualifies one as a medical assesor.
So, following on from the author of the letter to Sen McDonald, why do we have (in my case) a suburban GP in a remote city and an ex accounts payable clerk overriding my DAME who is a senior medical specialist and held in high regard by the medical community who has passed the CASA 3 month course to become a DAME ?
On paper at least the new principle medical officer - Dr Kate Manderson - looks like the most practical PMO we have had in years and certainly a change from the years when CASA apponted academics to the role. I'm hoping desperately that she makes a change.
You’re ‘preaching to the converted’, OA.
CASA is ‘the Authority’. Avmed are exercising their ‘authority’. They are doing it in the name of ‘the safety of air navigation’. Can there be a more noble cause?
I’ve said it publicly before: Any idiot with access to the internet can do what CASA Avmed currently does. You’re just one of a myriad of victims of someone in CASA who’s decided - based on their googling and ‘cherry picking’ of studies - that some ‘condition’ has more significant implications than your DAME reckons it has and requires more significant ‘management’ than your DAME has decided it needs. Far more intrusive, expensive and potentially risky testing, perhaps with restrictions or ‘grounding’ in the interim? And that’s assuming that you’re ‘lucky’ enough not to be the victim of plain incompetence, like the circumstances highlighted by the DAME’s submission that I quoted earlier.
I, too, hope that Dr Manderson is able to bring (back) objectivity to the PMO role, rather than let Avmed continue to be run on the basis of cognitive bias that has resulted in very harmful overreactions to the objective risks. But I’m not holding my breath.
I wrote to the new CASA CEO shortly after her appointment, inviting her to deal with just one simple example of systemic unlawful behaviour of CASA Avmed – acknowledged as unlawful by CASA – and still manifested in Avmed documentation. You’d like to think that the CEO of a government agency would not want the agency to appear to be persisting with acknowledged unlawful behaviour – especially when it is so evident and easy to rectify. But no: I received some dissembling sophistry from one of her underlings and, when I invited her to review that response, Ms Spence said she had nothing to add.
You see: You can’t let minor issues like CASA’s compliance with the law get in the way of a cause as noble as the safety of air navigation. Ditto your DAME’s expertise and professional judgment. CASA Avmed ‘knows’ better – they’ve done some googling and had a meeting to discuss the dire implications - and they have the power to impose their opinions on us guinea pigs. Welcome to the hutch.
Unless the Senate Committee is going to bring about legislative change, its inquiry and its ultimate findings will remain of little practical relevance to CASA. Avmed doesn't apologise for the kinds of circumstances highlighted in the DAME's submission to the inquiry. It's just inevitable collateral damage in the fight for the noble cause of the safety of air navigation.
[W]hy do we have (in my case) a suburban GP in a remote city and an ex accounts payable clerk overriding my DAME who is a senior medical specialist and held in high regard by the medical community who has passed the CASA 3 month course to become a DAME ?
I’ve said it publicly before: Any idiot with access to the internet can do what CASA Avmed currently does. You’re just one of a myriad of victims of someone in CASA who’s decided - based on their googling and ‘cherry picking’ of studies - that some ‘condition’ has more significant implications than your DAME reckons it has and requires more significant ‘management’ than your DAME has decided it needs. Far more intrusive, expensive and potentially risky testing, perhaps with restrictions or ‘grounding’ in the interim? And that’s assuming that you’re ‘lucky’ enough not to be the victim of plain incompetence, like the circumstances highlighted by the DAME’s submission that I quoted earlier.
I, too, hope that Dr Manderson is able to bring (back) objectivity to the PMO role, rather than let Avmed continue to be run on the basis of cognitive bias that has resulted in very harmful overreactions to the objective risks. But I’m not holding my breath.
I wrote to the new CASA CEO shortly after her appointment, inviting her to deal with just one simple example of systemic unlawful behaviour of CASA Avmed – acknowledged as unlawful by CASA – and still manifested in Avmed documentation. You’d like to think that the CEO of a government agency would not want the agency to appear to be persisting with acknowledged unlawful behaviour – especially when it is so evident and easy to rectify. But no: I received some dissembling sophistry from one of her underlings and, when I invited her to review that response, Ms Spence said she had nothing to add.
You see: You can’t let minor issues like CASA’s compliance with the law get in the way of a cause as noble as the safety of air navigation. Ditto your DAME’s expertise and professional judgment. CASA Avmed ‘knows’ better – they’ve done some googling and had a meeting to discuss the dire implications - and they have the power to impose their opinions on us guinea pigs. Welcome to the hutch.
Unless the Senate Committee is going to bring about legislative change, its inquiry and its ultimate findings will remain of little practical relevance to CASA. Avmed doesn't apologise for the kinds of circumstances highlighted in the DAME's submission to the inquiry. It's just inevitable collateral damage in the fight for the noble cause of the safety of air navigation.
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the CASA website now (Sept 2022) you’ll see they’ve taken the form down for review and they’re asking for feedback. You can send this through directly to AvMed and they’ll send it on to the reviewer or you can email the reviewer directly at [email protected]
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: England and Texas
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Response
Hyperfocusing is a trait of ADHD.
How did you know certain students met criteria for being along the spectrum?
To reject an individual who is medically diagnosed with a disorder with a negative trait, if left untreated, should be evaluated by employment right's expertise according to the ADA. Any serious challenges to finding employment, if otherwise capable of performing the job up to demands, will be the responsibility of the potential employer. Any one "filled with pharmaceuticals" by definition will be useless to anyone.
How did you know certain students met criteria for being along the spectrum?
To reject an individual who is medically diagnosed with a disorder with a negative trait, if left untreated, should be evaluated by employment right's expertise according to the ADA. Any serious challenges to finding employment, if otherwise capable of performing the job up to demands, will be the responsibility of the potential employer. Any one "filled with pharmaceuticals" by definition will be useless to anyone.
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: England and Texas
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misunderstandings abound on every level and in every category. Truth be told, exercise is for some an important component in managing ADHD. According to the broad science, exercise tempers ADHD by increasing the neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine-both of which play leading roles in regulating the attention system.
There were a lot of problems with form 420. Not least of which that people qualified to be flying instructors were expected to do the job of a clinical psychologist and apply a questionairre written for children to adults.
It has to be the most ludicrous and discriminatory thing I have ever seen them do.
Where are the accident statistics that show that ADHD is a contributing factor? I don't recall any such findings in any ATSB reports.
Let's hope Form 420 will never see the light of day again and those who were deemed to have a "disorder" that made them "unsafe" will be able to try again to get a medical.
It has to be the most ludicrous and discriminatory thing I have ever seen them do.
Where are the accident statistics that show that ADHD is a contributing factor? I don't recall any such findings in any ATSB reports.
Let's hope Form 420 will never see the light of day again and those who were deemed to have a "disorder" that made them "unsafe" will be able to try again to get a medical.
There were a lot of problems with form 420. Not least of which that people qualified to be flying instructors were expected to do the job of a clinical psychologist and apply a questionairre written for children to adults.
It has to be the most ludicrous and discriminatory thing I have ever seen them do.
Where are the accident statistics that show that ADHD is a contributing factor? I don't recall any such findings in any ATSB reports.
Let's hope Form 420 will never see the light of day again and those who were deemed to have a "disorder" that made them "unsafe" will be able to try again to get a medical.
It has to be the most ludicrous and discriminatory thing I have ever seen them do.
Where are the accident statistics that show that ADHD is a contributing factor? I don't recall any such findings in any ATSB reports.
Let's hope Form 420 will never see the light of day again and those who were deemed to have a "disorder" that made them "unsafe" will be able to try again to get a medical.
It's still ridiculous and written for children. Somebody please find me the definition of "often"? All they have done is add in some things that sound vaguely aviation related.
This is putting way too much into the hands of the instructor, for example if they don't observe the student playing games and then say "no" then there is an incident is the instructor that fills in the form responsible?
THIS IS THE DOMAIN OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS NOT FLYING INSTRUCTORS
- Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities e.g., toys,
- Has difficulty sustaining attention in theory lessons, in-fight instruction, tasks or play activities
- Often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly.
- Often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate
- Often interrupts or intrudes on others (eg, butts into conversations or games)
This is putting way too much into the hands of the instructor, for example if they don't observe the student playing games and then say "no" then there is an incident is the instructor that fills in the form responsible?
THIS IS THE DOMAIN OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS NOT FLYING INSTRUCTORS
PPRuNe Handmaiden
What a ridiculous form. It honestly looks like a cut and paste job for primary school age children.
As for the medicalisation of behavioural differences? Oh gees. For sure, I'd never rule out appropriate medical interventions for acute or severe cases of depression etc but only if used in conjunction with CBT (not CBD!) and prescribed appropriate exercise once stable.
I have flown with someone who is probably on the Autistic spectrum. (I say probably as I am not a clinical psychologist but I do hold a Psychology degree). He's very intelligent but gees it was hard work for the week. Once I figured out how to manage him, it became easier but it was still very tiring for me. Fortunately, the effort paid off and we could function well as a team during an abnormal departure (gear failed to retract).
As for the medicalisation of behavioural differences? Oh gees. For sure, I'd never rule out appropriate medical interventions for acute or severe cases of depression etc but only if used in conjunction with CBT (not CBD!) and prescribed appropriate exercise once stable.
I have flown with someone who is probably on the Autistic spectrum. (I say probably as I am not a clinical psychologist but I do hold a Psychology degree). He's very intelligent but gees it was hard work for the week. Once I figured out how to manage him, it became easier but it was still very tiring for me. Fortunately, the effort paid off and we could function well as a team during an abnormal departure (gear failed to retract).
All this does is prevent pilots with underlying adhd or mental health symptoms seek treatment because of the risk of losing their jobs. Are they more of a risk by not seeking treatment to protect their livelihood?