The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

ADHD/ASD and CASA medicals

Old 26th Jan 2023, 05:31
  #81 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Vic
Posts: 70
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Usually AVMED will state why your medical has been refused, and more importantly, what you have to do to progress it.
Usually the day before your 2 month extension issued when you do your medical is about to run out. Why does it take so long? Atrocious, you can't call it service.
Cedrik is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 23:58
  #82 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 433
Received 24 Likes on 14 Posts
Some good detective work by personwithadhd.

The disclosed documents include an email, dated 20 June 2018, from Michael Drane to Mike Seah that says:
Hi Mike - I think the language can be moved to less school orientated. I have made some suggestions. (Also less US!!)
Attached to that email is a document with mark-up changes, but only in the ‘Out of Aircraft’ column. There are no mark-up changes to the ‘In aircraft’ column, which column includes the offensive quip.


It therefore appears that the version of the Form marked-up by Drane was created before 20 June 2018 and already included the ‘In aircraft’ column with the offensive quip. The ‘In aircraft’ column was obviously created by someone with enough knowledge of aircraft operations to be dangerous. Consistent with that, there is internal correspondence prompted by an email about Form 420 from a person in industry. That version of the Form has “08/2013” in the footers.

On 25 June 2018 Mike Seah sent an email to David Fitzgerald that said:
Hi David

Do you know where the original Form 420 came from for ADHD.

We’re looking to update it.
The disclosed documents do not include any response to that email. I note that Mike Seah refers only to ADHD and not ASD.

Meanwhile, the ICC took his own action to try to get Avmed to address the fact that the substance of Form 420 was aimed at ADHD and not ASD. On 31 July 2018 the ICC sent an email to Philippa Woonton that said:
[Name redacted] has asked if Form 420 can be updated. I’ve taken the liberty of making changes I recommend (but keeping the questions verbatim - can you please advise how I might be able to get this approved for use by instructors of ASD applicants? If not used more broadly, as a minimum can we ensure it’s used for [name redacted] audit requirements?
The second redacted name, if not the first as well, is the name of the complainant the subject the ICC’s inquiry I outlined earlier.

(If that complainant is reading this and had “For CASA Audit” imposed as a purported restriction on the complainant’s medical certificate, I note that the purported restriction was imposed unlawfully and corruptly by CASA Avmed, because by that time CASA had conceded that a purported restriction in those terms could not lawfully be imposed.)

That email from the ICC to Philippa Woonton was prompted by an email to the ICC, dated 30 July 2018 from the complainant that said:
I have received my audited Class 2 medical, and on the conditions it states that I need a form 420 completed every 3 months. This wouldn’t be an issue, if the form was actually made correctly, and I didn’t have any previous issues with it. Do you know if CASA is updating the form, to meet the requirements that were imposed for me? (i.e signature, detailed answers and such), or could you draft me a form that meets those recommendations, to reduce the headache in future?
The subsequent ‘Client Services Improvement Request Form’ failed to deal with the point that the Form 420 questions were aimed at ADHD and not ASD, but was still expressed in its terms to be applicable to ASD. The ‘Client Services Improvement Request Form’ dated 13 August 2018 said, in the ‘Description / Details of Issue’ and ‘Details of Proposed Action’ fields, respectively:
Amendments to Form 420 ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder Instructor’s questionnaire following complaint made by via the ICC’s office.

Amendments include clearer instructions for the applicant’s instructor to comment on behaviour, larger text boxes for comments, and a dedicated area for the instructor to provide the details and signature.
The next internal correspondence after August 2018 about Form 420 in the disclosed documents is dated 20 September 2021 - that is, over three years later. As I posted earlier, based on the disclosed documents it was not until October 2021 that this was said in a string of internal emails:
I have a problem with the combined intent of the ASD/ADHD questionnaire as the behavioural aspects of ADHD and Autism are like opposite ends of the spectrum. …

ADHD questions predominate, however autistic individuals are often socially withdrawn and apprehensive when being looked at and like to be left alone in a corner away from everyone, not near doors or passageways etc. in class.

Decision made – please call this questionnaire ADHD instructors questionnaire formand problem solved.

The problem is the title includes autism spectrum disorder and if we remove that then the questionnaire is specific to ADHD. Not sure why it was combined into one questionnaire as they are two quite distinct conditions.

Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2023, 07:01
  #83 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,039
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Clare Prop is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2023, 11:10
  #84 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,522
Received 35 Likes on 15 Posts
That questionnaire is valueless because it does not address the subjects behaviors as compared to "normal" human behaviors. ie.: "careless" compared to what?

Then there is a reliance on ONE persons opinion.

For example there are people who are highly numerate, display rigid personalities and have zero tolerance for mistakes. To them anything but absolute accuracy and timeliness from students is "careless, disorganised work". This begs the question: "what about the sanity of the instructor?" as discussed in the referenced thread right now?

Instructors with attitude problems

A look at the FAA entry on the subject shows that it s a complex matter and not something amenable to cheap self suggesting questionnaires.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2023, 01:56
  #85 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 433
Received 24 Likes on 14 Posts
Clare Prop: The version of Form 420 in your post #80 looks to be the version to which Drane proposed changes via the marked-up version attached to his email dated 20 June 2018.

For example, the first (d) in the ‘Out of Aircraft’ column in the version you posted says: “(d) often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish school work, chores or duties in the workplace …”, and Drane proposed that to be changed to: “(d) often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish assigned work or duties in the workplace …”. The second (d) in that column – note they couldn’t even get the question numbering correct – in the version you posted says: “(d) often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly”, and Drane proposed that be changed to: “(d) often has difficulty engaging in leisure activities quietly”.

(Sunfish: The content of the form is not the sole input to the solemn deliberations of the dabblers in Avmed. For example, as I noted in my post about a complaint made to the ICC about Form 420, the victim was asked to provide a completed Form 420 plus: “Medicare consultation and prescription records for the past five years; academic and employment history; copies of any special reports (such as QEEG or neuropsychological testing); previous specialists reports)”. I say “victim” because – setting aside the confusion and consequential delay and stress created by the Form, which confusion was evident to the ICC – the questions were aimed at ADHD and not the opposite end of the spectrum – ASD - but the form purported to apply to both. That’s what happens when dabblers are left to their own devices.)

The provenance of the questions in the ‘In aircraft’ Column remains a mystery. The disclosed documents include a version with “08/2013” in the footer, and that version includes the column. If I had to bet folding money on who drafted it, I’d say Pooshan Navathe. Navathe describes himself as “an internationally acknowledged thought leader in aviation medicine”. The questions seem to me to have been the product of someone with enough knowledge of operational aviation to be dangerous but not enough knowledge to realise that a student pilot manifesting even a few of the behaviours the subject of the questions wouldn’t be let loose solo in an aircraft by an instructor, irrespective of Avmed’s opinions as to the medical fitness or otherwise of the student.

STOP PRESS: I have been informed by CASA that:
[T]he form 420 is currently being reviewed. An external panel of experts/doctors are reviewing the form, I’m not aware of when this review will conclude.
It’s a pity the form wasn’t created by a panel of experts in the first place. But - hey - who cares about the unnecessary stresses, delays and costs inflicted on CASA Avmed's guinea pigs along the way.
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2023, 05:06
  #86 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,039
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Clinton what is your opinion on the actual meaning of "may" as per all except the first four questions on the right hand column? It is so vague. To me it is as meaningless as "may not". To me it indicates that this is nothing but specualtion on the part of the person filling it in. Certainly not grounds to tell Bloggs that he can never be a pilot.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2023, 21:53
  #87 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Canberra ACT Australia
Posts: 433
Received 24 Likes on 14 Posts
Every version of Form 420, including the current one, is poorly drafted. None has ever been properly proofread or ‘user tested’ in context prior to it being inflicted on applicant guinea pigs and their instructors along the way. More importantly, every version of the form has been insufficiently informed by people with specialist expertise in the subject matter of ADHD and ASD (though it appears that, around 8 years in, someone with expertise provided input – Tony Hochberg in October 2021 – resulting in ASD being disappeared from the heading of the Form ((but not from the Purpose statement, because no one properly proof read the Form…) and now it’s being “reviewed” by “experts”). Nor has any version been sufficiently informed by people with specialist expertise in the instruction of pilots. Assuming it is medically efficacious for the content of a questionnaire filled out by an instructor to be taken into account by dabblers in Avmed in the first place – a very big assumption - there should only be one ‘Out of aircraft’ question and there should only be one ‘In aircraft’ question. The present circumstances are just a manifestation of CASA Avmed’s carefree arrogance which started with Navathe.

(Let’s think about what happened – say – 20 years ago, before ADHD became a ‘big thing’. According to ABC’s Health Report as recently as Monday this week, a few percent of the population has ADHD. I don’t recall the exact percentage, but it’s not important for present purposes. What’s important for present purposes is that people with the group of behaviours now given the description “ADHD” were around e.g. 20 years ago. Why wasn’t it raining aluminium e.g. 20 years ago because these people weren’t being caught by self-described thought leaders with delusions of grandeur in Avmed? Answer: Because a person with even a few of the behaviours described in the questionnaire would not be able to pass the theory and practical examinations to get and maintain the qualification anyway. That remains true today.)
Clinton McKenzie is offline  
The following users liked this post:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.